Children in Antiquity

Came across an awesome example of social differences:

"Contrary to our ethnocentric and anachronistic projections of innocent, trusting, imaginative, and delightful children playing at the knee of a gentle Jesus, childhood in antiquity was a time of terror. The women in Luke 18:15-17 who bring their infants to Jesus are almost certainly asking him to touch them because they are sick and dying. Children were the weakest, most vulnerable members of society. Infant mortality rates sometimes reached 30 percent. Another 30 percent of live births were dead by age six, and 60 percent were gone by age sixteen. [...] Children had little status within the community or family. While a minor, a child was on par with a slave, and only after reaching maturity was he/she a free person who could inherit the family estate. The orphan was the stereotype of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. The term "child/children" could be also used as a serious insult (cf. Matt 11:16-17; Luke 7:32)." (Malina & Rohrbaugh, Soc-Sci Com on Synoptics, p.336)

Though they note that they aren't saying that children were not loved and valued. Children meant security in old age (there are some good lines from G-R material about that).

If you are like me, often numbers just brush off and you don't see the significance of what's being said. Let me try to struggle with you by making a visual...





Compare that with a 2001 stat from Statistics Canada



Consider this... out of 1000 births, 300 have died by age six. In Canada, out of 1000 live births, 5.2 die before reaching age one. If we are to arbitrarily extrapolate that, 5.2 x 6, that's roughly 30 dead by age six. Using that number, the death rate is 1/10th as it was in antiquity.

So that is a big whack. If you live on a street with, say, 15 houses, leave your house and walk down the street. The first five houses (roughly) will have lost a lad or lass. :( For every three friends that you have, one of them will have a sibling dead by age 6.

Patronage (p1)

This is once again a very fundamental part of ancient culture. It was "expected and publicized" (HP, p.96). In De Beneficiis, Seneca says that the system of patronage was the "practice that constitutes the chief bond of human society" (1.4.2). So what is patronage?

There was patronage between the higher and lower classes, and patronage among the lower classes. We will take a cursory look at patronage between the higher and lower classes in this entry.

We have two main parties here: the patron, and the client. The patron is the one with all the resources, and the client is the one asking for help--also known as making a petition. If the patron granted the petition, this would be called giving favor or grace. So it is a two-way system: first the request, then the grant. You want, I have.

So that's how it worked in a nutshell. If the patron granted the request, the petitioner would become the client. A potentially long-term relationship would begin, where the patron would be available for further help, and the client would fulfill the obligations, as we will see. Let's look at the honor aspects of this system. Recall limited good. The patron gives; the patron has lost something. Thus the patron's grace has left the client indebted to him (or her, on occasions). The client therefore had some obligations: to enhance the patron's honor and fame, to be loyal to the patron, and provide services (HP, p.97).

One interesting (and perhaps amusing to us) example of how clients could enhance the patron's honor is by joining his entourage. When the patron would go somewhere, a crowd of clients would go with the patron, proclaiming his name and 'clearing the way'. We will look at grace and returning grace in more detail later.

The benefits that the patron could grant were numerous. Some of them are land, money to start a business, protection, debt relief, and more glamorously, position and office. One important benefit that a patron could grant was access to another patron. This is also known as being a broker, or to use the classical term, mediator. (HP, p.97) This works by the patron becoming a client to a greater patron. The patron would testify for the character of his client (we'll see more about this in grace), basically that the person he is petitioning for is worthy of grace. If the greater patron granted the request, the original client would be indebted to both the broker and the greater patron.

An example of brokerage would be granting citizenship. deSilva cites the case of Pliny the Younger's physical therapist Arpocras. Pliny petitions the Emperor Trajan (Epistles 10.5-7, 10), and Arpocras is graced with both Roman and Alexandrian citizenship.

Patrons also referred to their clients as 'friends', out of sensitivity to their client's honor. Clients mostly referred to their patrons as patrons, as would be expected from gratitude. Thus if we see 'friends' we should suspect that it really means 'clients' (HP, p.99).

Secrecy

Reflections on Neyrey's article on secrecy and the GoJ.

Right off the bat the article challenges a non-social scientific reading of the text. What's really lurking behind the words of the gospel?

