Monday, July 12, 2010

After the Eclipse

There was a solar eclipse early this morning a little while before dawn, my time. Eclipses, solar and lunar, are important in astrology and this one took place in my sun sign, Cancer, and made a variety of connections in my chart. It fell in my third house of communications and so maybe it's no surprise that I have a strong urge to write today. What's more surprising for me is that the urge is about more personal stuff even though I have a lot of thoughts/ideas on biblical, sexuality and political issues calling out to me, wanting me to play with them in this public space.

When I set up this blog, almost 18 months ago now, it wasn't set up to be a personal site where I talk about my life and my self and all the various dramas that crop up as they do. And it's certainly not meant to be a site where I vent and rant and rage about whatever is upsetting me at the time. Far from it; the purpose of this site is basically to research my thoughts, as my friend and teacher, Ed Conrad, would put it. Ed would tell all his research students that we don't know what we know until we start writing about it. That's why teaching and research go so well together. Just the other day, a friend of mine made the astute comment that the more one knows about something the more one is impelled to teach it. Teaching is a way of gathering thoughts together into clumps called classes. She also understood, too, that often the best way to learn something is to actually teach it.

So this blog is a place where I try to find out about what I know. I've rehearsed ideas here for a number of essays and articles I've been working on. It's a place where I reflect upon what I've read,where I tease out and play with ideas. But the beauty of the blog medium is that it's a public space, each blog is part of a network of blogs doing the same sort of stuff. We can read each other and comment on each other, something analogous to a seminar or a classroom (the ideal classroom perhaps). A blog is kind of a combination of a journal/magazine and a conference. On my blog, I've been exploring my ideas, finding out what I know, playing with my thoughts, sharing my ideas, learning from others, while at the same time others learn from me too (at least so I'm told by the feedback I get).

At the same time I haven't tried to avoid the personal either. I learnt early on that bracketing out the personal is not necessarily conducive to clarity of thought. We are all subjects with specific frameworks of perception and experience. Rather than deny such frameworks, it can be enriching to acknowledge them and deploy them consciously. That's the particular talent of queer readings of texts; it's also been one of the important attributes of feminist criticism and reflection. And I remember for a time there was something called autobiographical criticism, at least in biblical studies, the merging of the personal with the theoretical to engage with the text. The texts of our lives can be just as important as any other text.

Not that I'm planning to do that in this post. No, what I'll be doing is looking at my life, reflecting on my situation to find out what I know, to see if I have a narrative that makes sense, to just take stock. And when I get to the end I hope I will publish it, not least, so that all of you who know me can get a better sense of what's been going on with me, especially if I've seemed a bit odd or distant, and certainly in terms of blogging, much quieter of late.

A week ago I turned 58. As it's said in French, I have 58 years... behind me (and a few more days, a week now too). The older one gets, I guess, the more birthdays serve as times for reviewing one's life, of pondering where to from here. In my case, my birthday serves as a reminder of just how anomalous I am, or as another friend of mine would put it, just what a misfit, how queer, I am. Friends of mine roughly about my age are planning their retirements, some already have retired. In my case though, retirement is the last thing on my mind. However the work I want to do, the work I'm most equipped to do is just not available. I'm talking about academic work and by work I don't just mean a job you do to get some money in, I'm talking about what can be termed a career, or maybe a vocation. The word career too often today is associated with climbing up the workplace or professional hierarchy, not something I'm all that interested in as such. So I'll go for the word vocation.

When I went to university back in the early 90s I went for two reasons. First of all I needed a rest after the years with the AIDS Council, especially as QuAC at that stage had gone in a direction that I considered problematic. But my enthusiasm was excited when I discovered Studies in Religion at uni. I knew more than anything else that was the area I wanted to study. In terms of sexuality, homosexuality, it was a key area for maintaining and transforming attitudes and social norms and I still think that. At the same time, in those days there was a burgeoning in LGBT/sexuality studies courses and a rush of theory, most notably queer theory, and a by then well-established feminist and gender scholarship too. I didn't plan to but ended up in biblical studies, Old Testament studies particularly, when the discipline was undergoing an exciting and dare I say liberating paradigm shift from an older and unicentric historical critical theoretical model to a pluralistic, polycentric, multi-vocal, not model, but milieu. It was an exciting time, but a time which I can safely say is now almost dead.

I've watched that death over the last few years as one by one the courses disappear and the positions too. I've watched as departments and schools and study programs have gone. I subscribe to the Chronicle of Higher Education Job Search Agent which has given me a ringside seat at the decline of various disciplines, not just biblical studies, in North America. Various terms have been used to describe the processes, the assault on the humanities, the death of the humanities, the corporatisation of universities etc etc. Back in 2008 I was at the SBL International Meeting in Auckland and a number of people were talking jokingly about setting up biblical studies communes, where all us unemployed biblical scholars could live together and support each other as we continued our biblical studies work. I guess, a kind of farming commune cum biblical studies research centre, which has a certain kind of appeal. Monasteries must have been a bit like that once upon a time. Mind you a modern biblical studies commune would have to have a broad base to incorporate all the adjunct theoretical and associated disciplines that are part and parcel of engaging with biblical texts today.

The only places where biblical studies survives seem to be church/religious institutions which for obvious reasons are not places that will employ the likes of me. And there's not really much that interesting coming out of most of them either. Instead the text is kept tame for denominational purposes. All very vanilla and white bread really except for those fundamentalist universities and colleges over in the USA which crop up every once in a while on the job lists to remind you that in the hierarchy of knowledges, LGBT concerns are pretty much out there with the garbage. Certainly not vanilla, those. I doubt that there is anything culinary that can adequately describe them.

So over the last few years, I've soldiered on with an almost reckless tenacity, applying and applying and applying. In the meantime, I've survived on sessional work over the years apart from a really bad patch I went through in 2004. I was quite burnt out and depressed then following a very intense 2003, after finishing the PhD, which I spent editing the dissertation for publication and working on a number of other publishing projects, all the while surviving on next to nothing through sessional teaching. Then from 2005 onwards more and more my sessional work was doing organising with the University based National Tertiary Education Union rather than any teaching. Union work really exposed me to the dark side of University life. Corporatisation has centralised power at the top as well as the imposition of a regime of quite intense micro-management for all staff. And at a time of restricted resources, such regimes tend to make life quite unpleasant for everyone caught up in them. I've seen it before at other times in my working life and I saw it again in the universities I worked at. If there's not outright bullying then there's a constant buckpassing which only barely stops short of scapegoating. There's been quite a few times over the last few years doing organising work when I've had to draw on my experience of telephone counselling back in my AIDS Council days, because I was dealing with deeply distressed and demoralised members who had had enough or had their backs to the wall and turned to the union for help.

My purpose in telling all this is to show that I had really started to wonder whether academic work, university work in general, was really worth the effort. This was 2008. By July of that year, I'd finished a long stint of union work at two different universities. I'd decided to go to that SBL conference in Auckland, which for me felt like a homecoming after a long absence. The rest of the year I had some writing commitments to complete and so I stayed out of the job market to do so; I had enough money saved from all the union work to keep me going. (Before then, between the union gigs, I'd been exploring the broader job market as well as the academic one). And I'd decided that 2009 would be the year in which things would open out one way or another. After all we had the new Labor gov't and there was going to be more resources for higher education flowing through.

It turned out I was right about 2009 but not in the way I expected. I kicked off this blog which I guess gave me more of a profile, linking me much more directly into the world of biblical studies. It also brought an old friend back into my life. I also knew that early last year there was a significant astrological event in my chart taking place to do with career and public profile. Sure enough on the very day in question I was rung out of the blue and offered sessional work at a university here. This pattern continued in the middle of the year with both sessional university and union work offered me out of the blue. I was also being sounded out for some more long term but sessional teaching work at another local institution and a couple of other Australian academic jobs in biblical studies were also advertised in apparently secular institutions. (Many secular universities offer religion courses only through partnerships with denominationally based colleges, making them only quasi-secular).

So it seemed that maybe, just maybe things might be turning around careerwise. At the same time the revived friendship was getting very close - intense might be a good way of putting it. I don't think I've ever had the kind of intellectual rapport with anyone that I had with him then. If I fell in love with him, and I probably did, it was probably for his mind or maybe his ethics. But falling in love, any sort of romantic relationship was not what he wanted and that was fine with me. The friendship was most important; I already had a model in my life of someone, a long time friend, who had once fallen in love with me. And there are friends I have who I had fallen in love with once upon a time but the friendship has continued despite that. Falling in love, is probably an all too common pain or pang of close and long-term friendship. The friendship, though, should take first priority.

There are two other themes important for last year. Loss, grief, death is one. As regular readers might remember I launched the blog just after the deaths of two friends. One death was sudden, unexpected, heart attack. He was a few years younger than me too. The other was my old friend and astrological twin, Colin. His wasn't unexpected although it happened more quickly than I had hoped. As well as being AIDS workers and AIDS activists together back in the old days, Colin and I had shared a house with a third person for about 8 years up until 2003. That other person had died, unexpectedly, almost two years to the day before Colin's death. It was as if a whole slab of my life had been deleted. That was thrown into sharper relief because many of the people who had been regularly visiting that household in those years were themselves also dead. And that time of year, late January through early March, seems to be compacted with anniversaries of the dead. A long ago boyfriend of mine had also died unexpectedly in February three years before Colin's death and there have been other deaths around that time in the last few years too. These issues of loss and grief came back again later last year when my mother had a big health scare too involving hospitalisation and some surgery end of September.

The other theme that unfolded late in the year might be called the craziness of friends. I'm not certain what it was but all of a sudden a lot of friends of mine were having crises. Some were also friends of my flatmate and so the home space got drawn into some of this vortex of crisis too. I won't go into those details here but for a while I seemed to be in a web of fallings out and reconciliations and other strange dramas. Sometimes they were happening right there at home in front of me. The dramas over St Mary's South Brisbane got involved too as some of these friends, like myself, had returned there to give support after the departure of Peter Kennedy.

