Normally a family would rely on its own children for assistance in the family's affairs and support in old age. But because of death (sons = soldiers; children through disease [see age]) families might adopt males especially to take over its affairs. These would be brought into the family clan as full members and especially as heirs. The Bible talks most frequently about persons adopted into the clan of Abraham, who thus become full heirs of the inheritance of the patriarch (Gal 3-4; Rom 4). Thus kinship is in view (see Gen 15), as well as ascribed honor.

"We are used to a society in which very few infants are lost at birth or prior to weaning. Death, happily, tends to be remote from our experience, if we are below 30. People do not start dying in any numbers until their late fifties or, generally, their sixties or later. In pre-industrial society, however, probably a third of the live births were dead before they reached the age of six. By sixteen something like 60% of these live births would have died, 75% by twenty-six, and 90% by forty-six. Very few--3% maybe--reached their sixties. Not for nothing do the ancients glorify youth and shrink with repulsion from aging. A man who reached forty could well be in atrocious physical shape. Dentistry was at a rudimentary level of development, as was dietetics. Even minor bodily mishaps like ruptures could not be dealt with. Neither could many a minor infirmity: internal parasites, for instance. Unknown too, were eyeglasses. Even the elite, whose health and medical welfare were well looked after, suffered grievously from disabilities and infirmities from their forties on. By contrast, few poor men lived out their thirties, in all probability (Thomas Carney, The Shape of the Past [Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press, 1975], 88)

In the Gospel of John (as in Paul) Jesus himself is the revelation of God. The experience of Jesus raised by God was a crucial event for Jesus' followers in the post-apostolic generations. When the Raised Jesus appears, he is generally not immediately recognized. This is normal in descriptions of alternate reality. Moreover, both in the Synoptic Gospels and in John, there are accounts of the appearances of the resurrected Jesus to the core group of disciples that describe the incident in a rather straightforward manner, much like previous events in the story. The disciples, gathered as a group, gradually come to recognize the resurrected Jesus and interact with him; he appears just as they knew him before the crucifixion: physical, touchable, sharing food with them. We might categorize such accounts as a “group appearance” type. By contrast, there are also accounts in which Jesus appears in a sudden and unexpected manner to one or two individuals who are somewhat distraught and addresses them so that eventually these individuals come to recognize Jesus (e.g., Mary Magdalene in John 20:14-18; the Emmaus disciples in Luke 24:13-35). We label these accounts as a "singular appearance" type. Such singular appearances of the Gospel tradition are like those appearances to Paul (Acts 9:3-7), Stephen (Acts 7:55-56) and the astral prophet John (Rev 1:10-18). In the New Testament, when such singular appearances occur generally after Pentecost. Jesus appears from or in the sky in brilliant light and is perceived through some alternate mode of perception (see Acts 7:55-56; Acts 9:7; Acts 22:9) including an ecstatic condition (Rev 1:10; Acts 10:10).

It was the group appearance type that was recognized and required in those groups that succeeded the Jesus movement as the basis for apostolic authority, with apostolic significance: normative, legitimate, legal. Paul, of course, did not experience such an appearance of Jesus; his were rather the singular type of vision(s). The type of singular appearance in a vision later became common coin among Gnostics for establishing their authority in face of competing apostolic claims wielded by non-Gnostic bishops. Gnostics claimed continuing revelations of Jesus through visions. To eliminate Gnostic claims to authority based on such visionary experiences, yet to include the letters attributed to Paul and the book of Revelation among traditionally valid, authoritative witness to Jesus, non-Gnostic leadership set up a canon or norm of Scripture for Jesus groups. Henceforth no other visions of Jesus could bear meanings of public import for the membership of Jesus groups, especially if the message of these visions deviated from the one in the collection of normative writings, the New Testament canon.

Interactions with the Raised Jesus as described in various early Jesus groups can best be explained in terms of experiences generally unavailable to human perception in a culture such as ours. In other words, during the centuries before and after the Gospel of John was written, countless persons reported a range of visions and appearances involving celestial entities. There is no reason not to take the experiences of these persons seriously, at their word, and to interpret what they have to say within the framework of their own culture (rather than ours). Mainstream U.S. culture frowns upon and even denies the human capacity for ecstasy and experiences of alternate realities. We are very curious about non-rational dimensions of human existence, but tend to label all such occurrences as irrational (see the anthropologist, Goodman 1988; 1990; and especially Pilch, 1994). John Pilch cites the work of Erika Bourguignon, who compiled a sample of 488 societies in all parts of the world, at various levels of technological complexity, and found that ninety percent of these societies evidence "alternate states of consciousness." Her conclusion: "Societies which do not utilize these states clearly are historical exceptions which need to be explained, rather than the vast majority of societies that do use these states" (cited by Pilch 1994). Thus it would be quite anachronistic and ethnocentric to take our post-Enlightenment, post-Industrial Revolution, technologically obsessed society as normative for judging anyone other than ourselves. For most of the world, even today, a report of alternate states of awareness would be considered quite normal.

The variety of persons witnessing appearances of Jesus raised from the dead suggests an experience of an alternate state of awareness. This may be difficult for us to believe because we have been enculturated to be selectively inattentive to such states of awareness except in dreams and under the influence of controlled substances. Pilch (1994: 233) has noted:

The physician-anthropologist Arthur Kleinman offers an explanation for the West's deficiency in this matter. 'Only the modern, secular West seems to have blocked individual's access to these otherwise pan-human dimensions of the self.' What is the Western problem? The advent of modern science in about the seventeenth century disrupted the bio-psycho-spiritual unity of human consciousness that had existed until then. According to Kleinman, we have developed an 'acquired consciousness,' whereby we dissociate self and look at self 'objectively.' Western culture socializes individuals to develop a metaself, a critical observer who monitors and comments on experience. The metaself does not allow the total absorption in lived experience which is the very essence of highly focused ASCs (= alternate states of consciousness). The metaself stands in the way of unreflected, unmediated experience which now becomes distanced.

If we recognize that “objectivity” is simply socially tutored subjectivity, we might be more empathetic with persons of other cultures who report perceptions that we find incredible just because they are socially dysfunctional for us.

Be that as it may, John reports the appearances of Jesus as witnessed events, with a further witness attesting to the initial witnesses. How are we to assess John's statements? Felicitas Goodman is an anthropologist who has studied persons who have perceived alternate realities like those reported by the disciples. She observes that it is not difficult to teach individuals how to become sensitive to alternate states, such as falling into trance states, but that such experiences are generally empty unless filled with culturally significant and expected scenarios.

What this means is that if disciples witness to having repeatedly experienced the Raised Jesus, it is undoubtedly because they were culturally prepared to have such experiences. Hence any interpretation of their experiences requires the interpreter to delve into the available reports in Israel's tradition that tell about events that took place in an alternate dimension of reality and that involved people or beings who straddled the two dimensions. Ezekiel, Zechariah, Daniel, and the book of Enoch are excellent examples of available reports. Furthermore Goodman lists four things common to persons whom she has studied who have alternate states of consciousness experience: (1) The visionary needs to know how to find the crack between the earth, ordinary reality, and the sky on the horizon, the alternate reality. (2) Since the human body is an intruder in that alternate reality, some bodily preparation (posture, heavy exertion, sleeplessness and the like) is necessary for the visionary to tune the physical self to the alternate reality. Only in this way can s/he properly perceive it. (3) The visionary needs the readily learnable proper angle of vision. (4) The event perceived in the experience of the alternate reality is sketched out very hazily. What this means is that ASCs must be recognized by means of the general cultural expectations (as well as any specific, local beliefs). (Goodman summarized by Pilch 1994).

Thus reports of appearances of the Raised Jesus are not a distinctive feature of John's Gospel. We have similar reports in the Synoptics (Transfiguration accounts, Mark 9:2-8; Matt. 17:1-8; Luke 9:28-36) and the writings of Paul (Gal 1:12; 2 Cor. 12:2-4). Such experiences were widely known in ancient Mediterranean culture and are best understood in terms of that culture's expectations. However what is distinctive to John's Gospel is the assessment of these appearances as descents from the sky, the realm of God. In John's anti-society. the perspective adopted was that the Word of God once descended from the sky and was enfleshed in Israel, only to be lifted up and raised from the dead so as to undertake an ascent to the realm from which he came. After that initial ascent to the Father, this Son of God continues to descend and appear in the midst of the Johannine “children of God.” The Gospel of John is the story behind these ongoing descents.

A woman's position in her husband's family was never secure until she bore a son. Only then did she have a "blood" relationship that secured her place. Stories of barren women thus describe anguish of the deepest sort (Cf. Gen. 11:30, 25:21, 29:31, Judg. 13:2, I Sam. 1:2). The late second century Protevangelium of James provides a good example of the bitterness of village ridicule heaped upon Anna, Mary's mother, before her belated first pregnancy. Seeing a sparrow with its young in the nest, she cries out with "bitter sobs before the Lord":

O Lord God, what sin have I sinned against thee? For behold, I, even I, only am a reproach in the house of Jacob... for the people make a mock of me, and they treat me as a stranger...

In that story Mary's father, Joachim, is not permitted to be the first to offer his gifts at the temple because he is without offspring. After searching the genealogical records and discovering that he alone among the righteous is childless, he flees to the desert in self-reproach, returning only when given a divine message that his wife will conceive. See also I Sam. 1:5-6 for the treatment to which a barren wife could be subjected.

In the Greek East, it became customary for wealthy people to lavish their mother cities with the building of civic buildings, the staging of games, the building of warships, and a host of other benefactions which where called "liturgies." In time, the cities came to expect that the wealthy would play the benefactor and so increasing social pressure was put on the elite to play the benefaction game, even if it led to financial brinkmanship. The benefactor, in turn, was awarded the commodity most valued in that world, public honor. As the passage from Josephus shows, cities had devised various ways of expressing this honor: (1) the public title "Benefactor"; (2) statues of the benefactor erected in the heart of the city; (3) public proclamation of the name of the benefactor at the most important civic events.

In the Roman West, such benefaction was viewed in terms of patron-client relations. An elite and wealthy person might spend lavishly to entertain the city or foster some election candidacy. In the process, those who receive this patronage are obligated to be loyal to the patron and accord him public honor. The rules for Roman patron/client relations are found in the cameo called "Patron" further in this collection.

(proclamation by Athens of honoring Hyrcanus) "Inasmuch as Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, has continued to show goodwill to our people as a whole and to every individual citizen, and to manifest the greatest zeal on their behalf, and when any Athenians come to him either on an embassy or on a private matter, he receives them in a friendly manner and sends them on their way with precautions for their safe return, as has been previously attested, it is therefore now been decreed on the motion of Theodotus, son of Diodorus, of the Sunian deme, who reminded the people of the virtues of this man and of his readiness to do us whatever good he can, to honor this man with a golden crown as a reward for merit fixed by law, and to set up his statue in bronze in the precinct of the temple of Demos and the Graces, and to announce the award of the crown in the theaters at the Dionysian festivals and at the Panathenaeum and Eleusinian festivals and at the gymnastic games; and that the magistrates shall take care that so long as he continues to maintain his good will toward us everything we can devise shall be done to show honour and gratitude to this man" (Ant. 14.152-54)

THE DECREE: The high priests and prophets, and those who enter the inner shrine in order to robe the gods, and those who wear the hawk's wing, and the sacred scribes, and all the other priests who have assembled at Memphis before the king, from the various temples throughout the country, for the feast of his receiving the kingdom [i.e., his coronation], even that of Ptolemy the every-living, beloved by Ptah, the God Manifest and Gracious, which he received from his Father, being assembled in the temple in Memphis this day, declared:

Since King Ptolemy, the ever-living, beloved by Ptah, the God Manifest and Gracious, the Son of King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoë, the Parent-loving Gods, has done many benefactions to the temples and to those who dwell in them and also to all those subject to his rule, being from the beginning a god born of a god and a goddess -- like Horus, the son of Isis and Osiris, who came to the help of his Father Osiris -- [and] being benevolently disposed toward the gods, has consecrated to the temples revenues both of silver and of grain, and has generously undergone many expenses in order to lead Egypt to prosperity and to establish the temples...the gods have rewarded him with health, victory, power, and all other good things, his sovereignty to continue to him and his children forever (Dittenberger, OGIS 90; inscription from the Rosetta Stone; found in F.C. Grant, Hellenistic Religions [Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1953] 67-69).

It is anachronistic to assume that "betrothal" is akin to our notion of "engagement" before marriage. Marriages in antiquity were between extended families, not individuals, and were parentally arranged. Marriage was one of the truly significant events in the family life of antiquity. Marriage contracts required extensive negotiation in order to insure that families of equal status were being joined and that neither took advantage of the other. In Palestinian villages yet today such contracts are negotiated by the two mothers, but require ratification by each family patriarch.

A village would be involved as well. The signing of the contract by the village leader (the mukhtar in traditional Arabic villages) and witnessed by the whole community sealed the agreement and made it binding. A couple thus betrothed did not live together, though a formal divorce was required to break the now-public agreement. Sex with a betrothed woman was considered adultery (Deut. 22:23-24).

Only after the public celebration (the wedding proper) did the bride join the husband's family. Since marriages were political, economic, religious and social arrangements between families, they were often arranged long before the age of marriage and thus

Peasant houses normally had only one room (Cf. Mt. 5:15 where one lamp gives light to all in the house), though sometimes a guest room could have been attached. The family usually occupied one end of the main room (often raised) and animals (at night) the other, with a manger in between. The manger would have been the normal place for peasant births, with the women of the house assisting.

Bread References to bread usually refer to wheat bread, thought to be superior to that made from barley. Barley's lower gluten content, low extraction rate, taste and indigestibility made it the staple of the poor in Roman times. Both Old Testament (2 Kings 6:1,16,18) and Mishnah (m. Ketubbot 5,8) assume wheat meal to be twice the value of barley meal. Barley also requires less water than wheat and is less sensitive to soil salinity, hence became the major crop in arid parts of the Mediterranean world. Sorghum was less common than either wheat or barley and likewise considered an inferior product.

While most peasants ate "black" bread, the rich could afford the sifted flours that made "clean" bread (m. Makshirin 2,8). Milling was done at night and would require three hours of work to provide 3 kg. (assuming a ½ kg. daily ration) for a family of five or six. Bread dough would be taken to the village baker in the morning. In the towns and cities, bread could be purchased, hence those who could afford it avoided the difficult labor of daily milling. The Mishnah implies that milling and baking would have been the first chores unloaded by any wife with an available bondswoman (m. Ketubbot 5,5).

Archaeological evidence and later scribal Pharisaic documents disclose to us the meaning of Israelite burial customs at the time of Jesus. Israelites regarded death as a lengthy process, not a moment in time. In elite circles in Judea, between the last breath and sundown, the body would be laid out on a shelf in a tomb carved into limestone bedrock outside Jerusalem. Mourning rites would commence, continuing throughout the year as the body underwent decomposition. The rotting of the flesh was regarded as painful, but also expiatory for the dead person. One's evil deeds were thought to be embedded in the flesh and to dissolve along with it.

After a year, the mourning ritual concluded. In the first century, people thought that the bones retained the personality, and that God would use them to support new flesh for the resurrection. After this year of purification and putrefaction, the bones of the deceased were often collected and placed in an ossuary or "bone box," which was in fact a second burial casket. This process was called the ossilegium, "the collection of bones." The ossuary was designed like a box for scrolls, just long enough for the thigh bones to be laid in like scroll spindles awaiting a new hide and new inscription by the divine hand. In an alternate image, the bones could also be regarded as loom posts made ready for God to weave a new body. In keeping with these views on the character of resurrection, inkwells and spindle whorls have been found in excavated tombs.

This day of second burial marked the end of the family's mourning and its turn toward the hope of reunion and resurrection. Obviously, then, the disappearance or loss of a body after death would be experienced as a greater calamity than the death itself because the family would be unable to prepare the bones for resurrection.

Legally, even the bones of an executed criminal were supposed to be returned to the family after being held in custody of the Sanhedrin during the year-long period of atoning putrefaction. In effect, capital punishment included the loss of life, the suppression of mourning and the imposition of supposedly painful but purifying disintegration of the flesh overseen by the court in a special tomb maintained for that purpose. When the flesh was gone, the sentence was completed, the debt was paid and the bones became eligible for resurrection.

These cultural beliefs and practices provide the context for understanding the claims of the first generations of Jesus' followers about the Resurrected Jesus. In John's account, Jesus dies condemned by the Judean populace, leaders and crowds alike (although at the hands of the Romans). Then a ranking Judean, Joseph of Arimathea, takes his body into custody. It is laid in a separate tomb, to begin to serve the sentence of decay in order to atone for its sins.

It is precisely this penal/atonement process that is interrupted if the tomb is suddenly discovered to be empty. To say that Jesus was raised is to say that God overturned the judgment of Israel's chief-priests and the Judean populace, the judgment that Jesus needed to rot to prepare for resurrection. Instead, God supposedly took Jesus directly from last breath to resurrection because there had been no guilt in his flesh. God intervened before the rotting started, hence God overturned the death sentence.

The claim that Jesus is raised by God is a claim of divine vindication for the deeds and words of Jesus. His life has been that of the Word made flesh in Israel, and God preserves its fleshly record intact.

Taken in its cultural context, the claim of resurrection for Jesus asserts that his death was wrong and has been overturned by a higher judge. This cultural interpretation of the death of Jesus contrasts sharply with the theological one: that Jesus' death was right and necessary and required by God "to take away the sin of the world." The Synoptics juxtapose the two interpretations in a smooth narrative sequence, with Jesus even predicting three times that he will die and be raised. But John has none of this. Thus he spares us the dissonance between the two interpretations, or the artistry of the Gospel author who blended them. This dissonance is generally not recognized by Synoptic readers, who often read the Synoptic perspective into John. John does not share these two strands, cultural and theological, in his presentation of Jesus exaltation. For John, Jesus calamitously died due to the intransigence of the Judeans, but God rescued and vindicated him because Jesus was in fact the mediator of life itself. The other tradition, that Jesus died deliberately because God wanted him dead for the benefit of others, is not in John.

(For further information on Israelite burial customs, see: Rahmani, L. Y., "Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs." Part One: Biblical Archaeologist Summer 1981: 171-177; Part Two: Biblical Archaeologist Fall 1981: 229-235; Part Three: Biblical Archaeologist Winter 1981: 43-53; Part Four: Biblical Archaeologist Spring 1982: 109-119.)

Ascribed honor (honor as social precedence) is the honor which derives from one's status due to one's birth. But obviously honor can also be gained or lost in daily social interaction. Thus acquired honor (honor as virtue) might be bestowed as the result of public recognition or of favors done for a beneficent patron. It could be won in the pursuit of virtue, or granted to those with skill in battle. Significant gain might result from great exploits of one family member and all would benefit. Major loss could occur from some public shame and every member of the family would suffer grief.

But most of the gains and losses of honor in ancient village life were small and came on a daily basis. They were the result of the never-ending game of challenge-response that characterized nearly all social interaction. Only equals could challenge each other in any socially significant way. In virtually every public interaction of whatever kind, honor would be subject to challenge. It could be challenged positively by means of a gift or compliment, sometimes so subtly it would be hard for non-Mediterraneans to catch the drift. Or it could be challenged negatively with some small slander or insult, with some gift not given in an appropriate way or time, or even with a hostile question.

Challenges in the form of public, hostile questions put to Jesus are frequent in the Synoptic Gospels (for example, Matt. 16:1; 22:15-17; Mark 2:24; 6:2-4; 8:11; Luke 10:25; 11:16) Such questions also occur in John. When Jesus is in the portico of Solomon he is publicly challenged with the question, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly" (10:24). Repartee with hearers over whether they are true children of Abraham results in another serious challenge via question: "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" (8:48). Here in John 7:15ff. the question is raised about how Jesus could have such learning when he had never been schooled. Instead of attending to what he says, his opponents are concerned with his pedigree. Jesus ends his response with a counter question, "Why are you looking for an opportunity to kill me?" The crowd responds with a counter-challenge of its own, "You have a demon! Who is trying to kill you?" (7:19).

In every case a public challenge must be met, and that too could be done in a variety of ways. An equal gift or compliment could be returned, and a relationship returns to equilibrium. Or a comparable insult could be offered, and the playing field is once again level. Sometimes a challenge might be met by a greater challenge, a slightly more expensive gift or deeper insult, and a game of one-up-manship would ensue. Challenges might be answered, brushed aside with the scorn allowed a superior, or responded to in kind, but they should never, ever, under any circumstances be run from or ignored. To ignore a challenge is to have no shame. To run from one is a coward's disgrace.

At its best, the game of challenge-riposte was primarily a game of wits. Sometimes things could go too far, however, and result in excessive public damage to the honor of another. Because uncontrolled challenge-response could result in violence (feuding) that would disrupt the stability of the village, a family or group would normally restrain its own belligerent members in order to keep them from getting into unnecessary feuds. In a sense, then, the over-quick resort to violence was frequently an unintended public admission of failure in the game of wits (John 8:59, 10:31-33, 11:8).

In the synoptic Gospels Jesus evidences considerable skill at riposte and thereby reveals himself to be an honorable and authoritative teacher. In 4:1-13 Luke describes the ultimate honor-challenge, coming as it does immediately after the genealogy in which the highest honor is ascribed to Jesus by calling him the son of God. It is precisely that ascription that is challenged by the Devil: "If you are the son of God... (vss. 3,9). All that Luke tells about Jesus in the rest of his Gospel depends on Jesus passing this challenge with his honor vindicated.

Note that it is not only Jesus who is being tested. It is also the assertion that it is God who is the naming, honor-giving father. It is thus with the word of God, offered in riposte, that the Devil's challenge is defeated.

We have extensive instructions from the grammarians on how to praise someone, which begins with stereotyped notice of that persons' land, parents, and ancestors (geography and generation). For more on the formal canons of a praiseworthy childhood, encomium. Here are several examples of this.

Plato, the son of Ariston and Periktione or Potone, was an Athenian. His mother's family went back to Solon. He was, moreover, a brother of Dropides, the father of Kritias, the father of Kallaischros, the father of Kritias (one of the Thirty) and Glaukon, the father of Charmides and Periktione, who with Ariston were the parents of Plato, the sixth generation from Solon. Solon, moreover, traced his ancestry back to Neleus and Poseidon. And they say his father's ancestry goes back to Kodros the son of Melanthos, who, according to Thrasylos' account, are descended from Poseidon.

Speusippos, in his writing "The Funeral Feast of Plato," and Klearchos, in his "Encomium on Plato," and Anaxillides, in the second book "On the Philosophers," all say that there was at Athens a story that when Periktione was ready (to bear children), Ariston was trying desperately but did not succeed (in making her pregnant). Then, after he had ceased his efforts, he saw a vision of Apollo. Therefore he abstained from further marital relations until she brought forth a child (from Apollo).

Plato was born, as Apollodorus says in his "Chronology" in the 88^th Olympiad, on the seventh day of Thagelion, which was the day the Delians say Apollo was born.

Alexander was a descendant of Heracles, on his father's side, through Karanos; on his mother's side he was descended from Aikos through Neoptolemos; this is universally believed. It is said that Philip (Alexander's father) was initiated into the mysteries at Samothrace with Olympias (his mother). He was still a youth and she was an orphan. He fell in love with her and conjoined a marriage, with the consent of his brother, Arumbas.

The bride, before the night in which they were to join in the bride chamber, had a vision. There was a peal of thunder and a lightning bolt fell upon her womb. A great fire was kindled from the strike, then it broke into flames which flashed everywhere, then, they extinguished. At a later time, after the marriage, Philip saw a vision: he was placing a seal on his wife's womb; the engraving on the seal was, as he thought, in the image of a lion. The charged with interpreting oracles were made suspicious by this vision and told Philip to keep a closer watch on his marital affairs. But Aristander of Telmessus said (that the vision meant that) her husband had impregnated her, for nothing is sealed if it is empty, and that she was pregnant with a child whose nature would be courageous and lion-like.

On another occasion a great snake appeared, while Olympias was sleeping, and wound itself around her body. This especially, they say, weakened Philip's desire and tenderness toward her, so that he did not come often to sleep with her, either because he was afraid she would cast spells and enchantments upon him, or because he considered himself discharged from the obligations of intercourse with her because she had become the partner of a higher being.

The texts of these infancy gospels can be found in Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, eds., The New Testament Apocrypha, I.363-417

[3.] It is said that Ankaios, who lived in Samos, in Kephallenia, was begotten by Zeus. Whether he received this repute because of virtue or a greatness of soul, he exceeded the wisdom of the other Kephallenians. An oracle was given about him by the Pythian oracle (Apollo at Delphi) to gather a colony from among the Kephallenians and the Arcadians and the Thessalians...[4] They say that Mnesarchos and Pythias, who were the parents of Pythagoras, were descended from this house and were of the family of Ankaios. . .[5.] Once when this nobility of birth was being celebrated by the citizens, a certain poet from Samos said that he (Pythagoras) was begotten of Apollo. . .

[8.] Moreover, the soul of Pythagoras came from the realm of Apollo, either being a heavenly companion or ranked with him in some other familiar way, to be sent down among mortals; no one can deny this. It can be maintained from his firth and the manifold wisdom of his soul. [9.] . . . He was educated so that he was the most beautiful and god-like of those written about in histories. [10.] After his father died, he increased in nobility and wisdom. Although he was still a youth, in his manner of humility and piety he was counted most worthy already, even by his elders. Seen and heard, he persuaded everyone (to his way of thinking), and to everyone who saw him, he appeared to be astonishing, so that, reasonably, he was considered by many to be the son of a god.

Ethnocentric and anachronistic projections of innocent, trusting, imaginative and delightful children playing at the knee of a gentle Jesus notwithstanding, childhood was in antiquity a time of terror. Infant mortality rates sometimes reached 30%. Another 30% of live births were dead by age 6, and 60% were gone by age 16. It is no wonder that antiquity glorified youth and venerated old age. Children always suffered first from famine, war, disease and dislocation and in some areas or eras few would have lived to adulthood with both parents alive. The orphan was the stereotype of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. The term "child/children" could also be used as a serious insult Cf. Lk. 7:32).

This is not to say that children were not loved and valued. In addition to assuring the continuation of the family, they promised security and protection for parents in their old age. A wife's place in the family was dependent on having children, particular male children, moreover, her children would have been one of her closest emotional supports (next to her siblings in her father's family).

1993 "'Beat His Ribs While He is Young' (Sir 30:12): A Window on the Mediterranean World,"

Though the origins of circumcision are obscure, it is clear that it was widely practiced in the societies of the ancient Near East. Though it occurred on the eighth day according to later Old Testament law (Gen. 17:12), in the early Hebrew period it may have been practiced at puberty (cf. Gen. 17:5) or at the time of marriage, since the Hebrew word for father-in-law, literally means "the circumciser." Though the significance of the practice varied over time, and though much can be said about its religious significance throughout Israelite history, it is worth noting a number of the social implications of the practice that can be seen in Luke's Gospel.

There can be little doubt of the early association of circumcision with the acceptance of a child by the father as his own. This may account for its use at the time of marriage and perhaps also for the special insistence upon it in times when exogamous (outside the paternal family) marriage existed. Thus the joining of two unrelated families is acknowledged by the father-in-law's participation in the circumcision rite. By contrast, there was also a special insistence upon circumcision following the Babylonian exile when exogamous marriage was seen as a threat to the community. Circumcision being a distinctive tribal mark, no female could be expected to misconstrue the character of anyone with whom she had sexual relations.

Acceptance by a father that a child was his own may also account for the association of circumcision with naming. See Luke 1:59 and 2:21. Note that Zechariah must publicly confirm the name of his son at the time of circumcision. Moreover, the requirement that this be done on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3), rather than the older practice of postponing it until puberty, gave special weight to the necessity of Jewish fathers acknowledging children as their own long before anything would be known of the child's character. Finally, community participation in the rite sealed with public recognition a father's acknowledgment that he had assumed paternal responsibility.

The cities of antiquity were substantially different than their modern industrial counterparts. (85% of the population lived in villages or small towns and were primarily engaged in agriculture.) City populations were sharply divided between a small, literate elite which controlled both temple and palace and a large, mostly illiterate non-elite which provided the goods and services the elite required. Since the only real market for most goods and services was the city elite, the labor pool required to provide them was small. Excess population was thus kept out of the cities whenever possible.

Palace and temple dominated the center of the city, often with fortifications of their own. Around them, in the center, lived the elite population which controlled cult, coinage, writing and taxation for the entire society. At the outer limits of the city lived the poorest occupants, frequently in walled-off sections of the city in which occupational and ethnic groups lived/worked together. (Note that the configuration of an industrial city is just the opposite: the poorest people live in the center, while the richest live in the suburbs.) Outside the city walls lived beggars, prostitutes, persons in undesirable occupations, traders (often wealthy) and landless peasants who drifted toward the city in search of day-laboring opportunities. They required access to the city during the day, but were locked out at night. Gates in internal city walls could also be locked at night to seal access to elite areas by non-elite persons.

Socially, interaction between various groups living in the cities was kept to a minimum. Especially difficult was the position of those living immediately outside the city walls. They were cut off from both elite and non-elite of the city, and also from the protection of a village. In many cities they became the source of continual replenishment of the artisan population.

A coalition is what anthropologists call a multi-dimensioned network of relations that characterized non-elites in the first century Mediterranean world. In contrast to the "corporate groups" among the elite which were based on enduring principles such as birth or kinship, coalitions were informal, voluntary and loose-knit. They formed for a specific purpose and often for a limited time. Identifying with a coalition did not override membership or commitments to more fundamental groups such as the family. The pharisaic movement would be a clear example in the synoptic Gospels.

A faction is a type of coalition formed around a central person who recruits followers and maintains the loyalty of a core group. Factions share a common goal, though membership beyond the core group is often indistinct and fluid. Peripheral members sometimes divide their loyalty with other factions or leaders and can threaten a group's survival. Rivalry with other factions is basic, hence hostile competition for honor, truth (an ideological justification) and resources is always present. The recruitment of core disciples, beginning at Luke 5:1-11, clearly identifies the Jesus movement as such a faction and may also explain the rivalry with the John the Baptist movement Luke tries to put to rest in 3:15ff. (See also 5:33, 7:18ff., 9:7ff., 11:1, 16:16, 20:4ff.). Much of Luke's portrayal of Jesus as the honored Son of God, especially his depiction of Jesus' success in the game of challenge-riposte, can be understood as justification of Jesus' leadership of the faction that followed him.

New Testament authors reflect the general perception of crucifixion in the Greco-Roman world as "shame" (Heb 12:2). As Jerome Neyrey has recently pointed out, the crucifixion process was marked by a progressive public humiliation and deprivation of honor (1994:113-14):

1. Crucifixion was considered the appropriate punishment for slaves (Cicero, In Verrem 2.5.168), bandits (Josephus, War 2.253), prisoners of war (Josephus, War 5.451) and revolutionaries (Josephus Ant. 17.295).

2. Public trials ("wretched is the ignominy of public judgment" Cicero, Pro Rabinio 9-17) served as status degradation rituals, which labeled the accused as a shameful person.

3. Flogging and torture, especially the blinding of eyes and the shedding of blood, generally accompanied the sentence (Josephus, War 5.449-51 & 3.321; Livy, 22.13.19; 28.37.3; Seneca, On Anger 3.6; Philo, Flac. 72; Diodorus Siculus, 33.15.1; Plato, Gorgias 473bc, Republic 2.362e). Since, according to m. Mak 3.12, scourging was done both to the front and back of the body, the victims were naked. Often they befouled themselves with urine or excrement (3.14).

5. The victims' property, normally clothing, was confiscated; hence they were further shamed by being stripped naked and despoiled (see Diodorus Siculus, 33.15.1).

6. The victim lost power and thus honor through pinioning of hands and arms, especially the mutilation of being nailed to the cross (Philo, Post. 61; Somn. 2.213).

7. Executions served as a crude form of public entertainment, where the crowds ridiculed and mocked the victims (Philo, Sp. Leg. 3.160), who were sometimes affixed to crosses in an odd and whimsical manner, including impalement (Seneca, Consol. ad Marcian 20.3; Josephus, War 5.451).

8. Death by crucifixion was often slow and protracted. The powerless victims suffered bodily distortions, loss of bodily control, and enlargement of the penis (Steinberg 1983:82-108). Ultimately they were deprived of life and thus the possibility of gaining satisfaction or vengeance.

9. In many cases, victims were denied honorable burial; corpses were left on display and devoured by carrion birds and scavenger animals (Pliny, Historia Naturalis 36.107-108).

The real test for the victim, in Mediterranean context, was in the brutal pain itself, but rather in the endurance of pain and suffering, as a mark of andreia, manly courage. Silence of the victim during torture proved his honor. And yet the loss of honor evidenced by the whole process and inability to defend one's honor were deemed far worse than the physical pain involved.

The Gospels quickly pass over the physical torture of Jesus ("Good Friday" is a medieval Christian invention). Rather they focus on the various attempts to dishonor Jesus by spitting on him (Mark 14:65//Matt. 26:67; see Mark 10:33-34), striking him in the face and head (Mark 14:65//Matt. 26:67; John 18:22; 19:3), ridiculing him (Mark 15:20, 31; Matt. 27:29, 31, 41; John 19:3), heaping insults upon him (Mark 15:32, 34; Matt. 27:44), and treating him as though he were nothing (Luke 23:11; see Acts 4:11).

332 b.c.e. Alexander the Great captures Tyre, and one of his generals captures Samaria, planting a Macedonian colony there

198 b.c.e. Palestine, including Galilee, is conquered by the Seleucid Antiochus III, at the battle of Paneion [in NT: Caesarea Philippi]. This Syro-Hellenistic dynasty controlled Israelite affairs until the rise of Judean nationalism under the Maccabees

166-60 b.c.e. Judas Maccabeus leads Judeans in revolt against Antiochus IV and his policy of forcing them to adopt Greek ways; independence gained

67 b.c.e. The Roman general, Pompey takes possession of Jerusalem, and reduces Judea to modest borders

26/28 c.e. murder of John the Baptist and beginning of Jesus' ministry in Galilee

66-70 c. e. Roman legions finally capture Jerusalem, destroying the Temple and the city, and after great carnage they took many Judean captives as slaves

Direct evidence of heavy indebtedness in first-century Palestine comes from primarily two items. One is Josephus' description of the burning of the debt archives by the rebels at the beginning of the Jewish War (66-73 c.e. See War 2.426-427) The other is a provision by Rabbi Hillel (the much-discussed prosbol) for evasion of the debt-remission required in the sabbatical law. Indirect evidence, however, is prevalent in a wide variety of sources, including Hellenistic papyri.

The processes by which peasants fell into debt were many. Population growth affected some: more mouths to feed reduced a farmer's margin of livelihood and made borrowing more likely in lean years. Unreliable rainfall contributed as well (Two significant famines occurred in the first half of the first century, one in 25 b.c.e. during the reign of Herod, and the other in 46 c.e. under Claudius. Cf. Acts 11:28) The chief reason for indebtedness, however, was the excessive demand placed on peasant resources. Demands for tithes, taxes, tribute and the endless variety of tolls kept small landowners under heavy pressure (evidence suggests that 35-40% of the total agricultural production was extracted in various taxes). Peasants unable to repay loans of seed or capital frequently became tenant sharecroppers on their own land.

Though evidence for marketization cannot be pushed too far, throughout the first century there apparently was also a gradual increase in cash-tenancies in place of sharecropping that was fueled by the demand to pay Roman tribute in money. The result was a concentration of land in the hands of large landholders who foreclosed on peasant land put up as security for cash loans. Late in the first century the numbers of peasants fleeing because of hopeless indebtedness grew so large that it required imperial efforts to keep tenants on land being left unworked - a situation that developed because once in debt few escaped it without the help of a substantial patron.

In the world-view of the first-century Mediterranean, the cause of events of significance to human beings was always believed to be some person, whether human or non-human. Not only was this true at the level of ordinary social interaction, but at the levels of nature and the cosmos as well. Events beyond human control, such as weather, earthquakes, disease and fertility, were believed to be controlled by non-human persons who operated in a cosmic social hierarchy. Each level in the hierarchy could control the ones below:

Demons (Greek) or unclean spirits (Semitic) were thus personified forces that had the power to control human behavior. Accusations of demon possession were based on the belief that forces beyond human control were causing the effects humans observed. Since evil attacks good, people expected to be assaulted. A person accused of demon possession was a person whose behavior (external symptom) was deviant or who was embedded in a matrix of deviant social relationships. Such a deviant situation or behavior required explanation and could be attributed to God (positive) or to evil (dangerous). Such attribution was something the community would be anxious to clarify in order to identify and expel persons who represented a threat. Possessed persons were excluded from the community. Freeing a person from demons, therefore, implied not only exorcizing the demon but restoring him/her to a meaningful place in the community as well.

In antiquity, all persons who acted contrary to the expectations of their inherited social status or role (for example, Jesus, Paul) were suspect and had to be evaluated. Accusations of demon possession such as those leveled at Jesus in John were essentially the judgment that because he could not do what he did on his own power, an outside agency had to be involved. It could be God, as Jesus claimed, or the demonic forces claimed by his opponents. Note that in John's Gospel, even though Jesus does not cast out demons from anyone, he nonetheless trades accusations of demon possession with his opponents (John 8: 44-52). For the significance of such name-calling Deviance Labeling.

Since evil attacks good, people expected to be assaulted (Cf. Luke 13:16). A person accused of demon possession was a person whose behavior (external symptom) was deviant or who was embedded in a matrix of deviant social relationships. Such a deviant situation or behavior required explanation and could be attributed to God (positive) or to evil (dangerous), something the community would be anxious to do in order to identify and expel persons who represented a threat. Freeing a person from demons, therefore, implied not only exorcizing the demon but restoring him/her to a meaningful place in the community as well (Lk. 8:39).

Accusations that a person had an unclean spirit or was demon-possessed are prevalent in the synoptic Gospels. Thus in Luke 4:33 we are told about a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon and later Luke reports (4:41) that demons came out of many. In 11:14 Jesus casts a demon out of a dumb man who is then able to speak. In response to this, Jesus himself is accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons.

In antiquity, all persons (Jesus, Paul) who acted contrary to the expectations of their inherited social status or role were suspect and had to be evaluated. Accusations of demon possession leveled at Jesus (Lk. 11:15) were essentially the judgement that because he could not do what he did of himself, an outside agency had to be involved. It could be God, as Jesus claimed, or the demonic forces claimed by his opponents. Note that in John's Gospel (8:44,48) Jesus and the Jews trade the charge of demon possession back and forth.

Though it is now common to call the casting out of demons "exorcism," this is not a word the New Testament uses of Jesus. Jesus' power over demons is essentially a function of his place in the hierarchy of powers (and is used as evidence of that by the Gospel writers). He is an agent of God, imbued with God's holy/clean spirit, who overcomes the power of evil.

A denarius was a standard day's wage in the first century. Two denarii would provide 3000 calories for 5-7 days or 1800 calories for 9-12 days for a family with the equivalent of four adults. Two denarii would provide 24 days of bread ration for a poor itinerant. This calculation is for food only; it does not take into account other needs such as clothing, taxation, religious dues and so on.

It is characteristic of the Mediterranean world to think in terms of stereotypes, that is, to think of persons in terms of place of origin, residence, family, sex, age and any other groups to which they might belong. One's identity was always the stereotyped identity of the group, meaning that much was encoded in the labels such groups acquired. Thus "Cretans" were always "liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons" (Tit. 1:12). Jesus was a disreputable "Galilean" (Jn. 7:52; Lk. 23:6), as was Peter (Lk. 22:59). Simon was a "Zealot" (Lk. 6:15). Jesus was Jesus "of Nazareth" (Lk. 24:19), while Simon was from Cyrene (Lk. 23:26). James and John were "sons of Zebedee" (Lk. 5:10) and Jesus was "Joseph's son" (Lk. 4:22).

Stereotypes could, of course, be either positive (titles such as "Lord") or negative (accusations such as demon possession). Negative labeling, what anthropologists call "deviance accusations," could, if made to stick, seriously undermine a person's place and role in the community. In our society labels like "pinko," "extremist," "wimp," "psycho" or "gay" can seriously damage a person's career or place in society (witness the fate of Thomas Eagleton or Edmund Muskie). In the Mediterranean world of the first century labels such as "sinner," "unclean" or "barren" could be equally devastating. Most serious of all was the label "demon-possessed." Such labels not only marked one as deviant (outside accepted norms or states), but once acquired could be nearly impossible to shake.

In refuting the deviance label in 11:14-23, Jesus makes use of several options available to him:

5) Condemn the condemners (vs. 23: Jesus opponents are on the side of evil; see also 11:26, 29-32)

Jesus thus rejects the deviance label they are trying to pin on him and the crowd (or reader of the story) must judge if the label has been made to stick.

Labels and counter-labels are thus a potent social weapon. Positive labels ("Rock" - Matt. 16:18, "Christ" - Lk. 9:20) could enhance honor and status if recognized by a community. Unrecognized they could create dishonor (Lk. 3:8, 6:46). Negative labels, i.e., deviance accusations, which could destroy a reputation overnight, are typical of Mediterranean social conflict and are frequent in the Gospels ("brood of vipers," "sinners," "hypocrites," "evil generation," "false prophets"). Here in Lk. 11:14-23 Jesus and his opponents trade accusations about demon-possession in a game of challenge-riposte (See Cameo Essay on Challenge-Riposte, 4:1-13). Jesus' opponents acknowledge that he casts out demons, but accuse him of being a deviant and seek to shame him publicly in order to ostracize him from the community. If the label could be made to stick, implying as it did that Jesus was an evil deceiver in the guise of good, his credibility with his audience would have been irreparably damaged. Jesus' response was to enlist the sons of his accusers in confirming the divine source of his power, that is, to turn the community to his own advantage. At least one woman in the crowd (11:27) judges the exchange in Jesus' favor.