Unlike the Synoptic gospels, John does not contain a commissioning by Jesus to his disciples to "go make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19). Information from and about Jesus, when it is spread, is accomplished through a "gossip network" to select individuals (Neyrey 1994). And although Jesus declares before one of his judges, "I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple. . .I have said nothing in secret" (John 18:20), that hardly explains the intricate patterns of double-meaning words, irony, lying, deception and misunderstanding and actual hiding in the Fourth Gospel.

This is pretty interesting, and not just because so often in Western Christianity Jesus is held up as a model. Jesus, it is said, was honest, kind, nice, devout, etc. What would Jesus do? But maybe that question is really, 'What would our ahistorical Jesus do?' A God of 'love' and 'truth', it is said, would NEVER lie. (See also Ex. 20:16. I suspect that 'neighbor' means 'Israelite/kin'.)

I'm a little disappointed that Neyrey didn't sum up Pilch's work on lying, but that's really no problem--further research is expected. But on that point, there is an important note about honorable lying to be made. See the latter half of this Tekton article for a brief note.

Anyway, the know/not know dichotomy is interesting. It divides more than one might think; the educated from the uneducated; the 'cool' from the 'uncool', likewise the 'in' from the 'out'. Something I constantly see is siblings having information control from their parents.

I'm curious to know how revealing information was done. What was the criteria for revealing to outsiders? Kinship was one. Tobit 5:9-14:

Tobiah went back to tell his father Tobit what had happened. He said to him, "I have just found a man who is one of our own Israelite kinsmen!" Tobit said, "Call the man, so that I may find out what family and tribe he comes from, and whether he is trustworthy enough to travel with you, son." Tobiah went out to summon the man, saying, "Young man, my father would like to see you." When Raphael entered the house, Tobit greeted him first. [...] Tobit asked, "Brother, tell me, please, what family and tribe are you from?" Raphael said: "Why? Do you need a tribe and a family? Or are you looking for a hired man to travel with your son?" Tobit replied, "I wish to know truthfully whose son you are, brother, and what your name is." Raphael answered, "I am Azariah, son of Hananiah the elder, one of your own kinsmen." Tobit exclaimed: "Welcome! God save you, brother! Do not be provoked with me, brother, for wanting to learn the truth about your family. So it turns out that you are a kinsman, and from a noble and good line! I knew Hananiah and Nathaniah, the two sons of Shemaiah the elder; with me they used to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where we would worship together. No, they did not stray from the right path; your kinsmen are good men. You are certainly of good lineage, and welcome!" (emphasis mine)

Kinship all over the place. Tobit is looking for a trustworthy man to travel with his son, and "Azariah"'s lineage tells him all he needs to know. But it seems that Jesus didn't have strict use of kinship as a criteria, as John 4:7-39 says:

The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us." Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He." ... So the woman left her waterpot, and went into the city and said to the men, "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?" ... From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, "He told me all the things that I have done."

It's interesting that Jesus let a Samaritan woman into his information network. Not just because she wasn't Jewish, but it was a she. Those who are 'in the know' have higher status, so she did as well.

Within families, groups, organizations or governments, certain people are privy to what is withheld from others. In fact, who knows what may serve as an index of status or ranking within a group. But not everybody knows all things. Thus secrets are entrusted to some, not others. The others may or may not know that there are secrets withheld from them. Hence, we find within governments the use of degrees of classified information, labels such as "for your eyes only," and the like. Nevertheless, there tends to be an inner circle which is "in the know." (2.2)

If we attempt to plot out status and role within a group, who knows something can often serve as an index of public standing. (2.4.1)

But it seems that much knowledge was only revealed to the disciples (1.2). Neyrey's bit on why some aren't in the know (1.4) give some clues; merely negate the statements: those who have knowledge revealed prefer the light to the darkness, or they are chosen by the Father. Right now I can't see how that's much of a criteria, but it may be claimed that this knowledge was revealed to Jesus by the Father. Neyrey says,

the Samaritan woman is gradually entrusted with secrets about Jesus. She begins the story as a character who was told "If only you knew . . . who it is who said to you 'Give me to drink,' you would have asked him. . ." (4:10). As she is entrusted with more secrets, she does ask "Give me this water" (4:15) and she receives remarkable information (4:20-24), even a Christophany of Jesus as the Messiah (4:26). (3.2)

So maybe the criteria is an appropiate response to the information given.

On honoring God (p1)

One thought that continually encroaches upon my thinking is this: excelling at your particular field is glorifying God.