Writing and reviewing all of this brings home to me just what a stressful time I was facing by the second half of last year. So , in hindsight, it's probably no wonder that by November I was unravelling. By that stage the various long term academic job prospects had bombed. One of them, which I thought might have been particularly promising, bombed out in a very messy way as far as the institution itself was concerned, showing itself to be in the grip of rather old -fashioned theological agendas. I presume they've resolved that mess by now - they re-advertised the job again several months ago - perhaps not. But the long and the short was that I was face to face with a dead end while all around me people seemed to be going crazy.

I can't work out when I tipped over the edge myself. Certainly by the start of November I was unravelling badly. Thing was, nobody saw it. It was more a kind of staged implosion than anything dramatically spectacular as was happening with some of my friends. I was walking almost manically at that time. I can't believe the amount of walking I was doing then and I lost weight dramatically. A union friend was shocked when she saw me in December by how much weight I'd lost since she last saw me in September. I fobbed it off by joking about getting fit but really it was due to all this manic energy which drove me to walk and walk and walk. I don't know how I kept working at the time - clearly this was a controlled implosion - but I did. By November and December it was union work again to do with collective bargaining with an intransigent management; I was helping to organise industrial action. So the workplace itself was a pretty intense environment too - perhaps the perfect cover for what was happening to me and an outlet for some of the energy ripping me apart.

Only one person saw some of what was happening, my friend who had come back into my life earlier last year. In fact, he was copping the shrapnel so he had no choice. In my mind I had elevated him into a central of point of signification. Everything was falling apart around me, everything was crazy, except for the relationship with him. It was as if I was drowning or plumetting into the abyss and all I could see to hang on to was him. Of course no one can sustain themselves under that sort of overdetermination so he finally shut me out completely from his life. That was my Hollywood slap, as I term it, the slap that silences the frantic babbling hysteric. It silenced me, it didn't stop me walking, but it put my entire inner life into a complete shutdown. It was almost as if I was an automaton, a walking automaton, always walking but everything else was still. Numb.

That was early December. My work contract was scheduled to finish a couple of weeks later around when I was due to start some housesitting for a month or so over Christmas and New Year. The work kept me occupied, a handy distraction in fact. The solitude from the housesitting was most important. The first week there I was still working so it was a good transition too. I could, at last, attend to some of the crisis that had swept me away. As well as the solitude, what also helped was the prospect of more union work around February with the potential of it being long-term too. That probably helped ease much of the anxiety. I hadn't actually decided that I would take it up if it did become available but it was a fixed point on the terrain where before there was nothing.

Instead I had to deal with the grief, the mourning of a shattered friendship, a friendship which I had trashed. So along with grief was guilt. Such guilt. And I had to try and work out what had happened. I was depressed and so exhausted. I'd even stopped all the walking. If you check out the blog for the period you'll see I put up one post for December, the day before New Year's eve. I'm surprised to see I could get 8 posts up in January. Even more surprising is that I got up 7 posts in November when I was, to coin a term, barking mad, manic. I must re-read them sometime to see how they measure up although my memory of them is that, in the main, they were pretty good. Probably they demonstrate how bifurcated I had become back then (and maybe there is a certain manic quality to writing itself).

Grief, so much grief. Horror, too, at what had happened. I had become this crazy monster. The worst thing was that this monster was channelling, drawing from my best instincts. I could tell that something was wrong happening to my friend, that there was some sort of problem and I wanted to give my friend some kind of support. But the problem was me. As I said, he was copping the shrapnel from my implosion and the more I could see the shrapnel heading his way, the more anxious I was becoming which was, itself, generating even more shrapnel. I think there were some lucid moments when I could see something of what was really happening, but the maelstrom just drew me back in. I was in a vortex of doubt, such that moments of clarity would quickly be called into question.

That I wrote so much here in January surprises me because I am conscious that at the time I was trying to work out what had happened, to be able to give an account, to describe it to myself. Time and again I would sit down and try to write something but I couldn't. So I think of that time, of all of this year, in fact, as a time of writer's block. I was able to send my friend a message, a short message to apologise just at the end of the year. Whether he got it, whether he read it, I don't know. I've not heard from him, I don't expect to. I think that perhaps back then I was also resisting the temptation to enmesh an apology within an explanation so I kept the apology as brief as possible. He deserves both but taken together explanation can appear as special pleading, or worse, justification. Whether my thinking that is one more form of that overwhelming doubt that pulled me to pieces back in November I can't tell. Whatever might be the case, it certainly constrained me from writing about what had happened, describing it firstly, above all, to myself.

But I know that I need to write about it, to tell it and thus reconcile it before I can do anything else, to achieve any sort of healing. That I can write so much now is astonishing me, I'm hoping it's a sign that I'm finally coming out of the crisis. Because, well, it didn't end then. That union job prospect did come through and I did decided to go for it. My friend and union colleague, who spotted my weight loss, quit to start a PhD. So off I went to work in her old job. I'd worked at that university twice before with her, the last time in August/September last year to help her out with her industrial campaign around collective bargaining. So I knew the place well and liked the people in the branch. Shortly after I started in February, the job was advertised and I applied for it. The selection process took some time because there was another job advertised, too, at another university. Some of the applicants had applied for both - I'd only applied for one - so both had to be resolved together. Finally in early April, just before Easter, I received a call from the State Secretary, saying that I was unsuccessful, I'd missed out by a 'cigarette paper thin margin'. How thin the margin doesn't really matter because in the end you've still missed out. So needless to say mine was not a very happy Easter. Luckily I had a very short housesitting gig over that long weekend because I would not have been good company at home, plus I really needed time to myself. And fortunately, too, the weekend after Easter I came here to start this current long housesitting gig that I'm doing.

I stayed in the job until the end of April to hold the fort until the new person started and to do a handover, settle them in. That wasn't as difficult as it sounds. The new person was another old friend of mine from undergrad days (Brisbane can be such a village sometimes) and, even if not, it was only fair on them to have direct handover and share from my experience in the job to get a sense of continuity. All up, then, April was a busy time with work, housesitting (packing moving unpacking) plus my community commitments (and I wrote nothing here that month). May, of course was a different story, I was unemployed ,although I still had a few things on my plate from my community involvement and my writing/publishing commitments. Nevertheless, it was in May that the depression really began to come back. After all I was back in the situation that had triggered my meltdown last year. There was absolutely nothing ahead of me. Taking the union job was a signal to myself that I had given up on any expectations for academic work. I could deal with that because I had been doing union work for the last 5 years off and on and I was still in the university sector. But that path was closed too. And there was still all the unresolved grief and guilt about my friend.

While I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, nonetheless depression can be a really interesting process to observe in oneself. I've been closely observing it and its waves or cycles over the last couple of months. I think the worst period was probably early this month, certainly the days before and after my birthday, I had some really debilitating times. 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 especially and then secondarily, the reception and consequences of what I write out there, especially if I publish. It's the primary doubting assault on motivation and ability and worthiness to write that is the most paralysing. And then just replace 'write' with a whole suite of other actions of life, because it's not just about writing it's about all the important aspects of your existence.

I've heard it said, too, that depression is about inwardly directed anger. That's probably true but, if so, it's mechanisms are doubt and the paralysis it gives rise to. The depressive wave incorporates a whole range of feelings but for me it still appears to all come back to doubt. Nevertheless, the other day when the wave was really wrenching through me, for a brief moment I noticed a point of rage. It was white hot, almost incandescent and ever so brief. What surprised me, and maybe you too if you've read this far, is that it awoke my curiosity. I was taken aback, intrigued even and wanted to ponder it, examine it. That response acted like a circuit breaker, tripping the depressive wave, releasing me from its grip. At least for a while. A couple of days later I was able to tell a friend of mine in Melbourne just briefly about what had been happening. That was on the weekend and it was an important move on my part. That effort to tell, to give an oh so brief summary in a Facebook message, seems to have been the trigger to get me to move into a writing mode, to be able to write this.

So what next? I don't know. I still have to work out what to do with my life and what to do means more than just getting a job, although having an income is obviously a priority. My CV or resume probably counts against me. I have a PhD for a start. I've heard the stories, its happened to me even, of people being told by a Job Network person that the PhD makes them almost unemployable. It intimidates prospective employers! Added to that, I've got several years of union work to boot. And then there's my age. I'm supposed to be on my way to retirement (I'm so anomalous, though, I'd be happy to work for another 20 or so years). Maybe in this day and age, too, the gay thing mightn't matter so much for the job market, possibly, but if it did I can't hide that either.

No, that's not doubt or negativity, I hope, just a realistic appraisal of the situation, I think. What would I love to do? I would love to be teaching or, put better, sharing the knowledge I have and encouraging people to go off and explore some more. I would love to convene a Bible reading group. Mind you that would be a huge commitment over a long period of time because there are so many texts that are included in the biblical gestalt. What I think is so important, too, is to start reading the texts of the homosexual literary tradition. LGBT folks start off as aliens in their own homes, and they don't get the opportunity to really discover that there even is a tradition. Even at university, at least in Brisbane, there's nothing by way of courses that gives access to that tradition. I was given for my birthday a copy of Mary Renault's, The Charioteer, a classic novel from 1959 of same sex love, the title of which refers to Plato's Phaedrus. How many queer folks have read the Phaedrus, or the Symposium for that matter, or have even had the opportunity to or have even heard of them? How many queer folks have heard of or read Mary Renault? There must be a way to introduce this sort of material to people and to get them talking about the ideas there. And overlapping at many points with this tradition, there's a rich written tradition around friendship. Friendship is a much devalued relationship in our society, fact quite bizarre considering it's central to Christianity, or used to be anyway. Why and what can we learn?

