Hypocrisy in Luke 12 and 2 Maccabees 6 January 10, 2010
Posted by Lee in Luke and Maccabees, MET Blogger Archive.add a comment
[Originally posted on May 23, 2007, with spelling edits made here.]
Richard [Anderson] once asked me, regarding hypocrites and hypocrisy as they relate to Luke 12:
“In 2nd Macc, the Jewish people are ordered to eat meat that has been sacrificed to the idols and Eleazar is offered ‘kosher’ meat to eat to make it appear he is in compliance with the order of the king but he refuses saying it would be hypocrisy to do so (and misleading) to the Jewish people. In his refusal, he becomes a Jewish martyr. Is Jesus [in Luke 12] in saying, ‘beware of the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy’ somehow alluding to Eleazar and contrasting the behavior and conduct of the Pharisees with Eleazar?”
Richard was considering Jesus’ admonition as an allusion to the sory of Eleazar as told in 2 Maccabees 6. I responded:
1. Hypocrisy in Luke 12.1ff. is defined as saying something in secret or hiding something (12.1-3; the hidden thing will be revealed); not confessing before men (12.8ff.). This is essentially the same phenomenon expected from Eleazar [the refusal of which led to his martyrdom].
2. More importantly, there is a deeper parallel involving the two texts:
In Luke 12.4ff., [we find the] admonition to not fear (me phobethete; cf. 12.7) those who can kill the body (soma); “fear (phobethete) him who can destroy body (soma) in hell”.
2Macc6.30: Eleazar suffers in his body (soma); Eleazar says, “I will suffer these things because I fear (phobov) him [the Almighty]; 2Macc6.26 = Eleazar says, “Whether I live or die, I shall not not escape the hands of the Almighty”.
I have not studied this line further since these remarks. Perhaps time will permit it soon. In the meantime, if you find this line of inquiry interesting or have something to contribute here, please leave a note. I’m interested in others’ thoughts.
Priests and Synagogues January 10, 2010
Posted by Lee in MET Blogger Archive, Synagogues.add a comment
[Originally posted on June 23, 2008.]
In the Second Temple period, who ruled the synagogues? It seems the general scholarly consensus is that synagogues, especially those of the Diaspora, belonged to the lay people. Two scholars offer a different picture.
1. Donald Binder, in his book Into the Temple Courts, suggests the priests and Levites controlled some (many?) of the synagogues. The Greek terms usually used to denote synagogue leaders in literary and epigraphic evidences include archon (18 times: 2 in Jos.; 16 in epigraphs) and archisynagogos (16 times: 10 in NT; 6 in epigraphs), among several others (which occur between 1 and 4 times). Archon (“prince” or “ruler”) appears in the form of archontes in the LXX in Ex16.22; 34.31; Num1.16; 31.13,26; 32.2; Josh9.15,16; 22.30. “During the Second Temple period, these archontes, along with a somewhat exclusive group known as ‘elders’ (presbyteroi), served as subsidiary rulers under the High Priest, forming a …synedrion” (Temple Courts, 345). Binder then goes on to show that these archontes also run the synagogues of both Judea and the Diaspora. Entry into the synedrion “was probably by the appointment of the High Priest, though the lineage and popularity among the masses were undoubtedly factors as well” (345). Binder also notes that “terms appear to have been for life, though changes in political regimes could result in the loss of one’s position” (345). Further, Binder demonstrates that doorkeepers, those conveying scriptures to and from readers, and general overseers of synagogues (at least in Egypt and Palestine) were often Levites.
After his examination of all the data, Binder concludes, “Our survey has highlighted the role of priests and Levites within synagogues. Here, sources indicate that priests served as archisynagogoi and archontes, and suggested that they frequently served as scribes. Similarly, the Levites functioned as scribes as also appear to have filled the role of synagogue attendant… The evidence points to the conclusion that the Temple and the synagogue both belonged to the priests, Levites and people, with all three groups having a measure of leadership and participation within each institution” (371).
