tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16670054647231331012024-02-11T07:50:07.908+10:00JottingsMichael Carden's Biblio-Blog: Reflections on Bible, Religion, Society, Sexuality, PoliticsMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.comBlogger198125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-16933095133226264432012-01-23T07:49:00.003+10:002012-01-23T17:00:16.364+10:00Homophobia and the Politics of Biblical Translation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;">Christianity is rather unusual in the family of Abrahamic/Middle Eastern religions in the role of scripture and language. For Judaism and Islam, and I suspect traditionally for Zoroastrianism too, the language of scripture, i.e. the language in which it was written, is also the language in which it must always be read. So countless Jews and Muslims have grown up learning something of Hebrew and Arabic and not just any Hebrew and Arabic but the Hebrew of the Torah and Tanakh and the Arabic of the Qur'an, even if it means just memorising slabs of text (as a pre-Vatican 2 Catholic child I have a resonance with this because I remember being taught the responses of the old Latin Mass, which I regard nowadays as a valuable bit of rudimentary childhood second language teaching). For Jews and Muslims too any translation of scripture is counted as an interpretation, it does not share in the authority of the 'original' text. Christians, on the other hand, have always read their scriptures in translation. Christian bibles are comprised of two parts: an Old Testament comprising texts originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; and a New Testament comprising texts originally written in Greek. Early Christians used as their Old Testament the Greek translation/version of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts known as the Septuagint, together with those texts Protestants term apocryphal that were written in Greek. Just about all of the ancient Christian translations of the Old Testament were from this Greek text. Only the Syriac and Jerome's Latin Vulgate included translations from (some of) the Hebrew version shared with Rabbinic Judaism. So from the very beginning Christians have been involved in the project of translation. For many cultures too, ancient and contemporary, their first body of written literature has been a translation of one canonical version or another of the Christian Bible.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So for Christians, unlike Jews and Muslims, linguistic questions of meaning, equivalence and translation, can become highly fraught theological and political questions. And with the rise of indentitarian fundamentalism, most prominently in the US, it can even lead to bizarre contradictions between bigotry and faith. T<a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/latest-niv-bible-translation-clearer-on-homosexual-sins-says-theologian-66393/" target="_blank">his story from the Christian Post</a> shows how for US fundamentalist Protestants even their core doctrine of biblical inerrancy must submit to homophobic prejudice. The story tells how debate about the 1984 edition NIV translation of various passages in the Christian (Protestant) scripture has caused a revision to the translation of those passages in the 2011 edition, which is designed to make them unambiguously homophobic in meaning. What I find disturbing as a gay man and morbidly fascinating both as a biblical scholar and as a Catholic Christian who does not believe in biblical inerrancy, let alone sola scriptura, is the way in which homophobic bigotry has won out over the central dogmatic tenet for many Evangelical Protestants of biblical inerrancy. Because these revisions have clearly and radically changed the meaning of the texts which hitherto could have been regarded as only ambiguous possible references to homo-eroticism.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In this post I'll address the most obvious, and probably the most egregious case, which concerns two related passages in the Pauline epistles and hinge on the meaning of two ancient Greek words, one of which is quite common and the other is pretty rare and first appears in Paul, who might even have invented it himself. I'm talking, of course, of the sinners lists 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. According to the Christian Post story</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">The latest version of the popular NIV Bible translation has had its verses on homosexuality reworded, making them clearer in denouncing the practice, a theologian who helped with the translation says. These clarifications include the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9, where the 1984 NIV version uses the phrase “homosexual offenders,” while the 2011 translation changes the phrase to "men who have sex with men."</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">I'm not quite certain what the difference is here but for good measure the updated NIV translates both words with "men who have sex with men" so that the reader would think the Greek used a similar clause. The Evangelical theologian, Dr. Douglas J. Moo, "who also serves as Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College", goes on to explain why and what the 'problem' was</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">“The 1984 NIV rendering … did not make clear whether homosexual activity per se was being condemned or whether only certain kinds of ‘offensive’ homosexual activity was being condemned.,” said Moo.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">“The updated NIV makes clear that the Greek words here indicate any kind of homosexual activity. The updated NIV also reflects the fact that the key Greek word here refers to males.”</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">He also observed that</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">“Debates among Christians about the teaching of the Bible on homosexuality over the last twenty years sparked considerable scholarly interest in relevant words and texts... This research showed that two Greek words in this verse referred, respectively, to the passive and active participants in male homosexual activity.”</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">However the fact of the matter is that this is not true. There has been a debate over the last 30 years when scholars including the late John Boswell highlighted the problems in understanding the two passages as a clear condemnation of homosexuality. Some conservative Evangelical scholars, most notably <a href="http://www.robgagnon.net/" target="_blank">Robert Gagnon</a>, have argued that these passages condemn male homosexuality and that the two words (which I'll come to shortly) refer to both the "passive and active participants" but there is by no means a consensus amongst scholars and in fact, Gagnon's argument relies strongly on a set of assumptions that these words must unequivocally refer to homosexuality, even though one of the words does not in ancient or even modern Greek and the other is a neologism, rarely used after Paul first wrote it and which, in its usage in subsequent centuries, remains unclear in its meaning, much of its subsequent usage being simply quotations of the Pauline verses in question.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The two words I'm referring to are <i>malakoi</i> and <i>arsenokoites</i>. The first is a fairly common word which basically means 'soft' while the second appears for the first time in history in 1 Corinthians and then again in 1 Timothy - its meaning is really unclear. The words are used to denote two types of sinners in the long list that is 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10. Here's how the passage is translated in the King James:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor <u><i> effeminate</i></u>, nor <i>abusers of themselves with mankind,</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here is the 1984 NIV translation:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">(9) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor <i><u>male prostitutes</u></i> nor <i>homosexual offenders</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The new edition renders it thus</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">(9) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers <i>nor men who have sex with men<br />
</i>(10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And here's the equivalent passage in 1 Timothy:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">(9) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For whoremongers, for <i>them that defile themselves with mankind</i>, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">And in the 1984 NIV</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><br />
(10) for adulterers and <i>perverts</i>, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine</blockquote></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And in 2011</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">(10) for the sexually immoral, for <i>those practicing homosexuality</i>, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I've italicised the the English translations of the two words and also underlined the translation of <i>malakoi</i>, rendered in the KJV as 'effeminate' (and 'male prostitutes' in the 1984 NIV). As I said above, malakoi literally means soft and that's how the word is translated in the Latin Vulgate, '<i>molles</i>'. So a literal translation of both Greek and Latin would be something like soft men or soft people (the Syriac translates it with a word meaning 'corrupt' or 'corrupter'). But malakoi had a range of meanings, not one, including gentle, weak (three 16th century English translations, the Tyndale, Coverdale and Bishop's Bibles translate it as 'weaklings') , sickly, cowardly; it also has the meaning luxurious. That last meaning might come as a surprise to many people but I personally think it might be a clue as to how to translate the word and in a way that fits the other earlier English translations, such as the King James and the Douai-Rheims, both of which use 'effeminate' to translate malakoi. <a href="http://www.clgs.org/arsenokoit%C3%A9s-and-malakos-meanings-and-consequences" target="_blank">Dale Martin </a>explains how this word functioned in the Greco-Roman world as a term of moral condemnation:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Evidence from the ancient sources is abundant and easily accessible. malakos can refer to many things: the softness of expensive clothes, the richness and delicacy of gourmet food, the gentleness of light winds and breezes. When used as a term of moral condemnation, the word still refers to something perceived as "soft": laziness, degeneracy, decadence, lack of courage, or, to sum up all these vices in one ancient category, the feminine. For the ancients, or at least for the men who produced almost all our ancient literature, the connection was commonsensical and natural. Women are weak, fearful, vulnerable, tender. They stay indoors and protect their soft skin and nature: their flesh is moister, more flaccid, and more porous than male flesh, which is why their bodies retain all that excess fluid that must be expelled every month. The female is quintessentially penetrable; their pores are looser than men's.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Does the word specifically refer to a man who takes the 'passive' role in sex with another man? Martin explains:</div></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">a man could, by submitting to penetration, leave himself open to charges of malakia. but in those cases, the term refers to the effeminacy of which the penetration is only a sign or proof; it does not refer to the sexual act itself. The category of effeminate men was much broader than that. In philosophical texts, for example, malakoi are those people who cannot put up with hard work. Xenophon uses the term for lazy men. For Epictetus and the Cynic Epistles, the term refers to men who take life easy rather than enduring the hardships of philosophy. In Dio Cassius, Plutarch, and Josephus, cowards are malakoi. Throughout ancient literature, malakoi are men who live lives of decadence and luxury. They drink too much wine, have too much sex, love gourmet food, and hire professional cooks. According to Josephus, a man may be accused of malakia if he is weak in battle, enjoys luxury, or is reluctant to commit suicide (War 7.338; Antiquities 5.246; 10.194). Dio Chrysostom says that the common crowd might stupidly call a man malakos just because he studies a lot —that is, a bookworm might be called a sissy (66.25)</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">So rather than a specifically homosexual meaning, the word instead has the meaning of a person who is self-indulgent (which is how New Jerusalem Bible translates it) or too much devoted to pleasure or who is dominated by their own desires. Thus a womanising, heterosexual man is just as much malakos as a man who gets fucked. And of course in the gendered way of thinking of that era such a man, by avidly pursuing his desires for sex with women, might well be considered effeminate too because he has surrendered his self-control. Self-control signifies manliness and virility, not being a Lothario. Such thinking continued in the Christian medieval period and into the Renaissance. Consequently the 17th century English translations use effeminate for malakoi. Some aspects of this thinking even continue to this day. In Australia, a bookworm might still be considered a sissy or at least a nerd, which might be understood as a kind of modern toned-down sissy.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Over the last two to three hundred years our understanding of gender has changed from the older hierarchical, multi-layered continuum of masculine and feminine to a more dualistic, heterosexually-complementarist, sexual binary of female and male. Thus gender categories have taken on a much more sexualised meaning so that effeminacy is now and increasingly associated with homosexuality, the deviant sexuality. And so some more modern translations used <i>catamite</i> to translate malakoi, while others counted it together with arsenokoites and translated both with the single word <i>sodomite</i>. Most recent Protestant translations from the US, including the 1984 NIV, however, now translate malakoi as <i>male prostitute</i>, . And yet for so many Christians raised on the King James and thus familiar with reading 'effeminate' here I'm surprised that no one has raised questions about that semantic shift. Well, not really because they're already used to associating effeminacy with homosexuality. To them a male prostitute is simply a commercial homosexual.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I think that to associate <i>malakoi</i> with any sort of specific homosexual (or even sexual) meaning is actually a seriously misleading translation. I wonder even just how much the emphasis on gender and effeminacy itself might derive from much later impositions on Paul's use of the word which might still best be rendered luxurious or self-indulgent (after all the ancient translations didn't use such explicitly gendered terms). Perhaps the King James and Douai-Rheims are themselves evidence of a gendered semantic shift in 16th/17th century England itself. But based on the ancient semantic gestalt for the word, I think the New Jerusalem is correct to translate with self-indulgent; other possibilities could be pursuers of luxury or selfish/narcissistic hedonists. Perhaps even a Buddhist take on the word might be appropriate, too, as it really is about being a slave to desire, not sexual desire as such, but desire more broadly. As the Buddha taught, desire or craving is behind the attachment to transitory existence that gives rise to suffering. I suspect there may well be an aspect of that here (there is a rich Christian literature dealing with the problem of such broad based desire from the days of the early Church onwards) but it's been hidden by Christian homophobic sex obsessions.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I have devoted so much space to the meaning of malakoi and its varying translations through time because in these contemporary debates the meaning of malakoi has been used to help determine what the other word, <i>arsenokoites</i>, actually means; this is the word whose 1984 translation as "homosexual offenders" and "perverts" caused so much difficulty for not being sufficiently anti-homosexual. The problem with this word is that we don't really know what it means. Paul is the first writer to use it and he nowhere gives an explanation of its meaning; presumably he expects his audience to know its meaning. The word is a compound of two Greek words 'arsen' man and 'coites' bed so literally it might mean 'man-bed' (the Latin translation breaks it up again into the two component words 'masculorum concubitoribus') but does that designate a man who beds or a man who beds men? Neither of the two passages give us anything more to go by as to what Paul might mean. A number of scholars have pointed out that the word does not sit unambiguously in a list of sexual sinners. In 1 Corinthians it could even be said that malakoi meaning luxurious or self-indulgent marks a shift from sexual sins of adultery etc to other sins including robbery, drunkenness, slander, greed, fraud etc. In 1 Timothy the word sits amongst a list of sins primarily of violence, abuse and injustice. Granted it does sit beside 'pornois' which in 1 Corinthians is part of the sexual sin list. But it's curious that the King James translates that word here as 'whoremonger'. I'd like to know why but in the meantime that does give a more 'professional' or commercial meaning to it. It's not someone just having sex or even personal sex work but trading other people's bodies, pimping.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As I said above many of the subsequent usages of arsenokoites in later centuries are simply quotes by later writers of one or other of these two passages. (You can see a listing of these <a href="http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.) But there are a couple of instances in the second century where the word is used in a new context and again it sits amid a list of crimes to do with abuse and violence. In the <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib04.htm" target="_blank">Sibylline Oracles</a> 2.77-78 we find</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Strike not the scales oneside, but draw them equal. </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Forswear not ignorantly nor willingly; </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">God hates the perjured man in that he swore. </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">A gift proceeding out of unjust deeds </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Never receive in hand. Do not steal seed; </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Accursed through many generations he </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Who took it unto scattering of life.</span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Do not <b><u>arsenokoitein</u></b>, slander not, nor kill.</span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Give the toilworn his hire; do not afflict </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">The poor man. Unto orphans help afford </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">And to widows and the needy. Talk with sense; </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Hold fast in heart a secret. Be unwilling </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">To act unjustly nor yet tolerate</span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Unrighteous men. Give to the poor at once </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">And say not, "Come to-morrow." Of thy grain</span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"> Give to the needy with perspiring hand.</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The online source I'm quoting uses the clause '<span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Indulge not vile lusts' to </span>translate arsenokoitein <span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">but that clearly reflects a long history of Christian reading of the word. However the context here is not a sexual one at all but rather one of justice and injustice. The same sort of pattern is found with the other instance in </span><a href="http://www.gnosis.org/library/actjohn.htm" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;" target="_blank">Acts of John</a><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"> 36 which also uses a form of malakoi and clearly without any sexual meaning at all</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br />
</span></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">36 Thou that rejoicest in gold and delightest thyself with ivory and jewels, when night falleth, canst thou behold what thou lovest? thou that art vanquished by soft (<i><b>malakai</b></i>) raiment, and then leavest life, will those things profit thee in the place whither thou goest? And let the murderer know that the condign punishment is laid up for him twofold after his departure hence. Likewise also thou poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, <b><i>arsenokoitai</i></b>, thief, and as many as are of that band, ye shall come at last, as your works do lead you, unto unquenchable fire, and utter darkness, and the pit of punishment, and eternal threatenings. Wherefore, ye men of Ephesus, turn yourselves, knowing this also, that kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, and they that have conquered in wars, stripped of all things when they depart hence, do suffer pain, lodged in eternal misery.</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The English text I'm quoting from translates the word with 'sodomite' but two thousand years ago any form of 'sodomite' would simply mean resident of Sodom, just as Jerusalemite mean a person of Jerusalem and there is, in fact no reference to Sodom in this passage and so again the translation of arsenokoitai here is dependent on much later Christian history of reading and tells us nothing about what the word, arsenokoitai, actually means. The word appears twice in Theophilus' book, <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02041.htm" target="_blank">To Autolychus</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">(1.2) As a burnished mirror, so ought man to have his soul pure. When there is rust on the mirror, it is not possible that a man's face be seen in the mirror; so also when there is sin in a man, such a man cannot behold God. Do you, therefore, show me yourself, whether you are not an adulterer, or a fornicator, or a thief, or a robber, or a purloiner; whether you do not arsenokoitei; whether you are not insolent, or a slanderer, or passionate, or envious, or proud, or supercilious; whether you are not a brawler, or covetous, or disobedient to parents; and whether you do not sell your children; for to those who do these things God is not manifest, unless they have first cleansed themselves from all impurity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(1.14) But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and arsenokoitaii, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish,and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, Show me your God, this is my God, and I counsel you to fear Him and to trust Him.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The English translation I'm quoting translates the word as '(do not) corrupt boys' and 'filthiness' respectively. But the actual passages it occurs in don't give a clear sexual association with the word. In the first case it is not included in a list of sexual sins while in the second it could be argued to mark a shift from sexual to non-sexual and even violent offences. Another second century text, Aristides <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm" target="_blank">Apology</a> uses the word in a possibly sexual context but also in association with theft</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">For behold! When the Greeks made laws they did not perceive that by their laws they condemn their gods. For if their laws are righteous, their gods are unrighteous, since they transgressed the law in killing one another, and practising sorcery, and committing adultery, and in robbing and stealing, and arsenokoitiai, and by their other practises as well. For if their gods were right in doing all these things as they are described, then the laws of the Greeks are unrighteous in not being made according to the will of their gods. And in that case the whole world is gone astray.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The English translation renders it as 'lying with males' and it's likely a reference to Zeus' abduction of Ganymede. But at the same time, Zeus is not alone in his abduction of males. The goddess of dawn, Eos, has been described as a serial rapist, carrying off Cephalus and Tithonius amongst others, the latter himself an older brother of Ganymede. So the context here does not allow for a simple sexual meaning, let alone a homosexual one!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Origen uses the word in his Expositions on Proverbs (7.74), no full online text available but cited <a href="http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm" target="_blank">here</a>):</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">On the other hand some were roaming widely--adulterers, temple prostitues and thieves will receive judgment; some wander outside--the ones who pursue lusts contrary to nature, who arsenokoitein and any other parade of forbidden things they can receive; see that there is no accusation against an holy man. Anyone who can't keep still but roams, shares in the accusation of the shameless woman. (Patrologiae Cursus Completus, ed. JP Migne, Patrologiae Graecae Tomus XVII, Origenes, 1857; p. 181-182)</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.jeramyt.org/" target="_blank">Jeremy Townsley</a> translates it as 'who seek non-procreative sexual intercourse' and points out that early Christians took a strongly procreative view of sex (I'll say more on this below) and so any form of non-procreative sex, oral or anal, between men and women or between men was likely denoted here. Certainly Townsley's brief excerpt gives nothing specifically or exclusively homoerotic to the context of the word. Nevertheless Origen's use opens up a trajectory of a specifically sexual meaning to the word without any connotations of violence. Thus Porphry, in his <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porphyry_against_christians_02_fragments.htm" target="_blank">Against the Christians</a>, uses the word when critiquing Paul:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">For we are surprised and truly perplexed in mind at such things, if a man, when once he is washed from so many defilements and pollutions, shows himself to be pure ; if by wiping off the stains of so much weakness in his life, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, theft, arsenokoitiai, poisoning, and countless base and disgusting things, and simply by being baptised and calling on the name of Christ, he is quite easily freed from them, and puts off the whole of his guilt just as a snake puts off his old slough (023 88.13).</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The English translation here renders it 'unnatural vice' but the context of theft and poisoning doesn't immediately suggest that, especially given that this is a pagan author. Clearly something nasty is intended, but what? In contrast, the Christian author, Hippolytus, in the same century uses the word in the context of a story about a Satan-like entity, Naas (from the Hebrew for serpent), having sex with both Adam and Eve and would appear to be a quite straightforward reference to sex between men:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">Now the meaning is, that he should obey the rest of the eleven angels of Edem, for the eleven possess passions, but are not guilty of transgression. Naas, however, has committed sin, for he went in unto Eve, deceiving her, and debauched her; and (such an act as) this is a violation of law. He, however, likewise went in unto Adam, and had unnatural intercourse with him; and this is itself also a piece of turpitude, whence have arisen adultery and arsenokoitia (<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050105.htm" target="_blank">Refutation of All Heresies V.21</a>).</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This translation uses 'sodomy' for arsenokoitia and while sodomy was invented as a word many centuries after Hippolytus perhaps its use here is justified. But it's interesting to contrast Townsley's translation of this passage</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">[Naas] deceived [Eve] and committed adultery with her, violating the Law. Then he went to Adam and had him like a boy, again violating the Law. In such a way adultery and homosexual rape (arsenokoitia) came to exist and from that point evil ruled over humans and goodness withdrew, which had come from a single source, from the Father.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is one of the few occasions when Townsley allows a more sexual meaning to arsenokoit* - his usual translation is 'the traders in homosexual slaves' but clearly that doesn't work here. The story that Hippolytus relates is a Sethian origin myth and it clearly echoes the story of the Watchers in Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch not to mention later Jewish stories of the bad angel Samael seducing Eve and fathering Cain. In this account, Naas deceives Eve so as to have sex with her. Does he also deceive Adam? If so, it would be an appropriate parallelism. Like the Watchers, Naas is also an angelic being; how much choice does Adam have in this encounter? Certainly in the story of the Watchers all agency is theirs and not the human women they take as wives (although some later misogynist retellings had the women enticing and seducing the Watchers down from heaven). I'm not certain that Adam here is fully consenting but I wonder whether he, and Eve. have been bewitched into sex with Naas (and sorcery/black magic is something included in some of the lists in which we find arsenokoit*). The other parallelism here, too, concerns breaches of a patriarchal procreative order. Adultery is a property crime, breaching of another man's ownership of a woman's womb. Thus adultery can only take place with another's woman, in this case Eve. The other crime is non-procreative sex, the most obvious being anal sex whether with a man or a woman. I think in this case, and allowing for an odd gender egalitarianism of attributed responsibility, Adam's lot is non-procreative sex, through him being sexually subjected by the angelic being, Naas. This is the sexual equivalent of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of God and Evil in the Genesis account. And so while we see two male beings having anal sex, the important thing here is the act not the gender of the participants. There is an ambiguity here both as to issues of consent as much as to what is signified by the sex with Adam. But I think the ambiguity is part of the gestalt around arsenokoit*. When most explicitly sexual it seems to refer to anal sex, not necessarily with the full consent of the person who is fucked, and not necessarily only between men. Thus in the 4th century, Eusebius can use it to refer to nonprocreative sex in his Demonstration of the Gospel 1, 6.23, while in Preparation of the Gospel 6.10, I think Eusebius intends a more clearly homoerotic meaning (although Townsley wouldn't agree). After Eusebius, <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_fifty_spiritual_homilies_and_The_gre.html?id=H5elu0kg4DQC" target="_blank">Pseudo-Macarius</a> uses the word in his 49th Sermon to describe the attempted rape of the angels in Sodom. Then in the 6th century, the <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/johnnest.asp" target="_blank">Penitential</a> of John the Faster discusses a variety of sexual sins in which arsenokoitia is used in both discussion of sex between men and also of anal sex between a man and wife - "In the same way, some [do this] to their own foster son and some offer it to their daughter. Also, many even achieve the defilement of non-procreative (anal) sex (arsenokoitia) with their wives" (Townsley's translation). This statement concludes the penitential and comes after a discussion of incest which follows a paragraph about sex between men. Interestingly this text also uses malakia with the specific meaning of masturbation (I believe malaka is the modern Greek equivalent to the English 'wanker') but I really don't think that would make sense in 1 Corinthians 6.9-10. So we also have evidence of a possible semantic shift in this penitential too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">While I think Paul's use of malakoi is probably a straightforward 'self-indulgent' and/or 'luxurious' it seems that arsenokoit*, like sodomy, is to us a thoroughly confused category and perhaps was even then, with a range of meanings that might even be contradictory. Certainly in its earliest appearances it is usually associated with words referring to violence and dishonest dealings, as well as sorcery. It also has some sexual association and one that becomes more pronounced over the centuries so that in the 6th century it clearly refers to anal sex whether with a man or a woman. In the<a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/latest-niv-bible-translation-clearer-on-homosexual-sins-says-theologian-66393/" target="_blank"> Christian Post article</a> Dr Moo was quoted saying that scholarly "research showed that two Greek words in this verse referred, respectively, to the passive and active participants in male homosexual activity.” This 'research' is based on two or three associative steps. First of all, arsenokoites is composed from the two words used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the two Leviticus passages condemning anal sex between men. The sinners lists in which it is found in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy echo the types of sins described in the larger Holiness Code of Leviticus and so "clearly" Paul has Leviticus in mind. The second Levitical proscription of male male anal sex condemns both the active and passive partner to death (20.13). Consequently Paul links arsenokoitai with malakoi to re-affirm the Levitical condemnation of both the active/insertive partner and the passive/insertee.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I think these steps are highly speculative and based on very vague connections. The word may well have a semantic link with the Septuagint Greek words in Leviticus but it tells us nothing of its meaning (and those proscriptions in Leviticus are not all that simple and clear either). It's also not clear that what ever Paul meant was the same as what the word meant several centuries later either but at that later period it clearly refers to anal sex and not to what we might call homosexuality. And to try and pair it with malakoi, a common word with a range of meanings that don't require any connection to arsenokoit* is really a step too far and one not made in the subsequent usage of arsenokoit* even in texts that use forms of malakoi as well. I think Christian homophobia has seriously misled people, distracting them from a serious matter of sexual ethics to expend great quantities of ink fantasising about what we poofters do in bed together. And curiously I think malakoi might even give a clue as to what this man-bed business is all about.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It struck me several years ago, when teaching a class about the debates surrounding homosexuality and scripture that what might be behind arsenokoit* is some kind of phallic aggressive behaviour. The more I accepted malakoi as meaning self-indulgent or luxurious, the more it made sense of it serving as a transition point to crimes of violence, the first being arsenokoitai, which I believe denotes a kind of sexual violence which can be considered a kind of self-indulgent form of living. The self indulgent person puts their needs first paying no attention to the other. Hence the connections between desire/cravings and attachment and suffering in Buddhism, say (but also Hinduism, Christianity etc; <a href="http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng15.html" target="_blank">James Alison </a>suggests that desire in this broader sense is a key issue for Paul). And while one can be poor and self indulgent, by taking a class perspective malakoi takes on a whole new perspective; it takes aim at the upper classes, the wealthy, the rich householders and patricians of the Roman imperial state (and of the older Hellenic imperial realms in the East under/collaborating with/profiting from Roman rule). It's easy to forget too that the Roman state was a slave economy. One figure I saw for ancient Corinth, that out of a population of 400,000, <b><u>250,000</u></b> were slaves. In the Greco-Roman world, the patriarch of the household had the right of sexual access to all who lived under his roof. What this effectively meant was that your slaves were fair game, whether they were male or female. Being a slave meant being liable to be fucked by your owner, especially if you were young and pretty, male or female. Obviously the males would be fucked anally and possibly the females too - it's the most secure form of contraception after all. And given that Christianity was a religion popular among slaves (and women too) I suspect that this might be the context for divining the meaning of arsenokoites/ai. It is related to malakoi/self indulgence being a quite specific form of it, as well as being a form of rape - the slave has no right to give or withhold consent. Furthermore how many ancient brothels made use of sex slaves? Even in our (Australia's) semi-regulated sex industry, sex trafficking and sex slavery are common. So, as Townsley insists, an arsenokoites could also be a sex slave trader (but not just of male or homosexual slaves) or the owner of a brothel staffed with slaves or even the customer of such slave-staffed brothels. It's a semantic gestalt which involves power, violence, self-indulgence, as well as anal sex, and ranges from the private domestic sphere to the public sphere of commerce and consumption. And, of course, this reading does not condemn the slaves subjected to this regime, unlike that of conservative Christians for whom such questions of power and consent are immaterial when it comes to homosexuality. My reading makes much more sense of the context plus the subsequent use of the word over the next 6 centuries during which I think there was a shift in meaning so that it became much more about anal sex per se.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As I was preparing this post I stumbled across Andrew Wallace's Blog <a href="http://theogeek.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Theo Geek</a> and was pleased to discover that he had been thinking along similar lines although with a slightly different emphasis. In a post on this very issue he has this to say:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">The second of Paul's difficult words is "arsenokoites" (literally "man-bed") which has the opposite problem - this word does not occur enough times in surviving documents for us to tell clearly what it means. The evidence provided by these occurrences is confusing. It appears in some listings of economic sins. Elsewhere it is said to be something mainly done by men with men but which can even be done to a woman. A meaning that explains a lot of the evidence (but not all) is "anal rape" or "having sex with someone in order to prove dominance over them" (bear in mind that in the ancient world this was a somewhat common practice for heterosexuals to engage in)</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">At the end of the bracketed clause he <a href="http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/02/inhospitality-of-sodom.html#c5176009236846379325" target="_blank">embedded a link to a comment</a> he had made in an earlier discussion about Sodom and Gomorrah regarding male rape in honour-shame cultures such as those of the ancient Mediterranean and Middle East. He quotes from various studies on male on male sexual violence in the ancient world and male rape in general and here are two excerpts:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">“The idea of phallic aggression as a manifestation of male dominance is well known in the ancient world (as it is in contemporary prisons and ethnic warfare). Indeed it is not unknown to occur among the gods, as the Egyptian tale of Seth and Horus makes clear. In that tale too, Seth seeks to demonstrate his dominance of Horus through anal rape and nearly succeeds, save for a trick played by Horus. His defense includes dismemberment (his own hand, which had caught the semen), and he winds up getting his semen into Seth, who then appears to be feminized (made pregnant indeed) by Horus.” (Jacob’s Wound: Homoerotic Narrative In The Literature Of Ancient Israel by Theodore W. Jennings pg 49)</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">It therefore appears that the existence of male rape is evident across a wide variety of cultures. Jones (1992) maintains that within these cultures, these acts are more likely to manifest themselves within the realm of power relations rather than sexual ones. This notion can be correlated with more modern thinking around male rape, particularly around homosexual rape in institutions, where the acts are best seen as acts of dominance and power.” (From ch2 of<a href="https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za/handle/10210/1516" target="_blank"> this thesis</a> on "Describing Non-Institutionalised Male Rape")</div><div style="text-align: justify;">- the author of the thesis in question is Richard Hull</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In my own work on Sodom and Gomorrah, I read most of the available literature on male rape and I agree with these observations and think they are very pertinent to the possible context for arsenokoit*. Male rape is a feature of the honour-shame societies of the Mediterranean and usually is expressed across lines of dominance/power such as class and age and also outsider status. In these societies, too, female virginity is highly prized and so these societies tend to be strongly homosocial. Women are sequestered or strongly controlled to minimise interactions with unrelated men to ensure their commodity/exchange value on the marriage market. Add to this the sexual power dynamics of a slave economy and then I think we have a very suitable context to make sense of arsenokoit*. It describes well the phallic aggressive behaviour of some masters to their slaves, of sex traffickers with their human wares, of the customers of sexual slavery businesses and also of men who rape other men or take advantage of the lower age or class status of other males to force sex upon them. And I would add too that in many parts of the Greco-Roman world, Jews would also have had outsider or foreigner status, so poorer and younger Jewish males might also have been targets of such phallic aggression. Arsenokoitai, then, is linked to malakoi, not as gay tops and bottoms, but as a distinctive type of nasty and violent sexual self-indulgence, that might be more commonly expressed towards other males, but targetted females too when they were available, and hence the associations with anal sex.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Over the centuries, the semantic gestalt changed so that the associations with anal sex became the dominant context. In that time, too, both Christianity and Roman society had changed. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_John_IV_of_Constantinople" target="_blank">John the Faster</a> was Patriarch of Constantinople, capital of the Greek Byzantine/Roman empire (he's counted as a saint in the Orthodox Church). He is in fact the first of the bishops of Constantinople to claim the title Ecumenical Patriarch, which definitely upset the Patriarch of Rome. The Western Latin Empire was long gone and replaced by a number of barbarian Germanic kingdoms, most holding some form of Arian or Orthodox Christianity but some were also pagan. Old Rome itself was in fief to Constantinople. Christianity, Orthodox, 'Monophysite', Nestorian, Arian, was the dominant religion of the Mediterranean and Middle East and much of Europe and also of the kingdoms of the upper Nile/Ethiopia and in the Caucasus. This shift in the social status of Christianity was reflected in changes in Christian sexual ethics. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's fair to say that early Christianity was none too impressed with sex, let alone marriage and the patriarchal family. The Christian ideal was a world without marriage and without the phallic hierarchy of men over women made manifest every time they had sex together. Reading early Christian literature, there is definitely a preferential option to celibacy and there was a strong and continuing radical celibacy trajectory in which the equality of women with men as brothers and sisters was a major vision. At least in the literature, it seems that some women took on quite radical roles challenging the patriarchal confinements they were expected to submit to. Nevertheless as Christianity spread it had to make compromises with existing marriage/family structures. We can see that process unfolding in the New Testament literature itself. The origins for this option for celibacy were complex and not solely out of some form of 'feminist' or gender egalitarian concern. I think part might be due to the Christian conviction that they were a new priesthood and that they comprised a new Temple that was replacing the old and corrupted one in Jerusalem. So I think some type of Temple esoteric traditions might also lie behind the Christian impulse to celibacy (c.f. the Qumran 'community'). Nevertheless, the Christian community comprised both men and women (the men only religion of Mithraism shows that ancient religious movements did not have to open to both sexes)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.margaretbarker.com/" target="_blank">Margaret Barker</a> has argued, based on her reading of Plato's Timaeus, that Pythagorean philosophy likely originated in the esoteric Temple traditions of the Middle East acquired perhaps when Pythagoras sojourned in the Levant, Egypt and Babylon. The Temples of Jewish and Samaritan Israel shared in that tradition too, but with their own monotheistic or, at least, henotheistic twist. And it's from these Jewish/Samaritan traditions, too, that Christianity is born. Certainly, and hence perhaps unsurprisingly, early Christianity demonstrates strong Pythagorean affinities. And so it's no surprise, then, that early Christians adopted a Pythagorean solution to the conflict of celibacy and marriage/sexuality. The Pythagoreans were procreationists, sex was only permissible for procreation, for having children. By the 2nd century this was becoming the dominant Christian position, although always in tension with radical celibacy groups and, to a much lesser extent, radical 'libertine' groups too. Anal sex is clearly not procreative; as I said above, it is an absolutely guaranteed form of contraception used by generations of heterosexuals. Early Christianity also gave a strong value to human life; according to the dominant biological thinking of the time, the male semen was seed, the woman through her womb provided the field in which the seed would grow (this is a pretty common agricultural analogy found through much of the ancient world across into ancient India). So if the seed was understood as a kind of human in miniature, then the combination of procreationist sexual ethics with respect for human life ruled out any sort of sexual expression except for vaginal sex in marriage. And even then the impulse to celibacy cast such procreational sexual activity in a dubious light so that for a married person to initiate sex with their partner was considered sinful (these ideological conflicts and bad biology lie behind the ongoing conundrums and contradictions in Roman Catholic sexual ethics). At the same time, the impulse to celibacy itself got institutionalised in the monastic movement, which flourished throughout the Christian realms and beyond even into Persia and the Silk Road even into China. As Christianity moved from the fringe to the centre it also lost/repressed its fringe perspectives and hence the semantic shift for arsenokoit* over the centuries to signify anal sex primarily, without the older associations of violence and exploitation. (It would also be interesting to examine how the economics of slavery changed in that period with the rise of feudalism in the West and in much of the Byzantine realm as well).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As I said earlier, I came to the conclusion that malakoi and arsenokoitai in the Pauline epistles did not refer to homosexuality, let alone tops and bottoms in hot anal action, several years ago. My thinking was in large part shaped by my own reading of early Christian texts as part of my work on Sodom and Gomorrah. It was then that I became really aware of how much luxury/self indulgence was an ethico-spiritual issue for early Christians and continued to be so in medieval Christianity, especially in the monastic movement. (And I should add it was not only an issue for Christians; luxury/self indulgence was also an issue for Stoics and other philosophical schools of the time). Even with malakoi removed from the 'phobic homoerotic field, arsenokoitai could still, I suppose, come to stand for all us gay boys, tops, bottoms, versatiles and not into anal at all. But I think the homophobic lens actually serves to dismiss, even trivialise, a serious question of sexual ethics, the violent use of sex to assert dominance or otherwise exploit people. I think it likely to have been very pertinent to the lives of those first Christians, something some of them might well have had to endure.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course, my argument is speculative but then so too is that of conservative homophobes and I think theirs is the more speculative argument in that it relies very much on applying modern categories to ancient texts. I, on the other hand, am at least trying to imagine myself back into the conceptual world of those ancient texts. And, unlike those homophobic Evangelical Christians, I don't believe in biblical inerrancy or the primacy of scripture, let alone sola scriptura. If an ancient text turned up that proved the conservative interpretation of these passages was correct, well I'd simply say Paul was wrong. But nothing of the sort does exist and I think the balance of the <a href="http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm" target="_blank">textual evidence</a> better supports the non/anti-homophobic position. All interpretation (and translation) is a subjective exercise of some sort; what is most important in such exercises, especially when dealing with texts of terror such as these are and have been, is the moral dimension a person brings to their reading of the text. One can, like Robert Gagnon and other homophobes, bring a narrow and blinkered perspective, a morality of reinforcing a cruel status quo no matter what. Or one can bring a broad moral vision that seeks to enrich and enhance human lives, to promote justice and a more humane way of living. And as my argument shows not only have I resisted the homophobia long brought to these texts but I have given them a new ethical dimension, one also fully pertinent to their time, and one that still has, I would say urgent, relevance to our own, as well as exposing the almost pornographic triviality and vacuousness of the homophobic interpretation of these two texts.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>POSTSCRIPT</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">No doubt some will object, what about Romans 1.26-28? I had hoped to include some discussion on this passage and might well do so in future. In the meantime, I'd recommend James Alison's discussion of the passage <a href="http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng15.html" target="_blank">here</a>. What's really notable about his discussion is that he shows how the reading of this passage as a reference to lesbianism is a late development in Christianity coming several centuries after Paul and would not become the dominant way of reading for several more centuries. As far as Augustine and Clement of Alexandria were concerned, Romans 1.26 interpreted straightforwardly meant women having anal sex with men. So there is no reason for anyone to believe that this is a reference to, let alone condemnation of, lesbianism. James also defines what he terms a Catholic method of interpretation based on an official document issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission itself and its condemnation of 'actualisation' to interpret scripture "in a direction contrary to evangelical justice and charity, such as, for example, the use of the Bible to justify racial segregation, anti-Semitism or sexism whether on the part of men or of women” (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, IV.3). He then gives an interpretation of Romans 1.27 in such a Catholic way using as his guide this principle deduced from the Pontifical Biblical Commission cited above: "given the possibility of a restricted ancient meaning in a text which does not transfer readily into modern categories, or the possibility of one which leaps straight and expansively into modern categories and has had effects contrary to charity on the modern people so categorized, one should prefer the ancient reading to the actualized one."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I would like to think that my reading of 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 and 1 Timothy 1.9-10 likewise fulfills such a Catholic interpretation of scripture too and I look forward to the day when the Vatican and Orthodox Church leaderships will themselves read scripture in such a Catholic way.</div></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-73525222526848684382011-10-24T12:41:00.000+10:002011-10-24T12:41:52.414+10:00Bible and Critical Theory Seminar in Brisbane 5-6 November 2011<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;">After many years absence (last here in 2002), the Bible and Critical Theory Seminar is returning to Brisbane in November, on the weekend of 5-6 November to be precise. It's being held at the <a href="http://www.theboundaryhotel.com.au/engine/">Boundary Hotel</a> in West End. We'll be kicking off both days at 10, when the pub opens; Saturday will be the longer day but we hope to finish earlier on Sunday to relax a little eating and drinking and taking in the music during the afternoon. The plan is also for us all to meet earlier for coffee, before the pub opens, at one of the many adjacent coffee shops West End is famous for, most probably at <a href="http://cupcoffee.com.au/Contact-Us.aspx">Cup</a>, which is across the road and around the corner from the pub in Russell St.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The seminar itself will be held in a room upstairs in the pub just off the upstairs beer garden. The room is where people usually play pool and the pool table will likely be covered over for us to sit around. All up, there's 13 papers being presented by folks from around Australia and New Zealand. As usual, it's a very diverse selection of papers too. Below is the programme for the seminar with details of the papers to tempt your thought buds</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">SCHEDULE<o:p></o:p></span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">All formal sessions will be held in a room on the second floor of the Boundary Hotel.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"><u>Saturday Nov. 5</u><o:p></o:p></span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">9:15 Preliminary informal meeting for coffee</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> </span> most probably at <a href="http://cupcoffee.com.au/Contact-Us.aspx">Cup</a>, which is across the road and around the corner from the pub in Russell St.</div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">10:00-10:20 Opening session </span></b><span lang="EN-US">in room off the second floor beer garden of the Boundary Hotel </span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">10:20 – 11:00 </span></b><b><span lang="EN-NZ">Caroline Blyth<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-NZ"><br />