Hmmm, I seem to have gone off on a tangent. But it illustrates my problem nonetheless. When I think about what I want to do, I think about stuff like that. There's no place for anything like that in our modern universities even. So how to go about doing it? And in the meantime where does my money come from? A friend of mine keeps saying "Michael, you've been living on faith for so long and something always seems to turn up." Perhaps he's correct, but right now my faith is sorely tested. I'm thinking too how fortunate I am to have had this long period of housesitting just now, I'm sure my flatmate would agree too. Right now I'd be terrible company for anyone. I want to write at some point about solitude. Not here, though, but I have to say that I really needed it and I'm glad I have a couple more months of it too. And one little voice says that maybe it's a good thing I didn't get that job after all. If I had done, I might never have had the chance to have confronted the unresolved grief and pain and uncertainty. Or perhaps I would have done so but in a far more terrible way.

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. (And there are traces of him here at this house I am looking after too. I was here a couple of short occasions last year and he visited here too. There's even a coffee cup in the kitchen cupboard that was his preferred and so now speaks to me of him).

As for me... Well, I know what I need most of all and that's the gift of tears. It's not something that can be forced and it's certainly not something that can happen when the waves of depression crash over you and through you, even though then there may be tears too. No the gift of tears is a marker of release. Julia Kristeva observes, although I can't find the exact quote now, that once the tears flow then the suicidal crisis has passed. I think that's true for all crises (no I'm not suicidal now). I know this one will finally pass when the tears flow, when the grief finally gets its chance to speak, when suffering takes voice. I hope my thinking is clear on this for you, dear reader, because, no doubt, you are wondering why I've not got some sort of medication by now. If I thought that it might facilitate the tears then I probably would. I'm not interested in simply being made happy. If it means denying the grief, then, what difference from the original anxiety and depression which are themselves mechanisms of denying, suppressing the grief. But I will willingly take advice on that from those who know of what I speak.

Writing all this over the last two days now has generated a great calm in me. Quite a contrast to my mental state of a few days ago. Have I adequately arranged the data, the events of my life crisis in any meaningful way? If the calm, dare I say peace, that I'm feeling is any indication then maybe I have, that I have described it adequately. The next step is to summon up the courage to publish on the blog because publish I must, I know that. But there's no rush as yet; it's always good to have a further review. I also want to see whether the anxiety levels go up at the thought of imminent exposure. They will, so I guess it's a matter of evaluating the nature of the anxiety. I also want to put some ground rules on my publishing this material too. Except for what I've indicated above, I don't want advice. If however any of you find a resonance with your own experiences and want to share it, then feel very welcome. But I also recognise the vulnerability involved in talking about such experiences so there's no necessity. I know once I've posted this I will feel extremely vulnerable, raw. Consequently, I don't want sympathy. This is not an exercise in seeking sympathy. Sympathy simply makes the experience of vulnerability, of rawness more acute. I will probably not respond to sympathy and definitely not to advice. I may not respond to any comments whatsoever. I can't predict because I haven't written this for feedback as such, or 'support'. I write to describe to myself and I publish because this descriptive exercise is quite substantial and it saves me the expenditure of energy in having to go over it again and again with others. Because obviously it must be told at sometime and I don't know yet how this thing will work out.

That's all for now, I think. I am hoping to write on a range of topics soon, including solitude, hospitality, biblical prophecy, the future of gay identities, maybe something on the state of universities. I might even gird my loins and make some observations on our federal politics. For some reason, the processes unfolding now in Canberra keep reminding me of aspects of the personal depressive crisis. But I probably won't write about that.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Did King David Really Exist?

People are regularly shocked when I say that there is no archeological evidence that David or Solomon ever existed. The stories about them and the other kings, queens, prophets, heroes of ancient Israel are the stuff of ripping yarns. They're embedded in our European derived culture and also in Islamic culture too. The Old Testament stories, narratives are certainly history-like and draw on aspects of ancient Middle Eastern history. And for the greater part of the last, say, 200 years the dominant way of reading and interpreting the biblical texts is by doing some kind of history, history of ancient Israel.

For me too, questions of history are important. I enjoy history generally and since my childhood I've been fascinated by the history of the ancient Middle East, Egypt in particular. As far as the biblical texts are concerned, I like to have some idea of the world these texts came from and refer to. And so I've been catching up on the state of play re archeology and ancient Israel/Palestine/Canaan. Mostly I just want an overview of what the archeology is telling us so I can have some sort of framework for a timeline or a storyline.

So I've been reading two books by a couple of Israeli archeologists, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. One book, The Bible Unearthed, gives a panoramic sweep of what archeology tells about Palestinian history in the Bronze Age, Iron Age, Persian/Hellenistic periods. The link is to an excellent detailed summary on Wikipedia. In large part the book held no surprises for me. I knew that there was no evidence of an invasion of Palestine let alone of an exodus from Egypt. I knew that Israelites had once been Canaanites and that the oldest mention of Israel as an entity is Pharoah Merneptah's stele from around 1230BCE recounting a series of victories in Palestine. The mention of Israel is as follows, "Israel is laid waste, its seed is not", clearly a vainglorious boast, as the 'seed' of Israel remained and several centuries later emerged into a major Iron Age state in the region of the northern West Bank/Samaria around modern day Nablus.

I also knew that there was little evidence of a united monarchical state centred on Jerusalem and ruling all of Palestine in the 10th century BCE when David and Solomon are supposed to have lived. But I wasn't really up to date on the archeology of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This book certainly is useful for that. However the authors are advancing the thesis that the Torah and 'historical' books were mostly written in the monarchical period, primarily in Judah after the fall of Israel to Assyria. Re David and Solomon and a united Israelite state the authors point out that not only is there no evidence of a grand Davidic or Solomonic 'empire' but that Judah in the 10th century when these two kings were supposed to have lived would have had no more than 5000 people living there; Jerusalem could have been no more than a village. The region of Judah lacked the resources of water and good farmland that are found in the north and account for the fact that it was the kingdom of Israel that would emerge first in the 9th century under Omri and then his son Ahab and rule a state stretching from Moab in the south to Damascus in the north. The authors note that the biblical picture of David and Solomon's empire might actually be based on the real history of the Omride dynasty in the north, and idea that was advanced by Giovanni Garbini roughly a couple of decades ago. Certainly the importance of Omri and Ahab was such that the kingdom of Israel was referred to subsequently in Assyrian records as the House of Omri.

But because Bible Unearthed explores the monarchical period as a setting for the writing of the Torah I thought I would turn to their other more recent book, David and Solomon: In search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. Now this book does give a good account of the archeology of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah but the authors are arguing for the composition of the books of Samuel and Kings in large part in the reign of King Josiah just before the fall of Judah to Babylon. Quite interestingly too the authors are arguing that there probably was a person called David and speculate about what can be hypothesised about him. Why a David? Well, because of the Tel Dan stele which celebrates the defeat of the kings of Israel and Judah by the king of Damascus. In the Tel Dan stele the king of Judah, Ahaziah, is referred to as son of Jehoram king of "the House of David" resembling those Assyrian references to Israel as the House of Omri. I remember in the 90s, when the stele was discovered, there was considerable debate about how to interpret the byt dwd reference with 'minimalist' scholars saying that it would be wrong to read it as evidence for an actual David. I'm not particularly bothered either way, maybe there was or maybe there wasn't. Interestingly by celebrating the deaths of the vanquished Ahaziah of Judah and Joram of Isreal by Hazael of Damascus the stele conflicts with the biblical account of the deaths of these kings. In 2 Kings, these two monarchs are killed by Jehu who succeeded to the throne of Israel by way of a coup that ended the Omride dynasty altogether.

Anyway, Finkelstein and Silberman take the stele as evidence for a historical David, founder of the dynasty that ruled Judah. What intrigued me was that they then proceeded to argue that maybe some of the stories of David might actually be memories of the historical figure. In particular they argue that the biblical portrait of the social world of David as bandit leader and Philistine mercenary sort of corresponds with the archeological picture of rural Judah, the wilder country of Judah where David was based. My problem though is with the notion that because some of the stories of David have a certain verisimilitude then they should be taken as records of actual events. The problem is that the rest of the story of David can't be supported by the archeology, why then should these be accorded historicity. After all, if the portrait of the kingdom of David and Solomon is a retrojected borrowing from the reality of the Omride kingdom several generations later what's to say that David the bandit leader isn't a borrowing from other bandit figures of popular legend. Can these stories be any more 'really historical' than the stories of Robin Hood, say, or William Tell? And given that the greater part of the story of David is clearly fictional does it really help us to identify some possible history in the bandit stories? Aren't Finkelstein and Silberman simply attempting to hold on to the biblical story of David as in some sense 'real' when it actually isn't. Are they trying to defend the authority of Samuel as a biblical text through a claim to some historical veracity?

They then turn to Saul and make a further audacious move. It would seem that the biblical narratives about Saul likewise have a certain amount of verisimilitude. Saul is from the tribe of Benjamin and in Samuel, Saul's 'base' or heartland is portrayed in the plateau of Benjamin, unsurprisingly, which lies to the north of Jerusalem, around modern day Ramallah. Unlike David we have no ancient inscriptions with the name of Saul; there are no references to a House of Saul in any Iron Age text. But it seems that the biblical portrait or geography of Saul's heartland does get an independent Iron Age attestation but from a surprising source, the record of the Pharoah Sheshonq inscribed in the temple at Karnak celebrating his military campaign in Canaan.