The diet of the first century consisted of a few basic staples, with other items depending on availability and expense. For Roman Palestine we have only one food-list that offers any specifics: according to a rabbinic text (m. Ketubbot 5,8-9) a husband must provide an estranged wife with bread, legumes, oil and fruit. The amounts specified presume an intake of about 1800 calories per day (The current United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization recommends 1540-l980 as the minimum calories per day).

Of the three staple commodities - grain, oil and wine - by far the most important staple was grain and the products made from it. Bread (the Hebrew, , means both "bread" and "food"), constituted one-half of the caloric intake in much of the ancient Mediterranean region (just as it does today). Wheat was considered much superior to barley, hence barley (and sorghum) bread was the staple for the poor and slaves. The husband who provided an estranged wife with barley bread was required to provide her twice the ration of wheat.

Vegetables were common, but of much inferior status. A Talmudic comment on hospitality suggests that a host will serve the better food early in a guest's stay, but finally "gives him less and less until he serves him vegetables" (Peskita De-Rab Kahana 31) Of the vegetables, legumes were the more desirable: lentils, beans, peas, chickpeas and lupines. Turnips were the food of the poor, hence the saying, "Woe to the house in which the turnip passes" (m. Berakhot 44,2). Of the green leafy vegetables, cabbage was the most popular. Oil, usually olive oil, and fruit, principally the dried fig, were also a required part of the provisions an estranged husband must provide.

Wine supplied another quarter of the caloric intake, especially for males and wealthy women. Even slaves received a daily ration. Estimates have been made that an adult male in ancient Rome consumed a liter of wine daily.

Meat and poultry were always considered desirable, but were expensive and thus rare for peasants. The majority ate it only on feast days or holidays, though temple priests ate it in abundance. That excess was widely considered to be the source of intestinal disorders. Keeping livestock solely to provide meat for the diet was unknown in Roman Palestine and was later prohibited by the Talmudic sages. By the fourth century Jerome comments that in Palestine eating veal was a crime (Contra Iovinianum II,7)

Fish was highly desirable and was a typical Sabbath dish. Despite considerable effort to obtain it even by the poor, it was widely available only near the Mediterranean coast and Sea of Galilee. Brining was the means of preservation (Taricheae on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee is Greek for "place of fish salting).

Milk products were usually consumed as cheese and butter since both kept longer and were more easily digested than fresh milk. Eggs, especially chicken eggs, were also an important food. Honey was the primary sweetener (figs met some needs) and was widely used in the Roman period. Salt was used not only to spice but also to preserve and purify meat and fish and was easily available from the Dead Sea and Mount Sodom. Pepper, ginger and other spices were imported and expensive.

To understand the sort of problem that finding Jesus' empty tomb might provoke, consider the first-century ordinance (said to be found near Nazareth) promulgated by the Roman Emperor:

Ordinance of Caesar: It is my pleasure that graves and tombs -- whoever has made them as a pious service for ancestors or children or members of their house - that these remain unmolested in perpetuity. But if any person lay information that another either has destroyed them, or has in any other way cast out the bodies which have been buried there, or with malicious deception has transferred them to other places, to the dishonor of those buried there or has removed the headstones or other stones, in such a case I command that a trial be instituted, protecting the pious services of mortals, just as if they were concerned with the gods. For beyond all else it shall be obligatory to honor those who have been buried. Let no one remove them for any reason. If anyone does so, however, it is my will that he shall suffer capital punishment on the charge of tomb robbery. (SEG VIII 13 Nazareth [?] first cent. AD, trans. B. M. Metzger, "The Nazareth Inscription Once Again," in his New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic, Leiden: Brill, 1980, 77).

If this ordinance was in fact published in Galilee some time prior to the death of Jesus, then at the time of the resurrection there was in force a severe law against tampering with buried bodies. An empty tomb would entail capital punishment for Jesus' "friends." As Metzger notes: "the panic-stricken disciples are very unlikely to have braved" the consequences of infringing on such an ordinance (Metzger: 1980:90-91).

EncomiumAncient education had three levels: 1^st - basic literacy and some writing; 2^nd - skill in writing the basic forms needed for forensic, deliberative, and encomiastic speeches (see below); and 3^rd - skill in oratory (needed for public life) and other subjects like philosophy. In the 2^nd level, teachers used writing handbooks called progymnasmata, which generally contained 10 or more individual genres to be mastered. One of the most important of these was the encomium, which codified the cultural sources of honor and praise. It seems entirely probable that Luke and Matthew used this form for singing the praises of Jesus, the Christ. The encomium had four sections, which areas might provide data for honoring the person whose story was being told.

A. Origin included: race, home locale ancestors and parents (pateres) [think "gender, generation and geography"] Noble people come from noble places and are the offspring of noble parents and noble ancestors. Genealogies belong here

II. Nurture and Training presented personality and character formation as well as general education; this involved one's teachers, arts and skills, and grasp of laws.

III. Accomplishments and Deeds looked to body, soul and the happen stances of life.

A. Considerations of the body: beauty, strength, agility, might and health; all the things an elite male needed to be a successful warrior

B. Deeds of the soul refer to the virtues of the person, especially to justice, wisdom, moderation rooted in a sense of shame, manly courage (andreia) and respect for those who control one's existence (i.e. faithfulness, loyalty, obedience)

C. Happen stances of life refer to whether the person is "fortunate" or "lucky"; such people were likely to have: power, wealth, friends [i.e., clients and faithful peers], children -- both many [see "Age"] and handsome, as well as fame and fortune, length of life, a happy death.

IV. Comparison, the final feature. By comparing the subject with others, the speaker or writer highlights the outstanding quality of the person in question.

In describing how to write an "encomium," that is, a piece in praise of someone, ancient rhetoricians instructed pupils to pay attention to important items in a subject's background. Two key items were place of origin and education. Ancient instruction manuals, called "progymnasmata," provided rules for pupils learning how to write encomium exercises. In them pupils are told that the very first thing to be praised was place of birth, since being born in an honorable city conveyed honorable status:

If the city has no distinction, you must inquire whether his nation as a whole is considered brave and valiant, or is devoted to literature or the possession of virtues, like the Greek race, or again is distinguished for law, like the Italian, or is courageous, like the Gauls or Paeonians. You must take a few features from the nation... arguing that it is inevitable that a man from such a city or nation should have such characteristics, and that he stands out among all his praiseworthy compatriots. (Menander Rhetor, Treatise II 369.17-370.10)

Obviously birth in Nazareth would hardly meet this standard. In John 7:26-29 the people of Jerusalem are skeptical that Jesus is the Messiah because they "know where he is from." Great people simply are not born in obscure villages like Nazareth.

The second praiseworthy item on which a fledgling writer is instructed to concentrate in the progymnasmata is nurture and training.

Next comes "nurture." Was he reared in a palace? Were his swaddling clothes robes of purple? Was he from his first growth brought up in the lap of royalty? Or, instead, was he raised up to be emperor as a young man by some felicitous chance? If he does not have any distinguished nurture (as Achilles had with Chiron), discuss his education, observing here: "In addition to what has been said, I wish to describe the quality of his mind." Then you must speak of his love of learning, his quickness, his enthusiasm for study, his easy grasp of what is taught him. If he excels in literature, philosophy, and knowledge of letters, you must praise this. (Treatise II 371.17-372.2)

Education was thus important. This concern is evident in Acts 4:13. There Peter and John astonish the crowd with their boldness when questioned by authorities, something completely unexpected of uneducated peasants: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed..." The public challenge put to Jesus by the Judeans in John 7:15 shows a similar attitude: "How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?"

Jesus' birth-status and lack of education thus left little room for public praise, and indeed undermined his credibility as Messiah and teacher. The rather defensive responses in John's Gospel to charges about Jesus' birth and education indicate that John is aware of the difficulty.

1.0 Aelius Theon (The Progymnasmata of Theon. A New Test with Translation and Commentary. James R. Butts, unpublished dissertation Claremont University 1986)

An encomium is a speech which sets forth the significance of the virtuous actions and the other good points of some specified character.

This encomium, which deals with living persons, is at present specifically called an “encomium,” whereas that which deals with the dead is called a “funeral speech,” and that which deals with the gods a “hymn.” But whether one delivers an encomium about living persons, dead persons, or even heroes and gods, the procedure of these speeches is one and the same.

It is called an “encomium” because the ancients used to deliver their panegyrics on the gods during a revel and with jesting.

Since the good qualities are especially applauded, and since some of these good qualities are connected with the soul and character, others with the body, and still others are external to us, it is obvious that these three would be the categories on the basis of which we will be able to compose an encomium.

Among the external qualities, 1) the first good quality is good breeding, and that in two senses: the good breeding of city, race and good government, and the good breeding of parents and other relatives; then 2) education; 3) friendship; 4) reputation; 5) public office; 6) wealth; 7) the blessing of children; and 8) an easy death. Among the bodily qualities, are health, strength, beauty, quick sensibility.

Good qualities of the soul are the virtuous character traits and actions consistent with them; for example, that he is prudent, self-controlled, courageous, just, pious, free, magnanimous, and such things as these.

Noble actions are both those which are applauded after death (for it is customary to flatter the living) and, conversely, those which are applauded while we are still living and which overcome the jealousy of the mob, for “with the living, jealousy,” according to Thucydides (II.45.1), “arises because of rivalry.” Noble actions are also those which we do for the sake of others, and not ourselves; and in behalf of what is noble, rather than on account of what is advantageous or pleasant; and in which the labor is individual, but the benefit is shared; and on account of which most people also receive great benefits; and which we do for the sake of benefactors, and especially dead ones. Consequently, even acts of revenge and dangers taken on for friends are applauded.

Praiseworthy actions are also those occurring in a timely manner, and if one acted alone, or first, or when no one acted, or more than others, or with a few, or beyond one’s age, or exceeding expectation, or with hard work, or what was done most easily and quickly.

One should also accept the judgments of esteemed persons, just as those who praised Helen did (so) because Theseus had previously done so.

Depicting future actions on the basis of past actions is also useful, as if one should say about Alexander of Macedonia: “Having subdued so great and so many nations, what would he have done if he had survived just a little longer?” And as Theopompus in his Encomium of Philip wrote: “If Philip had wished to continue the same policies, he would also have ruled all of Europe.”

Calling to mind those who have already been honored is also not useless if one sets the achievements of those people beside the achievements of the ones who are the subjects of encomia.

It is cleaver sometimes to compose an encomium on the basis of the meaning of names, the same name, or namesakes, if it is not altogether coarse and ridiculous. And so, on the basis of the meaning of names, for example: Demosthenes, that he was, so to speak, the “strength of his people.” On the basis of the same name: when someone happens to have the same name as a man who has already been honored. On the basis of namesakes: for example, Pericles surnamed Olympian because of the greatness of his accomplishments.

So then, these are the commonplace arguments on the basis of which we will argue. But we will use them in this way: after the introduction we will immediately speak about good breeding as well as the other qualities, both those that are external and those of the body, setting forth the speech not in a simple way nor in chronological order, but rather showing for each quality that the person used it not foolishly, but prudently and as was necessary. For people applaud those good qualities they have by choice and not by chance. For example: although he was fortunate, he was moderate, benevolent, the same to his friends, just, and he behaved in a self-controlled manner with respect to the excellences of his body.

If he has none of the aforementioned good qualities, one must say that although he met with misfortune he was not humbled, not unjust despite his poverty, nor slavish despite being in need, and although he comes from a small city, he became illustrious, just as both Odysseus and Democritus did, and although he was raised under a bad form of government, he was not perverted but to them as a whole he was superior, as Plato in the oligarchy. It is also praiseworthy if someone though he comes from a humble household, became great, as Socrates, the son of Phaenarete the midwife and Sophroniscus the sculptor, did. It is also worthwhile to admire the one who though he comes from a handicraft or bad circumstances, is able to do something good, the kind of person they say Heron the shoemaker and Leontion the courtesan were who took up philosophy. For virtue shines forth especially in misfortunes.

After these items we will take up his actions and his accomplishments, not narrating them in order, for when speaking we add others according to each virtue individually; then when detailing his achievements (for example, that he was self-controlled) it is necessary to state and to cite immediately what self-controlled deed he has done; likewise in the case of the other virtues. One should either not mention false accusations at all (since memory attaches itself to misdeeds) or as occasion allows mention them imperceptibly and unobtrusively, lest we inadvertently compose a defense instead of encomia. For it is proper to give a defense concerning those who are charged with wrongdoing, whereas it is proper to praise those who excel in some good quality.

Encomia of inanimate things, such as honey, health, virtue, and similar things, we will compose in an analogous fashion from the previously mentioned commonplace arguments by arguing on the basis of those that are possible. We will praise on the basis of the previous commonplace arguments, but he will denounce on the basis of their opposites.

In the Praise of Men. In the first place there is a distinction to be made as regards time between the period of which the objects of our praise lived and the time preceding their birth; and further, in the case of the dead we must also distinguish the period following their death. With regard to things preceding a man’s birth, there are his country, his parents and ancestors, a theme which may be handled in two ways. For either it will be creditable to the objects of our praise not to have fallen short of the fair fame of their country and of their sires or to have ennobled a humble origin by the glory of their achievements. Other topics to be drawn from the period preceding their birth will have reference to omens or prophecies foretelling their future greatness, such as the oracle which is said to have foretold that the son of Thetis would be greater than his father. The praise of the individual will be based on his character, his physical endowments and external circumstances. Physical and accidental advantages provide a comparatively unimportant theme, which requires variety of treatment. Homer does in the case of Agamemnon and Achilles; at times again weakness may contribute largely to our admiration, as when Homer says that Tydeus was small of stature but a good fighter. Fortune too may confer dignity as in the case of kings and princes (for they have a fairer field for the display of their excellences) but on the other hand the glory of good deeds may be enhanced by the smallness of the resources. Moreover the praise awarded to external and accidental advantages is given, not to their possession, but to their honorable employment. For wealth and power and influence, since they are the sources of strength, make the surest test of character for good or evil; they make us better or they make us worse. Praise awarded to character is always just, but may be given in various ways. It has sometimes proved the more effective to trace a man’s life and deeds in due chronological order, praising his natural gifts as a child, then his progress at school, and finally the whole course of his life, including words as well as deeds. At times on the other hand it is well to divide our praises, dealing separately with the various virtues, fortitude, justice, self-control and the rest of them and to assign to each virtue the deeds performed under its influence. We shall have to decide which of these two methods will be the more serviceable, according to the nature of the subject; but we must bear in mind the fact that what most pleases an audience is the celebration of deeds which our hero was the first or only man or at any rater one of the very few to perform: and to these we must add any other achievements which surpassed hope or expectation, emphasizing what was done for the sake of others rather than what he performed on his own behalf. It is not always possible to deal with the time subsequent to our hero’s death; this is due not merely to the fact that we sometimes prais4e him, while still alive, but also that there are but few occasions when we have the chance to celebrate the award of divine honor, posthumous votes of thanks, or statues erected at public expense. Among such themes of panegyric [praise] I would mention monuments of genius that have stood the test of time. For some great men like Menander have received ampler justice from the verdict of posterity than from their own age. Children reflect glory on their parents, cities on their founders, laws on those who made them, arts on their inventors and institutions on those that first introduced them; for instance Numa first laid down rules for the worship of the gods, and Publicola first ordered that the lictor’s rods should be lowered in salutation to the people

3.0 Hermogenes (trans. C. S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic. New York: Macmillan, 1928, 31-32)

Subjects for encomia are: a race as the Greek, a city as Athens, a family, as the Alcmaeonidae. You will say what marvelous things befell at the first, as dreams or signs or the like. Next, the nurture, as, in the case of Achilles, that he was reared on lion’s marrow and by Chiron. Then the training, how he was trained and educated. Not only so, but the nature of soul and body will be set forth, and each under heads: for the body, beauty, stature, agility, might; for the soul, justice, self-control, wisdom, manliness/courage. Next his pursuits, what sort of life he pursued, that of philosopher, orator, or soldier, and most properly his deeds, for deeds come under the had of pursuits. For example, if he chose the life of a soldier, what in this did he achieve? The external resources, such as kin, friends, possessions, household, fortune, etc. Then from the (topic) time, how long he lived, much or little; for either gives rise to encomia. A long-lived man you will praise on this score; a short-lived , on the score of his not sharing those diseases which come from age. Then, too, from the manner of his end, as that he died fighting for his fatherland, and, if there were anything extraordinary under that head, as in the case of Callimachus that even in death he stood. You will draw praise also from the one who slew him, as that Achilles died at the hands of the god Apollo. You will describe also what was done after his end, whether funeral games were ordained in his honor, as in the case of Patroclus, whether there was an oracle concerning his bones, as in the case of Orestes, whether his children were famous, as Neoptolemus. But the greatest opportunity in encomia is through comparisons, which you will draw as the occasion may suggest.

4.0 Apthonius (trans. Ray Nadeau, “The Progymnasmata of Apthonius in Translation,” Speech Monographs 19 [1952] 264-85)

Now this is the exact division of the encomium, and you should work it out under these topics. You will make the exordium according to the subject at hand; next, you will place genus, which you will divide into race, fatherland, forebears, and fathers; then, you will take up education, which you will divide into inclination to study, talent, and rules; then, you will bring out the most important topic of the encomium, the achievements, which you will divide into the spirit, the body, and fortune – the spirit like courage or prudence, the body like beauty, swiftness, or strength, and fortune, like power, wealth and friends. To these you will add comparison, in order to infer a greater position on the one being praised through the process of placing side by side; finally, the epilogue more in the style of a solemn prayer.

Scolion on Aphthonius: The five divisions of an egkomion are birth, education, actions, comparison, and epilogue. Into how many parts is “birth” divided? Into four: race/tribe, country, ancestors, and elders/fathers. Into how many parts is “education” divided? Into three: pursuit in life, manner-craft, customs. Into how many parts I “action divided”? In what pertains to the soul, the body and fortune. The virtues of the soul are: prudence, courage, temperance, and justice. Of the body: stature, strength, beauty and health. In addition to these [of fortune]: wealth, good fortune, friendship.

When people rationalized about the sources of evil which might afflict them, one frequent cause of their misfortune was thought to be caused by envy (see limited good). The scenario goes like this: a person prospers, but his neighbors resent the new prestige that comes with prosperity or success and they wish to cut him down to size. Envy is expressed in the staring and hostile glances directed to the prosperous man, to his house, his wife and children, his land, etc. This glance is an evil eye, which was thought to inflict harm on the prosperous man. Thus "evil eye" belief is ocular aggression based on envy. Jesus mentions the evil eye in many places: 1) Mark 7:22, a catalogue of vices, contains "envy" but the Greek word there is "evil eye; 2) Matt 20:15, the conclusion of a generous payment of wages, tell us that the complainers were envious of those who came late and received the same wage: Jesus accuses them of "evil eye; 3) finally, Paul asks the Galatians if they have been "bewitched" (Gal 3:1), meaning, who is envious of my good work in you and has tried to put a spell on you?

Social interaction in agrarian societies fell across a spectrum running from reciprocity at one end to redistribution at the other.

Reciprocal relations, typical of small-scale social groups (Eg., villages), involved back-and-forth exchanges which generally followed one of three patterns:

1. General reciprocity: Open sharing based on generosity or need. Return often postponed or forgotten. Characterizes family relations.

2. Balanced reciprocity: Exchange based on symmetrical concern for the interests of both parties. Return expected in equal measure. Characterizes neighborly relations.

3. Negative reciprocity: Based on the interests of only one party who expected to gain without having to compensate in return. Characterizes relations with strangers.

Redistributive relations are typical of the large-scale agrarian societies of antiquity (Egypt, Palestine, Rome). They involved pooling resources in a central storehouse (usually via taxation and tribute) under the control of a hierarchical elite which could then redistribute them through the mechanisms of politics and religion. Redistribution relations are always assymmetrical and primarily benefit those in control. The temple system of first century Palestine functioned as a system of redistributive relations.

6 (24) And these are the ordinances by which they shall judge in an inquiry of the community, according to the decisions of the texts.

If there is a man among them who lies (25) in matters of property, and does this knowingly, he shall be separated from the midst of the Purification of the Many for one year, and shall be punished with regard to one quarter of his food.

And whoever answers (26) his fellow disrespectfully, or speaks (to him) imptiently, going so far as to [vio]late his brother's formal order by refusing to obey his fellow inscribed before him, (27) [or (whoever) metes] out justice with his own hand, shall be punished for one year [and be separated].

[And] whoever makes mention whatever of the name of the Being venerated above all other venerated beings, [shall be put to death]. 7 (1) But if he has blasphemed from fright, or under the blow of distress, or for any other reason whatever while reading the Book or pronouncing the Blessings, he shall be separated (2) and shall return no more to the Council of the Community.

And if he speaks irritably against one of the priests inscribed in the book, he shall be punished for one year (3) and set apart by himself from the Purification of the Many. But if he has spoken inadvertently, he shall be punished for six months.

And the man who insults his fellow unjustly (and) knowingly shall be punished for one year (5) and separated.

And whoever speaks to his fellow arrogantly, or knowingly deceives, shall be punished for six months.

And if (6) he shows himself negligent to the detriment of his fellow, he shall be punished for three months. And if he shows himself negligent to the detriment of the property of the Community to the point of causing its loss, he shall reimburse them (7) entirely. (8) And if his hand is unable to reimburse them, he shall be punished for sixty days.

One may consider "faith" in two different ways. First, we should consider it as part of the General Symbolic Media called "commitment." "Commitment" is the general, abstract terms which summarizes a range of personal relationships often called by their individuals names: loyalty, commitment, faithfulness, dutifulness. Therefore God is said to be "faithful" to Jesus and to the disciples; and this bond is an eternal covenant. Indeed one of Paul's favorite ways of describing God is to say that "God is faithful. . ." (1 Cor 1:9; 1 Thess 5:23).

A second way of understanding "faith" is to see how the ancients classified it in their treatment of the four cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance).

"To righteousness (dikaiosynê) it belongs to be ready to distribute according to desert, and to preserve ancestral customs and institutions and the established laws, and to tell the truth when interest is at stake, and to keep agreements. First among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our duties to the spirits, then those to country and parents, then those to the departed; among these claims is piety (eusebeia), which is either a part of righteousness or a concomitant of it. Righteousness is also accompanied by holiness (hosiotês) and truth and loyalty (pistis) and hatred of wickedness" (Ps. Aristotle, Virtues and Vices, V.2-3).

Note one owes loyalty and piety to (1) god/gods, (2) country, and (3) parents/family. Note, moreover, that "justice" has in view the social contract that binds gods to mortals, mortals to their neighbors, and mortals to mortals. And a distinctive element of it is "faithfulness" or loyalty or covenant or commitment.

"We shall be using the topics of justice if we say that we ought to pity innocent persons and suppliants; if we show that it is proper to repay the well-deserving with gratitude; if we explain that we ought to punish the guilty; if we urge that faith ought zealously to be kept; if we say that the laws and customs of the state ought especially to be preserved; if we contend that alliances and friendships should scrupulously be honored; if we make it clear that the duty imposed by nature towards parents, gods, and fatherland must be religiously observed; if we maintain that ties of hospitality, clientage, kinship, and relationship by marriage must inviolably be cherished." (Herr. 3.3.4). Note that the sentence is bold clearly implies the importance of loyalty, faithfulness, and commitment.

The household or family provided the early Christian movement with one of its basic images of Christian social identity and cohesion. In antiquity, the extended family meant everything. It was not only the source of one's status in the community, but also functioned as the primary economic, religious, educational and social network. Loss of connection to the family meant the loss of these vital networks as well as connection to the land. But a surrogate family, what anthropologists call a fictive kin group, could serve the same functions as a biological family and thus the Christian community acting as a surrogate family is for Luke the locus of the Good News. It transcends the normal categories of birth, class, race, sex, education, wealth and power. For those already detached from their biological families (Eg., non-inheriting sons who go to the city), the surrogate family becomes a place of refuge. For the well-connected, particularly among the city elite, giving up one's biological family for the surrogate Christian family, as Luke portrays Jesus demanding here, was thus a decision that could cost one dearly (Cf. 9:57-62; 12:51-53; 14:26; 18:28-30).

The word "feast" refers to a type of time and a type of meal. As a type of time, a feast refers to the day(s) when significant past events are commemorated or when significant present events take place. As a type of meal, a feast is a formal, elaborate meal, often called a banquet, consumed because of the significance of the time. Here the time is a wedding, the joining of the honor and interests of two families with a view to new life.

The festive meal points to the fact that people all over the world use food and drink not only as nourishment, but also as an important method of communication. A meal to which others are invited sends important social messages, exchanged between the person(s) issuing invitations and those actually invited, those who should/might have been invited but were not, and those who decline the invitation. Just as the material used for communication in speech is language, so the material used for communication in a meal is food, drink and their setting.

Thus the type of food and drink chosen for a feast, its mode of preparation and presentation, and the seating or reclining arrangements, all say something about the host's assessment of those invited. A festive meal differs from simply sharing a meal with another person(s), much like a formal speech differs from casual conversation. A festive meal is formal rather than informal communication and usually implies messages of great significance.

From the point of view of the types of messages involved, there are two general types of banquets: ceremonial and ritual. A ceremonial feast is a banquet in which the inviter and the invited celebrate their mutual solidarity, their belonging to each other, their oneness. The festive meals of Israel's appointed feasts (see Lev. 23:2-44), much like the national and personal celebrations in the story of Esther (banquet for Persian elites, non-elites and women: Est. 1:3-9, in honor of Esther: Est. 2:18, and of the king and, by ruse, of Mordecai, Est. 5:1-7:10) were such ceremonial festive meals. The same is true of the gathering of Jesus Messianists described by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:17-33. The problem noted by Paul of "each one going ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk" (vs. 21), points to wrong meanings being communicated. Instead of mutual solidarity and oneness, the behavior communicated "factions" (vs. 19).

A ritual festive meal is one that marks some individual's or group's transition or transformation. It is held to give honor to those undergoing some important social change. As a ritual feature of hospitality, festive meals indicate the transformation of a stranger into a guest (Gen.19:3-14; Luke 5:29), of an enemy into a covenant partner (Gen. 26:26-31; 2 Sam 3:20). Feasts mark important transitional points in a person's life, e.g., Isaac's weaning day (Gen. 21:8); the weddings of Jacob (Gen. 29:22), Samson (Judg. 14:10), the Lamb (Rev. 19:9), and in the parable of Matt. 22:2-10; the birthdays of the Pharaoh (Gen. 40:20), of Herod (Mark 6:21); or the victory banquet hosted by God in Rev. 19:17.

In the Synoptic gospels, at his final meal with his disciples, Jesus changes the ceremonial banquet of the Israelite Passover into a ritual banquet effectively symbolizing the meaning of his impending death (Mark 14:12-25//). But in John, Jesus' final meal is a ritual at which disciples become friends, and Jesus reveals what he knows of the future.

Students of John 13-17 quickly learn that this seemingly disorganized assemblage of material makes excellent sense when viewed as a Farewell Address. In the ancient world contains numerous examples of a dying leader or patriarch delivering a last will and testament. For example, Moses delivers his farewell address in Deut 32 and Jacob his in Genesis 49 (see also Testaments of the Twelve Patriarch). The most celebrated Greek example is Plato’s Phaedo which contains Socrates’ farewell. Luke creates a farewell address for Jesus (Luke 22:14-36), just as the author of the Fourth Gospel does here. We have, moreover, Paul’s farewell in Acts 20:18-35 and possibly in 2 Timothy as well as Peter’s farewell in 2 Peter. The function of these farewell address covers a range of purposes, from honoring the dying patriarch to encouraging his followers and equipping them with a successor.

As regards the typical contents of a farewell address, the following elements often appear: 1. announcement of death or departure (hence “farewell” address); 2. review of patriarch’s life, setting the record straight; 3. revelations of beneficial things to come; 4. predictions of future hard times; 5. exhortation to acquire a group-specific virtue and to avoid a group-specific vice; 6. successor to patriarch named; 7. legacy bestowed; and 8. final prayer or blessing. This familiar form is now used to classify the materials in John 14-17.

The notice in John 13:1 that Jesus "hour had come" indicates that chaps. 13--17 present Jesus' final words to his core group before his death. This segment of the Gospel is often called Jesus' final discourse or his farewell speech. In the U.S. persons about to die are said to see their whole life flash before their eyes. Not so in the Mediterranean world. What is distinctive of final words before death in the Mediterranean (and elsewhere) is that the person about to die is believed capable of knowing what is going to happen to persons near and dear to him (or her). Dying persons are prescient because they are closer to the realm of God (or gods) who knows all things than to the realm of humans whose knowledge is limited to human experience. Thus Xenophon tells us: "At the advent of death, men become more divine, and hence can foresee the forthcoming" (Cyrop. 7.7.21). In the Iliad (16.849-50) the dying Patroculus predicts the death of Hector at the hands of Achilles, and the dying Hector predicts the death of Achilles himself (22.325). Similarly, in Sophocles' play, "The Women of Trachis," the dying Heracles summons Alcmene so that she may learn from his last words "the things I now know by divine inspiration" (Trachiniae 1148 ff.). Vergil finds it normal to have the dying Orodes predict that his slayer will soon meet retribution (Aeneid 10.729-41). Plato too reports that Socrates made predictions during his last moments, realizing that "on the point of death, I am now in that condition in which men are most wont to prophesy" (Apol. 39c; cf. Xenophon, Anab. Apol. 30). Cicero reports concerning Callanus of India: "As he was about to die and was ascending his funeral pyre, he said: 'What a glorious death! The fate of Hercules is mine. For when this mortal frame is burned the soul will find the light.' When Alexander directed him to speak if he wished to say anything to him, he answered: 'Thank you, nothing, except that I shall see you very soon.' So it turned out, for Alexander died in Babylon a few days later" (De Divinatione 1.47).

The Israelite tradition equally shared this belief, as is clear from the final words of Jacob (Gen. 49) and Moses (Deut .31-34); see also 1 Sam. 12; 1 Kings 2:1-17; Josh. 23--24. The well-known documents called "Testaments," written around the time of Jesus, offer further witness to this belief (e.g. Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Moses; see also Jubilees 22:10-30, 1 Macc. 2:47-70; Josephus, Antiquities 12.279-84).

In the U.S., with economics as the focal social institution, final words and testaments will deal with the disposition of goods. However in Mediterranean antiquity, with the kinship institution being focal, final words will deal with concern for the tear in the social fabric resulting from the dying person's departure. Hence the dying person will be deeply concerned about what will happen to his/her kin (or fictive kin) group. Before death, the dying person will impart significant information about what is soon to befall the group in general and individuals in the group,. This includes who will hold it together (successor), and advice to kin group members on how to keep the group together. Of course, before passing on the dying person tries to assure the kin group of its well-being, offering abiding good wishes and expressing concern for the well-being of the group. It is within this cultural framework that Jesus' final words and actions need to be understood. The foot-washing is a parting gesture; the wealth of information about the future all betoken concern for those given to him by the Father, whom he is about to leave: they are not orphans (14:18), but rather they will have an inheritance in the place being prepared with the Father. In the meantime, Jesus and the Father come and make their "dwelling" with them; they continue to have interpersonal relations. Finally a Paraclete will come to them whose task it will be to recall and explain the significant items that they missed and to carry on Jesus' work through the disciples.

Kinship norms regulate human relationships within and among family groups. At each stage of life, from birth to death, these norms determine the roles we play and the ways we interact with each other. Moreover, what it meant to be a father, mother, husband, wife, sister or brother was vastly different in ancient agrarian societies from what we know in the modern industrial world.

Note, for example, the lists in Lev 18:6-18 and 20:11-21. By New Testament times these had become lists of prohibited marriage partners. They include a variety of in-laws for whom we do not prohibit marriage today (e.g. see Mark 6:18). Moreover, for us marriage is generally neo-local (a new residence is established by the bride and groom) and exogamous (outside the kin group). In antiquity marriage was patrilocal (the bride moved in with her husband's family) and endogamous (marrying as close to the conjugal family as incest laws permitted). Cross-cousin marriages on the paternal side of the family were the ideal, and genealogies always followed the paternal line of descent.

Since marriages were fundamentally the fusion of two extended families, the honor of each family played a key role. Marriage contracts negotiated the fine points and insured balanced reciprocity. Defensive strategies were used to prevent loss of males (and females as well whenever possible) to another family. Unlike U.S. families, which are essentially consuming units, the family was the producing unit of antiquity. Hence the loss of a member through marriage required compensation in the form of a bride price. By far the strongest unit of loyalty was the descent group of brothers and sisters. It was here that the strongest emotional ties existed, rather than between husband and wife.

Socially and psychologically, all family members were embedded in the family unit. Preserving family integrity, physically, socially and morally was the paramount value. Our individualism simply did not exist. Males acted toward the outside on behalf of the whole unit, while females focused on the inside, often involved with the management of the family purse as well. Females not embedded in a male (widows without sons, divorcees) were women without honor and often viewed as more male than female by the society (note the attitude toward widows in 1 Tim 5:3-16).

Religion in the first century was embedded in either politics or kinship. There was political religion and domestic religion. Domestic religion took its social cues from the household or family system then in vogue. Thus extant household or family forms and norms provided the early Jesus Messiah movement with one of its basic images of social identity and cohesion.

In antiquity, the extended family meant everything. It was not only the source of one's honor status in the community, but also it functioned as the primary economic, religious, educational and social network. Loss of connection to the family meant the loss of these vital networks as well as loss of connection to the land. But a surrogate family, what anthropologists call a fictive kin group, could serve many of the same functions as a biological family. The Johannine anti-society functioned as a surrogate family. It transcended the normal categories of birth, class, race, sex, education, wealth and power; hence it was inclusive in a startling new way. For those already detached from their biological families (e.g. non-inheriting sons who go to the city), the surrogate family becomes a place of refuge. For the well-connected, however, particularly the city elite, giving up one's biological family for the surrogate family focused on Jesus as Messiah to come or as living Lord was a decision that could cost one dearly. It meant an irrevocable break with the networks on which the elite lifestyle depended.

In the synoptic tradition, Jesus’ forecasting of the destruction of the Temple is the last discourse before Jesus’ arrest (Mark 13:1-32//Matt 24:1-36//Luke 21:5-33). In the story line, Jesus knows he will be arrested and put to death in Jerusalem. Hence this passage serves as his “final discourse” before his death, an ultimate “farewell address.”

In the united States persons about to die are said to see their whole life flash before their eyes. Not so in the Mediterranean world. What is distinctive of final words before death in the Mediterranean (and elsewhere) is that the person about th die is believed to be capable of knowing what is going to happen to persons near and dear to him (and her). Dying persons are prescient because they are closer to the realm of God (or the gods) who knows all things than to the realm of humans whose knowledge is limited to human experience. The dying process puts a person into a specific type of altered consciousness, a ;special way of knowing from the viewpoint of the gods, as it were. There is ample evidence of this type of altered state of consciousness in antiquity. Thus, for example, Xenophon tells us: “At the advent of death, men become more divine, and hence can see the forthcoming” (Cyro 7.7.21). Similarly, in Sophocles’ play The Women of Trachis the dying Heracles summons Alcmene so that she may hear from his last words “the things I now know by divine inspiration” (Trachiniae 1148ff). Vergil finds it normal to have the dying Orodes predict that his slayer will soon meet retribution (Aeneid 10.729-41). Plato too reports that Socrates made predictions during his last moments, realizing that “on the point of death, I am now in that condition in which men are most want to prophesy” (Apology 39c). Cicero reports concerning Callanus of India: “As he was about to die and was ascending is funeral pyre, he said: ‘What a glorious death! The fate of Hercules is mine. For when this mortal frame is burned the soul sill find the light.’ When Alexander directed him to speak if he wished to say anything to him, he answered: ‘Thank you, nothing, except that I shall see you very soon.’ So it turned out, for Alexander died in Babylon a few days later” (Divination 1.47).

The Israelite tradition equally shared this belief, as is clear from the final words of Jacob (Gen 49) and Moses (Deut 31-34); see also 1 Samuel 12; 1 Kings 2:1-17; Joshua 23-24. The well known documents called “Testaments,” written around the time of Jesus, offer further witness to this belief (for example, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Moses; see also Jubilees 22:10-30; 1 Macc 2:47-70; Josephus, Antiquities 12.279-84.

In the United States, with economics as the focal social institution, final words and testaments will deal with the disposition of goods. However, in the Mediterranean antiquity, with the kinship institution being focal, final words will deal with concern for the tear in the social fabric resulting from the dying person’s departure. Hence the dying person will be deeply concerned about what will happen to his/her kin (or fictive kin). Before death, the dying person will impart significant information about what is soon to befall the group in general and individuals in the group. This includes who will hold it together (successor), and advice to kin-group members on how to keep the group together. Of course, before passing on, the dying person tries to assure the kin group of its well-being, offering abiding good wishes and expressing concern for the well being of the group. It is within this cultural framework that Jesus’ final words and actions need to be understood.

What is distinctive about the final discourse of Mark 13 and parallels is that it concerns the destruction of Jerusalem, a city overlaid with many layers of meaning and feeling. If one is to forecast the destruction of a city in the ancient Mediterranean world, a number of stereotypical themes inevitably come to the fore. And if one makes this forecast in Israel, the phraseology will be “Bible-speak.” Israel’s sacred books provide the prevailing cultural intertext for Israelites in the period. When God speaks in the Synoptics, God too uses “Bible-speak.” And so would persons close to the realm of God.

Scholarly commentaries have ample information about biblical allusions in the passage. But most scholars espousing the “Received View” made little if any mention of the fact that this final discourse share much of its terminology with astrological/astronomical documents of the period. Furthermore, along with such astral terminology, the unfolding sequence of (1) wars; (2) international strife; (3) famines; (4) earthquakes; (5) persecutions; (6) eclipses is common to all the Synoptics and the book of Revelation. What is common to these events is that the ancients saw them all as triggered by celestial entities and celestial events.

As a matter of fact, Josephus’ description of the destruction of Jerusalem presents two simultaneous conflicts: one in the sky and one on the land below – as we might expect in any first-century scenario of the destruction of a city. Thus Jesus’ mention of the coming of that celestial figure known as “one like a Son of man” is no surprise. As we know from Rev 14:6-20, the coming of this sky being does not necessarily signal the end of a cosmic time period, just the destruction of the city as commanded by God. After the destruction wrought by one like a Son of man and accompanying angels, no new heaven and new earth follow. All that is involved is a judgment on the inhabitants of the city. This is exactly what happens in the scenario described by

Comparison of Two Way of Reading Mark 13 Traditional vs Cultural Way of Interpreting

Increasing demand for fish as a luxury item in the first century led to two basic systems of commercialization. In the first, fishermen were organized by either royal concerns or large land holders to contract for a specified amount of fish to be delivered at a certain time. Compensation was either in cash or in kind (processed fish) and papyri records indicate that complaints about irregular or inadequate payment were not uncommon. Such records also indicate that this system was highly profitable for estate managers or royal coffers. The fishermen themselves got little.

The second system made fishing part of the taxation network. Fishermen leased their fishing rights from (the toll collectors of the New Testament) for a percentage of the catch, which evidence indicates could go as high as forty percent. The remaining catch could be traded through middlemen who both siphoned off the majority of profits and added significantly to the cost of fish in elite markets. Legislation in Rome early in the second century sought to curtail rising costs by requiring that fish be sold either by the fishermen themselves or by those who first bought the catch from them. Such tax fishermen often worked with (partners), the term used in Lk. 5:7, hence the fishing done by Peter, Andrew, James and John may have been of this second type.

Jesus' insistence in John's Gospel that Israelites eat his flesh and blood in order to have the life that befits children of God is anti-language at its most obvious. The context is entirely different from that of the Synoptic "Last Supper," where Jesus offers bread and wine as his body and blood (Mark 14:22-25; Matt. 26:26-29; Luke 22:15-20; see also 1 Cor 10:16; 11:23-27). John has no prophetic symbolic action with bread and wine as in the Synoptics (and Paul), just straightforward anti-language, which made good sense to the members of John's anti-society.

The use of the phrase "flesh and blood" derives from two different social contexts. One context refers the phrase to human beings as created, while the other refers to animals, especially those used in sacrifice.

Relative to human beings, "flesh and blood" pertains to the human being in general (Gal. 1:16; Heb. 2:14), specifically as a created, hence perishable entity: "I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (1 Cor 15:50). Human opponents are "flesh and blood," but sky beings such as "principalities, powers, world rulers, and other wicked spirit warriors" are not (Eph. 6:12).

Relative to animals, the phrase is used to make proper distinctions concerning what is edible by humans. To begin with, in Israelite priestly lore, edible meat derives only from Temple sacrifice, and two parts of all sacrificed animals belong to God alone, the blood and the fat around the kidneys. In the first place, blood is always prohibited. In Israel's tradition, all human beings regardless of ethnic origin are prohibited by God from eating flesh with blood; the prohibition is stated early in Genesis: "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Gen. 9:4). For Israel, the legal prohibition reflecting the Genesis directive is found in Deuteronomy: "Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh" (Deut. 12:23; it is repeated also in Lev. 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life," and Lev 17:14: "For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off"). Eating flesh with the blood in it is redolent of witchcraft: "You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not practice augury or witchcraft" (Lev. 19:26).