I want to define my terms because I specifically have not used 'worship'. Worship is a lifestyle, and thus it is not something 'done' like an action, but it is something 'lived'--or to use a more Eastern term, it is something to 'be'. Glory is something very closely related to worship, because the goal of worship is to glorify God.

What is glory? Well, the phrase 'the glory of God' is basically God's honor. We'll need to understand what honor is--I'll just draw out the most relevant parts and leave the nuances for your own discovery. You can think of God's honor as God's importance and value. Simple, isn't it? God is of the highest value and importance, and likewise is of the highest honor.

When people see someone who is excellent, the typical response is something along the lines of admiration. If there is a 'close' group who sees excellence among themselves, they will be glad that some of their members have great accomplishments; something to be proud of. Sometimes the reaction is one of awe: this person has overcome a great struggle. Those who are excellent are models because they are idols.

Now imagine you were talking to an excellent person, and you found out that they are merely students of a great teacher--their teacher is yet greater than they. Much respect and awe would be given to their teacher.

Something interesting happened in that theoretical exchange, and it rests at the very core of my argument. That person is viewed as great. But their teacher is viewed as greater--why? They testified, upon their reputation, that their teacher is greater than they. So then, the student is a testimony of the teacher. A reflection, if you will.

In very much the same way, the imagery used in the Bible of the slave and his master communicate the same pathos. There's a very important social instutition in the ancient Mediterranean world called patronage. This was the part that sparked this entry. Patronage is just about as complex as honor, so I'll once again draw the most relevant parts out, and leave the rest for your own discovery.

There were two main parties in patronage: the patron, which is the rich guy, and the client, which is the not-so-rich guy. The patron typically had more resources than he needed; lots to go around. The client might recieve resources from the patron (this is called giving favor). If the client's petition for favor was granted, a potentially long-term relationship might be entered into. This is not a deeply intimate relationship as the modern usage suggests, but it was more of a business affair. (When you see the word 'friend' in the New Testament, it means 'client'.) One of the things the client would do, to show his/her gratitude, is make known the generosity of the patron. This is the testimony of the client.

Consider another form of testimony--the unspoken kind. Let's once again go back to the student-teacher idea. The point I want to make is more obvious with first-century rabbis and their teaching methods. A student who wanted to learn from a rabbi would not come once-a-week and sit in classes. He would go and follow the rabbi, observe his ways, his methods, and learn to 'be' a rabbi. Then suppose we met this student, and found him to be excellent. He is knowledgeable, wise, caring, strong... that would say much about his rabbi.

It is with this basic understanding that we can see that the excellence of a servant is a glorifying reflection of the master.

Thus, your excellence is a glorifying reflection of your Master.

Oriental Institute ANE List

I came across this: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html

They say that

ANE is a mailing list on topics and issues of interest in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, from the Indus to the Nile, and from the beginnings of human habitation to the rise of Islam. It is intended to provide a medium for discussion among scholars and students actively engaged in research and study of this broad field. Subscription is open and unmoderated. Information on how to subscribe follows at the end of this message. Active (on-list) participation in ANE assumes an informed knowledge of the ancient Near East and knowledge of the following rules. The act of subscribing to the list signifies the agreement of the subscriber to follow the rules and to accept the adjudications of the moderator.

I look forward to browsing it.

Ancient Tiberias, eh..

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-07/thuo-atr072705.php

Among other cool finds,

Beneath the apse hall, remains of an impressive, first-century, marble floor were found. There is no natural marble in Israel, and therefore, this floor must have been part of a grand structure belonging to an individual of extraordinary wealth. The excavators believe it was one of the palaces belonging to Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, who founded Tiberias in 20 C.E. A marble floor of this type from the Second Temple period has been found previously in Israel only at the Herodian palaces of Masada, Jericho, and Herodion.

Honor (p1)

Honor

• A fundamental part of culture
• THE axis of operation up and down the social ladder

How we see this:

• "The one firm conviction from which we move to the proof of other points is this: that which is honorable is held dear for no other reason than because it is honorable" (De Ben. 4.16.2).
• Aristotle lists two motives for action: honor and pleasure (Nic. Eth. 3.1.11 [1110b11-12]). Honor is foremost according to Isocrates, Ad Dem. 17, 43.
• A course of action must be honorable, however safe or unsafe (Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.5.8-9). Quintilian, teacher of rhetoric in the 1st century AD claims honor as the main persuasion factor (Institutes 3.8.1).
• Moral teaching:

- Constant use of "it is honorable" or "noble". This can be observed in Ad Demonicus, the Proverbs, Wisdom literature, etc. Honor is the guiding value--the axis of operation.