2. E. P. Sanders, in his book Judaism: Practice and Belief (63BCE-66CE), makes the same claim, though on different grounds:
“Philo indicates that priests retained their status as leaders in the Diaspora (Hypothetica 7.12f.), and archeology confirms that in at least some places outside of Palestine priests were specifically designated as such [footnoting an inscription found at a synagogue at Sardis, dating from the 4th century CE, reading "priest and teacher of wisdom"]” (pp. 52-3).
“[Upon assessing the well-known Theodotus inscription] What is clear here is that the rulers of the synagogue were priests, three generations of them, and very prosperous priests at that. If we must assign them to a party, the Sadducean would be the most likely guess [contra Hengel, who believes Theodotus was a Pharisee], but there is no reason to think that they represent a party. What we learn from the inscription is that a family of wealthy priests who could speak Greek built and maintained a synagogue for Greek-speaking pilgrims, and that the synagogue had a dual purpose of serving as a guest house and a place of instruction. The inscription supports the evidence of the literature: it was the priests who taught the law” (pp.176-7).
“The Theodotus inscription is graphic evidence of the role of priests in synagogues, a role that some retained in the Diaspora. We recall that according to Philo a priest or elder was responsible for sabbath instruction (Hypothetica 7.13). At the synagogue in Sardis an inscription was found that refers to a man who was a ‘priest and teacher of widsom’. This is from the fourth century. Its relevance is that it shows continuity with the passage of Philo and the Theopdotus inscription. In neither Palestine nor the Diaspora did priests withdraw from public life and community study and worship. By our period, prayer and reading of the Bible had already been incorporated in the temple service. It was a natural development for priests to perform both functions in synagogues as well…. The priest or elder read and interpreted the Bible, and other for the most part remained silent (Philo, Hypothetica, 7.13)” (pp.201-2).
“…Josephus presupposes that the priests were the official teachers of the nation, though he also depicts lay Pharisees and Essenes as public teachers. I think that we cannot safely generalize about who dominated how many sunagogues, but we must doubt that the Pharisees ran all of them” (p.398).
On page 398, Sanders sufficiently shows that there were three times more Levites and priests than Pharisees, based on Josephus’ ficgures. And that the number of Pharisees made it impossible for them to be in charge of all of the synagogues in the Diaspora. Thus, he concludes, the priests and Levites were in charge of some of the synagogues.
Synagogues in Jerusalem? January 10, 2010
Posted by Lee in MET Blogger Archive, Synagogues.add a comment
[Originally posted on June 24, 2008.]
It is hotly debated whether or not there were any synaoguges in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period. However, both the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud give a different impression:
“There were four hundred and eighty synagogues in Jerusalem, each of which had a bet sefer and a bet talmud. The bet sefer was for [the study of] the Bible, and the bet talmud for [the study of] the Mishnah, and Vespasian destroyed them all” (y. Megillah 3.1.73a).
A similar claim is made in b. Kethuboth 105a, claiming the number of synagogues in Jerusalem was 394.
Do these late texts give sufficient evidence that there were synagogues in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period, before 70AD? I seem to recall that in the Essene sector of Jerusalem, there is archaeological evidence for mikvehs, which may suggest the existence of a synagogue there. I will research this further.
A Progression in Luke’s Writing? January 10, 2010
Posted by Lee in Luke's Writing Style, MET Blogger Archive.add a comment
I have not yet followed through on the stated intentions, to my shame.
[Originally posted on July 17, 2008, though a few necessary edits have been made.]
Today I noticed the similarities between Luke 14.11 and 18.14. Luke’s Greek is nearly exact: hoti pas ho hupswn eauton tapeinwthedetai kai ho tapeinwn eauton hupswthesetai (14.11; cf. 18.14, where kai is replaced with de): “Because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, and the one humbling himself will be exalted.”
I immediately considered the possibility that the two pericopes of Luke 14.7-11 and 18.1-14 are describing the same thing, or that Luke’s Jesus is making the same point regarding the same people. But I was drawn away from that venture by another proposal. (I intend to investigate such a possibility very soon.)