Secondly, the other organic ingestible prohibited in Israel is fat, equally a life source. "All the fat is YHWH's" (Lev. 3:16). In sacrifice, blood was to be thrown against the altar, while the fat was to go up in smoke. The fat in question is the fact surrounding the kidneys; the kidneys with the fat surrounding them were considered the "seat of life" because connected with the sexual organs (see Psa. 139:13). It is true that later legislation loses the connection of fat and kidneys to sexual organs and life (see Lev. 4:19-20.26.31.35, etc.), yet in Israel's tradition fat and blood emerge as independent vehicles of life. Thus the prohibitions of fat and blood single out those organs, human or animal, that serve as the seat of life. Life is from God alone and belongs to God alone. To ingest fat or blood is to strive to be like God.

Interestingly, apart from the regulations governing sacrifice, there is no reference to fat as the vehicle of life. Since the fat is Yahweh's, the portions to be burned are all included in the term "fat" (Lev. 4:18-35; 7:3.30-33; 9:18-20; Num. 18:17; etc.), even when the kidneys are explicitly mentioned. In fact, the word "fat" can become a term for the sacrifice itself (Lev. 9:24; 1 Sam 15:22; Isa. 1:11; see, 1 Kings 8:64). The Priestly authors even formulated the law so that all fat, even that of animals not suitable for sacrifice, was the property of Yahweh (Lev. 3:16-17). Ezekiel refers to fat and blood as God's food (Ezek 44:7). Fat and blood even stand for sacrificed life. Yahweh's sword drips with his enemy's blood and fat, which fill the whole land (Isa. 34:6-7). God can even give the blood and fat of the enemy to animals as food (Ezek. 39:19).

The reference to Jesus' flesh and blood as source of eternal life are best explained in terms of Israel's tradition of fat and blood as source of life. In quite anti-societal fashion, Jesus urges upon his followers what has been prohibited as food to humans from the time of Noah, and even a fortiori, what is truly cannibalistic. In terms of anti-language, to ingest Jesus flesh and blood is synonymous with welcoming, accepting, receiving, believing in, and the like. Given the sacrificial context of fat/flesh and blood, the nuance here is accepting Jesus even in spite of his being "lifted up" and "glorified" on the cross. Thus to all who welcomed Jesus, "to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (1:12-13). Blood is the seat of life, the will of the flesh is in the fat (and kidneys), while the will of man is in the heart. It is through ingesting Jesus' flesh and blood, through accepting and welcoming Jesus as the Word become Israelite human, crucified as "king of the Judeans," that those who believe in Jesus have their life as children of God.

Every society has provisions to deal with people who are sick. We call this "the health care system." The health care system of antiquity had three overlapping parts: a professional sector, a popular sector, and a folk sector. The professional sector of a health care system includes the professional, trained and socially credentialed healers. Ancient physicians dealt with symptoms of the sick and sought alleviation. In the first-century Mediterranean, these were "physicians." Their approach to sickness was philosophical, that is they studied the behavior of sick people, their symptoms and complaints, and developed theories to explain sickness. One thing they never did was touch, handle, cut or otherwise physically minister to the sick. To this end they used slaves. Should the sick person die, the slave was killed -- not the physician.

The popular sector embraces the individual, family, social network, and community and their respective beliefs and activities. The principal concern of the lay, non-professional, non-specialist popular culture is health and health maintenance, not sickness and cure. But obviously this focus on health sensitizes people to notice deviance from the culturally defined norm known as "health." Therefore, it is in this popular sector that the deviant condition known as "sickness" is first observed, defined, and treated. The popular sector emphasizes how illness affects and involves everyone in the kinship group and wider community. The consequences of healing therefore affect this wider group as well.

The folk healer is a person who is recognized by people in a community as having the ability to restore people to health. The folk-healer's "license to practice" is tacitly granted and acknowledged by each individual sick person and the local community. John's report that some doubted Jesus' abilities as a folk healer and questioned the source of his power (9:18) only highlights the limitations of a folk healer's abilities. As a folk-healer, Jesus touches patients (9:6), heals by command (5:8) or at a distance (4:50).

(1) The folk healer shares significant elements of the constituency's world view and health concepts. All the Mediterranean contemporaries of Jesus and his followers believed in the commonly shared explanations concerning the origins sickness, human and spirit, and proper ways to deal with sickness.

(2) Folk healers accept everything that is presented (technically described as behavioral and somatic symptoms) as naturally co-occurring elements of a syndrome. The story of the man born blind (9:1-34) is a good example. That he sat begging where people passed by, that people thought his blindness was due to his own sin (9:34) or that of his parents (9:3), that his parents are constrained to admit his blindness from birth (and hence their probable sin) --these are all so many irrelevancies that a western diagnostician (other than a psychiatrist) would put aside to focus on the "real" problem, the "alleged" damaged organ of sight. But the folk healer views everything as of equal importance. When John reports that the healed man was sought out by Jesus so that he might "believe in the Son of man," and not remain blind like the sighted Pharisees (9:40-41), we learn that for John's group part of therapy involved sharing in attachment to Jesus with the rest of the group.

(3) The majority of folk healers treat their clients as "outpatients." Amusing or silly as this self-evident statement might sound to the modern western reader, it is a key element in the folk-healing process, especially among Mediterranean peasants who are very public people and are much concerned about honor. While in John Jesus often does not have a crowd or audience for his healings, John's readers serve this role, thus bestowing honor on the Jesus to whom they are attached. The folk healer is an honorable person but needs to enjoy continuing success to maintain honor. A crowd will always assure this honor because it witnesses the successful venture.

(4) Folk healers take the patient's view of illness at face value. In no instance did Jesus ever ignore or correct the "presenting symptoms" as communicated by the sick person or surrogate. Different cultures tend to emphasize one area of symptoms more than others. The pan-Mediterranean emphasis on visual dimensions of existence may explain the prevalence of the blindness and seeing, so emphasized in John 9 (blindness) and throughout the Gospel (seeing is believing).

(5) The vocabulary folk healers use to describe an illness is invariably associated with the sick person's every day experience and belief system. Contemporary western readers who seek to tally and distinguish the various kinds of "diseases" mentioned in the Gospels likely expecting too much precision from first-century Mediterranean vocabulary.

(6) Since folk healers are native to the community and know well its mores, history, and scandals, they make special use of the historical and social context of each illness. While the Gospel narratives often sound as if petitioners meet Jesus for the first time, it is highly probable that his visits and teaching activity in the various places provided him with more than a passing acquaintance with many people in the area. For example, Jesus would know the official's son at Capernaum (4:46) since they lived in the same village; and in Jerusalem, the crippled man at the Sheep Gate was a permanent fixture (5:5 -- thirty-eight years), while the blind man (9:1) made his living by begging; Lazarus was a good friend (11:3).

Thus just as in the Synoptic Gospels, here in John as well Jesus is described as a successful folk-healer. Yet John's selection of Jesus' successes highlight truly extreme cases: a boy healed at a distance, a man crippled for thirty-eight years, a man born blind, a person dead and buried for four days.

Foot washing was customary behavior on the arrival of guests in the house for a meal. Feasts, 2:1-12 and Meals, 12:1-8. Since the foot washing in the scene depicted here is not upon arrival, something other and else is going on. This is a symbolic foot washing. The key to the scenario is the meaning of feet, and hence washing the feet.

While some philosophers in the Greco-Roman world thought of the human person in terms of body and soul, traditional Mediterranean persons thought in terms of what anthropologists have called "zones of interaction" with the world around. Word, 1:1-18. As we previously noted, three such zones make up the human person and all appear repeatedly in the Gospels: 1) Eyes-Heart: the zone of emotion-fused thought includes will, intellect, judgment, personality, and feeling all rolled together. 2) Mouth-ears: the zone of self-expressive speech includes communication, particularly that which is self-revealing. It is listening, and responding. 3) Hands-feet: the zone of purposeful action is the zone of external behavior or interaction with the environment. It is the zone activity: of doing, performing, making.

Human activity can be described in terms of any particular zone, a combination of two, or all three. Here in 13:1-17 a single zone comes into play. The "feet" serve as a reference for the zone of purposeful action, the zone of behavior and activity. To wash the feet in such a symbolic way points to washing away the effects of one's actions, hence forgiveness of "trespasses" (another foot metaphor) or "transgressions" (another foot metaphor). Jesus' washing the feet means that he forgives his disciples their "offenses" (another foot metaphor) against him, even forthcoming ones.

As we previously noted, the metaphorical resonance of the "Word" in the opening of the Gospel points to the outcome of a person's mouth-ears. It stands for self-revelation and self-communication. This is what the Word that was with God in the beginning entails -- God's self-revelation, God's self-communication. This Word with God from the beginning is creative and powerful. What God says happens immediately, as we read in Gen. 1. For God, there is no need of hands-feet as is the case with humans and other animate beings, although God does look and pass judgment (the eyes-heart zone).

Finally, when a writer refers to all three zones, we can assume comment is being made about complete human experience. Thus the author of 1 John writes, "We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life . . ." (1 John 1:1). The statement is an expression of total involvement, "body and soul" as we would say. All three zones are likewise present in the Sermon on the Mount: eyes-heart (Matt. 6:19:7-6), mouth-ears (Matt. 7:7-11) and hands-feet (Matt. 7:13-27). The same is true of the interpretation of the parable of the sower in Luke 8:11-15. For additional examples, see Exod. 21:24, Prov. 6:16-10, 2 Kings 4:34, Dan. 10:6.

In the Gospels the closest analogy for the forgiveness of sins is the forgiveness of debts (Lk. 11:4; cf. Mt. 6:12), an analogy drawn from pervasive peasant experience. Debt threatened loss of land, livelihood, family. It was the result of being poor (See the Cameo Essay on Poor, Poverty, 1:51), that is, being unable to defend one's position. Forgiveness would thus have had the character of restoration, a return to both self-sufficiency and one's place in the community. Since the introspective, guilt-oriented outlook of industrialized societies did not exist, forgiveness by God meant being divinely restored to one's position and therefore being freed from fear of loss at the hands of God. "Conscience" was not so much an interior voice of accusation as an external one - blame from friends, neighbors or authorities (Lk. 6:6; Jn. 5:45; 8:10. See especially I Cor. 4:4). Thus public accusation had the power to destroy, while forgiveness had the power to restore.

The experts tell us that there are three basic meanings to the concept "freedom":

1. freedom from obstacles (slaves must be free from slavery; prisoners, from prison;

a sick person, from illness: all these obstacles stand in the way of freedom and autonomy)

2. freedom of choice (one must have a citizen's status to vote; there must be "choices"

Most Americans are passionate about freedom from obstacles; note how we have rebuilt our street corners, doors, and toilets to accommodate handicapped people. Moreover, they all wish to "keep their options open," to have a choice in where they live and work. The feminists' movement started first with demand for suffrage (granted in 1919), then Title IX made colleges fund a female team for almost every male team. Recently the demand has been to crack the "glass ceiling" and to ensure that females are paid the same wage as males for doing the same job. Less evident in USA is freedom for a goal, because this fits a group-oriented person better than an individualist. See: Group-Oriented Person

The biblical world, whose modal personality type is described as group-oriented, measures up to these three notions of freedom differently from the USA. We know that one in four people in antiquity spent some of his or her life in debt slavery. And for the most part, slaves were non-people! with no rights! Many early Christians were slaves, and we almost never hear a call to emancipate these slaves. So "freedom from obstacles" such as slavery was a very desired freedom. This may explain Paul's strong description of the difference Jesus' cross made in human lives: a move from slavery (to sin and death) to the freedom of a holy life in Christ. Secondly, choice belongs basically to citizens of poleis who can vote and thus assert their choices. But only a few people in the Roman empire as well the aristocrats who rules as puppet kings on Rome's behalf had the luxury of "freedom of choice." Furthermore, most Israelites were honored not for their "freedom of choice," but because they obeyed proper authority: father or master or God. If they could be said to have a "choice," the choice was to do the honorable thing, namely, to obey. Finally, Paul was very clear that true freedom was what we call "freedom for a goal," namely, "love" and service of one's neighbor (Gal 5:13-15). In may other places Paul compares spiritual gifts and always values more highly the gift that benefits the group more. So prophecy is preferred to tongues because it "builds up the group" (1 Cor 14:1-5, 12, 26). Thus in Paul's perspective ideal group-oriented persons use their "freedom" most wisely when they dedicate it to the goal of benefitting fellow Christians.

To maintain one's status and survive in a society where the central governing elite were generally totally unconcerned with the populace they governed, people often became embedded in a web of patron-client relationships. Because of receiving goods, influence, or other favors from a patron, a person becomes a client and would then be known as "the friend of so-and-so." In return for favors received, the client owed loyalty and commitment in return. The accusation against Pilate in John's description of Jesus' degradation ritual makes mention of this feature: "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar" (John 19:12). The core of Pilate's identity, then, rests in his being known as Caesar's loyal client, i.e., his "friend." His social obligations are to defend Caesar's honor, maintain Caesar's prestige, and work for Caesar's well-being. Patronage, 5:21-30.

The Hellenistic culture of the Roman period witnessed two kinds of friends: political friends and fictive-kinship friends. Political friends were clients who received favors from patrons, and in return sought the good reputation of the patron; Friend of Caesar, 18:28--19:16a.

Fictive-kinship friends were persons who treated each other as though they were kin, as members of the same family. In his description of happiness, Aristotle listed: ". . . good birth, plenty of friends, good friends, wealth, good children, plenty of children, a happy old age, also such bodily excellences as health, beauty, strength, large stature, athletic powers, together with fame, honor, good luck and virtue (Aristotle Rhet.1.5.4). He then further specified what he meant by plenty of friends, good friends as follows:

The terms possession of many friends and possession of good friends need no explanation; for we define a friend as one who will always try, for your sake, to do what he takes to be good for you. The man towards whom many feel thus has many friends; if these are worthy men, he has good friends" (Aristotle: Rhet. 1.5.16).

The chief characteristic of a friend is that he (rarely "she" in the first-century Mediterranean world) seeks the well-being of his friend. And a "good" friend is one who has a recognized honor rating, that is one who is "worthy." Of course friendship is a reciprocal affair, with friends mutually seeking the well-being of each other.

In the Roman world fictive-kin friendship could be a hereditary affair. Family members exchanged tokens which were then passed from generation to generation. If presented to the family with whom some contractual arrangement (hospitium) existed, that family was obligated to provide a variety of services to the needy "friend," including a proper burial. Such contractual friendships were usually among social equals.

Here Jesus labels his core group disciples as "friends." The context of a final gathering with final words points to intimates, to fictive kin, rather than political friends. The point is that just as Jesus' friends seek his well-being, so he too is totally concerned about their well-being. This undoubtedly is the attitude which the members of John's anti-society nourished.

Readers of the Synoptic Gospels are familiar with the phenomenon of Jesus giving special information to insiders that is unavailable to outsiders (Mark 4:11-12; Matt. 13:11; Luke 8:10). Equally familiar is the insistence that the world is divided into two groups, those with us and those against us (Luke 11:23). What is true in the Synoptics is even more emphatic in the Gospel of John, as one would expect of an anti-society. Sharp lines are drawn between insiders and outsiders, those with loyalty to the group and those with none. Love/Hate, 3:1-21.

These attitudes are indicative of a fundamental Mediterranean perspective. One of the basic and abiding social distinctions made among first century Mediterraneans was that between ingroup and outgroup persons. A person's ingroup generally consisted of one's household, extended family and friends. Yet the boundaries of an ingroup were fluid; ingroups could and did change, at times expanding, at others contracting. Persons from the same city quarter or village would look upon each other as ingroup when in a "foreign" location, while in their own city quarter or village, they may be outgroup to each other.

Ingroup members are expected to be loyal to each other and to go to great lengths to help each other (John 15:13; Friends, 15:12-17). They are shown the greatest consideration and courtesy; such behavior is rarely, if ever, extended to members of outgroups. Only face-to-face groups where a person can express concern for others can become ingroups (15:1-11). Persons interacting positively with each other in ingroup ways, even when not actual kin, become "neighbors." The term refers to a social role with privileges and obligations that derive simply from living socially close to others and interacting with them -- the same village or neighborhood or party or faction. Neighbors of this sort are an extension of one's kin group (read Prov 3:39; 6:29; 11:9.12; 16:29; 25:9.17.28; 26:19; 27:10.14; 29:5). From one perspective, the whole house of Israel were neighbors, hence the injunction to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (Lev 19:18) marked a broad ingroup, whether the injunction were carried out or not.

The boundaries of the ingroup were shifting ones. The geographical division of the house of Israel in the first century marked off Judea, Perea and Galilee. What all the residents with allegiance to the Jerusalem Temple had in common was "birth" into the same people, the house of Israel. But this group quickly broke into three ingroups, the Judeans, Pereans and Galileans. Jesus was not a Judean but a Galilean (7:52), as were his disciples. It was the Judeans who are the main opponents of Jesus in John's Gospel. Jew/Judean, 1:19-28. It was Judeans who put Jesus the Galilean to death. It is Jesus the Galilean who is mockingly called the "king" of the Judeans (19:14-15, 19).

And all of these geographically based groups had their countless subgroups, with various and changing loyalties. To outsiders, like Romans or Alexandrians, all these ingroups fused into one and were simply called "Judeans." Similarly, the house of Israel could look at the rest of the world as one large outgroup, "the (other) nations" (= Gentiles). Paul sees himself as a Judean, coming from Tarsus, and living according to Judean customs, (called "Judaism"), with allegiance to the God of Israel in Jerusalem in Judea. Most such Judeans never expected to move back to Judea. They remained either resident aliens or citizens in the places of their birth. Yet they continued to be categorized by the geographical location of their original ethnic roots. The reason for this was that the main way for categorizing living beings, animals and humans, in the first century Mediterranean was by geographical origins. Being of similar geographical origin meant to harbor ingroup feelings even if long departed from that place of origin. And that place of origin endowed group members with particular characteristics.

Ingroup members freely ask questions of one another which would seem too personal to North Americans. These questions reflect the fact that interpersonal relationships, even "casual" ones, tend to involve a far greater lowering of social and psychological boundaries in first century Palestine than in current U.S. experience. Moreover, in dealing with outgroup members, almost "anything goes." By U.S. standards the dealings of ancient Mediterranean types with outgroup persons appear indifferent, even hostile and cruel. Strangers can never be ingroup members. Should they take the initiative in the direction of "friendly" relations, only the social ritual of hospitality (being "received" or "welcomed") extended by ingroup member can transform them into "friends" of the group.

The boundaries of ingroups and outgroups are well marked off in the Gospel of John with Pharisees, disciples of John, disciples of Moses, and disciples of Jesus. But by far the most important ingroup/outgroup distinction is that between the hostile Judeans and the Johannine group who are followers of Jesus. That opposition is nowhere clearer than here in the strongly polarized language of 15:18-16:4a.

In the ancient world from time immemorial, males and females lived in gender-divided worlds. This may be noted clearly in the remarks of a lst century Jew living in Alexandria: "Market-places and councils-halls and law-courts and gatherings and meetings where a large number of people are assembled, and open-air life with full scope for discussion and action -- all these are suitable to men both in war and peace. The women are best suited to the indoor life which never strays from the house, within which the middle door is taken by the maidens as their boundary, and the outer door by those who have reached full womanhood" (Spec. Leg. 3.169). Philo locates males in the public arena of the agora, whereas females are located in the private arena of the house. "Open-air" vs "indoor" and other contrasting expressions give the impression that ideally women never leave their sphere ("never strays from the house"); but this may require considerable nuancing. Philo, moreover, is an urban figure, and so when he describes male space, he thinks in terms of the urban places where men gathered, such as the marketplace, the meeting halls, the council chambers, and the like. These would not be the male spaces in a peasant village.

Philo's remarks are hardly original, and reflect a discussion which can be traced back to Xenophon and Aristotle and the classical conversation on the rights and duties or men and women in society. For example, in his treatise on household management, Xenophon describes the respective places of males and females in a household: ". . . Human beings live not in the open air, like beasts, but obviously need shelter. Nevertheless, those who mean to win store to fill the covered place, have need to someone to work at the open-air occupations; since plowing, sowing, planting and grazing are all such open-air employments; and these supply the needful food. Then again, as soon as this is stored in the covered place, then there is need for someone to keep it and to work at the things that must be done under cover. Cover is needed for the nursing of the infants; cover is needed for the making of corn into bread, and likewise for the manufacture of clothing from the wool. And since both the indoor and the outdoor tasks demand labour and attention, God from the first adapted the woman's nature, I think, to the indoor and man's to the outdoor tasks and cares" (Oecomenicus VII.??)

Xenophon reflects the commonplace that males and female have different places, both spatial and cultural, in the household. Males belong in the "open air" or public space apart from the house. Females belong in "covered" or private space. Not only space, but labor is gender divided as well: males engage in the open-air tasks of agriculture and herding (plowing, sowing, grazing), whereas females occupy themselves with the "covered" tasks which include child rearing, food production and clothing manufacture. While Xenophon distinguishing space and tasks according to gender, he strongly insists on the complementarity of males and females: ". . .And God also gave to both impartially the power to practice due self-control, and gave authority to whichever is the better -- whether it be the man or the woman -- to win a larger portion of the good that comes from it. And just because both have not the same aptitudes, they have the more need of each other, and each member of the pair is the more useful to the other, the one being competent where the other is deficient."

Xenophon, moreover, invests with moral value this distinction between male/public and female/private: ". . .And besides, the law declares those tasks to be honourable for each of them wherein God has made the one to excel the other. Thus, to the woman it is more honourable to stay indoors than to abide in the fields, but to the man it is unseemly rather to stay indoors than to attend to the work outside. If a man acts contrary to the nature God has given him, possibly his defiance is detected by the gods and he is punished for neglecting his own work, or meddling with his wife's. I think that the queen bee is busy about just such other task appointed by God."

It is "honorable" when males and females act according to this social code, but "shameful" when they do not. Furthermore, the code is given heavenly sanction by the note that the gods will punish those who violate it.

Aristotle likewise reflects the same gender distinction in his remarks on the household: "For Providence has made man stronger and woman weaker, so that he in virtue of his manly prowess may be more ready to defend the home, and she, by reason of her timid nature, more ready to keep watch over it; and while he brings in fresh supplies from without, she may keep safe what lies within. In handicrafts again, woman was given a sedentary patience, though denied stamina for endurance of exposure; while man, though inferior to her in quiet employments, is endowed with vigour for every active occupation. In the production of children both share alike; but each makes a different contribution to their upbringing. It is the mother who nurtures, and the father who educates" (Oeconomica I.3.4 (1343b 30 - 1344a 9).

Aristotle placed males in the public or "outside" world and females in the private or "inside" world. Males "defend" the house from the outside, from whence they "bring in" supplies. Females "watch over" the house from the inside, where they "keep safe" the family goods. The appropriate tasks of females in their proper place include both child rearing and handicrafts, presumably clothing production.

It follows, then, that objects in a household are also gender specific: farm tools and weapons are male; kitchen utensils and clothing production materials are female. Sheep and horses are male animals, whereas goats are female.

“Outside” - “Inside” and Sexual Organs: The ancient medical writers Hierophilus and Galen testify to the ancient belief that male and female genitals were classified as “public” and “private.” Although it was argued that male and female sexual organs are similar, the difference was significance: male genitals are outside the body, whereas female genitals are within the body. Thus Galen writes: “All the parts, then, that men have, women have too, the difference between them lying in only one thing. . .namely, that in women the parts are within the body, whereas in men they are outside, in the region called the perineum” (Usefulness of the Parts of the Body 14.6). External vs internal classification of the genitals, then, replicates the larger stereotype of a gender-divided world.

When people seek to have an effect on others, their general means of working their effect can be reduced to four "general symbolic media,” 1. power, 2. value-commitment.3. inducement by means of material goods and 4. knowledge-influence. Because of their power, kings and generals can protect and deliver their subjects (= “Savior”). Gifts of seed, food, dowries for daughters, shelter and hospitality illustrate inducement. As regards influence, teachers, for example, give instruction to students and may even recommend them; people who consult the sybils, the oracles or the prophets are seeing both influence-as-knowledge and influence-as-access. Finally commitment refers to phenomena such as faithfulness, loyalty, obedience, as well as to fictive-kin bonds, grants of honor and respect (i.e., doxologies and hymns to the gods), as well as the language of “friends” and friendship. Consider one example: Rome’s legions risk their lives for it (commitment) and so participate in extending Rome’s power, in recompense for which Rome grants them a pension or lands in a colony (inducement) and perhaps public honoring, such as a Roman triumph (commitment). The following texts from authors of the Greco-Roman world are excellent places in which to see these four media of exchange.

Titles of Benefactor: “For Zeus alone of the gods has the epithets of “Father” and “King,” “Protector of Cities,” “Lord of Friends and Comrades,” “Guardian of the Race,” and also “protector of Suppliants,” “God of Refuge,” and “God of Hospitality,” these and his countless other titles signifying goodness and the fount of goodness (Dio Chrysostom, Oration 1.39).

Types of Benefaction: “He is addressed as “King” because of his dominion and power; as “Father,”on account of his solicitude and gentleness; as “Protector of Cities” in that he upholds the law and the commonweal; as “Guardian of the Race” on account of the tie of kinship which unites gods and men; as “Lord of Friends and Comrades” because he brings all men together and wills that they be friendly. . .as “Protector of Suppliants” since he inclines his ear and is gracious to men when they pray; as “God of Refuge” because he gives refuge from evil; as “God of Hospitality” because it is the very beginning of friendship not to be unmindful of strangers. . .and as “God of Wealth and Increase” since he causes all fruitage and is the giver of wealth and sustenance (Dio Chrysostom, Oration 1.40-41).

Roman Gods and Their Specific Benefactions: “For example, in the case of Jupiter, we shall extol his power as manifested in the governance of all things, with Mars we shall praise his power in war, with Neptune his power over the sea; as regards inventions, we shall celebrate Minerva's discovery of the arts, Mercury's discovery of letters, Apollo's of medicine, Ceres' of the fruits of the earth, Bacchus' of wine (Quintilian, Inst. Orat. 3.7.6-9).

For What Does Xenophon Pray? “Therefore I start cultivating the good will of the gods. And I try to behave so that it may be right for me when I pray, to acquire good health (ὐγιειας), physical strength (ρωμης σωματος), distinction in the city (τιμης ἐν πολει), good will among my friends (εὐνοιας ἐν φιλοις,), survival with honour in war (ἐν πολεμῳ σωτηριας), and wealth (πλουτου) that has been increased by honest means (Xenophon, Oec 11.8).

Diodorus of Sicily praises the god Uranus for the following benefactions; we have added the numbering and emphasis to facilitate the grasp of the diverse benefactions: “Their first king was Uranus, and he [1] gathered the human beings within the shelter of a walled city and [2] caused his subjects to cease lawless ways and bestial manner of living, discovering for them the uses of cultivated fruits, how to store them up, and not a few other things of benefit to man; [3] he also subdued the larger part of the inhabited earth. . . [4] And since he was a careful observer of the stars he foretold many things which would take place throughout the world; [5] and for the common people he introduced the year on the basis of the movement of the sun and the months on that of the moon”(3.56.3-5).

Tertullian: "I give that definition (of God) which all men's common sense will accept, that God is supremely great, firmly established in eternity, unbegotten, uncreated, without beginning and without end" (Adv. Marc. 1.3).

Diodorus of Sicily distinguishes true gods from divinized heroes. The difference lies exclusively in the fact that true gods are fully eternal, that is uncreated in the past and imperishable in the future. Divinized heroes, however, were born as mere mortals, but attained to "immortality" because of their benefactions to humankind: “As regards the gods, men of ancient times have handed down to later generations two different conceptions: Certain of the gods, they say, are eternal and imperishable . . . for each of these genesis and duration are from everlasting to everlasting. But the other gods, we are told, were terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honors and fame because of their benefactions to mankind, such as Heracles, Dionysus, Aristaeus, and the others who were like them” (6.1.2).

Plutarch echoes just this sort of stereotyped description of the gods when he acclaims the excellence of Apollos Tegyraeus: “My native tradition removes this god from among those deities who were changed from mortals into immortals. Like Heracles and Dionysus, whose virtues enabled them to cast off mortality and suffering; but he is one of those deities who are unbegotten (agennêton) and eternal (aidion), if we may judge by what the most ancient and wisest men have said on such matters” (Pelopidas 16).

From these examples, we can sketch the differences between true gods and divinized benefactor-heroes:

Therefore, when we start to consider what it means to call Jesus “god,” we have two options, each with very specific and contrasting content. For example, how might Mark or Matthew consider Jesus? John? Paul (well that is another matter entirely)? Hebrews?

Biblical Method	Historical Context	Aim	Values Operative	View of Jesus	Scholarly Results
source criticism focus: Jesus of history	from the Enlighten-ment to Wrede (1910)	recovery of the very words and deeds of Jesus	1. Early = best 2. Later = degener-ate; materials stem-ming from the early church are treated as a corruption of Jesus	only historical Jesus materials have any value	1^st quest for the historical Jesus; Mark judged the earliest source; broad acceptance of Q, and 2-source hypothesis
form criticism focus: the apostles and their preaching	pioneered by Bultmann (This History of the Synoptic Tradition 1931) & Dibelius (From Tradition to Gospel 1919)	history of the Jesus tradition as handed on in the apostolic churches "In the beginning was the sermon. . ."	1. Quest for the historical Jesus is impossible 2. The Early Church is all we can safely know. 3. And this is a very valuable contribution	particular attention to the development of Jesus' titles given him in his life and in the preaching of the Early Church	Mark unreliable as historical source: the narrative sequence is his own invention; Wrede's observation about the 'messianic secret' and the cover-up by the apostles)
2^nd quest for the historical Jesus	Nils A. Dahl and Ernst Käsemann (1950. . .)	Focus on episodes in the life of Jesus with significance for establishing histo-rical claims; e.g. title on cross	Primary value given to any event of Jesus' life which could be shown to be historical		Great attention to Jesus' death
redaction criticism focus: 1 Jesus, but many gospels; study of each evangelist	Willi Marxsen and Norman Perrin (1960-80)	recovery of the point of view if the evan-gelist; value and worth to his "theo-logy" or point of view	Value now placed on evangelist's "theo-logy"	a full portrait of Jesus by the evange-list adapted vis-a-vis his commu-nity and its social/ historical context	Focus on evangelists' own vision, style, social context, pet vocabulary, narrative aim, etc. The Day of the Evangelist!
social-science criticism focus: what is typical of the culture; a reading scenario adequate to peasant life	Chicago School (1920s) Meeks, Elliott, Malina (1989-2000)	Meaning of language encoded in the social system; crosscultural models offer solid reading scenarios	Fresh take on values, institutions, modal personality, economy, rituals and ceremonies which best fit Jesus in his cultural world	not an historical reconstruction of Jesus, but a cultural portrait of what was typical, which allows him to be fully of his cultural world; strong group/weak grid	Focus on Jesus the Peasant; his concerns are those of agri-culture, village life, peasant values. Kin-ship and honor are paramount matters
3^rd Quest for the historical Jesus	Jesus Seminar (1986-200?) Crossan, Borg, Wright, Meier	rigorous historical reconstruction; but little attention to culture; viewpoint of individual scholar plays large role; criteria not argued	continuation of the Enlightment search for historical certainty	more successful with logia than deeds; em-phasis on parables. Q material contri-butes much; strange interest in Sepphoris Cynics	As many portraits of Jesus as there are scholars writing.

Among non-literate people (only 2-4% could read or write in agrarian societies), communication is basically by word-of-mouth. Where reputation (honor-status) is concerned, gossip informed the community about (and validated) on-going gains and losses, thereby providing a guide to proper social interaction. Its effects could be both positive (confirm honor, spread reputation, shape and guide public interaction) and negative (undermine others), though overall it tended to maintain the status quo by highlighting deviation. In antiquity gossip was primarily associated with women whose role it was to monitor social behavior. To do that well was one thing, though ancient condemnations are frequent of women whose uncontrolled tongues were seen to provoke ill-will and discord and thereby upset stability in the community. Because children (both male and female) were allowed in the women's quarters or other places off limits to some adults, they were frequently the chief purveyors of what they heard and saw throughout the village.

Ancient peoples were strongly group-oriented, not individualists as are known and celebrated in the modern world. They are always known as the "son of so-and-so" or the "wife of so-and-so" or the "daughter of so-and-so." When they are introduced, it is common to learn of their clan or ethnic group (a Benjaminite; an Ishmaelite; a Cretan). Their social status is often signaled by note of their father's trade or their position in Temple or Palace or some other status label. In short, they are know in terms of stereotypes.

Group-oriented persons are socialized from birth to know the ways and customs of their group and to live up to these expectations. Thus they constantly seek to know what others think about them or expect of them, so as to know what they should do. Failure to live up to the group's expectations results in "shame" (see honor and shame).

Group-oriented persons thus have a shared conscience. The very word "conscience" means knowledge shared with others (Latin con = with; scientia = knowledge; Greek syn = with; eidesis = knowledge). Hence, individual persons are schooled to know and respect group values and norms, and thus to measure themselves in terms of these. The ideal son is one who "learns discipline" from his father and uncles, and thus internalizes the group expectations. Thus his conscience is their conscience. It should come as no surprise that the virtues most valued in this configuration are obedience and fidelity (to family and clan laws and expectations).

Group-oriented persons are socialized to know the norms and customs of its social world through the endless proverbs and maxims which are taught. Individual members are thus taught the "traditions of the elders" and so past examples of heroes and past stories of ideal behavior serve to orient individuals to know and emulate the great figures of their past. It follows that what is "new" and different will not be thought well of, for this may clash with tradition and custom.

Group-oriented persons will canonize the notion of "common good," in which all individuals contribute to the maintenance of the collective. Illustrative of this are the descriptions from ancient writers comparing the social or political body with the physical body. For example, "If, now, these parts of the human body should be endowed, each for itself, with perception and a voice of its own and a sedition should arise among them, all of them uniting against the belly alone, and the feet should say that the whole body rests on them; the hands, that they ply the crafts, secure provisions, fight with enemies, and contribute many other advantages toward the common good. . .and then all these should say to the belly, 'And you, good creature, which of these things do you do? What return do you make and of what use are you to us? Indeed, you are so far from doing anything for us or assisting us in accomplishing anything useful for the common good that you are actually a hindrance and a trouble to us and - a thing intolerable - compel us to serve you and to bring things to you from everywhere for the gratification of your desires. Come now, why do we not assert our liberty and free ourselves from the many troubles we undergo for the sake of this creature?' If, I say, they should decide upon this course and none of the parts should any longer perform its office, could the body possibly exist for any considerable time, and not rather be destroyed in a few days by the worst of all deaths, starvation? No one can deny it. (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 6.86.2-3).

Consider the following citation from Josephus, a first-century Judean. Identify for yourself here the elements of a group-oriented person:

Our sacrifices are not occasions for drunken self-indulgence - such practices are abhorrent to God - but for sobriety. At these sacrifices prayers for the welfare of the community must take precedence over those for ourselves; for we are born for fellowship, and he who sets its claims above his private interests is especially acceptable to God (Apion 2.195-96).

In contemporary American culture when someone asks, "Who are you?", we immediately assume the questioner wants to know how the person being questioned differs from all other individuals. That is because Americans see each individual as bounded and unique, a more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, and dynamic center of awareness and judgment that is set over against other such individuals and interacts with them. This sort of individualism has been and is extremely rare in the world's cultures and is certainly absent from the New Testament.

In the world of the New Testament, when someone asked, "Who are you?", they normally expected to hear some kind of group-identifier like "son of Joseph from Nazareth" (John 1:45) or "descendants (sperma) of Abraham" (John 8:33). That is because they always saw every person as deeply embedded in a group. They therefore assumed that identity is possible only in relation to the others who form this group. For most people this was the family, and it meant that individuals neither acted nor thought of themselves as persons independent of the family group. What one member of the family was, every member of the family was -- psychologically as well as every other way. Mediterranean persons are thus what anthropologists call "dyadic," or "collectivist," that is, they are "other-oriented" people who depend on ingroup others to provide them with a sense of who they are. Consider the following chart of comparisons between individualistic (weak group) and collectivist (dyadic or strong group) persons:

COLLECTIVIST

INDIVIDUALIST

1. Much concern about the effect of one's decision on one's present standing and future chances.

1. Little concern about the effect of one's decision upon others (beyond friends and nuclear family).

2. Persons are prepared to share material resources with group members.

2. Those who are not part of the nuclear family are expected to provide their own material resources.

3. Persons are ready to share less tangible resources with groups members, e.g. giving up some interesting activity for group ends.

3. Generally a person is not expected to and will not share less tangible resources with others, often not even with nuclear family (e.g. time to watch week-end football game).

4. Persons are willing to adopt the opinions of others, especially those considered of high esteem in the wider group

4. Persons are expected to form their own opinion on a range of issues, especially politics, religion and sex. Expert opinion accepted only in law and health, and this only for oneself and nuclear family.

5. Persons are constantly concerned about self-presentation and loss of face, since these reflect upon the group and one's position in the group.

5. Unless others are involved in one's goals, there is little concern about one's impression on others. Embarrassment affects the individual (and at times, the nuclear family), but not any group at large.

6. Persons believe, feel and experience and interconnectedness with the whole group, so that positive and negative behavior redounds to the group.

6. Individualists act as though insulated from others; what they do is not perceived to affect others, and what others do does not affect them.

7. Persons sense themselves to be intimately involved in the life of other group members, to make a contribution to the life of others in the group

7. The individualist's life is segmented. Persons feel involved in the life of very few people, and when they are, it is in a very specific way (e.g. the teacher, the lawyer, the physician, etc.).

8. In sum, collectivist people have concern for all ingroup members. There is a sense of oneness with other ingroup persons, a perception of complex ties and relationships and a tendency to keep other people in mind. The root of this concern is group integrity.

8. In sum individualist people have concern largely for themselves and nuclear family. They are insulated from other people, sense themselves independent of and unconnected to others, and tend to think of self-reliance alone.

Thus it is important to identify whether someone is "of Nazareth," "of Tarsus," or wherever. Encoded in these labels is all the information needed to rank any person properly on the prevailing scale of social statuses. Honor and Shame, 5:31-47. With this information people knew how to interact properly with each other.

Groups: a collection of persons with a feeling of common identity, goals and norms.

Associations: a collection of persons who not only share common interests and activities but also have deliberately organized for some specific purpose(s). As such, associations have established rules of organization and procedure and established patterns of leadership.

Schools: many philosophical schools share these characteristic: (1) they were groups of disciples which usually emphasized philia and koinonia; (2) they gathered around and traced their origin to, a founder whom they regarded as an exemplary, wise, or good man; (3) they valued the teachings of their founder and the traditions about him; (4) members of the schools were disciples or students of the founder; (5) teaching, learning, studying and writing were common activities; (6) most schools observed communal meals, often in memory of their founders; (7) they had rules and practices regarding admission, retention of membership, and advancement within the membership; (8) they often maintained some degree of distance or withdrawal from the rest of society; and (9) they developed organizational means of insuring their perpetuity (Culpepper, The Johannine School, 258-59). [“A clear distinction was made between “friends” (philoi) or associate members of the group and those who were “devotees” (gnorimoi) or part of the inner circle close to Epicurus or his successors”]

Voluntary Associations: Professional associations or guilds were made up of artisans or manual laborers (guild for almost every profession: leather-workers, purple-dyers, bakers, tanners, silversmiths, etc; the same for entertainers and musicians). (1) central communality was the occupation of the members; (2) each claimed the patronage of a deity, who was invoked at its meeting, and honored with festivals and other rituals; (3) generally small in size (15 - 100, with notable exceptions); (4) social status was pegged to the statue the profession enjoyed in the elaborate honor pyramid in the city; (5) as a highly structured culture, each profession would have had its place within the social stratification of the day; (6) each was gender-exclusive, because the trade or profession was gender specific; (7) associations models themselves on the prevailing civic structures, using civic titles such as phyle, hetairia, kollegion, synedrion, synodos, ekklesia, and politeuma (e.g. guild of silversmiths in Acts19:32 is called an ekklesia); (8) founders of the association acted as patrons, presiding over the meetings, and exercising much control: (9) internal hierarchy: degree of hierarchy in so far as there are levels of leadership and honors to which members may aspire; (10) titles for functionaries within the group are vast: “priest” or “priestess” (for those responsible for the cult), “treasurer” (for person who oversaw collection and disbursement of funds), “secretary” (for person who recorded minutes and insured that inscriptions were commissioned), “manager,” “examiner”; the leader of the group could be called “father,” “mother,” “leader,” “patron” or “episkopos” (who often was the financial officer, a cult functionary, and a person who oversaw the honorific matters of the association) and “diakonos” (more than a mere table server).

(11) Associations, despite the liberal use of friendship, experienced at times disturbances such as: “disorderliness,” taking another’s seat, insulting another member (or the member’s mother), physically abusing another; (12) punishments might include: fines, flogging, restrictions from the associations rituals, temporary expulsion, or final loss of membership.

(13) Actual Rules for a Voluntary Association: “The Guild of Zeus Hypsistos”:

The law which those of the association of Zeus the highest made in common, that it should be authoritative. Acting in accordance with its provisions, they first chose as their president Petesouchos, the son of Teephbennis, a man of parts, worthy of that place and of the company, for a year from the month and day aforesaid, that he should make for all the contributors one banquet a month in the sanctuary of Zeus, at which they should in a common room pouring libations, pray, and perform the other customary rites on behalf of the god and lord, the king. All are to obey the president and his servant in matters pertaining to the corporation, and they shall be present at all command occasions to be prescribed for them and at meetings and assemblies and outings. It should not be permissible for any one of them to make factions or to leave the brotherhood of the president for another, or for men to enter into another’s pedigrees at the banquet or to abuse one another at the banquet or to chatter or to indict or accuse another or to resign for the course of the year or again to bring the drinkings to naught (Arthur Darby Nock, Harvard Theological Review 29 [1936] 39-40).