• Treatment of the body:
  

- The hands of a ruler are kissed [vs.] slapping the face of an inferior
- Crowning the head [vs.] binding, mutilation, and death
- At the table, seats of honor [vs.] places of disgrace, such as being locked outside, or being invited to a patron's banquet merely to witness the wealth and power
- The king on his throne (a higher elevation) [vs.] servants prostrate (bowing down)

• Status - see later entry
• Clothing - more to be said, but contrast the decorated robes of an official to the rags of a beggar
• Treatment of name and lineage:

- Inherited honor comes from lineage--this is one type of honor
- The name of a person is representative of their honor, and thus it serves as a very important indicator. This can tell us much about how the person is viewed.
- Inherited honor is from lineage [and parentage], but this can change. Consider a native Egyptian, in Egypt, being viewed as dishonorable--because the Greeks form the ruling classes.
- Titles are key indicators
- A benefactor of the city would have his name proclaimed at festivals, and may be honored with inscriptions, such as at the base of a statue, or on a building he raised.
- Some people are referred to by their illness, and not their name, ethnicity, lineage, etc. Consider the cripples and paralytics.
- Likewise, some are referred to only by their ethnicity.

Note about challenge-riposte: many attacks can be based on this; insults to ethnicity, lineage, parentage, etc. One interesting insult is, "Who are you?"

to be continued... series based on HP, p.23-42

Limited good

While working on the honor entries, I read this in the HSB and it was apparent that this was a fundamental, key difference. We will see that honor has some similarities to quantitative commodities, but how we view commodies is quite different from the perspective of 'limited good'. Neyrey explains this point:

"Limited good" is a social construct, that is, a product of human imagination and reasoning, which views the world as a zero-sum game. Residents of modern industrial countries tend to think of an "expanding" economy that has access to unlimited reserves of minerals and power; this modern economy preaches that all workers can expect is an ever-rising standard of living. (2000, p.122)

The phrase "zero-sum" may be better understood when seeing some logical outworkings:

- Any advantage achieved by a person or group is seen as a loss to others (Neyrey, 2000, p.123). "Prosperity only occurs at the loss of others" (Malina & Seeman, 2000, p.61).
- There is reluctance to become greater than one's peers due to the reactions of those peers (Neyrey, 2000, p.124).

Even if praise is given, it is percieved that others are losing out. All commodities--health, wealth, even honor, are seen as very limited. Neyrey cites Plutarch saying, "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). Thus, a "zero-sum game" is where adding up all the commodities totals to zero--supposing that "have"'s and "have-not"'s cancel each other out.

So keep that in mind as we proceed in a cursory look at some other ancient concepts. As one (whether group or individual) grows in honor, it is seen that others are losing honor. We may return to this if we touch upon 'envy'.

_____
Malina, B., & Seeman, C. (2000). Envy. In Pilch, J., & Malina, B. (eds.), Handbook of Biblical Social Values (pp. 122-127)). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Neyrey, J. (2000). Limited good. In Pilch, J., & Malina, B. (eds.), Handbook of Biblical Social Values (pp. 122-127)). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

The Router

This entry will serve as the router to the various series of entries we [will and do] have. We'll try to keep up a little summary of what is discussed in the various entry, so it will be easier to browse. This is also where all the resources will be cited and their abbreviations stated.

.: Honor - This is one of the most fundamental social values. It is the axis of operation for all classes. Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.
> On Honoring God - Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.

.: Limited good - A key piece in the interpretative template. All commodities were not unlimited, but rather existed in very short supply. The logical outworkings of this concept are important to keep in mind.

.: Reflections on secrecy
.: Childhood in Antiquity
________
On the to-do list:
- Honor and shame (p1)(p2)(p3)
- Patronage, reciprocity, and grace
- How what we do can glorify God (this has some interesting applications) (p1)(p2)(p3)
- Healing in the Mediterranean world

_________
(See short blurbs about our sources here.)
Works cited:
.: deSilva, D. (2000). Honor, patronage, kinship & purity: Unlocking New Testament culture. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. [Ab.: HP.]
.: Jeffers, J. (1999). The Greco-Roman world of the New Testament era: Exploring the background of early Christianity. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. [Ab.: GRW.]
.: Pilch, J., & Malina, B. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of biblical social values. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. [Ab.: HBS.]