These statements are of a certain kind, of a certain form. I continued searching the rest of Luke’s Gospel and noticed a kind of trend regarding such forms. In Luke 8.18, we find the statement, “For to him who had will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks he has will be taken away.” So far as I can tell, this is the first statement of this kind, using this rhetoric, in Luke’s Gospel. From there, I moved forward through the Gospel looking for similar rhetorical structures. I found these (including 8.18, 14.11 and 18.14):
8.18: For to him who had will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks he has will be taken away.
9.5: Wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.
10.6: If a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you.
10.16: He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.
11.23: He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
12.48: Everyone to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.
13.30: Some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.
14.11: Because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, and the one humbling himself will be exalted.
16.18: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
18.14: Because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, but the one humbling himself will be exalted.
20.18: Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken into pieces; upon whomever it falls, it will crish him.
(If I have forgotten any similar cases, please make them known.)
It seems to me that Luke is moving from a more primitive rhetorical form to a more developed one. Each of these cases is ‘tighter’ in verbal form than the previous case (with the lone exception of the 8.18, which looks much closer to the last four verbally that any one case between them.) I intend to study these passages in order alongside the other Synoptics, and even alongside John. But, should there be something to this, two things emerge:
1. Richard Anderson has suggested that Luke uses a “step progression method” in telling his story. Perhaps he is right, and this development of rhetorical form might help establish that.
2. If Luke is developing these sayings as he goes along, making the form stronger and tighter, perhaps this is a reflection of a free mind and a free hand. If so (which I’m not sure can be proven), perhaps this is evidence that in these instances Luke wrote without depending on a written source. If it can be shown that Luke’s redition of these statements, when taken together, is less developed compared to the other Synoptics, perhaps this is a step toward strengthening Lucan priority.
Malachi and Luke January 10, 2010
Posted by Lee in Luke's Use of the OT, MET Blogger Archive.add a comment
[Originally posted on July 31, 208.]
I have argued here that Luke is writing to Theophilus the high priest of 37-41CE. Because Luke seems to have priestly interests, I gave the book of Malachi a once-over last night, for it was written against the priests. There seems to be good evidence that Luke uses Malachi at times (aside from the citation of Mal4.6 in Lk1.17).
Luke 18 particularly is shot through with allusions of Malachi 3.5, which reads thus:
“Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be a swift witness
against the sorcerers,
against the adulterers,
against those who swear falsely,
against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the orphan,
against those who thrust aside the sojourner,
and those do not fear me,
says the Lord of hosts.”
In Luke 18.1-8, we find a defense of WIDOWS and the condemnation of those who NEITHER FEARED GOD nor regarded man. In 18.9-14, we find an implicit denouncement of the Pharisaic haughtiness regarding ADULTERY and EXTORTION. In 18.18-30, we find Jesus reciting the Laws regarding ADULTERY, STEALING, and BEARING FALSE WITNESS.
One cannot help but wonder why Jesus only names the five Laws he names in 18.20. Malachi 1.6 reads, “A son honors his father….” I wonder if this is perhaps why Jesus is including the Law to honor father and mother. (Of course, there is no mention of murder in Malachi, yet Jesus includes the prohibition to kill.) The other Laws mentioned by Jesus find root in Malachi 3.5. I believe Luke’s Jesus has Malachi in mind here.
Additionally, the issue of the SOJOURNER is taken up in Luke 10.29-37, the story of the good Samaritan. Defenses of WIDOWS appear in Luke 20.46-47; 21.1-4. SORCERY might be addressed by Jesus in Luke 11.14-26. And the issue of ADULTERY also emerges in Luke 16.18.
Further allusions may be included:
Mal1.6 // Lk6.46
Mal3.1 // Lk7.27 (citation)
Mal4.2 // Lk1.78 (so Marshall, Luke, 94)
Finally, I read somewhere that the Jewish Targum identifies Ezra as the author of Malachi. I must find the reference. Jewish tradition apparently recognized Malachi’s relation to Ezra and Nehemiah.