In the contemporary world we view disease as a malfunction of the organism which can be remedied, assuming cause and cure are known, by proper biomedical treatment. We focus on restoring a sick person's ability to function, to do. Yet often overlooked is the fact that health and sickness are culturally defined, and that in the ancient Mediterranean being was more important than doing. The healers of that world thus focused on restoring a person to a valued state of being rather than an ability to function.

Anthropologists thus distinguish between disease - a biomedical malfunction - and illness - a disvalued state of being in which social networks have been disrupted and meaning lost. Illness is not so much a biomedical matter as it is a social one. It is attributed to social, not physical causes. Thus sin and sickness go together. Illness is a matter of deviance from cultural norms and values.

In our society, a leper may be unable to function. In ancient Palestine, a leper was unclean and to be excluded from the community. The blind, lame, malformed and those with itching scabs, crushed testicles or injured limbs were not permitted to draw near the altar (Lev. 21:16-14). What is described in the New Testament, therefore, is not so much diseases as illnesses: abnormal socio-cultural human conditions, some of which would have had a basis in a physical condition (blindness) and others which did not (the inability or refusal to see or understand a teaching).

Since people in antiquity had little knowledge of cause-effect relationships, hence little understanding of the biomedical causes of disease, healers focused on symptoms rather than causes. Professional healers, physicians, are referred to infrequently in the New Testament (Mk. 2:17 and par.; 5:26; Lk. 4:23; 8:43; Col. 4:14), mostly in proverbial sayings common in non-Christian literature. Folk healers were more commonly available to peasants and Jesus appears as such in the Gospels: he is a spirit-filled prophet who vanquishes unclean spirits and a variety of illnesses and restores people to their place in the community. Such folk healers accept all symptoms as important (See Lk. 8:26-33) and see a direct relation between symptoms and belief systems (Lk. 13:16). A refocusing of one's meaning in life (metanoia) is essential to healing illness. Community acceptance of a folk healer's actions is essential (Cf. Lk. 7:16; 9:8,l9; 14:19) and would be a matter of public comment (Lk. 11:15; Mt. 9:34. See also Lk. 8:37 where the community prefers that the folk healer go elsewhere.). See Folk Healers

Unlike our western guilt-oriented society, the pivotal value of the Mediterranean society of the first century was honor-shame. As in the traditional middle-eastern society of today, so also in biblical times honor (sharaf, in Arabic) meant everything, including survival. The Hebrew word often translated "honor," comes from a root meaning to be heavy, weighty or important. Time is similarly used in Greek, though the more common designation is . (Note Romans 12:10 where Paul admonishes Christians to outdo one another in showing honor.)

Honor can be understood as the status one claims in the community together with the all-important recognition of that claim by others. It thus serves as an indicator of social standing, enabling persons to interact with their social superiors, equals and inferiors in certain ways presecribed by society.

Honor can be ascribed or acquired. Ascribed honor derives from birth: being born into an honorable family makes one honorable in the eyes of the entire community. Acquired honor, by contrast, is the result of skill in the never-ending game of challenge and response. Not only must one win to gain it, one must do so in public because the whole community must acknowledge the gain. To claim honor the community does not recognize is to play the fool. Since honor is a limited good, if one person wins honor, someone else loses. Envy is thus institutionalized and subjects anyone seeking to outdo his neighbors to hostile gossip and the pressure to share.

Challenges to one's honor could be positive or negative. Giving a gift is a positive challenge and requires reciprocation in kind. An insult is a negative challenge that likewise cannot be ignored. The game of challenge and response (See the Cameo Essay on Challenge-Riposte, 4:1-11) is deadly serious and can literally be a matter of life and death. It must be played in every area of life and every person in a village watches to see how each family defends and maintains its position.

Since the honor of one's family determines potential marriage partners, with whom you can do business, what functions you can attend, where you can live, and even what religious role you can play, it must be defended at all costs. The smallest slight or injury must be avenged or honor is permanently lost. Moreover, because the family is the basic unit in traditional societies rather than the individual, having a "blackened face" (wajh, in Arabic), as middle-eastern villagers call it, can destroy the well-being of an entire kin group.

It also is important not to misunderstand the notion of "shame." One can be shamed, which is to have lost honor. To have shame is another matter. It can be understood as sensitivity for one's own reputation (honor) or the reputation of one's family. It is sensitivity to the opinions of others and is therefore a positive quality. Women usually played this shame role in agrarian societies, meaning they were the ones expected to have this sensitivity in a special way and to teach it to their children. People without shame, without this needed sensitivity to what is going on, make fools of themselves in public. Note the lament in Job 14:21 that a man's

"...sons come to honor and he does not know it, they are brought low, and he perceives it not."

Perceiving status is as important as having it. Certain people, such as prostitutes, tavern-owners or actors were considered irreversibly shameless in antiquity because they did not possess this sensitivity. They did not respect the boundaries or norms of the honor system and thus threatened social chaos.

Of special importance is the sexual honor of a woman. While male honor is flexible and can sometimes be regained, female honor is absolute and once lost is gone forever. It is the emotional-conceptual counterpart of virginity and any sexual offense on a woman's part, however slight, would destroy not only her own honor, but that of all males in her paternal kin group as well. Interestingly, it is not so much her husband as her father and brothers whom she can damage and it is they who must defend (to the death) her honor even after she has married.

Aristotle: citizen to the polis; and parallel or analogous to the polis – the household:

“Now that it is clear what are the components of the state, we have first of all to discuss household management (oÆ6@ <@:4"); for every state is composed of households. Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children. We wought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership (*,FB@J460), that of marriage ((":460) . . .and thirdly the progenitive relationship (J,6<@B@4,J460).” Politics1. 1125b 1-14).

Ideology is "an integrated system of beliefs, assumptions and values, not necessarily true or false, which reflects the needs and interests of a group or class at a particular time in history. Because ideologies are modes of consciousness, containing the criteria for interpreting social reality they help to define as well as to legitimate collective needs and interests. Hence there is a continuous interaction between ideology and material forces of history" (J.H. Elliott, Home for the Homeless. 1981:12). Let us define it as a set of values, attitudes, interests and modes of perception and evaluation that is shared, normally unawares, by a given group to set itself off from other groups and to make sense of its experiences. Ideology is often defended against outsiders. When it needs to be defended to insiders, the group is in process of dissolution. (See also David Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution 1770-1823. Ithaca: Cornell U. Press. 1974. p. 14)

2.0 Operative and Descriptive Definitions (Ideology compared: Malina, COCA 112-115)

Value: human beings generally share and live up to expectations about the general direction of the flow of actions, expectations usually realized in a given collectivist. The ordinary name for the general direction of the flow of action, a direction socially expected and usually pursued in the group, is value (Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 112).

Core Value: the general target, goal, end, or purpose that holds an entire society together in its varied and manifold interactions (Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 112)

Instrumental activism is the goal or target that directs the U.S. mainstream population, in general and individually, to attempt actively to master and control the environment as a main concern. This attempt at mastering the environment encompasses all the concrete and concretely experienced situations in which a person might find himself or herself.

This core value is often articulated, expressed, and explained in more specific values or norms in order to give mean to the activity of the group and to mark off the group from other groups. Such an articulation of the group's core value is called an ideology.

Given the U.S. core value of instrumental activism, the ideological expression of this value might be called technologism, the belief that pragmatic control of the environment is the defining characteristic of a meaningful human existence. Thus what is typical of the flow of human interaction in the U.S. is the active mastery and control of the environment -- nature, time, space, and other individuals, and other societies. While core values mark off the ends or goals of a society, there are more specific societal values, replicating the core values, that look to more limited pieces of behavior. For example, the U.S. general value of instrumental activism is replicated in the specific values of "democracy" which facilitates individual instrumental mastery. Such "democracy" implies free enterprise, equal opportunity, individual self-determinism, and individual franchise (Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 112-113).

Core Value: past-direct activism the goal or target that directed Romans in general and individually actively to live up to and at least to match the deeds of their ancestors, the founders of Roman society ("founder" in Latin is "acutor," "growth giver"). Romans were taught to live with the burden of the past on their shoulders. Whatever was best or whatever was noblest and true was already lived out and achieved by the ancestors of a given Roman generation. Thus the individual and society as a whole in this strong group script could only live up to the greatness of the past. By commonly held presuppositions, this past could never really be equaled or surpassed. The greatness of the past was replicated and symboled in the elders of society, the people who, as they grew older, visibly moved closer to the great past. The elders were maiores natu, greater by birth and proximity to the truly great ones. The typical Roman ideological articulation of this value was auctoritas (often poorly translated as "authority"). The word means "authorization by the past," by the glorious tradition...Thus in the Roman system, anything that was demonstrably old was automatically good and certainly better than anything present that did not repeat the past. Any course of action in the present had to match expectations set by the glorious past and be justified in terms of models deriving from the past. COCA 113-114

Core Value: personal limitlessness ...to discover effective ways to overcome human finitude and limitation especially by means of virtual or actual forms of deification. The Greek tradition of divine and half-divine, the heroes, produced a plethora of such persons in the Hellenistic world. (Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 114)

Core Value: interpersonal contentment...to acquiesce in human finitude and limitation and yet to strive to achieve a genuinely human existence, finite and free. Thus while Romans sought to live up to the expectations of their ancestors and called upon ancestral divinities to help them in this endeavor and while Hellenists sought to be filled with the infinity of God, Jews sought only the enabling help of God to become what they were meant to be--limited, finite, free human beings (Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 114)

While evidence about inheritance practices is not altogether clear, the following text from the Mishnah may illustrate the situation behind the parable:

If one assign in writing his property to his children, he must write, "from today and after [my] death." ... If one assign in writing his estate to his son [to become his] after his death, the father cannot sell it since it is conveyed to his son, and the son cannot sell it because it is under his father's control.... The father may pluck up [produce] and feed it to whomsoever he pleases, but whatever he left plucked up belongs to his heirs. (m. Baba Bathra 8,7)

The text then explains that this refers to a healthy person who wishes to retain the produce of the land during his lifetime. A later Talmudic commentary (b. Baba Metzia, 75b) explains that this situation might occur if a man wished to protect the inheritance rights of the sons of a first marriage (See Sir. 33:19-23 for a skeptical view of the wisdom of such action), however no known text implies that a son can ask for the inheritance on his own initiative.

Nor is there any precedent for the right of disposal during the father's lifetime. As a number of scholars have noted, the implication is that the younger son wishes his father dead. It should be noted that the elder son also receives his double share (Deut. 21:17) of the inheritance while the father is still alive ("And he divided his living between them."). Nonetheless the father has retained control of produce of the property as the Mishnaic rule provides - as his actions later in the parable make clear.

The fact that Joseph comes to Bethlehem to be enrolled may imply that he had land (hence family) there, since enrollment was for land-taxation purposes. If so, he would have been obligated to stay with family, not in a commercial inn. Moreover, being a small village only a two-hour walk from Jerusalem, Bethlehem almost certainly had no commercial inns anyway. If close family was not available, mention of Joseph's lineage would have resulted in immediate village recognition that he belonged and space in a home would have been made available.

While the Greek word in 2:7, , can mean "inn," its normally refers to a large furnished room and is best translated "guest room." Its only other use in the New Testament is in the story of the last supper (Mk. 14:14; Lk. 22:11) where it is translated "upper room." The normal word for a commercial inn was (Lk. 10:34), a place that "receives all." The fact that there was no "place" for Joseph and Mary in the guest room of the home probably meant that it was already occupied by someone who socially outranked them.

In the NRSV and a number of other English translations this verse is translated: "...when the Jews sent priests and Levites." That is unfortunate since meanings derive from the social system of the reader/speaker, and modern readers will think John makes reference to those persons whom readers today know from their experience to be Jews. The fact is, from a religious point of view, all modern Jews belong to traditions developed largely after the time of Jesus and compiled in the Babylonian Talmud (sixth century A.D.). As for ethnic origin, Central European Jews (called Ashkenazi Jews) largely trace their origin to Turkic and Iranians ancestor who comprised the Khazar empire, and converted to Judaism in the eighth century A.D. (Encyclopedia Britannica 15^th ed. Micropaedia, V:788; on the Internet: www.khazaria.com). Thus given the sixth century A.D. origin of all forms of contemporary Jewish religion, and given the U.S. experience of Jews based largely on Central European Jews, themselves originating from eighth century A.D. converts, it would be quite anachronistic to identify any modern Jews with the "Judeans" mentioned in John's Gospel or the rest of the New Testament.

Both here and in all of the 69 other instances in John where the term "Judeans" (Greek: Ioudaioi) appears, there is nothing of the modern connotations of "Jew" or "Jewishness." Hence it is simply inappropriate to project those modern meanings backward into the period when John was written. Rather "Judean" meant a person belonging to a group called "Judeans," situated geographically and forming a territory taking its name from its inhabitants, "Judea." Judea is precisely a group of people, "Judeans," organically related to and rooted in a place, with its distinctive environs, air and water. "Judean" thus designates a person from one segment of a larger related group, "Israel" (John 1:47,49), who comes from the place after which the segment is named, "Judea" (Ioudaia). The correlatives of "Judean" in John are "Galilean" and "Perean," and together they make up Israel. The customary ethnocentric opposite of Israel is non-Israel, the nations other than Israel, or simply, "the nations" or "Gentiles." (Note that in Josephus, Life, the word "Ioudaios" likewise always means "Judean" and refers to the people living in that territory to which it gives its name.)

Given the prominent role of the "Judeans" in John's Gospel, usually as opponents of Jesus, this is an important translation correction. The term "Ioudaios" (Judean), used either as a substantive or adjective, appears 70 times in John's Gospel. It is used only 5 times in Matthew, 6 times in Mark and 5 times in Luke. This striking contrast between John and the Synoptics, makes understanding the term critically important.

The territorial designation of "Judea" connoted different territories at different times in Israel's history and the use of it can be confusing. During the period of Persian rule it designated only the small area around Jerusalem since that is where all "Judeans" were to be found. Other members of the house of Israel were designated otherwise. Under the Maccabees , the term "Judea" was used to refer to the larger population which the Maccabees controlled. This population dwelt both in Jerusalem and environs, as well as in Samaria, Galilee, Idumea, the coastal plain (except Ashkelon) and much of Transjordan. Thus under the Maccabees, the number of "Judeans" grew appreciably.

In the Roman period, the Roman province of Syria-Palestina included Galilee, Samaria and Judea, which, along with Perea (the name Josephus gives to Transjordan), included the population controlled by Herod the Great under the title, "King of Judea". After the death of Herod, his son Archelaus became ethnarch of a Judea which included only the Jerusalem area, Idumea and Samaria. It excluded Galilee and Perea. When Archelaus was removed in 6 A.D., subsequent procurators governed only this same smaller area. Thus in Jesus' time Judea, Galilee and Perea constituted three population areas which together made up "house of Israel." On the other hand, other peoples of the Mediterranean called all members of the house of Israel, "Judeans," after the region in which the central place was located -- Jerusalem in Judea.

In sum, when the terms "Judea" or "Judean" are used in the Gospel of John, they should be understood as referring to the persons living in a territory located in the southern and western part of the Roman province of Syria-Palestine. Thus John notes correctly that the Judeans send priests and Levites from Jerusalem (1:19). The Passover of the Judeans was near so Jesus goes up to Jerusalem (2:13, 5:13, 6:4, 7:11, 11:55). A discussion arises between the disciples of John and a Judean (3:25). Judeans do not share things in common with Samaritans (4:9). Jesus goes about in Galilee where he is safe, but does not go about in Judea because the Judeans were trying to kill him (7:1). In 8:31 there are Judeans who initially believe in Jesus, but after the conversation deteriorates they decide Jesus is not really one of them. Hence he must be a Samaritan (8:48). In 10:31 and 11:8 we again learn that Judea is dangerous territory for Jesus, and in 20:19, following the crucifixion/resurrection, it will be a dangerous place for Jesus' followers as well. Judeans console Mary and Martha after the death of Lazarus (11:31), but after raising Lazarus, Jesus can no longer go around openly among Judeans so he retreats to the region near the wilderness of Judea (11:54). At the supper with his disciples, where he washes the disciples' feet, Jesus distinguishes between Judeans and his inner group (13:31). Jesus is arrested by the Judean police (18:12) and in the trial before Pilate he asks Jesus if he is king over the people and area governed by Pilate, namely, Judea (18:33). Jesus then makes it very clear to Pilate that his kingdom has nothing to do with Judean society (18:36), even though his tormentors taunt him with the mock title, "King of the Judeans" (19:3). The inscription over the cross (19:19) has in it a wonderful irony that would have rankled Jesus' Judean opponents: it spells out Jesus' identification as "Jesus of Nazareth." That is, Jesus, a Galilean, is being designated "King of the Judeans."

The fact that the author uses the term "Judean" to designate "others" suggests to some that the author himself was a Galilean . That may be true. In Syria-Palestine, the common ingroup name for members of the house of Israel was "Israel." When members of this ingroup sought to distance their own group from others in Israel, the distinction between Judea, Galilee and Perea came into play. However the common outgroup name for the house of Israel was "Judeans," largely perhaps due to the presence of the Temple of the God of Israel in Judea, along with the priesthood and traditional kingship. Now since "Judean" was not normally the way inhabitants of that geographical area referred to themselves (they were "Israelites"), but rather the way outsiders referred to them, the most we can say for certain is that by using this term for his opponents John strongly asserts their outsider status in relation to his anti-society. He and his group are not "Judeans," but those who are in opposition to In the NRSV and a number of other English translations this verse is translated: "...when the Jews sent priests and Levites." That is unfortunate since meanings derive from the social system of the reader/speaker, and modern readers will think John makes reference to those persons whom readers today know from their experience to be Jews. The fact is, from a religious point of view, all modern Jews belong to traditions developed largely after the time of Jesus and compiled in the Babylonian Talmud (sixth century A.D.). As for ethnic origin, Central European Jews (called Ashkenazi Jews) largely trace their origin to Turkic and Iranians ancestor who comprised the Khazar empire, and converted to Judaism in the eighth century A.D. (Encyclopedia Britannica 15^th ed. Micropaedia, V:788; on the Internet: www.khazaria.com). Thus given the sixth century A.D. origin of all forms of contemporary Jewish religion, and given the U.S. experience of Jews based largely on Central European Jews, themselves originating from eighth century A.D. converts, it would be quite anachronistic to identify any modern Jews with the "Judeans" mentioned in John's Gospel or the rest of the New Testament.

For most readers of the Bible in the U.S., the words "king" and "lord" are perhaps the most difficult New Testament words to appreciate. Most people today simply have no experience of persons embodying these social roles, much less of the social system that supports such roles.

For pre-Enlightenment people (before the 18th century A.D.), the king was the author and guarantor of the prosperity of his people -- if he follows the rules of justice and obeys divine commandments. Homer writes (Odyssey 19, 110ff): "A good basileus (king) who respects the gods, who lives according to justice, who reigns over numerous and valiant men, for him the black earth bears wheat and barley, the trees are laden with fruit, the flocks increase unceasingly, the sea yields fish, thanks to his good government, the people prosper under his rule." This points to the mystical and productive virtue of the king, whose proper function it was to promote fertility about him, both in animals and vegetables. Kings ensure prosperity on land and sea, with abundant fruit and fecund women. Thus subjects expected peace and prosperity, security and abundance, from their kings.

Defeat or calamity point to ritual death for a king. A Persian prayer from the period of Darius (d. 486 B.C.) states: "May Ahuramazda bring me help along with all the others gods and protect this land from the army of the enemy, from bad harvests, from the lie." This prayer alludes to the three divisions of society and what they do: the nobles and war, peasantry and cultivation of soil, the priesthood and religion. All three are to be guaranteed in their functions by the king who effects the defeat of enemies, prosperity of the country, triumph of the spirit of truthfulness in society.

Kings often held scepters. Originally the scepter derives from Hellenic culture where it was the staff of a messenger who traveled as authorized by someone in power in order to deliver a message. Thus the three qualities of the messenger were: traveler, with authority, and with something to tell. The king, as a worthy messenger of God(s), delivered his commands with divine authority.

A lord (Latin: dominus; Greek: kyrios; Semitic:adon or baal) is a person having the most complete power over persons and things. The lord is the absolute owner of all persons and things in his domain. He is a person who has the power to dispose of persons and things as he likes and who holds this power by a title recognized as valid (either by ad hoc force, custom or law). This is lordship (Greek: kyriotes, Latin: dominium). The lord was entitled to use any thing or person that was his, to enjoy all their products or properties, and to consume entirely whatever was capable of consumption.

Before the ruler of the polis (independent city) of Rome became dictator, the period of the so-called "principate," Rome had both a magistrate and an imperator. The magistrate was a person who represents the law of a polis, who says what the law is and who has the power to employ the force the polis places at his disposal to administer justice. He thus is invested with legal authority and the sanctions to exercise that authority. The imperator (emperor) on the other hand was a person with the power of using the public forces to insure obedience to his orders.

With the coming of the imperial system, the principate, the ruler of Rome was in effect lord of the Roman domain, king of the oikoumene (the inhabited earth), magistrate of the Roman people. The title "emperor" (Latin: imperator) means military commander, general. The emperor was in fact a commander-in-chief, and the empire was a command-in-chiefdom, marked by the presence of the Roman military throughout the inhabited earth. The personal name of Julius "Caesar" was taken to bundle all of the qualities of king and lord together in a single commander-in-chief of the oikoumene.

Note, for example, the lists in Lev. 18:6-18 and 20:11-21. By New Testament times these had become lists of prohibited marriage partners. They include a variety of in-laws for whom we do not prohibit marriage today (Eg., see Mark 6:18). Moreover, for us marriage is generally neo-local (a new residence is established by the bride and groom) and exogamous (outside the kin group). In antiquity it was patrilocal (the bride moved in with her husband's family) and endogamous (marrying as close to the conjugal family as incest laws permitted). Cross-cousin marriages on the paternal side of the family were the ideal and genealogies always followed the paternal line of descent.

Since marriages were fundamentally the fusion of two extended families, the honor of each family played a key role. Marriage contracts negotiated the fine points and insured balanced reciprocity. Defensive strategies were used to prevent loss of males (and females as well whenever possible) to another family. Since the family was the producing unit of antiquity (the consuming unit in our society), the loss of a member through marriage required compensation in the form of a bride price. By far the strongest unit of loyalty was the descent group of brothers and sisters and it was here, rather than between husband and wife, that the strongest emotional ties existed.

Socially and psychologically, all family members were embedded in the family unit. Our individualism simply did not exist. The public role was played by the males on behalf of the whole unit, while females played the private, internal role that often including management of the family purse. Females not embedded in a male (widows, divorcees) were women without honor and often viewed as more male than female by the society. (Note the attitude toward widows in I Tim. 5:3-16.)

Then, too, there are a good many degrees of closeness or remoteness in human socity. To proceed beyond the universal bond of our common humanity, there is the closer one of belonging to the same people [gentis], tribe [nationis], and tongue [linguae] by which men are very closely bounded together; it is a still closer relation to be citizens of the same city-state [civitatis]; for fellow-citizens have much in common - forum, temples, colonnades, streets, statutes, laws, courts, rights of suffrage, to say nothing of social and friendly circles and diverse business relations with many.

But a still closer social union exists between kindred [propinquorum]. Starting with that infinite bond of union of the human race in general, the conception is now confined to a small and narrow circle. For since the reproductive instinct is by nature's gift the most common possession of all living creatures, the first bond of union is that between husband and wife, the next, that between parents and children; they we find one home, with everything in common. And this is the foundation of the civil government, the nursery, as it were, of the state. Then follow the bonds between brothers and sisters, and next those of first and then of second cousins; and when they can no longer be sheltered under one roof, they go out into other homes, as into colonies. Then follow between these, in turn, marriages and connections by marriage, and from these again a new stock of relations; and from this propagation and after-growth states have their beginnings. The bonds of common blood hold men fast through good-will and affection; for it means much to share in common the same family traditions, the same forms of worship, and the same ancestral tombs.

But of all the bonds, there is none more noble, morepowerful than when good men of congenial character are joined in intimate friendship; for really, if we discover in another that moral goodness on which I dwell so much, it attracts us and makes us friends to the one in whose character it seems to dwell. And while every virtue attracts us and makes us love those who seem to possess it, still justice and generosity do so most of all. Nothing, moreover, is more conducive to love and intimacy than compatibility of character in good men; for when two people have the same ideals and the same tastes, it is a natural consequence that each loves the other as himself; and the result is, as Pythagoras requires of ideal friendship, that several are united in one

Another strong bond of friendship is effected by mutual interchange of kind services; and as long as these kindnesses are mutual and acceptable, those between whom they are interchanged are united by the ties of an enduring intimacy (Cicero, De Officiis 1.17)

Variables

1^st Century Judean

20^th Century U.S.A.

Family Form

Endogamous Community

(multi generational)

Absolute Nuclear

(dual-generational)

Spousal Choice

Controlled by

custom and parents

Free Choice

by couple

Marriage Strategy

Endogamous

(Ideal)

Exogamous

(Required by law)

Wedding

Endowment

Formal:

Dowry, Indirect Dowry

and Bridewealth

Informal:

Family gifts

Post-Marital

Residence

Patrilocal

(with groom's parents)

Neolocal

(New household)

Cohabitation of Married

Sons with Parents

Yes

Economic Function

Producing and Consuming

Unit

Consuming Unit

Geographical and

Social

Mobility

Severely restricted, thus

closed networks

Limited restrictions, thus

open networks

Inheritance Distribution

Oldest son: double

other sons: single

daughters: dowries

no inheritance rules

There is but a single lamb in all creation that merits the title "Lamb of God," and that is the constellation labeled "Aries" by the Latins. In the book of Revelation, this constellation is directly identified as "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David" (Rev 5:5), that is, the Messiah of Israel. The same is true here in John's Gospel, where John the Prophet identifies Jesus as Lamb of God (1:29, 36), and his disciples conclude he is Israel's Messiah (1:40).

In spite of its later Roman name, the constellation called Aries the Ram was originally considered to be a male lamb. The ancient Phoenician name for Aries, evidenced in Tyre about 1200 B.C., was Teleh, "male lamb, young ram." The Latin and Greek names of this constellation (Latin: Aries, from Greek Ares, lamb; and Greek: Krion both used to mean "ram") are rather recent. The traditional name of this zodiacal being (Phoenician: Teleh, Hebrew: Tale', Arabic: Al-Hamal) was "Male Lamb." In the most ancient representations of the sky, Aries was always pictured as a male lamb with a "reverted" head, that is as facing directly over its back to Taurus. Thus Manilius describes Aries in his poem: "Resplendent in his golden fleece, first place holder Aries looks backward admiringly at Taurus rising" (Manilius Astronomica 1.263-264, LCL). Only a being with a broken neck could have its head turned directly backwards as the celestial Aries does; and yet it remains standing in spite of the broken neck. Clearly, Aries was an obvious choice to be perceived in terms of the Messiah-Jesus group' story according to which God's Lamb was slaughtered yet continues to stand (as in Rev 5).

This label for the constellation was adopted by Second Temple Israel. It was used by Pharisees for this constellation according to Epiphanius (Panarion 16.2.1). Naturally in later Talmudic zodiacs the constellation in question was always called Tale', meaning "male lamb, young ram; young man." Arab astronomers maintained this Semitic designation, naming the constellation Al-Hamal, "the young ram." Given this tradition, it is no surprise that the cosmic Lamb behaves like a young ram. The Greeks had little difficulty in identifying Aries with a young ram. Lucian has one of a pair of contending brothers behave as follows: "Thyestes then indicated and explained (semenamenos) to them the Ram (krion) in the sky, because of which they mythologize that Thyestes had a golden Lamb (arna) (On Astrology 12, Loeb V, 356).

It is important to note that Aries is the first created cosmic being, the first constellation in the zodiac, the center and head of the cosmos as the astronomers say. Nigidius Figulus, first century A.D., calls Aries "the leader and prince of the constellations"; the Scholia in Aratum 545, relates that "the Egyptians [Nechepso-Petosiris] say Aries is the head"; while Nonnos says that Aries "is the center of the whole cosmos, the central navel of Olympus"; Vettius Valens, Rhetorios and Firmicus Maternus are quite similar.

Thus Aries is the leader of the stars of the ecliptic: "The Wool-Bearer leads the signs for his conquest of the sea" (Manilius, Astronomica 2.34, LCL). According to astronomical lore that focused on the zodiac and its ecliptic belt, at the beginning of the universe Aries stood in mid-sky (Greek: mesouranema, is an astronomic technical term), that is at the "head" of the cosmos, at the summit of it all. For example, Firmicus Maternus writes:

We must now explain why they began the twelve signs with Aries. . . . In the chart of the universe which we have said was invented by very learned men, the mid-sky is found to be in Aries. This is because frequently -- or rather, always -- in all charts, the mid-sky holds the principal place, and from this we deduce the basis of the whole chart, especially since most of the planets and the luminaries -- the Sun and the Moon -- send their influence toward this sign (Mathesis III, 1, 17-18, trans. Rhys Bram 75).

Ancient Israel likewise recognized the prominence of Aries in its original New Year celebration connected with its foundational event, the Exodus (Exod 12:2: the Exodus occurs in the first month of the year). And the ritual marking the Exodus involved a male lamb, replicating springtime Aries itself. The point, of course, is that the Lamb of God is a celestial entity. The new feature in John's Gospel is that John the Baptist identifies Jesus of Nazareth as this celestial entity, the Lamb of God.

A final point. This Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world (vs. 29). How is this done? Once more, it was common ancient lore that when the vault of the sky returns to the position it had at the very time of creation, it will be with the Lamb at the point of preeminence, the head of the cosmos. And such a return to beginnings was expected (in the block below, we quote Cicero as but a single example; the book of Revelation is well-known). By ushering in a new created order, with a new sky and a new land, the cosmic Lamb of God does away with everything that preceded. All previous accounts are set aside, it is a new beginning. The sin of the world, ways of living that disgrace or dishonor God, cease to be. The Lamb of God thus takes away the sin of the world just as light does away with darkness, just as life does away with death.

For people commonly measure the year by the circuit of the sun, that is, of a single star alone; but when all the stars return to the place from which they at first set forth, and, at long intervals, restore the original configuration of the whole sky, then that can truly be called a revolving year. . . I hardly dare to say how many generations of men are contained within such a year; for as once the sun appeared to men to be eclipsed and blotted out, at the time when the soul of Romulus entered these regions, so when the sun shall again be eclipsed at the same point and in the same season, you may believe that all the planets and stars have returned to their original positions, and that a year has actually elapsed. (Cicero The Republic VI, xxii, 24).

In the symbolic world of Israel, the bread of Passover was consumed unleavened; the travel constraint during the Exodus from Egypt [no time for leavened bread] came to symbolize the transition of Israel, not just from slavery to freedom, but from uncleanness to holiness. Hence, at Passover time, they celebrated the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This meant that an observant family scoured the house and removed from it all leavened bread, which was burned outside. Hence the Passover was celebrated in purity, that is, in a state of un-leavenedness (1 Cor 5:6-8). It helps us to understand the Israelite interpretation of leaven = unclean to realize what effect leaven has on flour: it causes it to change its shape (too much) and to put out an foul odor, associated with something corrupt. Note the remark of Plutarch: "For the leaven itself is generated out of corruption and when mixed (with flour) corrupts the mass, for it (the mass) becomes slack and powerless and in general the leavened thing appears to be putrid; then, increasing, it becomes sour and corrupts the flour" (Qu. Rom. 289F). Similarly, Plutarch records, "People say, too, that flour rises better at the time of the full moon; indeed, leavening is much the same process as putrefaction, and if the proper time limit be ignored, leavening in making dough porous and light produces the same decomposition in the end" (Quaes. Conviv. 659B)

For the ancient Mediterranean, light was the presence of light, and darkness was the presence of darkness. That is, both light and darkness were positive entities, having no relationship to any source of light or darkness other than themselves. Thus the sun did not "cause" daylight nor did the moon or stars "cause" light at night. Day and night were simply the structured framework in which the sun and moon operated.

Likewise, while the sun and moon marked the changing of the seasons, they had no influence on the seasons any more than they influenced day or night. The relative darkness of winter was due to the cloudy sky, not to the low path of the sun. In fact the sun was noted for its warmth rather than its light. Light was present due to the presence of light itself, not the presence of the sun. This meant that the onset of celestial light over the land was the dawn and the coming of celestial darkness over the land was dusk (not sunrise and sunset).

In the story of creation, the creation of light set light itself apart from pre-existing darkness, just as the creation of land (earth) set it apart from ever-present water (Gen. 1). Note that light (day) was created before the sun and night before the moon. Dawn (morning) and dusk (evening) occur independently of the sun as well. The presence of light and land (earth) allowed for the coming of earthlings. Earthlings, human and otherwise, are created from earth, animated with the breath of life (Gen. 2:7), and endowed with the light of life (Psa. 56:14; Job 33:30), or "living light" as opposed to the light of the sky. Thanks to their living light animate beings can see.

Sight consists of light emanating from the eyes of living beings. Just as the main humanly-controlled source of light is fire, so too it is because the eyes are made of fire that humans see. As Jesus says, "The eye is the lamp of the body" (Matt. 6: 22). Aristotle observed: "Is it because in shame the eyes are chilled (for shame resides in the eyes), so that they cannot face one?" (Problems 31, 957b) "Sight (is made) from fire and hearing from air" (960a). "[V]ision is fire" (959b).

Similarly, the Israelite tradition believed God's sky-servants (angels) were made of fire. Hence when they appear to humans, they look like brilliant light. The fact that celestial bodies, such as stars or comets, emanate light means that they are alive. Stars, whether constellated or not, are living animate entities, as all ancients knew. That is why they move while the earth stands still at the center of creation.

Since all living beings have light, light and life go hand in hand (1:4). In this perspective, all light and life have their origin in the creative work of God alone; they can be handed on by human beings, but not created by them.

Like light, all life derives from God alone. Life is in the blood of humans and animals, just as life is in the produce of a field (bounded land). Animate beings that are dead are just like fields that are fallow. Humans are born of the blood of woman and a male's seed, just as produce comes from the life force of a field and a seed.

In John, Jesus comes to bring life. God has life in himself (5:26) and so also does the Son (5:26). Jesus is the bread of life (6:48), the living resurrection (11:25) and the words which he speaks are life as well (6:63). He has come that his followers might "have life, and have it abundantly" (10:10). The term "life" appears 47 times in John's Gospel (6 in Matt.; 3 in Mark; 5 in Luke).

- water, which is inert, is changed to wine (living liquid: look at its effects!)

- a blind (death) man is restored to eyesight (animated light, a synonym for life)

Note by contrast that the opponents of Jesus are trying to take life, to "kill" him (5:18; 7:1, 19, 25; 8:37; 40).

The presence of life is marked by animation, by Spirit (Latin anima, and its Greek equivalent, pneuma, mean "wind," "breeze," "spirit").

It is on the cross that Jesus bows his head and gives the spirit, thus giving life to "the world." The purpose of the Gospel is to support those who believe in Jesus so that they "might have life in his name" (20:31).

Three elements need to be considered: (1) the image of "limited good," (2) the agonistic nature of peasant society, and (3) the values of honor and shame. Foster himself originated discussion of "limited good" in his model of envy. In treating interpersonal relationships among peasants, he commented on the agonistic nature of their intercourse, linking it to the notion of "limited good." Our study of the ancient world can supplement Foster's model with culturally specific notions of the ancient passion for honor and with consideration of its modal personality as a group-oriented person..

1. Limited Good. Foster describes how peasants perceive that all good things in the world exist in limited supply.

By "Image of Limited Good" I mean that broad areas of peasant behavior are patterned in such a fashion as to suggest that peasants view their social, economic, and natural universes--their total environment--as one in which all of the desired things in life such as land, wealth, health, friendship and love, manliness and honor, respect and status, power and influence, security and safety, exist in finite quantity and are always in short supply, as far as the peasant is concerned. Not only do these and all other "good things" exist in finite and limited quantities, but in addition there is no way directly within peasant power to increase the available quantities.

He notes that "any advantage achieved by one individual or family is seen as a loss to others, and the person who makes what the Western world lauds as 'progress' is viewed as a threat to the stability of the entire community." Why? If supply is thought to be radically limited, any person's gain must comes through loss by others. Two things happen when people view the world in this way: (1) they "are reluctant to advance beyond their peers because of the sanctions they know will be leveled against them" and (2) the person "who is seen or known to acquire more becomes much more vulnerable to the envy of his neighbors." Hence, if someone gains success, goods, honor or anything valued by a group, then others correspondingly perceive themselves losing worth, prestige and the like. Envy follows as surely as night follows day.

In the literature of antiquity we can readily observe this perception of "limited good" as part of that cultural world. The classical biblical instance of this stands behind the exchange between John the Baptizer and his disciples over the rising success of Jesus. When John says, "He must increase, I must decrease" (John 3:30), he confirms the popular perception that Jesus' gain in reputation necessarily comes at his own expense. But John differs from his disciples in that he does not envy Jesus as they do. In the Greco-Roman world, the perception of limited good is aptly expressed in the remark of Iamblicus: "People do not find it pleasant to give honor (:) to someone else, for they suppose that they themselves are being deprived of something." Similarly, Plutarch describes a person hearing an outstanding speaker and expressing envy at his success: "As though commendation were money, he feels that he is robbing himself of every bit that he bestows on another" (On Listening to Lectures 44B; see also Old Men in Public Affairs 787D). Finally Josephus reflects this when he describes the envy of John, son of Levi, at his own rise in fortune:

[John]. . .believing that my success involved his own ruin, gave way to immoderate envy. Hoping to check my good fortune by inspiring hatred of me in those under my command, he tried to induce the inhabitants of Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Gabara to abandon their allegiance to me and go over to him (Life 122-23).⁽¹⁾

Therefore, the success, fame, and prestige of someone are popularly thought to come at the expense of others, who then surface as the most likely candidates to envy those of rising fortune.

First-century Mediterranean persons were strongly group-oriented. They quickly learned that a meaningful human existence required total reliance on the groups in which they found themselves embedded. Most important were the kin group, the village group, the neighborhood and/or the factions one might join. In various ways these groups provided a person with a sense of self, with a conscience (always external to the individual in honor-shame societies), with a sense of identity. Such first-century Mediterranean persons always needed others to know who they were and to support or restrain their choices of behavior. The group, in other words, was an external conscience. Because of this, "true" or enlightened behavior would always match what the group valued.

An important result of such group-orientation was an anti-introspective way of being. Persons had little concern for things psychological. What we would call psychological states were usually ascribed to spirits, good and bad. It follows that in such cultural arrangements words referring to internal states always connote a corresponding external expression as well. For example, the word "to know" always involved some experience of the object known. "To covet" always involved the attempt to take what one desired (hence the word is best translated "to steal").

Two words nearly always assigned to internal states in our society are "love" and "hate." To understand what they meant in the first-century Mediterranean world, however, it is necessary to recognize both their group-orientation and their corresponding external expression. The term "love," for example, is best translated "group attachment," or "attachment to some person." To "love" the light is to be attached to the enlightened group. There may or may not be affection, but it is the inward feeling of attachment, along with the outward behavior bound up with such attachment, that love entails. So naturally those who love or are attached to the group, do what the group values.

Correspondingly, "hate" would mean "dis-attachment," "non-attachment," or "indifference." Indifference is perhaps the strongest negative attitude that one can entertain in Mediterranean interpersonal relations (see e.g., Rev. 3:16). Once again, there may or may not be feelings of repulsion. But it is the inward feeling of non-attachment, along with the outward behavior bound up with not being attached to a group (and the persons that are part of that group), that hate entails. To hate the light would thus be to be dis-attached from the enlightened group, or to be attached to an outside group and to behave accordingly. Those who "hate the light" (3:20) thus do what the enlightened group considers evil.

Since "to hate" is the same as "to dis-attach oneself from a group," one can describe departure from one's family "for the sake of Jesus and the Gospel" as either "hating" one's father, mother, wife, children, etc. (Luke 14:26), or loving "father or mother more than me" (Matt. 10:37), or "leaving everything" (Matt. 19:27; Mk 10:28) or more precisely leaving one's "house" (Luke 18:28). Paul's famous triad in 1 Cor. 13:13 (faith, hope, love) might be best translated: "personal loyalty, enduring trust in another, group attachment," and, of course, the greatest of these is group attachment.

From a historical and social point of view, it is important to note that in the ancient world, love extended only to other members of the ingroup, not to those outside the group. This holds for the "Golden Rule" (Lev. 19:18: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," borrowed from Mesopotamian tradition) where one's "neighbor" is a fellow Israelite, an ingroup person. In Israel's traditions from the time of Jesus, for example, we read about Isaac's final words to Esau and Jacob, as follows: "Be loving of your brothers as a man loves himself, with each man seeking for his brother what is good for him . . . loving each other as themselves" (Jubilees 36:4-5). This sentiment is also apparent in Jesus Messiah groups: 1 Thess. 4:9; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Mark 12:31; the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:29-37 simply extends Israel's ingroup to include Samaritans.

In sum, when John speaks of the world hating believers, or hating light and loving darkness, he is using the same language of attachment and dis-attachment, loyalty and dis-loyalty to his enlightened group. He is drawing the strongest possible contrast between his own group and all outsiders. This topic will be highlighted later when John describes what Jesus said and did at his last meal with his friends (John 13:1--17:26).