</span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-NZ"> ‘I am alone with my sickness’: Voicing the experience of HIV-related stigma through Psalm 88<o:p></o:p></span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-NZ"> </span></b><span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size: 10pt;">Sometimes referred to as a ‘sickness lament’, Psalm 88 gives a particularly dark and despairing voice to suffering through illness and powerfully evokes the hopelessness and loneliness that have invaded the lamenter’s relationship with the world around him and with his God. One of the features of the psalmist’s experience of illness given voice in this lament is that of social isolation and abandonment by friends and companions. Using insights from both cultural and psychological theories of stigma and disease, I wish to explore this feature of the psalm through the contextual lens of social stigma and discrimination experienced by people living with HIV and AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa. The lamenter’s voice may thus speak alongside those living with HIV and AIDS, his words reflecting their experiences of social distress and rejection, while their own voices offer new considerations of the experience of suffering within this psalm. </span><b><span lang="EN-NZ"><o:p></o:p></span></b><br />
<span lang="EN-NZ" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></div></div><style="margin-left: -5cm;"="" 5cm;="" justify;="" text-align:="" text-indent:="">
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal;">11:00-11:40</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal;"> A</span></b></style="margin-left:><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew'; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18px;">lan Cadwallader</span><br />
<h2 style="margin-left: 5.0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> The Roman Army as a Total Institution and the Implications for Gospel Interpretation</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew';"><o:p></o:p></span></h2><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew'; font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 5cm; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew'; font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">When the Roman historian, Tacitus, lamented the decline in the cohesiveness of newly established Roman colonies, his point of comparison was the Roman legion: ordered, lacking the habit of marrying and rearing families, marked by unanimity and mutual regard (consensus et caritate). In effect, they were so committed to the interests of the body of which they were members that they could be called a res publica (Tacitus, Annals 14.27). Regardless of the particular interests driving Tacitus’ presentation, this image of the closed unit, “the Roman legion”, invites the application of the sociological theories of Erving Goffman on “total institutions”. Nigel Pollard has ventured just such a theoretical application for an understanding of the Roman army. This paper seeks to explore this interface further in application to the encounter between Jesus and the centurion in Q (Lk 7:1-10 // Mt 8:5-13).<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></span></div><br />
<style="margin-left: -5cm;"="" 5cm;="" justify;="" text-align:="" text-indent:=""><style="margin-left: 5cm;="" justify;"="" text-align:=""><style="margin-left: 5cm;="" justify;"="" text-align:=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></style="margin-left:></style="margin-left:></style="margin-left:><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 24px; font-weight: bold;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">11:40-12:00</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew';"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Remy Low</span></span></div></div><h2 style="margin-left: 5.0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">How not to be ‘left behind’: Neo-liberal governance of religious discourse in the case of neo-Calvinist schooling</span></span></h2><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Much controversy has been generated in recent years surrounding the new visibility of religious movements and institutions in avowedly liberal, secular societies. Public discourse around this broad issue is often divided between simplistic 'pro' and 'anti' polarities, with more nuanced scholars and commentators arguing for some form of manageable compromise between competing demands of religion and secularity. Despite the words and passions expended, however, the very terrain of this debate has remained unquestioned; that is, the a particular configuration of liberal-capitalism that has come to be described as 'neo-liberalism'. In this paper, I shall critically examine the discursive logics of the latter in the case of neo-Calvinist schooling, elucidating how local religious discourses are regulated through specific “governmental technologies” (Foucault, 1988: 19) and articulated within the broader regime of neo-liberal hegemony.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">12:00-12:40</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> </span> <b>Ed Conrad<o:p></o:p></b><br />
<b><br />
</b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> Hey, Ezekiel, my (son of) man, Do you mean what I see?<o:p></o:p></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">In this paper I focus on the phrase, </span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-size: 10pt;">מַרְאוֹת אֱלֹהִים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>, which occurs only in the book of Ezekiel (1:1; 8:3; 40:2; see also 40:3). The usual English translations render it as “visions of God” and interpret Ezekiel 1:4-28 as a description of a “vision of God” that Ezekiel sees. While God does appear to Ezekiel in these verses, my alternative reading sees them as a depiction of God’s vision – what God sees. Ezekiel beholds an “El-mobile” with eyes darting around with great speed moving in all directions and enabling God to view the world with commensurate ease. My reading highlights the significance of the recurring use of “eye” (</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-size: 10pt;">עַיִן</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>) and “eyes” (</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-size: 10pt;">עֵינַיִם</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>) in 1:4-28, routinely overlooked by commentators. When Ezekiel says that he sees </span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-size: 10pt;">מַרְאוֹת אֱלֹהִים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>, his claim is that he sees God’s visions; he sees what God sees. This accounts for Ezekiel’s capacity to see what is happening in the temple in Jerusalem while resident in Babylon, something that has routinely troubled traditional critical scholarship.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">12:40-2:00 </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US">LUNCH </span></b><br />
<b><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">2:00-240 </span></b><b>Sean Durbin<o:p></o:p></b><br />
<b><br />
</b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> <span lang="EN-US">Walking in the Mantle of Esther: Christian Zionists’ political action as biblical typology in the history of the future</span></b><b><o:p></o:p></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">One of the aims of traditional biblical criticism is to determine a text’s situational nature, origins, intended audience and why and how particular texts were written. Among those who use the Bible as a source to guide daily living or political action, none are more often demonized than biblical fundamentalists who are often construed as fools, reading a text “literally” in a way unintended by the original authors. Accordingly, biblical criticism is seen by some as a way to convince such literalists of their “erroneous” reading of the text. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">Although such an approach is useful, it is also worth trying to understand how so-called literalists interpret biblical texts, which I argue is far more complex than a simple “literal” reading. Drawing on literary theorists like Roland Barthes and Robert Alter, this paper gives a critical account of the use of scripture as a living text, which fundamentalists interpret as a guide, to be typologically reenacted in the present as part of God’s plans for them and the redemption of the world. Specifically, in this paper I discuss American Christian Zionists’ interpretation of the Book of Esther and its emphasis on themes of Jewish deliverance, and human instrumentality. Drawing on these themes, I show how Christian Zionists understand the Book of Esther not simply as an allegorical text, but as a framework for their political action to be typologically reenacted by them today, as actors in sacred history. An essential component of this political work is the belief that the world is rapidly approaching the end of the Church Age, when Satan will make one final push to destroy God’s chosen people, Israel. In accordance with this known future, I argue that Christian Zionists understand themselves as God’s agents, like Esther, protecting His chosen people, thus allowing His plans to establish His millennial kingdom in Jerusalem to proceed unimpeded. <i> </i>As a result of this interpretation, and its apocalyptic thrust, I want to draw attention to the fact that while historical criticism emphasizes the situational nature of the original authors of a given biblical text, it is also essential to understand the “situational nature” of the community reading that text.</span><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">2:40-3:20 </span></b><b>Anne Elvey<o:p></o:p></b><br />
<b><br />
</b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> Rethinking Neighbour Love as a Critical Intervention in Ecocide<o:p></o:p></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">This paper brings together an ecological reading of Luke 10:25-37 with some contemporary critical theory on neighbour love. First, it describes and evokes the necessary more-than-human kinship that underlies any act of neighbour love, so that neighbour love occurs within a more-than-human community of action. Second, while noting that a simple way of considering neighbour love in a more-than-human context is to extend human love for the human neighbour to our more-than-human neighbours, this paper goes further. It draws on Eric Santner's theory of neighbour love as intervening in destructive inter-human modes of relating, both personal and political (Santner, <i>On Creaturely Life</i>). Then, in the context of a Lukan portrayal of a dynamic of compassion, the paper considers neighbour love as a critical intervention in destructive modes of interrelatedness, with implications for human response to ecocide.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">3:20-4:00</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-NZ"> </span><b><span lang="EN-NZ">Karl Hand<o:p></o:p></span></b><br />
<b><span lang="EN-NZ"><br />
</span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-NZ"> </span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-NZ"> </span><span lang="EN-US">Document L as a thought experiment in source-critical epistemology</span></b><b><o:p></o:p></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">Among the methods of biblical studies, and of all the humanities, source critical methods stand on the fault-line between many absolute dichotomies such as quality and quantity, subject and object, text and context. A critical reflection on source criticism therefore has much to tell us about these epistemological and ontological categories. What ontological status, for instance, should a postulated object like document Q be granted? Is it an object of study, or a postulation of the knowing subject reading Matthew/Luke? Is it part of the text of Matthew/Luke or the context? And is it verified by subjective or objective, qualitative or quantitative criteria? These questions have haunted the recent renaissance of source criticism during the ‘third quest’ for the historical Jesus</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"> This paper addresses these issues by presenting a rigorous methodological postulation of a ‘Document L’. L was almost completely ignored during the third quest, perhaps due to the absence of any control text (like Matthew) with which to compare the text of Luke. However, this lack of control makes L a fascinating study in how a document can validated if the lines of traditional science are transgressed, allowing subjective and qualitative criteria to infiltrate the method.</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"> This process is clarified by analogy to Archimedes’ formulation of an ‘exhaustion method’ to postulate the quantity of the numeral pi by setting maximal and minimal limits to the numeral, and then narrowing the gap. Applied to L, an exhaustion method may set a maximal limit by the elimination of material known to belong to other sources, and then chip away at a minimal limit by structural analysis, stylometry, and the study of hapax legomena. The result of this method is a critically testable Document, which I argue should be added to the canon of hypothetical gospel sources. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">4:00-4:40</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> </span> <b>Julie Kelso<o:p></o:p></b><br />
<b><br />
</b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> Irigaray’s Virginity<o:p></o:p></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Irigaray’s complex reading of the Annunciation and the virginity of Mary has generated a lot of discussion in feminist theology and feminist philosophy of religion. Notably, according to the philosopher Pamela Anderson, Irigaray and the feminist (Catholic) theologians who have embraced her readings of Mary are in danger of replicating the “ethically debilitating forms of transcendence-in-immanence that Simone de Beauvoir successfully uncovers in the immanence of the female narcissist, lover, and mystic”. In this paper I argue that in order to appreciate Irigaray’s recent thinking concerning the Madonna it is necessary to come to grips with what she is trying to establish with respect to the concept of virginity. It is important to remember that, historically, this concept has been <i>reviled</i> by feminists as the reduction of women to exchangeable commodities within markets controlled and utilised by men, and also <i>revered</i> as a refusal by certain women to assume their passive stance as mother and wife within patriarchal social orders. Irigaray is well aware of this contradiction and, I think, is attempting to think the future possibilities of ethical subjectivity for women by returning to the very figure of this contradiction – the virgin mother – with her virginity understood not as <i>integritas</i> but as <i>sanctitas</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br clear="all" style="mso-special-character: line-break; page-break-before: always;" /> </span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"><u>Sunday Nov 6 </u></span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">9:15 </span></b><span lang="EN-US">Preliminary informal meeting for coffee </span>most probably at <a href="http://cupcoffee.com.au/Contact-Us.aspx">Cup</a>, which is across the road and around the corner from the pub in Russell St.<br />
<br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">10:00-10:10 </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US">Opening preliminary session</span></b><br />
<b><span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">10:10-10:50</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> </span> <b><span lang="EN-US">Michael Carden</span></b><b><o:p></o:p></b></div></div><h2 style="margin-left: 5cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'SBL Hebrew'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> Heavenly Ascents in Hellas and Israel: or What's a Classic Gay Icon Doing on the Doors of St Peters<o:p></o:p></span></h2><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">The paper takes as its starting point the continuities and inter-relatedness of ancient 'pagan' and biblical religions. It will examine the most famous heavenly ascent and apotheosis of the ancient 'pagan' world, the abduction of Ganymede by Zeus. The paper will examine the story of Ganymede and evidence for a Bronze Age background to the Ganymede story in context of a dual gendered cult of male and female Zeus and Ganymede forming a divine tetrad. It will then examine parallel divine tetrads in West Semitic religion before addressing heavenly ascents in biblical religion, which is regarded as one form of West Semitic religion. Philo of Alexandria used the figure of Ganymede on several occasions to illustrate the role of the Logos in the divine economy and the paper will discuss some ramifications of that in relation to both the figure of Enoch, the biblical figure most like Ganymede, and the messianic gestalt around Jesus of Nazareth and the possible homo-erotics invested in it.</span><b> </b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">10:50-11:30</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> </span> <b>Robert Myles<o:p></o:p></b><br />
<b><br />
</b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> Jesus the Bum? Probing the Homelessness of Jesus in Matthew 8:18-22<o:p></o:p></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Many interpreters proof-text Mt 8:20 ("And Jesus said to him, ‘Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.") as a demonstration of Jesus' supposed homelessness. A number of commentators, however, point out that the Jesus of Matthew's gospel cannot possibly be "homeless" because he is connected to a house at various points in the gospel (a detail unique to Mt, cf. 4:12; 9:10, 28; 12:46; 13:1, 36; 17:25). This paper examines the dispute in light of the old adage "a house is not a home." It does so by re-reading Mt 8:18-22 with a more nuanced and multidimentional understanding of homelessness, one informed by various theoretical perspectives on home and place, as the issue protrudes behind, within, and in front of the text. While Mt 8:18-22 illustrates the cost of discipleship, it also readily employs metaphors of animals and death to provide narrative amplification for Jesus' characterization as an itinerant and marginal figure.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">11:30-12:10</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> </span> <b>Tamara Prosic<o:p></o:p></b><br />
<b><br />
</b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> Russian revolution and “sobornost”<o:p></o:p></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Towards the end of 1917 a great part of Europe was in a revolutionary mood, but the only country in which that mood turned into successful action was Russia. Many Marxists, then and today, has regarded the October revolution as an anomaly. Anomaly or not the fact remains that other European revolutions fizzled out while the Russian persevered through years of civil war. The majority of discussions trying to explain this anomalous revolution revolve around the economic and political conditions in Russia at the time, the so-called objective factors, while neglecting the role of elements or the superstructure, the so-called subjective factors, which can either help or hinder revolutions. Religions are certainly one of such elements and the paper looks at the Orthodox Church views and ideas about “sobor” and “sobornost” which roughly translate into English as “council” and “conciliarism” might have indirectly contributed to the success of the Russian revolution.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">12:10-12:50</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> </span><b><span lang="EN-US">Holly Randell-Moon<o:p></o:p></span></b><br />
<b><span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"> Secular Critique, Religion and Cultural Studies <o:p></o:p></span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">In the last decade, religious issues have emerged as intense sites of conflict in media and political discourse in western liberal democratic countries. With its focus on issues of representation, power and discourse, cultural studies is well placed to engage with religion’s influence on media, political and cultural communication. However, religion’s influence on everyday life has largely escaped the disciplinary attention of cultural studies. In this paper, I explore how specific kinds of theoretical and methodological assumptions govern the types of knowledge produced and analysed within cultural studies and how these knowledge practices in turn work to marginalise religion within the discipline. Cultural studies is implicated in the secular epistemological orientation of academic critique even as it contests some of its fundamental humanist assumptions. As result, there are specific cultural, political and corporeal economies that condition intellectual engagements with the secular and religious in certain ways. Any engagement with religion therefore requires a concomitant engagement with the cultural and institutional operation of secularism. Typically, secularism is understood to separate religion from politics, legally or constitutionally, thus rendering religion a matter of private belief and individual choice. Such an understanding has been challenged by a number of scholars (such as Asad [2003], Taylor [2007], Mahmood [2004] and Masuzawa [2005]) who argue that secularism produces particular understandings of religion. Drawing on these critiques, this paper argues that it is not tenable to exclude religion from cultural studies’ theoretical and disciplinary paradigms. In order to include religion within the purview of cultural studies’ disciplinary concerns, the secular constitution of knowledge practices, and our complicity in reproducing these practices as scholars, must be opened up to critical interrogation. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">12:50-1:30</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> </span> <b>Timothy Stanley<o:p></o:p></b><br />
<b><br />
</b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> Job: A Serious Man<o:p></o:p></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><i> </i></b><i><span style="font-size: 10pt;">A Serious Man </span></i><span style="font-size: 10pt;">cinematically deconstructs the life of a mid-twentieth century, mid-western American everyman named Larry Gopnik. As it happens, Larry is a physics professor up for tenure with a wife who is about to leave him, an unemployed brother who sleeps on his couch, and two self-obsessed teenage children. The film presents the question of good and evil and the threat of real and more severe suffering from an un-named God, reverently referred to as <i>Hashem</i>. And here is one of the more interesting aspects of the film: it is a study in Jewish thought and diaspora culture, which takes Job, not Moses or Abraham, as its quintessential figure. This opens up two points of reflection which will orient what follows in this paper: 1) the way in which a Job-like theodicy manifests itself in this film as a key example of philosophical theology meets quantum theory in western popular culture; and, 2) the coinherence between the film’s interpretation of Job and that of the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek.<o:p></o:p></span> <span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">1:30-2:00 Closing Comments <o:p></o:p></span></b> <b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b><br />
<b><span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span></b></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: 5.0cm; text-indent: -5.0cm;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US">LUNCH <o:p></o:p></span></b></div></div></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-63472908955948588742011-10-04T22:06:00.000+10:002011-10-04T22:06:48.831+10:00Digital Dead Sea Scrolls<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;">I've added a new link to the Biblical links down the side. It's for the <a href="http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/">Digital Dead Sea Scroll</a>s, which is a joint effort of Google and the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, which maintains the famous <a href="http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/shrine">Shrine of the Book</a>. The project is a bit of a work in progress. At the moment, you can view 5 scrolls: the Great Isaiah Scroll, the War Scroll, the Temple Scroll, the Community Rule Scroll and the Commentary on Habakkuk Scroll. Others will be added progressively. When I first heard of the project I thought all the texts would be both searchable and come with translations. On the initial offering, however, it seems I was wrong. All five scrolls currently available are searchable and magnifiable so that they can be examined in exacting detail. However an English text is only provided for the Great Isaiah Scroll. The only problem is that it's not a translation. The text is instead the JPS translation of the Masoretic Hebrew version of Isaiah. However as the site itself says, the Great Isaiah Scroll contains many variants from the Masoretic text, more than 2600 of them and so a person just exploring the scroll online without checking the explanatory material can be misled into thinking that what they are reading is a translation of this, the oldest relatively complete text of Isaiah. If you play around a bit more with the some of the links you can find a parallel English translation of the first 5 chapters of Qumran Isaiah in comparison with the JPS translation. <a href="http://www.deadseascrolls.org/Site/index.php">Peter Flint</a> has translated the entire Isaiah Scroll into English and the first 5 chapters are taken from that. Presumably copywright restrictions meant that no more was possible. My own personal view is that Bibles should have Isaiah in parallel: Qumran and Masoretic and perhaps even Greek/LXX and the <a href="http://www.litpress.org/Detail.aspx?ISBN=0814654800">Targum Isaiah</a> too. That way readers will come to appreciate the diversity within the greater textual gestalt that each biblical book represents, will realise that the biblical texts are not set in stone but have always been fluid, that there is pretty much no such thing as a definitive or standard text form handed down for all time. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's a shame that the other scrolls also didn't come with an English translation to give casual readers better access to the texts in question. I have a couple of English translations, the<a href="http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/deadseascrolls_english/contents.htm"> Vermes</a> one and the <a href="http://www.centuryone.com/9201-4.html">Wise/Abegg/Cook</a> translation too. The latter is well thumbed. So I presume the people behind the project expect that we will all have copies of one or other of these translations to crosscheck to. Perhaps when more scrolls are on site then direct English translations will become available. I certainly hope so.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But still check out the site. It's quite a fascinating resource now and will likely over time become a rich and invaluable resource too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-44973177066252901722011-07-13T15:20:00.000+10:002011-07-13T15:20:38.390+10:00Some Thoughts on my 59th Solar Return<div style="text-align: justify;">First off, I want to apologise for being so infrequent in my posts here lately. I've had all manner of good intentions to write. I've thought about a range of topics I had wanted to write about, still want to write about, in fact. I hope I will resume writing about them soon. I'm hoping this post might even be a trigger for me to get back into blogging more regularly. But the first half of this year has been a very intense time. I said to my flatmate the other day that I felt like I had just finished a very heavy semester of teaching. Unfortunately I haven't been teaching and I've been unemployed now for a little over a month. The job I had been doing was a reprise of the casual research assistant work I was doing late last year and which I really enjoyed. It combined reading books, internet surfing and research cum literary detective work, all of which I found really satisfying - I was even learning things. But alas the money ran out and so the job finished end of May. The work itself wasn't intense but alongside it I've had a very busy time partly of community involvement through the LGBT History Action Group; we organised and were involved with a number of projects and big events over the last few months. On top of that there's been my work in editing the festschrift which has certainly kept me busy. And then to cap it all off I've also written an essay for an anthology on same-sex marriage. I was working on that mainly last month. And then I've experienced some demanding personal times too; I won't go into them all here now, but it's been a time of grief and joy, of uncertainties, of challenges to inner resolves, of doubts, of feeling separated from loved ones and sense of loneliness arising, of all the anxieties and disconnects that come from precarity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">With all of that happening, it's felt more like a chore to try and write anything, to summon the energy to write anything. This month, with all the intense times behind me for now, I've declared my holiday month. My holiday is courtesy of being unemployed but it feels like a holiday nonetheless. This last week I've been adjusting to this holiday mode. To taking it a bit easy. In one sense it allowed me to let my guard down and I underwent a sudden surge of topsy turvy emotional intensity. For a little while I was worried that I might be succumbing to the old depression. After all I no longer had anything to distract me, plus the stresses of the year so far had me pretty wired up. Hopefully I've settled somewhat now, at least I'm feeling some kind of equilibrium set in again (although every once and a while I feel a press of tears at the back of my eyes, bubbling up from the cellars of my heart).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A few days ago I experienced my 59th solar return. The solar return is when the sun returns to the position it occupied when a person is born. The solar return generally occurs on or around a person's birthday. Astrologically, the position of the planets and the new disposition of ascendant and house cusps and related derived points at the time of the sun's return to its natal position, gives an overall flavour for the year ahead. Unsurprisingly, my solar return chart is bedevilled with contradictions. I guess I'm writing this to explore and make sense of those contradictions.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Before I say more on the chart, I should first explore some more my holiday mode. In part, it's a kind of kick-back, take it easy and bugger the consequences mode. But it's also a strange lethargy, which is why I'm surprised I've started writing right now. Even a couple of days ago,the thought of trying to write something would make me feel exhausted and disinterested both, somewhat reminiscent of the depth of depression last year. But only reminiscent. I'm not in that depression now (although I know it lurks and sometimes pokes its paws through the rips anxiety causes in my emotional fabric). In one sense, I should be. I'm unemployed and at an almost unemployable age. All the career aspirations I had once, are gone now. Furthermore I have no idea of what sort of work to do. I applied for some jobs last month and explored some other employment options but all nada, not even an interview with the job applications. My confidence is down in the depths, in part because I have no enthusiasm, and yes there's self-doubt too. I look at job notices every day, generating a strange mixture of boredom, anxiety and contempt, the latter because many of them seem to be couched in the language of spin or they seem utterly unreasonable in their expectations. Maybe I feel this way because I don't feel any sort of ambition towards any of them, let alone a sense of vocational attraction. None of my main skills seem to be relevant for just about any of them and those that might have some sort of possible match for some of my experience are the ones that I feel have the unreasonable expectations. That's the work scene. My personal life has seen a number of challenges too. I won't go into them but I've been challenged in some of the resolves with which I started the year in quite surprising ways. I've stuck to them nevertheless but I've had to undergo major self-examination, reviewing quite a lot about my life. Lots of doubt, plenty of doubt, exacerbated by feeling cut off, without community. I feel quite disconnected from the society in which I live - I can't even watch TV because I don't feel any interest in the social worlds it purveys. And as for contemporary politics, well I just can't connect - it's all so faux, so vacuous, so confected. The less said the better, actually. (But I am pleasantly relieved with the <a href="http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/2011/07/carbon-price-tim-tams-are-safe-not-sure.html">carbon tax package</a> the federal government has negotiated - it's not the best, but it's not bad nonetheless).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So to return to my solar return for this year. As I said before it's quite bedevilled with contradictions. While the Sun will always be in Cancer everything else about it, the way it fits in the Return chart will be quite different from the birth chart. This year the sign of Leo was coming up over the horizon when the Sun returned to its natal position, thus placing the Sun in the 12th house of my Return chart. The 12th House is known as the house of solitude or sorrow, and is associated with spiritual pursuits, imaginative endeavours, behind the scenes activities, but also hospitalisation, confinement, self-undoing. In the Return chart it signifies a year of spiritual pursuits and development, service to others, but usually work done out of view, also research and writing. It can signify work on reconciliation, of healing old wounds. The Sun is the ruler of Leo, which is the rising sign in the chart so the Sun is the ruler of the Return chart so making the 12th house themes pretty dominant for the coming year. Here, I have to admit I have been thinking a lot about spirituality lately and how to re-orient life around a more spiritual basis, and I'm thinking here in some kind of shared way, because in many respects, nowadays, I seem to be living like a kind of a monk but without a monastery, or any sort of community at all. And when I say monastery, I refer to some kind of group living, with likeminded folks. But it's all quite nebulous (another 12th house word) at this stage.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But then Leo is rising in the chart. Leo is definitely not a reclusive, behind the scenes sign. It's out there, it wants to star, it's the performer, the leader; it's dramatic, optimistic, energetic. Furthermore it's not only conjunct my natal Mercury it's also conjunct the return Mercury too. Yep, my solar return takes place a day or so before my Mercury return. Mercury is all about communication and lots of it here, a double whammy intensified by being smack on the Ascendant. According to one source I read, this Mercury position highlights "communication, adaptability, education, travel,... This year will be full of mental activity, talk, letters, phone calls, writing, travel, movement, busy work, short trips, and frequent comings and goings". I'll also seem "more youthful, agile, quick-witted, and verbally expressive'! These Mercurial themes are given even more weight by the fact that the Ascendant degree falls in my natal 3rd house, the house of communication, amongst other things, and ruled by Mercury. The natal 3rd house is highlighted in the Return chart.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But that's not all. I also have the Moon rising in Leo which not only makes me more assertive and forthright but means I'm going to be a moody and emotional person too. I probably should apologise to everyone in advance, especially when I consider the mood swings I've had over the last couple of weeks. The Moon is also in a very tense opposition to Neptune which heightens confusion, despondency, sadness and self-deception, although can also be more sensitive, compassionate, intuitive and imaginative.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sun Moon and Ascendant are the three main power points in any chart and in this one they are quite contradictory. Reading solar returns is not my main skill, but it looks like I'm going to be much more low-key but dealing with emotions much more. One source I read said that Moon in the first house indicates that the year ahead will be spent recovering from emotional trauma from the past; it is a year of recovery and emotional growth. While another source said that the 12th house Sun indicates a year of preparation with recognition coming the following year. If the Sun is in the 10th house in the following return it will mark career recognition, in the 9th it can mark publication. In my Return next year he Sun will be in my 8th house so I'm not really certain what that means. If anyone out there has any ideas let me know. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This year, the Sun is also in a tense aspect to Saturn which indicates another year of struggle, of lean times, highlighted too by Saturn being in the Return 2nd house of resources, finances and values. Discipline and restrictions will be the order of this year ahead. And yet the Return part of Fortune is also in the 2nd and in positive aspect to the Return Midheaven. So there might be some more fortunate moments too. And there seems to be several indications of sudden changes or unexpected directions in a positive way in the Return chart too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But the main thing I'm getting from the chart is to try and stick to my watchword I've adopted for this year and that's trust. Anxiety stems from uncertainty, feeling powerless, isolated and abandoned. Trust is the best antidote, trust in people and in life itself, for the more religious, trust in God. I've had a couple of crises this year and yet somehow, out of the blue, things got resolved, help came my way. I was in a state of panic close to meltdown on at least one occasion. But the help came really quite out of the blue, unexpectedly. I should also add that anxiety allows the old depressive beast, that black dog, to once again start nagging away, and that old black dog just loves tossing shit, to traduce the motivations, intentions of others, to run you down, to say that all the bad stuff is a result of you. But the moment you turn around and embrace the personal vulnerability and powerlessness and decide to trust no matter what, the black dog's power is broken. The anxiety dissipates and there's a chance for insight. And lets face it powerlessness is the reality of our lives. Acceptance is the only way to deal with it and acceptance is only possible through trust.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">That's about it for now, I think. Obviously there's a whole lot more in the Return chart but if I was to discuss everything I'd be writing my own Solar Return report. I hope this piece will mark a new start on blogging for me because I do have plenty to write about. And my apologies if this piece seems too self-indulgent and boring.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-49686538706916721302011-05-22T23:45:00.001+10:002011-05-23T00:18:37.183+10:00The Rapture - the ultimate blasphemy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;">I want to start with an apology for things being so quiet here. I keep meaning to write and I have notes and some semi-completed posts but nothing is ready for posting. I've also started a private blog where I record all manner of ideas and thoughts and personal impressions in a quite rough way. It will remain private open only to one or two others. For the astrologically minded it's also interesting to note that I have had a lot of transit activity in my 12th house of late and Jupiter remains there throughout the year so this kind of hidden writing world is probably an apt reflection of these transits. In addition, I also have been busy with a number of community and writing projects. The writing projects are all due for publication down the track next year again reflecting the the transit pattern too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But I'm taking time out from all of that and writing a public post here today because of the international brouhaha over the end of the world predictions of a silly elderly rich man in the US, Harold Camping (!). He declared that the Rapture would take place at 6pm on Saturday 21 May and from what I can make out, progressively time zone by time zone. What's more because he is a rich man he spent millions of dollars in an international advertising campaign promoting his message. By the Rapture, he referred to the idea, abroad in Protestant evangelical and Pentecostal movements that there will be a wholesale lifting off from the planet of the true believers, the saved, the born again to be taken up to Heaven by Jesus, body and soul (but apparently without clothing), there to wait until the Second Coming when they will return, a kind of immortal elite, to rule the planet alongside Jesus for a thousand years. Camping (!) also declared that the world itself would end in October and that for the vast majority of us left behind the coming months would be a dire time of disasters, misery and oppression before the Second Coming wipes the slate clean and we are all, presumably, cast into Hell. From his timetable, Camping (!) clearly holds a kind of pre-Wrath Rapture position unlike most Rapture believers who hold a Pre-Tribulation or Mid-Tribulation view. Camping (!) is also innovative in that he teaches that the main trigger for the Rapture is <a href="http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/rapture-gays-are-responsible-for-saturday-being-judgement-day/news/2011/05/19/20518">the amount of homosexuality in the world</a>. That it didn't happen I presume means that we queer folks have to work harder to make sure that this planet is riddled with homosexuality through and through.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Many people might think Camping (!) a fool and wonder why I would waste my time writing about this. He is a fool and the millions he spent on his promotion campaign could have been much better spent. He would have made a much better testament to his Lord if he had followed the Gospel dictum to sell all he had (no small fortune) to give it to the poor and embrace a life of poverty and prayer and works of mercy. Instead he traduced the gospels utterly and brought Christianity into complete disrepute. The most depressing thing is that he has played into simple media binaries, in this case Christians vs unbelievers/secularists/atheists/humanists with Camping (!) himself as a key exemplar of what Christianity is all about. And of course Camping (!) is an exemplar of a type of Christianity or I would say a perversion of Christianity that has taken root in the US and, with the US global hegemon, is spreading throughout the world, like a noxious toxic bloom. In my opinion it's a heresy of the worst order, a vile pernicious heresy that perverts and inverts the central Christian message. Thanks to Camping (!) unfortunately a large proportion of of the world's population believe that this pernicious theology is normative, traditional Christianity. It's not, it's a 19th century aberration that took root in the United States in the mid-19th century in a time of major transformation and upheaval.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's all based on a single word in the Christian scriptures. It's found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and in the Greek in which it was written, the word is <i>harpagesometha</i>, 'we shall be taken away' or 'we shall be caught up', derived from the Greek verb <i>harpazo</i>. In the Latin translation the word is <i>rapiemur</i>, from the verb <i>rapio</i>. In the passage, Paul is talking about the very end, the final things of the world, the Second Coming and he says that when it occurs, first the dead will be raised up from their graves and then the living will be caught up from the earth to meet Jesus as he returns at the end of the age, which Paul and the audience for this letter considered imminent. The issue that is being addressed here is not an elaborate end times scenario, that we see in the modern Rapture cult but rather the concerns by some in the Thessalonian community that those who have died will not participate in the final moment of the Lord's return, or even, possibly by some, that those who are living who are alive at the Second Coming are in some way better or more fortunate than those who have died. This passage is written to disabuse these Thessalonian Christians of such concern, or conceit. And the thing is, its context is the last things, the last day, the end of the world as we know it, the transformation and reconciliation of heaven and earth, that has always been key to the Christian proclamation. And throughout Christian history that's how it's always been understood and still is for the vast majority of the Christian world.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">However, in the 19th century, that changed. In the 19th century we see the rise of industrial capitalism, a process which began in the late 18th century. The UK was the main centre of this process, a time of major dislocation, uprooting and misery for the masses. It was an 'apocalyptic' time and, of course, the great apocalyptic event heralding the new industrial age was the French Revolution, which brought to an end the ancien regime in Europe based on centralised dynastic monarchies, quasi feudalism and commercial capitalism. The ancien regime's death throes outlived the spectacle of Republican France, forming, generating all manner of strange religious movements. As I said, the eye of the cyclone that was the new industrial capitalist order was the UK and it was in the UK that we get two figures who develop elaborate eschatological systems on the belief that end of the age was imminent, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Irving">Edward Irving</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby">John Nelson Derby</a>. Both of them in their thinking deployed a standard Protestant trope that the entire existing Christian church in all its forms was thoroughly corrupt and had departed from its true form which had to be restored. Ironically it meant that Irving, a Presbyterian/Church of Scotland minister embraced a form of apocalyptic High Church Catholicism, founding the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Apostolic_Church">Catholic Apostolic Church</a>. Irving apparently taught a form of multi-staged end times theology which included a taking away of the saved at some time before the second coming. It's Derby, however, who stands behind the elaborate end time patho-theologies which underpin all the Rapture talk today. Derby, in contrast to Irving, was an Anglican/Church of Ireland priest, who seems to have had strong anti-Catholic views and held a Calvinist theology. He went the other way to Irving, leaving his Church too, but founding the highly evangelical Plymouth Brethren movement. Derby developed a highly elaborate historicalised schema called Dispensationalism as a frame for his end time millennialist Rapture theology. Key to Derby's thinking is the grossly heretical idea that the Divine plan behind Jesus' earthly mission somehow failed because he was rejected by the Jews and that the Church is a kind of Divine afterthought to the main game, which is the re-establishment of a Jewish kingdom ruled by Jesus. We live now in the Church Age, the age of Grace, but God still plans to fulfil his overall plan which is to establish the millennial Jewish kingdom. So in the Last Days, when the Jews have been restored to the land of Palestine, the Church Age will be ended and the Church itself taken away in the Rapture before the final Tribulation takes place, in which the Jewish people will be given the option again to accept Christ as the Messiah. Only a handful will, the rest being destroyed by the Anti-Christ. But at the Second Coming those Christian Jews will join the returned Church to rule with Jesus for a thousand years on earth. It's important to remember that the Derby's Church represents a minority of Christians. Roman Catholics, and presumably Orthodox Christians too, are not considered to be true Christians and so we have no stake in his Rapture and presumably neither do most mainstream Protestants either. Derby was a Calvinist and has no problem in regarding the great mass of humanity, Christian and otherwise (including the bulk of the Jews) as damned. His theology is one based on a thoroughgoing hatred of humanity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Derby's ideas went west across the Atlantic where they found rich soil in the US. It's Protestantism had a strongly Calvinist flavour (I regard Calvin as the spiritual godfather of the US - it's whole culture both secular and spiritual is fully imbued with Calvinist thinking) and was also experiencing massive social change due to immigration, westward expansion and the blizzard of capitalism too. His ideas went viral, spreading through a variety of millennial and other Protestant sects and taking root in established ones too. Derby's thinking is canonised in the Scofield reference Bible which was published in 1909. It printed a commentary alongside the biblical text that was informed by Derby's Dispensationalist thinking and by being included in the Bible gave it an authority it might otherwise not have received (and didn't deserve). It also unmoored it from Derby's own work and so by spreading throughout much of the US it linked up with all manner of ideas that Derby himself might have regarded with alarm. It also generated a variety of schools of Rapture thought, pre-Tribulation Rapture, Mid-Trib, Pre-Wrath, plus a variety of perspectives as to how many Raptures or comings of Christ there would be. Derby taught one rapture or two Second Comings but there are folks who teach multiple raptures for different groups of people along the timeline of the end times. And there are different schools of thought as to how many people and who get raptured. The Left Behind series of novels reflect the view that all children are raptured along with the believers so that a couple of billion or so people get carried away including the Pope of the time (a notion that would, no doubt, appal Derby).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I discovered this Rapture world when I was doing the PhD because unsurprisingly its also marked by virulent homophobia. When I first heard about the Rapture, I was seriously taken aback. It really is nothing but a 'get out of gaol free card' theology. It is predicated on a Calvinist notion of complete rupture between the cosmos and the Divine. A key notion is that the full Tribulation with Anti-Christ can't take place until the Church is taken away because it brings to an end the Age of Grace when the Holy Spirit is abroad in the world. With the removal of the Church the Holy Spirit is also removed from the world. From a Catholic perspective, such a notion is incoherent if not grossly heretical in its dichotomy of Creation and the Divine. In Catholic understandings Creation is imbued with the Divine as stained glass windows are imbued with the light on which they depend for their effect. The Rapture doctrine contradicts sacramental theology in every way. In a Catholic perspective, God is grace and so a notion of an end to grace is bizarre, a diminution of the deity.Furthermore the Derbyite notion that Jesus' mission has to be rebooted requiring the removal of the Church and that his life and death and resurrection marked some kind of failure or derailing of the divine plan, is Christologically flawed, thoroughly heretical. It marks a complete contradiction of the entire Christian tradition in an even more radical way than any 'liberal' or 'modernist' Protestant theology of Jesus, that the exponents of rapturism usually loudly deplore.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But it is far worse than that. I found one or two sites that I started following and one, in particular, <a href="http://www.fivedoves.com/">Five Doves</a>, I've remained 'loyal' to, primarily for its entertainment value. I've written about them here <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/search/label/Five%20Doves">before</a>. It maintains a forum, <a href="http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/may2011/may.htm">The Latter Day Letters</a>, to which believers share hopes, fears, and rapture/end times news and speculations. Most of it is pretty appalling, not least for its homophobia, but several things strike me as someone who thinks I understand a bit about the Christian tradition in its fullness across time and in its diversity. While the contributors not only evince an ignorance of that tradition and lack of even the most basic curiosity that would make them explore that tradition in its fullness, they seem quite willing to blend their 'theology' with a, to me, surprising blend of pop culture items such as TV shows and films. Many of them feed uncritically off New Age and UFO sites, especially, the most paranoid of them, but then give them a unique dispensationalist twist. And I should point out that the Rapture has gone so viral that it has even torn loose from Dispensationalist framework to re-embed itself in UFO and New Age contexts. The UFO cults give a lot of scope to Rapture thinking, except here instead of Jesus its the Space Brothers or Rael's Elohim who will come down in their space ships and save us - or some of us, anyway. I first encountered this phenomenon in the early 80s when I met a popular, psychic aura reader who proclaimed the imminent arrival of the Space Brothers who would take many of us away from the planet (but not all) while it was cleansed of the mess we'd made of it. He went so far as to say that they had taken away some people already and as proof cited a then recent earthquake in Italy where many hundreds or thousands had died. They weren't dead they'd been taken away.