Short blurbs

I posted this on chapters.indigo.ca also:

David deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity

'A tremendous survey

In studying the New Testament, or any ancient text, we must understand much about the environment it came out of--the societal values, the cultural assumptions, the historical context, etc--otherwise we unwittingly anachronize our interpretations and read ancient literature as if they were written in our day.

David deSilva, a member of the Context Group, has here a wonderful and informative survey of four key social values. Not only does he have a very accessible explanation of each value, he follows with a series of application to the New Testament texts. The client-patron model is observed in Lk 7:2-10 (p.123), which serves as an excellent illustration of how patronage functioned. His discussion of grace (favor) is fascinating (ch. 3), presenting it through the eyes of the ancients. "Grace must be met with grace; favor must always give birth to favor; gift must be met with gratitude." (p. 105) He cites Seneca's explanation of the three "Graces", which is indeed, in deSilva's words, "most revealing".

This is an important book, one to be studied alongside other Context Group publications. It will, with diligent study, do much to 'unlock' the background of the New Testament.'
__________________

Update: July 19

In a less 'reviewer-for-sales' tone (though HP is a great resource!), regarding the Handbook of Biblical Social Values with Pilch and Malina as editors, the very first thing I want to note is that if you weigh the price and the package, you've got a GREAT deal. There is so much information packed into that little $12-15 hardcover book. Over fifty topics are discussed there, and there are a bunch of references at the end of each entry that should prove to be very useful.

One of the major pluses of the book is it's introduction: there is valuable discussion which seems designed to produce competence in understanding the terms and just what is being discussed, discussion of the logical outworkings of beliefs, and a chart filled with some twenty-six overviews of differences between U. S. society and Mediterranean society. Thus, while the material is difficult to comprehend, the task is made easier by the helpful discussions in the introduction.

There is, as I said, plenty of great material. It is in an encyclopedic format, but due to the depth of topics and the length of the book, more can be said--that is its main drawback. It isn't the perfect one-stop resource, but it serves as a great briefer, reference book, and general starting point for a wide overview. Definitely to be studied along with other Context Group publications!

Added some resource links

You'll notice that there are a number of links added to the sidebar. The first four are self-explanitory, but I want to say something about the rest of them:

CTT - I have found a wealth of information here. The bibliography page is ridiculously large. You'll see some good stuff here, like information about the literary context of something, or the theological history of a particular doctrine. Suffice it to say that Glen Miller makes some use of what we are interested in discussing on the Agora.

Tektonics - This should be self-explanitory, but just for those who are disturbed at seeing a link to an apologetics site, I would ask that you consider the value in Holding's chronic use of ANE material. The use of ANE material is so chronic that he even has a parody in the form of a quiz.

N. T. Wright Page - Anyone who knows a thing or two about this scholar will know that he makes extensive and painstaking use of socio-historical context.

NT Gateway - Anyone who has surfed the blog will know that there are great resources to be found here. See here for a recent example.

Enjoy! =)

Sounds interesting

http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2005/06/philip-eslers-new-paradigm.html

MINNEAPOLIS (June 17, 2005)— In New Testament Theology: Communion and Community, Philip Esler proposes an entirely new way to integrate historical criticism of the New Testament and its influence on contemporary Christian life and identity. He defends and advocates historical analysis of the texts that is directed towards understanding their original messages as communications from our ancestors in faith.

Although these messages are contextualized in ancient cultural settings, we can nevertheless comprehend them and dialogically engage with their authors in a framework of intercultural communication and communion. New Testament Theology proposes a variety of ways to understand this communicative process, including memory and long-standing ideas concerning ‘the communion of the saints.’ The book re-engineers New Testament theology by insisting upon the theological gains that come from listening to the New Testament authors in the full force of their historical specificity and otherness.

Maybe in our lifetime there'll be a serious widespread rally for socio-historical understanding--rather than a decontextualized Western low-context import.

Update: Jul 18

Loren Rosson has written some thoughts on this book. Find them here.

Topics to be covered next month:

I'll commit to doing a few, since few other things are pressing (there are around five or so).

- Honor and shame (maybe to be used as a basis for a short intro for commentaries. This is a fairly intricate topic so I'll break it up into sections)
- Patronage, reciprocity, grace (I note that this affects how we view prayer, and asking God for things, and possibly how we view our interactions with others)
- A short blurb on deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, and Pilch/Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values
- *Reflections on Neyrey's The Sociology of Secrecy in the Fourth Gospel*
- How what we do can glorify God (this has some interesting applications)

*I read this a few weeks ago, and it is fascinating. There are definite parallels between the information networks described, and what I see. For example, that those who know more are more of 'insiders'.