Sheshonq is the biblical Pharoah Shishak who, in the 5th year of king Rehoboam, Solomon's son and successor, attacks Jerusalem and carries off the treasure of both the Temple and the palace. Roughly 930BCE. In Sheshonq's account of the campaign, however, there's no mention of an attack on Jerusalem, let alone plundering its temple or even of any forays into Judah. That's consistent with the archeology which shows that there was not much in Judah at the time that would warrant the attention of a Pharoah intent on booty. But it seems that it was a different matter for the plateau of Benjamin and according to Sheshonq's account he campaigned there perhaps as far as the Transjordan. Furthermore the places he mentions can be connected to places in the biblical narrative associated with Saul's heartland in Benjamin. Finkelstein and Silberman wont say that this was an Iron Age kingdom, they term it a polity, instead possibly under the rule of some bandit leader like David is supposed to have been, but not David here but Saul. They further speculate that behind the stories of David's struggle with Saul and further the stories of David serving as a mercenary for the Philistines might be a historical memory of a struggle between the warlords of Judah and Benjamin, with Judah on the side of Egypt serving with its agents, the Philistines. That the biblical narrative doesn't involve Egypt in the struggle between David, Saul and the Philistines is the effect of it being written at a later time when the power of Egypt had faded from Palestine after the reign of Sheshonq.

Finkelstein and Silberman want to locate the composition of these biblical accounts of the united monarchy in Judah in the time of the Assyrian hegemony in Palestine after the fall of Israel. It seems the archeological evidence supports a large influx of refugees into Jerusalem from the north after Israel's fall and it appears that for a time too especially in the days of Josiah in the 7th century BCE Judah ruled over the region of Benjamin. Finkelstein and Silberman speculate that the older stories of David were changed for propaganda purposes, so that he is shown striving to at all times remain loyal to Saul and furthermore is kept innocent of any involvement in the fall of the house of Saul.

These guys write well and it's all very compelling, almost as compelling as the biblical narratives themselves. However, apart from these narratives what is their reconstruction based upon? One, maybe two, Iron Age references to Judah as House of David, analogous to Israel as House of Omri. And a 10th century Pharaoh's account of his campaign in Canaan, an account which has no mention of David or Jerusalem let alone of Saul. And according to the biblical account this campaign takes place in the days of David's grandson, and maybe 70 years after the death of Saul. It shows how easy it is to fill a vacuum. The only contemporary text is Sheshonq's account. Unsurprisingly it tells us very little as its main purpose is to give glory to Sheshonq and his god. So Finkelstein and Silberman can fill this vacuum with their own historicising midrash on the David-Saul story. This midrash also serves to save the credibility of the book(s) of Samuel and keep Saul and David within an orbit of the historical. It's compelling but in the end it doesn't work partly because it actually dissolves the narrative completely so as to keep the biblical Saul and David as "real" people. But they only really exist as part of the narrative in the first place. At the same time they can't save Solomon. He can't exist, there's no place for him; there's no move they can make to sustain some sort of historical Solomon.

As I said earlier, that there is some verisimilitude, that there seems to be fragments of historical memory in the book Samuel (or any of the other historical books) is no guarantee of the historicity of the narrative and its characters. It's clear that the authors of the biblical worked with sources, that they are re-working or re-telling older stories and legends. The Tel Dan stele shows that even if we find contemporary texts verifying the existence of characters in the biblical narrative, that it's a matter of the names only haven't been changed just the details of how they lived and/or died. If there was a David and there are stories about him that have a certain verisimilitude there's no guarantee that these were originally stories about him. They may well have been stories about other heroic figures we know nothing about which have had their original protagonists replaced by David and Saul and others. After all, who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan?

But then Finkelstein and Silberman are not only trying to flesh out a history of 10th century Palestine but also a history of the later kingdom of Judah and even of the biblical texts themselves. According to Finkelstein and Silberman the biblical texts are the product of processes within a newly resurgent kingdom of Judah first under Hezekiah and then more importantly in the reign of his great grandson Josiah who ruled an expanded Judah after the fall of Assyria and the end of Assyrian hegemony in Palestine. Certainly both Hezekiah and Josiah are treated as heroes who reformed and purified the religion of Judah in the book(s) of Kings; Hezekiah is also a key figure in the narrative sections of Isaiah, which serve to historically ground the book. But while we know that these kings lived, without the biblical material we don't have a lot to flesh out their reigns without. There's no archeological evidence of the cultic reforms attributed to Hezekiah. He does seem to have, probably stupidly, challenged Assyrian dominance following the fall of Israel and to have paid a comparatively mild price (defeated and Judah pillaged, he was allowed to remain alive and on his throne). His son, Manasseh, who in the biblical history is regarded as a most wicked king, apparently accepted Assyrian hegemony and the archeological record shows that his reign was a flourishing and prosperous time for Judah. Then, following the 2 year reign of Amon, comes Josiah.

In the biblical account Josiah is the great king who restores the true religion to Judah, purifying the Temple, re-establishing the Mosaic law and the Torah feasts and rituals. King when Assyria falls, he expands Judahite rule into the north, taking control over the old centre of Bethel with its ancient shrine. In fulfilment of an ancient prophecy he destroys the shrine there. Finkelstein and Silbeman point out that there's, as yet, no clear archeological evidence for the destruction of this shrine by Josiah. Judahite artefacts, pottery etc, from the period have been found in the area of Bethel. However Finkelstein and Silberman are wanting to show that the texts we call the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) are not only written during but are programmatic for Josiah's reign. Thus they see the account of Josiah's conquest of Bethel as proof that Josiah himself was determined to show himself as fulfilling a Davidic legacy. So the only monument that Josiah is said not to destroy is the tomb of the prophet who in the biblical narrative predicted Josiah's destruction of the shrine (c.f. 1 Kings 13.2). But outside of the text, there is no evidence of this prophet, let alone of his tomb. Finkelstein and Silberman are reading the accounts of David and Solomon beside the account of Josiah to flesh out the archeological data for Josiah's reign with a narrative/history, a circular process which they also use to date these texts and the development of both biblical religion and Davidic messianism to the reign of Josiah.

The only problem is that the is nothing to clearly peg these stories to the reign of Josiah. He's clearly a hero in the story but he's not the end of the story. Finkelstein and Silbeman argue that Josiah's unexpected death at the hands of Pharaoh Neccho threw a major spanner in the works of the whole Josianic religious project giving rise to a theology of deferred messianism. But then the only evidence we have is the text and the text itself is clearly completed sometime after the fall of Judah to Babylon and the destruction of the Temple. I'm also of the view that these texts of the Deuteronomistic History - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings - in Judaism known as the Former Prophets, are meant to function in some way together with those texts Judaism calls the Latter Prophets - Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve and Isaiah, especially so for the books of Samuel and Kings. In which case the package is clearly a product of a much later time than the reign of Josiah.

That Finkelstein and Silbeman can read both the narratives of David and Solomon together with the narrative of Josiah to make a history is due to the fact that there are no (non-biblical) texts from Josiah's reign. The only details we have are in Kings (and Chronicles). But if these texts have created a whole world of fiction that is the united David-Solomon kingdom and even have a fictional account of the deaths of Joram and Ahaziah what guarantee do we have that the story of Josiah isn't likewise largely a fiction.

For me the final key bit of archeology that throws the whole scenario in doubt is the fact, reported by Finkelstein and Silberman, that archeology shows that the Samaritan Temple at Mt Gerizim was (re)built at the same time as the building of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem giving the lie to Josephus claim that the Temple was built after Alexander the Great. It seems that the Samaritan Temple was built, as Finkelstein and Silbeman put it, to worship the God of Israel too. In other words, Jerusalem and Ha Gerizim together shared the same cult which would seem strange if a full blown Deuteronomistic History traducing the religion of the north was already in existence and set the norm in Jerusalem and amongst 'Jews' generally. Certainly the 5th century BCE Jews of Elephantine in southern Egypt seemed to regard both north and south as authoritative in religious and cultic matters.

If anything the Deuteronomistic History, repeats the pattern of fall from grace we find in the Torah itself, starting in Eden. The Israelites can just never live up to the amazing opportunities they have been given. Even with the kings. Saul is given a chance but he can't cut it. David the great king, beloved by all including the LORD, is nevertheless himself a flawed figure as is his son, Solomon, the wise, the builder of THE Temple. After these two it just goes downhill with short respites provided in the persons of Hezekiah and then Josiah. But by that stage things had gotten so bad that even a king of the ilk of Josiah could not save things. In the end kings, prophets, judges all failed, leaving the Israelites subject to foreign rule and dispersed among the nations. But there is still the Temple, the House of the LORD.

So did King David exist. Probably not. Finkelstein and Silbeman say as much. Was there a David? Possibly. Possibly, a brigand or bandit and maybe eventually a warlord with some authority in Judah possibly in the 9th century, from whom a subsequent dynasty in Jerusalem claimed descent. Of the origins of that dynasty and of its early kings we know little or nothing. Solomon? Rehoboam? Nothing. What of the northern kings? What do we know of Omri? Are the stories about David, really stories of Omri transplanted? Are David and Omri both mythical heroes from whom later Palestinian monarchs claimed descent, just as the Caesars claimed descent from Venus? Was there a Saul? Perhaps there could have been a warlord of that name in the Benjaminite region in the 10th or 11th centuries BCE. There seems to have been some kind of polity there so maybe there was a Saul. But if so we know nothing about him. If there was a real Saul he might not even have been a contemporary of the real David if he existed. For all we know these might have originally been stories of other heroes whose names are now lost to us. The stories about David and Saul are not about the history of Iron Age Palestine but address other questions. What about Michal and Bathsheba and Samuel and Nathan and Uriah and Absalom and Tamar? All characters in a wonderful narrative, creations of the storytellers art, but not history. If any of them are based on real people we can't know and we can't know those real people any more than we can know a real David if he did exist. The same applies to Jonathan. I'd like to think that if there was a real David that then he had a real Jonathan in his life. After all, in the biblical account, Jonathan's is the pivotal, the central, the most important, maybe the only, real (human) love in David's life. David and Jonathan belong together like Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Achilles and Patrocles, Heracles and Iolaus, Alexander and Hephaestion, Hadrian and Antinous, Jesus and John. And if there was a real David and a real Jonathan, I hope theirs was a happier story than the biblical one.