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This psychic alerted me to something that is a hallmark of all such Rapture cults, Christian and New Age alike. These really are death cults of the worst sort. If you read the Latter Day letters at Five Doves, you'll be struck by the yearning to get out of this place, to 'go home' as some of them put it. Home is heaven but usually there's only one way to get to the heavenly realm and that's by death. These people are crying out for and yearning for death. They mask that by their belief that they will be transported body and soul but the reality is that death is what they desire, it's a deflected suicidal mentality. Because of course when you read the letters you soon detect that for many, though not all, life is hard, it's a struggle and it's often made worse because of the type of religious beliefs they hold. Many of their family members or neighbours or workmates don't share their rapture/end times beliefs (even though they might also be Christians, and it's more galling if they are than not) and so make fun of their beliefs or react against the proselytising that these people are attempting. And so for many of these rapture believers not only is life a struggle but it is also marked by conflict too over their faith. That drives their yearning even more. The Rapture becomes not just a get out of gaol free card but it's also a vindication and even reward for what they have put up with.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Vindication for them and pay back time for the scoffers and unbelievers too. The other side of the rapturist cults is a very nasty schadenfreude. The Left Behind series of books and films is not really an evangelical tool so much as a vindicatory vehicle for the confirmed believer. Both the books and the films are too awful in their execution to seriously entice anyone to join this sort of religion. The books have been on bestseller lists for a long time but I think very few unbelievers, Christian or otherwise, would bother parting with their cash to purchase them. Their main audience has been the rapturists themselves and so they actually serve as a vehicle of vindication. Their rapturist audiences get to vicariously enjoy not so much the rapture itself as the opportunity, as pre-rapturees, to witness the sufferings of the left behind and be confirmed in their own special spiritual status. Fred Clark has repeatedly made this observation on his<a href="http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/tag/left-behind/"> long running commentary</a> on the series. I think it's not just the books but the doctrines themselves. They are built on schadenfreude and hence their appeal, especially in a rawly capitalist society like the US. By its very nature capitalism requires victims or losers and the more untrammeled it is the greater the number of those who have been screwed over. Rapturism with its arcane secret knowledges, its conspiracy theories (much of the material on Five Doves could provide inspiration for a stack of X-files series) plus its promise of ultimate escape from a cascade of horrors that will engulf everyone else not saved promotes the ideal sort of false consciousness that capitalist societies need to prevent serious critique and transformation. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This schadenfreude is what I find most disturbing and it also represents the most heretical inversion of Christian tradition. From the very beginning Christinaity has celebrated the divine generosity that underpins the creation. The entire cosmos represents an act of divine graciousness, generosity. In Christian theology God has no need of the creation but creation would not exist without God, the overflowing lifegiving love of God, and a God that does not give up on the creation either but ultimately becomes incarnate in a human person to come down to our level in order to offer us friendship. God is love, John declares, and those who love know God. Jesus on the cross represents the ultimate kenotic self-emptying of God to demonstrate the divine solidarity with and friendship for the creation, for humans, for all of us. Such divine friendship and solidarity has consequences not least in the lives of those who respond to it and Christian history is full of examples of people who answered the call to instantiate in their own lives the call to divine friendship. They lived that friendship directly and very practically and often at very great cost for their lives, taking up their crosses and following their Lord. Many of these people are commemorated in the calendars of saints of the various Christian communions, many lived humble lives and their stories have been lost or they were the companions of these saints. But they stand in striking contrast to the rapturist cults whose members get excited at any news of earthquake or war, who actually anticipate and hope for another major Middle East war because that will be sign that they soon will be out of here. Their theology is marked by a hatred of humanity and of the creation in which we live. They have replaced the traditional Christian God of superabundant love and friendship with a narrowly vindictive deity of schadenfreude. The God of rapturism is not the God of Christianity, although it has been dressed with Christian drag, it's an idol built on human vindictiveness and selfish petty resentments. That's the sort of spirituality and religious ethos cultivated by rapturism. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Rapture is kind of oddly akin to much of the discourse around euthanasia, which again rapturists deplore. It could be said that much of the euthanasia discourse represents not so much a fear of death but a fear of dying and seeks an intervention to circumvent that. Rapturists likewise yearn for death, to get out of here and 'go home', but they don't want to experience dying. Instead they want divine intervention to circumvent the messy dying process and translate them instantly into the next world, body and soul. It's a divinely assisted suicide they seek and worse, it has resonances with the suicide bombers of various Islamic fundamentalist groups. By their collective suicide the rapturists know the full horrors of the tribulation will be unleashed on the rest of us. Their yearning for their own deaths is also a yearning for our suffering which they know will be unleashed by their rapture. And in some of the Latter day Letters that payback desire is expressed quite clearly.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Harold Camping (!) has done more to traduce Christianity and bring it into disrepute than any Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins could ever hope to achieve. The anti-religious movements have started a blasphemy day, which I think originated in the US where so much of this silly thinking seems to originate, the shadow or inverted mirror of the original. But Harold Camping (!) has performed a blasphemy that a Hitchens or Dawkins could never hope to match. I have termed Rapturism a heresy of the worst order. I would go further and declare the Rapture doctrine and all the attendant Dispensationalist schemas in which its embedded, the ultimate blasphemy. Back in the 2nd century St Irenaeus of Lyon declared that the glory of God is humanity fully alive. Rapturism rejects that fundamental Christian principle in favour of vindictiveness and suicidal schadenfreude and hence tries to debase the Christian vision of the divine that Irenaeus and so many other Christians have celebrated over the centuries.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">On Saturday I put up this status update on Facebook:</div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">It's Rapture day! Silly idea. The world won't end today except in the usual way, sadly, for too many people. I hope for not too many, today, and for none of you who I love.</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">I chose this deliberately because that morning I'd also learnt of the death of a friend a couple of days before. Death comes to us all. We will all die, a fact our society tries to deny all the time. So again it's no surprise that a notion like the Rapturist fallacy should prove popular because it also tries to deny the fact of our own deaths. But Christianity celebrates a God who so loved all of us and wanted to be our friend that this God accepted death to live in full solidarity with us, to meet us on our level. My friend who died wasn't religious and didn't believe in any sort of God but I hope she has been found and eagerly welcomed by this God who so sought our friendship as to be willing to die shamefully under the boot of power and is regularly betrayed by the Howard Campings (!) and so many other religious functionaries and charlatans and homophobes. It's a shame I can't believe in eternal damnation and like Dante, and people my own Inferno with popes and preachers and tele-evangelists. But my God is much bigger than that and I have no right to ever dare diminish God to my own need for vengeful satisfaction and vindication. To do so is an act of idolatry and diminishes my own faith and betrays the friendship this God offers to us all.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-3584566660595561202011-04-30T22:42:00.000+10:002011-04-30T22:42:52.081+10:00Paschal Thoughts<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;">I'm back! Apologies to people following this blog but life has been very busy for me over the last couple of months and I've been plagued with IT problems too. But I'm back at last and hope to do more regular blogging in future. For now I just want to reflect on some aspects of the rituals celebrating Easter or Pascha, as most of the non-Anglophone world know the feast of Christ's Resurrection.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This year I did the full Easter/Pascha Triduum, Holy Thursday, Good Friday and the Vigil Mass on Holy Saturday night. It's the latter that I want to comment on. If you've never done the Vigil mass in either it's Roman or Anglican (rite) forms then I should explain that it includes a long series of readings from scripture, usually starting with Genesis 1, the account of the seven days of creation. I want to say some more about that but before I do I want to take a sidetrack into some history. After the Vigil Mass I wondered about the history of the rituals and the readings included in it. In particular I was interested in the antiquity of Genesis 1 as a Paschal reading. I didn't have to go far; Wikipedia has a quite comprehensive article on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Vigil">Easter Vigil</a>, especially as celebrated in the West. What was most fascinating was this:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The original twelve Old Testament readings for the Easter Vigil survive in an ancient manuscript belonging to the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The Armenian Easter Vigil also preserves what is believed to be the original length of the traditional gospel reading of the Easter Vigil, i.e., from the Last Supper account to the end of the Gospel according to Matthew.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the earliest Jerusalem usage the vigil began with Psalm 117 [118] sung with the response, "This is the day which the Lord has made." Then followed twelve Old Testament readings, all but the last being followed by a prayer with kneeling.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(1) Genesis 1:1--3:24 (the story of creation); (2) Genesis 22:1-18 (the binding of Isaac); (3) Exodus 12:1-24 (the Passover charter narrative); (4) Jonah 1:1--4:11 (the story of Jonah); (5) Exodus 14:24--15:21 (crossing of the Red Sea); (6) Isaiah 60:1-13 (the promise to Jerusalem); (7) Job 38:2-28 (the Lord's answer to Job); (8) 2 Kings 2:1-22 (the assumption of Elijah); (9) Jeremiah 31:31-34 (the new covenant); (10) Joshua 1:1-9 (entry into the Promised Land); (11) Ezekiel 37:1-14 (the valley of dry bones); (12) Daniel 3:1-29 (the story of the three youths).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The twelfth reading leads into the Song of the Three Children </div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Song of the Three Children is from Greek Daniel, part of what Protestants term the Apocrypha, but which is included in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments. But I'm really more interested in Genesis right now. Unfortunately the Wikipedia article doesn't say how old this manuscript and cycle of readings are but I guess ancient means pretty old, way back in the first millennium, likely dating from the days of the Christian Roman Empire, 4th, 5th or 6th centuries. Here, Genesis 1 is combined with the second creation story, that of Adam and Eve, Eden and the Fall. There's a logic there in that Christ's death and resurrection are believed to have undone the effects of the Fall. Christ is also understood as the New Adam (and Mary, his mother, the new Eve). I find it interesting that the modern day Roman rite Easter vigil does not include a place for the Eden narratives. When I say modern I should also point out that while there have been important changes to the Roman Easter Vigil rite on two occasions in the last 70 odd years the actual suite of readings has been the norm for many centuries. Interestingly, from the Wikipedia article it seems that the Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox) rite has likewise dropped the Eden narratives from its Vesperal liturgy for Holy Saturday, reading only Genesis 1: 1-13, the first three days of creation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here are the lists of readings for the Roman and Byzantine rites:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Roman 1. Genesis 1:-2:2; 2. Genesis 22:1-18; 3. Exodus 14:15-15:1; 4. Isaiah 54:4a.5-14; 5. Isaiah 55:1-11; 6. Baruch 3:9-15, 32-4:4; 7. Ezekiel 36:16-17a, 18-28.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Byzantine 1. Genesis 1:1-13; 2. Isaiah 60:1-16; 3. Exodus 12:1-11; 4. Jonah 1:1-4:11; 5. Joshua 5:10-15; 6. Exodus 13:20-15:19; 7. Zephaniah 3:8-15; 8. 1 King 17:8-24; 9. Isaiah 61:10-62:5; 10. Genesis 22:1-18; 11. Isaiah 61:1-9; 12. 2 Kings 4:8-37; 13. Isaiah 63:11-64:5; 14. Jeremiah 31:31-34; 15. Daniel 3:1-68.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Roman rite has reduced the number of readings, at the same time adding new ones while the Byzantine has simply increased the readings by adding to them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But what are common to all three lists are the first creation story, the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22:1-18) and the Crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:24--15:21). The binding of Isaac makes complete sense. Early Christians understood the near sacrifice of Isaac to prefigure the sacrificial death of Jesus on the Cross. The crossing of the Red Sea is a bit more obscure. Yes, it relates to Passover, from which Christian Pascha/Easter is derived but if Christ is the Lamb surely the earlier passage Exodus 12:1-24, the Charter of Passover (as the Wikipedia article puts it), would be more appropriate, given the central role of the paschal lamb there and the importance of paschal lamb imagery in the Christian context. In the Roman rite Vigil, the prayer following the reading, states that the crossing of the Red Sea represents the waters of baptism by which the new Israel, the Christian believers, are delivered from sin and death so the text is thus reconfigured by the prayer in a symbolic and ritual way.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But what is most important here is the sea. A number of scholars have observed over the years that the Exodus account of the crossing of the Red Sea contains echoes or might even be a reworking of more ancient Middle eastern mythologies of the battle between a deity and the sea. In the Ugarit Ba'al cycle, the god Ba'al does battle with the Sea god, Yam (Yam means sea in both Hebrew and Ugaritic). Ba'al goes on to do battle with Mot, the god of death. Ba'al then dies and is restored to life. The Jewish scriptures contain many references and allusions to the battle with the sea or the sea-monster (Leviathan/Rahab), in this case the protagonist is YHWH, the LORD, the god of Israel. It's referred to frequently in the Psalms, alluded to in the answer to Job, and of course is the background to the Jonah story too (and in the ancient list of Paschal Vigil readings, Jonah precedes the Exodus account of the Red Sea crossing). We don't know the ritual context of the Ba'al cycle but we do for another major chaoskampf myth of the region, the battle of Marduk with Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth cycle. Marduk creates the world out of the broken body of Tiamat; the Enuma Elish was recited/chanted as part of the Babylonian New Year rituals.<br />
<br />
In the ancient world the New Year was associated with the equinox, spring or autumn. The ancient Persian New Year, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowruz">Now Roz</a>, is still celebrated at the spring equinox. Even in medieval Christendom the civil year began with the feast of the Annunciation in March i.e. the spring equinox. (And likewise Aries is the first sign of the zodiac in western astrology because it's the sign that conjoins the spring equinox). However, the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah was celebrated at the autumnal equinox. Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement was an important day of the Jewish New Year cycle. Atonement rituals were important parts of ancient Middle Eastern religions and often were key parts of the New Year rituals. What the New Year rituals signified was the renewal, re-creation of the cosmos. Atonement rituals, as in the Jewish Yom Kippur, could play a key part because they performed the healing of the cosmos as part of the start of a new cycle of the year. Scapegoat rituals, as in the one associated with the Jewish Yom Kippur, were also a frequent aspect of the atonement performances.<br />
<br />
Listening to the cadences of Genesis 1 at the Easter Vigil the other night, I could easily imagine it recited or chanted at the New Year rituals of Rosh Hashanah in the ancient Temples at Jerusalem and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Gerizim">Ha Gerizim</a>. But what's it doing at Easter/Pascha, a Christian feast derived from the Jewish Pesach/Passover? Well, both Jewish Pesach and the Christian Pascha are associated with, set by the spring equinox. In the Jewish calendar Pesach falls in Nisan, the first month of the Jewish year (the autumnal Rosh Hashanah, New Year, actually falls in Tishrei, the 7th month of the Jewish calendar). In other words Pesach is itself a kind of New Year festival, and the New Year associations are given away by the Exodus account of the crossing of the Red Sea, and indeed the whole narrative of the Exodus, which portrays the LORD doing battle with Pharaoh, culminating with the defeat and destruction of Pharaoh in the sea, recalling those ancient Levantine myths in which the deity does battle with the sea or the sea-monster.<br />
<br />
Whether or not Nisan was originally the month of the Jewish New Year is not important. What is important is that the Passover narrative and the rituals of Pesach carry strong resonances of the creation and chaoskampf mythologies of the New Year and Atonement. One could say that while Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur celebrate the re-creation, restoration and renewal of the cosmos, Pesach celebrates the re-creation, restoration and renewal of the Israelite community. Unlike Rosh Hashanah, Pesach was one of the three ancient pilgrimage feasts when the people were expected , if possible to journey to the Temple (Jerusalem or Ha Gerizim) to celebrate Pesach there, a bit like the annual Hajj to Mecca in Islam. Pesach was and is celebrated by the community as a whole unlike Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur which were celebrated in the Temple by specifically priestly rituals.<br />
<br />
But then why has Genesis 1 been maintained as a key text of the Christian Paschal rites especially given that the Eden narratives of Genesis 2-3 have actually been abandoned progressively over time in both East and West? I have been kind of developing a rather audacious line of thought here, in part in response to the work of <a href="http://www.margaretbarker.com/index.html">Margaret Barker</a>. I believe ancient Christianity began as one of many ancient Jewish movements concerned with the Temple. A recurring refrain in biblical and extra-biblical texts is the problem of the Temple and its corruption, usually by falling under the control of a rival group. We find this pattern in Ezekiel, Zechariah, 1 Enoch and a number of Qumran texts, for example. I think Christianity began with the perception that the Temple had been corrupted by the priestly circles who ruled there. Jesus himself took on a High Priestly role, might even have been understood as the heavenly High Priest. Perhaps at Jesus' own instigation, Christians began to take on aspects of Temple ritual and reconfigure them to instantiate the Temple now as the Christian community (similar ideas are found at Qumran too). The Eucharist is developed as the key bloodless sacrifice of the new but restored Temple that is the Christian community, an open community in which humans encounter the divine face to face in their communal rituals without the mediation of the corrupt Temple authorities (I more and more think the book of Revelation is a Christian prophetic reflection upon the first Jewish war and the destruction of the Temple and its replacement by the new Temple of the Christian community in which Jesus, the Logos, is made manifest, returns to the community, in the bread and wine of the Eucharist). These Christian rituals, such as Eucharist and Baptism, are derived from Temple ritual and symbolism reconfigured in a way to make God truly Emmanuel, 'with us', rather than 'hidden' in the priestly confines of the Temple. Jesus was executed at Pesach, instantiating, fulfilling the High Priestly role of shedding his blood to heal and renew the cosmos on the Day of Atonement (in the Temple rite, a goat is of course slaughtered in the High Priest's place). So Christians uncover the old New Year/Atonement meanings of Pesach but reconfigure them by joining, blending them with a reconfigured Pesach as well. The two equinoctal feasts are merged and reconfigured to shape the development of Christian liturgy/tradition (the core component of Christian tradition is liturgy) in succeeding generations. When Pascha was developed as a specific annual feast in the second and third centuries Christians drew upon traditions and memories of old Temple practices to create a Paschal gestalt. Christian Pascha explicitly identified itself as a new Pesach, a language used to this very day but the ritual patterns and symbolic frameworks that are deployed for this Christian Pesach are as much, even more?, derived from Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur than anything to do with Pesach. It was a pattern compelled by the circumstances of Jesus' own death which was charged symbolically with the power of the old rites of Atonement and New Year in which the deity sheds blood/life to renew, recreate, heal and restore the cosmos. And these rites have an ancient provenance. Countless centuries earlier, in the Ugarit myth cycles, Ba'al does battle with Mot/Death and succumbs only to rise anew and restore the cosmos to new life. Likewise in his own ordeal Jesus does battle with Mot/Death to succumb and rise anew restoring the cosmos to new life. The language and imagery runs right through Christian proclamation although the stories of Ba'al's death and rising had been long forgotten (and ancient Ugarit too).<br />
<br />
Genesis 1 recounts in a beautiful poetic structure the speaking of cosmos into existence by deity, it is the key text of the old New Year of Temple rite so it makes sense to me that it should lead off the readings of Christian Pascha which celebrates the renewal, restoration, recreation, resurrection of the cosmos through the broken and resurrected body of Jesus, humble Galilean and heavenly High Priest. Reading Genesis 1 in the Vigil Mass on the Paschal Eve links it to traditions and practices that go back thousands of years, into the heart of Temple Judaism and beyond into the world of Canaanite/Levantine myth and ritual from which 'Israel' was born. And not in any supersessionist way of appropriation, but rather in a lineage of creative inheritance and generation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-84708333665172296322011-02-16T15:00:00.012+10:002011-02-17T08:19:15.532+10:00Caligari, Madness, Sexuality and Foucault<p style="text-align: justify;">The other night I saw the classic 1920 German silent film, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0010323/">The Cabinet of Dr Caligari</a>, at some friends’ place. I’d seen it once before many years ago, I think on SBS and probably on quite a small TV. My friends have got quite an elaborate TV/DVD/music set up in their living room with one of those quite large screens and so this time I saw the film in a lot more detail than before. It is really quite superb, not least for its sets which are quite surreal, astonishing in the way they distort angles and warp ‘reality’ (I wonder if <a href="http://www.hplovecraft.com/">H P Lovecraft</a> might have been influenced by the visuals in this film for some of his stories, especially for his ‘<a href="http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/fiction/dwh.asp">Dreams in the Witch House</a>’ in which the notion of distorted angles and weird perspective in room dimensions are key to his portrait of menace). Unsurprisingly, questions of what is real and what is illusion and fantasy are key to the film. That same sort of interplay of fantasy and reality was at play in a modern film, <a href="http://http//www.imdb.com/title/tt0947798/">The Black Swan</a>, I saw when down the Gold Coast. That film plays with fantasy and reality in such a way that towards the end the viewer has no idea of what is (meant to be) real and what not. Is the main character mad, has she been taken over from the depths, the Black Swan?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Curiously in both films, sexuality is interwoven with madness to signal that we are beyond the realm of the ‘normal’. There are several moments of queer slippage in Caligari, most explicitly in the final scenes when the Somnambulist character is presented as a kind of distractedly demented dandy. Likewise in Black Swan, at first, there’s more than a hint of (hetero)sexual desire in the interaction between the dancer, Nina, and the ballet director and I thought that maybe we were being given a narrative of young woman’s repressed creativity being released through eros and heterosexual eros too. But then suddenly as the boundaries between reality and fantasy really begin to blur there is a full-on lesbian eruption, much more graphic than any heterosexual scenes in the film. From that point on the story is swept away as the boundary between fantasy and reality collapses like the shattered mirror of Nina’s dressing room. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">These links between madness and queer sexuality were even more striking for me as I’ve recently finished reading Lynne Huffer’s book, <a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14918-1/mad-for-foucault/reviews">Mad for Foucault: Rethinking the Foundations of Queer Theory</a>. I think Huffer’s book is probably the most important publication in queer theory and sexuality studies for a long time, at least in English- there has been interesting work in French not least by <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/11/power-of-insult-and-politics-of.html">Didier Eribon who I was reading and writing about back in 2009</a>. Eribon’s book made me want to go back and read Foucault’s Introduction to the History of Sexuality again. I’d read it, at least in part, back in my undergrad days in the early 90s. At that time it didn’t have much context for me and I found a range of other authors that influenced me more. At the same time, here in Brisbane those years following decriminalisation and the first anti-discrimination law were a heady time for LGBT folks, especially folks like me who were active in community stuff and politics. At UQ too, these were the first years of a queer space, the Rona Room, the existence of which was really changing the dynamics of queer life on campus. Probably, a much more important influence for me back then was <a href="http://www.charlottecooper.net/docs/archive/homocult.htm">Homocult</a> and the activism around ACT UP and Queer Nation. What most appealed to me was the stance of not regarding heterosexuality as the default – as one slogan went ‘heterosexuality is not normal, it’s just common’ - and that led to a reading perspective of looking for queer possibilities in anything, destabilising the heteronorm and opening a space for the queer and homosexual. That perspective still largely describes my scholarly framework on sexuality. I don’t accept heterosexuality and its norms as the default or as something to aspire to. That’s one of my concerns with the push to same sex marriage (and something I saw earlier in the last couple of days, ‘gay family values’). It seems to me that one of the dynamics of homosexual/queer sub-cultures is imitation, pushing the boundaries of likeness. After Gay Liberation came the age of the Clone, at least for gay men. I hated it and, luckily, in Australia it remained very much a Sydney thing. And way back in the 18<sup>th</sup> century we find the<a href="http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/mother.htm"> molly houses of old England</a> and their curious practices of parodic imitation of the heterosexual world of marriage and family. In our day, though, the imitation is more serious lacking any parodic element at all (the parody is more at the expense of the imitation as in the anti-marriage quip of a queer friend of mine ‘Gay marriage? Makes as much sense as a male tampon’). Are we reproducing the heteronorm as our own standard for homosexual life? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Returning to Foucault and Huffer’s book, to be honest I’ve not read a lot of his work. I own a copy of the second volume of his History of Sexuality. I’ve not finished it because like Huffer, I found it boring, not least because of its focus on elite males in ancient Greco-Roman society. Foucault didn’t inform my work on Sodom and Gomorrah much at all, although after reading Huffer I can see how I might have been able to deploy him quite productively but I don’t regret not doing so. More important for me back then was the work of <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/search/label/Eve%20Kosofsky%20Sedgwick">Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick</a>. She helped me to refine my reading position and lens and she’s still an important intellectual influence for me. Oddly, I don’t recall Foucault as a dominant motif in her work no matter how important he was for her theoretically. But periodically I’ve been rubbed up against Foucault by the way his Introduction to the History of Sexuality was being deployed in, to my way of thinking, quite uncritical ways. The crudest rendering of this Foucault deployment is the notion that homosexuality was invented as a category by sexologists and psychologists back in 1870 (or for some even later). This marked a new beginning and the creation of the homosexual identity as opposed to a time before when we can only speak of acts, certainly not identities let alone communities. As I heard one person say, citing Foucault, at a public forum about four years ago, there is no continuity with that time before the ‘invention’ of the homosexual and our modern LGBT worlds. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">To which, of course, I say rubbish, and to which I also say you clearly haven’t understood Foucault if you think that was his argument. When I was reading Eribon, I was struck by the thought that maybe people hadn’t quite gotten Foucault. While he critiqued Foucault’s History of Sexuality, from memory especially its lack of sufficient historical depth, in relation to the ‘invention’ of the homosexual, Eribon also highlighted how important Foucault’s History of Madness was in giving more depth to his arguments in the Introduction to Sexuality. Eribon seemed to suggest that Foucault might have profited much more by drawing on his earlier work. After all, he asked, how was it that sexuality, homosexuality, should be the subject or object of discussion and study/treatment by psychologists and therapists. So I went back and re-read Foucault’s Introduction. I hadn’t gotten far before I realised that Foucault’s project here was not ‘history’ and certainly not homosexuality as such but much more about the discursive structures of social power. And when I re-read it, I was struck by the realisation that the <a href="http://sitemaker.umich.edu/pjmcgann/homosexual_as_species">famous passage about the homosexual being invented in 1870</a> was not about same sex love and eros as such, the people who lived it, their identities and communities. Foucault was not interested in identities and certainly not interested in aetiologies. I was struck by the thought that this was more a wry observation on the, one could say, vainglories of powerbrokers. In the late 19<sup>th</sup> century in the field of sexuality these were the therapists, the sexologists, who were above, outside of the realm of the deviant erotic just as a biologist of the day was above, outside the realm from which specimens were collected and returned to the halls of knowledge in the metropole for classification and study, or white male anthropologists might be above, outside the communities of ‘savages’ they were studying. (And no wonder then that the term homosexual was resisted for so long by queer folks of the past as a term that was being imposed on them and not cognisant with their own experience). I couldn’t also help but think that somehow Foucault’s wry observation had been mis-taken by so many people in the areas of queer theory and sexuality. It always seemed to be cited as grim fact rather than grim joke. Queer theorists spectacularly misread, and thus failed to get, Foucault’s wit. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I had planned to write more about Eribon and my new understandings of Foucault but last year my adventures with depression got in the way, although I think it’s quite appropriate that I re-read Foucault when I was myself off spinning in my own trajectory of soaring madness and collapse. Maybe it helps to read Foucault when you’re mad. So when the chance came to read and review Huffer’s book eventually I had to go for it and was most surprised that I could get it, that nobody else had put their hand up for it at all. The book itself is rich, very rich and rewards reading and re-reading. It is an excellent introduction to Foucault’s thought, his overall project, not just Sexuality or Madness. There is a key central thesis to the book, to wit, queer theorists who restrict their reading of Foucault to his History of Sexuality, even if supplemented by Discipline and Punish, are severely limited in their understanding of Foucault. Huffer goes as far as saying that you can’t really grasp History of Sexuality without also reading <a href="http://calitreview.com/247">History of Madness</a>, that the two complement each other, with Sexuality standing almost in continuity with Madness. She argues that Sexuality should even (only?) be read through the lens of Madness to be understandable. The problem was, though, that for those who don’t read French, an English translation of the whole text wasn’t published until 2006 (translated by Jonathan Murphy and Jean Khalfa). The 1965 translation, Madness and Civilisation, was a much truncated edition which omitted important content from the original work. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In tandem with her thesis, Huffer also provides a critique of queer theory especially as practiced in the United States. In particular she critiques the ‘straight’ reading by queer theorists of that <a href="http://sitemaker.umich.edu/pjmcgann/homosexual_as_species">famous passage in Introduction</a>, a passage she describes as clearly ironic especially when read in the French. She provides both the French and her own translation with the standard English translation to highlight the ironic aspects in Foucault’s words. She goes further and says US queer theorists have seriously misread it by reading it as a statement of origins or aetiology of homosexual identity. It’s nothing of the sort, she declares, indeed Foucault ‘refuses to posit an origin of anything’ (75), a fact most clear from reading Madness. She goes further saying that to ‘read the date 1870 as other than ironic is to buy into the psychological, psychiatric, and medical authority Foucault goes to great pains to dismantle’ (75). In other words, queer theorists mangled Foucault in the press of US identity politics and obsessions. I was struck by Huffer’s repeated observation that in Madness, Foucault describes (and laments?) the suppression of a homosexual lyricism in Europe during the Age of Reason , a suppression that happens alongside the Great Confinement, the rise of the asylum for imprisoning the ‘mad’ and the ‘deviant’. (And hence, says Eribon, sexuality and its manifold variations becomes the field for doctors, psychologists, therapists, and not historians, ethicists, philosophers, or theologians and biblical scholars either for that matter.)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Huffer also reminds us that first and foremost, Foucault is a philosopher, or better anti-philosopher. He wrote Madness, amongst other things, as a critique of Descartes, of the Cartesian separation of the mind/self and the body, in which madness is explicitly excluded from the Cartesian <i>cogito</i>; but more than just Descartes Madness was also of the Enlightenment and its heirs. However Foucault writes philosophy with the use of the archive so his work is history-like. Foucault is the heir of Nietzsche and seeks to abolish the subject so constructed by Descartes and developed by Hegel and the Enlightenment and later too by Freud and psychoanalysis. In all these projects of the internal metaphysical self both madness and sexuality have been deployed in its construction, to demarcate its boundaries and essence. As the heir to Nietzsche, Foucault rejects such essentalism of the self, as Huffer puts it there is no inside to this outside, it is a false demarcation. In this context, it’s no surprise that the late Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick began exploring Buddhism towards the end of her life. The Buddhist doctrine of anatta, no-self (as opposed to the Hindu/Vedanta concept of Atman/Self) bears a certain resemblance to the Foucault-Nietzschian position. My understanding of Nietzsche is that he stood for an unmediated immediacy to life which again bears a resemblance to the Buddhist aim of living free of all attachment including to the illusory ‘self’.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But this brings me to my main critique of Huffner’s book. Queer theorists might have misread Foucault’s wit and worse uncritically elevated him to canonical authority, ‘gospel’, but queer theory remains a heterogenous and fluid project. Foucault might have authority but he is jumbled with all manner of other intellectual streams. As Huffner points out queer theory even tries to couple Freud with Foucault (Huffner strongly critiques Judith Butler’s Psychic Life as one example of this coupling), which is like coupling matter and anti-matter. Foucault stands opposed to Freud; Freud’s gift, psychoanalysis, ‘endlessly performs and augments the Cartesian coup of the seventeenth century’ (160). But Huffner wants to make queer theory a more specifically, completely?, a Foucauldian project. She is herself ‘in love’ with Foucault so I can understand her zeal; she has ‘met’ this Foucault ‘in the archives’ and realised his breadth and depth in contrast to the cardboard cut-out of the standard queer theoretical perspective. I can understand her ‘love’ especially given both the splits between much of queer theory and much of feminist theory (which she explores early in her book) in part based on that old misreading of Foucault and the fact that queer theory nowadays is, in my opinion, really kind of moribund and disconnected, having no real ethical grounding or political eros to use Huffner’s term. But I would like to keep the heterogeneity and fluidity of queer theory, which might in future be further fed by a specifically Foucaultian project, overlapping but neither separate nor totalising. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For those of us who don’t want to work on a specifically Foucauldian project, Foucault might yet be a model. I like the way he works from, with the archives. The philosopher writing history against philosophy, philosophy from the archives, Foucauld blurs categories. What I appreciated about queer theory has been that blurring, the lack of rigidity, the almost bower bird approach to thinking and the commitment not to accept the heteronorm as given. But it has also remained caught in an identitarian morass (and perhaps that helps serves interests of late capitalist society anyway). I’ve not been all that interested in identities but rather the way people have lived their same-sex love and desires, how they have dealt with the rejection, also those cultures and discourses of insult and denigration that reinforce the heteronorm. I’m interested in the way those discourses work and I look for ways to change all that, to maintain a critique that opens up different possibilities. I suspect the identitarian thing may be a displaced aetiology. One thing’s for sure I’m not interested in origins or causes, or gay genes. They don’t broaden our horizons or humanise us, let alone change our world.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">My critique then is not really of the book as such. In fact, looking through my copy of Mad for Foucault I see that I have underlined on just about every page, reinforced with exclamation marks and asterisks as well as occasional comments. It’s a book well worth reading by anyone doing any sort of sexuality studies, especially if they’re doing so under the umbrella of queer theory. Likewise for those doing feminist and gender studies. I recommend this book to anyone who’s interested in Foucault in any way at all. After reading Huffner there’s only one more thing to do and that’s read History of Madness, the full version, itself. I’m looking forward to it, not least to catch a glimpse of that disappearing suppressed homosexual lyric for which he mourned.</div><p></p>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-52053769520431644772011-02-12T20:35:00.007+10:002011-02-13T12:17:32.996+10:00February Days, Wonderful Days in Egypt<div style="text-align: justify;">Things have been quiet here of late because, well, life's not been so quiet for me. After I put up my last post two weeks ago I went away for a bit over a week down the Gold Coast to have a break and catch up with friends. It was a very social time, which also continued a theme that had been running in my life over the Christmas period of reconnections with people from the past - there were more such reconnections at the Gold Coast too. The Gold Coast is an interesting place in the way it can juxtapose great beauty, quaint charm and the most extraordinary ugliness all at once. I don't think anyone there ever gave a thought to building a beautiful city on the South Pacific and thus no one ever did. Apart from its natural beauty, any beauty there is completely unintentional, often dependent on accidents like time of day or unexpected vantage point. My friends live at Palm Beach which is not as built up as other parts, indeed it's very suburban often in ways recalling that old song <a href="http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/MALVINA/mr094.htm">'Little Boxes'</a>. But at night because it's a narrow sliver of suburbia with the ocean on one side, the sky can be quite stunning. I was down on the week of the new moon which made for a beautifully deep dark sky glistening with stars. You have to go a long way to see a sky like that in Brisbane. I went walking one night and looking up felt like I had a clear view to the end of the universe, peering into the dark depths.<br /><br />All the while the drama was unfolding in Egypt, a drama which reached the denouement of its first act last night my time. The events in Egypt are stunning and amazing and inspiring. They're on a par with the end of apartheid 20 years ago and following the Tunisian revolution they're on a par with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union's control of Eastern Europe. Tom Engelhardt <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB10Ak03.html">writing in Asia Times Online two days ago</a> makes this comparison of the two events:<br /><br /><blockquote>Today, after almost two decades of exuberant imperial impunity,Washington finds itself in an uncomfortably unraveling situation. Think of it as a kind of slo-mo Gorbachev moment - without a Gorbachev in sight.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br /><br />What we're dealing with here is, in a sense, the story of two "abroads". In 1990, in the wake of a disastrous war in Afghanistan, in the midst of a people's revolt, the Russians lost what they came to call their "near abroad", the lands from Eastern Europe to Central Asia that had made up the Soviet Empire.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br /><br />The US, being the wealthier and stronger of the two Cold War superpowers, had something the Soviets never possessed. Call it a "far abroad". Now, in the midst of another draining, disastrous Afghan war, in the face of another people's revolt, a critical part of its far abroad is being shaken to its roots.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br /><br />In the Middle East, the two pillars of American imperial power and control have long been Egypt and Saudi Arabia - along with obdurate Israel and little Jordan. In previous eras, the chosen bulwarks of "stability" and "moderation", terms much favored in Washington, had been the Shah of Iran in the 1960s and 1970s (and you remember his fate), and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s (and you remember his fate, too).</blockquote><br />Egypt is a crucial part of the Arab world. It's the most populous country and a major cultural and religious centre. Cairo's Al Azhar University, founded in the 10th century is the chief centre of Arabic literature and and Sunni Islamic learning in the world. What happens in Egypt has the potential to flow on to the rest of the Arab world in a major way. The Mubarak regime was a US satrapy in the heart of the Arab world, a world which, with some exceptions, is comprised almost entirely of US satrapies based on borders drawn by the British and French in the aftermath of the two World Wars and designed to serve their own colonial interests and not the interests of the locals. US policy was to break the old European Empires and replace them with US commercial and political hegemony.<br /><br />The Mubarak satrapy was perhaps the most important because of the peace treaty with Israel, the only such Arab treaty with the Zionist state. Egypt also directly borders the Palestinian territory of Gaza and assists the Israelis in their blockade regime. Presumably a democratic Egyptian government will not be prepared to play auxiliary gaoler of the Palestinians, which will be good news for the people in Gaza but not for the Netanyahu government. The Mubarak satrapy unsurprisingly received copious amounts of US aid, mostly for military and police. Unsurprisingly most of that money ends up in US corporate pockets. Writing in Crikey earlier this week Bernard Keane observed:<br /><br /><blockquote>The US government provides about $1.3 billion a year in military aid to Egypt.<p>Like much western aid, though, US military aid to Egypt is really about US aid to its own industries. Prior to the 1978 Sadat-Begin peace deal, Egypt had principally relied on the Soviet Union for its arms. One of the conditions Jimmy Carter agreed to as part of the peace deal was extensive military aid for Egypt -- Israel, naturally, already being a recipient of generous US assistance.</p><p>But US military companies have always been the big winners from this.The Guardian reported last week that General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky Aircraft are currently the biggest beneficiaries of the United States' military assistance to Egypt.That’s why there was never a serious chance of the Obama administration threatening to halt its military aid...</p><p>On a more real-world level, Combined Systems Inc provided the teargas that Egyptian police used by the truckload in a futile effort to suppress the demonstrations. CSI, which also provides teargas to the Israeli military, makes a wide variety of "tactical munitions", "impact munitions", "crowd control devices" and "irritant munitions". CSI is owned by Point Lookout Capital Partners, which specialises in military manufacturers, and the Carlyle Group.</p></blockquote></div><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Mubarak satrapy rested on an extensive police regime of torture and murder. The police had developed a culture of impunity. I had signed on to the Facebook page <a href="http://www.facebook.com/elshaheeed.co.uk">We are all Khaled Said</a> which was named for a young man murdered by police in Alexandria and his was not an isolated case. Mubarak therefore had added insult to injury by installing Omar Suleiman as his VP early in the revolution. Suleiman was the head of the torture network and had even tortured the Australian Mamdouh Habib who had been sent to Egypt by the US as part of its rendition programme. Under Mubarak Egypt had become a key torture subcontractor to a US gov't trying to avoid its legal obligations. <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB12Ak03.html">Pepe Escobar</a> dubs Suleiman Sheik al-Torture (follow the link to his article, it's superb; and yo can find more of his articles <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Escobar.html">here</a>).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I confess I was not all that happy when I woke this morning to see that the army had taken power. However at the Amnesty-organised Solidarity rally this morning in Brisbane, we were addressed by members of the local Egyptian community here, including a Coptic Orthodox priest, and also by phone by someone from Cairo and it was clear that they all felt that a major change had happened. After all about a quarter of the population of Egypt had taken to the streets in the last few days. The ongoing updates from We are all Khaled Said on Facebook listed details of strikes and all manner of anti-government actions happening all over Egypt. It's clear that the people of Egypt have experienced their power in a way that we on the outside can barely imagine. I don't think the people are prepared to go back to what was there before.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Here is Al Jazeera footage of the response of the people in Tahrir Square to the news Mubarak had gone</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Escobar.html"><object width="680" height="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z06GVWJgTWU"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z06GVWJgTWU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="680" height="420"></embed></object></a></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">And I have to say Thank God for Al Jazeera during this time. I also want to share a song inspired by the resilience of the Egyptian people in their struggle. It contains incredible footage of that struggle</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sCbpiOpLwFg" width="640" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">And <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2011/02/11/egypt-dance-dance-re.html">here are more photos </a>of the people celebrating in Tahrir Square. Roland Boer over at <a href="http://stalinsmoustache.wordpress.com/">Stalin's Moustache</a> shared this delightful joke yesterday: 'The Interior Minister asks Hosni Mubarak to write a farewell letter to the Egyptian people. Mubarak replies, "Why? Where are they going?"' It's Mubarak who's going instead and Suleiman with him, thanks be to God.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I hope this revolution spreads throughout the Middle East bringing down all the satrapies that the people have been saddled with for so long. Which country will be next?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; font-weight: bold;">UPDATE</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Tariq Ali is always worth reading and he has a great piece on the Egyptian revolution in the Guardian <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/11/egypt-cairo-hosni-mubarak">here</a></p><blockquote>The age of political reason is returning to the Arab world. The people are fed up of being colonised and bullied. Meanwhile, the political temperature is rising in Jordan, Algeria and Yemen.</blockquote><br />And Al Jazeera has an excellent piece by Lamis Andoni <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201121115231647934.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Resurrection of pan-Arabism </span></a><br /><p></p><p></p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>Events in Egypt and Tunisia have revealed that Arab unity against internal repression is stronger than that against a foreign threat - neither the American occupation of Iraq nor the Israeli occupation galvanised the Arab people in the way that a single act by a young Tunisian who chose to set himself alight rather than live in humiliation and poverty has.</p><p>This does not mean that Arabs do not care about the occupied people of Iraq or Palestine - tens, sometimes hundreds, of thousands have taken to the streets across Arab countries at various times to show solidarity with Iraqis and Palestinians - but it does reflect the realisation that the absence of democratic freedoms has contributed to the continued occupation of those countries.</p><p>The Arab failure to defend Iraq or liberate Palestine has come to symbolise an Arab impotence that has been perpetuated by the state of fear and paralysis in which the ordinary Arab citizen, marginalised by social injustice and crushed by security apparatus oppression, has existed.</p><p>When they were allowed to rally in support of Iraqis or Palestinians it was mainly so that their anger might be deflected from their own governments and towards a foreign threat. For so long, they put their own socio-economic grievances aside to voice their support for the occupied, only to wake up the next day shackled by the same chains of repression.<br /><br />All the while, both pro-Western and anti-Western governments continued with business as usual - the first camp relying on US support to consolidate their authoritarian rule and the second on anti-Israel slogans to give legitimacy to their repression of their people.<br /><br />But now people across the region - not only in Egypt and Tunisia - have lost faith in their governments. For make no mistake, when protesters have gathered in Amman or Damascus to express their solidarity with the Egyptian revolutionaries in Tahrir Square, they are actually objecting to their own rulers.