“Attitudes to the Poor in New Testament Times”

See article here.

---

The first note I'd like to make is that the social classes of our day (I speak as a Westerner) bear little resemblance to those in ancient societies. Jeffers asks us to "Imagine a society in which the gulf between the upper class and all others was so wide that their members had virtually nothing in common. Imagine that you were forbidden by law to marry someone of another class, and upward mobility was frowned upon. Imagine a legal system that always favored the upper class. Imagine a society in which, with very few exceptions, your status at birth determined the course of your future life. While we may be able to think of examples of this kind of separation in American society, it is nothing like the chasm between those at the top and those at the bottom in Roman society that existed at all times in every place." (The Greco-Roman World, p.181)

The second note is about the penês (people who did manual labor) and how they were viewed. It is true that they were dependant upon others, though I don't suppose we moderns would really note that--it doesn't matter to us. So once again we are at odds with the intricacies of honor-shame societies. The craftsman is dependant on others, but then again, it's others who require the skills of the craftsman. Keep in mind, though, that what's being presented in that quote is an elite class perspective. Consider, "Romans considered wealth an essential requirement of the virtuous life. In contrast with the popular American idea that the wealthy are less honest because power corrupts, the Roman elite believed that only the rich could afford to be honest. They reasoned that the poor must do whatever is necessary to survive and so are more likely to lie, cheat and steal." (The Greco-Roman World, p.189) Whereas we would often praise artisians for their skill (and pay them large sums of money for public works), this apparently was not the case in ancient times.

The ptôchos, however, were at the bottom rung of the social ladder. Maybe they could not even obtain meat or wine. Apparently they had extraordinarily little honor. And there was a whopping 15% of the total population of these folks.

Regarding the application of the social structure to Paul's comments in 1 Cor. 7:17, 24, such a piece of the picture of Paul is important, but I do believe Paul would not have held a 100% strictness on this--close to 100%, but not quite. The reason is Jesus; a Galilean, son of a carpenter, who fought and won a lot of honor in his time. Maybe I'm off the mark here; I'm not really sure if Jesus changed class. If 'prophet' or 'messiah/king' was a class, then that carpenter boy certainly did. On another note, I believe that the average modern person would NOT like this at all (and maybe think it absurd and irrational). We would certainly move up the economic ranks if we could (winning the lottery would be nice).

Tiberius' rule was 14-37 AD, so the gospels are near the middle of the heavy taxation Neyrey speaks of.

The rich get richer--indeed. Social reform was very rare; the only meaningful social revolutions needed to be done by powerful upper class lads. I remember reading about an Emperor (one of the 'mighty five' or something like that, who went on to be the Emperor) who made several important reformations. Otherwise, social change came at the hands of disaster, or military force. (So it was thought! Jesus taught another way.) But due to the social structure and how there was no drive for equality at all, the gulf between the rich and the poor only grew wider.

The Plutarch quote is funny (wealth isn't about you, it's about your image), but it shows how the drive for honor would determine behaviour.

Some thoughts about discussion methodology...

While reading Neyrey's article about attitudes toward the 'poor', I read up to the NT application part and had a sudden thought. Perhaps it would be more effective if we were to comment on merely the differences in perspective (and important and interesting points), and after that, take a look at the relevant pieces in the gospels. I think the task of trying to see into a culture, especially from the very beginning (I'm only a few months into this, what about you?), requires that reflection preceed application.* Hopefully we can get structurally efficient discussions going (maybe hint at a line in the article but don't quote it directly? quote the first few words of the paragraph? repeat the thought?).

I'll try to, when my memory is sufficiently roused, add in other stuff from, say, The Greco-Roman World.

Also, as our resource list grows, we should make specific posts and have links on hand. We'll get around to specifying categories later.

*I had to write it in more philosophical language, sorry. To say it another way, aim for understanding before trying to apply it. Though perhaps if one were able to live in the culture, application might preceed reflection.

some potentially good stuff.

I found some useful-looking journals in the DOAJ--a couple on Classics, a couple Biblical Studies in general, and one on textual criticism. I have not looked at all of them yet, so I can't say that they're all really great and useful yet...just that they may possibly be helpful in ANE studies.