In the context of the final gathering of Jesus and his core disciples, Jesus' last command to "love one another" is more focused than previous general discussions of love and hate ( Love and Hate, 3:1-21). In the Mediterranean world love always has the underlying meaning of attachment to some group: to one's family, one's village or city quarter, one's ethnic group, one's fictive kin group. The word also can be use of attachment to God. Since in first-century Mediterranean society there is not term for an internal state that does not entail a corresponding external action, love always means doing something that reveals one's attachment, that is, actions supporting the well-being of the persons to whom one is attached.

The focus here is one of fictive kinship and the friendship it entails. Thus to love one another here is more than general group attachment. It takes on the dimensions of interpersonal attachment, hence of loyalty and of the value of reliability revealed in practical actions. Such love is reliability in interpersonal relations; it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal faithfulness. The phrase "love one another" presumes the social glue that binds one person to another. That is mutual loyalty (in John's anti-language it also called: faith, belief, trust and the like). This bond of mutual loyalty is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behavior of commitment and solidarity. As social bond, it works along with the value of (personal and group) reliability (translated "faith") and the value of expected (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated "hope").

In John's story, God reveals his abiding loyalty to Israel by sending his only Son so that those Israelites who believe (trust) in him might gain endless life (3:16). And Jesus reveals his abiding loyalty by saving his friends (18:9) and giving his life for them (15:13).

In John 7:3-4 the brothers of Jesus urge him to go up to Judea for the festival of Sukkoth in order to show off the works he does and thereby gain a reputation. Jesus responds (7:7-9) by telling his brothers that he is not going up to the festival because his hour has not yet come. Yet we learn in 7:10 that he does precisely that; as soon as his brothers had gone to the festival, he too went there in a secretive manner.

This action of Jesus appears to western readers as outright deception, lying to deflect the attention of his siblings. However, in order to understand what is going on here it is necessary to understand the way truth-telling is understood in the collectivist cultures of the Mediterranean world.

Anthropologists commonly distinguish three distinctive selves: the privately defined self, the publicly defined self and the collectively or ingroup defined self.

(a) The private self is what I myself say about my own traits, states, behaviors. Who is it I think I really am in my heart of hearts?

(b) The public self consists of what the general group says about me. Who does that range of people with whom I regularly come in contact think I am? What do neighbors, merchants, teachers, and the like say about me? Do I live up to their expectations when I interact with them? And what do I think of all that these people think of me?

(c) The collective or ingroup self is what the ingroup says about me. Who do my parents say I am? What are their expectations for me? Did my family give me a nickname? What does it say about me? What are the expectations of my grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, and brothers and sisters in regard to who I am, how I should behave, what I will be? And what do I think of what these people think of me? What do my friends want me to do, over against what my parents want me to do?

To understand the self in terms of social psychology we need to know the way the defined self emerges in the contrasting collectivist and individualistic cultural types. Consider the following diagram in which the enclosed, boxed-in defined selves are expected to match to produce "truth."

The types of self in bold relief form a unity in the respective cultures. What this chart makes clear is that in collectivist cultures there is a general conformity between private self and ingroup self. Such people take ingroup self assessments far more seriously than people in individualist cultures. Moreover, individuals are socialized not to express what they personally think, but to say what their conversation partner or audience needs or wants to hear from the ingroup.

When it comes to dealing with ingroup others, collectivist societies anticipate that individuals will often think one way and speak another. For the most part, harmony or getting along with ingroup neighbors is valued above all sorts of other concerns. Saying the right thing to maintain harmony is thus far more important than telling what seems to be the truth to the private self. In fact "truth" might be defined here as conformity between what the ingroup thinks about some person, event or thing, and what the private self believes and knows. Collectivist persons are not expected to have personal opinions, much less to voice their own opinions. It is sufficient and required to hold only those opinions that derive from social consensus.

In individualist cultures, by contrast, the ingroup self recedes. The public and private selves converge to form a single, "objectively" defined private self. Inconsistency between the public and private self is understood to be hypocrisy. One must think and say the same thing. Honesty, frankness and sincerity are more abstract and less interpersonal for individualists. Everyone is expected to have an opinion on everything and others are supposed to act as though everyone's opinion counted for something.

The way in which the self is defined also determines behavior. The collectivist person represents the ingroup and is presumed to always speaks in its name. It is shameful to tell the truth if it dishonors one's ingroup members or causes them discomfort. It is equally shameful to expect to be told the truth if one is not an ingroup member. Outgroup persons have no right to ingroup truth. Notice how Jesus explains the real meaning of his teaching only to the ingroup, in private (chaps. 13-17), or to those in the process of becoming ingroup members (Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman)

In non-challenging situations, outgroup persons are almost always told what makes for harmony and what is to be expected. Making a friend feel good by what one has to say is a way of honoring the other, and that is far more important than "telling the truth." Thus, in collectivist cultures, the privately defined self and the ingroup self tend to coincide. The person speaks in the name of the ingroup in public.

By contrast, individualists as a rule fuse the privately and publicly defined selves. The privately defined self and the publicly defined self tend to coincide. The private self is in fact the acting public self. This is called "objectivity," and individualists value being objective in speech. To lie is to say one thing publicly while thinking another privately. Thus, in individualistic cultures a person speaks in his/her own name in public.

In each type of culture, a lie consists of splitting the selves included in the boxes above. Thus an individualistic lie is to think one thing and say another. That involves splitting what one knows privately from what one says publicly. To a collectivist, however, a lie involves splitting private and ingroup "truth." In a collectivist culture, one's private knowledge has nothing to do with truth.

The right to the truth and the right to withhold the truth belong to the "man of honor" and to contest these rights is to place a person's honor in jeopardy, to challenge that person. Lying and deception are or can be honorable and legitimate. To lie in order to deceive an outsider, one who has no right to the truth, is honorable. However to be called a liar by anyone is a great public dishonor. The reason for this is that truth belongs only to one who has a right to it. To lie really means to deny the truth to one who has a right to it, and the right to the truth only exists where respect is due (in the family, to superiors, and not necessarily to inferiors or to equals with whom I compete). Thus to deceive by making something ambiguous or to lie to an outgroup person is to deprive the other or respect, to refuse to show honor, to humiliate another.

What Jesus does here would thus be considered right and proper by a collectivist culture. For as the author notes in vs. 5, his brothers had no loyalty toward him; they stood outside his ingroup. Jesus withholds the truth from the brothers because they are outgroup persons and have no right to it. In so doing he shows himself to be an honorable person who knows with whom the truth is properly to be shared.

All of these cities and places are important for the career of Jesus: his place of birth, the village where he was raised, towns and villages where he conducted his ministry, and the place where he was captured, tried and killed. We think of these places as Israelite, either the land of Judah proper or places strongly Judean in religion and practice. Yet other places here which are non-Judean, which Judeans were forbidden to enter ["You know how unlawful it is for a Judean to associate with or to visit any one of another nation" Peter speaking; Acts 10:28]. Yet Jesus went there and preached and did mighty works. Finally, Caesarea Philippi: Israelite? Or Gentile? What climactic event in the life of Jesus took place here?

Meals in antiquity were what anthropologists call "ceremonies" (as opposed to "rituals" which confirm a change of status), meaning that they are regular, predictable events in which roles and statuses in a community are affirmed or legitimated. In other words, the microcosm of the meal is parallel to the macrocosm of everyday social relations.

Though meals could include people of varying social ranks, normally that did not occur except under special circumstances (Eg., some Roman Collegia). Since eating together implied sharing a common set of ideas and values, and frequently a common social position as well (Cf.13:26), it is important to ask: Who eats with whom? Who sits where? What does one eat? Where does one eat? How is the meal prepared? What utensils are used? When does one eat? What talk is appropriate? Who does what? When does one eat what course? Answering such questions tells us much about the social relations a meal affirms.

There is much evidence from both Hellenistic and Jewish sources of the importance of such matters. Old Testament food regulations are well known, as are the provisions for the ritual purity required when eating. In the rabbinic period people formed religious societies (Haberim, Ne'eman) which joined together for table fellowship (Haburah) and vows of piety. In order to avoid pollution they would not accept an invitation from the 'am ha-'ares, the people of the land, because they could not be trusted to provide tithed food. If they invited such a person to their own home, they required the guest to put on a ritually clean garment which the host provided (m. Demai 2:2-3). In a similar fashion, Roman sources describe meals at which guests of different social rank are seated in different rooms and even served different food and wine depending on their social status (Martial, Epigrammata, I,20; III,60; Juvenal, Satura V; Pliny, Epistulae II,6).

The Gospel of Luke is likewise full of small hints about the importance of behavior at meals. Thus it is noted whether one washes (11:38), who eats what, when and where (6:4), what is done or fails to get done at the table (7:38,40,44,49), who is invited (14:12-14), where people sit (14:7-11), with whom one eats (15:2) and in what order persons of different rank come to the table (17:7-8).

Exclusive fellowship required an exclusive table while inclusive fellowship required an inclusive one. The statement in 13:29 about people coming from east and west, and from south and north to sit at the table in the kingdom is thus a statement of inclusive Christian social relations. The refusal of those first invited to the great banquet (14:18-21) is similarly a statement of social exclusivism among the elite, while the invitations to the "poor, maimed, lame and blind" (14:13,21) are evidence of inclusive Christian social practices that are reflected in their meals.

Pliny The Younger's Criticism of Socially Discriminatory Meal Practices (Epistulae, II,6)

It would be a long story, and of no importance, were I to recount too particularly by what accident I (who am not fond at all of society) supped lately with a person, who in his own opinion lives in splendor combined with economy; but according to mine, in a sordid but expensive manner. Some very elegant dishes were served up to himself and a few more of the company; while those which were placed before the rest were cheap and paltry. He had apportioned in small flagons three different sorts of wine; but you are not to suppose it was that the guests might take their choice: on the contrary, that they might not choose at all. One was for himself and me; the next for his friends of a lower order (for you must know, he measures out his friendship according to the degrees of quality); and the third for his own freed-men and mine. One who sat next to me took notice of this, and asked me if I approved of it. "Not at all," I told him. "Pray, then," said he, "what is your method on such occasions?" "Mine," I returned, "is to give all my company the same fare; for when I make an invitation, it is to sup, not to be censoring. Every man whom I have placed on an equality with myself by admitting him to my table, I treat as an equal in all particulars." "Even freed-men?" he asked. "Even them, " I said; "for on those occasions I regard them not as freed-men, but boon companions." "This must put you to great expense," says he. I assured him not at all; and on his asking how that could be, I said, "Why you must know my freedmen do not drink the same wine I do - but I drink what they do."

Marriage in the ancient world were always arranged by the families, and not by the individuals. Marriage was viewed as the joining of two families or clans, which produced economic and social advantages for both. Thus modern notions of romantic love (and democratic choice) are foreign to the ancient cultures. Families always tried to marry up the social ladder, to secure advantage; but the higher ranking family would be loathe to marry down and lose advantage.

When a daughter was married, several exchanges took place. A dowry was provided for the daughter, who left her family and clan and went to live in the household of her husband; thus she brought a certain amount of new wealth into the household which she joined; this wealth, of course, was hers and would have to be returned if the husband divorced her. Her husband paid a bride price to her father to compensate him for all the wealth lost to that household from clothing production and child rearing. It goes without saying that in an honor society the families of both partners would strive to appear noble and wealthy and thus provide a show of wealth to the public in these negotiations.

(a) endogamy and exogamy. At certain times, it was permissible and advantageous for the daughters of clans and families to marry outside their clan (exogamy); but at other times, it was required by a clan that their females marry within their households and not join those of non-clan and different-ethnos groups (endogamy).

(b) marriage partners. At times, the ideal marriage partner was a cousin (thus keeping family lands together); in Egypt brother-sister marriage was quite acceptable. Leviticus gives a detailed list of prohibited marriage partners (see purity/pollution).

(c) normally, the first-born son was expected to live in the house of his father, and so he brought his wife back there (patrilocal residence). The new bride was always considered an outsider to this established household, hence the endless stories of conflict between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law. The new bride secured a place finally by producing male children, who would take up her interests in this alien environment.

"And God granted him (Solomon) knowledge of the art used against demons for the benefit and healing of men. He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return. And this kind of cure is of very great power among us to this day, for I have seen a certain Eleazar, a countryman of mine, in the presence of Vespasian, his sons, tribunes and a number of other soldiers, free men possessed by demons, and this was the manner of the cure: he put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of the roots prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out the demons through his nostrils, and when the man at once fell down, adjured the demon never to come back into him, speaking Solomon's name and reciting the incantations which he had composed. Then, wishing to convince the bystanders and prove to them that he had this power, Eleazar placed a cup or foot-basin full of water a little way off and commanded the demon, as it went out of the man, to overturn it and make known to the spectators that he had left the man. And when this was done, the understanding and wisdom of Solomon were clearly revealed, on account of which we have been induced to speak of these things, in order that all men may know the greatness of his nature and how God favoured him, and that no one under the sun may be ignorant of the king's surpassing virtue of every kind" (Josephus, Antiquities 8.45-48).

"'You act ridiculously,' Ion said to me, 'by your constantly doubting everything. I would like to ask you what you say about those who fee the demon-possessed from their terrors, thus plainly exorcising the ghosts. I hardly need to go into it -- everyone has heard of the Syrian from Palestine, so skilled was he in these things. Whomever he received, those who were moonstruck and rolled their eyes and filled their mouths with foam, they arose, and he dispatched them away healthy, when they were free of the terror, for a large fee. When he stands by them as they lie there, he asks (the demons) from whence they came into the body. The sick man is silent, but the demon answers in Greek or some barbarian tongue, or in the language of the country from which he comes, how and from whence he came into the man. The Syrian then levels oaths at him (to drive him out), but if the demon is not persuaded, he threatens (even worse punishments) and expels the demon. I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color" (Lucian, The Lover of Lies 16).

NB. Other ancient accounts of "miracles" (healings/exorcisms) may conveniently be found in David Dungan and David Cartlidge, Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study of the Gospels, 51-83.

A number of commentators have referred to Jesus' behavior here as one of instituting the adoption of his mother by the beloved disciple. The problem with this is that in Israel there was no adoption in any Greco-Roman sense. Hence it would be better to speak of him making his mother the ward of the beloved disciple or the like. But who these personages might actually have been is quite unclear. For John does not seem to know anything of Jesus' Davidic pedigree, and he is equally ignorant of Jesus' actual birthplace (John 7:40-44). Finally there is no indication that the author of John's Gospel knew the name of Jesus' mother; both here and in the story of the wedding in Cana (John 2:1-4) he simply calls her "the mother of Jesus, " unless that were here official Semitic name. Without the Synoptic Gospel tradition, chances are the name of Mary of Nazareth would not be known or remembered at all.

In the Mediterranean world, most sibling relations are rather close. But the mother-son bond is perhaps the closest Mediterranean equivalent (in emotional intensity) to what people in the U.S. expect in the "love" of a marriage relation. Mother-son relations are a distinctive by-product of Mediterranean child rearing practices. The heart of the matter is the distinctive Mediterranean male gender-identity ambivalence, revealed in the male's vehement abhorrence or disavowal of everything "feminine." The result is a life-long defense, through honor/shame polarities and prohibitions, against unacceptable female identifications.

Mediterranean male gender-identity ambivalence derives from the absence of the father in the family during the boy's early years. In the Mediterranean region, boys are raised under domestic arrangements that exclude the frequent presence of adult males. Thus they lack clear male role models during this developmental period. The result is a genuine emotional closeness and affective 'symbiosis' of mothers and sons -- a pan-Mediterranean trait. Anthropologists studying a variety of Mediterranean countries have reported on this phenomenon. In Portugal the 'mother-son bond is thought to be the strongest possible bond between two human beings.' In Italy this bond is thought to be the 'primary axis' of family continuity. In Greece it is 'indestructible.' Moreover, this uniquely powerful bond originates in a domestic scene in which the boy often perceives the mother -- typical in Mediterranean societies -- as dominant or 'in-charge,' or as the 'primary handler of the family's financial resources.' Anthropologists have argued, therefore, that these widespread structural features impede the development of a solid male gender-identity and promote early psychic identification with the more accessible parent, the mother.

One result of this family pattern is the kind of macho defensiveness about lingering feminine traits which characterizes Mediterranean males after they are thrown out of the women's world and pushed into that of adult males. But another is a life-long emotional bond between mother and son.

This feature is also rather ancient. For example, after reading a long letter which Antipater, his vice-regent, had written in denunciation of his mother, Alexander the Great declared that Antipater did not know that one tear of a mother effaced ten thousand letters (Plutarch, Lives: Alexander XXXIX 7, 688). It is this Mediterranean value that accounts for the son's concern for his mother in John's narrative. Note, however, that by entrusting his mother to the beloved disciple, Jesus finally channels access to himself by means of the beloved disciple, not through his mother.

When we systematically consider "name," we should think first of "fame" or reputation, which betokens honor, value and worth. But "name" in antiquity also linked one with family and clan. Inasmuch as the most basic honor of ancient persons was ascribed to them by birth into such-and-such a clan and family, "name" was be an immediate index of status and honor.

Anthropologists of the Middle East describe four aspects of the names of individuals and what such names indicate about the person who holds them: (1) personal names, (2) nicknames, (3) names derived from occupation, origin and affiliation, and (4) patrifiliative names or names embodying one's parents and clan. These observations, which are based on contemporary Arab practices, provide a useful analytical scheme for studying names in the ancient world. In general, this analysis indicates that names link one to family and kinship group (ascribed honor) or reflect an individual's prowess or lack thereof (achieved honor).

Personal or "first" names can be drawn from a range of religious and secular sources. The personal name of the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth seemed unusual to their kinsfolk (Luke 1:59-63); the culture would expect that the child be named after his father (Josephus, Life 1.4; Ant. 14.10; 20.197) or grandfather (Josephus, Life 1.4-5; 1 Macc 2:1-2; Jub 11:15).

Nicknames are acquired by people for any number of reasons, such as distinctive physical characteristic. Josephus mentions the nickname of his grandfather Matthias as "Curtus," which means "humpback" (Life 1.4). Older examples of this would be Hakkatan or "Tiny" (Ezra 8:12) and Kareah or "Baldy" (2 Kg 25:23). Among Jesus' disciples, James and John are known as "Boanerges" or "Sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17) and Simon as "Rock Man" (Matt 16:16-17; see Simon "the Leper," Matt 26:6). This type of naming was very common in the culture which produced the Hebrew scriptures; one thinks of Jacob's nickname as "the Supplanter" (Gen 27:36) and Nabal as "Fool": "For as his name is, so is he: Nabal is his name, and folly is with him" (1 Sam 25:25). Nicknames which convey neutral or positive images might be used when actually addressing a person face-to-face, whereas nicknames which label a person negatively might be used behind a person's back as challenges to their honor and status.

Names deriving from occupation, origin and affiliation indicate that individuals draw their role and status from the popular evaluation of origin, occupation, and affiliation. Paul claims significant social status by birth as a Roman citizen in Tarsus, "no low-status city" (Acts 21:39; 22:3); and his public career let him reside in most of the truly honorable cities of the ancient world: Antioch, Corinth and Rome. We do not know the precise value to ascribe to the place from which Simon of Cyrene comes (Matt 27:32), much less the honor rating of Ethiopia, the home of the eunuch mentioned in Acts 8:27 or the various worths of the places from which the Pentecost crowd came (Acts 2:9-11). Proper honor evaluation would depend upon the ancient stereotype of these places, which can be found in ancient rhetorical and physiognomic literature.

In regard to other aspects of names, both Joseph and Jesus are both known in terms of their occupation, name, "carpenter" (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3); John, son of Zechariah and Elizabeth becomes known in terms of his social role, namely, "the Baptizer" (Matt 3:1; 11:11-12; 14:2, 8). Among Jesus's disciples, Matthew is known as "the Toll Collector" (Matt 10:3). In terms of affiliation, Paul tells us that he was a "Pharisee," indeed, a Pharisee's Pharisee (Phil 3:5-6). Some people have no personal identity except the name of the party to which they belong, such as Epicurean and Stoic (Acts 17:18). Whatever honor is ascribed from this type of name depends on the local evaluation of place, occupation and affiliation. In general, Jesus would not be particularly honorable being a carpenter from Nazareth (John 1:46).

Finally "patrifilial" names stand out as most important for us because they directly indicate the ascribed honor which an individual enjoys relative to some family, clan and tribe. After all, kinship was the most basic institution in antiquity. For example, when the narrator of 1 Samuel introduces Kish, the father of Saul, he presents him in terms of his family, clan and offspring: "There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, a Benjaminite, a man of wealth; and he had a son whose name was Saul" (9:1). For the readers of 1 Samuel, Kish's importance lies in the fame of his son, Saul, who became king. James and John are "sons of Zebedee" (Matt 4:20) and Simon is "son of John" (Matt 16:17). The personal name of Salome is much less important to history than her identification as Herod's wife's daughter; her legitimacy and status were called into question by John. All we need to know is told us when Matthew narrates that "the daughter of Herodias danced. . ." (Matt 14:6).

When we apply this typology of names to Jesus, we get some very interesting results. In regard to personal names, Jesus was ascribed his personal name, "jesus," by God (Matt 1:21). Although his name does not formally link him with his kinship group, such that he would automatically enjoy honor from that association, yet it describes in a general way his role and status, which is to be "savior of his people." Many personal names in ancient Israel were theophroic names, that is, names in which some relationship to the deity was recognized. For example, Zechariah means "Yahweh has remembered" and Gamaliel means "Recompense of God." "Jesus," which was not an uncommon name in the first century, simply meant "the salvation of the Lord," without any particular reference to the individual's actual social status. But in a useful discussion of just this name, Philo commented on the change of names of the great Joshua and notes that this figure, who was once called Hoshea ("he is saved") received a change of names to Jesus (), which in fact implied a new role and status, namely, "salvation from the Lord" ( ) (Mut. 121). Thus his personal name, "Jesus," describes the role that Joshua will play in mediating the safety and salvation of God to his people. Thus great honor is ascribed to the offspring of Joseph and Mary by virtue of his personal name, for in the context of the gospel his name "jesus" not only indicates favor of God, but also the significant role and status ascribed to him by God, namely, Savior.

We do not know any nickname of Jesus, although his enemies attempted to stigmatize him with many negative labels. In terms of origin, occupation and affiliation, Jesus "of Nazareth" who is the son of the carpenter would not be regarded as a particularly worthy or important person. In terms of origin, Nazareth is not an honored place, and so to call him "Jesus of Nazareth" stereotypes him as deserving of little honor (John 1:46). Elites did not work, which immediately set them apart from 90% of the population which labored for its daily bread. Working for wages rather than being master of one's own farm, however modest in size, indicated a still lower status.

Networking refers to the way people interact on the basis of established pathways of social relationships. People have social positions and relate to others on the basis of those positions. For example, here John the Baptist points out Jesus to his disciples (vs. 35); the relationship of John to his disciples (one unnamed, the other Andrew) forms a pathway of social relationships allowing for the interaction depicted in this Gospel-segment. Further, communication between brothers (vs. 40) or friends (vs. 45) points to a similar pathway of social relationships permitting the interaction between Andrew and Simon Peter (brothers), and Philip and Nathanael (friends).

Social organization consists of structures of relations and processes of interaction. People relate to each other in patterned ways (structures) and interact with each other along pathways set out by those patterned ways (structures). The patterned ways people relate to each other form social networks. When people transact with each other along network pathways, such behavior is called social exchange. In this segment of John, the social exchange consists of the communication of new information from the Baptist to his disciples, from brother to brother, from friend to friend. Such social exchange is a process that changes the distribution of resources and the outcome is a change in social structure. The resource here is information, and the outcome is the formation of a new group with Jesus at its center.

Further dimensions of Jesus' network are revealed in the next chapter when Jesus and his disciples join his mother at a wedding party in Cana. Through Jesus and his mother, Jesus' disciples are introduced into a new network of relations with residents of Cana present at the wedding, although Nathanael of Cana had strong ties there.

Networks, then, consist of social interactions between and among persons tied to each other with varying degrees of intensity. Brothers and friends have strong ties; Jesus' disciples and Cana villagers have weak ties (apart from Nathanael). Strong ties are relations with close relatives and friends, while weak times derive from occasional contact with persons. As a rule, in face-to-face societies such as those of the first-century Mediterranean, weak ties are minimal since people are geographically and socially stable for the most part. A lack of a range of weak tie relations reveals the following characteristics:

-- subgroups are separated by ethnicity, race and geography, hence have difficulty reaching a modus vivendi;

-- strong tie groups are usually never aware of specifically who controls their lives, but they do know that control lies outside their group; their lives do not actually depend on what happens within their group;

-- strong tie group members think stereotypically, hence everyone knows why people act as they do; there is no need to gauge the inward intention of others;

-- speech is high context (speakers assume everyone shares and knows the same social context);

Strong ties thus produce stable, relatively closed groups. Significantly new information, however, generally derives from weak ties that bridge strong tie groups (for example, occasionally meeting people on pilgrimage; interacting with a wandering healer; meeting others on occasion of a prophet's baptizing). Weak- tie interactions that bridge strong tie groups carry innovations and information across the boundaries of social groups (between villages; between statuses in a polis). Strong ties affect the credibility and influence of innovations, making such cross-group interactions suspect. Such networking considerations offer a very important way to envision the rationale behind the expansion of a social organization (usually described in terms of mission and conversion).

Here John the Baptist is the bridging weak tie to the Bethsaida brothers, Andrew and Simon Peter, and to Philip and the unnamed disciple. Nathanael of Cana would have strong ties in Cana, while both he and Jesus connected the disciples with the villagers of Cana (2:2).

The Passover meal was to be eaten on the evening of the night when the God of Israel freed enslaved Israelites from Egyptian bondage in order have them serve him. In Israelite tradition a number of significant events likewise took place on Passover night. These traditions were clustered in the Aramaic version of the Torah reading for Passover. It might be useful to keep these traditions in mind as John unfolds his account. Targum Exod 12:42 reads as follows:

It is a night reserved and set aside for redemption to the name of the Lord, at the time the children of Israel came out redeemed from the land of Egypt. Truly, four nights are those that are written in the Book of Memorials.

The first night: when the Lord was revealed over the world to create it. The world was without form and void and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss, and the Word of the Lord was the Light and it shone; and he called it the First Night.

The second night: when the Lord was revealed to Abram, a man of a hundred years and Sarah his wife, who was a woman of ninety years, to fulfil what the Scripture says: Will Abram a man of a hundred years beget and will his wife Sarah a woman of ninety years bear? And Isaac was thirty seven years when he was offered upon the altar. The skies were bowed down and descended and Isaac saw their perfections and his eyes were dimmed because of their perfections and he called it the Second Night.

The third night: when the Lord was revealed against the Egyptians at midnight: his hand slew the first-born of the Egyptians and his right hand protected the first-born of Israel to fulfil what the Scripture says: Israel is my first-born son. And he called it the Third Night.

The fourth night: When the world reaches its end to be redeemed: the yokes of iron shall be broken and the generations of wickedness shall be blotted out; and Moses will go up from the desert and the king Messiah from on high. One will lead at the head of the flock, and the other will lead at the head of the flock, and his Word will lead between the two of them, and I and they will proceed together.

This is the night of Passover to the name of the Lord: it is a night reserved and set aside for the redemption of all the generations of Israel.

The role of the Word is significant, both at creation when the Word was Light (as in John's opening segment), and at the final redemption, when the Word is to lead Moses from the desert and the king Messiah from on high. For John, distinctively, Jesus is this Word as well as the king Messiah from on high. Of course non-Israelites are excluded: "And the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron: This is the decree of the Law of the Passover: no gentile shall eat of it" (Exod 12:43).

These comments pertain especially to John 19:16b-37. What in fact is at issue with the final scenes of Jesus' exaltation? How does the context of John's account of Jesus' glorification clarify the meaning of these events? Is the author concerned with the simple fact that Jesus did not have his legs broken and that his side was jabbed? Neither of these events are noted in the other Gospels.

Perhaps the first clue to what is at issue is the Scripture quote in 19:36: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." This is a reference to the Passover lamb at time of the Exodus (Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12). The number of such references in this account lead to the conclusion that Jesus, the cosmic Lamb of God of chap. 1, has the function of this Lamb's antitype, the Passover lamb, as well.

Note that Jesus' entire last day in Jerusalem takes place within the framework of the Passover celebration. He dies as Passover lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple (Day of Preparation, vss. 31 and 42). It is because it is Passover Preparation Day that the Judeans want him off the cross and out of sight.

Jesus' openness to his captors in the garden (18:1-10), his insistence that he freely takes the cup offered by the Father (18:11), and his non-resistance to being bound when arrested (18:12) point to Jesus willingness to submit to slaughter. All Mediterraneans, Israelites included, attached the greatest importance to the external behavior of a sacrificial victim. Even the slightest sign of resistance was a bad omen. The escape of an animal about to be slaughtered was considered a disaster. Herod's Temple had causeway with a high and narrow embankment leading from the Mount of Olives to the Temple so that sacrificial animals might freely walk to the altar to be sacrificed. The point is that everyone at the time knew that a victim had to die willingly in order to be pleasing to the deity(ies). Jesus' willingness to please the Father, like his command of the situation, underscores sacrificial themes befitting the paramount Passover sacrifice.

Jesus is bound when arrested (18:12), just like the only-begotten Isaac, another person ready to be sacrificed by his father (Gen. 22). In Israelite lore, all sacrifices offered on Jerusalem's altar get their merit from the binding of Isaac (see Tg. Neofiti Gen. 22). Further, in that story we learn that while God told Abraham he would provide a lamb (Gen. 22:8), God in fact provided a ram (Gen. 22:13). In Israelite scribal lore, since Moses said that God said he has a lamb to give Abraham, yet in fact gives Abraham a lamb, then that lamb must still be with God, having been created before the foundation of the world. After all God exists in the seventh day of creation now; he does not work (something Jesus disputes in this Gospel). Hence the God's lamb was still with God in the sky, the Lamb of God.

Bound, Jesus was brought to the high priest in that condition for examination, and on to Pilate (18:28) where Jesus' captors stopped outside the praetorium "so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover" (18:28). So Pilate comes out, marking the beginning of the process that is really directed by the chief priests and this leads to Jesus' death. Throughout John's account it is the high priest and other chief priests who orchestrate Jesus' death; it is the priest's paramount function to serve God in God's special place, the Temple, by offering sacrifice (vss. 18:3, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 24, 35; 19:6, 15, 21).

Mention of the hyssop in the previous scene likewise recalls the Exodus (Exod 12:22) where the hyssop is used to sprinkle the saving blood on the doorposts.

Finally, the mention of blood and water points to "mixed blood," noted in the Talmud as the blood of a crucified person (e.g., b. Oholoth c 3, 5 Soncino 122). The significant feature here in John is the witness's attestation that the blood and water "came out immediately," that is it spurted. This is an allusion to scribal Pharisaic requirements for the "kosher" or "fitness" quality of an animal to be slaughtered when it just died or was at the point of death. If blood "spurts forth" when it is found dead or on the point of death, it is "fit" (m. Hullin II.6). Jesus on the cross is still quite "kosher"!

The point of all this is that John's group is to believe is that Jesus, the Cosmic Lamb of God has become enfleshed and ended up as the Passover Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (i.e., Israel's dishonoring of God) as befits the Cosmic Lamb of God Lamb of God, 1:29-34. Yet a fitting Passover Lamb, he can now nourish and protect those who acknowledge him, as the Passover Lamb did in the Exodus (see Exod. 12).

In vs. 37 there is an additional quote from Scripture. Zech. 12:10 reads in full: "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." But the passage in Zechariah continues, noting that while Judeans and all the land duly mourn, "On that day there will be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness" (Zech. 13:1). The spirit breathed out by the exalted Jesus along with this newly open fountain, with water spurting from Jesus' side, relates to birth from water and spirit referred to in 3:5. Thus the final outcome of looking on him whom they pierced, if they could only perceive it, is the same as that performed by the Cosmic Lamb of God. This is the restoration of honor-status before God through the eradication of Israel's sin. At least for the "children of God," John's community, this is the outcome of Jesus' being glorified.

Patronage is a system of generalized reciprocity between social unequals in which a lower status person in need (called a client) is granted favors by a higher status, well situated person (called a patron). A favor is something either not available to a client or not available when needed. By being granted a favor, the client implicitly promises to pay back the patron whenever and however the patron determines. By granting the favor, the patron, in turn, implicitly promises to be open for further requests at unspecified later times. Such open-ended relations of generalized reciprocity are typical of the relationship between the head of a family and his dependents: wife, children, slaves. By entering a patron-client arrangement, the client relates to his patron as to a superior and more powerful kinsman, while the patron sees to his clients as to his dependents.

Patronage existed throughout the Mediterranean world in the first century; the Roman version of the system looked as follows. From the earliest years of the Roman Republic, the people who settled on the hills along the Tiber had, as a part of their families, freeborn retainers called "clients." These clients tended flocks, produced a variety of needed goods and helped farm the land. In return they were afforded the protection and largesse of their patrician patrons. Such clients had no political rights and were considered inferior to citizens, though they did share in the increase of herds or goods they helped to produce. The mutual obligations between patron and client were considered sacred and often became hereditary. Vergil tells of special punishments in the underworld for patrons who defrauded clients (Aeneid VI, 609). Great houses boasted of the number of their clients and sought to increase them from generation to generation.

By the late years of the Republic the flood of conquered peoples had overwhelmed the formal institution of patronage among Romans. A large population torn from previous patronage relations now sought similar ties with the great Roman patrician families. Consequently patronage spread rapidly into the outer reaches of the Roman world, even if in a much less structured form. By the early years of the empire, especially in the provinces, we hear of the newly rich competing for the honor/status considered to derive from a long train of client dependents. These latter were mostly the urban poor or village peasants who sought favors from those who controlled the economic and political resources of the society.

Many of the details of a Roman client's life are given to us by Martial in his Epigrams. In the more formalized institution in Rome itself, the first duty of a client was the salutatio -- the early morning call at the patron's house. Proper (and clean) dress was important. At this meeting one could be called upon to serve the patron's needs and thereby take up much of the day. Menial duties were expected, though public praise of the patron was considered most fundamental. In return, clients were due one meal a day and might receive a variety of other petty favors. Humiliation of clients was frequent and little recourse was available. Patrons who provided more were considered gracious.

As the Roman style of patronage behavior spread to provinces such as Syria (Palestine), its formal and hereditary character changed. The newly rich, seeking to aggrandize family position in a community, competed to add dependents. Formal, mutual obligations degenerated into petty favor-seeking and manipulation. Clients competed for patrons just as patrons competed for clients in an often desperate struggle to gain economic or political advantage.

Patronage language is astonishingly common in the Gospel of John. Forty-three times in John we are told that Jesus was "sent" by God, language that appears only twice in Matthew (10:40, 15:24), once in Mark (9:37), four times in Luke (4:18, 4:43, 9:48, 10:16) and once in Paul (Rom. 8:3). While this may be a feature of Johannine anti-language and its double meaning, the fact is "send" belongs to the vocabulary of patronage. Moreover, there is frequently a defensive tone about "being sent" in John, as when Jesus declares: "The Father who has sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form, and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent" (5:37-38). Later Jesus prays that "the world may know that you have sent me" (17:23).

The "sent" messenger is one beholden to a patron. He acts as an intermediary between the patron and those for whom the message is intended. That is, he acts as a broker. This is a role Jesus plays throughout John's Gospel. Note also that eight times we are reminded that Jesus will return to his Patron, (7:33, 13:1, 14:12, 28, 16:5, 10, 17, 28), suggesting that the broker has ready access to and from the Patron who sent him. Eventually Jesus will turn over the broker role to his own favored clients (disciples) who will take it up the role on behalf of Jesus: "As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world" (17:18). Sorting out the players in the patronage system will help make all this clear.

Patrons are powerful individuals who control resources and are expected to use their positions to hand out favors to inferiors based on "friendship," personal knowledge and favoritism. Benefactor-patrons were expected to generously support city, village or client. The Roman emperor related to major public officials this way, and they in turn related to those beneath them in similar fashion. Cities related to towns and towns to villages in the same way. A pervasive social network of patron-client relations thus arose in which connections meant everything. Having few connections was shameful. Throughout the New Testament God is seen as the ultimate Patron.

Brokers mediate between patrons above and clients below. First order resources -- land, jobs, goods, funds, power -- are all controlled by patrons. Second order resources -- strategic contact with or access to patrons -- are controlled by brokers who mediate the goods and services a patron has to offer. City officials serve as brokers of imperial resources. Holy men or prophets could also act as brokers. This is clearly a role in which John casts Jesus. Jesus says, "You are from below, I am from above." (8:23). He also makes clear that the Patron (God, Father) has given his resources to the Son to distribute as he will: "The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in his hands" (5:35).

Clients are those dependent on the largesse of patrons or brokers to survive well in their society. They owe loyalty and public acknowledgment of honor in return. Patronage was voluntary but ideally life-long. Having only one patron to whom one owed total loyalty had been the pattern in Rome from the earliest times. But in the more chaotic competition for clients/patrons in the outlying provinces, playing patrons off against each other became commonplace. Note that according to Luke, one cannot be client of both God and the wealth/greed system (Luke 16:13).

Friends play a role in the patronage system as well. While clients sometimes boasted of being "friends" of their patrons (e.g. Pilate as a "friend of Caesar" John 19:12), friends were normally social equals. Having few of them was shameful. Friends, 15:12-17. Note that the difficulty of the lame man in 5:1-20 is that he was friendless. Bound by reciprocal relations, friends felt obligated to help each other on an ongoing basis. Patrons (or brokers) did not. Patrons had to be cultivated because they owed nothing.

In the New Testament the language of "grace" is the language of patronage. God is seen as the ultimate patron whose resources are graciously given and often mediated through Jesus as broker (note John's comment that Jesus spoke or acted with the authority of his patron; 5:27, 17:2).

In the New Testament the language of grace is the language of patronage. God is the ultimate patron whose resources are graciously given and often mediated through Jesus as broker (See the frequent comment that Jesus spoke with the authority of his patron. Cf. 4:32,36). Luke expects the rich patrons of his community to be generous, but is intensely critical when they are not (12:13-21). (Cf. Dio Chrysostom who defends himself against this same charge.)

The Judean historian, Josephus, describes his relationship with the Roman emperor, Titus, who became his Patron: (Titus) gave me another parcel of ground in the plain. On his departure for Rome, he took me with him on board, treating me with every mark of respect. On our arrival in Rome I met with great consideration from Vespasian. He gave me a lodging in the house which he had occupied before he became Emperor; he honored me with the privilege of Roman citizenship; and he assigned me a pension. He continued to honour me up to the time of this departure from this life, without any abatement in his kindness toward me (Josephus, Vita 422-23).

The following except from Dionysius of Halicarnassus provides a native point of view

about patronage and patron/client relations. Try to figure out the point of view of author: is he an impartial reporter? Does he favor one side of the relationship? Which one?

IX. After Romulus had distinguished those of superior rank from their inferiors, he next established laws by which the duties of each were prescribed. The patricians were to be priests, magistrates and judges, and were to assist him in the management of public affairs, devoting themselves to the business of the city. The plebeians were excused from these duties, as being unacquainted with them and because of their small means wanting leisure to attend to them, but were to apply themselves to agriculture, the breeding of cattle and the exercise of gainful trades. This was to prevent them from engaging in sedition, as happens in other cities when either the magistrates mistreat the lowly, or the common people and the needy envy those in authority. He places the plebeians as a trust in the hands of the patricians, by allowing every plebeian to choose for his patron any patrician whom he himself wished. In this he improved upon an ancient Greek custom that was in use among the Thessalians for a long time and among the Athenians in the beginning. For the former treated their clients with haughtiness, imposing on them duties unbecoming of free men; and whenever they disobeyed any of their commands, they beat them and misused them in all other respects as if they had been slaves they had purchased. The Athenians called their clients "thetes" or "hirelings," because they served for hire, and the Thessalians called theirs "penestai" or "toilers," by the very name reproaching them with their condition. But Romulus not only recommended the relationship by a handsome designation, calling this protection of the poor and lowly a "patronage," but he also assigned friendly offices [i.e., "duties"] to both parties, thus making the connexion between them a bond of kindness befitting fellow citizens.

X. The regulations which he then instituted concerning patronage and which long continued in use among the Romans were as follows: It was the duty of the patricians to explain to their clients the laws, of which they were ignorant; to take the same care of them when absent as present, doing every that fathers do for their sons with regard both to money and to the contracts that related to money; to bring suit on behalf of their clients when they were wronged in ;connexion with contracts, and to defend them against any who brought charges against them; and, to put the matter briefly, to secure for them both in private and in public affairs all that tranquillity of which they particularly stood in need. It was the duty of the clients to assist their patrons in providing dowries for their daughters upon their marriage if the fathers had not sufficient means; to pay their ransom to the enemy if any of them or of their children were taken prisoner; to discharge out of their own purses their patrons' losses in private suits and the pecuniary fines which they were condemned to pay to the State, making these contributions to them not as loans but as thank-offerings; and to share with their patrons the costs incurred in their magistracies and dignities and other public expenditures, in the same manner as if they were their relations. For both patrons and clients alike it was impious and unlawful to accuse each other in law-suits or to bear witness or to give their votes against each other or to be found in the number of each other's enemies; and whoever was convicted of doing any of these things was guilty of treason by virtue of the law sanctioned by Romulus, and might lawfully be put to death by any man who so wised as a victim devoted to Jupiter of the infernal regions. For it was customary among Romans, whenever they wished to put people to death without incurring any penalty, to devote their persons to some god or other, and particularly to the gods of the lower world. And this was the course which Romulus then adopted. Accordingly, the connexions between the clients and patrons continued for many generations, differing in no wise from the ties of blood-relationship and being handed down to their children's children. And it was a matter of great praise to men of illustrious families to have as many clients as possible and not only to preserve the succession of hereditary patronages but also by their own merit to acquire others. And it is incredible how great the contest of goodwill was between the patrons and clients, as each side strove not to be outdone by the other in kindness, the clients feeling that they should render all possible services to their patrons and the patrons wishing by all means not to occasion any trouble with their clients and accepting no gifts of money. So superior was their many of life to all pleasure; for they measured their happiness by virtue, not by fortune."