Friday, July 2, 2010

God's friendship

Stephen Lovatt is a traditionalist English gay Catholic. Unlike myself, who was born and raised in the Roman communion, Stephen converted, I think from Methodism. He maintains a quite extensive website Pharsea's Home Page, which is certainly worth a look, especially if you are gay or lesbian and wrestling with a Roman Catholic outlook. A physicist, he's also a Platonist in philosophy and has published an exposition of "Plato's wisdom for the modern world", New Skins for Old Wine. Stephen's traditionalism is not strictly conservative as he argues for changes to Roman Catholic teaching on sexuality, especially homosexuality, and he also supports the ordination of women. I am not a traditionalist. Unlike Stephen I do remember the pre-Vatican 2 Church and I also remember the heady days post-Vatican 2 when it seemed that the Church was opening up and transforming itself in more inclusive ways, even revolutionary ways. Yes, there was such a time, long ago now. I also part company with Stephen on his views about Islam, which one would have to say are Islamophobic. I would probably stand more in the tradition of Louis Massignon when it comes to appreciating Islam as a religion (or more correctly, a continuum of religions) drawing from the same Middle Eastern spiritual traditions as Christianity and Judaism. The three along with Zoroastrianism, Bahai, and Mandaeism are integrally connected and are a close, though fractious, religious family. Geopolitically I recognise the awful fact of European and US imperialism in generating the Middle Eastern conflicts and the cycle of blowback that George Bush wanted to call the War on Terror.

Stephen maintains a MySpace blog which is on my blogroll. There you can find all manner of discussions, including ongoing dialogues presumably arising from private correspondence from his readers. Although at the same time, I wouldn't discount that he uses the Platonic dialogue form so perhaps his interlocutors are fictional characters by which he can elucidate an argument about theology, philosophy, sexuality. A post a couple of days ago, Pelagianism or Orthodoxy, caught my eye and I've been mulling over it ever since. It's only a short post so I'm going to reproduce most of it below

2. One can try to be just without calling on God's help.

3. God always helps those who try to be just; but is more able to do so if they ask to be helped; because it is partly the recognition of one's weakness and need of God's help and encouragement which makes it possible for God to help one.

4. Without God's help and encouragement it is impossible for any human being to become fully just.

5. With God's help and encouragement it is possible for any human being to become fully just.

6. No matter what one achieves by oneself one cannot ever earn God's respect or friendship. Friendship is a freely offered gift, but has to be asked for - explicitly or implicitly. Respect is due only to one who is worthy of it and we can only become worthy of God's respect as a result of His help and encouragement and friendship.

7. "God's help and encouragement" is generally called "grace" in theological circles.

Now I think that's a pretty good summary of what Christianity is all about and I want to reflect some more upon point 6 (and a little on point 3) in particular the notion of God's friendship. Somewhere along the way Christianity lost track of the friendship of God, replacing it instead, especially in the West, with the vindictive, judgmental God who's wrath must be appeased by the murder of his son and even then that appeasement is understood as partial. Following Augustine and particularly with the Reformation the comes the notion of the total depravity of humanity, derived from Augustine's notion of Original Sin. Luther was so haunted by it that he soared high on the ecstasy of justification by faith alone. Calvin on the other hand went down the darkest Augustinian path and taught predestination whereby the mass of depraved humanity are created for eternal damnation. Only a small number are saved by the will of God and from before time began. Predestination was also Augustine's idea (wisely rejected by the Western church after his death) and some have called the Reformation an attempted Augustinian renewal of the Church. My own thinking is that in the Reformation, mainly wrong answers were given to all the right questions that urgently needed to be asked, addressed.

But I want to return to the notion of God's friendship. Many years ago, I was surprised when reading Kallistos Timothy Ware's book on the Orthodox Church to read that one of the great post-Nicene Church Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, had declared that Christians may pray even for the redemption of Satan. It was many years later that I discovered that early Christianity was not necessarily the hellfire and damnation religion with which we are so familiar today. Famously, Origen, the real founder of Christian biblical studies, was posthumously condemned for a range of heresies some centuries after after his death, one of which seems to have been a form of universalism. By universalism I don't mean the notion that all religions are the same and all point to the one thing but rather the notion of a ultimate reconciliation, that no one is lost, that all will finally be saved. The term used is apokatastasis and it seems Origen and Gregory of Nyssa were not the only ones to accept it. It was pretty common among Christians although not all would necessarily include Satan and the demonic realm in that final reconciliation. Whether or not Satan was included, apokatastasis was understood either to be an automatic given, that no bounds could be put on God's love, or in other accounts, that the prayers of the saints would obtain salvation for all at the last judgment. As I wrote on one of the very early posts on this blog, the latter idea can be found in the 2nd century Epistle of the Apostles, a 2nd century Orthodox rebuttal of gnosticism, as well as in the Christian Sybillenes. It can also be found in the Apocalypse of Peter, a particularly gruesome text on the afterlife and its punishments/rewards that was widely popular amongst early Christians and regarded by many, including Clement of Alexandria, as scriptural. Clement himself is one of the many early Christian thinkers/teachers/saints who held to some notion of apokatastasis as integral to what Christianity was all about. Indeed, even though poor old Origen got condemned much later, in part, for believing it, it would seem he represented the early Christian norm.

But I'm wondering whether apokatastasis by the prayers of the saints or as a natural result of the boundless love of God are necessarily two separate ideas or are really two sides of the one coin. And for that I need to return to atonement, deification/theosis, and kenosis/self-emptying. Probably from its very beginnings, Christianity has understood the execution of Jesus as key to a cosmic drama of Atonement. Now there have been various theologies of what Atonement means and what happened when Jesus was nailed to the cross. I wont bother going through them all now. But so important is Atonement in Christianity that one could be forgiven for thinking that Christians invented it all themselves. But of course they didn't. Atonement was key to the old Temple Judaism of the time (and remains so for Rabbinic Judaism too) such that what really happened was that Christians interpreted the execution of Jesus in light of the rituals and theology of the Day of Atonement as practised in the Temple (in 30CE at Jerusalem and one also at Leontopolis in Egypt). In these rituals the High Priest slaughters first a bull and then a goat and then takes the blood into the Holy of Holies. The blood is then sprinkled and smeared on various parts of the Temple. The Day of Atonement is part of the New Year festival at the autumnal equinox which celebrates the creation of the universe and the renewal of creation. Blood is life and the animal blood represents the blood/life of the High Priest who represents Yahweh, the LORD, who creates and renews creation by an outpouring of the divine life. In esoteric Judaism, this outpouring is understood as the Tree of Life of Kabbalah by which creation occurs through the outpouring of the divine light through the 10 Sefiroth or emanations that comprise the Tree and mapping the process of creation, of consciousness. In Christianity, Jesus on the cross pours out his blood/life as befits the Heavenly High Priest through whom all creation came to be. Jesus on the cross instantiates the divine processes of creation, atonement, renewal. More than anything else atonement is about healing creation, making it whole, restoring it to balance, which is why a key aspect of Jesus public career is healing the sick. Jesus also forgives sin; forgiveness and healing more often go hand in hand in the gospel accounts. Healing, renewal, liberation, and forgiveness are all part of the ancient Jewish theology of Atonement as expressed not only through the annual rituals of Yom Kippur but the associated sabbath and Jubilee years which were proclaimed on the Day of Atonement.

Atonement rituals were not unique to ancient Judaism but were part and parcel of ancient Middle Eastern religion. My own personal view is that such Atonement rituals were an attempt to approximate the maternal dimension of life, of the Godhead. This maternal dimension resurfaces, manifesting explicitly in the medieval West with the rich imagery of Jesus as Mother (and Mary as his Priest). I'm also inclined to think that the origins of this atonement model of understanding the crucifixion lie with Jesus himself who must at some stage have realised that his path had only one logical destination, given the realities of Roman rule in Palestine.

Nevertheless, while the Temple rituals of atonement were no doubt profound and awe-inspiring, death on the cross is not. It is brutal, disgusting, horrifying and shameful. Crucifixion was meant to debase and degrade as well as kill. So the sight of a person hanging bloodied and brutalised on a cross is not self-evidently an instantiation of the divine creative and healing process, far from it. I think it is this fact that lies behind the Christian stress on kenosis, self-emptying, that is understood from very early on as a hallmark of the divine, of the divine as manifested in Jesus. The god of Christianity is a god who submits to degradation and abandonment and death - eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani - this is a god who knows despair and brokenness. In other words this is a god who approaches humans on the same level, sharing human pain and desolation, who will submit to brutal death rather than summon legions of angels to lord it over humans.

God is friendship, says Aelred of Riveaulx; God is love, says John, and the language of friendship runs through John's gospel. That God becomes human so that humans can become divine is a key affirmation of early Christianity. After the crucifixion comes the resurrection. Divinisation, deification, theosis remains central to Eastern Christianity even though it has largely been forgotten in the Western churches. What does becoming divine mean? Again and again, the easterners say that it means becoming a friend of God, entering into friendship with God. God becomes human to invite humanity into friendship. By becoming friends with God one becomes more and more like God.

So to return to apokatastasis, the image of the saints praying for the salvation of all at the Last Judgment and having their prayer granted demonstrates the activity of deification, theosis. The saints are those who have died in the friendship of God. Now deified they live the divine life by praying for the salvation of all, a prayer that is, of course, answered because the love of God has no bounds. These are not two different forms of apokatastasis but integrally linked and derived from Christian language of atonement, kenosis and theosis.

Returning to Stephen's post, I particularly like his observation that God's friendship can be asked for "explicitly or implicitly". I take that to mean that asking for God's friendship does not necessarily mean embracing a specific form of Christianity or even any specific form of religion. One of the recurring dilemmas in most forms of Christianity as a result of theologies of eternal damnation is that of the righteous unbeliever. In my school days, it was one of the stock items we would put to our teachers to try to catch them out, to discomfort them. As kids we realised something was amiss with the notion that one had to be a Christian, or even a Catholic, to be "saved". What about the righteous godfearing Hindu for example? Or the righteous atheist? These were the days of Vatican 2 and after, the days when the Roman communion began the move from an exclusivist eternal hell theology to the de facto universalism of today. One of the first things to go was the tenet that there is no salvation outside the Church, which did originally mean just the Roman communion. Bad luck you Protestants, Orthodox and everybody else.