</p><p></p><p></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Ironically, the Arabic word for resurrection is 'ba'ath' - Washington might have destroyed the Ba'ath party of Iraq but here is, I hope, a new ba'athist trajetory that Washington and other foreign powers and their client rulers cannot withstand, God willing.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-43677023592151292712011-01-22T15:41:00.015+10:002011-01-28T16:50:59.257+10:00For Epiphany 2011: Thoughts on Religious Pluralism<div style="text-align: justify;"><i>(I began this post on the day after Epiphany Gregorian reckoning, while I was still housesitting. After I got back home a couple of days later, life got rather intense for me including <a href="http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/01/18/open-thread-on-floods/">some disastrous floods in Brisbane</a>. Where I live in New Farm stayed high and dry but we lost power for a few days and so decamped to friends with power. Other friends of mine were not so lucky. Once I finally got back home again I had other stuff to attend to which put this on the backburner. I'll leave what I've written as is and then continue)</i> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">7 Jan 2011</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For Christians using the Gregorian calendar, it is now the the season of Epiphany. Western Christendom has traditionally associated the Epiphany with the coming of the Magi to the Christ-child in Bethlehem, as recounted in Matthew's gospel (Eastern Christendom associates Epiphany with the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan by John the Baptist, also known in the East as the Forerunner). This time last year I put up a post about the Magi and the history and symbolism, including astrological symbolism, this story invokes. You can read it <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/01/for-epiphany-some-thoughts-on-star-of.html">here</a>, and if you haven't read it, I'd recommend you do, because for this post, I want to start by quoting one of the final paragraphs from that older Epiphany post:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">As well as astrologers and sages, the Magi were also priests, pagan priests. But in Matthew's story they travel to Palestine, they meet with Jewish sages, they bow before the infant Jesus, they converse with angels and then they return to their homeland, presumably to resume their religious duties. There's no trace of anxiety about pagan priests attending the birth of the Messiah, the child "from the Holy Spirit", Emmanuel 'God is with Us'. I said before that early Christians read Virgil's 4th Eclogue as a pagan prophecy of Christ. It seems that some early Christians accepted that there had been some sort of 'preparation for the Gospel' not only in Judaism but also in the pagan religious world as well. In other words, that as with Judaism, some sort of divine activity had been at work in the pagan religious worlds to make them ready for the Christ event too.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And it might be worth it to have a look at <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-god-vs-your-god-part-2-thoughts-on.html">this post, also from last January</a>, where I reflected on some of the complex inter-relationships between Jewish religion and Persian religion. The two religious traditions have strong connections with each other, and it's worth remembering that Cyrus the Great, the founder of the ancient Persian Empire is hailed as Messiah, Anointed, in Isaiah (45.1). In last year's Epiphany post, I also reflected on the change of identity for the Magi in Christian tradition, making them into kings out of the East, instead of sages. I speculated that such a move might have served to 'cover up' (or at least deflect attention from) the fact that the Christ-child was attended by pagan astrologer-priests, a most uncomfortable fact for a more triumphant Christianity in Rome, Armenia and elsewhere. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, at least for Western Christendom, Epiphany raises the most uncomfortable question of Christianity's relationship and connection with other faiths in rather unsettling ways for those more triumphalist, exclusivist or fundamentalist in their religious outlook. And not just Epiphany, but Christmas itself, a major Christian feast, is also a site where differing faith traditions rub up against each other, both in terms of the varieties of Christian traditions themselves and Christianity vis a vis other religious traditions. This inter-faith overlay is further complicated by the demands of capitalism and its makeover of the feast into a 'secular' spending extravaganza. Here in the southern hemisphere, it's further complicated by the fact that a traditionally mid-winter feast is being celebrated at mid-summer.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Christmas is one of those feasts that highlight the differences within Christianity itself. There are Protestant denominations that do not observe Christmas at all, regarding it as a pagan or, even worse, a popish festival. Back in mid-17th century England, Cromwell's time, this position was held by a much broader Protestant constituency <a href="http://www.olivercromwell.org/faqs4.htm">resulting in the suppression of Christmas, both as a religious observance and as a public holiday and festival, during the time of the Commonwealth</a>. This was an unpopular move and with the restoration of the monarchy the bans on the observance of Christmas as both a religious feast/holy day and civil festival/holiday were lifted. But Protestant purists, to this day either regard Christmas (and Easter/Pascha too) with suspicion or reject it completely.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At the other end of the spectrum, Christmas serves to highlight the divisions within Catholic Christianities too. The greater number of Eastern Christians celebrated Christmas early this month on January 7. These include Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Serbian, Macedonian Orthodox Churches and the Jerusalem Orthodox Patriarchate. However, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul plus the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, and the Greek, Albanian and American Orthodox churches observed Christmas at the same time a Western Christians. The former Churches still use the old Julian calendar which is 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar of the West. The latter Churches use the Revised Julian Calendar of 1923, bringing the greater part of the liturgical year into harmony with Western timing (the exception being Easter/Pascha which is calculated in such a way as to ensure all Orthodox observe it at the same time). But not only was the New Calendar obviously not adopted by all Orthodox but in the Greek Church especially it prompted a schism leading to small Old Calendarist denominations, who stick to the Julian calendar along with their Russian and other Slavic co-religionists. The Coptic and most other Oriental Orthodox Churches also use the Julian calendar so that <a href="http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/95/3351/Egypt/Attack-on-Egypt-Copts/In-Egypt,-ministers-and-movie-stars-turn-out-for-t.aspx">their Christmas falls on January 7 Gregorian</a> too. The Armenian Church, however, <a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp">still observes the original date of Christmas, January 6</a>, combining Christmas and Epiphany in the one feast. So even as a Christian festival Christmas highlights differences amongst Christians. to the extent that it is celebrated on different days by different communities or ignored, even, by some.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">22 January 2011</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> As well as becoming a point of contention through its being given a 'makeover' by capitalism into a secular festival of shopping and consumption in the lead up to the New Year, Christmas also highlights the differences and interconnections between Christianity and other faiths. Christmas comes after the solstice, the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere, and much of the customs and foods and symbols traditionally associated with Christmas have their origins in old pagan winter solstice practices, especially in the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic lands outside the old Roman Empire. In other words these practices were adopted or absorbed as the Irish and Scots, Saxons, Swedes, Germans, Danes, Czechs, Poles and Russians adopted Christianity through the second half of the first Christian millennium. It's a popular myth that Christians or even Constantine himself picked the date of 25 December to take over the old pagan religious festival. But that appears to be no more than a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furphy">furphy</a> as Christmas had already been set at 25 December in the West and 6 January in the East before Constantine ever appeared on the scene. These dates seem <a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp">to be based more on the date of Jesus' death, as Christians then understood it, and the believed harmony of the death date with the date of Jesus' conception</a> than on any pagan festival. And while, as has been seen, for many centuries the old pagan associations with Christmas only gave concern to purist Protestants, the situation has changed with the emergence of neo-pagan religions in the West, many of which claim a direct connection with the old religions of pre-Christian Europe. So there are growing numbers of people who are celebrating Solstice and not Christmas, per se. In the northern hemisphere, that can lead to arguments over who 'owns' what in relation to Christmas; less so in the southern hemisphere, as it's summer solstice down here with different seasonal symbolism to Christmas. But at the same time in Australia there has developed the tradition of <a href="http://www.santaswarehouse.com.au/history_of_christmas/christmas_in_july.shtml">Christmas in July</a>, as an attempt to keep some kid of traditional seasonal connections with Christmas, too. And I've heard people advocate moving Christmas to winter as a way to respect the traditional liturgical calendar.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Christmas also falls around the time of the Jewish feast of Hannukah. Hannukah is the Jewish Feast of Lights and commemorates the cleansing and rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem after it had been desecrated (the 'abomination of desolation') by the Seleucid King, Antiochus Epiphanes, back in 167 BCE. Hannukah is an 8 day feast that starts on 25 Kislev: the Jewish calendar is a luni-solar one and so 25 Kislev falls any time between late November and late December on the Gregorian calendar. So more often than not, Jews are celebrating Hannukah around the time most Christians celebrate Christmas. And to further compound things in 2006 and 2007, the Muslim feast of <a href="http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/australia/eid-al-adha">Eid al Adha</a> fell around Christmas too, which meant that in 2006 three of the Abrahamic religions were celebrating a major feast in the second half of December. However the Muslim calendar is strictly lunar so there are no seasonal associations with their feasts, which move all over the Gregorian calendar (and Julian and Jewish ones too) through the years.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The mention of Islam serves to remind that over the last few decades, the countries, like Australia, of the old 'settler' Commonwealth, along with the UK, USA and many European countries have seen the growth through immigration of substantial and growing communities following Islam and other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Questions have been raised about how appropriate it is in a multi-faith culture for the state to give preference to one religion by observing a holiday for it's key holy days (Christmas, and Easter too). Sometimes the debates can be quite contentious, especially in the USA, which strikes me more and more as a very fundamentalist society (perhaps as a result of it being the capitalist heartland - I'm thinking more and more that capitalism spawns fundamentalism, that most superficial form of identity politics, and lets face it the capitalist system doesn't want us to go any further in our politics than the superficial). Ironically, the voices of Muslims, Hindus et al are rarely heard in these discussions, which seem to be mostly bouncing around among Christians and post-Christians. And with the rise of the apparently new (and militant) atheism, both in response to the ridiculous excesses of US Christian fundamentalism and fostered by George Bush's crusades against the US's fundamentalist simulacrum in the Middle East, it's almost as if some people actually resent having to take a holiday. In my younger working days, all holidays, any holidays were always welcome no matter what, so I find this newfound secular puritanism quite disturbing, especially in Australia, the proverbial land of the long weekend.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The irony is that Christmas has been changing, too, as capitalism has morphed it into a secular celebration of the great market sacrament of shopping. This process began over a century ago and is most dramatically evidenced by<a href="http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/cokelore_santa.html"> Coca Cola's makeover of Santa Claus</a> (Santa Claus or Father Christmas was a much more complex, even threatening figure before this makeover). It's perhaps ironic, given the contentious nature of the debates on this question, that it is the USA which is the home of <a href="http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/12/23/celebrating-a-secular-christmas.htm">secular Christmas</a>. Not only the commercialised Santa, but a whole suite of secular Christmas music, White Christmas, Frosty, Rudolph etc. To be honest I find these songs completely banal, if not vapid and utterly incongruous, too, in an Australian context of high summer. But to be fair, there are some pretty tawdry religious carols too, mostly from the 19th and 20th centuries. I can't began to say how much I despise Away in a Manger for it's cheap sentimentality and it's obnoxiously patronising approach to children. I despise it as much as I do Frosty, Rudolph, and these neverending sleighbells jingling through our pretend winter wonderlands. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Secular Christmas was invented in the USA and then exported very successfully to <a href="http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/culture/christmas.html">Japan</a>, definitely not a Christian country, where it is both a children's festival and oddly enough a kind of holiday for lovers too. Christmas has also been taken up <a href="http://www.celebratechristmasinsingapore.org/">in Singapore</a>, again in a big way. Like Japan, Singapore is not a Christian country either. Perhaps because Christmas draws on a rich range of associations, both pagan and Christian, and given its seasonal winter associations in the northern hemisphere, it's a package that can be picked up and adapted in non-Christian cultures like Japan (and as China becomes more capitalist will Christmas be added to the Chinese festive calendar too?).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">28 January </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>(since I resumed this post the other day, I had further problems with internet access which prevented me from getting back it)</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I said before that most of the debates about the appropriateness of keeping a religious festival in the Anglosphere, anyway, seem to be mostly conducted by Christians and post-Christians with very rare participation by people from other faiths. Several years ago I had the privilege to work with two colleagues at UQ from Slovenia (one of whom now dead and the other returned to Slovenia). Their specialty was South Asia, Hinduism and Buddhism especially. They used to laugh at the Christmas debates. Being socialists they couldn't understand why people would resent a holiday (although they would critique the gross commercialisation of it and the associated hype). But they also told me that in much of India it's quite normal for people to join in each other's religious celebrations and holidays. It's a way that religious difference can enrich people's lives and their society. And India is a very rich and religiously diverse society containing ancient Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian communities, as well as Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh and Jain. I've also been told that in much of Syria too it was common for Christians and Muslims to join in each others holidays and share celebrations at each other's shrines and sanctuaries. And while we think of Syria as Muslim, the fact is that it contains many varieties of Islam, not one, and many, mostly ancient, varieties of Christianity too. Syria is a multi-faith society then despite appearances.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I think that these practices might provide a worthy model for our modern secular societies. Secularity does not mean the banishing of religion from the public sphere as in religious and spiritual = strictly private, while public = secular/atheist only. That's just a form of tyranny and only serves to promote arid fundamentalism and cheap sentimentality as evinced in the regular and tedious US Christmas wars and the incredibly vapid nature of commercial capitalist Christmas. Just compare the emptiness of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YYRmFZg544">Frosty the Snowman</a> with the depth of something like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YedZpgy3F-M">Coventry Carol</a>. The commercial and secular infantilises and diverts our attention from the depths of joy and of horror.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here in Brisbane the Buddhist community has taken to holding public celebrations of <a href="http://www.unvesak.org/aboutvesak.htm">Vesak</a>, the birth death and enlightenment of Gautama Buddha, on the Labour Day public holiday. I've yet to get along as I'm usually marching with my union in the Labour Day celebrations. But in our multi-faith society I can't why there shouldn't be a public holiday for Vesak so that Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike can share in the day. And the same applies for other faiths too, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, indigenous religions etc. A secular and multi-faith society provides the opportunity for mutual enrichment, whether one's a believer or not. The secular state itself offers nothing for us to address the substantial questions of life and nor should it try to. All it can do is provide us the spaces, temporal, spatial etc, whereby we can share with each other and learn from each other and our respective traditions, in mutual respect, gratitude, and fun too. After all these are holidays.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>AFTERWORD:</b> Given all the disruptions in the writing of this post, which stretched out the timeframe for composing it, I suspect that I got clear away from where I thought was heading when I began early this month. However I intend to return to some of these themes through the course of this year.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-85793420035706839362010-12-31T20:45:00.003+10:002010-12-31T21:55:05.519+10:00Farewell 2010<div align="justify">So it's the last hours of the year and I've been having a quiet day and a quiet night as well. New Year's Eve is quite hyped, I think, these days and I have largely lost interest in the frantic celebrations and extravagant displays. It's almost like a Neitzschean eternal return, these maxed out secular festivities. And already I can hear fireworks in the distance and parties all around.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">This time last year I was housesittting, too, but at a different place (right now I'm at Wavell Hts) and it was likewise a night on my own. I was surveying the rubble of a ruptured friendship, a friendship so important to me, and reconciling myself to all manner of lost hopes and dreams, well trying to reconcile myself. Just about everything seemed shut down around me, but there was still one possibility that I had decided to embrace, a union job that seemed to be opening before me. Of course, it turned out to be a false path but I wasn't to know it then.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">A year later the ruptured friendship is reconciled but he is leaving Brisbane in January for who knows how long, so with reconciliation comes separation. As for anything else, I look at next year and there's nothing. I have no job prospects, no career plans, nothing. Any hopes I had in that regard have long since evaporated. They were largely rubble this time last year anyway. Now, too, I have no institutional affiliation either. I'm an independent scholar - which is not a bad place to be actually.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">I look back over the past year, a year marked by grief, depression, the pit. To my surprise, though, the main feeling I have is how extraordinarily blessed I've been. Here at Wavell Hts, I'm looking after two cats and a dog and today with the rain finally gone and the sun shining, I thought I'd take the dog for a walk. I hadn't walked a dog in years. It felt really good and she is a lovely dog too. But as we were walking in the park, I was struck by just how lucky or fortunate I was, how blessed I was. When I looked back over the year, I kept thinking how much worse things could have been. If I had to descend into the deep pit of depression, then I was put in the best possible place to do so. At the same time while I had no paid work, I was still engaged in community events particularly relating to the <a href="http://www.museumofbrisbane.com.au/museum-of-brisbane-wins-award.html">Museum of Brisbane's LGBT History exhibition</a>. I am quite astonished by the things I did in 2010. I don't know how I did any of that because I remember all too well just how I was feeling, just how paralysed with doubt and anxious I was. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">And so I regard 2010 as an especially blessed year and I am grateful for the blessings I received. I don't know why I received them, I certainly don't feel worthy of it, but they were given to me and I feel quite humbled by it. I'm looking at 2011 with trust; that's all I can do. Whoever, whatever has been watching over me these last few years has brought me through so far. I look forward almost eagerly to what you'll bring me next year. I suspect there will be more struggles and there is the pain of separation. But separation is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be a way of building and strengthening friendship. Certainly that's what I hope and pray will happen and what I commit myself to. As for what else is in store for me, I guess I can expect plenty of surprises. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">And so for you too, dear reader, I hope you can see the blessings that came your way in 2010 and I hope many more will come to you, and I, in 2011. May you be richly blessed in this comng year.</div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-90470597120119943522010-12-30T14:49:00.002+10:002010-12-31T16:40:00.089+10:00More on the BBC's Nativity<div align="justify">Last month I <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/11/foucault-and-virgin-mary.html">wrote about the BBC's new 4 part dramatisation of the Nativity story</a> in which they portray Mary and Joseph as a kind of couple found in contemporary romantic fiction. I pointed out how this modern notion of Mary and Joseph's <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/04_april/30/nativity.shtml">"enduring love story"</a> was in striking contrast to the ancient sources, canonical and non-canonical, from which we draw the story in the first place. For ancient and medieval Christians and for the sources themselves, there's no love story at all, not least because marriage was not about love. For one of those sources, the <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vii.iv.html">Protoevangelion of James</a>, not only is there no love story but there's not even a betrothal - the adolescent Mary is initially more of a ward of a very much older Joseph's care and protection. Marriage is more an afterthought, resulting from Mary's pregnancy.<br /><br />The Protoevangelion also attempts to show the danger pregnancy might hold for the young Mary and, surprisingly, for the elder Joseph too. It seems the BBC drama attempted the same thing, causing a bit of a kerfuffle as a result. Matthew is the one canonical source that alerts us to the fact that being unexpectedly pregnant when betrothed might be the cause of a problem by telling us that when Joseph learnt of her condition, he decided to "dismiss her quietly" rather than "expose her to public disgrace" (Matt 1.19). The BBC's Nativity wasn't content with that. Instead, according to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/23/bbc-nativity-drama-anti-jewish">this report </a>in the Guardian<br /><br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify">It shows the mother of Jesus trying to flee a hostile Bethlehem crowd and a<br />rabbi refusing her the haven of his synagogue, letting her escape through a back<br />door instead.</p></blockquote><div align="justify">Unsurprisingly, the former Chair of the Reform Judaism Assembly of Rabbis, Jonathan Romain, who also sits on BBC advisory panel on matters religious, has come out and criticised Nativity for turning the Nativity story into an exercise in bashing Judaism.<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify">"The Gospels tell us there was no room at the inn, not that a rabbi kicked Mary<br />out of a synagogue," he said. "Having survived Mel Gibson's anti-Jewish Easter<br />onslaught The Passion now the season of goodwill has been spoiled."</p></blockquote><div align="justify">I can understand Romain's concern and I'm also rather puzzled by this too. I assume the makers of Nativity want to bring home to a modern audience the cost that pregnancy might mean for an unmarried woman. But honestly a mob chasing Mary through the streets of her town? It sounds too melodramatic, over the top, for my taste. Pregnancy for a single woman in ancient a Palestine would no doubt have been a horrible disgrace. Her life could well have been at risk, not only from the pregnancy itself, but also from honour killing within the family. Honour killings happen now in parts of the Middle East, including Palestine; I don't believe they're an invention of Islam. If not honour killing she may also have faced rejection by her family and thrown out alone into the world. Even if she wasn't rejected by her family, her suitability for marriage was now finished. She might end up as a drudge in the family home, instead - and encumbered by a child. That is, of course, assuming the entire population of Judea or Galilee or wherever it was Mary came from shared such ultra-negative attitudes to pregnancy outside of wedlock. But again we can't be certain. I suspect that the ancient population we term Jewish, may well have been more diverse in its attitudes and beliefs than we imagine. Nevertheless, female virginity has always been highly rated in marriage economies and I think it a safe bet that most inhabitants of Judea and Galilee and even Samaria had that much in common. But a mob chasing a pregnant 14 year old through the streets, I don't think so. I suspect the programme's makers have as an intertext the story of the woman taken in adultery. But adultery is a different matter - it's a crime against the husband's ownership of his wife's womb and sexuality. The gospel passage doesn't say but the woman would have been a wife caught or accused of being with another man. Mary was not a wife, yet. <p></p><blockquote></blockquote><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">I also have a problem with the portrayal of the rabbi, who I beleive is also wearing a prayer shawl. Now I haven't seen Nativity but it sounds as if the rabbi is in relationship to the local synagogue as rabbis are today, at least in most Jewish denominations, and as most Christian clergy are to their local churches. In other words, here we have Bethlehem's parish rabbi. Now 200o years ago I'm not certain that rabbis and synagogues went together like horses and carriages. We get references to presidents of synagogues in the Roman world, but they're not necessarily rabbis, sometimes they were even women! Judaism was extraordinarily diverse back then and the Temple was also still in existence (<a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-jewish-temple-in-ancient-egypt.html">plus a subsidiary Temple down the road in Leontopolis Egyp</a>t). Bethlehem is a stone's throw from Jerusalem and it's not surprising that, in the ancient accounts of the Nativity, synagogues don't get a mention but the Temple features quite strongly. There were Temple lands adjacent to Bethlehem where Temple flocks were grazed, most of which would end up as sacrifices. In Judea especially, priests were equally important religous functionaries, maybe more important than rabbis. Was there a synagogue in Bethlehem and if so would it have had a resident rabbi or any sort of rabbi for that matter? Rabbinic Judaism was just one thread in the ancient Jewish tapestry; it would take two or three wars against Rome and the destruction of the Temple and its cult to allow Rabbinic Judaism to become the norm for most Jews, and even then not without struggle and resistance. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">I'm struck by the fact that Nativity has to resort to such melodramatic tropes to try and bring this story alive, especially given the richness of the primary narratives. Is it no longer possible to imagine worlds where marriage and love don't automatically go together? Is it no longer possible to imagine shame, disgrace and danger, unless there is mob violence involved? Or does the spectre of mob violence draw on, even invoke, a mixture of progressivist prejudices against the past mixed up with contemporary Western (neo-colonial?) prejudices against perceived hidebound and backward (Jewish and Islamic) alien cultures? After all, it's not that long ago, in my lifetime, when being pregnant and unmarried was considered a serious disgrace in our own English speaking and Western cultures too. And in many parts of the Anglosphere it might even still be.</div><br /><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-1051689448618632172010-12-28T12:18:00.006+10:002010-12-28T13:20:39.918+10:00Power, Flight and Refuge - the feast of the Holy Innocents<div align="justify">Today is the fourth day of Christmas, the Feast of the Holy Innocents. The day commemorates the infants of Bethlehem which according to Matthew's Gospel were murdered by King Herod in a desperate attempt to kill the Christ child. Herod had been alerted of his birth by the arrival of the Magi who had come wanting to pay homage to the newborn king of the Jews. Herod arranges with the Magi that when they find the child they would return to him and tell him its whereabouts so that he could go and pay homage too. Of course Herod really wants to kill the child. The Magi are subsequently warned by angels mot to return to Herod but to leave Judea and return to their homeland. Herod realises what has happened and orders the killing of all boy children in Bethlehem 2 years old and under. Joseph is warned in a dream to flee and he and Mary take flight with the infant Jesus and escape into Egypt while the massacre is carried out.<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify">2.13 Now when they (<em>the Magi</em>) had departed, behold, an angel of the<br />Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his<br />mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about<br />to search for the child, to destroy him."<br />2.14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, 2.15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." </p><p align="justify">2.16 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men<br />2.17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:<br />2.18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation,<br />Rachel weeping for her children;<br />she refused to be consoled,<br />because they were no more."<br /></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br /><br />Matthew's account is short, sparse, six verses. There is a longer and quite dramatic account in the Protoevangelium of James. Here, it's the infant John the Baptist who becomes the focus of Herod's attention, presumably because he has heard of the prodigies surrounding the birth. While the infant boys of Bethlehem are massacred, Elizabeth flees with her infant son and finds miraculous refuge in the mountains. Herod then turns on her husband, Zechariah, who is murdered in the Temple by the soldiers.<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify">21. And, behold, Joseph was ready to go into Judæa. And there was a great<br />commotion in Bethlehem of Judæa, for Magi came, saying: Where is he that is born<br />king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and have come to<br />worship him. And when Herod heard, he was much disturbed, and sent officers to<br />the Magi. And he sent for the priests, and examined them, saying: How is it<br />written about the Christ? Where is He to be born? And they said: In Bethlehem of<br />Judæa, for so it is written. And he sent them away. And he examined the Magi,<br />saying to them: What sign have you seen in reference to the king that has been<br />born? And the Magi said: We have seen a star of great size shining among these<br />stars, and obscuring their light, so that the stars did not appear; and we thus<br />knew that a king has been born to Israel, and we have come to worship him. And<br />Herod said: Go and seek him; and if you find him, let me know, in order that I<br />also may go and worship him. And the Magi went out. And, behold, the star which<br />they had seen in the east went before them until they came to the cave, and it<br />stood over the top of the cave. And the Magi saw the infant with His mother<br />Mary; and they brought forth from their bag gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.<br />And having been warned by the angel not to go into Judæa, they went into their<br />own country by another road. </p><p align="justify">22. And when Herod knew that he had been mocked by the Magi, in a rage he sent murderers, saying to them: Slay the children from two years old and under. And Mary, having heard that the children were being killed, was afraid, and took the infant and swaddled Him, and put Him into an ox-stall. And Elizabeth, having heard that they were searching for John, took him and went up into the hill-country, and kept looking where to conceal him. And there was no place of concealment. And Elizabeth, groaning with a loud voice, says: O mountain of God, receive mother and child. And immediately the mountain was cleft, and received her. And a light shone about them, for an angel of the Lord was with them, watching over them.<br /><br />23. And Herod searched for John, and sent officers to Zacharias, saying: Where have you hid your son? And he, answering, said to them: I am the servant of God in holy things, and I sit constantly in the temple of the Lord: I do not know where my son is. And the officers went away, and reported all these things to Herod. And Herod was<br />enraged, and said: His son is destined to be king over Israel. And he sent to<br />him again, saying: Tell the truth; where is your son? For you know that your<br />life is in my hand. And Zacharias said: I am God's martyr, if you shed my blood;<br />for the Lord will receive my spirit, because you shed innocent blood at the<br />vestibule of the temple of the Lord. And Zacharias was murdered about daybreak.<br />And the sons of Israel did not know that he had been murdered.<br /><br />24. But at the hour of the salutation the priests went away, and Zacharias did not come forth to meet them with a blessing, according to his custom. And the priests<br />stood waiting for Zacharias to salute him at the prayer, and to glorify the Most<br />High. And he still delaying, they were all afraid. But one of them ventured to<br />go in, and he saw clotted blood beside the altar; and he heard a voice saying:<br />Zacharias has been murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped up until his<br />avenger come. And hearing this saying, he was afraid, and went out and told it<br />to the priests. And they ventured in, and saw what had happened; and the<br />fretwork of the temple made a wailing noise, and they rent their clothes from<br />the top even to the bottom. And they found not his body, but they found his<br />blood turned into stone. And they were afraid, and went out and reported to the<br />people that Zacharias had been murdered. And all the tribes of the people heard,<br />and mourned, and lamented for him three days and three nights.<br /></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><br /><br />This account omits the flight into Egypt. Why? Who can say? Did Herod carry out a massacre of children? We don't know. It's only related in Matthew and other Christian texts. It would certainly be in character and that in the end is the only judgement that can be made. History must here defer to story and it's the story or stories that are most important here not some fundamentalist attempt to step through the text into ancient Palestine. And so for this day I put the two texts, the two oldest accounts of this narrative of ruthless power and terror, side by side. I do so as a reminder that the Christmas story is not one merely about bourgeois niceties and warm feelings but also contains within it horror and dread, fear and flight. These are stories that still have resonance in our world; they describe events that are taking place all the time in our world. Power, arrogance and cruelty and fear and flight and refuge. The need for refuge has particular significance here in Australia given the shameless and cruel demonisation and victimisation of asylum seekers fleeing to this land. I was heartened at Christmas Mass to hear a sermon about the rights of asylum seekers and not the usual vacuous or <a href="http://www.gympietimes.com.au/story/2010/12/28/anti-gay-marriage-message-offends-lobby-mass-cathl/">worse</a>. And so to finish this post I'll point you to <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/asylum-seekers-risk-boats-because-it-is-the-only-option-20101226-197va.html">Abdul Karim Hekmat's account</a> of his voyage seeking asylum here in this country and why. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">If you celebrate Christmas then the only response to those seeking refuge is welcome.</div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-31769828271430063732010-12-27T20:25:00.014+10:002010-12-27T23:14:17.860+10:00The Biblical Illiteracy of Biblical Scholars<div align="justify">Today is the feast of St John the Apostle and Evangelist who has been identified in very ancient tradition as the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel that bears his name (basically on the strength of him being the Beloved Disciple) and I was tempted to write something on same-sex love and the relationship of Jesus and John/the Beloved Disciple. However I've been distracted by my reading.<br /><br />I'm currently reading/reviewing a couple of books and today I've just finished reading one of them, <em><a href="http://us.macmillan.com/subvertingscriptures">Subverting Scriptures: Critical Reflections on the Use of the Bible</a></em>. I'm still gathering my thoughts about it; suffice to say I enjoyed much of it and was put off by it in almost equal terms, not least because it is in many ways an imperialist, US imperialist, exercise. So many of the essays seem to have as their underpinning concern - there are people out there who don't subscribe to our bourgeois liberal order of reality; they are using religion and 'The Bible' or Scripture as the ideological base for their rejection of our nice liberal order; even worse, a substantial number of them live in these here United States. This last point I think is the main concern; Islamic terrorism and even ultra-Zionist settler terrorism in Israel (on the last point with the exception of the Jewish contributors) are of course foreign, outside, not us, and so not so surprising for its rejection rather than the extraordinary violent impact of that rejection. No what is most unnerving is the spectre of US fundamentalism, the apparent refusal of so many of 'us' to subscribe to the tenets of the liberal order. As both a gay man and a Catholic (not to mention a 'foreigner', outside the US) I find that US fundamentalism quite disturbing and both threatening, as someone both non-USan and gay, and thoroughly twisted and blasphemous, as a Catholic person. But perhaps the apparent 'liberality' of the order was really a mask to hide its ruthlessness and violence. After all, the liberal order is one based on a ruthless class and race based oppression at home and abroad. It is a violent and murderous order for all its pretence at reason and liberality.<br /><br />But that's not what I want to write about tonight. Rather, I come back to the old question of canon and how astonished I am that scholars these days really are ignorant of the history of the anthologies we call Bible/s. In most of the essays 'the Bible' is accepted as a given without even the recognition that Bibles are multiple and various. Unsurprisingly, it's the Jewish authors who will acknowledge that plurality, but, perhaps unsurprisingly too, they can only see the plurality in terms of two (sometimes three, if the Qur'an is included). That was most strikingly exemplified in the final essay of the anthology, Subversion as Return, by Shaul Magid.<br /><br />Magid is mostly writing for Jewish concerns and as part of his argument he wants to demontrate the constructedness of Biblical canons. So his essay first sets out to sketch a 'brief genealogy of what we today call the Bible' (218). He gives a relatively adequate account of the making of the Jewish canon (although there are parts of it I would dispute) before turning to the Bible in Christianity. Christian Bible-making reinforces his argument by showing analogous processes in Christianity and Judaism which produced their various Bibles. Magid makes his entry point into Christian scripture by highlighting the difference between the Hebrew Bible of Judaism and the Old Testament of Christians. The Hebrew Bible ends with Second Chronicles, which closes with King Cyrus issuing his decree to allow the return of Jews to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple there. As the final text of the Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles is placed after Ezra-Nehemiah which recount the return of exiles to Jerusalem and the work of rebuilding the Temple and the city walls. Magid then contrasts the Hebrew Bible ending with the ending of the Old Testament. He wants to highlight the contrast "the rabbinic and <em>early</em> Christian view of history and, by extension, the rabbinic and <em>early</em> Christian view about divine will" (219). He continues "The Christian canonizers had something quite different in mind when they concluded the Hebrew Bible, their "Old Testament," with the prophetic words of the prophet Malachi..." (220).<br /><br />The problem here is that the 'early' Christian canonizers didn't end their Old Testament with Malachi. If they ended their Old Testament with one of the prophets it was Daniel (not counted as a prophet in the Jewish Hebrew Bible). That's the final Old Testament book in my Eastern Orthodox Study Bible. That's also how one of the oldest Christian Bibles, Codex Vaticanus, ends it's Old Testament. And presumably that's how the other ancient Christian Bible, Codex Sinaiticus, ends its prophetic component of the Old Testament, including Malachi in the Book of the Twelve as the first prophetic book (Sinaiticus is incomplete - the Twelve, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations survive intact but Ezekiel and Daniel are missing). However Sinaiticus follows the prophetic corpus with the four Books of Maccabees, ending its Old Testament with 4 Maccabees. The other ancient Christian Bible, Codex Alexandrinus, ends its Old Testament with Sirach, placing the prophets plus the four books of Maccabees in the middle of its Old Testament.<br /><br />It's also important to note that these ancient bibles did not use the Hebrew Bible for their Old Testament but the Greek Bible referred to as the Septuagint. Over in the West, Jerome tried to revise the Latin Bible by basing it on the Hebrew Bible but he was unsuccessful being resisted by none other than Augustine. The result was that the Latin Vulgate Old Testament of the West was a kind of hybrid of both Hebrew and Greek Bibles. Augustine certainly closed his Old Testament with the prophets but for him it seems that Ezekiel went last (<em>De doctrina christiana</em> 2.13). Augustine understood the order of the prophets as The Twelve, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezekiel.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the Latin Bible came to order its prophetic corpus as we in the West are familiar with today - Isaiah, Jeremiah & Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea-Malachi (or the Twelve). However, the prophets were followed by 1 and 2 Maccabees. This was the ordering in the 15th century <a href="http://molcat1.bl.uk/treasures/gutenberg/search.asp">Gutenberg Bible</a> and remains the order in Roman Catholic bibles to this day.<br /><br />The Old Testament order that Magid refers to only came into existence with the Reformation; it is the standard Protestant Old Testament but I'm wondering if the intent was to end with Malachi or whether it was the accidental result of the removal of the 2 books of Maccabees and other texts (such as Baruch) and their relegation to the so-called Apocrypha (they aren't apocryphal for Roman Catholics and Orthodox). So Magid has actually confused the Protestant Old Testament and its canonizers with the various Old Testaments of early Christianity and the canonical processes of their day. Protestantism is the dominant religious form in the US and indeed one could even say that the US is a grand Protestant, even Calvinist, experiment. Magid's understanding of Christianity and Christian Bible making processes has been heavily refracted through that Protestant lens, despite the fact that Magid is himself a Jew. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">Magid's error is all the more striking because he actually set out to relate a biblical genealogy to highlight the constructedness and diversity of biblical canons. And is that one of the key problems of this book, that it doesn't really address the key assumptions and ideological constructs underpinning US society and that frame the entire culture wars scenario that so many of the contributors are attempting to remedy, or even worse, 'manage'.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-16689679849507030752010-12-17T20:39:00.083+10:002023-12-23T13:15:12.304+10:00A Selection of Lessons and Carols for the Nativity<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;">Below is my offering for Christmas. Rather than writing something I thought I would compose something with text and music. You can regard it as an online installation or as a liturgy. My inspiration comes in part from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Lessons_and_Carols">Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols for Christmas</a>, most famously performed every year at Kings College Cambridge. But I found 9 was not enough for me and so I've expanded the lessons to 12, and some of them having multiple 'voices', a practice I've noticed in the Roman rite Easter Vigil Liturgy especially. I also drew on the practice of the old Tridentine rite, to incorporate what was called a Sequence. I have used that for a text from Qumran, one I think quite an important background text for Christian origins. I've also incorporated a series of Graduals, which serve as both a bridging text to the following carols and the next reading as well as a kind of commentary on the text just read.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In constructing this post I have deployed the good old liturgical principle of juxtaposition - texts, music and lyrics all interact with each other to weave a broad effect. No text speaks on its own but contributes to an overall gestalt. I suspect many biblical and para-biblical texts had their origins in just this way. They are composite texts, just as liturgies are composite texts, and other performance pieces like Handel's Messiah. I can't help but think that Isaiah, for example, should be read as a libretto rather than a book. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I had a number of key goals with the weaving of this piece. The first was to represent some of the rich cultural diversity of Christianity. So there is music from the Middle East, Ethiopia. Greece, Russia, and Eastern Europe as well as from Western Europe and North America. I have also tried to give a sense of the Hebraic traditions from which Christianity sprang. There is a popular fiction that Christianity went feral and pagan very early on, dumping its Jewish heritage, hence its popularity and spread in the broader Gentile world. I question that notion. Christianity was born from and retained its Hebraic traditions. Jesus might or might not have been the first Jewish Messiah but he was by no means the last and in so many subsequent Messianic upwellings in Judaism, the same clustering of themes, re grace and law, freedom and transgression, incarnation and deification, sacrifice and redemption, death and resurrection, ritual and sacrament, recur albeit with different emphases. These themes form a dangerous undercurrent within, or below, normative Judaism and are especially associated with Jewish mystical traditions such as Kabbalah. The Hebraic tradition itself represents an exercise of recasting and transforming the older and contemporary 'pagan' milieux from which it itself derived. The Hebrew tradition reconfigured 'paganism' and Christianity brought the fruits of that endeavour to the broader Gentile world/s.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Finally I have tried to make the Christmas story look strange, which is how it should look in my opinion. And so I have drawn on texts that are unfamiliar or not normally used in (Western) Christmas settings. In this I have probably failed, but that's okay :-) - it's a big challenge I set myself. And I should also add that an astute reader should pick up some moments of queer slippage too. Christianity is probably the queerest of all religions, hence the virulent homophobia with which it is all too sadly connected. I regard it too as probably the most dangerously audacious vision of life and our world ever conceived by humans. If it is not true then life probably isn't really worth living in any meaningful way. In my opinion the closest alternative is one sprung from the womb of Christianity itself, Communism (in which I include anarcho-communism and syndicalism). In fact the greatest tragedy of our current world is probably the recurring failure, dare one say betrayal, of both Christianity and Communism by the respective leaderships over the generations.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">And so I leave you to read and enjoy. You can do it all in one sitting or come back periodically. If you have limited download capacity then you might not be able to watch all or any of the clips. In that case I have also embedded links to the lyrics and other information wherever possible. So skip the music and follow the link. Except where otherwise indicated all biblical passages are from the RSV. No special reason, just the first online Bible site I found (and one restricted to the standard Protestant canon) was one which gave limited options, of which I thought the RSV the best. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Finally, finally, in light of the recent tragedy at Christmas Island, I would like to remind you that Jesus began his life as a refugee in flight from the cruelties of power at least according to the stories we have and I have tried to acknowledge that too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">And so read on...</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>A FESTIVAL OF LESSONS AND CAROLS FOR THE NATIVITY OF THE LORD</b></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Gaudete, performed by Steeleye Span - Latin text and English translation <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudete">here</a></i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EDc2FD-vy8M" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Introit: </b>Psalm 110</div><div><br />