"They who consider themselves wealthy, honoured, the favorites of fortune, do not wish ever to be put under obligations by our kind services. Why, they actually think that they have conferred a favour by accepting one, however, great; and they suspect that a claim is thereby set up against them or that something is expected in return. Nay more, it is bitter death to them to have accepted a patron or to be called clients" (Cicero, de Off. 2.20.69).

The Pharisees were a corporate group of Israelites whose main concern was to fulfill all of God's demands in the Torah, but specifically as spelled out in the Great Tradition of their scribal elders. This tradition laid heavy emphasis on boundary keeping, on purity. Thus in social practice, the notable features of Pharisaic ideology were "no-mixture" and "exclusivity." The rule of no-mixture pertained to whatever might enter the social body or the physical body and result in uncleanness. This was all defined by scribal interpretation of Torah directives -- no mixture of persons, of foods, of clothing materials, of persons in space and of persons in time. Avoiding mixture meant that boundaries of both the physical and social body had to be carefully guarded to insure ritual purity. Purity, of course, is a matter of having a place for everything and keeping everything in its proper place. Purity/Pollution: Purification Rites, 3:22-36.

Exclusivity is the other feature of the Pharisaic ideology. Purity plus exclusivity is what defines holiness. For what is holy is what is pure (in the proper place) and exclusive to some person, whether human or divine. Consider the feelings a person has for his or her spouse, children, house or car should these be damaged by some intruder. The feelings of being bonded to and protective of what is one's own are feelings of "holiness," "sacredness." When the holy is mishandled by some outsider, one feels profaned, polluted, defiled. These human experiences of the holy were applied by analogy to God. Hence both God and human beings have exclusive persons, places, objects, times and places that must be respected by others.

By strict adherence to purity regulations, Pharisees kept themselves exclusively set apart from other groups, especially those marked either by indifference to Torah purity rules or by different interpretations of Torah purity rules. This created special concern for avoiding table fellowship with persons not in their group. As one scholar has pointed out, (speaking of the pre-70 Pharisees):

Of the 341 individual Houses' legal pericopae [i.e., statements], no fewer than 229, approximately 67 per cent of the whole, directly or indirectly concern table-fellowship . . . The Houses' laws of ritual cleanness apply in the main to the ritual cleanness of foods, and of people, dishes, and implements involved in its preparation. Pharisaic laws regarding Sabbath and festivals, moreover, involve in large measure the preparation and preservation of food (Neusner, Jacob, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1973:86).

Pharisees held that even outside of the Temple, in one's own home, the laws of ritual purity were to be followed at the table. Therefore, one must eat ordinary, everyday meals in a state of ritual purity as if one were a Temple priest.

Such purity concerns regarding the physical body translated into intense concern with the body's physical surface, in particular with its orifices, and especially the mouth. All food is destined to enter the body through the mouth, which is the equivalent of a gate for the social body, the city. As the boundaries of space and time in the social body are to be carefully guarded, so also are the boundaries of the physical body. This also meant substantial concern over the porosity of dishes from which food is consumed and over the washing of the surface of the hands which convey food to the mouth.

Boundaries and orifices, then, are the chief bodily concerns of Pharisees. This meant care about what and with whom one ate: unclean people eating unclean foods in an unclean manner threatened the surface, the boundary or the orifices of observant Pharisees. Care had to be taken so that only clean foods, tithed, properly prepared, served in appropriate vessels, and eaten in clean company enter the physical body by means of hands ritually washed.

Such an ideology of no-mixture protected by no-touching enabled Pharisees to maintain their self-esteem as an exclusive (that is, holy) people. They were to be as exclusive in their affairs as God was with His creation. God expected no less from Israel. In sum it was exclusivity (that is, holiness) that served as the hallmark of Pharisaism.

A pilgrimage is a religious journey to some hallowed shrine. It normally entails consecrated persons traveling to sacred places in order to experience the divinely sacred, most often at sacred times. (Note: what is "sacred" is what is exclusive to a human person or God, what is set apart for a person or God). What makes a pilgrimage different from a vacation trip is that the whole pilgrimage process derives from religious responsibility, whether by divine command, divine revelation, or reverence for ancestors and ancestral heroes. In Israel there were shrines rooted in Israelite kinship religion (e.g., the Tombs of the Patriarchs in Hebron, of David in Jerusalem, of Joseph in Samaria, of Rachel near Bethlehem, and the like). And there was the central shrine of political religion in Jerusalem.

Israelite males were obliged by Mosaic command to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times annually: "at the feast of unleavened bread, at the feast of weeks, and at the feast of booths" (that is: Passover, Pentecost and Sukkoth, Deut. 16:16). This meant travelling to the central city of Judea, Jerusalem, in the spring, summer and fall. During the time of the Maccabees in the 2nd century B.C., a winter pilgrimage festival was added to the previous three, the commemoration of the rededication of the Temple (Hanukkah). According to the Hellenist Israelite, Philo of Alexandria, the reason why Moses commanded pilgrimages was the following:

. . . he [Moses] does not permit those who desire to perform sacrifices in their own houses to do so, but he orders all men to rise up, even from the furthest boundaries of the earth, and to come to this Temple, by which command he is at the same time testing their dispositions most severely; for he who was not about to offer sacrifice in a pure and holy spirit would never endure to quit his country, and his friends, and relations, and emigrate into a distant land, but would be likely, being under the influence of a more powerful attraction than that towards piety, to continue attached to the society of his most intimate friends and relations as portions of himself, to which he was most closely attached. And the most evident proof of this may be found in the events which actually took place. For innumerable companies of men from a countless variety of cities, some by land and some by sea, from east and from west, from the north and from the south, came to the Temple at every festival (Special Laws I.xii.68-69 Hendrickson 540)

as if to some common refuge and safe asylum from the troubles of this most busy and painful life, seeking to find tranquillity, and to procure a remission of and respite from those cares by which from their earliest infancy they had been hampered and weighed down, and so, by getting breath as it were, to pass a brief time in cheerful festivities, being filled with good hopes and enjoying the leisure of that most important and necessary vacation which consists in forming a friendship with those hitherto unknown, but now initiated by boldness and a desire to honor God, and forming a combination of actions and a union of dispositions so as to join in sacrifices and libations to the most complete confirmation of mutual good will. (Special Laws I.xii.69-70).

. . . because in such assemblies and in a cheerful course of life there are thus established seasons of delight unconnected with any sorrow or depression supporting both body and soul; the one by pleasure and the other by the opportunities for philosophical study which they afford (Philo, Special Laws II.xxxiii.214).

Let those that live as remote as the bounds of the land which the Hebrews shall possess, come to that city where the Temple shall be, and this three times in a year that they may give thanks to God for his former benefits, and may entreat him for those they shall want hereafter; and let them, by this means, maintain a friendly correspondence with one another by such meetings and feastings together -- for it is a good thing for those that are of the same stock, and under the same institution of laws, not to be unacquainted with each other; which acquaintance will be maintained by thus conversing together, and by seeing and talking with one another, and so renewing the memorials of this union; for if they do not thus converse together continually, they will appear like mere strangers to one another (Ant. 4.8.7, 203-04).

The point being made by both of these witnesses (who themselves participated in pilgrimages to Jerusalem around the time of Jesus) was that such sacred journeys were exhilarating experiences. Pilgrims typically leave the demands of conventional social structure far behind and enter another world. Everyday norms of social status, hierarchy and interaction are abandoned in favor of the development of spontaneous association and shared experiences. A temporary state of what is termed communitas can be reached, as the pilgrim enters a special time, set apart from the everyday, which is kept in abeyance. (For a comparison of the communitas experience and life in an anti-society, Anti-Society, 1:35-51.) Pilgrims frequently avoid the overt display of status differences by the wearing of standard clothes and converging on a sacred site for the common purpose of festive worship.

Thus pilgrimages are precisely those occasions when people can, temporarily, escape the constraints of everyday social concerns and structures. The experience of travel in a society that insists on immobility, the constant possibility of encountering the new in a society that values the old, elements of implicit comparison between one's customary home values and behavior and those of the magnificent shrine center and its visitors, all produce an interactive process of response to what is encountered on journey and at the goal. Networking, 1:43-51. Returning home the pilgrim can only feel excitement and exhilaration. This would hold even for Israel and its localized political religion.

It is such feelings of excitement and exhilaration that John evokes in his ancient Mediterranean audience by mention of Israel's pilgrimages and feasts.

According to many commentators, the opening of John's Gospel is a poem. It is the only poem in John, and sets the cognitive and emotional tone for the interpersonal dimensions of the story that follows. The literate, print-oriented societies of the West are relentlessly prose-oriented. Poetry is offered on occasion, but is not a regular part of everyday speech. In oral societies, in which the vast majority cannot read or write, poetic verse is a principal form in which the tradition is recalled. It is an especially honorific way of speaking and is a common feature of everyday speech for both men and women.

The poetry of men and women differ. The public world, the male world, is the world in which the Great Tradition is preserved and recounted. Public World/Private World, 4:1-42. Male poetry, therefore, is frequently in the form of recitation of the tradition and is a common phenomenon in public, especially at ceremonial occasions. To be able to quote the group's tradition from memory, and to apply it in creative or appropriate ways to the situations of daily living, not only brings honor to the speaker but also lends authority to his words. Note that John makes just this use of Israel's tradition as he cites the Scriptures (1:23; 2:17; 6:31, 45; 10:34; 12:13, 15, 38, 40; 13:18; 15:25; 19:24, 36, 37)

The private world, the world of women, is the world of a different kind of poetry. Women's poetry is more likely to be informal and spontaneous than the public poetry of men. For example, Mary's song in Luke (1:47-55) is especially interesting because it displays a characteristic that apparently has remained present across time (it is true of women's poetry in the Middle East today): women's poetry is frequently about subjects forbidden in public discussion (in Mary's case: conception), expressing deeply felt sentiments and concerns that one normally does not talk about in public. Doing so in poetry is not only acceptable, however, it is honorable. Such public, poetic expressions of the forbidden were taken to show a woman's deep caring and sensitivity and usually elicited strong feelings of sympathy from all who heard.

The ability to use the Great Tradition creatively implied extensive, detailed knowledge of it and brought great honor to the speaker able to pull it off. Often the phrases drawn from the tradition are given in cryptic bits and pieces that do not need to be filled out by the speaker because the audience knows how to finish each fragment cited. A good example can be seen in John 10:34 where John presumes that the audience knows the circumstance of the quotation from Psa. 82:6 (see the Notes at 10:22-39). Unless the audience could fill in the quotation the argument by Jesus would make no sense.

While the presence of such poems as John 1:1-18 strikes us today as unusual speech, in Mediterranean cultures it is not. It is an especially honorable way to begin the story of Jesus.

Malina (Dictionary of Cultural Values): "Humble persons do not threaten or challenge another's rights, nor do they claim more for themselves than has been duly allotted them in life. They even stay a step below or behind their rightful status (e.g., the "unworthy" John, Mark 1:7). Thus humility is a socially acknowledged claim to neutrality in the competition of life. Conversely, to attempt to better oneself at the expense of others, to acquire more than others, to strive for honors others now enjoy, are all instances of proud and arrogant behavior. . . To humble or humiliate oneself is to declare oneself powerless to defend one's status (e.g. Phil 2:8), and then to act accordingly either factually (becoming powerless, like the low-born), or ritually (by a rite in which the use of power is set aside, symboled by behavior typical of the low-born: fasting, rend garments, weeping, lamenting, confession -- e.g. Lev 26:41; 1 Kings 21:29; 2 Kings 22:8-20; Ps 69:10). . . While Jesus is no arrogant teacher (Matt 11:29), yet he does not exhort to traditional self-humiliation, but simply that one not challenge the honor of others (Matt 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14), as though one were as powerless to do so as a child (Matt 18:4)."

The "poor in spirit" are honored victims, people whose rights have been infringed and challenged; who are far from claiming any wealth or status. It is not that they are neutral in the agonistic competition of the village; they are precisely victims. All the other beatitudes are "visible": mourning, hungry, meek (landless), just (lives up to obligations), cast out and shamed.

The pervasive presence of the poor in Lucan texts probably reflects the situation of an earlier stage in the tradition than that of Luke himself. His knowledge of poverty is secondhand, via the tradition, which he uses to criticize the rich of his own congregation to whom he writes.

The term poor, "ptochos," should be understood in concrete (Luke does not spiritualize poverty), though not exclusively economic, terms. It is a social reality as well as an economic one. Essential to understanding it is the notion of "limited good." In modern economies, we make the assumption that goods are, in principle, in unlimited supply. If a shortage exists, we can produce more. If one person gets more of something, it does not automatically mean someone else gets less, it may just mean the factory worked overtime and more became available.

But in ancient Palestine, the perception was the opposite: all goods existed in finite, limited supply. This included not only material goods, but honor, friendship, love, power, security and status as well - literally everything in life. The pie could not grow larger, hence a larger piece for anyone automatically meant a smaller piece for someone else.

An honorable man would thus be interested only in what is rightfully his and would have no desire to gain anything more, i.e., to take what is another's. Acquisition was, by its very nature, understood as stealing. The ancient Mediterranean attitude was, "Every rich person is either unjust or the heir of an unjust person" (St. Jerome: "Every rich person is a thief or the heir of a thief," In Hieremiam, II,V,2,CCL LXXIV 61). Profit-making and the acquisition of wealth were automatically assumed to be the result of extortion or fraud. The notion of an honest rich man was a first-century oxymoron.

To be labeled "rich" was therefore a social and moral statement as much as an economic one. It meant the power or capacity to take from someone weaker what was rightfully his. Being rich was therefore synonymous with being greedy. By the same token, to be "poor" was to be unable to defend what was yours. It meant falling below the status at which one was born. It was to be defenseless, without recourse.

Note how often in the New Testament poverty is associated with a condition of powerlessness or misfortune. In Luke 4:18-19 the poor are the imprisoned, the blind, the debtors. Matt. 11:4-5 associates the poor with the blind, lame, lepers, deaf and dead. Luke 14:13,21 lists the poor with the maimed, the lame and the blind. Mark 12:42-43 tells of a "poor" widow (women without attachment to a male were often portrayed as the prototypical victim). In Luke 16:19-31 the rich man is contrasted with poor Lazarus, a beggar full of sores. Rev. 3:17 describes the poor as wretched, pitiable, blind and naked.

In a society in which power brought wealth (in our society it is the opposite: wealth brings power), being powerless meant being vulnerable to the greedy who prey on the weak. The terms "rich" and "poor," therefore, are not exclusively economic. Fundamentally they describe a social condition relative to one's neighbors: the poor are the weak, while the rich are the strong

Prayer is a socially meaningful symbolic act of communication, bearing directly upon persons perceived as somehow supporting, maintaining, and controlling the order of existence of the one praying, and performed with the purpose of getting results from or in the interaction of communication. This definition identifies the nature of the activity, its object and its purpose. Prayer may take the form of petition, adoration, contrition or thanksgiving, but it is always a communication. Since prayer always addresses the person perceived as supporting, maintaining and controlling the order of existence of the one praying, it presupposes a superior/subordinate relationship. Finally prayer aims to have some effect on the person with whom the pray-er communicates, that is, it seeks results.

Prayer to God, religious prayer, is directed to the one ultimately in charge of the total order of existence. Prayer forms directed to God derive by analogy from prayer forms to those in control of the various orders of existence in which human beings find themselves (e.g. parents, rulers, social superiors of all sorts). Just as people speak to others with a view to having effect, so too people pray to have effect. Like other types of language, prayer can be:

(1) Instrumental ("I want . . ."): prayer to obtain goods and services to satisfy individual and communal material and social needs (prayers of petition for oneself and/or others);

(2) Regulatory ("Do as I tell you"): prayers to control the activity of God, to command God to order people and things about on behalf of the one praying (another type of petition, but with the presumption that the one praying is superior to God);

(3) Interactional ("me and you"): prayers to maintain emotional ties with God, to get along with God, to continue interpersonal relations (prayers of adoration, of simple presence, of examining the course of a day before and with God);

(4) Self-focused ("Here I come; here I am"): prayers that identify the self (individual or social) to God, expressing the self to God (prayer of contrition, of humility, of boasting, of superiority over others);

(5) Heuristic ("tell me why"): prayer that explores the world of God and God's workings within us individually and/or in our group (meditative prayer, perceptions of the spirit in prayer);

(6) Imaginative ("Let's pretend; what if"): prayer to create an environment of one's own with God (prayer in tongues, prayers read or recited in languages unknown to the person reading or reciting them);

(7) Informative ("I have something to tell you")" prayers that communicate new information (prayers of acknowledgment, of thanksgiving for favors received).

It has been thought that there should be three reasons for punishing crimes. One of these the Greeks call either kolasis or nouthesia, is the infliction of punishment for the purpose of correction and reformation, in order that one who has done wrong thoughtlessly may become more careful and scrupulous. The second is called timoria by those who have made a more exact differentiation between terms of this kind. That reason for punishment exists when the dignity and prestige of the one who is sinned against must be maintained, lest the omission of punishment bring him into contempt and diminish the esteem in which he is held; and therefore they think that it was given a name derived from the preservation of honour [Gk: time]. A third reason for punishment is that which is called by the Greeks paradeigma, when punishment is necessary for the sake of example, in order that others through fear of a recognized penalty may be kept from similar sins, which it is to the common interest to prevent. Therefore our forefathers used the world exempla, or "examples," for the severest and heaviest penalties.

Accordingly, when there is either strong hope that the culprit will voluntarily correct himself without punishments, or on the other hand when there is no hope that he can be reformed and corrected; or when there is no need to fear loss of prestige in the one who has been sinned against; for it the sin is not of such a sort that punishment must be inflicted in order that it may inspire a necessary feeling of fear - then lin the case of all such sins the desire to inflict punishment does not seem to be at all fitting (Attic Nights 7.14.1-4).

Purity/Pollution Virtually all societies draw distinctions between the clean and unclean. Such purity distinctions embody the core values of a society and thereby provide clarity, direction and consistency to social behavior. What accords with these values and their structural expression in a purity system is considered "pure," what does not is viewed as "polluted."

Pollution refers to what is out of place, what does not belong. Purity systems thus provide "maps" designating social space and time in which everything and everybody either fits and is considered clean or does not and is regarded as defiled. As such, they provide boundaries marking off the places and times where things and people belong. The Judaism of Jesus' day provided such maps of: (1) time, which specified rules for the Sabbath, when to say the Shema and when circumcision should be performed; (2) places, spelling out what could be done in the various precincts of the temple or where the scapegoat was to be sent on the Day of Atonement; (3) persons, designating whom one could marry, touch, or eat with, who could divorce, who could enter the various spaces in the temple and temple courtyards and who could hold certain offices or perform certain actions; (4) things, that were considered clean or unclean, could be offered in sacrifice or allowed contact with the body; (5) meals, that determined what could be eaten, how it was to be grown, prepared or slaughtered, in what vessels it could be served, when and where it could be eaten and with whom it could be shared; and (6) uncleanness, which offered guidelines for avoiding polluting contact. Eg., see the maps of: times, 6:1-5; uncleanness, 8:42-48.

Controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees over such purity norms can be seen throughout the Gospels, often as a result of Jesus disregarding accepted interpretations of the maps. He does not observe the map of times (Luke 6:1-11), or the map of places (Luke 19:45-46). The same is true of the map of persons: Jesus touches lepers (Luke 5:13), menstruating women (Luke 8:43-48) and corpses (Luke 8:54). The map of things is disregarded when Jesus neglects washing rites in Luke 11:37-38. Contrary to the map of meals, in Luke 10:7-8 Jesus counsels contravention of dietary laws and eats with tax collectors and sinners (Luke 5:29-30). By disregarding such maps the Jesus movement asserts a clear rejection of the established temple purity system.

If students have ever seen a quiz bowl contest on TV, they will recognize what this looks like in antiquity. New Testament scholars regularly comment on the literary form called the "chreia" which is found abundantly in the gospels. "Chreiai" are reminiscences, that are told to give honor and glory to a philosopher, a sage, or a very witty person who can make an excellent retort to a question. In chreiai, someone comes up to philosopher, sage, wit and asks a question. Questions, we know are rarely neutral requests for information; questions are asked to put the wise man on the spot, to stump the champ, and to pop his balloon. The chreia records the witty response of the philosopher/sage who is never at a loss for a retort or snappy answer. Thus by his clever response the philosopher/sage maintains his honor in this ubiquitous challenge-riposte exchange.

Quintilian describes the various ways in which both questions and answers can be stated to achieve special rhetorical effect. Concerning questions he notes: "What is more common than to ask and enquire? For both terms are used indifferently, although the one seems to imply a desire for knowledge, and the other a desire to prove something" (Inst. Orat. 9.2.6). There are "simple questions" such as: "Who are you and from whence do you come?" Yet questions are asked "not to get information, but to emphasize our point. Some questions put an audience on the spot; some are calculated to stump an opponent: "We may put a question to which it is difficult to reply, as in the common forms, 'How was it possible?' 'How can that be?'" Our purpose might simply be "to throw odium on the person to whom it is addressed" or "to embarrass our opponent and to deprive him of the power of feigning ignorance of our meaning" or to provoke "indignation. Therefore, Quintilian illustrates the rhetorical use of questions as aggressive or combative tools, which either support our attack, prevent the person questioned from denying accusations, cause difficulty in replying, throw odium, embarrass, and shame someone. Questions, then, often function as weapons.

Participants at symposia raised for discussion questions which served as the evening's entertainment. But even entertainment may entail playing a competitive game of sparring with the weapon of one's wits. Suetonius records how the emperor Tiberius delighted in trying to stump his banquet guests with hard questions about mythology: "He used to test even the grammarians . . . by questions like this: 'Who was Hecuba's mother?' 'What was the name of Achilles among the maidens?'" (Tiberias 70.3). Tiberius asked these questions as part of a game, "to test even the grammarians," which reminds us that such questions were very competitive Plutarch also describes a most deadly question contest between Alexander and the Gymnosophists. Because they were "reputed to be clever and concise in answering questions," Alexander put difficult questions to them, with the proviso that "he would put to death him who first made an incorrect answer" - a pleasant evening was had by all!

Now anyone who has read Mark's gospel closely will have noted how frequently his enemies attack him by asking him questions meant to embarrass him, put him down, and chase him away in confusion. This is never more true than when Jesus enters Jerusalem. Now all the elite members of the capital city's society attack him like bees whose hive has been threatened. Note, please, how an old Israelite text prescribes a form of ancient quiz bowl:

"Our Rabbis taught: Twelve questions did the Alexandrians address to R. Joshua ben Hananiah. Three were of a scientific nature, three were matters of aggadah, three were nonsense, and three were matters of conduct" (b. Niddah 69b).

Now read Mark 12:13-37; 4 questions are asked of him; see if the four types of Israelite question fit here. Some questions: (1) note who asks Jesus questions? Are these elites? Are any groups of elites missing? (2) what does it mean if Jesus answers all the questions of the elite? Is it better than fending off the questions of peasants in Galilee? (3) How do these questions/answers influence the plot to kill Jesus? Read Mark 15:10. (4) If Jesus wins this Israelite quiz bowl, what are readers supposed to think of him?

Though it is common in the contemporary world to think of politics, the economic system and religion as distinct social institutions (and to make arguments about keeping them separate), no such pattern existed in antiquity. In the world of the New Testament only two institutions existed: kinship and politics. Neither religion nor economics had a separate institutional existence or was conceived of as a system on its own.

Economics was rooted in the family, which was both the producing and consuming unit of antiquity (unlike the modern industrial society in which the family is normally a consuming unit but not a producing one). There was also a political economy in the sense that political systems were used to control the flow and distribution of goods, but nowhere do we meet the terminology of an economic "system" in the modern sense. There is no language implying abstract concepts of market, or monetary system or fiscal theory. Economics is "embedded," meaning that economic goals, production, roles, employment, organization and systems of distribution are governed by political and kinship considerations, not "economic" ones.

Religion likewise has no separate, institutional existence in the modern sense. It is rather an overarching system of meaning that unifies political and kinship systems (including their economic aspects) into an ideological whole. It serves to legitimate and articulate (or delegitimate and criticize) the patterns of both politics and family. Its language is drawn from both kinship relations (father, son, brother, sister, virgin, child, honor, praise, forgiveness, etc.) and politics (king, kingdom, princes of this world, powers, covenant, law, etc.) rather than a discreet realm called religion. There could be domestic religion and/or political religion, but no religion in a separate, abstract sense. Thus the temple is never a religious institution somehow separate from political institutions. Nor is worship ever separate from what one does in the home. Religion is the meaning one gives to the way the two fundamental systems, politics and kinship, are put into practice.

In trying to understand the meaning of Jesus' statement about rendering to Caesar and God what belongs to each, therefore, it would be anachronistic to read back into the statement either the modern idea of the separation of church and state or the notion that economics (including the tax system) somehow has a separate institutional existence in a realm of its own. Thus the frequent notion that "two kingdoms," one political/economic and the other religious, one belonging to Caesar and the other to God, are each being given their due in the reply of Jesus is to confuse ancient social patterns with our own.

First, the theory: Victor Turner described the difference between "rituals" and "ceremonies" thus: "I consider the term 'ritual' to be more fittingly applied to forms of religious behavior associated with social transitions, while the term 'ceremony' has a closer bearing on religious behavior associated with religious states. . .ritual is transformative, ceremony confirmatory.

The following model tries to bring out the distinction between "transformatory ritual" from "confirmatory ceremonies"

In the Mediterranean societies of the first century, one's honor-status determined both position in the community and the nature of one's life-chances. Though primarily determined by birth (ascribed), honor could also be acquired through outstanding valor or service or in meeting the challenges of daily living in an extraordinary way (See the Cameo Essays on Honor-Shame, 4:16-30 and Challenge-Riposte, 4:1-13).

Throughout his Gospel, Luke presents Jesus as a person whose words and deeds are all out of proportion to the honor-status of a village artisan. Thus Luke's account shows repeatedly how Jesus is recognized by friend and foe (grudgingly, indirectly, ironically) alike as being more than he initially appears. He is in fact the honored Son of God.

Notices in the Gospel that Jesus' opponents "feared the people" (20:19) or that they could not do anything because "all the people hung on his words" (19:48) are indications that Jesus' honor-status in the public mind rendered him invulnerable. Thus in order to destroy him, it became necessary for Jesus' opponents first to destroy his standing in the eyes of the people. In all of the Gospels they do so through what anthropologists call "status degradation rituals," by which is meant a process of publicly re-casting, re-labeling, humiliating and thus re-categorizing a person as a social deviant. Such rituals express the moral indignation of the denouncers and often mock or denounce a person's former identity in such a way as to destroy it totally. Usually it is accompanied by a revisionist account of the person's past which indicates he has been deviant all along. A variety of social settings - trials, hearings, political rallies - can be the occasion for this destruction of a person's public identity and credibility. See the Cameo Essay on Deviance Labeling, 11:14-23.

As Jesus is brought to the house of the high priest (22:53), the first of the degradation rituals which Luke records takes place. Jesus is blindfolded, struck from behind and mocked as a "prophet." He is reviled and insulted in other ways as well. By such humiliation in public (this apparently takes place in view of the courtyard where Peter and the others stand by, since Jesus can turn and look at Peter) which he appears powerless to prevent, Jesus' lofty status in the eyes of the people begins to crumble.

This process continues before the Council on the following day (22:66-71), and then quickly shifts to the arraignment before Pilate (23:1-7). Political charges ("perverting the nation") are illustrated by a retrospective re-casting of Jesus' teaching ("forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar" Cf. 20:19-26) and then repeated with the claim that the whole territory can bear witness to what has happened.

In the "trial" before Herod the humiliation of Jesus is described in brief, but graphic detail. Soldiers array him in gorgeous apparel and mock him in response to accusations by the chief priests and scribes.

The final re-casting of Jesus' identity comes before the chief priests and rulers and the people. Three times Pilate seeks to release Jesus, but the crowd is insistent. They cry out that they prefer the release of Barabbas, an insurrectionist and murderer, whose name in Aramaic Bar-'Abba' means "son of the father." In the ultimate irony of the entire degradation ritual, Jesus, the true Son of the Father, and Barabbas, the common criminal, have switched roles. As the crowd and rulers acquiesce, Jesus is reduced to a level of utter contempt.

The attempts of many to treat all this as a "legal" trial notwithstanding (frequently citing the regulations of the Mishnah for the conduct of criminal cases even though there is little attempt here to "prove" criminality), Luke and the other evangelists (it is especially clear in Matthew) portray these events as a public ritual of humiliation aimed at destroying the status that until now had given Jesus credibility in the eyes of the public. In the end, the success of the degradation ritual made Pilate's "sentence" a mere recognition of the obvious.

Those coming to arrest him in Gethsemane are greeted by Jesus with the comment, "Have you come out as against a robber...?" The Greek term used here by Luke, , is consistently employed by Josephus to describe the phenomenon of social banditry which played such a pivotal role in the spreading chaos prior to the great revolt of 66 c.e.

Social banditry is a phenomenon that is nearly universal in agrarian societies in which peasants and landless laborers are exploited by a ruling elite which siphons off most of the economic surplus they produce. Persons driven off the land by debt or violence or social chaos of any sort, resort to brigandage in which the elite are the primary victims. Recent evidence indicates that the popular legends of bandits who rob the rich and aid the poor frequently have a basis in actual experience. Moreover, such bandits usually have the support of the local peasantry who sometimes risk their own lives to harbor them. Historically, such banditry increases rapidly whenever debt, famine, taxation, political or economic crises force marginal peasants from their land.

According to Josephus, social banditry, caused by exactly such conditions, was widespread in Palestine prior to the reign of Herod the Great and again in the mid-first century leading up to the great revolt. In the days of Antipater (father of Herod the Great) Josephus tells how a Hezekiah, "a brigand-chief ( ) with a very large gang, was over-running the district on the Syrian frontier" (J.W. 1.204). Later he vividly describes the strenuous efforts of Herod to rid the territory of these bandits who usually hid in the inaccessible wadis and caves of the hill country:

With ropes he lowered (over the cliffs) the toughest of his men in large baskets until they reached the mouths of the caves; they then slaughtered the brigands and their families, and threw firebrands at those who resisted....Not a one of them voluntarily surrendered and of those brought out forcibly many preferred death to captivity (J.W. 1.311).

Such gangs of roving bandits formed much of the fighting force in the early stages of the great revolt, and it was they who coalesced with other groups to eventually form the Zealot party after the revolt broke out. While we hear less about such activity during the lifetime of Jesus, it undoubtedly existed since the conditions that produce it are those pictured in stories throughout the synoptic gospels.

It is also striking that the term Josephus uses for such bandits is the term Jesus uses when the chief priests, officers of the temple and elders come with swords and clubs to arrest him (Luke 22:52). Moreover, this same term is used by Mark (15:27) to describe the two men who were crucified on either side of Jesus (Luke changes it to the more general term for robbers, ). Some have likewise argued that social banditry is implied in the term Luke uses in 22:37 ( ), sometimes translated "transgressors" but more properly translated "outlaws," suggesting that Jesus was numbered among such by his accusers. Finally, Barabbas, who is called a in John's Gospel (18:40), and is said in Luke to have been arrested in connection with a riot in the city, probably should be seen in this light as well.

'Role' refers to a set of 'expectations' for interaction between a person who holds one position in a group and another person who holds a reciprocal position. In other words, there can be no 'leader' role without a 'follower' role (Hare IESS 6.283)

Roles have a form and a content, where form includes the frequency of interaction and the communication network and the content includes tasks and social-emotional behavior. Within the task area, the expectations refer to problem-solving behavior and within the social-emotional area, according to one recent formulation, to behavior along at least three dimensions: dominance-submission, positive-negative, and joking-serious (Couch 1960; Hare 1962) (Hare, IESS 6.284)

Task versus social-emotional roles. ". . .two kinds of role specialists: one an 'idea man' who concentrates on the task and plays a more aggressive role; the other a 'best-liked' man who concentrates on social-emotional problems of group process and member satisfaction, giving emotional rewards and playing a more passive role (Hare IESS 6.285)

The concept of role, borrowed from the stage, has been central in those sociological analyses which seek to link the functioning of the social order with the characteristics and behavior of the individuals who make it up. . .the following elements appear in the definition of role: it provides a comprehensive pattern for behavior and attitudes; it constitutes a strategy for coping with a recurrent type of situation; it is socially identified, more of less clearly, as an entity; it is subject to being played recognizably by different individuals; and it supplies a major basis for identifying and placing persons in society (Turner IESS 13.552)

"Status" Until about 1920 the term status was most commonly used to refer to either the legally enforceable capacities and limitations of people or their relative superiority and inferiority. More recently, the rights and duties fixed by law have seemed less significant than those fixed by custom; and thus the non-secular usage, now often called "status in the Linton sense," after the social anthropologist Ralph Linton (1936), has come to be a synonym of any "position in a social system. . .Whereas formerly superiority of status could mean any sort of hierarchical ordering -- of power, wealth, or honor -- to many it now refers only to esteem, prestige, honor, respect, that is, to various forms of evaluation.

According to Linton, a status is marked off by the fact that distinctive beliefs about, and expectations for, social actors are organized around it. 'Child' is a status because we believe children are less mature than adults and because in American society children are expected to be more submissive to the authority of their parents than are adults. . .Age, sex, birth, genealogy, and other biological and constitutional characteristics are very common bases of status. Nevertheless, status is a phenomenon, not of the intrinsic characteristics of men, but of social organization. . . What matters is not what you really are but what people believe you to be" (Zelditch, IESS 15.250).

The term status is often not clearly distinguished from the term role, and some use the two terms almost interchangeably. But one can make the distinction easily enough if one keeps in mind that status defines who a person is (e.g., he is a child, or a Negro, or a doctor), while role defines what such a person is expected to do (e.g., he is too young to work; he should not want to push himself ahead; he should care about patients). . .A common method of identifying the statuses of a social system is to discover its 'lists' of status designators. For example, kinship studies typically begin with a list of kin terms and their usage. If father's son and father's brother's son are both brothers, they have a common status (Zelditch, IESS 15.251).

Sets and sequences and roles. Social position is always defined relative to a counter position. A doctor behaves to a patient in one way, to a nurse in a second way, and to a hospital administrator in a third way. The elementary unit of analysis for social systems, therefore, is not the status itself, but the relation of two statuses (Zelditch, IESS 15.252).

Components of Social Structure: One of the most important components of social structure is status. A status is a recognized position that a person occupies within society. A person's status determines where he or she fits in society in relationship to everyone else. A status may be based on or accompanied by wealth, power, prestige, or a combination of all of these. Thus the different statuses in a society are related to the division of labor, the political system, and other cultural variables.

All societies recognize both ascribed and achieved statuses. An ascribed status is one that is attached to a person from birth. The most prevalent ascribed statuses are based on family and kinship relations (for example, daughter or son), sex (male or female), and age. In addition, in some societies ascribed statuses are based on one's race or ethnicity. For example, as we will see in a later chapter, skin color is used to designate ascribed status differences in South Africa under the system of apartheid. In contrast, an achieved status is based at least in part on a person's specific actions. Examples of achieved statuses are one's profession and level of education.

Closely related to status is the concept of social roles. A role is a set of expected behavior patterns, obligations, and norms attached to a particular status. The distinction between status and role is a simple one: you "occupy" a certain status, but you "play" a role (Linton, 1936). For example, as a student you occupy a certain status that differs from that of your teacher, administrators, or other staff. As you occupy that status you perform by attending lectures, taking notes, participating in class, and studying for examinations. This concept of role is derived from the theater and refers to the parts played by actors on the stage. If you are a husband, mothers, son, daughter, teacher, lawyer, judge, male or female, you are expected to behave in certain ways because fo the norms associated with that particular status.

As mentioned, the social statuses within a society usually correspond to wealth, power, and prestige. Anthropologists find that all societies have inequality in statuses, which are arranged in a hierarchy. This inequality of statuses is known as social stratification. . . (Raymond Scupin and Christopher De Corse, Anthropology and Global Perspective, 2nd ed; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 280).

Fixed Sacred Space: Bruce J. Malina. Of fixed sacred space, Malina write: “Just as persons have their statuses by ascription and perdure in that status indefinitely, the same holds true for places. The topography of the main places where people in this script live out their lives is rather permanent. A palace location, a temple location, and a homestead stay in the same place and with the same lineage through generations” (Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 31).

Thus fixed sacred space correlates with fixed roles and statuses. All of this is characterized by redundant aspects of stability, permanence and continuity. The temple-city of Jerusalem exemplifies this well.

Fluid Sacred Space: Of fluid sacred space, Malina writes: “This situation of porous boundaries and competing groups stands in great contrast to the solid, hierarchical, pyramidal shape of strong group/high grid [fixed space]. . . as groups form and re-form anew, permanence is no longer to be found outside the group; and where the group is, there is stability. Sacred space is located in the group, not in some impersonal space like a temple. The group is the central location of importance, whether the Body of Christ, the church, for Christians, or the synagogue gathering for Jews, or the philosophical “schools”. . .Discourse within these groups, whether the words of a portable Torah, the story of Jesus, or the exhortations of the philosopher-teacher, becomes the mobile, portable, exportable focus of sacred place, in fact more important than the fixed and eternal sacred places” (Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 38).

Malina’s classification is based on considerations of space and time, at which we must look more closely. The following chart should make explicit the contrasts on every level between fixed and fluid sacred space.

In the honor-shame world of the Mediterranean, reputation meant everything. Since honor is largely determined by public opinion, it becomes critical that the public know nothing that might damage a person's reputation or alter the public image that a family or group has so assiduously cultivated. Information-control thus is a strategy used to maintain one's honor.

Among the devices of information control available to humans, secrecy is rather fundamental. Secrecy is a formal, conscious, deliberate and calculated concealment of information, activities or relationships which outsiders can gain only by espionage. It is a selective transmission of information, an attempt to control the information flow across the web of social boundaries. Obviously the nature of secrecy is that it rests on a premise of distrust.

This premise is quite clearly stated in John's narrative: "When he was in Jerusalem at the Passover festival, many believed in his name because they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people, and needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone" (2:23-25). Such distrust is rooted in uncertainty about how others might react if secret information were made available. Moreover, secrecy makes it difficult for outsiders to predict the actions of insiders and to take counter action against them.

The need to conceal information comes from competition for and conflict over valued scarce resources such as power, prestige, honor and wealth. We can see it in the frequent mention of people seeking Jesus to do him harm. After the Bethzatha healing, for example, the Judeans seek Jesus to persecute and kill him (John 5:12, 16, 18). In chap. 6, the crowds seek to make him king against his will (6:15, 24). In chaps. 7-11, this conflict intensifies with the Judeans' attempts to capture and kill Jesus (7:30; 7:44; 8:20; 8:59; 10:31; 10:39; 11:53; 11:56). The climax of the conflict comes in 18:4-5, when Jesus is finally arrested.

It is especially important to cloak anything which happens in the ingroup that might be considered a threat by outsiders. In a limited good world, where anything gained, whether new wealth, position, honor or whatever, was always believed to come at someone else's expense, one could never appear grasping or self-aggrandizing in public without raising immediate suspicion. The much-discussed "messianic secret" motif so prominent in Mark (1:25,34,44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:24,36; 8:30; 9:9,30) can be seen in this light rather than as a theological ploy. And the same is true of the elusiveness of Jesus in John. Having been born to the low social status of a village artisan (John 6:42), claims by Jesus that he is a celestial personage who has "come down from the sky" would have been viewed as grasping in the extreme. In Israel, it is only something an anti-society can appreciate. Writing for members of such an anti-society, John asserts this celestial origin of Jesus right from the beginning of the Gospel (see the Notes at 1:1-18). But in the narrative, Jesus shows himself to be an honorable person by being elusive and trying to keep such information out of the public arena (4:3; 5:13; 6:15; 7:1; 7:10; 8:59; 10:39; 11:54). The time for him to assert his claim is his "hour," and so long as the hour has not yet come, he avoids challenging others on this score (7:30, 8:21). Of course the Father whom he looks to (5:37, 14:8) and the Spirit whom he gives (3:8) are likewise involved in his reticence.

Further, the frequent misunderstandings in the Gospel story (Nicodemus in chap. 3; the woman in chap. 4; Pilate in chaps. 18-19) show Jesus using deliberate confusion and secrecy to enhance his reputation in the eyes of readers. In the same way secrecy enhances Jesus' reputation when it comes to both his origin (6:42; 19:9-10) and his destination (6:16; 13:33; 14:19). Note how the disciples express their delight at finally being treated as ingroup members when Jesus opts for plain language in 16:29.

Insider/outsider talk in John should be judged in this same light. See the a Ingroup and Outgroup, 15:18--16:4a. The insider interpretation of Jesus' role and goal in the final discourse (chaps 13-17) is the prime example. John and his anti-society audience see both the outsider and insider versions of the story of Jesus even though Jesus' public hearers do not really understand what he is up to. This is a clear tip-off that John is telling his story for insiders, a part of his fictive kin group whose members are "children of God," and Jesus' friends.