Eastern Christianity never completely abandoned apokatastasis/universalism but the West did to its great detriment. But perhaps Purgatory is the older Christian hell revived, or maybe not even revived but renamed instead. Nowadays, not just the Roman communion but much of Western Christianity has likewise returned to a de facto, at least, universalist position. Only the fundamentalists want to hold on to it and they claim to base their position on the scriptures, taken at their literal meaning. Which raises the question, if someone like Clement of Alexandria, counted as a saint and a key early Christian theologian, not only read the same scriptures as contemporary Christians but counted even more hair-raising texts like the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture, and could still hold to a universalist position, how much does the interpretation of the text depend on the framework one brings to interpret the text? Obviously, quite a lot. And perhaps contemporary Christians need to spend some time in the schools of Clement, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa (and Dame Julian of Norwich, too, for a bit of medieval universalism).

You can find a really interesting article by Andreas Andreopoulos on apokatastasis here. And a very good article by Brendan Palphrey on theosis in Orthodox Christianity can be found here.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

A Strange Day in Australian Politics

For the last few weeks now I've been tuning out the news cycle, or, perhaps better, managing my access to it. I'd pretty much stopped watching TV news as the ABC seemed to do no more than channel the Murdoch feed and I've cut back seriously on my radio listening, again to mostly screen out the news updates (although I'm also really appreciating the silence - I might write about that at some stage).

What we've had now for a while is an intense media blitzkrieg against the federal Labor government, constant harping, distortions and outright lies. On one level I wasn't surprised. A fact of life about Australian is that a Coalition gov't is perceived by the powers that be as the natural order of things, whereas Labor is a fluke, a mistake, a temporary necessity, whatever. I saw it before in the days of Whitlam back in the 70s and I also saw the Hawke-Keating governments cop their own fair hiding too. The first two to three years of Hawke I remember being very nervous because of the way the media was going out for him. This time round I wasn't surprised but this time, as I said, I'd decided to screen it out. There's nothing I can do about it, it's mostly lies fuelled now by the mining sector's determination to scuttle the new resource tax that the gov't wanted to implement.

So I was quite surprised this morning to see on my flatmate's blog that there was a leadership challenge being mooted against the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Later this morning I found a Crikey update in my email saying that Julia Gillard was now PM. At the Caucus meeting this morning Rudd hadn't put himself forward for the leadership and Julia got the job unopposed.

So right now I feel quite strange. I must admit to liking Julia Gillard, much more than I ever did Rudd himself and even though I disagree with her on some of her policies. Well, maybe they weren't her policies as such but the government's policies which she as Education minister was responsible for implementing. So I've looked forward to the day when she would become Prime Minister of the country, our first female PM.

But at the same time I'm alarmed. Rudd was toppled towards the end of the first term of the Labor government. An election is due and must be held in the next few months (I think by no later than April next year). The Opposition really are a talentless rabble and they are led by the so-called Captain Catholic, Tony Abbott, a really nasty piece of work, who I must say gives me the willies. The thought of them getting back into government really scares the shit out of me. They're nasty and clueless, dominated by climate change denialists and with an ugly penchant to play racism and xenophobia with asylum seekers and a particularly nasty tendency to play vicious class war politics against the poor and unemployed, especially if they're young. Is it a particular feature of Anglo-Saxon politics, this beating up the poor that's been around since the poor laws of the Tudor monarchy in the 16th century and is a recurring part of British, Australian and US politics (I can't speak for Aotearoa/NZ or Canada) or do other nations likewise make beating up the poor a key part of their conservative politics?

I have to say that, apart from perhaps the Apology, nothing so became Rudd as his going. You can watch his final press conference here. I can only say, Kevin why didn't you speak like this before? Superb stuff! In fact you've laid out the Government's re-election platform summing up the achievements of the first term magnificently. I'm also intrigued that Rudd isn't leaving politics at the next election (although Lindsay Tanner is which is most unfortunate) and may even have a role in Julia Gillard's Cabinet. If that happens then we will have a most interesting political situation, which could even be healthy for the body politic. I hope so.

And, Julia, remember why Kevin seemed to get into trouble over the last couple of months. It was because he had been perceived by many as abandoning key principles, not being prepared to take the fight up to the Opposition, not just the Lib-Nats, but the serious Opposition of the wealthy and powerful vested interests such as the mining companies, the Murdoch press and the big end of town. Perhaps why I'm so uneasy is that I have a horrible feeling that I've just witnessed a coup orchestrated by those very same vested interests through their commentariat lackeys of the press.

When I heard the news of our new PM, I said a prayer for her and for the Government and I also said one for Kevin too. While I might be critical of a lot what they and he have done, at the same time this country has been so much the better for their time in office and I hope for all our sakes that they will remain in office for quite a few years to come. The alternative is the stuff of nightmares.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Who's responsible for Christianity's 'Fall'?

I've just lately been reviewing a paper for Religion, a rather fascinating piece on the Marxist classicist Geoffrey E M St Croix. Much of his work explored the dynamics of class struggle in the ancient world ancient and classical Greece. I won't go into the paper I reviewed here suffice to say it focuses on St Croix's studies of early Christianity and the role of class in the 'corruption' if not 'fall' of Christianity from the halcyonic radical days in the lifetime of Jesus to the hierarchical church of the later Roman Empire. The author points out that St Croix runs a Fall narrative of early Christian history. The Guardian obituary I've linked to on St Croix above states that as far as St Croix was concerned

St Paul replaced Plato as his "greatest enemy of the human race", and later that distinction went to Jahweh, the Old Testament Jehovah,

Now I don't mind the old Plato; well at least the younger Plato, before he wrote Laws, and so long as you read him critically (I rather like an Irigarayan lens). He is a crucial figure for any study of love between men, the ethics, spirituality, philosophy thereof. He was a profound influence on ancient culture including what would become Judaism, Christianity and Islam (the Islamic republic of Iran is modelled on Ayatollah Khomeini's reading of Plato as much as it is on anything in the Qu'ran and Hadiths).

But I'm not writing about Plato here but rather Paul, or the Paul of the Fall mythos of Christian historiography. Perhaps more than any other religion (except, perhaps, the 'secular' Marxist/Communist cults, which I regard as a variant of Christianity anyway), Christianity seems haunted by a sense that it does not live up to, does not sustain the power, the purity, the beauty of that time when heaven and earth touched in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity is perennially haunted by a sense of absence, of loss - 'Maranatha!" 'come now Jesus' (or alternatively 'come Jesus but not yet').

And, of course, if there has been a Fall, an absence, then there must be someone to blame. For a long time Constantine has been a favorite scapegoat. That Constantine took over the Church and corrupted it is a fairly old trope. For many Protestants, if the Pope didn't corrupt Christianity it was Constantine, whose corruption enabled that of the Papacy (an idea which no doubt would surprise old Constantine himself). The Da Vinci Code really worked that trope hard even making Constantine responsible for the Christian Bible and the deification of Jesus (Christian biblical canons didn't get stabilised until many centuries after Constantine and Jesus was worshipped long before Constantine was even thought of). Many Catholics shared that point of view too - it let the Pope off the hook, to a certain extent. As a young radical Catholic myself I remember how Constantine was blamed for Christianity abandoning its original pacifism to become a warmongering religion. Certainly Constantine integrated Christianity into the Roman state in what I would term a mutual takeover operation. Sometimes, too, Constantine would share the blame with Augustine. After all, Augustine was liked by those heretics, Luther and Calvin, and he had been a Manichee and he had some very bad ideas about sex. His ideas on predestination were also subsequently rejected by the Church. The fact that Calvin would later run with them only showed what a bad influence Augustine was.

Many Protestants pushed Christianity's 'Fall' back further to some vague period post the New Testament or apostolic period, in the late 1st and 2nd centuries. Pentecostals believe that it was the loss of the Holy Spirit that caused Christianity to go astray but that now, in the charismatic movement which began at the start of the 20th century, the true Christianity has been restored. Ironically, Pentecostalism has been around long enough now that many Pentecostals see that some kind of Fall has happened there, too, in the last two to three decades. Instead of the outpourings of the Spirit, Pentecostal/charismatic churches have become home to rock concert/moshpit feel good Christianity or really 'wild' phenomena such as the Toronto Blessing and being stoned/drunk on the Spirit.

Over the last two centuries another candidate for leading Christianity astray has emerged, Paul of Tarsus. St Croix is not unusual in his estimation of Paul. His view is a common one amongst treatments of early Christianity. If Paul didn't invent Christianity himself then he remade it in such a way that it lost all the radical vision of its founder. Paul is blamed for the deification of Jesus, for mythologising or churchifying Christianity, for misogynising Christianity, for homophobising Christianity. Paul changed a revolutionary movement into a religion and all the rot set in.

Now clearly Paul was an important figure for early Christianity. The New Testament is either dominated by him or is designed to contain him (after all he was popular with the 2nd century Gnostic teachers too). He is most important for Christianity finally being able to relinquish the Mosaic law, enabling it too spread more easily amongst Gentiles (and perhaps just as much amongst Jews too). We also only have letters from Paul - whether or not he wrote all of them I think is immaterial. With the likely exception of the Pastorals, I think they are all in Paul's name and authority, if not from his hand. And I also think that quests for the authentic Paul are no more than attempts to find a more palatable Paul, to let him off the hook of his inconsistencies, errors and prejudices. In which case I'm quite happy to let the Pastorals stand under Pauline authority, as much as Romans, all the more to keep Paul uncomfortable, problematic, a goad to kick against.