Luke 3.30 and Mark 6.3 (Matthew 13.55)? September 6, 2008
Posted by Lee in Luke's Genealogy, MET Blogger Archive.add a comment
I once posted on the seeming likeness of these three passages. Matthew evidently follows Mark (or a similar tradition). In Mark 6.1ff., Matthew 13.53ff., and Luke 4.16ff. (the closest Lucan parallel) all describe a synagogue episode in which Jesus’ listeners rhetorically question from which family Jesus hails. Mark 6.3 reads, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon…?” Matthew follows Mark closely, though mixing the order of names. But Luke 4.22 mentions only Joseph: “Is not this Joseph’s son?” Luke is probably continuing the thought from 3.23, the beginning of Jesus’ genealogy where Jesus is said to be of Joseph, “as was supposed.”
A comparison of four names in Luke’s genealogy (3.30) seem close to the names of Jesus brothers in Mark 6.3:
Mark Luke
Iakwbou Iwnam
Iwsetos Iwseph
Iouda Iouda
Simwnos Sumewn
Is there anything to this similarity? I have previously argued that Luke’s genealogy ought not be taken as a sequential list of generations (with a notable exception in one large block of names), since several groups of names allign well with lists of priestly individuals elsewhere (in, for example, TLevi and Josephus’ Antiquities.)
In my previous attempts to sort out Luke’s genealogy, I failed to make any significant conclusions. I intend to review the study and eventually post my findings. When I do, I’ll mention in detail those priestly lists found elsewhere. In the meantime, I’d appreciate any insights regarding the possible relationship between Mark 6.3 and Luke 3.30, if there be any.
Luke’s Jesus and Isaiah 52 September 4, 2008
Posted by Lee in Luke's Use of the OT, MET Blogger Archive.add a comment
[Originally posted May 25, 2007.]
Luke 7.36-50 tells of the anointing of Jesus’ feet. Luke 8.1ff. describes Jesus’ “preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God”. Perhaps there is something lurking behind Luke’s narrative.
Recall Isaiah 52.7: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of good, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns’ ” (emphasis added).
Is Luke therefore suggesting here that Jesus, whose feet were anointed, is then the “lovely one” who preaches the “good news” as spoken of by Isaiah?
I also find it interesting that the latter half of Isaiah 52 speaks of ritual purity, culminating into the refrain:
“Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. As many were astonished at him — his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men — so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand.” (52.13-15).
Emmaus? September 4, 2008
Posted by Lee in MET Blogger Archive.2 comments
[Originally posted June 11, 2007.]
I recently read Jenny Read-Heimerdinger’s “Where is Emmaus? Clues in the Text of Luke 24 in Codex Bazae” (Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, ed. D. G. K. Taylor. Atlanta: SBL, 1999, pp. 229-244). Basically, Read-Heimerdinger suggests that in Luke 24.13, Bazae’s reading of Oulammaous is to be preferred over Vaticanus’ Emmaous. Oulammaous was the former name of Bethel (Gen28.19). Jacob was responsible for the name change. Genesis 28.10-20 tells of Jacob’s marking of the spot where God dwelt on earth (thus the change to “Bethel”). Jacob dreams of a ladder, connecting heaven and earth, upon which angels descend and ascend.
I agree with Read-Heimerdinger’s assessment. But I’d like to add something to her notion. I have suggested before that Luke is perhaps rewriting John’s history in symbolic or parabolic form (cf. my post on the rich man and Lazarus). (I am also working on the possibility of Luke’s “Cleopas” [Lk24.18] being John’s “Clopas” [Jn9.25]). If the preferred reading of Luke 24.13 is Bazae’s Oulammaous in place of Vaticanus’ Emmaous, and if Luke is perhaps rewriting John’s history, I am compelled to believe that John 1.45-51 is rewritten in Luke 24. John 1.45-51 reads:
45: Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
46: Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”
47: Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”
48: Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”
49: Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
50: Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these.”
51: And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”
Notice two important parallels between John’s text and Luke 24.13-35:
1. Both speak of Jesus’ fulfillment of the “Moses and the prophets” (Jn1.45 // Lk24.27).
2. Both speak of visions of the angels (Jn1.51 // Lk24.23). Moreover, Luke’s mention of Oulammaous (24.13) directly links his story to Jacob’s dream (Gen28), in which angels were descending and ascending, representing God’s provision for mediation between heaven and earth (cf. Jn1.51).