Jesus describes himself as a capable and concerned shepherd. That analogy would not be lost on his contemporaries, since the breeding and care of sheep was something well known to Israelite peasants. Even in the Middle East today, Arab fellahin classify sheep in a bewildering set of categories, all of significance to the quality of the animal: by gender (ram, ewe, lamb), breeding ability (fertile and barren), age (special word for sheep 1-6 months old, 7-12 months old, 1-2 years old, 3 years and old); time of birth (Gen 30:41-42 alludes to early lambs, born in November or December and summer lambs, born in June; there are also spring lambs, born in February or March) and color (white sheep, black sheep, black sheep with white spots, blue-black faced sheep, black faced sheep, white sheep with black face and neck, black spotted faced sheep, brown faced with white nose sheep, brown headed sheep, brown and white spotted faced sheep, black and brown faced sheep, grey headed sheep). There is a different Arabic word for each of these categories. And if the animal were ill, there are special names for the categories of variously afflicted sheep.

The shepherd's life involved heat during the day, cold at night and frequent sleepless nights (Gen 31:40). To deal with wild animals and robbers required special skill in handling sheep and predators. Sheep often injured themselves by getting caught in rocky clefts while foraging. To meet their needs, shepherds carried a scrip, a sling, a club and a rod (cf. Matt. 10:6.16). Sheep of various flocks often spent the night in common sheep folds (or caves). In the evening, the shepherd used his rod to single out injured sheep from the rest as they pass under the rod into the sheepfold (Lev 27:32; Jer 33:13; Ezek 20:37). The first thing a shepherd does in the morning is to call out and lead his sheep. After calling out his sheep from the sheepfold, the shepherd leads the way to pasture in open fields. After the grape harvest, shepherds would lead their sheep through vineyards to eat the remaining foliage (Jer 12:10).

When the shepherd was not the owner of the flock, he was not responsible for losses caused by predators, but must prove the loss by demonstrating a piece of the torn animal (Gen 31:39). Moreover, the hireling was free to use the milk of the flock: "Who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?" (1 Cor 9:7). Hirelings were traditionally paid every tenth lamb or kid born in the flock (Gen 30:28-35).

It was quite important for the shepherd and his flock to be protected from the range of negative forces that confronted their well being, from visible thieves and wolves to invisible demons of all sorts. To guarantee security, there were all sorts of protective measures that might be taken. In ancient Israel shepherds were to maintain positive relations with the God of the Jacob by offering the first-born (Num 3:13; 18:15). Then the shepherd would maintain good relations with the protective deity who specialized in sheep. It seems that in Israel (and Phoenicia), the protective deity was Ashtarte (identified with the planet Venus). Breeding ewes were called the "Ashtartes of the flock" (Deut 7:13; 28:4.18.51). The Romans called their traditional protective deity Pales, and on April 21 celebrated the Parilia to insure protection. Both the Roman Pales and the planet Venus might be male and female (Venus as morning star is male, as evening star it is female). There is extensive information concerning the Roman celebration of the Parilia with parallel behavior in later Christianized Europe.

The point is that here, Jesus is the good shepherd who protects his flock with the basic guarantees shepherds sought from protective deities: security, fertility and provisions. Interestingly, these are the guarantees ancient peoples sought from their kings ( King of the Judeans, 18:28--19:16a). Hence kings were readily described with shepherding metaphors, although job of hireling shepherd was considered very low status.

Sin is a breach of interpersonal relationship. It essentially consists in shaming or dishonoring another person. For clarity's sake we would like to distinguish three hypothetical degrees. These degrees of dishonor would depend upon whether the damage to the offended person's honor is revocable or not, whether the social boundaries can be readily repaired or not, whether the implied or actual deprivation of honor is light, significant, or extreme and total. Thus transgressions of the boundaries marking off the person run within three degrees.

The first degree involves extreme and total dishonor of another with no revocation possible. This is outrage and would include murder, adultery, kidnaping, false witnessing, theft of vital goods or persons, total social degradation of a person by depriving one of all that is necessary for one's social status. These, in sum, include all the things listed in the second half of the Ten Commandments, for this in fact is what is listed there: outrages against one's fellow Israelite that are simply not revocable but require vengeance.

The second degree would be a significant deprivation of honor, e.g. by not allowing others to marry my children if they let my children marry theirs; by stealing something not necessary to the livelihood of another. In such cases, revocation is possible, e.g., by allowing the previously denied marriage, by restoring stolen items, by making monetary restitution for seducing one's unbetrothed, unmarried daughter, and the like.

The third and lowest degree of dishonor would be accidental withholding of the regular and ordinary interactions that require normal social responses, e.g., not repaying a gift with one of equal or better value by oversight; not greeting an equal or higher status person due to inattention, etc.

In other words, any implicit or explicit dishonor must allow for satisfaction commensurate with the degree of dishonor present. In the Gospels the closest analogy for the forgiveness of sins is the forgiveness of debts (Luke 11:4; cf. Matt. 6:12), an analogy drawn from pervasive peasant experience. Debt threatened loss of land, livelihood, family. It was the result of being poor, that is, being unable to defend one's social position. Forgiveness would thus have had the character of restoration, a return to both self-sufficiency and one's place in the community. Since the introspective, guilt-oriented outlook of industrialized societies did not exist, forgiveness by God meant being divinely restored to one's position and therefore being freed from fear of loss at the hands of God. "Conscience" was not so much an interior voice of accusation as an external one -- blame from the ingroup, for example family, friends, neighbors or authorities (Luke 6:6; John 5:45; 8:10; see also 1 Cor 4:4). Thus public accusation had the power to destroy, while forgiveness had the power to restore.

Many recent scholars have begun to use the work of Gerhard Lenski as a useful tool for gaining a sense of the radical stratification of the social world of antiquity. The part of Lenski's work pertinent to this study is the description of advanced agrarian societies, which adequately describes at a macro level the Roman empire of the time of Jesus and Paul. It was characterized, he argues, by "marked social inequality . . . pronounced differences in power, privilege and honor" associated with mature agrarian societies. Thus Lenski sets out to describe nine levels of social status, beginning with the imperial and urban elite at the top of the pyramid and concluding with artisans, untouchables and expendibles at the bottom.

Lenski's description of social stratification involves another model, the pre-industrial city, which has been adequately described for New Testament readers by Richard Rohrbaugh. The importance of Rohrbaugh's studies lies in its appreciation of the fact that the elites lived safely and elegantly in cities and that they were assisted by a retainer class which served their interests. Yet the bulk of the city's population consisted of merchants and artisans, some of whom were well off, but most of whom lived at a subsistence level, at best. This model of the ancient city presupposes that the bulk of the total population dwelt in villages and lived as subsistence peasant farmers (90%), while the remaining 10% (elites, their retainers, merchants and artisans) lived in cities. Acts describes Paul as an urban person, who, while he may travel through the countryside (16:1-7), lodges in cities and deals with all the levels of the ancient stratified city, especially the elites.

Briefly, then, how does Lenski describe the social stratification of an advanced agrarian society?

(1) Ruler. At the top is the ruler, who might have been a Seleucid or Ptolemy, but in Luke's world was the Roman emperor, Caesar. He enjoyed vast wealth and power; Roman armies pillaged the East in their conquest and all that wealth and newly acquired lands made Caesar the ultimate elite figure in the world. There were, of course, numerous client kings in the East who held their positions through imperial patronage.

(2) Governing Class. This small majority of aristocrats served as the officers and advisors of the ruler. They might be civic as well as military figures. Most held their appointments directly from the ruler. They tended to have vast grants of land, which supported their elite lifestyle and facilitated their civic responsibilities. Lenski estimates that as a group they received at least a quarter of the national income, and together with the ruler, they acquired not less than half of the wealth drained from the land or commerce.

(3) Retainer Class. The governing class maintained in their service "a small army of officials, professional soldiers, household servants and personal retainers." They mediated relationships between the governing elites and the common people. If the governing class was small (1-2%), their retainers constituted another 5% of the population.

(4) Merchants. Although this society was basically agrarian and wealth came from land and farming, there was a modest amount of trade and commerce. Merchants could be quite wealthy, especially those dealing with luxury goods, but generally the majority were poor. Wealthy entrepreneurs were not despised, since elites used them to increase their own wealth, whereas smaller scale merchants were held in contempt.

(5) Priests. In the Greco-Roman world there were many famous temples and shrines, frequently associated with important cities. These "political" structures were maintained by a priestly class, whose food, clothing, shelter, etc. were provided by taxes from the land or benefactions from the elite. Their buildings were often richly endowed and served frequently as repositories of wealth. Priests could perform the role of clerk and diplomat, depending on their literacy and social standing.

(6) Peasants. The subsistence farmers who worked the land and produced the agricultural surplus constituted the bulk of the population.

(7) Artisans. Because they had no land and thus no status or means of making advantageous marriages, the artisans of the city are ranked below peasants. In most agrarian societies, this stratum was recruited from the ranks of landless peasants, either dispossessed or non-inheriting ones. Their ranks were continually replenished from migrants from the countryside. While the urban population represented 5-10% of the total population of the empire, the artisan class constituted about half of that.

(8) Unclean, Degraded and Expendables. At the very bottom of the social scale were the untouchables, who lived just outside the city. Below them were the expendables, such as petty criminals, outlaws, beggars, itinerant workers, and those who lived by charity or their wits.

Recent studies of genealogies indicate a wide variety of social purposes for them which in turn affected their form and character: preserving tribal homogeneity or cohesion, interrelating diverse traditions, acknowledging marriage contracts between extended families, maintaining ethnic identity. (Most Old Testament genealogies, for example, are from priestly writings or the period following the Babylonian exile when concern for community survival and integrity made ethnic purity a major issue.) Above all, genealogies established claims to social status (honor) or a particular office (priest, king), thereby providing the map for proper social interaction. It is thus this social function, rather than an interest in historical information, that should govern our attempts to understand the role played by the genealogy of Jesus.

All of the genealogies of the New Testament, indeed almost all those known from the agrarian period in the near east, are patrilineal, though evidence of matrilineal genealogies does exist for a much earlier period. Circumcision and naming rituals (See the Cameo Essay on Circumcision, 1:58-66) from this earlier period, carried out at the age of either puberty or marriage, may thus reflect the social acknowledgment of paternity (fictive or real) or paternal responsibility that could not be ascertained biologically. In publicly acknowledging a boy to be one's son, a father not only accepted responsibility but determined his status (honor) in the community as well. Genealogies documented what these rituals acknowledged. Designating a male child the "son of..." thus carried considerable social freight and as a result genealogies became particularly important to the elite classes who used them to document their places in the community.

The form of the genealogy of Jesus in Luke gives special stress to the notion "son of...," though unlike any other known genealogy from antiquity the ancestry it traces goes all the way back to God. Though this may indicate the oft-cited universalism of Lucan theology, it is also a clear attempt to document divine (paternal) responsibility as well as an honor status sharply contrasting with the biological and social circumstances of Jesus' birth. Its placement in the Lucan text immediately following the affirmation (3:22) of Jesus as the "son" with whom God is "well pleased," makes clear Luke's intention that it function in this way.

Throughout the Gospel, the title "Son of God" serves as the basis for John's claim for Jesus' exalted ranking. Right from the outset, we find John the Baptist (vs. 34) and Nathanael (vs. 49) using it. Martha believes that Jesus is the Son of God (note there it is the equivalent of "Messiah"), but those who do not believe are condemned (3:18). In 5:25 Jesus says the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, which is exactly what happens in the raising of Lazarus. In 19:7 the Judeans assert that in making the claim to be the Son of God Jesus has violated the law. In 20:31 the purpose of the Gospel is said to be that readers might continue to believe that Jesus is the Son of God (note here also the association with the title Messiah).

In the present context, "Son of God" points to Jesus as a divine personage from the realm of God, the sky. Along with the other titles in this opening segment ("Word," "Light," "Life," "Lamb of God," "Son of man," "King of Israel," even "Messiah"), this seems to be another title of an entity who is uncreated relative to humans, but created relative to God, like the Word as explained by Philo. What is formal difference here.

First of all, it is important to note that the title "son of God" during the time of Jesus was common, publicly applied to Roman emperors. Inscriptions to "Tiberius Caesar, the August God, the son of the God Augustus, emperor, most great high priest, etc." (Dittenberger OGI 583) or "Tiberius Caesar, the son of the God Augustus, the grandson of the God Julius, August personage, most great high priest, etc." (Dittenberger OGI 471). This made perfect sense since, as the dictum had it: "The king is the last of the gods as a whole, but the first of human beings" (Corpus Hermeticum Vol. III Fragment XXIV, 3 ed. Nock-Festugière, 53). Then, too, non-kings might also be recognized as gods. Consider Acts 14:11-12: "And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, 'The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!' Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, because he was the chief speaker, they called Hermes."

To determine the meaning of the title, "Son of God," it seems best to begin with a linguistic observation fitting the Semitic cultures of the time. A phrase such as "son of X" means "having the qualities of X." Thus "son of man" would mean having the qualities of man, hence human (the NRSV translates the Greek phrase "Man," which is confusing in John; Son of Man, 1:35-51). Thus "son of the day" means having the quality of the day, hence full of light, morally upright. And "son of hair" means hairy or hoary.

In this vein, "Son of God" would mean "having the quality of God," hence divine, divine like. In an Israelite context, it is important to note that Son of God could hardly mean "having the essence of the Most High God." Note that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that God considers peacemakers as "Sons of God" (Matt. 5:9). What attributes might a human have that would qualify as those of a "Son of God"?

Among Israelite elites of the Graeco-Roman period, God's power is of two chief kinds: creativity and control. Philo calls God's creative power dynamis poietike (power to make/do) and his controlling power dynamis basilike (power to rule as king). God's creative power includes goodness, beneficence, kindness, and creativity itself. It is through this power that God "creates and operates the universe" (Philo, Quest. Gen. IV.2). God's controlling power includes sovereignty, authority, jurisdiction, retribution and ruling. By this power God rules what has come into being" (Philo, Quest. Gen. IV.2). These two powers, therefore, represent the complete and fundamental aspects of the Deity. Thus any person, invisible (such as angels in Gen 6:1-4; Job 1) or visible (such as kings) who evidences creativity and control over other beings to a significant degree will be considered "divine," hence "Son of God." Like Philo's "Word," such persons are like the Uncreated God from the human point of view, but creatures from God's point of view.

The designation "Son of God" is also important in order to legitimate Jesus' career. In honor-shame societies it is always assumed that one will act in accord with his publicly recognized honor rating. High-born persons are expected to lead in public and their birth-status provides legitimacy for doing so. A low-born person is not expected to lead in public and when that happens, some explanation must be found. His (only males act in public) "power" might be explained by some extraordinary event or circumstance, but if nothing like that could be found his abilities would be attributed to evil forces (8:48). Being the son of a village artisan family Jesus' legitimacy as a public figure was nil. If he was the Son of God, however, his legitimacy is beyond question (8:49).

In John, the Son of Man is a sky being, hence a "Sky Man." We learn this when we are told that as the sky opens, God's angels can use this Son of Man as a cosmic ladder, to ascend into the realm of God and descend from it (vs. 51). In this role, he stands midway between the vault of the sky and the land. Furthermore, this Son of Man has himself descended from the sky, hence can ascend into the sky (John 3:13). In fact the Son of Man will ascend to where he was before (John 6:62). Similarly, in the Synoptic tradition when Jesus refers to the Son of Man as an entity other than himself (e.g. Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; Luke 12:8), this Son of Man is a sky being who will descend from the sky with great power and glory (Mark 13:26; also Mark 14:62; Matt. 26:64). While sharing Mark's tradition concerning the Son of Man, Matthew refers to the coming of the Son of Man as a generic point in time. Thus:

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of Man comes (Matt. 10:23)

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Matt. 16:28).

Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt.19:28).

I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers (Matt. 13:41)

For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done (Matt. 16:27).

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne (Matt. 25:31; the context is judgment).

Thus in a number of passages in the Synoptics, as generally in John, the Son of Man is a sky being. If we take into account Israel's astronomic tradition, we also find reference to this Son of Man in the book of Revelation, and in that major astronomic work, 1 Enoch. First consider the origins of this Son of Man in Rev. 12:1-5:

And a great sign was seen in the sky, a Woman clothed with the Sun, and the Moon under her feet and on her head a wreath of Twelve Stars. And having in the womb, and she cries out having childbirth pains and tormented to give birth. And another sign was seen in the sky, and behold a great fire-colored Dragon, having seven heads and ten horns and on its heads seven diadems. And its tail sweeps away the third of the stars of the sky, and it threw them onto the earth, and the Dragon stands before the Woman about to give birth, in order when she gives birth to eat up her Child. And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is going to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her Child was taken up to God and to his throne.

In this context, the author of Revelation is more deeply involved with cosmic sky searching and prehistoric scenarios than with concern about a historic personage. Yet he does record the tradition that there is such a prehistoric celestial human-like "son" enthroned with God from prehistoric times. For this Dragon-Serpent fell from the sky and was already in the garden when humans are created (Gen 3:1).

Consider now the Israelite traditions reported in 1 Enoch where the antediluvian sage, Enoch, notes in one of his visions:

At that place I saw the One to whom belongs the time before time. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one -- from among the angels -- who was going with me and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, 'Who is this and from whence is he who is going as the prototype of the Before-Time? And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells." (1 Enoch 46:1-3, trans. E. Isaac OTP, I 34)

Thus in his sky visions, Enoch reports seeing a "Son of Man" with God. He then states:

that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before Time; even before the creation of the Sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of Spirits. He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of the Spirits) prior to the creation of the world and for eternity. And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression (together with) all its ways of life and its habits in the name of the Lord of Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they have life (1 Enoch 48: 2-7, trans. E. Isaac OTP, I 35).

Enoch further sees God, the Lord of the Spirits, commanding the elites of this world (kings, governors, high officials and landlords) to recognize this Chosen one, "how he sits on his throne of glory," a point repeatedly underscored (1 Enoch 62:2,3,6). And Enoch notes how this "Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory. . . was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and elect ones" (1 Enoch 62:7 trans. E. Isaac OTP, I 43). We are then told that this Son of Man:

shall never pass away or perish from before the face of the earth. But those who have led the world astray shall be bound with chains; and their ruinous congregation shall be imprisoned; all their deeds shall vanish from before the face of the earth. Thenceforth nothing that is corruptible shall be found; for that Son of Man has appeared and has seated himself upon the throne of his glory; and all evil shall disappear from before his face; he shall go and tell to that Son of Man, and he shall be strong before the Lord of the Spirits (1 Enoch 69:27-29, trans. E. Isaac OTP, I 49).

While these section of the book of Enoch date from the end of the first century A.D., there can be little doubt that the descriptions in Revelation and Enoch point to a common tradition. With the author of Revelation who observes the prehistoric birth of the sky Woman's Son, enthroned with God early on in the history of the cosmos, we are viewing the origins of Enoch's Son of Man. And there is equally little doubt that this Enochian Son of Man is the Messiah of Israelite expectation. "The Lord of Spirits and his Messiah" are mentioned in one breath at the end of the passage where this Son of Man is described (1 Enoch 48:10 trans. E. Isaac OTP, I 36). And later on we are told: "All these things which you have seen happened by the authority of his Messiah so that he may give orders and be praised upon the earth" (1 Enoch 52:4 trans. E. Isaac OTP, I 37).

This seems to be the only celestial Son of Man known in Israel's tradition. Hence, if Jesus is the Son of Man in John's Gospel, there can be little doubt that Jesus is this Son of Man who has descended from the realm of God through the opened sky. Since this is the missing context for John's high-context perspective, it is better to translate "Son of man" as "Sky Man" or even "Star Man."

God sets his seal on this Sky Man (6:27) who will give life-sustaining food to his own (6:53). In typical Johannine irony, Jesus, the Sky Man, who comes down and goes up as he likes, will be lifted up by human beings (3:14; 8:28; 12:34) and thus be glorified (12:23) and draw all Israel to himself (12:32). "Being lifted up" shows "by what death he was to die" (12:33). Furthermore, since this cosmic Son born of the sky Woman has no stated father, his father must be God himself (as in the case of Adam, begotten "of God" in Luke's genealogy, Luke 3:38). This Sky Son, the Star Man born of the pregnant Sky Woman before the foundation of the world, must necessarily be God's Son, the Son who came down from God, the Son sent by God.

Ages and life-spans are given for the ancestors in Genesis. But for peasants, there were no records of birth; hence, their "age" was approximate, as this was interpreted by their families. In the case of marriage or inheritance, it may be important to determine if a girl or boy is "old enough" for the new status, and so more careful investigation of the village memory may occur. But since records of births are not kept, the village people are the living memory.

- Aristotle speaks of three stages: "By 'ages' I mean youth (neotês), the prime of life (akmê), and old age (gêras)" (Rhet 1389a 35; the three ages are then individually discussed).

". . . there were three choirs, corresponding to the three periods of life, which were made up at the festivals, and the choir of old men (gerontôn) would begin with this song:

Then the choir of men in the prime of life (akmazontôn) would sing in response:

3. 1 John 2:12-14 speaks of three groups of men, which might be read through the lens of the "three ages":

4. Pythagoras divides the life of a man into four stages: "he divides man's life into four quarters, thus: 'Twenty years a boy, twenty years a youth, twenty years a young man, twenty years an old man; and these four periods cofrespond to the four seasons, the boy to spring, the youth to summer, the young man to autumn, and the old man to winter,' meaning by youth one not yet grown up and by a young man a man of mature age" (D.L. 8.10).

- ages for education of youth? "When the five years have passed away, during the two following years they must look on at the pursuits which they are hereafter to learn (based on the model of life in "seven-year" blocks). There are two periods of life with reference to which education has to be divided, from seven to the age of puberty, and onwards to the age of one and twenty. The poets who divide ages by sevens are in the main right: but we should observe the divisions actually made by nature" (Aristotle, Pol. 1136b36-41).

On reaching the age when children are taught their letters, he showed great strength of memory and power of application. . .All eyes were turned upon him, for he was, moreover, conspicuous for his beauty. When thenhe reached his fourteenth year, his father brough him to Tarsus, to Euthydemus the teacher from Phoenicia. Not Euthydemus was a good rhetor, and began is education; but, though he was attached to his teacher, he found the atmosphere of the city harsh and strange and little conducive to the philosophical life. . .He therefore transferred his teacher, with his father's consent, to the town of Aegae, which was close by, wehre he found a peace congenial to one who would be a philosopher, and a more serious school of study and a temple of Asclepius, where that god reveals himself in person to men. . .Apollonius was like the young eagles,who, as long as they are not fully fledged, fly alongside of their parents and are trained by them in flight, but who, as soon as they are able to rise in the air, outsoar the parent birds, especially when they perceive the latter to be greedy and to be flying along the ground in order to snuff the quarry; like them Apollonius attended Euxenus (his teacher) as long as he was a child and was guided by him in the path of argument, but when he reached his sixteenth year he indulged his impulse towards the life of Pythagoras, being fledged and winged thereto by some higher power. Notwithstanding he did not cease to love Euxenus, nay, he persuaded his father to present him with a villa outside of town. (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.7 (LCL).

"As for Men in their Prime, clearly we shall find that they have a character between that of the young and that of the old, free from the extremes of either. They have neither that excess of confidence which amounts to rashness, nor too much timidity, but the right amount of each. They neither trust everybody nor distrust everybody, but judge people correctly. Their lives will be guided not by the sole consideration either of what is noble or of what is useful, but by both; neither by parsimony nor by prodigality, but by what is fit and proper. So, too, in regard to anger and desire; they will be brave as well as temperate, and temperate as well as brave; these virtues are divided between the young and the old; the young are brave but intemperate, the old temperate but cowardly. To Put it generally, all the valuable qualities that youth and age divide between them are united in the prime of life, while all their excesses or defects are replaced by moderation and fitness. The body is in its prime from thirty to five-and-thirty; the mind about forty-nine" (Aristotle, Rhet. 1389b28 - 1339a10).

- at what ages should men and women marry? "... He shall marry before he come to five-and-thirty" (Plato, Laws 6.772D). "Women should marry when they are about eighteen years of age, and men at seven and thirty; then they are in the prime of life, and the decline in powers of both with coincide" (Aristotle, Pol. 1335a28-30). . . "the limit (for begetting children) should be the age which is the prime of their intelligence, and this in most persons, according to the notion of some poets who measure life by periods of seven years, is about fifty; at four or five years later, they should cease from having families" (Aristotle, Pol. 1335b31-36).

"...the perfecting power of the number 7 is shown by the stages of men's growth, mesured from infancy to old age inthe following manner: during the first period fo seven years the growth of the theeth begins; during the second the capacity for emitting seed; in the third the gowing of the beard; in the fourth increase of strength; in the fifth again ripeness for marriage; in the sixth the understading reaches its bloom; in the seventh progressive improvement and development of min and reason; in the eighth the perfecting of both these; during the ninth forbearance and genleness emerge, owing to the more complete taming of the passiong; during the tenth comes the desirable end of life, while the bodily organs are still compact and firm...These ages of men's life were described by Solon the lawgiver of the Athenians among

"... the child, while still soft, shall be molded like wax, and be kept in swaddling clothes till it is two years old." -- Plato (Laws)

Swaddling has been widely practiced throughout the world and is still used in villages of Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. It refers to the practice of tightly binding the trunk and limbs of a baby in cloth or other material. The purpose has been variously construed, though is usually seen to provide strength and security and to insure a straight, strong, healthy body. Swaddling went out of style among upper-class Western Europeans in the eighteenth century (though it was still used in many areas, including America, into the late l9th century) as much for social as for scientific reasons, coming to be considered an unnatural restraint on human freedom. The swaddling clothes of Jesus are cited in some early Christian literature as having miraculous powers to cure disease.

Jesus delivers his final words to his friends during a symposium ( Final Words in John 13:1-17). Ancient Hellenistic festive meals consisted of the following: appetizer, main meal, dessert, symposium. The symposium was an after dinner drinking and discussion session. Consider the following report from the Israelite scribal tradition reflecting Hellenistic custom:

What is the order of the meal? The guests enter [the house] and sit on benches, and on chairs until all have entered. They all enter and they [servants] give them water for their hands. Each one washes one hand. They [servants] mix for them the cup; each one says the benediction for himself. They [servants] bring them the appetizers; each one says the benediction for himself. They [guests] go up [to the dining room] and they recline, for they [servants] given them [water] for their hands; although they have [already] washed one hand, they [now] wash both hands. They [servants] mix for them the cup; although they have said the benediction over the first [cup] they say a benediction [also] over the second. They [servants] bring them the dessert; although they said a benediction over the first one, they [now] say a benediction over the second, and one says the benediction for all of them. He who comes after the third course has no right to enter (T. Ber. 4,8).

This passage provides a typical example of the various implicit rules governing meals. As regards postures, the participants start seated and finish reclining. There are appropriate benedictions (or prayers to the gods) to be said over the first cup of wine, then the second cup follows. A distinction is made between the two washings of hands: the meal begins with a washing of only one hand before the appetizers and is punctuated later with a second washing of both hands before the main course is consumed. Although wine is drunk during the meal, the true drinking comes in the second part of the formal meal, the symposium itself.

During the conversational symposium, the chief guest selects the topic of discussion by his action or by directly asking a leading question(s). At this final meal (13:4), Jesus is chief guest. His action of foot washing begins discussion (13:3-15). He then leads the topics of discussion by making direct statements that provoke varied reactions (13:21: betrayal; 13:33: Jesus' destination; 14:4: the way to that destination; 14:19: Jesus' presence to his own; 16:16: "a little while"; 16:28: clear statement of Jesus' plans). In conclusion, Jesus turns to direct his final words to the Father (chap. 17).

The primary source of information about Judean and Galilean synagogues in the first century comes from the New Testament and Josephus; there are very few architectural remains before the Roman-Judean war, which ended in 70C.E., with the capture of Jerusalem and its temple. A “synagogue” was primarily a group of people who “were gathered together” (syn-agoge = gathering together); only secondarily is a synagogue a place or building. Where did people gather? In villages and towns, the frequently used spaces were the market place or agora people escaped the sun and rain by congregating under porticoes or stoas or porches. In cities, they did the same, although a large city might have synagogues associated with specific trades.

The synagogue had three purposes: (1) a place of assembly both for public discussion and for the celebration of various meals; (2) a place of study; and (3) a place of prayer. “It was a place where the Torah was read, studied, and interpreted, and from which the author of the Torah was addressed in prayer” (Segal 2002:25). “Public assembly” might include the secondary functions of lodging travelers and catering dinners.

“Theodotus, son of Vettenus, priest and archisynagogos, son of an archisynagogos and grandson of an archisynagogos, built the synagogue for the reading of the Law and teaching of the commandments, and the guest house and the rooms and the water supplies as an inn for those who come from abroad; which his fathers had founded and the elders of Simonides” (CIJ 2.1404; probably first century Galilee).

(1) Theodotus and ancestors acted as patrons to this gathering; (2) Vettenus was a priest, a social role of some importance, depending on which of the 24 courses of priests he belonged to. But these are prominent people in the local area. (3) the leadership of the synagogue seems to be hereditary: presumably Theodotus is an archisynagogos, as were his father and grandfather. (4) functions: “reading the Law/teaching commandments” as well as hospitality to travelers, presumably Israelites on pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

One notes the absence of “prayer” here; Safrai remarks that “Scripture was much more closely linked to the life of the synagogue than was prayer (1976:917); prayers could be said in the household and in private. “Scripture reading done by one of the congregation with another translating, constituted divine worship” (Safrai 1976:918). The inscription does not say anything about frequency of gathering, but it was robably confined to sabbaths and feast-days. All evidence of women in synagogues seems to be later than 70C.E.

There were synagogues which catered to certain groups, such as fellow countrymen (Acts 6:9) who were in Jerusalem as pilgrims or as permanent settlers. There were synagogues for craftsmen’s guilds and other associations. While some were the property of individuals. But the synagogue normally belonged to the local community as a whole and was counted as part of municipal property. Two leadership roles need be commented upon. First, the “president” of the synagogue (the archisynagogos) was not necessarily a distinguished sage, but he was definitely an educated man, who was familiar with the rites and could judge the competence of those who were invited to read the Scriptures, translate, or address the people. No distinction was made between the management of religious and financial matters: the head of the synagogue ran its finances. Second, there was an adjutant or hazzan (Luke 4:20) who acted as the manager of the practical details of running the synagogue; he in fact was the master of ceremonies. He was certainly not classed among the sages, but he had more standing than the rest of the population, since he was educated and familiar with the procedures of synagogue and the rites of its worship. Some texts indicate that he administered the flogging imposed by the synagogue tribunal. Third, the following remark from the Mishnah describes the social level of other members of the synagogue: “Rabbi Eliezer says: Since the day that the Temple was destroyed the Sages began to be like school-teachers, and the school teachers like synagogue-servants (hazzan), and the synagogue-servants like the am-haaretz, the people of the land” (m. Sota 9.15).

Taxes in the first century were both direct and indirect. Direct taxes were levied on land, crops and individuals. Indirect taxes included tolls, duties, and market taxes of various kinds. Toll collectors sitting in customhouses (Mk. 2:14) collected levies on goods entering, leaving or being transported across a district as well as those passing crossover points like bridges, gates or landings. Tradesmen, craftsmen, and even prostitutes payed taxes on all goods and services. Conflict was especially intense between toll collectors and the tradesmen with whom they constantly interacted. Plutarch describes the outrage of travelers, taken for tradesmen, whose baggage was rudely searched for potentially taxable goods.

(a) head tax/poll tax (tributus capitis), paid by everyone in Roman Palestine (in Egypt, laographia)

"(Demetrius to the Jews) "I free you and exempt all the Jews from payment of tribute and salt tax and crown levies, and instead of collecting the third of the grain and the half of the fruit of the trees that I should receive, I release them from this day and henceforth. I will not collect them from the land of Judah or from the three districts added to it from Samaria and Galilee, from this day and for all time. And let Jerusalem and her environs, her tithes and her revenues, be holy and free from tax" (1 Macc 10:29-31)

"(Demetrius to Jonathan) To the nation of the Jews, who are our friends and fulfil their obligations to us, we have determined to do good, because of the good will they show toward us. We have confirmed as their possession both the territory of Judea and the three districts of Aphairema and Lydda and Rathamin; the latter, with all the region bordering them, were added to Judea from Samaria. To all those who offer sacrifice in Jerusalem, we have granted release from the royal taxes which the king formerly received from them each year, from the crops of the land and the fruit of the trees. And the other payments henceforth due to us of the tithes, and the taxes due to us, and the salt pits and the crown taxes due to us -- from all these we shall grant them release. And not one of these grants shall be canceled from this time hence forth" (1 Macc 11:32-36; Roman version of the same tax: Josephus, Ant 14.202).

- aurum coronarium (special honorary gift to Emperor on accession, triumph, etc.)

"As a consequence of repeated demands from the public, which complained of the exactions of the revenue-farmers (vectigalium societates), Nero hesitated whether he ought not to decree the abolition of all indirect taxation (vectiglia) and present the reform as the noblest of gifts to the human race. His impulse . . . was checked by his older advisors, who pointed out that the the dissolution of the empire was certain if the revenues on which the state subsisted were to be curtailed: 'For, the moment duties on imports (portoriis) were removed, the logical sequel would be a demand for the abrogation of the direct taxes (tributorum). To a large extent the collecting companies (vectigalium societates) had been set up by consuls and plebeian tribunes while the liberty of the Roman nation was still in all its vigour; later modifications had only been introduced in order that the amount of income and the necessary expenditure should tally. At the same time, a check ought certainly to be placed on the cupidity of the collectors (publicanorum); otherwise a system which had been endured for years without a complaint might be brought into ill odour by new-fashioned harshness.' The emperor, therefore, issued an edict that the regulations with regard to each tax, hitherto kept secret, should be posted for public insepction" (Tacitus, Annales 13.50-51).

"Frankincense . . . is conveyed to Sabota on camels, one of the gates of the city being open for its admission; the kings have made it a capital offense for camels so laden to turn aside from the high road. At Sabota a tithe estimated by measure and not by weight is taken by the priests for the god they call Sabis, and the incense is not allowed to be put on the market until this has been done; this tithe is drawn on to defray what is a public expenditure, for actually on a fixed number of days the god graciously entertains guests at a banquet. It can only be exported through the country of the Gebbanitae, and accordingly a tax is paid on it to the king of that people as well. . . The journey is divided into 65 stages with halts for camels. Fixed portions of the frankincense are alos given to the priests and the king's secretaries, but besides these the guards and their attendants and the gate-keepers and servants also have their pickings; indeed all along the route they keep on paying, at one place for water, at another for fodder, or the charges for lodging at the halts, and the various octrois; so that expenses mount up to 688 dinarii per camel before the Mediterranean coast is reached; and then payment is made to the customs officers of our empire (imperii publicanis)" (Pliny, NH 12.63-65).

"The tenth year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Mecheir 13, paid through Diogenes, banker, by Tryphon son of Dionysius for poll-tax in the Hippodrome quarter, including charge for transport, 8 drachmae, and on the 24th of Pharmouthi by the same poll-tax 4 drachmae. On Pauni 21, dies Augustus, for pig-tax 2 drachmae 1 1/2 obols. On Epeiph 16, for embankment-tax 6 drachmae" (P. Oxy. 288; Grenfell & Hunt 2.280-284).

N.B. Tolls were collected by locals, i.e. Jews, who seem to have a history of doing this: "Among the petty customs collectors were also a considerable number of Jews as we learn from the ostraca of Upper Egypt " (Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 341).

"(Demetrius/Josephus' version of 1 Macc 10:15ff) I command that the Jews' beats of burden shall not be requisitioned for our army, and that on the Sabbaths and all festivals and the three days preceding a festival the Jews shall be exempt from labor" (Ant. 13.52).

"(concerning a tax collector) When some of his debtors whose default was clearly due to poverty took flight in fear of the fatal conssequences of his vengeance, he carried off by force their womenfolk and children and parents and their other relatives and beat and subjected them to every kind of outrage and contumely in order to make them either tell himthe whereabouts of the fugitive or discharge his debt themselves. As they could do neither the first for want of knowledge, nor the second because they were as penniless as the fugitive, he continued to treat this treatment until while wringing their bodies with racks and instruments of torture he finally dispatached them by newly-invented methods of execution. He filled a large basket with sand and having hung this enormous weight by ropes round their necks set them in the middle of the market-place in the open air, in order that while they themselves sank under the cruel stress of the accumulated punishments, the wind, the sun and the shame of being seen by the passers-by and the weights suspended on them, the spectators of their punishments might suffer in anticipation" (Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.159-160; see Matt 18:25-34).

"(reign of Tiberius) The provinces of Syria and Judaea, exhausted by their burdens, were pressing for a diminution of the tribute" (Tacitus, Annales 2.42).

"[The laws concerning] the Shekel dues and First-fruits (Deut 26:1-11) apply only such time as the Temple stands; but [the laws concerning] the Tithe of Corn and the Tithe of Cattle (Lev 27:32) and Firstlings (Exod 13:11-13; Num 18:15-18) apply such times as the Temple stands and such time also as it does not stand" (m. Shekalim 8.8).

"A general rule have they laid down about Tithes: whatever is used for food and is kept watch over and grown from the soil is liable to tithes" (m. Masseroth 1.1).

i.e. (i) fruits: figs, grapes, sumach, mulberries, pomegranates, dates, peaches, walmuts, almonds; (ii) carobs; pears, pippins, quinces, grain, olives; (iii) vegetables: cucumbers, gourds, melons, apples, citrons, bitter and sweet almonds; (iv) oil, wine

"The high priests were so brazen that they sent their slaves to the threshing floors to receive the tithes that were due to the priests, with the result that the poorer priests starved to death" (Josephus, Ant. 20.181 also 206).

(d) first born males, portions of everything slaughtered, and a share of the shearing

(f) the Tyrian didrachma, paid by every Israelite over 20 years old, for maintenance of public worship (Josephus, Ant. 18.312)

Tolls and other indirect taxes did not play the same role in the Jewish rebellion of 66 c.e. as did direct taxes on land, crops and people.

Liked?? Likewise the rich and educated universally held them in contempt. Since the poor, including day laborers, had little or nothing on which such duties could be levied, we would not expect them to be among those who despised . We must also be careful in assessing the apparent conflict between pharisees and toll collectors in Luke. The evidence is less substantial than one might guess from reading Luke. The Mishnah states, "If tax-gatherers enter a house, the house becomes unclean" (m. Tohorot 7:6). But the house being referred to here belongs to one of the Haberim, the fellowship of those dedicated to ritual purity in table fellowship. It is therefore a special case. The assumption is that if a tax-gatherer entered the house, he would handle everything in order to assess the wealth of the owners. But it is not that the tax-gatherer per se is unclean, it is that anyone handling the objects in such a house would defile them. Thus the attitude expressed by the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14 may not reflect the Palestine of Jesus time so much as the attitudes of rich Christians in Luke's community whom he uses such stories to criticize.

One of the best attested aspects of the Jesus tradition is his association with tax (more accurately, "toll") collectors and other socially undesirable types. Understanding the position of tax collectors in Palestine in the first century, however, requires careful, nuanced treatment. Most important is to distinguish between "chief" tax-collectors such as Zaccheus, (Lk. 9:2), and their employees, , such as those referred to in Lk. 3:12. We must also understand what is meant by the term "tax."

Unlike the system of powerful, wealthy, tax-collecting associations of the republican period (509-31 B.C.E.), under imperial Rome, native entrepreneurs, (sometimes cities), contracted with the Roman administration to collect local taxes. Such individuals were required to pay the tax allotment in advance and then organize collection in the contracted district in hopes of turning a profit. Evidence indicates that such ventures were risky, open to abuse and often far from profitable. That some became rich is evident from Luke 19:2, but many clearly did not. The familiar in the synoptic tradition (Cf. Lk. 3:12; 5:27,29,30; 7:29,34; 15:1; 18:10,11,13) were for the most part employees of the and were often rootless persons unable to find other work. Evidence from the late imperial period suggests that cheating or extortion on their part would be less likely to benefit themselves than the for whom they worked.

The distinctive feature of John's story of Jesus is that Jesus does not proclaim a forthcoming theocracy for Israel. There is no talk of "the Kingdom of God" (or of Heaven, i.e. of the Sky). In the Synoptics, we read of Jesus recruiting a faction of apostles to help him out for his political-religious task of proclaiming theocracy. In John, Jesus has persons seeking him out to become his disciples. Apostles are persons sent with a commission; in the Synoptic story that commission is to help Jesus in his own task of revitalizing Israel by informing Israelites of the forthcoming theocracy and preparing people for it with healing and exorcisms. There is no mention of "apostles" in John, only of disciples. Disciples are followers of a teacher; they join up with a teacher in order to learn a way of living. This was the task of the various philosophers of the Hellenistic world who sought to teach human beings how to live a meaningful human existence. Israel's scribes were rather similar, basing their instruction on distinctive appropriations of Israel's Torah. Jesus as teacher would be perceived as such a scribe or philosopher, depending on who was assessing him.

It is a distinctive feature of John that we are told nothing of Jesus' concern about a forthcoming theocracy. Instead, after introducing John's witness about himself and about Jesus, we are told that John himself has "disciples" (1:35), who then seek out Jesus to know where he is staying (1:37-39). The only disciple of John's that Jesus seeks out is Philip (1:43), who in turn invites Nathanael to come to Jesus (1:47). Similarly, Nicodemus, "a teacher in Israel" (3:10), seeks Jesus to find out more about him. Next the Samaritans come to him upon the Samaritan woman's invitation (4:29-30). In this cycle of events beginning with Jesus and his disciples in Cana (2:1) and his return to Cana (4:46), people seek out Jesus as "Teacher," representing a way of life that essentially consists in attachment to Jesus because of who he is and who he reveals. While in 4:47 and 11:9 Jesus is sought as healer, yet in 12:18-19 Greek-speaking Israelites seek him as teacher as well.