But did Paul mark the Fall of Christianity? No. I would argue that the Fall, if such there was, began at the start in Jesus' own lifetime. This 'Fall' is no more than the dynamics of resistance appropriation and assimilation which operate in every movement, religious and otherwise. The idea of a primitive purity is a romantic fantasy. Jesus and his followers were part of an ancient society and had to live in it as much as anyone else. Jesus might have been somewhat an itinerant in his public career but according to the Gospels he had his benefactors too. Not only Joseph of Arimethea, Nicodemus, but also certain women of means such as Joanna and Susanna too. According to Luke, Joanna was wife to the manager of Herod's household! It's easy reading the Gospels to think that all Jesus did was wander around preaching and working miracles until he fell foul of the powers that be. However the Gospels aren't biographies but theological portraits instead. That's why making movies or writing novels about the life of Jesus are so hard to do. None of the Gospels, canonical and non-canonical alike, are interested in presenting a biography of Jesus. Their key concern is presenting who Jesus is, his significance for us the evangelists' audience, and they do so by telling of his teachings and his deeds. For the canonical and some of the other Gospels, the most important of his deeds are his death and resurrection. These events (and also the birth narratives) have an inherent narrative flow that stories of miracles interspersed with parables and preaching don't have. These stories can be arranged and re-arranged in all sorts of ways; if you look at any synopsis of the canonical Gospels it's clear to see. What these stories aren't doing, though, is providing a clear historical narrative of what Jesus did and how he did it and when.

Their effect then is to paint a romantic picture of someone who appears to live simply, itinerantly, carefree. But that is simply an effect, the Gospels aren't interested in what happened in between the parables and the preaching and the miracles and so we don't see it. They're also not interested in plotting his psychology, how he came to know what he knew, how his understanding of himself and his teachings developed. We aren't told about the day to day life, either, of the community around him, his community of followers or of those in his broader support base.

I have little doubt Jesus was a radical but, at least from some of the sayings attributed to him, he was no fool. To put it another way he was strategic about the when and how he would challenge the authorities, particularly the Temple (which was clearly in his sights). While Jesus might have been a peasant I doubt he was either illiterate or poor. The teachings attributed to him in the Gospels are quite sophisticated and show a sharp intelligence, a wittiness and a theological depth. This was no country bumpkin. Jesus picked his times strategically. He certainly did not randomly stir things up without thought of the consequences to innocently or naively stumble into the hands of his enemies. I also think it most likely he aroused messianic expectations in his lifetime, it's the only way to explain his execution. He may well have miscalculated at the end but he may also have embraced the destiny waiting for any messianic figure under Roman rule, re-contextualising it instead in terms of (Day of) Atonement and (associated) Suffering Servant theologies. In other words, Jesus was not simply a political figure, he was first and foremost a religious figure and understood his role in religious terms (albeit with political and social implications). Compare and contrast with Simon bar Kochba, the next Jewish Messiah (Christ) who lived a century later or Alexander Jannaeus who lived over a century earlier, the first Priest-King (Lord's Anointed or Christ) of Jerusalem since the Iron Age. Their roles are more clearly political albeit with religious implications. While bar Kochba is acclaimed Messiah by the great Rabbi Akiva (ben Joseph) he leaves no religious teachings and no cult, whereas Akiva is considered one of the "earliest founders of Rabbinic Judaism... and one of the most central and essential contributors to the Mishnah" Jesus is much more like Akiva than bar Kochba; he is also much more like that other divisive Messiah, the 17th century Sabbatai Tzvi.

One of the greatest temptations in any work on Jesus and Christian origins is to create a Jesus very much like ourselves. Since the Enlightenment, you could say there has been the quest for the rational Jesus, a Jesus that could sit comfortably in Western liberal capitalist societies. Thomas Jefferson 'demythologised' the Gospels to create an Enlightenment Jesus for the new Republic and in the 19th century we get the various Lives of Jesus by such as Strauss and Renan. This Jesus is a kind of philosopher or sage, an idealistic bourgeois. In the late 20th century we get a similar Jesus in the work of the Jesus Seminar. Here we have a peasant sage, itinerant radical, almost Californian, hippie figure. It's not quite clear how or why he ends up crucified, he's such a vanilla figure. It's even harder to figure out how, after his execution, he becomes divine. How does the sage, the Jesus of liberal rational dreams, become the Son of God?

Well, along came Paul, of course. It's a nice binary, sweet Jesus and nasty Paul, and, yes, the Pauline sections of the New Testament, have some much more uncomfortable elements than the Gospels (except for rich people, for whom the Gospels contain a lot of uncomfortable stuff). It's all too easy to make Paul the villain of the piece; he dominates the New Testament, perhaps even more than Jesus does. He is also a central figure in resolving the role of the Mosaic law, Christianity and Gentiles. After Paul, it is no longer necessary for Gentiles to be subject to the Law if they become Christian; it's also not necessary for Jews or Samaritans who become Christian to be subject to the Law either. That's a major change, a significant change. But did Paul invent Christianity? No, it was already there, in some respects you could say it even invented Paul (as my colleague Ed Conrad would say). He gets jumbled up with John and Matthew and Mark and the author of Hebrews, not to mention Peter and Jude and, for a while, with Clement, Barnabas and Hermas too. And if he's not their author(ity) then someone gives him the Pastorals too (and Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians).

I find the binary too neat and tidy and I also think it exists to let Jesus off the hook. Is it really so unimaginable that Jesus invented his own mythology rather than it being imposed upon him by latter day Pauls or Johns or even Constantines? But that makes Jesus rather alien and strange. My own personal view is that if we had a time probe and could snatch Jesus from 1st century Palestine and bring him forward in time we would find him a most bizarre and disturbing figure, not the sweet sage of bourgeois imagination. I'm sure that the authorities of our time wouldn't hesitate to certify him insane (and also Paul, and John and Mary Magdalene and Peter and Joanna and Thomas and Susanna and Matthew and Mark and Junia and Mary his mother and James and probably old Rabbi Akiva and Sabbatai Tzvi too if they were likewise caught up in our time probe). Certainly I can see how a first century Jew could consider himself (or herself), and be considered by other Jews, a heavenly being, a divine being, the divine being. I can also see how that person could decide that their messianic role was to fully instantiate in their own person, no animal substitute, the Atonement ritual of the High Priest, on earth, in the heavenlies (where there is no animal substitute). In other words, objectively that person takes on religiously motivated suicide. I can see that. It fits my readings of 'Old Testament' and studies of ancient Judaism (and subsequent Judaism too).

So how did Christianity 'fall'? Who is to blame? No one and everyone. If there was no 'fall' it could not have survived. There is no such thing as a pure and pristine original Christianity. It's impossible to recreate the 'Church of New Testament times', we don't know enough about it for a start, all we have is an affect of the text. The 'Fall' of Christianity is itself simply the affect of Christian adaptation and translation for new cultures, new times. With adaptation comes appropriation too. Christianity is Romanised, Hellenised, Germanised, Africanised, Armenianised, Slavonicised... But appropriation works both ways too. The cultures, societies, philosophies and theologies that appropriate Christianity are appropriated by Christianity too. The various ruling classes might adopt Christianity as a powerful spiritual juju but they can't get rid of that radical heart, a source, disturbing and uncomfortable but integrally part of that spiritual juju, from which its power is derived, precisely because it disturbs and challenges.

I said earlier, that Christianity, perhaps more than any other religion, is haunted by a loss, an absence. Maranatha! Come Lord! the joyous cry within the Eucharist, the aching cry otherwise; and it is this loss, this yearning, this hope too that is part and parcel of that radical heart, destabilising, undermining the boundaries. The hope, the yearning, the radical destabilising are all part and parcel of the mythology and without it they fall apart and fade away.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Lady Zeus? Curious parallels between Jesus and Ganymede

I'm currently re-reading James Davidson's The Greeks & Greek Love, a fascinating and bulky (nearly 600 pages) study of ancient Greek homosexualities. I'm not going to write about his main thesis or, perhaps better, his key arguments. You can get a bit of a sense from an essay he wrote back in 2007 for the Guardian. But for now I'm interested in some small details he gives about the story of Zeus and Ganymede and make some connections with ancient West Semitic religion and its resulting biblical world.

For those who don't know, Zeus is the High God of the ancient Greek pantheon. Ganymede is the beautiful youth who was carried off to the heavens, in Homer's Iliad by the gods but in later accounts and later representations by Zeus himself, sometimes in the form of an eagle. Zeus fell in love with Ganymede and so the youth was made immortal and ageless, dwelling in Olympus as the High God's cupbearer (a role previously filled by Hebe, the daughter of Zeus and Hera). According to the Iliad, Ganymede was a prince of Troy and Davidson details similar stories of divine abductions of mortals many of which seem to take place in the region near Troy. One such abduction is of Tithonus, a relative, in some accounts a brother, of Ganymede. He is carried away by the "serial rapist" (Davidson's term) Eos, the goddess of Dawn. Riding the dawn skies in her chariot, winged Eos, carries Tithonus away and grants him immortality but forgets to grant him agelessness. He gets progressively older and more decrepit and eventually she turns him into a cicada.

Briefly Davidson considers other parallels to Ganymede further east - Anatolia, Mesopotamia and the biblical world. An example Davidson gives from the latter is Elijah who gets carried away in a fiery chariot recalling for me more Tithonus carried off by Eos than Ganymede himself. I was struck, however, by the parallels between Enoch and Ganymede but Enoch doesn't get a mention by Davidson. In standard bibles today, Enoch only gets the briefest mention too. His main appearance is in Genesis where he is the father of Methuselah. Genesis also tells us that "Enoch walked with God, then he was no more because God took him" (5.24). He also gets a couple of references in the New Testament. He is cited as a prophet in Jude 14-15 while Hebrews tells us "By faith Enoch was transferred, that he should not see death, and was not found, because God had transferred him; for before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well." (Hebrews 11:5). So basically Enoch, a prophet from primordial time, is taken away by God and does not know death but gains immortality and agelessness in the heavenly realms. The books of Enoch give us a lot more information about Enoch as a prophet and his translation to, and new life in, the heavenly realm which I will come back to later. But just briefly about the books themselves 1 Enoch is the oldest being in five parts, the oldest dating back to the 3rd century BCE. It seems to have been very popular at Qumran and was also influential in early Christianity and is indeed part of the Ethiopian Bible. 2 Enoch most likely dates from the 1st century CE and only exists in Slavonic, being preserved in Russia, and in several recensions but has never been part of any biblical canon. Neither of these books of Enoch are specifically Christian but they have only been preserved by Christians. 3 Enoch is a Rabbinic mystical text from the 6th century CE.