</div><div><sup></sup></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your foes! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>7</sup> He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.</div></blockquote><div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xbdPKLHIm0I" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson One - Selections from Genesis in Four Voices</b></div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b></b></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice One:</b> Genesis 2.4-8</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no <i>adam</i> to till the ground; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-- </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>7</sup> then the LORD God formed <i>the adam</i> of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and <i>the adam</i> became a living being. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>8</sup> And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put <i>the adam</i> whom he had formed. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 2:</b> Genesis 4.1</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 3:</b> Genesis 19.30-38 </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>30</sup> Now Lot went up out of Zo'ar, and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwell in Zo'ar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>31</sup> And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>32</sup> Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>33</sup> So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>34</sup> And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>35</sup> So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>36</sup> Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>37</sup> The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>38</sup> The younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 4:</b> Genesis 21.1-6</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> The LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did to Sarah as he had promised. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> And Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age at the time of which God had spoken to him. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore him, Isaac. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> And Sarah said, "God has made laughter for me; every one who hears will laugh over me."</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><b>Gradual:</b> Psalm 2.7-10</div><div><sup></sup></div><blockquote><div><sup>7</sup> I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you. </div><div><sup>8</sup> Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. </div><div><sup>9</sup> You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." </div><div><sup>10</sup>Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth</div></blockquote><div></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_all_mortal_flesh_keep_silence">Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence</a></i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GZIGjfCA5YQ" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Niño Dios D'amor Herido (Francisco Guerrero) - The title translates roughly Christ-Child Wounded by Love</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1MUF-MT5wyQ" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson Two - Selections from Ruth in Two Voices</b></div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice One:</b> Ruth 1.7-18</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>7</sup> So she set out from the place where she was, with her two daughters-in-law, and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>8</sup> But Na'omi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go, return each of you to her mother's house. May the LORD deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>9</sup> The LORD grant that you may find a home, each of you in the house of her husband!" Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voices and wept. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>10</sup> And they said to her, "No, we will return with you to your people." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>11</sup> But Na'omi said, "Turn back, my daughters, why will you go with me? Have I yet sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>12</sup> Turn back, my daughters, go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, even if I should have a husband this night and should bear sons, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>13</sup> would you therefore wait till they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake that the hand of the LORD has gone forth against me." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>14</sup> Then they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>15</sup> And she said, "See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>16</sup> But Ruth said, "Entreat me not to leave you or to return from following you; for where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>17</sup> where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if even death parts me from you." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>18</sup> And when Na'omi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 2:</b> Ruth 4.13-17</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>13</sup> So Bo'az took Ruth and she became his wife; and he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>14</sup> Then the women said to Na'omi, "Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without next of kin; and may his name be renowned in Israel! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>15</sup> He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>16</sup> Then Na'omi took the child and laid him in her bosom, and became his nurse. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>17</sup> And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, "A son has been born to Na'omi." They named him Obed; he was the father of Jesse, the father of David.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Gradual:</b> Isaiah 9.2-6</div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup></sup></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased its joy; they rejoice before thee as with joy at the harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, thou hast broken as on the day of Mid'ian. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(The ancient Greek Septuagint version renders the final part of this verse "and he is named Messenger (Angel) of Great Counsel for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to him.")</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><i><a href="http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/whence_comes_this_rush_of_wings.htm">Whence Comes This Rush of Wings</a> (A Carol of the Birds)</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/R-UdoVmVcl4" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="640"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Ethiopian Orthodox Hymn - The Saviour of the World is Born Today</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/br20Duen5tw" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div>(If you like Ethiopian Orthodox Christmas music, there's another great clip <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu83TJAjfoI">here</a>)</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson 3: Selections from Genesis in Four Voices</b></div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b></b></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 1:</b> Genesis 3.1-21</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>7</sup> Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>8</sup>And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>9</sup> But the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>10</sup> And he said, "I heard the sound of thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>11</sup> He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>12</sup> The man said, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>13</sup> Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent beguiled me, and I ate." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>14</sup> The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>15</sup> I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>16</sup> To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>17</sup> And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>18</sup> thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>19</sup> In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>20</sup> The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>21</sup> And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 2:</b> Genesis 6.1-6</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 3:</b> Genesis 18.17-21</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>17</sup> The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>18</sup> seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by him? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>19</sup> No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>20</sup> Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomor'rah is great and their sin is very grave, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>21</sup> I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 4:</b> 22.1-10</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>7</sup> And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>8</sup>Abraham said, "God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>9</sup> When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>10</sup> Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Gradual:</b> Wisdom of Solomon 11.22-26 (<a href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvSolo.html">King James Version</a>)</div><div><br />
</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i></i></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>22:</i> For the whole world before thee is as a little grain of the balance, yea, as a drop of the morning dew that falleth down upon the earth.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>23:</i> But thou hast mercy upon all; for thou canst do all things, and winkest at the sins of men, because they should amend. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>24:</i> For thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which thou hast made: for never wouldest thou have made any thing, if thou hadst hated it. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>25:</i>And how could any thing have endured, if it had not been thy will? or been preserved, if not called by thee? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>26:</i>But thou sparest all: for they are thine, O Lord, thou lover of souls</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div><br />
</div><div><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Magnum_Mysterium">O Magnum Mysterium</a></i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BgsJDJ1IvMk" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>O Magnum Mysterium (setting by Giovanni Gabrieli)</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dap9Gsk3_uE" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson 4: Selections from Isaiah in Two Voices</b></div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b></b></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 1:</b> Isaiah 7.10-14 from <a href="http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm">Qumran Great Isaiah Scroll</a> <a href="http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-6.htm">Column VI</a> <a href="http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm#c6">Lines 25-29</a></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">25. (10) [{And continuing YHW}]H spoke to Ahaz saying, (11) Ask for yourself a sign from YHWH your God</div><div style="text-align: justify;">26. [{from the deep ask}] it or from the height above. (12) And Ahaz said I will nor ask and I will not </div>27. [{tempt}] YHWH. (13) And He said, Hear now Oh House of David, is it a small thing for you<br />
28. [{to wear}]y men, will you also weary God, (14) therefore [+YHWH+] [m..adonay] himself will give to you [{a sign}]<br />
29.[{Behold}] the virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and he shall call his name Immanuel. (15) Butter [{and honey}]<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 2:</b> Isaiah 35.1-6 from <a href="http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm">Qumran Great Isaiah Scroll</a> <a href="http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-28.htm">Column XXVIII</a> <a href="http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm#c28">Lines 19-24</a></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">19. from generation to generation they shall dwell in it. <b>(chapter 35:1.)</b> The wilderness and the desert will rejoice for them and the plain shall be glad and blossom like the rose (2) And it shall blossom profusely, and rejoice even with joy and singing the glory of Lebanon</div><div style="text-align: justify;">20. is given to her, the majesty of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of YHWH. the [..majesty..] of our God. (PP)</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">21. (3) Make strong the weak hands, and firm up the tottering knees. (4) Say to the hasty of heart be strong and do not be afraid behold</div><div style="text-align: justify;">22. your God comes with vengeance, with recommence God himself comes and He will save you. (5) Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">23. and the ears of the deaf shall be opened., (6) Then the lame shall leap like a deer and the tongue of the dumb shall sing, because of the breaking out in the wilderness</div><div style="text-align: justify;">24. of water and streams in abundance [m..the plain] [+shall go out+].</div></div></div></blockquote><div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Gradual: </b>Psalm 118.24-29</div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup></sup></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>24</sup> This is the day which the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>25</sup>Save us, we beseech thee, O LORD! O LORD, we beseech thee, give us success! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>26</sup> Blessed be he who enters in the name of the LORD! We bless you from the house of the LORD. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>27</sup> The LORD is God, and he has given us light. Bind the festal procession with branches, up to the horns of the altar! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>28</sup> Thou art my God, and I will give thanks to thee; thou art my God, I will extol thee. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>29</sup> O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures for ever!</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Dulci_Jubilo">In Dulci Jubilo</a></i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/529YArIGLFI" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Angeli v Nebi/Angels in Heaven, Russian kolyadka/carol sung by the Novokuznetsk Spiritual Seminary Choir</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/u5zkDKryDHk" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson 5: Proverbs 8.22-31</b></div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup></sup></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>22</sup> The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>23</sup> Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>24</sup> When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>25</sup> Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>26</sup> before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>27</sup> When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>28</sup> when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>29</sup> when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>30</sup> then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>31</sup> rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Gradual:</b> Isaiah 40.1-5</div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup></sup></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><i>And the Glory of the Lord (Handel)</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><i>What else? But this time in Korean sung by the Chai Hoon Cha Choir, Seoul</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_YA4vOz5dTw" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Czech Carol: Narodil se Kristus Pán/The Lord Christ was Born - Czech lyrics on YouTube page <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcCo6nGHGM4">here </a>and if your browser is Google Chrome it will roughly translate them for you too</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zcCo6nGHGM4" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson 6: Selections from <a href="http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/book-of-enoch/">1 Enoch</a> in Three Voices</b></div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b></b></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 1:</b> 42.1-3</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1 Wisdom found no place where she might dwell; Then a dwelling-place was assigned her in the heavens.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2 Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men, And found no dwelling-place:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Wisdom returned to her place, And took her seat among the angels.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3 And unrighteousness went forth from her chambers: Whom she sought not she found, And dwelt with them,</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As rain in a desert And dew on a thirsty land.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 2:</b> 46.1-3</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1 And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">2 And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days And he answered and said unto me: This is the son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness, And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden,</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Voice 3:</b> 48.1-6</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. </div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">4 He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, And he shall be the light of the Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">5 All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">6 And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for evermore.</div></div></blockquote><div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Gradual: </b>Zechariah 9.9-10</div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup></sup></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>9</sup> Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>10</sup> I will cut off the chariot from E'phraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_come,_O_come,_Emmanuel">Veni, Veni Emmanuel</a>/O Come, O Come, Emmanuel - English lyrics <a href="http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/o_come_o_come_emmanuel-1.htm">here</a> </i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xRi1GDoaQu4" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Medieval Christmas Music in Prague played by <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.dubiafortuna.cz">Dubia Fortuna</a></i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hgdPjwa8QnE" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Sequence: <a href="http://www.gnosis.org/library/commelc.htm">11Q13</a> - The Coming of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek">Melchizedek</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek#Dead_Sea_Scroll_11Q13">Qumran text</a></b></div><div><br />
</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">(...) And concerning what Scripture says, "<i>In this year of Jubilee you shall return, everyone f you, to your property"</i> (<b>Lev. 25;13</b>) And what is also written; "<i>And this is the manner of the remission; every creditor shall remit the claim that is held against a neighbor, not exacting it of a neighbor who is a member of the community, because God's remission has been proclaimed"</i> (<b>Deut.15;2</b>) the interpretation is that it applies to the Last Days and concerns the captives, just as Isaiah said: "<i>To proclaim the Jubilee to the captives" (</i><b>Isa. 61;1</b>) (...) just as (...) and from the inheritance of Melchizedek, for (... Melchizedek) , who will return them to what is rightfully theirs. He will proclaim to them the Jubilee, thereby releasing them from the debt of all their sins. He shall proclaim this decree in the first week of the jubilee period that follows nine jubilee periods.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Then the "<i>Day of Atonement"</i> shall follow after the tenth jubilee period, when he shall atone for all the Sons of Light, and the people who are predestined to Melchizedek. (...) upon them (...) For this is the time decreed for the "<i>Year of Melchizedek`s favor"</i>, and by his might he will judge God's holy ones and so establish a righteous kingdom, as it is written about him in the Songs of David ; "<i>A godlike being has taken his place in the council of God; in the midst of divine beings he holds judgement"</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(<b>Ps. 82;1</b>). Scripture also says about him ; "<i>Over it take your seat in the highest heaven; A divine being will judge the peoples"</i> (<b>Ps. 7;7-8</b>) Concerning what scripture says; "<i>How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality with the wicked? Selah"</i> (<b>Ps. 82;2</b>) ,the interpretation applies to Belial and the spirits predestined to him, because all of them have rebelled, turning from God's precepts and so becoming utterly wicked. Therefore Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the vengeance required by God's statutes. Also, he will deliver all the captives from the power of Belial, and from the power of all the spirits destined to him. Allied with him will be all the "<i>righteous divine beings</i>"<i>(</i><b>Isa. 61;3</b>).</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(The ...) is that whi(ch ...all) the divine beings. The visitation is the Day of Salvation that He has decreed through Isaiah the prophet concerning all the captives, inasmuch as Scripture says, "<i>How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion "Your divine being reigns"."</i> (<b>Isa. 52;7</b>) This scriptures interpretation : "<i>the mountains"</i> are the prophets, they who were sent to proclaim God's truth and to prophesy to all Israel. "<i>The messengers"</i> is the Anointed of the spirit, of whom Daniel spoke; "<i>After the sixty-two weeks, an Anointed shall be cut off"</i> <i>(</i><b>Dan. 9;26</b>) The "<i>messenger who brings good news, who announces Salvation" </i>is the one of whom it is written; "<i>to proclaim the year of the LORD`s favor, the day of the vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn" </i>(<b>Isa. 61;2</b>)</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This scripture's interpretation: he is to instruct them about all the periods of history for eternity (... and in the statutes) of the truth. (...) (.... dominion) that passes from Belial and returns to the Sons of Light (....) (...) by the judgment of God, just as t is written concerning him; "<i>who says to Zion "Your divine being reigns" </i>(<b>Isa. 52;7</b>) "<i>Zion"</i> is the congregation of all the sons of righteousness, who uphold the covenant and turn from walking in the way of the people. "<i>Your divine being" </i> is Melchizedek, who will deliver them from the power of Belial. Concerning what scripture says, "<i>Then you shall have the trumpet sounded loud; in the seventh month . . . " </i>(<b>Lev. 25;9</b>)</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div><b><br />
</b></div><div><b>Gradual:</b> <a href="http://jewishchristianlit.com/Resources/StudTxts/4Q88!.html">4Q88 - A Psalm on the Last Days from Qumran</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Col. 9</b> [...] The masses</div><div style="text-align: justify;">will worship God because He has come to judge everything</div><div style="text-align: justify;">and to rid the earth of evil,</div><div style="text-align: justify;">so that sinners shall find no repose,</div><the give="" heavens="" shall="" span="" their=""></the><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">the heavens shall give their due,</div><div style="text-align: justify;">and there will be no wrong doings there.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The earth will produce crops in its season</div><div style="text-align: justify;">and they shall not fail.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The fruit trees shall [ . . . ] of their vineyards</div><and dry="" not="" span="" springs="" their="" will=""></and><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">The poor will eat for those who follow YHWH shall not go hungry</div></div></blockquote><div><the give="" heavens="" shall="" span="" their=""><and dry="" not="" span="" springs="" their="" will=""></and></the><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div><the give="" heavens="" shall="" span="" their=""><and dry="" not="" span="" springs="" their="" will=""><br />
</and></the></div><div><the give="" heavens="" shall="" span="" their=""><and dry="" not="" span="" springs="" their="" will=""><br />
</and></the></div><div><the give="" heavens="" shall="" span="" their=""><and dry="" not="" span="" springs="" their="" will=""><i>Arabic Hymn of the Nativity - "Today, is born of a Virgin, He who holds the whole creation in His hand"</i></and></the></div><div></div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MvjiVam2HO4" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div><i>Diva Sina Porodilla/A Virgin Gives Birth to a Son - Russian kolyadka (carol) </i><i>sung by the Novokuznetsk Spiritual Seminary Choir</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aVsGYV4Grwk" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div></div><div><b><br />
</b></div><div><b><br />
</b></div><div><b>Lesson 7: <a href="http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/odes.htm">Ode 19</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odes_of_Solomon">Odes of Solomon</a></b></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">1. A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord's kindness. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. The Son is the cup, and the Father is He who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is She who milked Him; </div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. Because His breasts were full, and it was undesirable that His milk should be ineffectually released. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. The Holy Spirit opened Her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">5. Then She gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing, and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">6. The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">7. So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">8. And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">9. And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">10. She brought forth like a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation, and she acquired according to the Great Power.</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">11. And she loved with redemption, and guarded with kindness, and declared with grandeur.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Hallelujah.</div></div></blockquote><div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><b>Gradual:</b> Revelation 12.1-6</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus_ad_virginem">Angelus ad Virginem</a> - popular medieval carol (follow link for lyrics)</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lhyMVY_3PP4" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Erourem, Erourem/Rejoice, Rejoice - A Greek Byzantine kalanta (carol), Greek lyrics at YouTube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3ZEcJyE4A">here</a> and if it's your browser is Google Chrome will probably make a reasonable translation of them</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mb3ZEcJyE4A" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson 8: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Isaiah">Ascension of Isaiah</a> <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ascension.html">10.1-18</a></b></div><div><br />
</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">AND thereupon I heard the voices and the giving of praise, which I had heard in each of the six heavens, ascending and being heard there:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. And all were being sent up to that Glorious One whose glory I could not behold.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. And I myself was hearing and beholding the praise (which was given) to Him.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. And the Lord and the angel of the Spirit were beholding all and hearing all.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">5. And all the praises which are sent up from the six heavens are not only heard, but seen.</div>6. And I heard the angel who conducted me and he said: "This is the Most High of the high ones, dwelling in the holy world, and resting in His holy ones, who will be called by the Holy Spirit through the lips of the righteous the Father of the Lord."<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">7. And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, saying to my Lord Christ who will be called Jesus:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">8. "Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend, but to Haguel thou wilt not go.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">9. And thou wilt become like unto the likeness of all who are in the five heavens.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">10. And thou wilt be careful to become like the form of the angels of the firmament [and the angels also who are in Sheol].</div><div style="text-align: justify;">11. And none of the angels of that world shall know that Thou art with Me of the seven heavens and of their angels.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">12. And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called (to) the heavens, and their angels and their lights, (even) unto the sixth heaven, in order that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that world, and the world that is dominated by them:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">13. For they have denied Me and said: "We alone are and there is none beside us."</div><div style="text-align: justify;">14. And afterwards from the angels of death Thou wilt ascend to Thy place. And Thou wilt not be transformed in each heaven, but in glory wilt Thou ascend and sit on My right hand.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">15. And thereupon the princes and powers of that world will worship Thee."</div><div style="text-align: justify;">16. These commands I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">17. And so I saw my Lord go forth from the seventh heaven into the sixth heaven.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">18. And the angel who conducted me [from this world was with me and] said unto me: "Understand, Isaiah, and see the transformation and descent of the Lord will appear.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Gradual:</b> Exodus 40.34-35; 2 Chronicles 7.1-2</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>34</sup> Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. <sup>35</sup> And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode upon it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">***</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD's house</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Nebo i Zemlya/Earth and Heaven - Russian kolyadka (carol), English translation <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-xCEISAz_8">here</a></i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/veVx-Njj9e0" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Χριστός γεννάται σήμερον/Christ is Born Today - Greek kalanta (carol) possibly from old Smyrna (now Izmir Turkey)</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g5_tKoV7AhE" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson 9: Hebrews 1.1-12</b></div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup></sup></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>7</sup> Of the angels he says, "Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>8</sup> But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>9</sup> Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>10</sup>And, "Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>11</sup>they will perish, but thou remainest; they will all grow old like a garment, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>12</sup> like a mantle thou wilt roll them up, and they will be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years will never end."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Gradual:</b> Philippians 2.5-9</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, <sup>7</sup> but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>8</sup> And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>9</sup> Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wexford_Carol">Wexford Carol</a> - Traditional Irish Christmas Hymn, lyrics on Wikipedia site and at <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3szyPMwuDC8">YouTube</a></i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3szyPMwuDC8" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>I Saw a Swete Semly Syght - Medieval carol, lyrics at YouTube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr-csOGecGc">here</a></i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rr-csOGecGc" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson 10: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James">Protoevangelium (Infancy Gospel) of James</a> <a href="http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/669-protoevangelium-protoevangelion-of-james">17.1-19.16</a></b></div><div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">17. And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judæa should be enrolled (cf. Luke 2:1). And Joseph said: 'I shall enrol my sons, but what shall I do with this maiden? How shall I enrol her? As my wife? I am ashamed. As my daughter then? But all the sons of Israel know that she is not my daughter. The day of the Lord shall itself bring it to pass as the Lord wilt.' And he saddled the ass, and set her upon it; and his son led it, and Joseph followed. And when they had come within three miles, Joseph turned and saw her sorrowful; and he said to himself: 'Likely that which is in her distresses her.' And again Joseph turned and saw her laughing. And he said to her: 'Mary, how is it that I see in thy face at one time laughter, at another sorrow?' And Mary said to Joseph: 'Because I see two peoples with mine eyes; the one weeping and lamenting, and the other rejoicing and exulting.' And they came into the middle of the road, and Mary said to him: 'Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth.' And he took her down from off the ass, and said to her: 'Whither shall I lead thee, and cover thy disgrace? For the place is desert.'</div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="stiki" id="note081599"></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">18. And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a midwife in the district of Bethlehem.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 30px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px; text-align: justify;">And I, Joseph, was walking, and was not walking; and I looked up into the sky, and saw the sky astonished; and I looked up to the pole of the heavens, and saw it standing, and the birds of the air keeping still. And I looked down upon the earth, and saw a trough lying, and work-people reclining: and their hands were in the trough. And those that were eating did not eat, and those that were rising did not carry it up, and those that were conveying anything to their mouths did not convey it; but the faces of all were looking upwards. And I saw the sheep walking, and the sheep stood still; and the shepherd raised his hand to strike them, and his hand remained up. And I looked upon the current of the river, and I saw the mouths of the kids resting on the water and not drinking, and all things in a moment were driven from their course.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 30px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px; text-align: justify;">19. And I saw a woman coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: 'O man, whither art thou going?' And I said: 'I am seeking an Hebrew midwife.' And she answered and said unto me: 'Art thou of Israel?' And I said to her: 'Yes.' And she said: 'And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave?' And I said: 'A woman betrothed to me.' And she said to me: 'Is she not thy wife?' And I said to her: 'It is Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but hath conceived of the Holy Spirit.'</div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">And the widwife said to him: 'Is this true?' And Joseph said to her: 'Come and see.' And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: 'My soul hath been magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen strange things—because salvation hath been brought forth to Israel.' And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary.</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><b>Gradual:</b> Isaiah 42.1-4</div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;"><sup></sup></div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; </div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup>a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> He will not fail or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law</div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin: 10px 0px 15px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cherry-Tree_Carol">The Cherry Tree Carol</a>, sung by Joan Baez, lyrics <a href="http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/cherry_tree_carol-rickert.htm">here</a></i></div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DYaFGSG_x80" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Nowell We Sing</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SndptmkxX4A" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson 11: From Gospel according to Luke</b></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Luke 2.1-14</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. <sup>2</sup> This was the first enrollment, when Quirin'i-us was governor of Syria. <sup>3</sup> And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. <sup>4</sup> And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, <sup>5</sup> to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. <sup>6</sup> And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. <sup>7</sup>And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. <sup>8</sup> And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. <sup>9</sup> And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. <sup>10</sup> And the angel said to them, "Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; <sup>11</sup> for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. <sup>12</sup> And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger." <sup>13</sup> And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, <sup>14</sup> "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!"</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Gloria in Excelsis Deo (J S Bach)</b></div><div><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eChEWK_4B3Q" width="560"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Luke 2.15-28, 34-35</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>15</sup> When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us." <sup>16</sup> And they went with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. <sup>17</sup> And when they saw it they made known the saying which had been told them concerning this child; <sup>18</sup> and all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. <sup>19</sup> But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart. <sup>20</sup> And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them. <sup>21</sup> And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. <sup>22</sup> And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord <sup>23</sup> (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") <sup>24</sup> and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." <sup>25</sup> Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.<sup>26</sup> And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. <sup>27</sup> And inspired by the Spirit he came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, <sup>28</sup> he took him up in his arms and blessed God </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>34</sup> and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against <sup>35</sup> (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><b>Gradual:</b> Protoevangelium of James 22.1-8<br />
<div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>22. And when Herod knew that he had been mocked by the Magi, in a rage he sent murderers, saying to them: 'Slay the children from two years old and under.' And Mary, having heard that the children were being killed, was afraid, and took the infant and swaddled Him, and put Him into an ox-stall. And Elizabeth, having heard that they were searching for John, took him and went up into the hill-country, and kept looking where to conceal him. And there was no place of concealment. And Elizabeth, groaning with a loud voice, said: 'O mountain of God, receive mother and child.' And immediately the mountain was cleft, and received her. And a light shone about them, for an angel of the Lord was with them, watching over them.</blockquote></div><div><br />
</div><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Carol">Coventry Carol</a> (Trad, 15th century), sung by Tori Amos, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Carol#Lyrics">lyrics</a></i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YedZpgy3F-M" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>The Coventry Carol sung by Joan Baez</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QfYHhGGfjZs" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeste_Fideles">O Come All Ye Faithful</a>/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Holy_Night">O Holy Night</a>, Philadelphia Municipal Employees Chorale Ensemble</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pOv4Klrl668" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Lesson 12: From the Gospel of John the Beloved</b></div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>John 1.1-14</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>1</sup> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> He was in the beginning with God; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> In him was life, and the life was the light of men. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>7</sup> He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>8</sup> He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>9</sup> The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>10</sup> He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>11</sup> He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>12</sup> But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>13</sup> who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>14</sup> And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Gradual: </b>1 John 4.7-9; Revelation 21.2-6</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>7</sup> Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>8</sup> He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>9</sup> In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">***</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>2</sup> And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>3</sup> and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>4</sup> he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>5</sup> And he who sat upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." Also he said, "Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><sup>6</sup> And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Verbum Caro Factum Est/And the Word Was made Flesh (John 1.14)</i></div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="https://youtu.be/zPfUKQiMYok?si=1Jv-PGpq0y_T9V3_" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>El Cant Des Ocells/Carol of the Birds (Traditional Catalan), English translation <a href="http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/carol_of_the_birds.htm">here</a></i> </div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tvj-FRCmROw" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><b>Concluding Prayer and Blessing - Peace Prayer of St Francis of Assisi</b></div><div><br />
</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><br />
</span><br />
<dl style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.2em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>Where there is hatred, let me sow love.</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>Where there is injury, pardon.</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>Where there is doubt, faith.</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>Where there is despair, hope.</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>Where there is darkness, light.</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>Where there is sadness, joy.</i></span></dd></dl><dl style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.2em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>O Divine Master,</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console;</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>to be understood, as to understand;</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>to be loved, as to love.</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>For it is in giving that we receive.</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,</i></span></dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.</i></span></dd></dl><dl style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.2em;"><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 2em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" style="line-height: 19px;"><i>Amen.</i></span></dd></dl></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">And so, dear reader, I wish you peace this Christmas and I pray that 2011 will be rich in wonder for you. As a parting gift for you this Noel I give you a link to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDgSQiUcVnM">this marvellous clip of Aretha Franklin and Billy Preston performing 'O Holy Night' live</a>. There's a little bit of TV show chat at the start but stick with it, it's worth it. I would have used it here but embedding was disabled. And I close our little celebration here with yet another version of Gaudete.</div><div><br />
</div><div><iframe class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_4SPSx9Ks78" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-42961870340744623252010-12-03T20:36:00.000+10:002010-12-04T22:58:04.849+10:00I've Come to a Major Turning Point in My Life<div style="text-align: justify;">Tuesday, the last day of November marked the end of an era in my life. On that day my honorary status at the University of Qld came to an end. I'll be updating the 'About Me' section on this blog to reflect that fact in the next couple of days. So Tuesday I went out to UQ to return my keys and do some photocopying. Fortunately I was able to hand over the keys to a new person in the School office, as the usual person had stepped out. As she's worked there for quite a few years, it would have been awkward. She's a good person and we get on well.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I wasn't actually surprised because I had had an intuition some time ago that the position wouldn't be renewed. And I've been told that there seems to be a bit of a purge on at UQ of honoraries. I don't know if that's true but apparently honoraries are under scrutiny in various schools and centres. For me the main loss is the Library access. I can get a Library membership as an alumnus but it doesn't carry the same benefits as a staff membership, honorary and paid. The other thing is I no longer have any institutional affiliation. I am now an independent scholar. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it does feel strange. After I handed in the key I had a couple of other things to do so wandered around the campus a bit. Various spots I went past pulled up memories both of my academic and union career at UQ and I felt a certain amount of sorrow and loss. After all I started there 19 years ago as an undergrad student out there, to have a rest after the trying times in the AIDS Council. I never even envisaged back then how my life at UQ would unfold.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The strange thing was that I came to UQ after a critical time in my life. In 1991 I came close to death through a surgical emergency, ruptured appendix and peritonitis. I was several days in intensive care and then a few more days in a ward with nil by mouth and then another week with food, by which stage I was champing at the bit to get out of hospital. When I finally returned to work, about 6 weeks later I ran into a friend who had come down from the Sunshine Coast. He asked me how I was and I replied 'It's the last time I bust a gut for this place.' He smiled saying that he'd wondered how much work had made me sick. Those days we were very big on the idea of illness as metaphor. The notion still works in many ways I think. Back then the AIDS Council had become a fairly toxic working environment. New and much more conservative management with a determination to deal with a perceived 'Bolshie' staff. Some staff had already left that year and had gone on to UQ. They were saying to me 'Get out of the place, come out here with us.' I was also getting involved with Brisbane ACT UP a number of whom were part of Gays and Lesbians on Campus at UQ. And so I made enquiries and found there was a Religion Dept at UQ. I lodged the requisite paperwork and found that the doors had opened and so I handed in my resignation effective at 31 December 1991 (in fact I was still monitoring the after hours AIDSline service through the Christmas New Year period 91/92). That night I went to a queer New Years Eve Dance at the old Blind Hall. As I rocked up to pay my entry, Katie Strandly (who tragically suicided six months later) asked me if I was waged or unemployed. I realised and told her that as of that night I was now unemployed (the actual enrolment process for uni took place in January so I wasn't yet a student) and so Katie charged me appropriately, stamped my wrist and in I went to dance my heart out and the New Year in. It was a very happy night, as I recall. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I recount all this because I'm struck by the fact that pretty much at every transition point in my life something has always opened up for me or more correctly been in the process of opening up for me. And so what's been really strange these last few years when I have been in transition after finishing the PhD is that there's been nothing clearly opening before me. I thought that maybe the union work might have been something, a new direction, and when <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/07/after-eclipse.html">the union job at Griffith became available</a>, I thought 'Well, that's it then, that's the new direction.' Except it wasn't to be. In fact over the last few years, there's been nothing but blockage and false starts.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And so Tuesday I was cut loose and, right now, I have nothing ahead of me. I've been lucky to have some casual research assistant work these last few weeks but that ends next week too. Thanks to that and my tax return I can survive for little while on my own resources but next year I stand before a great big blank. I see nothing ahead of me, there are no openings, everything I've been doing has come to a dead end. The universe has also played a joke on me by way of a lecturing job being advertised at an interstate university. It's not full-time but four days a week, which it makes it less likely that they'd take someone from interstate, plus a couple of the selection criteria seem a bit odd too. And then there is my age; I'm heading into the final year of my fifties - I'm actually almost on the point of sixty (a prospect that strikes me more with bemusement and puzzled surprise than anything else). I'm pretty sure my age counts against me in these job stakes. It was kind of confirmed when a friend who is younger than me said they were applying for it too, but was nevertheless resigned to the job going to 'a younger person' than them. So what chance I?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As I said, I had sensed that the UQ honorary position was not going to be renewed. I probably would have put up a bit of a fight a couple of years ago but this time round, well, with the depression through most of the year, I wasn't in a state to fight. I felt as if I was dangling from the edge of a cliff and just didn't have any more energy. So I had pretty much decided to simply let go and fall into the abyss. It seemed like an abyss then. Right now it's more like a blank. I've let go but I don't know if I've fallen. I don't know where I am - nothing but a blank. It's kind of I'm kind of in one of those old Dr Who episodes, sitting in a trans-dimensional space, with no features, no nothing, all a blank.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Next year is shaping up to be the strangest year imaginable because I have no idea what's ahead of me. I don't really have any plans apart from those arising from the various projects I'm involved with. I simply don't know what to plan for. I need to get a job of some sort but I have no idea what. No idea whatsoever. The work I enjoy doing and would love to do, teaching, is closed to me. I have to accept that fact. And certainly my union work shone a spotlight on the reality of so much of university life today - they have become pretty toxic workplaces. Just the other day I met a young academic who observed that the way their university operated was often more like a form of institutionalised bullying. I don't function well in such circumstances - most people don't, in fact. And lets face it I think our universities have become so corporatised and managerialised that they are no longer places of critical reflection; if it does exist then it's a kind of delicate flower hanging on in obscure nooks and crannies. And it's not a problem unique to Australian universities. I know that in the US there are major problems in tertiary education and similarly in a number of other countries. Ironically the only place where there seems to be a lot of investment in universities and a lot of openness to critical thought (at least in some areas) is China. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So I have no chance of an academic job. They're as rare as hen's teeth and that's not counting for decent workplaces as well. So what else? I have enjoyed this research assistant work I've been doing (I'm planning another post about the biographies I've been reading). I could quite happily do work like this for a long time, especially if I was doing it mostly from home as I have been with this gig. But this sort of work is mostly short term and sporadic; there's the rub. It's not something I can plan on long-term. When I look back at my life, apart from most of my academic period, the times I've really enjoyed were my AIDS Council days (well most of them, not the last year or two) and then my times at UQ in the Queer Area. In fact, my one regret is that in my later years I wasn't able to be as involved as I had been, especially in my undergrad days. It was, and I believe still is, a very special place. I also enjoyed my Triple Z days too. And this year I've enjoyed my involvement with the History project and the Museum of Brisbane exhibition. It probably was a lifeline while I was trapped in the pit of depression. And when I look back on this year and all that I did do, I'm really quite astonished because I was severely depressed. (And pretty much everything I've listed has been unpaid, community work/activism)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I guess it's time to segue briefly here into <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/07/after-eclipse.html">my depression</a>. It seems to have lifted, to have let me go. I'm struck by how I can stand face to face with a blank and maintain my equanimity. Two months ago I would have been struck down with major panic and anxiety (I was). Since then, however, my friend, M, <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/10/depression-forgiveness-and-love.html">contacted me</a> and we finally met up recently to talk about the hard times we've been through. I'm hoping now that our friendship is back on track and that there won't be any major depressive - or other - derailments in future. But that process of forgiveness that I described in the earlier post seems to have laid the depression low. There have been moments when I've felt the old wild steed of anxiety start to rear itself but I've managed to calm it down, to soothe it. Tuesday it didn't stir at all. There was sorrow, but there was no lacerating, accusing misery and no anxiety. It's good to know that I got through that day without the pit opening up beneath me. The thing with depression, of course, is that you don't know when it's likely to hit you - and, of course, our society is an excellent manufacturer of depression. (Somewhere gestating in the back of my mind is a post looking at depression in Marxist terms, with maybe just a dash of Girard and sexuality theory.) </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So returning to my job prospects. Next year, the future looks thoroughly blank to me. I get job notices from the various job sites every morning and I dutifully peruse them. At the very least to get some idea of what's around. There's not a lot that actually stirs my enthusiasm. Most of the jobs are clerical and admin. I also get a range of university jobs sent me, admin as well as teaching and research. And I also have some outliers, event management and stuff. But most of the jobs leave me cold. It might be different if job notices weren't so full of spin. I'm struck by the quasi-religious framing of so many jobs. 