Jesus with his disciples do not form a political faction in this Gospel; we are not told whether Jesus was ever bent on the revitalization of Israel as we are told he was in the Synoptic narratives. Rather Jesus sets forth a way of living focused on attachment to himself -- a fictive kinship group much like the group for whom John wrote this Gospel.

In the ancient Middle East, a Temple was a building complex constructed according to a divinely revealed plan to serve as a worthy residence for a visiting divinity who dwelt in the sky over the Temple on the other side of the firmament. The building of a Temple generally served as the founding event for the development of a Middle Eastern city. In such Temple cities, there were no citizens. Instead residents of the city, from the king down, were all servants of the God(s) who was accessible in the Temple. Jerusalem along with a number of other eastern Mediterranean cities, was a Middle Eastern Temple-city of this sort, even during the time Herod the Great. The social institution represented by the Temple was political religion in the form of a theocracy.

To understand how the Temple functioned, we might begin with how the palace worked, for the Temple is a replication of the palace. What this means is that Temple personnel, Temple interactions, and Temple activities follow the pattern of palace personnel, interactions and activities. For the God(s) accessible in the Temple stood in the same relationship to their subjects (all the residents of the Temple-city and Temple-region) as the king did to the populace he governed. Thus, if the palace houses a king with a large body of servants, from prime minister to royal slaves running royal farms to feed palace household and army alike, then the Temple houses a God who is a divine monarch with a large body of servants, ranging hierarchically from primary major domo (high priest), subsidiary servants (priests, Levites), an army with officers and soldiers, to Temple slaves working Temple lands to feed the God (sacrificial animals), the Temple household and staff alike. The Hellenistic, Graeco-Roman polis was not a Temple-city founded at the behest of a deity. Rather the ancient polis was usually founded by some heroic figure(s), while more recent ones were founded by benevolent kings. In either case, such cities were not founded by a deity. Further the range of Graeco-Roman Temples and their gods were usually the concern of local elite families and not of a distinctive priesthood serving a palace-like Temple. The important thing to note is that in the ancient Mediterranean, in no case were Temples directly for the benefit of worshipers, just as palaces are not directly for the benefit of loyal subjects. Temples were for God(s), palaces were for kings. It was at the direction of God and king that the populace had access to these preeminent persons in their buildings.

Moreover, the eastern Mediterranean Temple provided a locus of divine presence, a cosmic center often understood to be the navel of the world. Since the deity was to be found above the firmament directly above the Temple, it was the place where sky and earth converged, hence the control center for the deity's dealings with the world. As such it legitimated both the monarch chosen to serve God and the people chosen by God for divine service.

The Jerusalem Temple followed the design of Middle Eastern Temples that traced back to Mesopotamia. The Temple thus replicated in physical space what was understood to be the holy order of creation. Reaching outward in concentric circles from the Holy of Holies to the Court of the Gentiles (that is, outsiders; an inscription warned foreigners not to go beyond this latter area on pain of death) the Temple precincts replicated an ethnocentric view of the cosmos:

There are ten degrees of holiness: The Land of Israel is holier than any other land…The walled cities (of the land of Israel) are still more holy…Within the walls (of Jerusalem) is still more holy…The Temple Mount is still more holy…The rampart is still more holy…The Court of the Women is still more holy…The court of the Israelites is still more holy…The Court of the Priests is still more holy…Between the Porch and the Altar is still more holy…The Sanctuary is still more holy…The holy of holies is still more holy…" (m. Kelim 1.6-9)

What this makes clear is that the Temple itself functioned not only as a religious central place for all of Israel, but also as the map for social relations between various groups of Israelites and between Israelites and all others. It articulated the structured social relations that were the correlative of Israel's ethnocentric view of creation.

Equally important was the political and economic significance of the Temple in Jerusalem. Just as the king collected taxes for the maintenance of the elites and their institutions, so did the deity. Jerusalem was the center of Israel's political economy. This meant that the roles, goals and values of the polity serve to articulate and express economics. The chief beneficiaries of the economy were the central political personages, whether in palace or Temple. The system of taxation and tribute look to the well-being of elites. It would be hard to overestimate the import of the Temple as the center of a redistributive political economy. With large treasuries and storehouses for material of all sorts, the Temple functioned somewhat like a national bank and storage depot. It became the repository of large quantities of money and goods extracted from the surplus product of the peasant economy. Because most of the Temple precincts were inaccessible to all but a handful of priests and closely guarded against intrusion, they offered a high level of security for the economic resources of the political and religious elite.

It is important to note, then, that in the first-century Mediterranean world corporate entities such as "the Temple," and "the Palace," were more than simply structures or locales for certain kinds of activities. They were heavily invested with social significance. In fact, they were personified and viewed as moral persons. They had ascribed honor just as did any family or individual and could be insulted, cursed, hated, and dishonored. By dishonoring the Temple, one also dishonored all of its personnel, from high priest down, including the one who commanded its construction and occasionally dwelt there, God.

It is one and the same argument that establishes both the providence of God and the survival of the human soul, and it is impossible to upset the one contention and let the other stand. But if the soul survives, we must expect that its due in honour and in punishment is awarded after death rather than before (Plutarch, De Sera Numinis Vindicta 560F)

The Pharisees, who are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws, and hold the position of the leading sect, attribute everything to Fate and to God . . . Every soul, they maintain, is imperishable, but the soul of the good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment (Josephus, Wars 2.162-163)

The Sadducees, the second of the orders, do away with Fate altogether, and remove God beyond, not merely the commission, but the very sight of evil . . . As for persistence of the soul after death, penalties in the underworld, and rewards, they will have none of them (Josephus, Ant. 13.173).

Whereas the Greco-Roman world thought of the human person in terms of body and soul, the Semitic world thought in terms of what anthropologists have called "zones of interaction" with the world around. Three such zones make up the human person and all appear repeatedly in the Gospels:

1) The zone of emotion-fused thought includes will, intellect, judgment, personality, and feeling all rolled together. It is the activity of the eyes and heart (sight, insight, understanding, choosing, loving, thinking, valuing, etc.).

2) The zone of self-expressive speech includes communication, particularly that which is self-revealing. It is listening, and responding. It is the activity of the mouth, ears, tongue, lips, throat and teeth (speaking, hearing, singing, swearing, cursing, listening, eloquence, silence, crying, etc.).

3) The zone of purposeful action is the zone of external behavior or interaction with the environment. It is the activity of the hands, feet, fingers and legs (walking, sitting, standing, touching, accomplishing, etc.).

Human activity can be described in terms of any particular zone or all three. Here in 11:33-36 a single zone comes into play. The "eye" is a metaphor for the zone of emotion-fused thought. When a writer refers to all three zones, we can assume comment is being made about complete human experience. Thus John writes, "That which was from the beginning. which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life..." (I John 1:1). The statement is a Semitic expression of total involvement, "body and soul" as we would say. All three zones are likewise present in the Sermon on the Mount: eyes-heart (Matt. 6:19:7-6, mouth, ears (Matt. 7:7-11) and hands-feet (7:13-27). The same is true of the interpretation of the parable of the sower in Luke 8:11-15. For additional examples, see Ex. 21:24, Prov. 6:16-10, 2 Kings 4:34, Dan. 10:6.

Luke tells us that Jesus as 30 years old when he embarked on his preaching. Is this an accurate calendar age or is it an indication that he was perceived as mature/adult enough to have a public voice and assume a leadership role? The following text should be of some help in determining the meaning of "30 years old."

4. All shall be enlisted by their names, the priests first, the Levites second, the children of Israel third, and the proselyte forth; and they shall all be inscribed by their names, 5. each one after his brother: the priests first, the Levites second, the children of Israel third, and the proselyte fourth...7. and the priest who named at the head of the many will be between thirty and sixty years old, learned in the book of ??? 8. and in all the regulations of the law to say them in accordance with their regulations. blank And the inspector who is 9. over all of the camps will be between thirty years and sixty years old (CDC 14.7-10)

12. At the age of twenty-five he may take his place among the foundations of the holy Congregation to ensure the service of 13. the holy Congregation. Then at the age of thirty years he may be promoted to arbitrate at lawsuits 14. and trials, and to take his place among the chiefs of the Thousands of Israel and the chiefs of the Hundreds, the chiefs of the Fifties, 15. the chiefs of the Tens, the judges, and the officers, according to their tribe, in all their clans. . . Whoever is destined to take his place in the offices 17. shall go out and enter before the Congregation. And according to his understanding and the perfection of his conduct, he shall strengthen his loins in the position which he occupies in order to fulfil 18. the office confided to his care in the midst of the brethren. They shall be honored, one more than another [according to whether they] have much or little. 1Q Sa 1.13-21

Principal mode of HUMAN ACTIVITY	being	being-in-becoming	doing
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS	horizontal: kinship	vertical: hierarchical	individual
TIME ORIENTATION	present	past	future
RELATIONSHIPS of humans to NATURE	subject to it	in harmony with it	master of it
VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE	mixture: good and evil	evil

# 7 Christ the Lord commissioned the apostles to preach to all people that gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and thus to impart to them divine gifts. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by ordinances, handed on what they had received form the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.

# 8 . . . This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. . . For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

# 12 However, since God speaks in sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of sacred Scripture should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. Those who search out the intention of the sacred writers must, among other things, have regard for "literary forms." For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry, or some other type of speech. . .For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of perceiving, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the customs people normally followed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

# 19 Indeed after the ascension of the Lord the apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the events of Christ's risen life and taught by the light of the Spirit truth.

The sacred authors wrote the Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explicating some things in view of the situation of their churches, and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the "honest truth" about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who themselves "from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (cf Lk 1:2-4).

Violence is about coercing others in a way that social norms do not endorse. The story of Jesus is full of instances of persons, visible and invisible, doing or planning violence toward others in the name of the status quo. These persons ostensibly intend to maintain established values. First, consider the instances of coercion and violence in the Synoptic narratives. In Mark, after his baptism Jesus is forced into the wilderness by the spirit (Mark 1:12//Matt. 4:11// Luke 4:1). And soon after, Jesus drives out an unseen, unclean spirit from a possessed man in the synagogue of Capernaum (Mark 1:25-26//Luke 4:35). The incident implies that unclean and unseen spirits can do violence to humans, and that some humans know how to control them. Then after the healing of the man with the withered hand, "The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him" (3:6//Matt. 9:14//Luke 6:11). Soon after that notice, as crowds gathered so that Jesus and his core group could not even eat, "when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself." (Mark 3:21). Luke, in turn, reports of Jesus' fellow villagers, "When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong" (Luke 4:28-29). On a whim Herod Antipas could seize John the Baptist (Mark 6:17//Matt. 14:3//Luke 3:20). Jesus himself felt free to trespass over presumably well established social boundaries when "he entered the Temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the Temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He would not allow any one to carry anything through the Temple" (Mark 11:15-16//Matt. 21:12//Luke 19:45). Jesus' close followers would retaliate for shameless inhospitality with fire from the sky (Luke 9:54). As Mark notes, even legitimate authorities (high priests in the Temple area) hold back in face of the possibility of violence against themselves: "And they tried to arrest him, but feared the multitude, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them; so they left him and went away" (Mark 12:12//Matt. 21:46//Luke 20:19). Yet Mark would have us believe that the authorities continued in their resolve: "And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him for they said, 'Not during the feast lest there be a tumult of the people'" (Mark 14:1-2//Matt. 26:4//Luke 22:2). Finally a crowd came and forcibly seized Jesus (Mark 14:43-52//Matt. 26:47-56//Luke 22:47-53).

John, too, knows of such establishment violence. It is directed toward "public sinners," who are to be stoned by command of the Law of Moses , hence against Jesus, deemed to fit the divine requirements of such violence (John 10:31-33; 11:8). We are told early on in the narrative that Jesus' opponents sought to kill him (John 5:18). Of course Jesus is well aware of their plans (John 7:19-20; 8:37,40). John's peculiar account of Jesus' arrest, torture and crucifixion are well known (John 18-19).

Similarly, the book of Acts is full of such incidents: the arrest of Peter and John (Acts 4:3), violence by unseen agents to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:5.10), the arrest of the apostles out of jealousy (Acts 5:18), the council's desire to kill them (Acts 6:33), the vigilante treatment of Stephen by a provoked crowd (Acts 7:54-60) and the like. For his part, Paul tells us that his fellow Israelites lashed him five times, that he was beaten with rods three times, and stoned once (2 Cor 11:12).

Finally, when we get to the letter to the Hebrews, we are asked to focus on blood and gore (Heb 9:7--10:20; 12:4, 24; 13:11-12, 20). This is a community that regales in sacrifice and the endurance of pain. Even God is said to use pain as a "fatherly" device for his sons: "do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him. For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?" (Heb 12:5-7).

By any reading, this was a violent society, with frequent public violence, and unsure and explosive crowd reaction. Ordinary persons did not have any rights. There was no universalism in the sense that all human beings were equally human, bearing common human endowments, common human rights independent of individual ethnic origin and social status. Tolerance was an idea whose time would come some seventeen hundred years later! Furthermore, the idea of a plurality of nations endowed with equal rights in the forum of nations was totally absent since there were no "nations" as yet. Neither ancient Israelites, nor ancient Athenians, nor ancient Romans had any idea of juridical relations among broader ethnic groups. In the first century A.D., Roman statesmen dealt with other ethnic groups in terms of good faith based on patron-client relationships. In Roman perception, Rome was a patron, not a holder of an empire; it wanted persons to behave like clients. To behave otherwise was to be a rebel, an outlaw. Neither persons nor ethnic groups had what we would call "rights."

What modern readers often interpret as rights is political privilege. For example, Roman citizens had preeminence in the oikoumene (the inhabited world). To dishonor one Roman was to dishonor, hence challenge, Rome itself. Consequently Roman citizens were always to be treated honorably by non-citizens; they were not to be flogged publicly, nor were they answerable to any tribunal but that of their own Caesar. Such were the ramifications of the customary values of honor and shame. Obviously since persons and ethnic groups had no rights in our sense, any modern reader's perception of "oppression" in the first century Mediterranean world would be quite anachronistic.

In short, the Mediterranean world was a violent world, and the Israelite tradition hallowed such violence. Philo, an Israelite Hellenistic philosopher of Alexandria, clearly explains this tradition:

But if any members of the nation betray the honor of the One, they should suffer the utmost penalties. . . all who have zeal for virtue should be permitted to exact the penalties offhand and with no delay, without bringing the offender before jury or council, or any kind of magistrate at all, and give full scope to the feelings which possess them, that hatred of evil and love of God which urges them to inflict punishment without mercy on the impious. They should think that the occasion has made them councilors, jurymen, nome governors, members of assembly, accusers, witnesses, laws, people, everything in fact, so that without fear or hindrance they may champion respect for God in full security (Spec. leg. I, 54)

Further if anyone cloaking himself under the name and guise of a prophet and claiming to be possessed by inspiration lead us on to the worship of the gods recognized in the different cities, we ought not to listen to him and be deceived by the name of prophet. For such a one is no prophet, but an impostor, since his oracles and pronouncement are falsehoods invented by himself. And if a brother or son or daughter or wife or a housemate or a friend, however true, of anyone else who seems to be kindly disposed, urge us to a like course, bidding us fraternize with the multitude, resort to their Temples and join in their libations and sacrifices, we must punish him as a public and general enemy, taking little thought for the ties which bind us to him; and we must send round a report of his proposals to all lovers of piety, who will rush with a speed which brooks no delay to take vengeance on the unholy man, and deem it a religious duty to seek his death. For we should have one tie of affinity, one accepted sign of goodwill, namely the willingness to serve God and that our every word and deed promotes the cause of piety. But as for these kinships . . . let them all be cast aside if they do not seek earnestly the same goal, namely the honor of God, which is the indissoluble bond of all the affection which makes us one (Spec. Leg. I, 315-317).

Of course he is simply restating the biblical warrant for establishment violence set out in the book of Deuteronomy.

At its best, the game of challenge-riposte ( Challenge and Riposte, 7:14b-18) is primarily a game of wits. The needed skill to defend one's honor was cleverness in repartee. Often that included skill in using the official traditions of the political religion to justify one's position or argument. That is exactly what Jesus demonstrates in 10:34-38.

In situations of challenge-response, however, things could sometimes go too far and result in excessive public damage to the honor of another. Because the honor of a whole family (or a whole group) was at stake in the honor of any one of its members, a whole family's honor could be damaged by a situation that got out of control. The offended family would feel honor-bound to retaliate, which in turn would cause retaliation in response. The resulting blood feuds could result in violence that would disrupt the stability of an entire village. The danger of a resort to violence meant that a family or group would normally restrain its own more volatile members in order to keep them from getting into feuds unnecessarily. It was in everyone's interests to keep violence under control.

In a sense, then, the over-quick resort to violence in a challenge-response situation was not only dangerous, it was frequently an unintended public admission of failure in the game of wits. The death of a challenger was sometimes a worthy response to public dishonor, but an over-quick resort to violence was an inadvertent admission that one had lost control of the challenge situation. Wits have failed and bully tactics have taken over. Three times in John we are told that the crowd sought to kill Jesus. In 5:18 they saw Jesus breaking community rules (Sabbath observance) and claiming kinship with God (thereby reaching for an honor status he did not deserve). Jesus' response was to claim that in not honoring the Son, it was they who did not honor the Father. In 8:39-52 Jesus and the Judeans trade insults (accusations of demonic possession), and Jesus ends up calling them liars. He claims it is not he who has honored himself, but it is God who has honored him. The outcome of that exchange is a second resort to violence.

Here in 10:25-38 Jesus' insults the crowd (vs. 26) and claims a dyadic relationship with God. Unable to respond effectively, they pick up stones to throw at him. Their resort to violence is thus a tacit admission that their tactics have failed. Their resort to violence, therefore, indicates that Jesus has won the exchange. (Note that the narrator even adds an insulting touch of his own. He says that the crowd took up stone "again" [8:59], in effect rubbing in the point that they have failed twice to sustain a challenge against Jesus.)

When the dialogue of 10:32-38 resumes, Jesus confounds the crowd with clever use of the official tradition. They again are unable to answer him and again revert to violence. As Mediterranean people heard stories about such behavior it would be clear to them who has honor and who does not.

John records that Jesus attended a wedding in Jn 2:1-12; and both Luke and Matthew contain a parable of Jesus about a man who prepared a wedding feast.

In antiquity a wedding did not celebrate the marriage of two individuals, but of two families. Wedding celebrations were of immense significance as public demonstrations of family honor. Families often went deeply in debt trying to outdo each other in the honorific competition to provide the best wedding the village had ever seen. Because a wedding celebration would often include a whole village, arrangements were usually quite elaborate and could take many days to complete. A family often required heavy assistance from neighbors and friends in the preparation of food and drink. Since a family would normally have only one stone water jar, the presence of six such jars here (vs. 6) may be an indication of neighborly cooperation.

To run out of food or wine at a wedding involved a serious loss of family honor. It not only signaled a lack of financial resources, but even more a lack of friends. In order to avoid such embarrassment and insure a wedding that brought a family public honor, associations (Heb.: shushbinim) were formed among village men for the purpose of mutual assistance (probably the ones referred to as the "sons of the bridal-chamber" in Mk 2:19//). Those designated by this term usually included close relatives and friends, especially age-mates of the groom, who formed an ingroup of celebrants at a wedding feast. The closest of them were sometimes involved in negotiations for a betrothal, and among all of them is was common to send gifts ahead of the wedding which could be used as provisions for the feast.

Each time another member of this ingroup got married, of course, reciprocal obligations came into play. It is possible that these obligations played a role in the request by the mother of Jesus to her son. In scribal Pharisaism, as we learn from the Talmud, there were astonishingly strict rules for insuring the precise equivalence of this reciprocal obligation (b. Baba Batra 145b). In fact a wedding gift was considered a loan (unless the gift was wine!) and was recoverable in a court of law (m. Baba Batra 9.4).

Obviously, then, a wedding celebration was not a private family affair. It culminated in festivities at the home of the groom and everyone in the village would participate. The wedding day began with the village women washing the bride in her own home. It was a joyful ritual of preparation that included perfuming, anointing and dressing the bride. Elaborate clothing and adornment was provided. Then came the "home-taking," a torchlight procession in which the bride was accompanied to the groom's house. There was much singing and dancing as she walked or even rode in a decorated carriage. If a virgin, she wore her hair loose and a wreath upon her head. Both men and women participated in the procession. The well known Pharisaic scribes of Jesus' day (Hillel and Shammai) argued over whether it was permissible to exaggerate a bride's beauty during the singing. Roasted ears of grain, wine and oil were strewn in the path of the procession.

After arriving at the groom's house the bride was introduced into her husband's family and then the celebration began in the home of the groom. Such wedding celebrations traditionally began on Wednesdays and lasted seven days if the bride was a virgin and if the family and its village had enough resources; they would begin on Thursdays and last three days if the bride was a widow (Jdgs. 14:12, Tob. 11:19, m. Ket. 1.1). Though the house was normally private space, hence the domain of women, for a wedding celebration it was opened to all and thereby open to public scrutiny. Since such scrutiny could be dangerous (leading to rumor, gossip), it would be a matter of great concern to the host family that everything be in order.

The Hebrew term for widow is the word for a silent one, one unable to speak. In a society in which males played the public role and in which women did not speak on their own behalf, the position of a widow, particularly if an eldest son was not yet married, was one of extreme vulnerability. If there were no sons a widow might return to her paternal family (Lev. 22:13; Ruth 1:8) if that recourse were available. Younger widows were often considered a potential danger to the community and urged to remarry (Cf. I Tim. 5:3-15).

Left out of the prospect of inheritance by Hebrew law, widows became the stereotypical symbol of the exploited and oppressed. Old Testament criticism of the harsh treatment of these women is prevalent (Deut. 22:22-23; Job 22:9; 24:3; 31:16; Ps. 94:6; Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Mal. 3:5). So also are texts in which they are under the special protection of God (Deut. 10:18, Jer. 49:11; Ps. 68:5. See also Deut. 14:29; 24:17, 19-21; 26:12; Lk. 20:47; Jam. 1:27).

In antiquity, all persons, but especially women, were socially, religiously, economically and psychologically embedded in the paternal family. All members contributed to the well-being of the whole. In some degree a marriage dis-embedded a woman from her family of birth and embedded her into that of her new husband. Betrothal, sealed by contract, began that process, and moving to the husband's home after the wedding completed it. Since marriages were arranged, and since God was seen to have been a party in the arrangement ("What therefore God has joined together...," Matt. 19:6), separation was to be avoided.

Nonetheless a wife remained for the most part on the periphery of her new husband's family. She would be perceived as a "stranger," an outsider by everyone in the house. Only after the birth of a son would this attitude diminish because she then had a "blood" relationship on which to depend. A son would be her closest emotional support and would, along with her own brothers and father, defend her against her husband (his father) or even his own wife (her daughter-in-law).

"But to some of the Jews the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practise justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behaviour. When others too joined the crowds about him, because they were aroused to the highest degree by his sermons, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did. Herod decided therefore that it would be much better to strike first and be rid of him before his work led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval, get involved in a difficult situation and see his mistake. Though John, because of Herod's suspicions, was brought in chains to Machaerus . . . and there put to death, yet the verdict of the Jews was that the destruction visited upon Herod's army was a vindication of John, since God saw fit to inflict such a blow on Herod" (Josephus, Antiquities 18.116-119).

(Josephus commenting on his mentor) "On hearing of one named Bannus, who dwelt in the wilderness, wearing only such clothing as trees provided, feeding on such things a grew of themselves, and using frequent ablutions of cold water, by day and night, for purity's sake, I became his disciple" (Life 11).

"And when these things came to pass for the Community in Israel, at these appointed times, they shall be separated from the midst of the habitation of perverse men to go into the desert to prepare the way of 'Him': as it is written In the wilderness prepare the way of . . . Make straight in the desert a highway for our God" 1QS 8:12-14).

So, is “wilderness” a geographical place? a symbolic place? Does one expect to find certain types of people in the “wilderness”?

We may presume that for the author of the Gospel of John, as for us, statements about entities other than human beings are often based on analogies with the human. This holds notoriously true for theological statements about God; all such statements are anthropomorphic analogies. Thus the "Word" that was with God in the beginning must be something like a human word.

The Greek term for "Word" is logos. However, it does not mean what most schooled people mean by the term "word": the smallest recognizable lexical item, the smallest unit of wording (whether spoken or written), that can stand on its own as a label for something and be listed in a dictionary. A better understanding can be found in the way non-literate persons use the term "word." For non-literate people, a word is a statement, an utterance, the whole thing a person says. To ask a non-literate individual (who does not think in terms of words, sentences and paragraphs) to repeat a word often results in having that person repeat everything he or she just said. This is what is involved with the term logos here. The Word that was with God in the beginning refers to God's total utterance that has resulted in everything created, visible and invisible.

What sense does it make to ascribe such a Word to God? Whereas some philosophically oriented persons in the Greco-Roman world thought of the human person in terms of body and soul, the Mediterranean world traditionally thought in terms of what anthropologists call "zones of interaction" with the world around. Three such zones make up the human person and all appear repeatedly in the Gospels:

Dimensions of human activity will be described in terms of any appropriate zone(s), even all three.

For example, to explain opposition to Jesus, John cites Isaiah to the effect that God "has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them" (12:40). Here the zone of emotion-fused thought is involved. "Hardened hearts" refers to an inability to think, perceive and assess properly. Hard hearts are hearts that malfunction, largely due to ill will.

When a writer refers to all three zones, we can assume comment is being made about complete human experience. Thus we read in 1 John 1:1: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life. . ." That statement is a popular expression of total involvement, "body and soul" as we would say. All three zones are likewise given special attention in the latter part of the Sermon on the Mount: eyes-heart (Matt. 6:19 -- 7:6), mouth- ears (7:7-11) and hands-feet (7:13-27). The same is true of the interpretation of the parable of the sower in Luke 8:11-15. For additional examples, see Exod. 21:24, Prov. 6:16-10, 2 Kings 4:34, Dan. 10:6.

In this way of thinking, then, the "word" has to do with a person's mouth-ears. It comes from the zone of self-expressive speech and thus stands for self-revelation and self-communication. This is what the Word that was with God in the beginning is: God's self-revelation, God's self- communication. John's poem about God's making the world by means of the Word is a first-century updated retelling of the "Law" (Torah) given by Moses (vs. 17). For a similar updated presentation of the Law, consider the opening of Genesis as found in the Aramaic version of the Torah, called the Targum. (In the box we cite the Palestinian Targum [Neofiti]; the word, "Word," renders the Aramaic, "Memra.")

Gen 1:1: From the beginning with wisdom the Word of the Lord created and perfected the skies and the earth.

2 And the earth was waste and unformed, desolate of man and beast, empty of plant cultivation and of trees, and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss, and a spirit of mercy from before the Lord was blowing over the surface of the waters.

3 And the Word of the Lord said: Let there be light, and there was light according to the decree of his Word.

4 And it was manifest before the Lord that the light was good and the Word of the Lord separated the light from the darkness.

5 And the Word of the Lord called the light daytime and the darkness he called night. And there was evening and there was morning in the order of the work of creation: the first day.

6 And the Word of the Lord said: Let there be the firmament in the midst of the waters and let it separate the lower waters from the upper waters.

7 And the Lord created the firmament and separated the waters that were under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament, and it was so according to his Word.

8 And the Word of the Lord called the firmament the sky. And there was evening and there was morning in the order of the work of creation: the second day.

9 And the Word of the Lord said: Let the waters under the skies be gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear. And it was so according to his Word.

10 And the Word of the Lord called the dry (land) the earth and the gathering-place of the waters he called the Seas. And it was manifest before the Lord that it was beautiful and proper.

11 And the Word of the Lord said: Let the earth put forth the herbage of grass which produces seed, a fruit tree which yields fruit according to its kind, whose shoots are from it and in it upon the earth. And it was so according to his Word.

12 And the earth put forth herbage of grass which produces seed according to its kind, a fruit tree which produces fruit, whose shoots are from it and in it according to its kind. And it was manifest before the Lord that it was beautiful and proper.

13 And there was evening and there was morning in the order of the work of creation, the third day.

14 And the Lord said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the skies to separate daytime from the night; and let them act as signs of (sacred) seasons and so that the intercalation of moons (and) months may be consecrated by them.

15 And let them shine in the firmament of the skies to shine upon the earth. And it was so according to his Word.

16 And the Word of the Lord created the two great lights; the greater light to rule in the daytime and the lesser light to rule in the night, and the arrangement of the stars.

17 And the Glory of the Lord set them in the firmament of the skies to shine upon the earth,

18 and to rule in the daytime and in the night and to separate the light from the darkness. And it was manifest before the Lord that it was beautiful and proper.

19 And there was evening and there was morning: in the order of the work of creation, fourth day.

20 And the Word of the Lord said: Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living creatures and let the birds fly above the earth, over the face of the air of the firmament of the skies.

21 And the Lord created the two great monsters and every living creatures that moves, which the waters swarmed forth, according to their species, and every bird that flies according to its species. And it was manifest before the Lord that it was beautiful and good.

22 And the Word of the Lord blessed them saying: Become strong and multiply and fill the waters of the seas and let birds multiply upon the earth.

23 And there was evening and there was morning; the order of the work of creation: the fifth day.

24 And the Word of the Lord said: Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their species: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their species. And it was so according to his Word.

25 And the Word of the Lord created the beasts of the earth according to their species and the cattle according to their species, and every- thing that creeps upon the earth according to their species. And it was manifest before the Lord that it was beautiful and good.

26 And the Word of the Lord said: Let us create man in our image, similar to ourselves, and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea and over the birds of the skies, and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

27 And the Word of the Lord created the son of man in his (own) image, in a resemblance from before the Lord he created him, male and his partner he created them.

28 And the Word of the Lord blessed them and the Word of the Lord said to them: Be strong and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fishes of the sea and over the birds of the skies, and over every living thing that creeps upon the earth.

29 And the Word of the Lord said: Behold I have given you all the herbs that produce seed that are on the face of all the earth and every tree that has fruit on it -- the fruit-bearing tree -- to you I have given them as food.

30 And to every beast of the earth and to all the birds of the skies and to everything that creeps upon the earth, that has in it the breath of life, (I have given) every herb as food. And it was so according to his word.

31 And there was manifest before the Lord everything that he had made and it was very beautiful and good. And there was evening and there was morning; the order of the work of creation: the sixth day.

2:1 And they completed the creatures of the skies and earth and all the hosts of them.

2 And the Word of the Lord completed on the seventh day his work which he had created because there was rest and repose before him on the seventh day from all his work which he had created.

3 And the Word of the Lord blessed the seventh day and declared it holy because on it there was a great rest and repose before him from all his work which the Glory of the Lord had created to do.

The Palestinian Targum continues, of course, mentioning God's Word (Memra) each time God intervenes in the stories that the Torah unfolds. Why did ancient Israel's translators feel compelled to have all of God's dealing with creation and creatures mediated by God's Word? It seems that thinkers of the house of Israel adopted the Hellenistic truism of the existence of God's Word (the Greek for Word, "Logos," also means "Reason") and applied it to the speaking activity of God in the Torah. Perhaps the clearest explanation comes from the learned Philo, a person of the house of Israel who lived in Alexandria during the first century of our era. Note Philo's explanation:

To His Word (Greek: Logos), His chief messenger (Greek: archangelos), highest in age and honor, the Father of all has given the special prerogative, to stand on the border and separate the creature from the Creator. This same Word both pleads with the immortal as suppliant for afflicted mortality and acts as ambassador of the ruler to the subject. He glories in this prerogative and proudly describes it in these words "and I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut 5:5), that is neither uncreated as God, nor created as you, but midway between the two extremes, a surety to both sides; to the parent, pledging the creature that it should never altogether rebel against the rein and choose disorder rather that order; to the child, warranting his hopes that the merciful God will never forget His own work. "For I am the harbinger of peace to creation from that God whose will is to bring wars to an end, who is ever the guardian of peace." (Who is the Heir 205-14).

The Word of God is thus personified; God's commanding and ordering speech is a person, a "chief messenger." It exists from the beginning ("the highest in age and honor"); from the viewpoint of human beings, the Word is uncreated, but from the viewpoint of God, the Word is created. The Word thus mediates, standing as it does between God and creatures.

Hellenistic philosophers of the eastern Mediterranean deduced the existence of such a divine Word or Reason present in the created world. They based their thinking on the fact that human beings could know with certainty, absolutely, without doubt. For example, how is it possible for humans to know that 1 + 1 = 2 with absolute certainty; or that if A = B and if B = C, then A = C? If humans are created beings, there is nothing about them that warrants their knowing anything with absolute certainty. The quality of absoluteness (i.e. unrelated to anything or anyone) belongs to God alone; and absolute certainty is an attribute of God alone. If finite, limited and relative humans share in such absolute certainty, then there must be someone in the created world that mediates the divine absolute. This mediating entity is the Word (Logos, Reason).

In the Israelite tradition, since Logos equally means Word, the Word with God "in the beginning is God's creative and powerful Word. This Word was not abstract Reason, but God's self-revelation and self-communication. Feet 13:1-17. This Word is to be found in all creation, which is God's communication and revelation. Hence the existence of the Word with God from the beginning was the commonly shared perception of various Hellenistic thinkers in the first-century Mediterranean. However what is distinctive of John's group is the identification of this Created/Uncreated Word with the Israelite personage, Jesus of Nazareth. For after its experience of Jesus, the group that celebrated God's mediating, creative Word with this poem at opening ofJohn's Gospel makes the claim that this creative and powerful Word had to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth.

We have studied Lenski's model of social stratification, which indicated that at the top of the social pyramid were the aristocrats and elites (1-2%) and their retainers (5%). Dropping precipitously, the pyramid then locates merchants (few wealthy, most subsistence), artisans (again, mostly subsistence) and peasant farmers (overwhelmingly poor). The ancients themselves makes these same distinctions based on whether one enjoyed leisure (aristocrats) and did not have to work [this left time for philosophy and civic affairs], and the rest of the population which worked, often at slave like tasks just to get by. Thus the Lenski pyramid might be viewed as a snobbery index based on who did not work and who labored. This is Cicero's version of matter:

(149) It is our duty to honour and reverence those whose lives are conspicuous for conduct in keeping with their high moral standards, and who, as true patriots, have rendered or are now rendering efficient service to their country, just as much as if they were invested with some civil or military authority: it is our duty also to show proper respect to old age, to yield precedence to magistrates, to make a distinction between a fellow-citizen and a foreigner, and, in the case of the foreigner himself, to discriminate according to whether he has come in an official or a private capacity. In a word, not to go into details, it is our duty to respect, defend, and maintain the common bonds of union and fellowship subsisting among all the members of the human race [qu: what part of the social pyramid is in view here?]

(150) Now in regards to trades an other means of livelihood, which ones are to be considered becoming to a gentleman and which ones are vulgar, we have been taught, in general, as follows. First, those whose means of livelihood are rejected as undesirable which incur people's ill-will, as those of tax-gatherer and usurers. Unbecoming to a gentleman, too, and vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery. Vulgar we must consider those also who buy from wholesale merchants to retail immediately; for they would get no profits without a great deal of downright lying; and verily, there is no action that is meaner than misrepresentation. And all mechanics are engaged in vulgar trades; for no workshop can have anything liberal about it. Least respectable of all are those trades which cater for sensual pleasures: "Fishmongers, butchers, cooks, and poulterers, and fishermen," as Terence says. Add to these, if you please, the perfumers, dancers, and the whole corps de ballet.

(151) But the professions in which either a higher degree of intelligence is required or from which no small benefit to society is derived -- medicine and architecture, for example, and teaching -- these are propr for those whose social position they become. Trade, if it is on a small scale, is to be considered vulgar; but if wholesale and on a large scale, importing large quantities from all parts of the world and distributing to many without representation, it is not to be greatly disparaged. Nay, it even seems to deserve the highest respect, if those who engaged in it, satiated, or rather, I should say, satisfied with the fortunes they have made, make their way from the port to a country estate, as they have often made it from the sea into port. But of all the occupations by which gain is secured, none is better than agriculture, none more profitable, none more delightful, none more becoming to a freeman. [can you see the rising importance of wealth? Even low-status folk can gain high status with great wealth.]

"World" is the usual translation of the Greek word kosmos. By the Hellenistic period, the term "world" referred to the universe created by God, the earth as opposed to the sky, the inhabited earth, the location of human society, and finally humanity. We continue to use the term "world" in the same ways. For us the "known world" equals the explored universe. We speak of "traveling the world" (as opposed to space). To be in "this world" means where we live, the inhabited world (as opposed to a next or another world). The phrase "the whole world" knows, means humanity, everybody knows.

Four times in John's Gospel the term "world" refers to God's creation: "light of this world" = the day (11:9), "before the world was made" (17:5), "the foundation of the world" (17:24), and a place for books (21:25). But most often in John the "world" is a subject of personal activity and the object of interpersonal relations. As an entity that personally interacts, it is not inert, material creation. Rather in all usages in John, apart from the three just cited, "world" refers to humanity, to human beings.

Given John's anti-language ( Anti-language, 1:19-28) and exclusive concern with Israelites, however, this reference to humanity must be confined even further. Note what is said in 18:20: "Jesus answered him, 'I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the Temple, where all Judeans come together; I have said nothing secretly." Obviously here the "world" refers to Judeans. They constitute the "world" of John.

When we read that "God so loved the world," (3:16) we should thus assume it means "God so loved the Israelites" -- if only because the only-begotten Son was given to Israel, "his own," not to all of humanity. Jesus is Israel's Messiah, for "messiah" is a social role that occurs only in Israel or on behalf of Israel. Modern readers who assume the word "world" refers to all human beings in John are really importing the anachronistic interpretation that comes later in history when Gentile Christians read John in their own ethnocentric perspective. In John's historical circumstances, given John's antagonism to Judeans, "this world" would then refer to "this humanity, this people," that is Judeans (8:23; 9:39; 12:25.31; 13:1; 14:30; 16:11; 18:36).

In sum, in the Gospel of John, the word "world" refers to three entities: the physical world, Israel as God's chosen humanity, and Judeans as enemies of John's community. What the word "world" never refers to in John is all human beings, the whole human race.

1^st Century Palestine	Cultural Forms	Dominant Culture: USA
Hebrew and Aramaic; Greek and Latin	Languages	American English
Traditional (oral)	Transmission of Culture	Technological (multi-media)
Honor and Shame	Core Value	Wealth, Guilt
Agrarian Family	Mode and Means of Production	Industrial Corporation
Communal (Strong Group)	Socialization	Individualistic (Weak Group)
Present-Past-Future	Time Orientation	Future-Present-Past
Villages (cities = only 10% of population)	Core Residence	Cities (rural population only 15%)
Divinely-granted Inheritance	Land	Simple Commodity
Kingship	Dominant Social Domain	Economy
Endogamous Community	Kinship	Absolute Nuclear
Patrilineal Patrilocal Endogamous Dowry System Inheritance Rules	Type of Marriage	No Descent Rules Neolocal Exogamous Informal Gifts No Inheritance Rules
Imperial Province King and Prefect Hereditary Rule	State Politics	Democratic Republic President/Congress/Judiciary Election
Tributary Peasant-Based Localized	Economy	Capitalism Diversified International
Sacrificial Liturgy Embedded in State Clear Purity Rules Hereditary Priesthood Tax-Supported	Religion	Didactic Liturgy Voluntary Association Pragmatic Purity Practices Professional Clergy Contribution-Supported

1. Announcement: Death or Departure	1. “Yet a little while I am with you” (13:33) “I go away” (14:2-3, 28) 2. Reaction: “Do not be troubled” (14:1, 27; 16:4b-6)
2. Review of Patriarch’s Life	14:29-31; 17:1-26
3. Relationships Maintained	Jesus and God: 14:8-11, 20 Jesus and Disciples: 14:3, 21; 15:1-11, 12-17 Jesus, God and the Disciples: 14:6-7, 13, 23
4.Knowledge and Revelations Given (Now)	Knowledge of the Way: 14:4-7 Seeing the Father 14:8-11 Knowledge about Jesus in the Father: 14:20-24 Revelation by the Spirit: 14:25-26; 15:25-26
5. Predictions and Prophecies (Then)	Future Crises: 14:29; 15:18-25; 16:1-4, 29-33 Future Blessings: 14:2-3, 12-14, 18; 16:20-24, 25
6. Exhortation to Virtue; Avoidance of Vice	Believe: 14:10-11, 29 Love: 14:15, 21, 23-24, 28; 15:12-17; 16:27 Abide: 15:1-11 Hate: 15:18-25
7. Successor Named	14:25-26; 15:25-26; 16:7-15 = “Another Advocate”
8. Legacy	Greater Works: 14:12-14 Name: l7:6, 11-12, 26 Knowledge: see # 4 above
9. Farewell Prayer	17:1-26

Elements of a Ritual	Elements of a Ceremony
1. Frequency: irregular pauses	1. Frequency: regular pauses
2. Schedule/calendar: unpredictable, when needed	2. Schedule/calendar: predictable, planned
3. Temporal focus: present-to-future	3. Temporal focus: past-to-present
4. Presided over by: professionals	4. Presided over by: officials
5. Purpose: status reversal; status transformation	5. Purpose: confirmation of roles and statuses in given institutions

FIXED: Temple	FLUID: Group
1. topological, actual space	1. place where the group meets
2. place perduring over time	2. space of opportunistic, occasional group meetings
3. major mode of worship: sacrifice	3. major mode of worship: verbal forms
4. focus on altar	4. focus on sacred writings
5. hierarchical arrangement of persons by birth	5. significant individuals whose competency is based on spirit giftedness or closeness to the group’s hero