Returning to Ganymede, Davidson considers evidence that Ganymede might not have been of Trojan origin but Greek instead. There are two references in ancient literature to Ganymede as a Greek. One locates him at Chalcis on Euboea which, as well as having a temple to Olympian Zeus, also had a sacred grove dedicated to Ganymede. It was also regarded as the site where the youth was carried off to the heavens. The other site is in the Peloponnese, the city of Phlius, where there was a sanctuary "nestling in a grove of cypresses... dedicated to a goddess called Dia, also called Hebe" (191). However the ancient writer Pausanius was told by locals that the goddess "most anciently... was (called) Ganymeda" (ibid). Yes, a female Ganymede who had also disappeared "or at least there was no cult image... not even a secret one" (ibid). According to Pausanius, the sanctuary was very ancient "going way back" (ibid). Davidson then tells us that back in Bronze Age Greece, the Mycenaean period in the second millennium BCE, many of the later deities of Greece were worshipped including Zeus/Dios and Poseidon. But he also tells us that Zeus and Poseidon and possibly other deities too were worshipped in both genders, thus Dia/Lady Zeus and Posideia/Madame Poseidon. Lady Zeus/Dia survived into the Classical and later periods in out of the way places like Phlius.

According to Davidson that the unique female Ganymede appears in a sanctuary of Lady Zeus is too much of a coincidence. He raises the possibility that perhaps "Zeus and Ganymede were once aspects of a single deity like Dia/Ganymeda" (192). He says "we could generate a nice little tetragram of relationships: Lord Zeus (Dios), his youth Ganymede, Lady Zeus (Dia) and her youth (Hebe) Ganymeda" (ibid). This tetragram immediately recalled for me a similar tetrad in West Semitic religion as found at Ugarit in the second millennium BCE. Here we have El, the High God, and Athirat (Asherah) together with Ba'al and his sister/consort Anat. Nick Wyatt says that these two pairs represent androgynous dyads of divinity and both pairs are connected, Ba'al and Anat are alter egos of the primary dyad of El and Athirat. El and Athirat represent the divine at a macrocosmic level while Ba'al and Anat are the divine at a microcosmic level. If El and Athirat can be seen as in parallel to Zeus and Lady Zeus can Ba'al and Anat be seen as a parallel to Ganymede/a?

Interestingly, the 5th century BCE Jewish community at Elephantine in southern Egypt worshipped Yahweh (Yahu/YHWH) together with a consort, Anat-Yahu. In the biblical world Yahweh and Ba'al are rivals; El is also there as the Most High and so is Asherah who is worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple and is most notably always associated with sacred groves, including one in Jerusalem. So we have that same Ugaritic tetrad here except that Yahweh has replaced Ba'al. So can Yahweh be likewise seen as a parallel to Ganymede?

If so, it comes most strikingly through the parallel between Ganymede and Enoch, a parallel which will also incorporate Jesus. But Davidson has a bit more to say about Ganymede and Zeus which is worth considering before I further explore the parallels. He makes the point that perhaps everyone has been too hung up on the sexual side of the relationship between god and boy to see the significance of the relationship. Instead, he points out, this is a story of apotheosis. Ganymede "is a unique figure in Greek religion, a mortal on Olympus. It was the very nectar served by Ganymede and the ambrosia, the food of the gods..., that kept the gods gods, that kept them up there (on Olympus)" (196). He continues, the Greeks "would see in Ganymede a pure once-mortal boy mediating between earth and heaven, a resonant symbol of human and divine exchange, a uniquely remarkable figure... a mortal removed from the earthly sphere and chosen by the most awesome of the gods to perform holy offerings in his presence. Here sacrifice and the food of the gods are as one" (197). He underlines his argument by noting that in the Greek city of Aegion there was the custom of holding a beauty contest of adolescent youths, the winner being appointed as priest of Zeus, an office he held until the hair began to darken his upper lip and jaw. Furthermore, in many of their images Zeus and Ganymede are wearing yarmulkes. These are now seen as Jewish headgear but it seems they were once regarded as a sign of holiness across the ancient Mediterranean.

Davidson has plenty more to say about Ganymede, including exploring the way Plato recalibrates the dynamics of the love between the god and the boy in the Phaedrus. But what came as a big surprise for me was the discovery that the ancient Jewish philosopher and Torah commentator, Philo of Alexandria, used the image of Ganymede in his work. Here Davidson draws on a short paper by John Dillon published back in 1981 in the Classical Quarterly, "Ganymede as the Logos".

It is the image of Ganymede as the wine-steward or wine-pourer, that Philo draws on (Ganymede is identified with the constellation Aquarius, the water-pourer). On three occasions Ganymede appears in this context in Philo's work. In Quod Deus sit Immutabilis, 155-8, he compares God's grace to nectar and ambrosia and says

He is not, then, going to drink from a cistern, to whom God has granted unmixed draughts of intoxication, either from the hand of one of his servants among the angels, whom he has designated to be his wine-steward , or even from his own hand, without the mediation of anyone between the donor and receiver
The wine-steward is a Ganymede image, the ambrosia of Olympus, here the wine of divine grace


There are two more striking images in Philo's Somneia.

Who, then is God's wine-steward? It is he who pours the libation of peace, the truly great High Priest who first receives the loving-cups of God's perennial bounties, then pays them back when he pours a libation of that potent undiluted draught, himself (2. 183).
Here the wine-steward is turned into the great High Priest who serves in the heavenlies and who is represented on earth by the High Priest in the Temple. As Dillon observes

For Philo, the figure of the High Priest (of whom the ideal example is Moses himself) is a mediator between God and man, a representation of the Logos immanent in the world.

And further on in Somneia, Philo explicitly uses the same Ganymede image in reference to the Logos

And who can pour over the happy soul which proffers its own reason as the most sacred cup, the holy goblets of true joy, except the cup-bearer of God, the master of the feast, the Word (Logos)? not differing from the draught itself, but being itself in an unmixed state, the pure delight and sweetness, and pouring forth, and joy, and ambrosial medicine of pleasure and happiness; if we too may, for a moment, employ the language of the poets (2.249)

John took a fairly standard (according to Daniel Boyarin) 1st century Jewish hymn to the Logos and Christianised it, or maybe more appropriately, Jesusified it to serve as the introduction to his gospel. So this last passage from Philo already serves as a link from Ganymede to Jesus. But the High Priestly role gives a direct link to Enoch the prophet in Genesis who was carried up to heaven. Here is what Jubilees, another ancient text that didn't get into any canons apart from the Ethiopian Bible, has to say about Enoch

And he was taken from amongst the children of men, and we conducted him into the Garden of Eden in majesty and honour, and behold there he writeth down the condemnation and judgment of the world, and all the wickedness of the children of men. And on account of it (God) brought the waters of the flood upon all the land of Eden; for there he was set as a sign and that he should testify against all the children of men, that he should recount all the deeds of the generations until the day of condemnation. And he burnt the incense of the sanctuary, (even) sweet spices, acceptable before the Lord on the Mount. For the Lord hath four places on the earth, the Garden of Eden, and the Mount of the East, and this mountain on which thou art this day, Mount Sinai, and Mount Zion (which) will be sanctified in the new creation for a sanctification of the earth; through it will the earth be sanctified from all (its) guilt and its uncleanness throughout the generations of the world. (Jub 4:23-26)

Here we have Enoch as both the heavenly scribe, as well as the High Priest offering incense to the Lord, to ensure some sort of sanctification of the earth, a form of atonement. The first two books of Enoch give very detailed accounts of this same process - the prophet is carried off to the heavens where he is anointed and vested to become an angelic and (high) priestly being. In subsequent rabbinic tradition, too, Enoch on his ascent to heaven is transformed into the great angel Metatron and in 3 Enoch is termed the lesser Yahweh beside the Lord, the greater Yahweh. In many respects Enoch's story more explicitly and spectacularly is one of apotheosis, deification than that of Ganymede but the core of both is the same principle - a human/mortal who wins the favour of a god and is taken to heaven and there transformed into a heavenly, a divine being to sit or stand beside the Most High God.

These Enochian themes of apotheosis/deification, heavenly high priesthood, grace and atonement are also central to the Christian portrait/understanding of Jesus, so crucial, in fact that I'm inclined to regard them as coming from the source, Jesus himself. Thus Enoch also serves to link Jesus and Ganymede. Jesus is further linked, via Philo's applying Ganymede imagery likewise to the Logos.

It's clear from his book that Davidson has a somewhat jaundiced view of Christianity. Given that he's a gay man it's quite understandable. But Davidson does note how prominent Ganymede imagery was in late medieval and Renaissance Christendom. He notes wryly that the image of Ganymede's abduction is actually on the doors of St Peter's in Rome. Given the bitter contemporary debates about Christianity and homosexuality I'm sure many conservative Christians might look askance at Ganymede's image on the entrance to the most important church in Western Christendom. But ironically it would seem that there is no more appropriate place for Ganymede to be seen. Perhaps the Ganymede story can be seen as a pagan prefiguring of the Christ story. And perhaps Ganymede might enable Christians to see just how much the homo-amorous, homo-erotik inheres in the very divinising dynamics the Christ story itself.