The Bryn Mawr Classical Review (This one is useful if you are looking for recomended books or reviews of books)
Leeds International Classical Studies
Biblica (Not all articles here are in English. Most are, but not all.)
Journal of Biblical Studies (Quote: "Articles on any aspect of Biblical Studies (including: archaeology, linguistics, exegesis, history, and textual issues)are welcome.")
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism(This one looked pretty good...some interesting stuff on language.)

A short technical note about reading files

Jerome Neyrey has 27 full-text articles on his site. A number of them are in bold font. I don't know about you, but this annoys me. If you have a bunch of them downloaded, and wish to remove the bold, open the file up in notepad. Select the Replace feature (Ctrl + H), put in the html for bold text and click 'Replace All'. Then put in the close script for bold, and click the RA button. Goodbye bold font.

Edit: Formatting errors.

The Agora opens...

I wish I could open this with a vivid illustration of a Greek agora (marketplace), but...

Instead I open with discussion about hermeneutics, and give an argument for the relevance and importance of ancient culture in interpreting ancient texts. And some resources. :) So let me briefly draw out my philosophy of hermeneutics in a nutshell. I can't say that every contributor or reader agrees (or even knows what 'hermeneutics' means), but we can discuss that as time continues.

So, here's a set of propositions to capture my hermeneutics:

1. Every word, thought, or deed has its own context.
2. Its context involves (but is not limited to) historical, social, cultural, and personal context. Literary context applies to literature.
3. The meaning of anything is what the author intended it to be.
4. The purpose of exegesis, or studying a text, is to find the intended meaning of the author.
5. Therefore, when attempting to understand a given text (or thought, or deed), one must set the object firmly into its own context.

Now then, let's get some scholars in here. From John Pilch,

More than any other Roman document that has hitherto appeared, this one pays repeated, explicit attention to the need for learning and understanding the ancient, Middle Eastern culture, or the "socio-cultural world" (I. B. 3., p. 50) in which the Bible originated. It recognizes that this ancient culture presents "not a few difficulties" for interpreters (Papal Address, § 15, p. 19) who must respect the "historical, cultural context" of literary genres (Papal Address, § 8, p. 13).

Within the context of actualization (American social scientists prefer to speak of appropriation; pastoral ministers speak of pastoral application) of the text, all are advised to recognize that translation from one language (Hebrew or Aramaic) to another (Greek; and all three to English!) "necessarily involves a change of cultural context; concepts are not identical and symbols have a different meaning, for they come up against other traditions of thought and other ways of life" (IV. B., p. 118).

The reason why concepts and symbols have different meanings in different cultures is that meaning derives from comes from social system. To interpret the Bible respectfully requires a solid knowledge of the Mediterranean social system in which it originated. This is especially important, therefore, for those who read the Bible in English translation with hardly an awareness that every translation is an interpretation. Often the English language concept bears little or no relationship to the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek concept it translates. A new kind of dictionary is needed to make such an adequate cross-cultural translation (see Pilch and Malina).

In its conclusion (p. 128), the document fittingly insists that

The eternal Word became incarnate at a precise period of history, within a clearly defined cultural and social environment. Anyone who desires to understand the Word of God should humbly seek it out there where it has made itself visible and accept to this end the necessary help of human knowledge (author's comment: or as the document elsewhere proposes, the human sciences such as sociology, cultural anthropology, etc.).

Many who use cultural anthropology to interpret the Bible rely particularly upon its sub-discipline, Mediterranean anthropology. Fully appreciating differences that exist between modern and ancient times and even between individual countries in those ages, scholars believe insights from this discipline are extremely helpful in imagining in a disciplined and testable way the cultural and social environment in which Jesus lived. Any interpretation that ignores such insights distorts the scripture like a funhouse mirror.

I happen to be slightly amused by funhouse mirrors (and other optical illusions), but with a collection of documents with the potential importance as the Torah and prophets (and writings), synoptic gospels and Paul of Tarsus' pastoral letters (and so on), one should not approach these writings with carelessness. In case anyone is curious, I also apply this to other documents of potentially tremendous importance, such as the Koran. Since I have not studied the Koran, you will never hear me say anything about it.

Therefore, I propose as a purpose of the Agora, to post material relating to the ANE, and attempt to discuss, so far as we can, its differences with our own lives, and how it affects our interpretation of the bible.