'Guru' is a popular term, so many employers are looking for a guru, an admin guru, or a customer service guru. Do they know what a guru is? Since when did a 9-5 job get imbued with such religious significance. Presumably the jobs are shit and they want a saintly type who'll meekly accept their exploitation. And if it's not gurus then there is a suite of other disturbing nonsense words in the managerial Newspeak, like commitment or passion/ate or star (used an alternative to guru). Since when did passion turn into a term for obsessive/compulsive attachment to wage-slavery? And I think to myself, well, I've got this job to get done and when that's done there's the festschrift to get finished, and there's writing I've got to do, and a couple of events for next year to organise, not to mention the History project too, all of which is far more interesting and worthwhile, and certainly not depressing like jobhunting. (And jobhunting is depressing)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The only tool I have to perceive the future is astrology, which is kind of like a weather forecast facility really. I've just come through the second Saturn Return of my life. There's almost a brief reprise of it around May next year but it's not quite the full transit. But Saturn makes several difficult transits, and one relatively good one, for most of next year. The good one concerns my reputation, career even; it might be good, but it's Saturn so it involves testing of some sort. The difficult ones, of which there are three, haven't been around since '97 which I don't recall as a bad year. But it was the year I gave my first paper at an academic conference, and my first year of lecturing rather than (or as well as) tutoring. I don't expect anything like that next year. A Saturn Return marks a closing off or consolidation so I guess it's appropriate that the link to UQ has finally been severed under its aspect.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So what do I want to do? Jobwise I have no idea because I want to keep writing, both here in the blog and elsewhere. I have several such projects I want to work on. There is my Virgin Mary project, and my homo-erotics of sacrifice project, my interest in canon, and more and more I want to work on friendship, its history and practices, rituals, the theories of friendship and the homosexual significance of that (which I think is quite important) as much for future possibilities as for anything that happened in the past. (Furthermore through the History Project, I want to explore same-sex companion burials, of which I now know of three in one Brisbane cemetery alone) And lets face it, the work I do, in large part, is geared towards some kind of social and cultural change. But to do all this I need an income, a regular income, so that I don't have the ongoing anxiety of wondering where my next payment will come from and how to marshal the limited income to keep me going when the job is finished. I also need to organise my current resources, not least my library. Most of that is still packed away in boxes in several garages. One day I have to bring my library together and for that to happen I will need a place to keep it in. Where I live now, while it's nice, has no room for my library. So for me to get my library together I need a place for that and an income, too, to pay for it. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But then once I think about a different place to live, I find a whole range of utopian desires stirred up and aroused. The most immediate is a desire for the solitary life. I find I enjoy my times housesitting, the solitude of it. I find I have eremitical desires, and the solitary life seems very appealing. But there's a part of me that's critical of it, too. After all, capitalism is an atomising social process. It breaks down all patterns of alliance and solidarity; any sort of collective joining together outside the needs of profit is inimical to its spirit. So any sort of solitary life on my part, has to involve a radical hospitality as part of it too (and when one looks at the solitaries of the past, while they had periods on their own, they were also busy with attending the needs of others; the great Russian saint Nilus Sorsky, carried on a voluminous correspondence with people seeking his advice and guidance, as well as welcoming and sheltering refugees from religious persecution at his forest retreat.) But another part of me would love to live a life of same sex community, queer community, again involving some kind of radical hospitality and simplicity, in a community of friendship. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And I suppose I should mention, now, something else that has happened over this period. I think I can safely say that I have largely come to terms with and embraced a celibate practice. Poverty, uncertainty and other exigencies of my life had pretty much imposed a celibate regime on me, under which I bridled over the last few years. Both romantic and erotic desires would rise up almost in rebellion, most horribly in the crisis that hit me last year that sent me down into the pit of depression and trashed the friendship with M. The shock, horror of that, that I could actually destroy a friendship that I valued so much, left me appalled. I may yet have to write a separate post on being a queer sex-radical celibate, but for now, suffice to say that it was, is, more important for me to be a friend than hung up wanting to be a lover. Capitalist society is heavily sexualised, anyway; sex and romantic love become sites permitted for some kind of personal fulfillment (especially if it leads to shopping), a fulfillment that's individualised, privatised and integrated back into the capitalist nexus (sort of). So where I find myself heading is probably best expressed by Kathleen Norris in her <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/readings/Norris.html">Celibate Passion</a>, which I've just re-read this evening after many years and find that it resonates quite strongly with me, especially with its themes of hospitality and friendship. I have loved a number of men in my life, several of whom are dear friends of mine now (even though I have been a bit of a slack of late). So if that's where the universe wants me to be who am I to say no? Most importantly now that M and I have restored contact, I want to make sure that I never ever do anything that will jeapardise our friendship - I want to sustain it and be as good a friend as I possibly can be. Given that friendship is also one of my inteellectual projects, then really it comes as no surprise that I am led to follow a path of friendship. The Roman Church is wrong to make celibacy an imposition, as it does for its priesthood and as it mandates for lesbians and gays. If one is going to embrace celibacy it can only be through love, for love, there is no other way. Embracing celibacy for love and to cultivate love as a form of radical hospitality and attentiveness to others, is a way of honoring the erotic and channeling it in a way that's not destructive. Romantic love, sexual pleasure and erotic intimacy are good things in themselves but like everything else in life can also be the source of illusion, delusion and toxic fancies. And at this stage of my life that's where I was heading, no, that's where I was mired. So just as I have let go the fantasy of an academic career so I can get on with critical thinking and writing (and I am thinking an awful lot these days) , so, too, I have let go the fantasy of finding Someone to Love ME and of Someone to Satisfy ME, so that I can instead push the horizons of my own capacity to love, so that I can get on with the business of cultivating and building friendship, particular friendships as with M, and more broadly. If this all sounds vague and nebulous, it's because, as with the situation of work, academe, it's all new, I don't know where I'm heading, I have no idea of what the future holds. Although, unlike the work thing, I'm not stuck in some featureless transdimensional space. Instead I have a lot of learning to do, and, as I'm only beginning, I can't see where I'll end up.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I seem to have wandered far from a post about my work and career prospects and lack thereof. But I guess it's all part and parcel of what makes this moment a key turning point in my life. I am surprisingly relaxed about it all, considering my states of high anxiety of only a few months ago. What I think is key is cultivating an attitude of trust, trust in the universe, in life, in the Divine. There's nothing rational about trust but rationality only leads to despair. I've been there and I don't want to go back again. All I can do is have faith that, as Julian of Norwich said "all will be well". I also have to resist giving in to capitalist notions of what counts as success. Such notions are toxic but they're constantly reinforced and in the absence of strong alternative community, they can poison you subliminally. I think that helps account for the epidemic of depression in late-capitalist Australia and elsewhere. Capitalism breeds, relies on depression, and I don't mean economic downturns here. The only antidote is trust and faith; trust means having faith, faith in someone or something. So I am prepared to make that act of faith, to take that leap of trust, to wait in hope, to walk in hope, to allow hope to cultivate love. And see where it takes me. I hope it'll make for clearer thinking. I hope it'll make for better writing. I hope it'll make me a better friend.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-56377204106153010312010-11-25T21:04:00.002+10:002010-11-25T22:34:54.055+10:00Foucault and the Virgin Mary<div style="text-align: justify;">I noticed the other day, over at Mark Goodacre's blog, that he had <a href="http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/nativity-new-bbc-drama-for-christmas.html">a post up</a> about a coming BBC Christmas production called <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/04_april/30/nativity.shtml">Nativity</a>. It's a dramatised retelling of the events around Jesus' birth and seems to be based on the merging of the canonical Infancy gospels in Matthew and Luke. Mark's quoted some of the press release promoting Nativity and I was very struck by this bit</div><div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Over four half-hour episodes the drama will tell the traditional tale known to millions from a very human perspective. With Mary and Joseph's enduring love story at the centre this familiar story is given a contemporary twist, as the drama follows Joseph and Mary from their initial courtship – Joseph desperate to win the heart of Mary – to his emotional turmoil at her unexpected pregnancy.</div></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now maybe I missed something but I had no idea that Mary and Joseph had an "enduring" love story to begin with, let alone that he had been "desperate" to win her heart. This is a BBC production, too. The Beeb has a pretty strong reputation for quality and I'm sure this will be a quality production. Mark Goodacre himself is excited at the prospect and it also gets a good rap at <a href="http://biblefilms.blogspot.com/2010/11/news-on-bbcs-nativity.html">Bible Films Blog</a>. But I am still puzzled by the "enduring love story." Is that what is meant by giving the story a "contemporary twist"? Or is that how the story is understood anyway with the contemporary twist coming from some other feature?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I raise these questions because if we turn to the sources and even to subsequent tradition, an enduring love story is not what's found at all. The story or stories, nevertheless are quite fascinating, powerful even and I think it would be great to see a production based on them rather than the modern love story treatment. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And so right now I want to look at the five most ancient sources we have for the Nativity and the relationship between Joseph and Mary. These sources are Matthew's infancy narrative, Luke's infancy narrative, Ode 19 of the Odes of Solomon, the Ascension of Isaiah and the Proto-Evangelion of James. What they'll show is that ancient Christians had a very different understanding of the relationship between Mary and Joseph, such that they would probably be extremely puzzled by portraying the two in the context of a romantic love melodrama. But I should note by way of preamble that Joseph barely gets a mention in the other two canonical gospels, he's not an active character, he's not in the picture at all. He's really only referred to in passing as the father of Jesus. He completely disappears in one passage in Mark when Jesus is referred to as son of Mary. On the strength of such absence, the understandable tradition developed that Joseph had died when Jesus was young, certainly long before he began his public life.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So I'll start with Matthew. The infancy narrative comprises the first two chapters of this gospel. More than two thirds of chapter 1 is a genealogy of Jesus (1-17); the remaining 7 verses trace the relationship between Joseph and Mary and Mary's pregnancy. There's no sense of a deep romantic love here. Instead we are told that Joseph was a righteous man and on learning of Mary's pregnancy, decided to dismiss her quietly and not expose her to public disgrace. Perhaps Joseph feels kindly to Mary, but 'desperate' or ardent? - not really. He is only prevented from dismissing Mary by the appearance of an angel, who tells him just what sort of child Mary is carrying. Joseph relents and does not send her away. Chapter 2 relates the coming of the Magi, the flight into Egypt and the massacre of the children of Bethlehem. Here Joseph comes into his own, helping Mary and her child escape to Egypt. Without Joseph, their lives would be in the greatest peril. And yet, never at any time do Joseph and Mary converse. And then, once we quit the infancy narrative, Joseph disappears entirely. He gets mentioned a couple of times; in the parallel to the Mark passage cited above, he's referred to as the carpenter and not by name, while Mary is herself named. So what we have of Joseph in Matthew is an absence, following his appearance in the first two chapters, where the only person he interacts and converses with at all is an angel. There's nothing in Matthew about any enduring, let alone ardent, love.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In contrast, Mary is the main figure in Luke's infancy narrative, chapters 1 and 2 of the Gospel. Mary speaks and interacts with people and an angel too. The first chapter deals with the conception and birth of John the Baptist and the Annunciation, Mary's conception of Jesus and her visit to her cousin Elizabeth who is pregnant with John the Baptist; we are told that Mary is betrothed to Joseph but he makes no other appearance in chapter 1. His debut comes in chapter 2 but only as background figure: he and Mary go to Bethlehem to be registered in the census; he is present when the shepherds come, as bidden by the angels, to give homage to the Christ child; he accompanies Mary to the Temple for the Presentation scene. But at no time do he and Mary converse. In the Temple Simeon and Anna prophesy over Jesus and Simeon addresses Mary directly but Joseph remains a shadowy figure in the background. It's only in the final part of chapter 2, when Jesus is found in the Temple at age 12 after being lost by his parents, that Mary, when addressing Jesus, actually acknowledges Joseph's existence, by saying that she and his father had been searching for him anxiously. Jesus' response, invoking his heavenly Father, effectively contradicts any paternal claims that Joseph has. After that, Joseph as a character disappears in Luke's gospel. He gets a mention, unsurprisingly, in the genealogy of Jesus in chapter 3, and elsewhere Jesus gets referred to as son of Joseph, including in the Lucan parallel to the passages in Matthew and Mark referred to above. But again there is nothing to indicate any strong attachment between Mary and Joseph, he's a background figure at best and in chapter 1 Mary acts and speaks on her own initiative, apparently beholden to no one.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I'll break from narrative to poetry and turn to Ode 19 of the Odes of Solomon. You can read Charlesworth's translation of the Odes <a href="http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/odes.htm">here</a>. He dates the Odes to the 1st century, although others have opted for 2nd or even 3rd century. They've been called the first Christian hymn book and they have strong resonances both with the Johannine New Testament literature and with Qumran texts as well. Ode 19 gives a short but quite striking account of the Incarnation and Nativity not least for its gender bending imagery.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">1. A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord's kindness. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. The Son is the cup, and the Father is He who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is She who milked Him;</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. Because His breasts were full, and it was undesirable that His milk should be ineffectually released.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The Holy Spirit opened Her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">5. Then She gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing, and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">7. So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">8. And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> 9. And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> 10. She brought forth like a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation, and she acquired according to the Great Power.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> 11. And she loved with redemption, and guarded with kindness, and declared with grandeur.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Hallelujah</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I've quoted it in full because it's short and because I like it. Now assuming "the Virgin" refers to Mary (and I'm quite happy to allow for an ambiguity here, that the poem describes an event happening in the heavenly as much as the terrestrial realms), it seems that here the Lucan portrait has been brought to its logical conclusion. Mary is front and centre and she is an independent figure, a powerful figure in her own right. She has no need of a man, let alone a husband. If anything she might be reminiscent of the Woman of the Apocalypse (Revelation 12) who is herself a heavenly figure (the Hebrew goddess?) who was assimilated to Mary quite early in Christian tradition, too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Returning to narrative accounts, our next stop is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Isaiah">Ascension of Isaiah</a>. This text has been dated from the first to second centuries of the Christian era. It only survives in full in Ethiopian manuscripts but fragments also survive in Greek, Latin, Coptic and Slavonic. It's a composite text (Charles' translation of the full text can be read <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ascension.html">here</a>). Chapters 1-5 relate Isaiah's persecution and martyrdom at the hands of King Manasseh. The second half relates Isaiah's vision in which he ascends through the Seven Heavens to meet Christ and Enoch and where he sees the future incarnation and nativity of Christ. Much of the Vision is reminiscent of the Enoch literature including the nativity of Christ in chapter 11 which I will now quote (from Knibb's translation chapters 6-11 available <a href="http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/AscensionOfIsaiah.html">here</a>):</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span>1</span>. And after this I looked, and the angel who spoke to me and led me said to me, "Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz, because for this purpose I was sent from the Lord." </div><div style="text-align: justify;">2 And I saw a woman of the family of David the prophet whose name (was) Mary, and she (was) a virgin and was betrothed to a man whose name (was) Joseph, a carpenter, and he also (was) of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem in Judah. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">3 And he came into his lot. And when she was betrothed, she was found to be pregnant, and Joseph the carpenter wished to divorce her. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">4 But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after this Joseph did not divorce Mary; but he did not reveal this matter to anyone. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">5 And he did not approach Mary, but kept her as a holy virgin, although she was pregnant. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">6 And he did not live with her for two months. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">7 And after two months of days, while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone, </div><div style="text-align: justify;">8 it came about, when they were alone, that Mary then looked with her eyes and saw a small infant, and she was astounded. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">9 And after her astonishment had worn off, her womb was found as (it was) at first, before she had conceived. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">10 And when her husband, Joseph, said to her, "What has made you astounded?" his eyes were opened, and he saw the infant and praised the Lord, because the Lord had come in his lot. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">11 And a voice came to them, "Do not tell this vision to anyone." </div><div style="text-align: justify;">12 But the story about the infant was spread abroad in Bethlehem. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">13 Some said, "The virgin Mary has given birth before she has been married two months." </div><div style="text-align: justify;">14 But many said, "She did not give birth; the midwife did not go up (to her), and we did not hear (any) cries of pain." And they were all blinded concerning him; they all knew about him, but they did not know from where he was. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">15 And they took him and went to Nazareth in Galilee</div></blockquote><div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The account resembles somewhat Matthew's infancy narrative and many scholars argue that it is derived from it. <a href="http://wdalecramer.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=0477683E4046471488BD7BAC8DCFB004&nm=&type=PubCom&mod=PubComProductCatalog&mid=BF1316AF9E334B7BA1C33CB61CF48A4E&tier=25&id=0B3A4B44D64D4654A005848BFD49D00B">Enrico Norelli</a> has argued that it is independent of the account in Matthew. If anything, I'm reminded of the nativity of Melchizedek in 2 Enoch, particularly in the manner of Jesus' birth. But I guess my main point here is that the author is not interested in any love between Joseph and Mary. In fact compared to the parallel scene in 2 Enoch, Joseph appears relatively nonchalant about being cuckolded by heaven, perhaps because it is very early days in the relationship, whereas in 2 Enoch the couple who have a heavenly child foisted upon them have been married for many (childless) years.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Finally I turn to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James">Protoevangelium of James</a> also known as the Gospel of James i.e. <a href="http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/275.html">James of Jerusalem known as the brother of the Lord</a>. You can read this 2nd century text in full <a href="http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/669-protoevangelium-protoevangelion-of-james">here</a> and <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vii.iv.html">here</a>. This Gospel is pretty much an infancy gospel only. It relates the conception and nativity not only of Jesus but also of his mother, Mary. It's not generally known in the Western Church and it was never included in any New Testament collection. Nevertheless it gives a considerable amount of 'back story' to the canonical gospels and their infancy narratives, such that it is almost a fifth Gospel. It's from this gospel that we get the names of Mary's parents, Joachim and Anna. It's from this gospel too that we get the idea that Joseph was a lot older than Mary and had children, one of whom being James, from a previous marriage. That way Mary's perpetual virginity is preserved and Gospel references to Jesus' brothers and sisters resolved. Unfortunately, the Western Church, in about the 4th or 5th centuries decided to make Joseph a perpetual virgin too, so the gospel was quietly discarded, even though much of its story entered into the Western tradition. While the East acclaims Mary's perpetual virginity it saw no reason for Joseph to be caught up in the gestalt of perpetual virginity. The East accepted the idea that Joseph had been married before and that James and the other brothers and sisters of Jesus were the product of that marriage. The Protoevangelium wasn't incorporated into the Eastern New Testament but the Eastern Churches hold it in very high esteem, counting it as coming from James and counting it as a key and inspired text of Tradition.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As I said the Protoevangelium relates the nativity of both Mary and Jesus. Mary's conception is miraculous, almost implicitly non-sexual. When she is born she is counted as a special, child of promise and her parents pledge her to the Temple. She's taken there at age two (there's a charming image of the two year old Mary dancing in the Holy of Holies) and she stays living there until she is twelve. At twelve she's on the verge of puberty and menstruation. The priests are concerned that she might breach the menstrual taboos and defile the Temple. So the priests summon a gathering of widowers so that the Lord will determine which of them will take Mary into his care and protection. After a miracle of the staves in which a dove emerges from Joseph's staff and perches itself on his head, Mary is placed in Joseph's custody to which he strongly protests due to his great age and her youth. In the end he relents but then leaves her in his home and goes away building houses. Mary is then summoned back to the Temple along with several other virgins and put to work on making the Temple veil. It's at this time that the archangel comes to her and announces that she will conceive. This she does and then sets off to visit her cousin Elizabeth who of course is pregnant with John the Baptist. While she stays with Elizabeth, Mary's belly starts to swell with her pregnancy and she gets frightened and returns to her home. Joseph then returns from his travels and finds her pregnant for which he berates her. Joseph resolves to divorce her quietly but then an angel comes to him to explain what has happened. Joseph relents and decides to protect Mary.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the meantime the priests have discovered Mary's pregnancy. Joseph is accused of having violated Mary. Both deny the charge and both are subjected to trial by ordeal which they both pass. They are then allowed to go free and Mary returns with Joseph to his house. The narrative then relates the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, the coming of the Magi, the slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem, the flight of Elizabeth and her baby and the murder of her husband, Zechariah, by Herod's men in the Temple sanctuary for refusing to divulge the whereabouts of his child. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Pretty gripping stuff! But again what I want to highlight is the relationship between Joseph and Mary. It is most definitely not a love match! Mary is in her early teens while Joseph is an old man. It's not clear that they are even married. Mary is addressed and behaves too as if she is Joseph's ward, not his wife. In contrast, there is much more concern and affection among Mary's parents in the text than there is between Joseph and Mary. Why is Joseph under suspicion of having violated her? Although Mary is living in Joseph's house and is in his care, it seems the text does not understand them to be married in any way. I guess what I then want to point out that early Christians were not actually interested in the relationship between Mary and Joseph. What was more important to them as Mary's integrity, her virginity, her autonomy. As Virgin and Mother, Mary encapsulates a suite of ancient motifs, not least the virgin and living soil of Eden, and, of course the ancient great goddesses; Mary is the new Eve and the new Sarah, the Mother of the New Covenant. She represents the end of the old ways, the start of a new way of being, one in which women are no longer subject to the rule of their husbands. We forget that early Christianity had a <a href="http://blog.shields-online.net/?p=141">vision of world without marriage</a> (Matthew 22:23 ff) and many Christians tried to live that vision literally, the majority through celibacy, and a minority by a form of sexual communism. The <a href="http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/theclabackground.stm">Acts of Thecla</a> (sadly she was dropped by Rome from the Western calendar of saints in the early 1970s) gives another radical celibate vision of female autonomy.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Early Christians were not interested in any love between Joseph and Mary. Firstly because most marriages weren't contracted for love anyway. They were family arrangements, much as they still are in many parts of the world today. Love might grow during marriage, such that if a woman survived her childbearing years she might hope to have the respect and affection of her husband. Failing that, then, the honour due her as a matron. Hence not only is Mary a Virgin, but she is preserved the pains of (and the mortal threats from) childbirth. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">By the high medieval period, Mary has become the Queen of Heaven, enthroned on the ceilings and walls of churches she presides over the mysteries of her Son. If she is represented with anyone<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/VfaSWswERALkW1o8Qnst9A"> it is usually him</a>, but sometimes with her mother (Da Vinci played with that pairing rather delightfully in this image of <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Leonardo_da_vinci,_The_Virgin_and_Child_with_Saint_Anne_01.jpg">Mary and Anne with the infant Jesus</a>), and sometimes in the <a href="http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/8871-the-virgin-among-the-virgins-gerard-david.html">company of other virgins</a>. But rarely, rarely with her husband. Marriage is part of this world which is due to pass way. She is Queen in the world to come, a world in which there is no marriage at all. </div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Consequently, early Christians would regard this production of the Nativity with puzzlement. A love story between Joseph and Mary would not make sense to them. Likewise with their descendants a thousand years later. For them Mary was the great Queen of Heaven, the Virgin Mother. If she is portrayed with Joseph, it is because he, too, in the West is now counted in the company of virgins. Joseph the ever-virgin makes an oddly queer character in the radical celibate imaginary. The ardent heterosexual lover of the BBC's Nativity is alien indeed to that exotic flower.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The BBC's Nativity signifies that there's been a discursive shift over the last few centuries, hence my nod to Foucault in the title of this post. For medieval and ancient Christians, the notion that Mary and Joseph would be in love, in some kind of romance, would seem bizarre; as it still would to many Eastern Christians, for whom Joseph was an old man and Mary a young teenager, barely into puberty. But for us in the West, it seems, especially the Anglisphere it appears to be unthinkable that they wouldn't be. That this is so is, I think, the result of a process that began in the late medieval period and was accelerated in the Reformation. Mary is kicked off her heavenly throne and made subject to her husband. To the more 'liberal' minded Protestant it's only natural that Mary had all those children after Jesus, because it's only natural, it's what marriage is all about. The Holy Family get to model the ideal bourgeois Protestant family and Mary is reduced to a shadow of herself. The discursive shift that Foucault identifies as taking place in the 19th century is really only a rationalist appropriation of the older Protestant discourse, reconfigured in a secular frame, appropriate to a modern 'progressive' and reasonable society in which religion becomes an individualised and privatised activity, its public and linking functions taken over by the liberal, capitalist and secular state. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The same process happens in the Catholic world too. Following the Catholic Reform around Trent, Mary gets diminished and located more and more within the family, the Holy Family. It's more difficult, of course; there's the whole weight of Marian tradition plus the celibacy of Joseph. This family is not like any bourgeois family out there in the real world. There's a real danger that this family of celibates can flip out of the heteronormative into some very queer spaces. And it's not as if the diminution of Mary happens without a fight, either. Marian apparitions, generally always to women and (mainly girl-) children, become more public and dramatic, Lourdes and Fatima, the most striking of all. Nevertheless, by the post-Vatican 2 period, the Reform push has triumphed and Mary ends up pretty much removed from her throne, kicked out to the kitchen to take her place, the ever-virgin wife, subject to the ever-virgin husband. All this happened with the rise of feminism, too, and sadly many feminists saw Mary as too hopelessly entangled in the webs of patriarchy to be bothered with her.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And yet seen through a feminist lens the Mary of Luke's gospel does not fit that that holy patriarchal family at all. She speaks and acts in her own right without need of any man. Ode 19 might also seem shocking to many (it certainly causes discomfort to conservative evangelicals). A text like the Protoevangelium of James is completely alien to modern sensibilities. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It sounds like Nativity is taking its cue from Matthew - Joseph is front and centre, not Mary. Presumably a toned down version of Luke's account will flesh it out somewhat but it will be framed within the broader context of the modern nuclear family and Western ideologies of marriage and marital love. I doubt we will see any sign of the perpetually virgin Mary, let alone a perpetually virgin Joseph, and from what I can make out Mary and Joseph will be age peers too, no June December romance here. No, it will likely be the Joseph and Mary of the Western bourgeois imaginary even if the central event, a miraculous pregnancy actively agreed to by the woman, would serve to challenge it. Will this Mary say "<i>Fiat! </i>so let it happen, I accept" and will she argue justifying her decision and challenge Joseph and his patriarchal expectations? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Unfortunately the Mary of the Protoevangelium doesn't challenge Joseph either but pleads ignorance of what happened instead. Perhaps she does so to enable the heavenly angelic intervention, a feature of Matthew, Ascension of Isaiah and the Protoevengelium itself. Does angelic intervention maintain patriarchal decorum? Nevertheless, because it is so alien I would like to see a Nativity made using the Protoevangelium to flesh it out, especially if it joins with Luke to put Mary front and centre, not Joseph, and to celebrate her "<i>Fiat!</i>". That would make a Nativity suitably alien to modern sensitivities, a shocking and disturbing story and not one that has been tamed.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div><br /></div><div><br /><br /><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-58200823476344153062010-11-17T20:49:00.025+10:002010-11-18T23:07:46.757+10:00Memory and Place<div style="text-align: justify;">As I said in <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/11/shock-of-recognition.html">a post earlier this month</a>, I've been doing some research assistant work for the last three and a half weeks, only a couple of weeks left after this one. I'm speed reading Australian biographies and collating data on references to reading. I've just finished working on <a href="http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Eleanor_Dark-A_Writers_Life/0732909031/">Barbara Brooks' biography</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Dark">Eleanor Dark</a>. She also has a biographical essay on Eleanor Dark <a href="http://www.varuna.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=34:var&id=83:eleanor-dark-brooks-essay-&Itemid=73">here</a>. The book was quite a tome and stuffed full of references to reading. I've been working on it the last few days. If you ever get a chance to read it, I recommend it. The biography was fascinating. I'd like to read it properly one day and I'd also like to read some of Dark's novels too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Actually I'd like to read all these biographies again, and properly, one day; well, maybe not <a href="http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A070550b.htm">Eric Campbell'</a>s account of the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1202889.htm">New Guard</a>. I knocked that over this afternoon, after finishing the Dark biography. Campbell's style, even for 1963, is quite daunting. He often sounds like a parody of that absolutely pukka stiff-upper-lip British-Imperial-military type. But sadly, of course, that's what he modelled himself on. He was determined to be an Australian version of that Imperial Britisher. Monty Python would have had a field day with him! But nevertheless, there were brief moments even in his account when a flash of something human shone through. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Prior to the Dark biography, I'd been reading a large oral history of the Depression years in Australia, <a href="http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/weevilsintheflour">Weevils in the Flour</a>. And before then was the Frank Hardy book that took me back to my times in the old Melbourne watchhouse. I've also read lives <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Darcy">Les Darcy</a>, <a href="http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A110093b.htm">King O'Malley</a>, <a href="http://research.hrc.utexas.edu:8080/hrcxtf/view?docId=ead/00487.xml">Robin Dalton</a> and an<a href="http://www.angellpro.com.au/Jeffrey.htm"> army nurse's account of captivity in Sumatra during WW2</a>. And that's not all I've read either plus I have a pile of books to get into. After Campbell, I plan to read about <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/book-reviews/autobiography-of-my-mother/2007/06/19/1182019071190.html">Margaret Coen</a> and also <a href="http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/devanney.html">Jean Devanny</a>. And there's more.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This whole experience has been a fascinating and deeply touching, even moving, one for me. To start with, most of these people, and the other people in their lives, are really fascinating people, with many of whom I feel a rapport, in their hopes and dreams, their humanity, their vision, their compassion and their faith, and at times their despair. With many of them, there's also the involvement in progressive, left-wing, Labor Party, socialist, union and Communist Party politics. There's quite a few Catholics and other Christians, too, and they're mostly on the Left. Often they abandon their religion, but often they don't. I'm enjoying meeting these people and I'm humbled by them too. Well, most of them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">From reading these biographies, I'm learning an awful lot of Australian history too. I knew a bit of it but these biographies give a glimpse into worlds that you don't get in a strict historical narrative. I started this post yesterday (Wednesday) and today I manged to read the Coen biography. Through it I entered several rich worlds - the world of a rural NSW town (Yass) a century ago and then several worlds of Sydney. I discovered that the area of Sydney from Martin Place to Circular Quay used to be a veritable artists hangout in the twenties and thirties. In those days there was no expressway and the bridge had just been finished in 1932. I can't imagine what it's like nowadays but I know my first detailed memories of the area come from a family trip to Sydney in 1967 and I was struck then by it being an area of high rise office blocks. How different from that earlier time!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The biographies bring these lost worlds to life for me. That's especially important for two reasons. The first is that I'm a survivor of the Australian education system of the '50s and '60s. I don't think Australia is unique in this, but, nevertheless, I'm struck by how much my education seemed designed to cultivate a collective amnesia about Australia's history. It's been odd for me to observe the teaching history debates that were a recent feature of public discussion in this country, particularly in the Howard years. Howard represented himself as the great savior of Australian history in our schools, which had apparently been run down or even dumped unlike the great glory years of the past when history was taught and promoted. I always thought what rubbish! I don't know how history is taught nowadays but in my schooldays it was, I think, deliberately made so boring and dull that we young people would never want to look at it again (a bit like the way poetry and novels and drama, Shakespeare, were taught too; intentionally designed to destroy any possible interest we might have had in them for our later lives). After I finished school I never really bothered much with Australian history, apart from learning about indigenous history (and that was whitewashed and whited out almost completely in school). I also picked up some union history and a bit of history of left wing movements here; and then, many years after I left school, we started to get some LGBT histories being published. Otherwise most of my history reading was overseas history. It was a bit harder to dumb down in school or maybe so much energy was put into dumbing down and anaesthetizing Australian history that they didn't bother so much with the foreign stuff. So enough got through to intrigue and fascinate me - and I have always been fascinated by history.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The other reason reading these biographies has been important is that they are bringing worlds to life that were further blocked off to me by the fact that while I was born in Sydney like my parents and all of their families, I grew up in Brisbane. I have some early childhood memories of Sydney both from when we lived there and then of visits from Lithgow, where we then lived until we moved to Brisbane in 1957 when I was 5 (I think a lot of my visceral, unspoken, sensual memories - colour, light and shade, scent and cold and warmth and wind stem from Lithgow; I seem to be haunted by bush framed sunsets). We never got back to visit Sydney until I was turning 15 in 1967. The world my parents, and aunt (Mum's sister) and uncle knew in their youth was a Sydney world for which I had no reference, being in Brisbane. At the same time they could not pass on to me memories of Brisbane because again they were from Sydney; the world of Brisbane's past was as unknown to them as it was to me. My family actually left Sydney when I was two and moved to Lithgow in the Blue Mountains (my aunt and uncle left around then too). As I got older, especially as an adult I began to find out more about Brisbane's past - I also got to visit Sydney a fairly regularly in the 70s and 80s and a couple of times in the 90s too (I haven't really been there this century, apart from the airport en route to elsewhere) and so have a bit more of a sense of place for Sydney, although not as well as Brisbane or Melbourne, or Townsville for that matter (where I lived and worked for a time in '88). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Ironically, one person might have been able to help create a collective memory of Brisbane for me, my mother's mother, my grandmother; except for the fact of how she came to live in Brisbane from the 1920s onwards. My grandmother had come here after leaving her husband and two daughters to go with another man (my mother and my aunt were then fostered out to another family with whom they grew up). What made the situation even more awkward was that my grandmother was Catholic, my grandfather Protestant, and after he divorced my grandmother, she married the man she went off with. By the time I was on the scene he was dead and he was never really spoken of, and of course us being a Catholic family made my grandmother's past even more difficult to discuss. It was the half-secret that wasn't to be talked about. I only found out some details from my grandfather's second wife, my step-grandmother when I visited her in Sydney when I was older.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Depression oral histories made me aware of various facts about life in Brisbane and Queensland and also Sydney and New South Wales that were unknown to me (I had no idea that the dole used to be paid out by the police back then!). And I've read one biography of an Irish couple who ended up in Brisbane in the second half of the 19th century. But most of the material I've read so far is about people living in or around Sydney. Many of these people are part of the Sydney my parents knew and so all of a sudden I have been immersed in these worlds, these communities, that possibly my parents and even my grandparents knew. Margaret Coen was not only a friend of <a href="http://www.normanlindsay.net/Biography.htm">Norman Lindsay</a> but <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/book-reviews/autobiography-of-my-mother/2007/06/19/1182019071190.html">the pair had been lovers at one stage</a> too. Thing is I remember being told that my grandmother went to parties at <a href="http://www.nationaltrust.com.au/properties/nlg/">Lindsay's house in Springwood</a>, at least once anyway (stories tend to embellish things). This was long before Margaret Coen was on the scene. But it's an odd feeling to think that there may be a connection to this world in my ancestral past. Another biography was of Robin Dalton who was born Robin Eakin, the daughter of a doctor Eakin. Dalton was born the same year as my mother but their lives were extraordinarily different, radically so when Dalton left Australia for London at the end of WW2. I asked my mother if she'd known of the Eakins or the doctor when she was nursing at St Vincents back in the war years. My mother remembered a doctor called Eakin then but he was too young to be the father of Robin. But, again, little points of connection. I can't hope for much more because my mother and my aunt are the only ones left of that generation in my family. And my grandparents and step-grandparents have long since left this earth.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Eleanor Dark biography was extraordinarily well written and was richly illustrated by quotes from her correspondence and that of her circles (and political police reports too). I felt that I had somehow entered her world and it was a world that fascinated me, a world with which I had points of connection through shared ideals and hopes. They're all dead now. I would love a a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS">TARDIS</a> so that I could go back and meet them all.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Biography and history; bringing history alive; discovering a sense of place in the past, through the past. I look at those lives and think, aren't you all extraordinary! How amazing we humans are! Each one a microcosm of hope and dreams and loves, of stories countless. Biography and history. Maybe that's why our school curriculum set out to bore us with history. Yes we can learn from the mistakes of the past. But more importantly I think biography and history can awaken in us a sense of wonder, a sense of compassion, a sense of solidarity with those who went before and consequently with those around us now too. Wonder? Compassion? Solidarity? In a capitalist society? No surprise we were taught amnesia instead.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-8005776321218271252010-11-13T20:39:00.019+10:002010-11-15T22:07:36.954+10:00Some Thoughts on the Tyranny of Marriage<div style="text-align: justify;">A friend of mine recently went to a school reunion. She's in her mid-forties, working, unmarried, lives in her own unit alone. She's not single though; she has a partner. They met through work. He lives in his own place, has done for quite a few years, alone. He was married but that ended a long time ago. My friend and her partner actually live not far from each other and theirs is a commuting relationship. So anyway at the school reunion, when my friend told her former classmates about her relationship, they heaved a sigh of relief, "we'd been wondering if you were gay because you weren't married and didn't have kids." It's in just such little ways that the tyranny of marriage makes itself felt. Presumably having a man in her life has restored some credibility for her, even if she isn't married. And yet my friend's situation is not that unusual. I have another friend who has been in a relationship with a man, a man also previously married and with kids (and grandkids, with whom she has a strong step-grandmother relationship too), for over 18 years now; they have never lived together in that time. And it's not just straight people. I have a gay friend who not does not live with his partner despite their 20 or so years together, they actually live in different countries, here and in Thailand! I'm told that in Thailand it's not the norm, or at least wasn't in the past, for male lovers to live together. Married people do that and marriage is husbands and wives and babies. Marriage there is primarily about children.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So I was curious to discover this essay over at the Guardian the other day. It's called <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/10/the-tyranny-of-marriage">The Tyranny of Marriage by Lara Pawson</a>. Lara is a married woman in the UK and she and her husband want to end their marriage because they've learnt that marriage "conveys gravitas and status ... it's a smug club to which my husband and I no longer want to belong." I recommend you read the whole piece; I reckon it's pretty good, although I also disagree with some parts of it too. I'm going to quote and comment on parts of it but first some background. In the UK marriage is only permissible between a man and a woman. However the UK also has civil partnerships. These are only permissible between two men or two women. A man and a woman can't contract a civil partnership and male or female couples can't get married. Nevertheless, civil partnerships are pretty much like marriage although they lack some of the privileges that marriage has. I'll get back to that shortly. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the UK there's an <a href="http://equallove.org.uk/">Equal Love</a> campaign which is being coordinated by the tireless gay activist, <a href="http://www.petertatchell.net/">Peter Tatchell</a>. In part it's about the right for same sex couples to get married but it's also about the right of opposite sex couples to contract a civil partnership. A number of opposite sex couples, <a href="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/11/09/straight-couple-denied-civil-partnership-again/">including Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle</a>, have applied to enter into a civil partnership. They've been knocked back as have the same sex couples been denied to contract marriage. I think this is a brilliant campaign with the potential to unleash some major changes which will lessen the tyranny of marriage. I used that term last year in one of <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/08/ending-tyranny-of-marriage.html">my pieces on marriage</a> and I was curious to see Lara Pawson use the same term as the title of her piece.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">She starts off saying:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">I want to divorce the man I love and he wants to divorce me. We do not wish to separate – simply to end our seven-year marriage... we would prefer "to secure official status for our relationship in a way that supports the call for complete equality and is free of the negative, sexist connotations of marriage". We are both fed up with being part of the hetero-husband-and-wife brigade that is accorded so much status and privilege</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">They got married in 2003 because they wanted "a public celebration to acknowledge our love, and my husband- to-be felt strongly that a ceremony with singing and reading was important, as well as the almighty knees-up." Marriage, "albeit a God-free one, seemed to be the only available path." They also got married for a practical reason. They were planning to live in Angola and getting visas as two 'single' people, in other words unmarried people - they were, after all, a couple - was a difficult process. Marriage enabled them to cut through the red tape. Marriage is recognised by international treaty, so long as it's monogamous. Polygamous and polyandrous marriages aren't recognised under international law even though they might be allowed in specific countries. Monogamous marriage is the only non-biological relationship that has international recognition, it's one of its privileges and it is privileged by it. (I'm very conscious of that privilege. After I finished my PhD I had high hopes of getting an academic job. I knew too that it would most likely be an overseas job and certainly most of the academic jobs I've applied for have been overseas since I began making applications 10 years ago. I purposely held back as much as possible from getting involved with anyone for most of the last decade because I knew that if did get a job overseas, it would be extremely difficult to get a male partner into which ever country I'd end up in, perhaps impossible with many). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Lara says that she soon discovered how sexist marriage is. "Before we even tied the proverbial knot, I became swiftly aware of discrimination against wives. A job in journalism I was up for suddenly became unavailable: a female manager called to say that now I was married she presumed that it would be difficult for me to be a foreign correspondent." This was in 2003! But it's not the inherent sexism of marriage that most got to her. Rather it's the privilege that marriage receives.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">When you marry, you gain a certain unspoken gravitas, as though society heaves a collective sigh of relief: "Thank God they've grown up." Several husbands and wives actually said to me, albeit with a weary smile, "Join the club". Clink clink. And I soon discovered that marriage really is a club.</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Being married pulls you into a new elite. It lends you an air of stability and reliability that singles and divorcees are denied. We assume that those who are unmarried probably have something just a teeny bit wrong with them because they have never managed to persuade another to settle down into that cosy unit of coupledom. This is the smug tyranny of husbands and wives.</div></blockquote><p></p></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I think what Lara has discovered here is the fact that marriage is the default in our society, the default of what constitutes a normative relationship, the type of relationship we are all meant to aspire to, the type of relationship that is considered makes for a well-adjusted and happy individual. As my friend found at her school reunion not being married put her in the category of 'suspected to be gay' (presumably lesbian was something too shocking for her classmates to consider). Consequently a suite of privileges attach to marriage. I think marriage even affects the way we have sex. Just today I saw this article someone had posted on Facebook, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40151221/ns/health-mens_health/">"Was it (not) good for you? Men say they fake it, too"</a> - it seems that men fake orgasms too, 25% of male respondents in a recent US study. Apparently most of the time guys faked it was during penis-vagina intercourse (it seems the respondents were all heterosexual) which was also the same for women. In other words men and women were both following an erotic script and faked orgasm because they wanted to get out of it without putting their partner on the spot. One commentator, Carol Ellison, makes the astute observation:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">"When sex is a performance, and when sex has performance goals — erection, intercourse, orgasms— it's problematic," Ellison, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience. Ellison argues that sexual success should be redefined as anything that makes you feel goodabout yourself, good about your partner and as something that enhances your relationship. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">"If you change the goal of sex to creating mutual pleasure and finding all the different ways to create pleasure... you'll learn a lot more about sexual responsiveness," she said. "Sex will be a whole different experience."</div></blockquote><div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I would argue that this performance based approach to sex comes from the reproductive priority accorded it by making marriage the template of normative intimate relationships. Marriage traditionally and primarily has been about having children. That and property (children themselves are traditionally a form of property) and inter-family alliance have always been the main purposes of marriage. Marriage has given sex a form of legitimacy through its procreative function, especially in Christian societies. Erection, intercourse and orgasms (especially the male's) are linked to that procreative function. They form a script that people believe they have to follow if they are to be counted as normal - normative - human beings.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I've taken a bit of a long detour here but I found the resonances between the fake orgasm article and the broader issue of the privileged default status of marriage too compelling to ignore. However the privileged status of marriage almost has a common sense quality. No one ever questions the centrality of marriage in our society. No one questions the laws against bigamy or plural marriage - everyone assumes that monogamy is the normal 'natural' way to be. No one questions the 'happy ever after' romantic aura that's cast around marriage. As Lara says when people marry they're given a "gravitas" and regarded as "all grown up." And I've been told that, anecdotally anyway, many young women today regard being a bride, getting married, as a kind of formal coming of age. And of course when you get married you're wedded to your soulmate, your partner, your complement, without whom your life is incomplete. It's the ultimate in co-dependency, it's also considered central to maturity. There's a whole industry of psychobabble literature designed to prop up the mythology.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And yet, as I pointed out in my <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-i-curse-john-howard-or-if-marriage.html">first post on this topic</a> last year the current status of marriage as the stand alone non-biological kinship relation and as the way to psycho-emotional affectional maturity and fulfilment is a fairly recent development in human history. Marriage has always been central, the demands of patriarchy and progeny always made it so, but for our ancestors, it did not have the tyrannical dominance that it does today. The late gay historian, Alan Bray, points out that in medieval Europe marriage sat amongst a web of non-biological (kinship) relationships. Indeed marriage was not regarded as the main vehicle of affectional fulfilment. Such fulfilment was more likely found in one's friendships. If it also happened in your marriage then that was regarded as a blessing. But in that medieval world, people might have entered one or two sworn friendships, they may well even have a sworn brother or sworn sister (sworn brotherhood and sworn sisterhood are more common in the Orthodox East but there were Latin rites of making men brothers too). Baptism and godparenting brought people into relationship - people lived amidst elaborate networks of god-kin. And that's just some of the web of relationships in which people lived and of which, marriage was a part.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">All of this began to change in the Renaissance and the Reformation. The practices of sworn friendship, sworn brotherhood and sworn sisterhood were stopped and the church rituals that instituted such relationships were suppressed and forgotten, especially in the West (they linger still in isolated pockets in the East). The networks of god-kin were pruned back. The web of relationship was unravelled. At the same time, marriage moved more and more into the centre of life. It became more formalised, reified, sacramentalised. For the Reformers, marriage instituted the godly household which was to become the fundamental basis of the godly Reformed Christian state. (The Reformers also closed down those suspect same-sex households of convent and monastery). The Roman Church also played catch-up making marriage a sacrament and tightening the regime of confession to monitor the sex lives of the faithful.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But with the rise of the modern capitalist state, marriage became very much a state institution. In much of Europe, the state took it off the Church. In the UK the state sub-contracted to the Church, in the 18th century the British Parliament mandating marriage in the Church of England as the only way to legitimate cohabitation (Jews and Quakers were given an exemption). This process goes hand in hand with the development of capitalism. In its raw state capitalism discourages all human solidarity - ultimately we are nothing more than individual consumers and wage slaves. Marriage, monogamous, couplist, patriarchal, and the nuclear family that goes with it, (once again described and valorised in the literature of Reformers such as Calvin) is the minimalist compromise for capitalism to make with human need for solidarity, in order to ensure new generations of consumers and wage slaves. The marriage household also makes a good unit of consumption and so it's easily integrated into the capitalist state. And propaganda is peddled promoting marriage as the focus of human affectional and personal fulfilment and maturity. The rich literature on friendship, going back through the centuries of Christianity and beyond into the many centuries of ancient pagan cultures too, peters out by the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Friendship is instead demoted and trivialised, a situation that would astonish our ancestors for whom it was of such importance.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I've had to summarise briefly and crudely but I do so to bring home just how recent a development the, dare I say morbid, centrality of marriage in our society is. And not just a general concept of marriage but a very specific instance, monogamous, couplist, exclusivist (I won't say patriarchal, sexist or hierarchical because most historical forms of marriage have been that).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But back to Lara's article. She goes on to say that she and her husband will divorce and hope to eventually form a civil partnership if the Equal Love campaign proves successful. But she then goes further announcing a much broader vision of relationship recognition:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">As I have argued elsewhere, if we really seek equality we must refuse to accept a society that prioritises conventional coupledom over other forms of love and fellowship. Those who would like to live with people who mean a great deal to them, but are not lovers, are left out of this entire debate. Again, I turn to Tatchell. Five years ago he wrote: "Many non-sexual friendships are as sincere, loyal and enriching as relations between people in love. They, too, should have legal recognition."</blockquote> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">She's quoting Peter Tatchell here from an <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/19/gayrights.planningyourwedding">article published in the Guardian back in 2005</a> when civil partnerships were introduced. Tatchell then rightly condemned the effective apartheid of a dual civil partnership for same-sex and marriage for mixed-sex couples set-up. He then outlined his own proposal for a single civil commitment pact which could be tailored by partners from a pick and mix menu of rights and obligations to work out a pact that best suits their needs. He then goes on to declare:</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Many non-sexual friendships are as sincere, loyal and enriching as relations between people in love. They, too, should have legal recognition. Restricting partnership rights to people in sexual relationships discriminates against close friends who support each other but are not in a traditional love coupling. If an elderly brother and sister set up house together and care for one another, why shouldn't they have legal rights?</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Unfortunately, few partnerships last a lifetime. Single people account for nearly a third of all households. Friends now play an increasingly important role in people's lives and support networks. It's wrong to deny legal rights to close friends who have a strong, supportive bond, just because they are not lovers and don't have sex.</div></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Similar legislation exists in Tasmania. Legal rights are granted to all relationships of mutual devotion and support, including gay couples, carers and unmarried heterosexual partners. It works Down Under; why not here?</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I agree with both Peter Tatchell and Lara Pawson in the need to recognise a wider range of relationships than just monogamous marriage and marriage like relationships/civil partnerships and like Peter Tatchell I like the Tasmanian Relationships Register as a model. My only problem is that Tatchell still seems to stick to a monogamous model. Only one relationship will be registered and that only with one other person. And yet as Tatchell himself says "Friends now play an increasingly important role in people's lives and support networks. It's wrong to deny legal rights to close friends who have a strong, supportive bond." It's wrong to deny the fact that a person might have more than one key friendship. And they might also have a sexual relationship at the same time, too. Furthermore coupledom is not the only model for lovers and significant friendships; there can be triads and other poly arrangements just as we can have more than one significant friendship. Any relationship recognition worth its salt must also have provision for such polyamorous relationships too. It's also not clear from either of the articles whether people who don't live together are covered. I started off this post detailing three such relationships that I know of in my own network of friends, two of which span decades. They don't fit the standard marriage model and neither should they have to. These relationships are also entitled to recognition.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And I'll quote here from a post I wrote on this subject last year:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">I would argue that it is about time that friendship was valued and celebrated. It's not clear from my reading whether medieval practices of sworn friendship were another form of adelphopoieia or something different. If adelphopoieia actually brought families into kinship whereas sworn friendships didn't then there is a difference already. One is kinmaking in a strong sense, the other blesses and affirms relationship without necessarily linking two kinship groups. It's time friendship was celebrated, affirmed and blessed. I'm not speaking here about solely romantic erotic same sex relationships. Imagine if two or three male or female friends wanted to celebrate their friendship and have it blessed. Imagine a world in which friendship is celebrated and honoured, including friendships between men and women!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And while I imagine the ways this could happen in a religious setting by drawing on rituals from the past, it doesn't only have to be in a religious setting. Australia now has a well established network of civil celebrants. Their main role has been to perform civil weddings. But as our culture has secularised, many of these celebrants have branched out into funerals and baby namings and same sex commitment ceremonies as well. Maybe it's time for the celebration of friendship or commitment to friendship to be added to the repertoire.</div></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In other words celebrants could develop a range of ritual forms suitable for different types of relationships people wish to celebrate and have recognised. Committed or sworn friendships could then be entered into a relationships register along with the whole gamut of significant relationships in people's lives including marriage and other sexual relationships. Indeed it might make us recognise that marriage-like and other sexual relationships are really forms of friendship and are themselves sustained and maintained by broader webs of friendship. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">That's one of the reasons I can't support the rush towards same-sex marriage. I fear that it will close off possibilities for a genuine equal love, a genuine relationship equality. Furthermore that closing off of other options buttresses the status of marriage as the default for relationships and even worse spreads the aegis of that default to cover homosexuality and same sex relationships. I would argue that marriage is not good for heterosexual people but that it is even worse for us queers. Taking marriage as the default for same sex relationships cuts us off from the variety of models in which same sex love was expressed in the past, models which we could be exploring and reviving and reconstructing, rather than forcing our relational lives into a model, marriage, which is oppressive, hierarchical and was not even designed for same-sex love. Quite the contrary, it might even have been shaped by the pressure of homosexual panic (at least that's what my reading of a number of Reformation texts suggests to me). If we are to have same-sex marriage it should come at the end, once we have dethroned marriage from its central position by setting in place a range of options and alternatives for all people in relationships, recognising, affirming and celebrating the variety and richness of human relationships.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Alas, I fear that wont be the case in Australia. When even the<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/arbib-wants-labor-to-back-gay-marriage/story-fn59niix-1225948555751"> right wing nasties in the ALP</a> start calling for same sex marriage then the writing is on the wall. If only the Equal Marriage campaign had been a real Equal Love campaign.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If we do end up with same sex marriage I think the next queer struggle might be to convince queer folks that marriage is not the be all and end all of life, that it's actually pretty rotten in fact; and that maybe we queer folks should not only avoid marriage but instead try to develop new ways (even revive some old ones too) and better forms of love and fellowship. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-43684866938212713242010-11-07T10:47:00.016+10:002010-11-07T13:44:20.411+10:00Bible, Canon and Liturgy<div style="text-align: justify;">At the <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/11/for-feast-of-all-saints-remembering.html">funeral I attended recently</a>, the priest commented in her sermon on the differences between Anglicanism and some other forms of Christianity. What she had to say related to the liturgical nature of Anglicanism. I can only paraphrase from memory but the gist of it was that Anglicanism was not a very doctrinal Church; it had no founding statement of doctrines, instead it had a prayer book, the Book of Common Prayer. I remember being struck by her saying "We Anglicans believe that the most important things we can say about God should first of all be said to God." What struck me most about her words was that they pretty much encapsulated what Catholic Christianity is all about when it comes to scripture - and by Catholic I mean, of course, not just the Roman communion but the broad framework of liturgical, sacramental Christianity, of which the Roman communion is the largest example. It is that liturgical dimension of scripture and the formations of canon that I want to address today.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Last month I wrote two posts here about the biblical canons of <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/10/council-and-bible-canon-in-christianity.html">Christianity</a> and <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/10/council-and-bible-canon-in-judaism.html">Rabbinic Judaism</a>. My usual practice is to crosspost these pieces on Facebook. Often times there's more discussion about what I write on Facebook than here. The Facebook discussion on the Christianity post generated this response from Albertus which I want to use as the springboard for my discussion:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div></div><blockquote><div><div style="text-align: justify;">You write that the Jews began to determine the canon of the Hebrew scriptures during the christian era. I remember from my studies in Rome at the Pontificia Universita Lateranense, that, indeed, the Jews first began to perceive the need to determine which books were ''scriptural'' in reaction to the use by christians of the Septuagint Old Testament to ''prove'' that Jesus Christ is the promissed Messias, and other christian beliefs.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In Catholic and Orthodox christianity - in spite of some modern ecumenical tendencies in some quarters to approach Protestantism in this and other matters - it is not the Holy Scriptures at all which stand at the centre of our religion - but rather, the God-man Jesus Christ, whose mysteries are celebrated and relived in the Mass and the Sacraments. The Scriptures were written to serve the Liturgy. The traditional Liturgies therefore use texts of Scripture as needed to make a liturgical point, even going so far as to paraphrase texts, such as the ''Epistle'' of a Bishop Confessor: Eccli 44:16-27; 45, 3-20....</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">...Interesting too, and contrary to the strict ''canonical thinking'' of some, esp. in protestant quarters, is the fact that the New Testament quotes not only the ''deuterocanonical'' OT books found in the Septuagint, but also books presently held to be Apocryphal by Jews, Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. And the NT does not quote or refer to several books which are found in all present-day official OT canons</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></blockquote><div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's his point about the links between Scripture and liturgy that interest me now. He's absolutely correct to say that for Catholic Christianities, Scripture does not hold the central place. Instead, as he says, it is "the God-man Jesus Christ" who is encountered and celebrated in the Liturgy, most centrally in the Eucharist. He's also correct, I would say, that the "Scriptures were written to serve the Liturgy." I remember being told many years ago by someone (can't remember who now) that what had made a text canonical was the fact of its use in the liturgy. I would suggest then that the various canon lists issued in the first centuries of Christianity are lists of texts that were being used in the liturgy of the local communities. Hence when, much later, the Councils of Trullo and 2 Nicea made decisions endorsing previous and apparently contradictory canon lists, they are in fact affirming the Orthodoxy and Catholicity of those various communities. Catholicism, especially in its Eastern forms is very much a religion that thinks globally but acts locally. Consequently Trullo and 2 Nicea were also not closing the canon either but giving ecumenical approval to flexible and open canonical practice grounded in the liturgy and life of the community. That ecumenical approval makes such canonical flexibility and openness the hallmark of what it means to be Catholic, Orthodox. I would argue that the ongoing canonical variety in the medieval West and Byzantine East derived from that understanding, perhaps even that ecumenical authority. I would further argue that the subsequent Western Councils of Florence and Trent did not have the authority to over-ride that older ecumenical warrant, not least because of its ecumenicity. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But back to liturgy. In my post on the Canon in Judaism, I pointed out that process of forming a Jewish Canon, took place at pretty much the same time as the process in Christianity. I'm sure too that, as my commenter observes, in part the Jewish canonical process was in reaction to Christian claims, most likely after the integration of Christianity by the Roman state in the 4th and 5th centuries.. I've thought that the canon forming processes in both religions would likely have a lot in common, including the importance of liturgical practice. Recently I found this <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap31.html">discussion</a> on the formation of the Jewish canon by Gerald Larue from his <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/">Old Testament Life and Literature</a> (1968) in which he identifies four principles guiding the Jewish canonical process.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><the principles="" guiding="" the="" rabbis="" in="" selection="" of="" sacred="" books="" have="" not="" come="" down="" to="" us="" any="" cut="" delineation="" but="" appear="" included="" p=""><ol style="text-align: justify;margin-left: 30px; margin-right: 30px; ">1. The writing had to be composed in Hebrew. The only exceptions, which were written in Aramaic, were Daniel 2-7, writings attributed to Ezra (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26), who was recognized as the founding father of post-Exilic Judaism, and Jer. 10:11. Hebrew was the language of Sacred Scripture, Aramaic the language of common speech.</ol><ol style="text-align: justify;margin-left: 30px; margin-right: 30px; ">2. The writing had to be sanctioned by usage in the Jewish community. The use of Esther at Purim made it possible for it to be included in the canon. Judith, without such support, was not acceptable.</ol><ol style="text-align: justify;margin-left: 30px; margin-right: 30px; ">3. The writings had to contain one of the great religious themes of Judaism, such as election, or the covenant. By reclassifying the Song of Songs as an allegory, it was possible to see in this book an expression of covenantal love. </ol><ol style="text-align: justify;margin-left: 30px; margin-right: 30px; ">4. The writing had to be composed before the time of Ezra, for it was popularly believed that inspiration had ceased then. Jonah was accepted because it used the name of an early prophet and dealt with events before the destruction of Nineveh, which occurred in 612. Daniel, a pseudonymous writing, had its setting in the Exile and therefore was accepted as an Exilic document.</ol></the></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Unfortunately, Larue gives no source for these principles. </div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In my opinion, none of the literature was composed before the time of Ezra (early Persian period) but certainly that principle could be a handy way to eliminate texts that clearly date themselves later such as the various books of Maccabees. The Hebrew language requirement likewise would rule out many texts, too, both those written in Greek, and those, like Greek Jeremiah, that were markedly different to the Hebrew edition. The third principle is sufficiently nebulous and elastic but clearly, as Larue notes, could be deployed to save a text like the Song which on first reading might be considered insufficiently 'religious' in its content (there were plenty of Christian debates about the Song as well). Ultimately we are left with principle 2, community usage. Central to community usage is the synagogue liturgy. So in other words, the rabbis in creating their canon based it on the texts in common liturgical usage in the Jewish communities that accepted rabbinic authority (not all did, of course). As with Christians, I would argue that liturgical usage, then, was a key factor for canonicity in the making of the Jewish Bible.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The rabbis had another trick up their sleeve too. In my post on Canon in Judaism, I observed that the "Mishnah stands beside Tanakh as equally Scripture for Jews. And furthermore, the subsequent texts of Judaism, Talmudim, Midrashim, Targumim, even the much later Zohar come to be counted as part of that Oral Torah Tradition that ends up in writing and so all share to some degree in the authority of Scripture." Many of the narratives in the discarded scriptures, especially Jubilees, Maccabees and Judith, were subsequently retold as commentary by the rabbis and thus inscribed in the Oral Torah Tradition. Scripture becomes commentary to become scripture.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One question I keep pondering which I might take up at a later stage. Given how important liturgy was for the shaping of biblical canons, how important was it for the shaping, even the composition of texts?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-44589102394907701122010-11-05T21:43:00.007+10:002010-11-05T23:26:47.177+10:00A Good Tip for Biblical Scholars from an Aussie Communist Author<div style="text-align: justify;">As I said in <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/11/shock-of-recognition.html">my previous post</a>, I've been reading <a href="http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/publications/steep_stairs/volume1/essays01">Frank Hardy'</a>s <i>The Hard Way</i>, his account of the writing of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Without_Glory">Power Without Glory</a></i> and the trial that followed publication. It's likely some people haven't heard of Hardy or of his book which he self-published back in 1950. The book was a fictional account of political powerbroker and businessman, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wren">John Wren</a>, who had considerable influence in Victorian state politics and especially the Labor Party. In the book, the character John West is based on Wren. Hardy, a member of the Communist Party of Australia, was charged with criminal libel by Ellen Wren, wife to John Wren. In the book her character, Nellie West, is portrayed as having an adulterous relationship from which she became pregnant and had a child. If found guilty of criminal libel not only would the book have been banned and suppressed but, as the author, Hardy faced a lengthy gaol term as well. As I said in my previous post, reading <i>The Hard Way</i> has sent me back in time through my memories of living in Melbourne back in the early 70s. Most of the time I lived in Fitzroy, part of a network of Catholic Worker inspired households in the area. In many respects the world that Hardy describes in the Melbourne of 1950 was still there in 1972. The Melbourne City Watchhouse was largely unchanged, the streets, the pubs, for the last two days I've even been reliving the smells of the Fitzroy I knew then. Oh the tantalising tricks of memory. Because, of course, that Melbourne, that Fitzroy no longer exists. When I was last there on 2004 the working class neighbourhood had become pretty gentrified and up-market. I found that quite sad, in fact. I think that all those memories flooding back now may prompt some reflective posts of my younger days in Melbourne but not tonight. Tonight I want to pick up on something that Hardy wrote that seems quite relevant to biblical studies today.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As I said, Hardy's book was an historical fiction. It was based on the Wrens, especially John Wren and was designed to expose the corrupt workings of power in Victoria, especially as it related to the Labor Party and working class struggles. Hardy aspired to be a realist writer and, as a Communist, wrote the book as a tool for politicising and consciousness-raising amongst working class Australians. <i>The Hard Way</i> is fascinating for its portrayal of the way Communist and union activists brought literature into the lives of working class people, even when on the job.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At the end of <i>Power Without Glory</i> Hardy included an Author's Note on fiction and history and the writing of characters. It's referred to a number of times during the trial and so is quoted a few times in <i>The Hard Way</i>. I'm going to share those quotes here because I thought Hardy's observations were quite pertinent to biblical studies.</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Hardy points out that there are three types of characters in his book, fictional, 'real people' and composite characters. The composite characters are a blend of real and fictional elements. He then observes</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Will the characters be real or invented ? Characters – that is, people - cannot be invented, they must be based on persons drawn from real life… But no single person, as he exists, is concentrated or typical enough for literature; something must be added, something taken away. In every person there are characteristics typical of many people… Sometimes actual historical events and people will be portrayed, often composite incidents and characters…</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I'm struck by the thought then that no matter how 'real' a character may be they are still in some sense composite because even for real people "something must added". At the same time too, even fictional characters in some way are derived from real people. All narrative then, even or especially narrative about real people and real events is in some sense composite, a blend of fiction and actuality. <i>Power Without Glory</i> is an example of such a composite work, so too is <i>The Hard Way</i>. Frank Hardy himself used a <i>nom de plume</i>, Ross Franklyn, based on both his and his wife's given names. Ross Franklyn becomes a character in <i>The Hard Way</i>; it's Hardy's way of reconciling the two people he had become, the novelist and the activist. Ross Franklyn is a fictional character but he is also a composite character, too, based on Frank Hardy himself.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Hardy's insights can also be applied to the biblical narratives, both Old and New Testaments. Even when they are dealing with real people, among whom I would place Ahab, Hezekiah, Josiah, Judas Maccabeus, Jesus, Pontius Pilate, Herod, Mary the mother of Jesus, these are all to a greater or lesser extent composite characters. The events that surround them, that they perform are likewise composite events, blends of fiction and reality, reality fictionalised. As for the fictional characters and events, they too are drawn on real people and events in some way, we just don't know who these people and events are and we will likely never know.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Many people might be upset by this fictionalising, the composite nature of the people and events recounted, probably no more so for large numbers of people, that the Gospel portraits of Jesus might be composite, fictionalised. In response I want to quote another passage from <i>The Hard Way</i>. First I needed to point out that despite the fact that the criminal libel was brought by Ellen Wren due to Nellie West's adultery, it's a fact that Nellie West is portrayed sympathetically all the way through <i>Power Without Glory</i>. She is driven to adultery by her husband. Also in <i>The Hard Way</i>, Hardy alleges that information he and his defence team received, gave them to believe that Ellen Wren was pressured by her husband into the action because he didn't want to bring an action himself. If he did he'd be putting the spotlight on serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the book's character, John West, criminal behaviour that might actually have been composite in nature, much moreso than Nellie West's adultery.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">After the trial when Hardy is found not guilty by the jury, he relates this account of the reactions of John and Ellen Wren to the result. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">I put the pen aside and idly began to read press cuttings which lay on the table.</div><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">‘John Wren was reading a copy of <i>Fortune</i>, the American business magazine,’ I read the interview by <i>Herald</i> journalist, Noble.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>‘He put it down. I said, “Mr Wren, have you heard the news? The Hardy jury has returned a verdict of Not Guilty!” Not an emotion showed on the face of the seventy-nine-year-old financier. There was a long silence, broken only by his occasional repetitions, “Not Guilty… extraordinary!”… With a pale blue shawl around her shoulders, grey-haired Mrs Wren opened the kitchen door herself. She was white-faced but composed. She said, “The verdict is nothing more than I expected, that’s all I can say.”’<o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Ross Franklyn seemed as if he had been reading over my shoulder: ‘Well, John and Nellie West acted in character,‘ he said.</div><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">‘Yes,’ I replied simply.</p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">What really counts is not that a figure has been made a composite of fiction and real. That's how narrative works. What counts most is that they act in character, in the text and vice versa. It's up to us to work out whether or not they do.</p></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-33927020951816532822010-11-03T23:14:00.004+10:002010-11-04T00:32:34.462+10:00The Shock of Recognition<div style="text-align: justify;">I'm currently doing some research assistant work. I've got 150 hours. What I have to do is speed read Australian biographies and record any references to reading. I started last week and since then I've read 5 books and am on my sixth. It's by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hardy">Frank Hardy</a>, <i>The Hard Way</i>, and it's his account of the writing of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Without_Glory">Power Without Glory</a></i> and the court case that followed its publication in 1950.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I wont go into details of the case except to say that Hardy was charged with criminal libel not civil libel which meant he was liable to imprisonment and the book to suppression, as well as any damages. In the end he was successful but it was a quite a struggle. Hardy was a member of the Communist Party and 1950 was the year the Menzies tried to outlaw the the Party eventually going to a referendum which was lost.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Anyway at one stage of the court case, Hardy was denied bail and put into the <a href="http://www.oldmelbournegaol.com.au/city_watch_house">City Watchhouse</a> where he spent a couple of days. When he was brought there from the court which adjoined it he was put in the Watch House Yard. Here's his description:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">The yard of the City Watchhouse is surrounded by brick walls rising forty feet high to shut out all kindness and all hope that shame might end. Curving above the walls is a roof of bars meshed with wire as though the authorities believe a miracle might lead some lost soul up the wall to the brink. The enclosure itself is perhaps thirty yards by twenty with a concrete floor. In its centre are two double-sided benches. In one corner is a stinking lavatory in which the sewer is out of order. The urinal, too, smelt foully and the yard seemed never swept. Bread crusts and scraps of paper strewed the floor and blocked the gully trap (67-8).</blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><br /></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As I was reading it, the image of the yard filled my mind, including that wretched lavatory and urinal. Suddenly I realised, 'I've been there!' This was not imagination but memory, not suppressed but filed away. I was in that same yard 22 years later in 1972, not once but twice. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Back then I was an idealistic but closeted 20 year old. These were the days of the Vietnam War and, in Australia, conscription. There was a strong anti-conscription movement with a massive campaign of civil disobedience designed to make conscription unworkable. Central to the campaign was the refusal of young men to cooperate with the conscription process, to resist the draft. By 1972, there was a large number of young men, some in prison, some in hiding, others waiting for the law to move against them for refusing to participate in the call up process. The National Service law kicked in on males when they turned 20. 1972 was the year I turned 20 so I had begun my journey of draft resistance which I expected would lead me into a life underground in hiding unless there was a change of government at then end of the year (there was - the Whitlam gov't was elected in December 1972 and promptly began the dismantling of the conscription process and pardoning everyone who had broken those laws. I was in hiding, on that election day and had been for about a week). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I'd grown up through my teens under the shadow of conscription and I knew that I would face a confrontation with the power of the state. I knew that I would have no recourse but to defy the laws and risk the horrors of prison. Resisting the draft was a process comprising several stages all of which carried penalties for non-compliance, the final being 18 months gaol. As a cancer survivor I could have gotten a medical exemption as a couple of family members reminded me but it wasn't about avoiding conscription but ending it. So there was no way I was going to take advantage of my cancer.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">While conscription was something only we young guys faced the law provided avenues for a wider range of people to participate in civil disobedience. In particular, it was against the law to encourage guys to break it by not co-operating with the process. Pamphlets were produced urging guys to resist the draft; distributing such pamphlets was regarded as an offence under the federal Crimes Act. So by 1972 it was usual to hold demonstrations against conscription in which people chose to give out such pamphlets and get arrested. That's what I did along with many others back then - we stood on the GPO steps in the Melbourne CBD with placards and banners and then one by one we'd each grab a handful of pamphlets and go down onto the foot path and give them. Of course there were coppers down there waiting for us, Commonwealth coppers not state police because this was federal criminal offence. So at two separate demos on those steps I took my handful of pamphlets and went down basically to the arms of the law. From memory the cops were in plainclothes. The moment I stepped off the stairs proffering a pamphlet I was arrested and led away to the paddy wagon. The second time it happened so quickly I had to yell out 'I've been arrested' just to make sure people knew the cops had me. Once the paddy wagon was full we were taken off to the Watch House and then put in that yard.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">My memories of that place are vague. There were plenty of us so it was not as daunting as it might sound. The demos and my subsequent times in court stand out much more strongly in my mind. When I think about my court appearances I'm struck by how much I got away with because I turned both of them into political theatre. And I look back on myself then with great affection. How idealistic and how naive and how beautiful! I'm not going to write about the court appearances here. I will one day because I learnt a valuable lesson about how rotten our justice system can be. At least part of my theatre in my second court appearance was designed to expose how rotten and arbitrary the whole system actually was.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But for now it's my time in the Watch House that holds my attention. How strange that I could so forget my time in that place? I don't think I was there for more than a few hours, we were all bailed once the demo was over. I can't even remember who was there with me although I know one person was with me on one of those occasions because he and I worked together on the theatre of court - my second appearance. But I can only remember him in court, not in custody. Maybe because I was in my own private prison then, the closet, which I began to slowly push open later that year and finally kick that door down in early '73.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The only clear memory I have of that Watch House was that grotty lavatory that Hardy describes and the urinal too. It still smelt foul and I'm sure there were problems with the sewer when I was in that place too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's all a museum now and probably the place is kept cleaner and in better working order than ever it was when it was chocked full of prisoners.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And I still regard such places as abominations.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-1980539860711620992010-11-01T20:19:00.005+10:002010-11-01T21:35:55.538+10:00For the Feast of All Saints: Remembering John McCulloch<div style="text-align: justify;">Today is All Saints Day. Here in Australia we've had a bit of a sensation over the recent canonisation of Mary McKillop last month (on 17 October), the first Australian to get into the calendar of saints of the Roman Church and probably of any of the sacramental liturgical Churches. The usual practice is to observe the saint's day on the anniversary of their death. Mary McKillop's feast day is 8 August.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">All Saints Day has a long history which you can read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Saints">here</a> at Wikipedia but the principle behind it is that there are many more saints than simply those who get into the calendar (and while, over the last 40 years, a lot more saints have been added to that calendar, quite a few have sadly also been removed). This is the day to honour them all.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course the reality is that we are all saints if we but knew it. I look back on my life and think what an extraordinary, amazing mixture of people I've had the privilege of knowing and loving. All of us are extraordinary in the dreams we dream, the moments of awe and wonder, the acts of kindness, generosity and love. In Christian terms a saint is simply a friend of God and God is friend to all, God offers friendship to all. It is my belief that the whole of creation will be joined together in divine friendship or maybe more correctly the whole of creation is joined together in divine friendship; it's simply a matter of us opening our eyes and recognising it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Friends. In <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/10/depression-forgiveness-and-love.html">my previous post</a> I wrote about a friendship ruptured in depression and my hope that one day that rupture will be healed and all will be well. But I began that post referring to another friendship just last week ruptured by death, the death of John McCulloch. John had a long connection to University of Qld including a significant part in UQ's history of Queer or LGBT organising. He was part of the first group, <a href="http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3547607?lookfor=subject:%22Gays%20-%20Queensland.%22&offset=2&max=9">Campus Camp</a>, which was formed back in 1973 beginning a continuing history of organised LGBT and Queer community and activism at University of Qld. It was because of that fact that I sent a message via Facebook to the current members of the Queer Collective. And so for All Saints Day I'm going to post that message here with maybe just a little bit of tweaking here and there to fit the blog format.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">To the Members UQ Queer Collective (2010)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">I'm writing to let you know about the recent death of someone who is actually quite important to the history UQ's organised queer history and activism and who was a friend of mine. I refer to John McCulloch (1938-2010) who died of pancreatic cancer a week ago (24 October). His funeral was on Thursday (28 October).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I got to know John 14 years ago through the informal queer postgrad and friends lunch group here at UQ which we called Munchkins. Back then John was tutoring at QUT but I found out from him that he was involved in Campus Camp, the first gay (as was the terminology back then) group at UQ and which kicked off in 1973. John told me he was the secretary, he was always a very unassuming person and I think he might have been the first secretary and he held the position in 73 and 74, I believe. Back then Campus Camp was politically and socially active, staging demos, writing a detailed submission to the <a href="http://www.womenaustralia.info/bib/AWP003720.htm">Commission on Human Relationships</a> set up by the Whitlam govt, and working to build a queer community at UQ and in Brisbane. The old Campus Camp dances held in the Refec were legend; live bands including <a href="http://web.revolutionrock.com.au/oral-hist/index.php?id=23">Railroad Gin</a> with lesbian lead singer, <a href="http://www.carol-lloyd.com/">Carol Lloyd</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">John finished his BA and worked in the Arts Faculty as a tutor. Back then full time continuing tutoring jobs were quite the norm, unlike today. Even more extraordinary from today's perspective was that John was elected by his colleagues in Arts as sub-dean of the faculty, a position he held for several years.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I'm not going into all the details of John's life. <a href="http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/">Anna Bligh</a> issued a ministerial statement on Thursday in tribute to John, the text of which I'm pasting below plus the link to Hansard. John was a longtime active member of the ALP and a strong supporter of women's rights and women's representation in Parliament. He has written a book on women in politics, <i>From Suffragists to Legislators</i>, to mark the 100th anniversary of womens suffrage in Qld. Here's <a href="http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3293251">a link</a> to the National Library holding for it</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For the last few years John was doing PhD here at UQ in <a href="http://www.emsah.uq.edu.au/">EMSAH</a> in Women's Studies with <a href="http://www.emsah.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=17750&pid=2470">Carol Ferrier</a>. His was writing on a woman who was an activist for women's suffrage in Qld in the 1890s and early last century. I'm happy to say that the thesis was submitted shortly before John's death. Even more importantly he also had the text edited for publication (it even includes an index) so I hope to see it published at some stage in the future.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It had been my hope that John could have made the UQ Queers reunion I organised a year ago but he wasn't able to. It was my hope then to organise something once he'd submitted his PhD but alas that was not to be. I'm sure he would have loved to have been able to meet you all. He was a man who enjoyed people</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">His funeral went off well. It was at the <a href="http://www.anglican-stlucia.org/">St Lucia Anglican church</a>; the local vicar there is a woman. While John's background was Anglican, I don't think he was all that religious but I'm sure he would have liked the idea of being sent off by a woman priest. There was a big turnout of people to remember John and support his partner Gary. John and Gary met at UQ many years ago but they didn't start their relationship until much later in the 90s.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The history of marginalised communities is easily lost, only the powerful can ensure their history is preserved. I'd also hoped to interview for the LGBT Oral History project, again after he'd finished the PhD. Alas that too is not to be. But what I can do is make sure you all know about him and how important he was for all of us, for the work he did here at UQ all those years ago. I'll miss his friendship - it was a privilege to have known him</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">PREMIER ANNA BLIGH'S STATEMENT TO MARK THE DEATH OF JOHN McCULLOCH from <a href="http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/hansard/documents/2010.pdf/2010_10_28_DAILY.pdf">HANSARD 28/10/10</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">the achievements of Mr John McCulloch are also extraordinary. John was known to many on both sides of the chamber. He was a senior parliamentary research officer, joining the Parliamentary Library in 1984 and remaining there for 10 years. John was an excellent research officer and he wrote several research background publications for general distribution to members and also to a wider audience. His Parliamentary Library background papers stood out, particularly his paper Women members of the Queensland Parliament 1929-1994, published in 1994 by the Parliamentary Library. The library produced an exhibition in association with this publication and at its opening all women members to that date were present, apart from the two who had passed away. I believe the Leader of the House would have been present at the exhibition in 1994. That was the year before I was elected. John’s paper was a very important record of the political history of the House and the chamber to date.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">John was born in London in 1938 and moved to Australia with his parents when he was 12 years old. As a young man he worked at Bayards—and some of us will remember Bayards—as a shop assistant and managed to complete his senior through night school. John was a researcher with a</div><div style="text-align: justify;">special interest in the advancement of gender equity in politics and as part of his research into women in politics John identified the original petitions in Queensland that called for women to get the vote. It was an important piece of research. John was awarded an Order of Australia Medal in January 2000 for service to youth, especially his 17 years of voluntary work for the Queensland and Australian Youth Hostels Association. In addition to his work on women and politics, John served as convenor of the Homelessness Taskforce 99. He was also a part-time researcher for St Vincent de Paul.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">John co-convened with Mary Crawford the International Women in Politics conferences for many years in association with QUT and, as the Speaker outlined yesterday, he was scheduled to give the welcome address at the next conference to be held on 5 November as part of the Queensland parliament’s 150th celebrations. The word ‘progressive’ is bandied about constantly in political circles and its definition is widely argued, but to my mind John McCulloch was a true political progressive. He was a deep thinker, an activist and a doer. I extend my condolences and those of the government to the family of John.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: center;">******</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's worth noting that Anna Bligh's statement paid tribute to both John and a union official, Austin Vaughan, whose funeral was also held that day. In her statement, the Premier acknowledged and named the partner and children and grandchildren of Vaughan, But nowhere did she name let alone acknowledge John's partner, Gary.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Nevertheless today is a day for celebrating all the saints so I ask you to celebrate John McCulloch, thanks to whom life for all of us made a little bit better. His life is a reminder how we all are, how we all can be saints. It is customary in Judaism to say of a dead person, may their memory be for blessing, and so I say for John, may his memory be for blessing. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-18085410623338387442010-10-28T20:19:00.035+10:002010-10-30T16:09:10.422+10:00Depression, forgiveness and love<div style="text-align: justify;">I'm shifting back into a personal mode with this post (but there will be another post on Bible and canon matters soon). The last two weeks have been a rather emotional time. This afternoon I was at a funeral for a friend of mine, <a href="http://tributes.couriermail.com.au/obituaries/couriermail-au/obituary.aspx?n=john-edward-mcculloch&pid=146253962">John</a> <a href="http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3293251">McCulloch</a>. He was part of a regular lunch group at University of Qld that was going since the mid-90s, 1996 I think. It was a bunch of queer postgrads and friends. He started off as a friend (he was tutoring at QUT then) but ended up as a postgrad, our last, because the group has pretty much wound up now. I also realise now that the last time I saw him, in June, he must have known he was sick because I found out at the funeral that his dissertation, which got submitted, was pretty much publishable, even including an index. Back then he was having it all edited and it sounded like it was a major job not simply a proof read, which suggests to me now that he knew then that at least it would be wise to get as much done as soon as possible. After that his health went down. I was out of the loop by then with the full onset of depression then flu on top of that and while I knew he was not well it would be a while before it became clear how serious it was and by the time I found out how bad things really were it was too late. And then he was dead. I hope to write about him in the near future but I want to wait for a little while yet.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Death and mortality are not what I want to write about although they provide me a sharp frame in which to write, a stark backdrop to my thoughts, maybe even a note of urgency. No, I want to write now about recent developments in my own personal life, a surprising twist in my saga of depression and the crisis and rupture in friendship that was part of it almost a year ago. I wrote about it all in my <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/07/after-eclipse.html">After the Eclipse</a> post back in July and if you haven't read it or have forgotten the details you might like to go back and re-read it. But to briefly reprise the main gist for this post. Last year a friend, I'll call him M for a blogging identity he used, came back into my life. Our friendship became very intense before collapsing under the weight of my depression, anxiety, mania. As I said in <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/07/after-eclipse.html">After the Eclipse</a>, by November last year I was probably barking mad and M was copping most of the shrapnel. It's now a little over a year since I last saw him, a happy mid-October day 2009, I was still holding it together then. Strangely though I remember as he was leaving, watching him walk off down the street and thinking to myself 'I'm not going to see him again for a very long time'. I dismissed it as a chill of anxiety, well, tried to anyway. Perhaps, looking back on it, it was the 'scout ripple' for the great wave of anxiety that would sweep over me as everything around me seemed to unravel completely, from end of October onwards last year.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Writing that depression post in July was in part about trying to make sense of where I was by then psychologically, emotionally, spiritually. It was also an attempt to express the grief and the guilt and shame over the rupture with M, to express some kind of apology to him. It was a desperate attempt in the hope that one day he might read it. I'll quote a snippet of what I wrote then</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Then there is all the grief about the friendship now lost. If there was anything I could do to undo those events, I would. I can't begin to imagine what it must have been like for him but I know some of what it might have meant for him to have suffered it. That comes from confidences that remain between he and I, which I keep close always. And, believe me, that knowledge heightens the guilt as well. I hope he wasn't too damaged by what happened; I know how, why damage could be done. I don't know how but I hope I can atone in some way, make some kind of expiation some day. I am so sorry. As for any reconciliation, well that's not in my hands and I don't know how it would come about anyway. All I can do is pray in the words of Julian of Norwich that one day, that somehow "all will be well" - for him most of all</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Those words remain true. I am still so sorry and I hope to make amends to him somehow one day and I hope so much for a full reconciliation between us, to see and talk with him again, that "all will be well" again between us. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As it turns out, he has read that post. I know because he emailed me last week. That was kind of a strange day. I'd had to go out to the university to do some things. For some reason he was on my mind that day, especially on my way home that afternoon. Maybe I'm kind of tuned to him in some way? Anyway, when I got home and turned on the computer I was thinking something like "what if there's an email from him" and when I opened up the browser I glimpsed there was something and when I got into my mail, there it was. It had happened. I was elated and terrified at the same time; I left his to last and went though my other mail, my heart racing. When I finally opened it and began reading, it was a moment of sheer joy. All the guilt and shame was suddenly lifted, it was a moment of respite for me from all that shame and pain. I won't divulge the details of what he had to say but the gist is he was wanting to express his sorrow and apologise to me for what had happened, for his terminating the friendship back then. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Initially I could only respond to his sorrow and pain. I'm a bit of a big kid, really, and rushed in half cocked. I wanted to reassure him and I also wanted to say my apologies to him. Oh what a flood it was. And I wanted to respond as soon as possible because I could see the pain in what he wrote and I didn't want to leave him hanging. That was all Wednesday/Thursday of last week. I don't think I even really paid attention to his own apology because I was reading the fact that he had contacted me as his forgiving me. But I kept pondering and reflecting upon all he'd written and pretty soon realised I'd stuffed up again. Ah, the curse of good intentions!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">To explain what I mean, I'm going to have to back up a bit now and quote some more of what I wrote in July</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Everyone thinks of depression as grief or melancholy or sadness and, yes, it is all of those. But, at least as I've experienced it, there are two key words, doubt and paralysis, that best describe what happens. Doubt, well it's central to anxiety isn't it. You doubt everything, most especially yourself. Nagging, nagging doubt, that probably is the famous black dog that worries at you like a dog at bone. It chews up all the inner energies so that sometimes a complete lethargy, exhaustion comes over you. From doubt comes paralysis. You doubt everything including your abilities and all your motivations. Doubt puts everything in the worst possible light. Consequently, it becomes too difficult to make any sort of decision, to initiate any sort of action. You're like a rabbit in the spotlight, frozen, because everything you might opt to do looks so bad, either bad in itself, or coming out of something bad in yourself. That I'm writing all this now indicates that the doubt has eased because at it's worst I could not have even put finger to keyboard. I would be caught up in an inner self-critical monologue busily analysing and tearing apart why I'm going to write and what I'm going to write...</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But I wasn't happy with that and in the comments thread I went on to elaborate some more on doubt</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">I don't think I really conveyed what I meant by doubt, let alone why it might result in mania. When I talk about doubt, I mean what could be termed a process of self-criticism, except that this is the most withering, most savage, most acerbic and most relentless critical reflection upon oneself, you can imagine. And nothing is safe: every act, every thought, every feeling, every word, aspect of oneself is thrown under the most probing and savage scrutiny. This self critical process is like a Greek chorus in your head, always commenting, always criticising. It never stops. The result is that you see yourself in the worst possible light all the time.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Oftentimes the result is a retreat, a withdrawal into oneself. It's exhausting having to endure such a barrage of criticism. Also you think so little of yourself, that you feel that contact with others is some kind of awful imposition upon them. You withdraw rather than make life difficult for them, which is what you think you are doing because obviously you are such a useless or vile or rubbish person. That's what the chorus is telling you anyway.</div></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In his email M said that, like me, he too has been grappling with deep depression at the time. The tone of his email indicated that he still was, just like me. We have both, then, been dealing with that maelstrom of internal withering self-criticism, that relentless, unescapable internal accuser. I said that M came back into my life last year - he had withdrawn from me quietly a year before and I realise now, reflecting on the reasons he offered then as to why, that it's likely even way back then his internal prosecutor had set me up as a standard he couldn't live up to, set me up as a standard by which to point the finger and proclaim "J'accuse!" That internal prosecutor twists and perverts everything to make you look like utter rubbish, a vile piece of shit. That's the cruel dynamic of depression. Furthermore, that malevolence of depression is such that my apologies in the face of his apology could even be taken up by that internal prosecutor as yet another rod for his back.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I know that because that's why I was responding to his apologies with apologies of my own. That he was apologising to me was further proof of how bad I was and so on setting up a feedback loop of guilt that would ensnare us both. My internal accuser was trying to derail his apology. I wanted somehow to break out of that. What I decided to do came as a complete surprise to me at first. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What I did was to write back to tell him I forgive him for everything, all those actions and inactions to me for which he had been tormenting himself.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In such depths of despair that so characterise depression, what you feel, what you know about yourself can be described in one word, unforgiven. Your inner accuser puts you through the most relentless examination of conscience imaginable (I'm sure many Christian saints were battling with depression in their lives). There's no let up. And no chance for absolution. There is only that constant inner chorus attacking you, vilifying you, scrutinising every aspect of you, because it is, after all, part of you, it knows all your secrets. In the Hebrew Bible, Satan, the Satan (<i>ha satan</i>) is the accuser, a functionary in the heavenly court. I think that in some sense that heavenly court corresponds to our own inner world (we are the image and likeness of the divine), so it's unsurprising we have our own satan, an accuser, as an aspect of ourselves. One thing I have learnt about that accuser is that accusation is all it knows (in Jewish tradition angels are only capable of performing only one task at any given time and they must complete that task before they can take on a new one). It reminds me of those hideously obsessive prosecuting attorneys in US crime dramas that are only concerned with one thing, making sure the accused goes down, regardless of any details and facts in the case (one of the reasons I can't stand such US court dramas, it's all so inhuman and yet valorised at the same time).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the depths of depression our accuser is in full flight and of course it can only do one thing, accuse. It's not interested in healing, it's not interested in resolution, it's certainly not interested in reconciliation, of setting to right all the screw ups and messes and failures that it so eagerly pinpoints and presents before us. No, all it can do is accuse. At its worst it's like a lynch mob, it's not content until it has fully victimised and destroyed you, me, us. In it's eyes, I, we don't deserve anything more.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It strikes me that forgiveness is one way of shortcircuiting that accusing, satan trap. As I said before, M contacting me was to me a sign of forgiveness, I was forgiven, he had forgiven me, and it gave me an amazing sense of respite, of joy, so much that I couldn't really attend to what he was saying, couldn't attend to his own self-accusations. I also realised that no matter how much I said it was fine, how sorry I was, how it was my fault, all of that, it was probably grist for the mill for that accuser of his. I could feel mine stirring too looking for new opportunities to bring the calm to an end. So I decided that the only thing I could say to my friend - because he is my friend, dear to me, despite the rupture - it's one thing I learnt from my accuser, it could attack me so readily over him because he is so important to me - the only thing I could say to M was, I forgive you. If your accuser presents the spectacle of my pain before you and accuses you of failing me, remember I forgive you and your accuser has no right to use me to convict you. No right whatsoever because I forgive you.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Ideally, I guess, it should be about forgiving ourselves, I forgive myself, M forgives himself, you forgive yourself. The accuser can only accuse, it's brief is not forgiveness. Consequently, I think it's only forgiveness can undo the power of the accuser. Yet in the face of that relentless barrage of accusation, it's all you can do to keep things together, you're down on the ground crawling, struggling. When I was bashed in Townsville back in 1988 I was punched in the head, tried to escape but couldn't. All I could do was run out into the street so that I could be seen, and drop to the ground curl up in a foetal position while they kicked and stomped on me. It's not a bad analogy for what I've been describing with depression. The accuser is kicking and stomping you as you curl up on the ground in desperation. All your energy is directed in staying together; there's no reserves left to forgive yourself. Forgiveness, then, has to come from somewhere else, somewhere outside. Humans are not isolated individuals pursuing our own self interest, we are social beings. As John Donne said, "no man is an island entire of itself" we are "each... a piece of the continent, a part of the main." The continent of humanity, the continent of life. So for my friend, for M, I realised it was essential that I put aside my own guilts and shame and respond, reach out in the only way possible, to forgive him. And I hope that I have, therefore, if not fully immobilised his accuser, at least taken away some of its power over him. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I think one of the most important personal tasks facing all of us is to practice forgiveness. I know it's not easy and in many ways it actually goes against the grain of capitalist society particularly in its current neo-liberal phase, with its all power to the market, there is no such thing as society, we are all but consumers striving to be winners ideology. I think it's especially important for us LGBT people. I recently read a report from <a href="http://www.qahc.org.au/">QAHC</a> on mental health and LGBT communities in Queensland. The figures for self harm, suicide, drug and alcohol problems, depression were horrific but sadly not, to me, surprising. And interestingly, the report highlighted the social dominance of neo-liberal ideology as a major factor in making things worse. There's no place for forgiveness in the neo-liberal isolationist cult of the self. Forgiveness acknowledges the other, the other in pain, and the self in pain too; it is reciprocal, it is healing, it promotes reconciliation, drawing people together, rather than the atomising driving-people-apart self-centred dynamic of capitalism so vigorously promoted by neo-liberal ideology.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Over the last year, I've found myself thinking on odd occasions of a moment in Lord of the Rings. It's towards the end after the fall of Sauron and the destruction of the ring. Sam and Frodo have been snatched from the jaws of death after extraordinary struggles and suffering. The next chapter, the next scene in the film, Frodo wakes up. Gandalf is beside the bed to greet him and then the others come in to welcome him, to celebrate his recovery, lastly Sam. The image of it has repeatedly cropped up in my mind (maybe not all the details, and probably not accurately) and I've thought 'oh how wonderful it would be to wake up from all of this, for this struggle to be over' while imagining myself in that bed with my friends there to welcome me back (and M among them). The hopeless struggles of Frodo and Sam to get to Mt Doom and destroy the ring, for me anyway, serve as a good mythical image of the struggle that is depression. At the moment I have a respite, thanks to M, but I know I have more struggles ahead. I've got to work what to do with the rest of my life, to sort out my life work. Maybe those struggles wont be so bad but I hope for that time when I can wake knowing those struggles are over. I also hope that you, M, my friend, will soon wake from your own prison of pain and despair. I hope I can be there to welcome you back, to celebrate. I'm prepared to wait for that day in the next room, or down the corridor, or in the lobby, even out in the cold windblown street if you prefer. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I hope the day will come when I will see you and I can say, not 'I'm sorry' not even 'I forgive you' but 'oh it is so good, I am so happy to see you again'. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And you, dear reader, please say a prayer for my friend... and one for me too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I seem to have become rather too personal. Normal service will be restored in due course.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-83374040543138963822010-10-18T20:45:00.030+10:002010-10-21T17:21:27.184+10:00Council and Bible Canon in Judaism<div style="text-align: justify;">Earlier this month I wrote on <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/10/council-and-bible-canon-in-christianity.html">the history of Christian biblical canons</a>, of which there are several in use today, and the role of Church Councils in the making of Christian Bibles. Today I want to write about the Jewish Bible and what we know about how it came into existence. Just as there is a myth linking Christian Bibles/canon and council, in particular the Council of Nicea, so too with the Jewish Bible, there's a (scholarly) myth that it came into existence following a council of rabbis.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Many Christians assume that the Jewish Bible, is nothing more than the Old Testament. As most Christians are also unaware that there is a plurality of Old Testaments, they also assume that their Old Testament is the one that makes up the Jewish Bible. That's the way I used to think in my younger years until I entered the world of biblical studies.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The standard Protestant Old Testament is the one that most resembles the Jewish Bible. That's because the Reformers, following Jerome's example, took the Hebrew canon as the model for their old Old Testament canon on the notion that original language means original text. Nevertheless the Protestants kept the traditional Christian ordering derived from the old Greek Bible, a four part arrangement of Torah, historical books, wisdom literature and prophets. In contrast the Hebrew Bible has a tripartite structure of Torah, Prophets and Writings (Torah, Nebi'im, Kethubim, hence Tanakh as another name for the Jewish Bible). The Prophets comprise the four 'historical' books Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings (the latter two not divided into 2 books as in Christian Bibles but each counted as one book/scroll) plus the four prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets (counted as one book/scroll in traditional Judaism). The Writings comprise the rest, (150) Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra/Nehemiah (counted as one book/scroll in traditional Judaism), Chronicles (likewise counted as one book/scroll in traditional Judaism). Christian Old Testaments usually end with Malachi, the last of the Twelve Minor Prophets and thus look forward to the Christ event. Jewish Bibles end with Chronicles and thus end with the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. The central revelation for Judaism is the giving of Torah to Moses; the Prophets and Writings are understood as commentary on Torah. The endpoint is the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon which also evokes the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and the final Roman destruction of Jerusalem as a Jewish city in 136 CE. In traditional Rabbinic Judaism, Jerusalem is destroyed and the people banished from the land for failing to fully observe Torah. So the Jewish Bible is structured with the main revelation at the start and closes with the reminder of what happens when that revelation is ignored.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So what are the origins of this canon? When was it defined? The short answer is we don't know. The most traditional answer is that the canon came into existence with Ezra, in the early Persian period, at "the end of prophecy". Some scholars, such as Phillip Davies, have suggested the Hasmonean period, late 2nd century - early first century BCE as the time of canonisation. The only problem is that all the evidence from the time of Christ and before indicates that only the five books/scrolls of the Torah had achieved a canonical status amongst most Jews and Samaritans.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There are a number of references to scriptures as a whole in ancient Jewish texts: Sirach 39.1 and in the Prologue; 4QMMT (4Q397 14-21 ii 10-12); 2 Maccabees (2:13); Philo of Alexandria (<i>de Vita Contemplativa</i> 25). Most commonly they are referred to as law(s) and prophets/prophecies/oracles. (In his writings, Philo wrote commentaries only on the 5 Books of Moses and, more broadly, cites mainly from the 5 Books of Moses but also from Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon.) This same pattern is found in the Gospels where Jesus regularly refers to Moses and the prophets or the law and the prophets. The <i>Letter of Aristeas</i>, which recounts the myth of the miraculous translation of the scriptures from Hebrew into Greek, clearly intends the Torah and not a wider collection of scriptures.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The other evidence we have from the turn of the era is the collection of scrolls discovered at Qumran. Copies of all the texts comprising the Hebrew canon were found at Qumran, with the exception of Esther. Esther is likewise omitted from some early Christian canon lists too. However at Qumran copies were also found of Sirach (in Hebrew), Tobit (in Hebrew and Aramaic) and the Letter of Jeremiah (in Greek). All three are excluded from the Jewish Bible and counted as Apocrypha by Protestants but are included in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments. Furthermore, the various Psalms scrolls not only included Hebrew texts for Psalms 151, 154 & 155 but quite a number of other unknown psalms and two thirds of a poem included in Sirach 51. It's also clear that at Qumran the Psalms and David were regarded as prophetic, an understanding also seen in the New Testament Acts of the Apostles. So when we read ancient references to the Law and the Prophets we can't be certain what texts the designation Prophets includes and refers to. Does it include the Psalms and does it include Daniel (Jesus refers to Daniel as a prophet in Matthew), both of which are included in the Writings in the Jewish Bible?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And does the term Prophets include other texts and figures too? As well as the three Deutero-canonical texts and Psalms 151, 154, 155, multiple copies of two texts included in the Ethiopian canon were also found at Qumran, fifteen scrolls of Jubilees (in Hebrew) and 20 scrolls of 1 Enoch (in Aramaic). Just to put that in context, only four canonical biblical texts were found in equal or greater numbers: Genesis (20), Isaiah (24), Deuteronomy (27), Psalms (34), the last, of course, including non-canonical and hitherto unknown psalms. Jubilees is itself cited in a number non-biblical texts at Qumran and was used extensively; it seems to have been regarded as scripture there. Furthermore many traditions found in later Jewish literature make their first appearance in Jubilees. 1 Enoch was not only important for early Christianity but is likewise probably the oldest text of Jewish esoteric tradition. 1 Enoch gives us a glimpse not only at the mystical (and apocalyptic) gestalt from which Christianity was born but also the matrix from which would come not only Jewish Merkabah mysticism but subsequently mystical traditions including Kabbalah. Neither of these texts made it into the standard Jewish biblical canon but they are pivotal for subsequent Jewish traditions that enframe that canon.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Do ancient references to Law/Torah and Prophets include these two texts? Jubilees is a retelling of Genesis and part of Exodus; it presents itself as a revelation from Sinai given by an angel to Moses. Do ancient references to the Law include Jubilees alongside the five books of Moses? It's quite possible some do. And does 'the Prophets' include Enoch, the great primal prophet of the antediluvian world? If David and the Psalms were counted as prophetic and given the importance of 1 Enoch for ancient Judaism and early Christianity, it's hard to rule out the possibility. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The earliest glimpses of a defined canon in Judaism can be found in Josephus and 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) both from the late 1st century. In <i>Against Apion</i> (1. 38-43) Josephus declares</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">We have but 22 books, containing the history of all time, books that are believed to be divine. Of these, 5 belong to Moses, containing his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind down to the time of his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in 13 books. The remaining 4 books comprise hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. From the days of Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets. There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our Scriptures; although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life in their behalf.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But there are several problems here. The standard Jewish canon has 24 books with the Prophets comprising 8 books and the Writings comprising 13 books. Furthermore the biblical texts existed in differing editions some of which, such as Greek and Hebrew Jeremiah, were quite markedly different in size and ordering.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With 2 Esdras we get the first reference to a 24 book canon: "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people" (14:45-46). However in 2 Esdras, we actually find a two-tier, inner-outer, greater-lesser canon with the outer/lesser one being the 24 books and an inner/greater canon of 70 additional books! 2 Esdras also gives no details of what books are included in either of these canons.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The earliest canon listing of the Jewish Bible comes from several centuries later, roughly 550-600CE, in the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra <a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_14.html">14b</a>-<a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra/bababathra_15.html">15a</a>): </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Our Rabbis taught: The order of the Prophets is, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. Let us examine this. Hosea came first, as it is written, God spake first to Hosea. But did God speak first to Hosea? Were there not many prophets between Moses and Hosea? R. Johanan, however, has explained that [what It means is that] he was the first of the four prophets who prophesied at that period, namely, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos and Micah. Should not then Hosea come first? — Since his prophecy is written along with those of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi came at the end of the prophets, he is reckoned with them. But why should he not be written separately and placed first? — Since his book is so small, it might be lost [if copied separately]. Let us see again. Isaiah was prior to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Then why should not Isaiah be placed first? — Because the Book of Kings ends with a record of destruction and Jeremiah speaks throughout of destruction and Ezekiel commences with destruction and ends with consolation and Isaiah is full of consolation; therefore we put destruction next to destruction and consolation next to consolation.</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">The order of the Hagiographa is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Prophets, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles. Now on the view that Job lived in the days of Moses, should not the book of Job come first? — We do not begin with a record of suffering. But Ruth also is a record of suffering? — It is a suffering with a sequel [of happiness], as R. Johanan said: Why was her name called Ruth? — Because there issued from her David who replenished the Holy One, blessed be He, with hymns and praises.</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Who wrote the Scriptures? — Moses wrote his own book and the portion of Balaam and Job. Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and [the last] eight verses of the Pentateuch. Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the Book of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms, including in it the work of the elders, namely, Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Yeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote the book which bears his name, the Book of Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Men of the Great Assembly wrote the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther. Ezra wrote the book that bears his name and the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles up to his own time. This confirms the opinion of Rab, since Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: Ezra did not leave Babylon to go up to Eretz Yisrael until he had written his own genealogy. Who then finished it [the Book of Chronicles]? — Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah</div></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I have quoted the text in full as it makes a strong contrast to the ancient passages on canon by its very specificity and detail. (Note that Ezra and Nehemiah are written together on one scroll and so the Book of Nehemiah is not specified in the list; also note the different order of the four Latter Prophets: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve) Given how late this passage is, it appears to me that the Jewish biblical canon was evolving at the same time as the Christian one(s). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Nevertheless, just as there is a popular myth about the Council of Nicea and the Christian Bible, there has also been a (scholarly) myth about a Rabbinic Council and the Jewish Bible. This Council was believed to have taken place at Jamnia/Yavne (near modern Jaffa in Israel) around 80 or 90 CE i.e. after the 1st Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple. This Council was believed to have both defined the Jewish biblical canon and also to have issued a prayer against the Minim, a category thought to have included Jewish Christians, designed to exclude them from the synagogue. For many years last century, Jamnia was important for scholars of both Old and New Testaments, the former understanding it as defining once and for all the standard (Protestant) Old Testament and Hebrew Bible, while the latter understood it as both marking the parting of Christianity and Judaism as well as giving a likely date for John's Gospel, believed to have been written for those Jewish Christians being excluded from the synagogues by the prayer against the Minim.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So big a mountain out of such a molehill, on both counts, but I will only address the canonical one here. Josephus wrote after Jamnia but seems not to have known about and neither do early Christians. Whatever might have been happening at Jamnia it was hardly a council like those of the early Church. Furthermore we only know about it from references in later rabbinic texts. Only one of them, Mishnah Yadayim (3:5), refers to scriptural matters but it does not define a canon as in Talmud Bavli quoted above but rather it describes a discussion about whether Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs are to be counted as scripture:</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">All the holy writings make the hands impure. The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes make the hands impure.</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">R. Judah says: The Song of Songs makes the hands impure, but there is a dispute about Ecclesiastes.</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">R. Jose says: Ecclesiastes does not make the hands impure, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs.</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">R. Simeon says: Ecclesiastes is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai [who say it does not make the hands impure] and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel [who say it does make the hands impure]..</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">R. Simeon b. Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed R. Eleazar b. Azariah head of the court that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes make the hands impure.</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">R. Akiba said: God forbid! No one in Israel ever disagreed about the Song of Songs [by saying] that it does not make the hands impure. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. So if they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Ecclesiastes.</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Johanan b. Joshua the son of the father-in-law of R. Akiba said: in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai so they disputed, and so they reached a decision.</div></blockquote><p></p></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Indeed, early rabbinic texts recount similar discussions about whether various other biblical texts are to be counted as scripture too. So rather than an account of a final ruling what we really have is an account of one of many discussions that would lead to the final canonical ruling recorded in the Talmud Bavli. And yet, ironically, three times in that same Talmud, Sirach is cited as scripture, one of them citing it as part of the Kethubim or Writings (Baba Kamma 92b, also Hagigh 13a and Yebamoth 63b). What's also overlooked by Christians is that the Mishnah, itself is regarded as Torah in Rabbinic Judaism, given to Moses on Sinai along with the Pentateuch and passed down orally by the sages until written down after the Jewish Wars and the destruction of the Temple. So Mishnah stands beside Tanakh as equally Scripture for Jews. And furthermore, the subsequent texts of Judaism, Talmudim, Midrashim, Targumim, even the much later Zohar come to be counted as part of that Oral Torah Tradition that ends up in writing and so all share to some degree in the authority of Scripture. So in reality the Jewish canon is bigger than anything that Christians can imagine in terms of sacred text, the Tanakh or Jewish Bible being part of a much broader (and open/expanding?) canon of sacred, inspired texts.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">My discussion has mostly focused on ancient Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. The Samaritans, famously, regard only the Five Books of Moses as canonical scripture. Curiously, however, the Ethiopian Jews, the Beta Israel (or Falashas), kept the Book of Jubilees in their Bible just like their Christian neighbours. Whether or not their Bible included other texts outside the Hebrew canon I've yet to ascertain.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Nevertheless the history of scripture in Judaism demonstrates the same principle found in the history of Christian biblical canons. Bible or canonical scripture did not just fall out of heaven one day but was created and shaped by the communities that cherish it. Furthermore there is no normative canon binding on all communities but multiple and overlapping canons shared by many different communities now and in the past. There is not and never has been and never can be a single normative canon binding on all. Such a singular and exclusive canon would in fact mark a serious breach, rupture, distortion of the richness of the biblical tradition itself.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /><p></p><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667005464723133101.post-53546495009488509872010-10-03T12:17:00.027+10:002010-10-06T17:18:27.773+10:00Council and Bible Canon in Christianity<div style="text-align: justify;">I recently had a discussion with a friend in Facebook about the question of biblical canons and Ecumenical Councils. The key point concerned the role of Nicea, the famous first ecumenical Council of the Christian Church convened by Emperor Constantine. My friend, a (Roman) Catholic, assumed that the standard Bible of the Roman communion had been first defined at Nicea. He'd also assumed that the Bible canon of The Eastern Orthodox Churches was the same as the Roman canon, and was surprised to discover that not only was that not the case, but that there is and always has been canonical variation in the various Churches of the East.<br /><br />The fact is at the time of the Council of Nicea (313 CE) there was no fixed canon of Christian scripture. Most Christians then used the Septuagint Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures as their Old Testament. The Greek Old Testament was more of a gestalt, resembling both Roman and Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments today, with different versions of some Jewish texts such as Jeremiah, or with major additions to them such as in Daniel and Esther, or containing small variations and additions as with Joshua, Judges, Proverbs and some of the Books of Moses (Torah). There were a range of other books, not found in the Jewish canon because they were composed in Greek, or the prior Hebrew texts were 'lost' (the Hebrew version of Sirach was known in Judaism for many centuries, during which time Sirach sat on the edges of the Jewish canon; Origen also knows the Hebrew name for 1 Maccabees, Sarbeth Sarbaniel; Greek Tobit was translated from Hebrew, and a Hebrew plus Aramaic versions of it were found at Qumran). Most Syriac Christians, however, used a Syriac (Peshitta) Old Testament translated directly from the Hebrew and, initially, identical to the Jewish canon but the influence of the Greek would also change and expand it the particularly for West Syriac Christians within the Roman Empire. The overall Christian Old Testament gestalt generally consisted of Torah, plus historical, prophetic/apocalyptic and wisdom texts.<br /><br />The New Testament was likewise fluid and not set in stone. At its core remained the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and a collection of Pauline letters. Syriac Christians, however, used a harmony of the four gospels, the Diatessaron, that had been put together in the 2nd century by Tatian and they would continue to use it for another century or so until concerns about possible heresy meant that they reverted to the four individual gospels. Especially in the East (Greek and Syriac), there were doubts about texts such as Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John and Jude. The <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2010/09/lost-christianity-of-asia.html">Church of the East</a> didn't include them in their New Testament, but again the western Syriac Christian Churches would do so. But there were other texts associated with the New Testament gestalt, as well, such as Epistle of Barnabas, 1 & 2 Clement, Apocalypse of Peter and Shepherd of Hermas. The Shepherd, a wisdom/apocalypse text, was very popular in early Christianity, probably much more so than Revelation and for a long time was treated as a New Testament text in many local churches in and out of the Empire. Thus the New Testament gestalt at the time was the four gospels (individually or in a harmony), Pauline letters, other letters, A/acts and possibly apocalypses. Church 'constitutions' are also floating around the gestalt and eventually in Ethiopia (and apparently for a period in Armenia too) became incorporated into the local New Testament canon.<br /><br />In the centuries before Nicea a number of individuals issued lists of texts they considered to be scripture. There's a list of them <a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html">here</a>, both those before and after Nicea, when local church councils also get into the act. The very fact of these lists shows that no canonical determination of scripture was ever made at Nicea. As far as Constantine goes, his main involvement in matters biblical was to commission 50 bibles for the new churches at Constantinople. Apparently, they were commissioned from the scripture academy at Caesarea in Palestine, which was where the Church historian and supporter of Constantine, Eusebius, was based. What texts were ruled in or out these Bibles we don't know because none survive. Eusebius had written his own <a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html">listings</a> of what were scriptural and what weren't and so perhaps we can get an idea of what Constantine's bibles looked like from there. However it has been suggested that maybe one or even all three of the oldest Christian Bibles in existence might have been part of that order of 50 Bibles. The one in question is Codex Sinaiticus and the other two, C. Vaticanus and C. Alexandrinus. All are in Greek and all date from the 4th/5th centuries. However Sinaitiacus included all 4 books of Maccabees in its Old Testament and ends its New Testament by adding Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. Vaticanus is most like a Greek Orthodox Bible in that it includes 1 Esdras in its Old Testament. Alexandrinus includes all four books of Maccabees, plus Psalm 151 and the <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/search/label/Odes%20-%20Book%20of">Book of Odes</a> which includes the <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/search/label/Prayer%20of%20Manasseh">Prayer of Manasseh</a>. The Alexandrinus New Testament ends adding 1 & 2 Clement and it also has an appendix which included a range of other texts but only one, Psalms of Solomon, remains. These three bibles from roughly the same period and from roughly the same region show just how fluid the Christian scriptural canon remained for a long time after Nicea.<br /><br />And so in the centuries that follow Nicea, the production of lists continues and likewise the production of texts continues and again those which survive show a continuing fluidity. At the same time, Christianity spread widely outside the Roman Empire and so even if the state was interested in asserting a scriptural uniformity it could only apply to those churches within the Roman borders but not without. So the Armenian and Ethiopian Bibles developed with their own dynamic but nonetheless drawing from the Septuagint Greek Old Testament, just the same. The Ethiopian remains the most fluid to this day existing in both a broad and narrow canon. Nevertheless the narrow canon remains the biggest Christian canon in existence, including other ancient Jewish and Christian texts such as 1 Enoch, Jubilees and 1 Clement (thus perhaps making it the most conservative of the canons, nevertheless) as well as texts unique to Ethiopia itself, 1-3 Meqabiyya. As I said above the West Syriac Bible also gets expanded through Septuagint and other influence too and would incorporate at times 2 Baruch and Psalms 152-155 (and the Armenian Bible would include for a time Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs and 3 Corinthians) .<br /><br />You can get an idea of the current state of play concerning what's in and out of scripture across the various forms of Christianity from this Wikipedia table <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions">here</a>.<br /><br />In the century after Nicea we start getting Church councils producing lists. We're in the era of the Ecumenical Councils but the councils producing scripture lists are local not ecumenical. There's one in the East, <a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/laodicea.html">Laodicea</a>, and the rest in the West and primarily in Africa at Hippo and <a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html">Carthage</a>. These African lists match the standard Roman biblical canon of today but the African councils were not ecumenical. But their decisions were subsequently confirmed by the Pope in Rome, under whose jurisdiction they were then subject, being Latin rite churches. The Roman Pontiff was their Patriarch. The issue was important for the Latin rite churches because all of this was happening at the time Jerome was working on a new translation of the scriptures into Latin. Originally he worked from the Greek, but Jerome not only knew of the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament texts, he accorded them a priority over the Greek - if they're in the original language then they must be the original or authentic texts, is the thinking here. That assumption turned out to be wrong (there are no original texts for one thing) but it would take the discoveries at Qumran in the 20th century to demonstrate that. Jerome not only wanted to translate from Hebrew not Greek but he also wanted to scrap those Old Testament texts like Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach etc that weren't in the Hebrew canon of Judaism. Jerome's position generated considerable controversy in the West and was opposed by none other than Augustine, bishop of Hippo. Augustine not only wanted to keep those texts not found in the Jewish canon but he also believed that the Greek as well the Hebrew versions of the Old Testament texts should have equal standing. Jerome's position was rejected by those Western Councils and consequently the Latin Vulgate emerged as a hybrid text, as far as its Old Testament was concerned, because it gave priority wherever possible to the Hebrew but remained overwhelmingly shared by the Greek.<br /><br />The Council of Carthage was in 397 CE. It would be another 300 years before a decision scripture would be made by a Council with a claim for ecumenicity, although that claim was contested by Rome. In 692, the Council in Trullo met at Constantinople. Also known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council">Quinisext Council</a>, it met to finish off the work of the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils which had also met at Constantinople. On matters scriptural it confirmed both the decisions of the councils of Laodicea and Carthage, even though both produced different lists (e.g. Laodicea omitted Revelation from the New Testament but Carthage included it). It also confirmed the lists produced by various individuals, which likewise disagreed with each other (and the Councils) and further sanctioned the listing from the Apostolic Constitutions , which counted all four books of Maccabees as canonical. What seems to be happening at Trullo is that it is affirming the various scripture canons of the Church, endorsing local usage in the broader orthodox and Catholic context. Trullo is recognised by the Eastern Orthodox Church as sharing in the ecumenicity of the previous two Councils of Constantinople but it was rejected by the West.<br /><br />And that's where matters stood up until the Renaissance and Reformation. In other words there was no Ecumenical Council that produced a single agreed on list of canonical texts that could be called The Bible. On the ground, though, was an even more interesting reality. According to the Council of Carthage the Vulgate Latin Bible of the medieval West should have looked like the standard Bible of the Roman communion today. The thing is, it didn't. It included some Old Testament extras some of which are found in the Greek Bible and one not. The Vulgate's extras included 1 & 2 Esdras, Psalm 151 and Prayer of Manasseh. All but 2 Esdras are found in the Greek Bible. 2 Esdras is however found in the Slavonic and Georgian Bibles. These extras were included in the Old Testament of the <a href="http://molcat1.bl.uk/treasures/gutenberg/search.asp">Gutenberg Bible</a>, printed in the 15th century. However the Gutenberg did not include the Vulgate's addition to the New Testament, Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans as that had only recently been removed. But it seems that in the medieval period there was remarkable cohesion in the Old Testaments of the Byzantine and Roman communions. As far as the Greek Church was concerned the Roman Bible had one text they didn't, 2 Esdras, and lacked one text that they had, 3 Maccabees. Even more odd is that the Western Old Testament stayed this way after the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence">Council of Florence</a> had produced a canon list following the Carthaginian one as part of an attempt at reunion with the Byzantine Church under negotiation in 1439-41. This reunion was unsuccessful but while it resulted in a papal bull declaring the Carthaginian canon as normative for the Bible, it doesn't actually seem to have changed the Roman/Western Old Testament at all, despite the fact that Rome regards Florence as an Ecumenical Council. It was only the Reformation that would actually change the Western Bible .<br /><br />Luther picked up on Jerome's complaint and in his translation of the Bible into German, he created new category, the Apocrypha, into which he placed not only 1 & 2 Esdras, Psalm 151 and Prayer of Manasseh, but also the other texts questioned by Jerome but endorsed by Carthage (and Trullo): Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, plus the Greek additions to Daniel and Esther. The Bible of the English Reformation followed Luther's lead too and the texts outside the Jewish canon were likewise collected into the Apocrypha. Luther also wanted to re-open the New Testament as well. It seems he would have preferred one like that used by the Church of the East, except that Luther would also have dumped the Letter of James. But Luther's proposed New Testament failed to win the support of the Reformation movement as a whole and thus the New Testament finally remained unchanged.<br /><br />Luther's attempted revision of the New Testament was based on dogmatic grounds - James in particular could be used by Rome to critique Lutheran theology of justification. Similarly with the revision of the Old Testament. The so-called apocryphal (Protestant) or deutero-canonical (Roman) texts could be used by Rome in its arguments with the Reformers. Jerome, the 'father' of the Latin Bible, gave the Reformers the precedent to reject scriptural authority for those texts placed in the Apocrypha. Rome clearly turned to the Council of Carthage, especially as its decisions had been endorsed by the Pope of the day (and subsequently reaffirmed at Florence), and at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent">Council of Trent</a> (which met in 25 sessions from 1545 to 1563) the standard Roman biblical canon was formally declared as the norm for the Roman communion. As <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/search/label/Douay-Rheims%20Bible">I've written before</a>, the other four texts, 1 & 2 Esdras, Ps 151, Manasseh, weren't dumped from the Latin Bible but transferred to an Appendix (together with the Epistle to the Laodiceans) where they remain, effectively as Roman Catholic Apocrypha. They were even included in the first Douai-Rheims English translation of the Latin Bible in an appendix to the Old Testament. But they have been dropped from subsequent translations of the Latin Bible so that most Roman Catholics have no idea these texts have been part of the scriptural legacy of the Western Church.<br /><br />Curiously as I was writing this piece, I stumbled across a Roman Catholic apologetic site against the Eastern Orthodox Church. On that site there was <a href="http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/did_nicea_II_confirm_the_canon_of_Carthage.htm">an article on the Orthodox Bible</a> by Mark Bonocore. He argues that the Roman canon was affirmed by an Ecumenical Council, accepted by East and West, and held at Nicea too. It's the second Council of Nicea, the 7th Ecumenical Council, held in 787 CE. His argument is that Nicea 2 affirmed the decisions of the Council at Trullo validating the decisons of the Council of Carthage. Consequently, the Roman Bible canon has been defined by an Ecumenical Council accepted by East and West and so should be adopted by the Eastern Orthodox communion. Unfortunately for Bonocore's argument, Trullo affirmed a range of biblical canon lists, as well as the Carthaginian one, in which case Nicea 2 has itself given ecumenical authority - an authority binding on West and East - to canonical diversity and fluidity.<br /><br />And perhaps, too, the meme concerning the Bible and Nicea is unknowingly derived from Nicea 2. If that's the case, it's a meme that's not only misidentified the Council but also got the decision wrong too. Rather than setting a single locked down canon in stone it effectively defined plurality and diversity as the only possible norm.<br /><br />This conciliar history further reminds us that *The Bible* in Christianity is not something that fell out of heaven but rather is something that, as the Russian theologian <a href="http://orthodoxwiki.org/Georges_Florovsky">Georges Florovsky</a> said, is created by the Church instead.<br /><br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.com2