When thinking about the world in which the Hebrew biblical texts were created we often look toward the great ‘superpowers’ that were amassed to the north of Israel; the empires of Assyria, Babylonia, Persia and then more latterly Greek and Roman. Quite often, we can overlook the enormous influence of the ‘superpower’ to the south; Egypt.
Israel was sandwiched between the power bases of two competing empires. It was precariously sited on a narrow and mountainous land bridge (with the Mediterranean sea to the west and arid deserts to the east) which were the main routes for trade and the mobilisation of the military. This meant that control of the Levant (the area in which Canaan/Israel was part) provided an important strategic and economic advantage. The histories of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah are played out against this tense backdrop.
Consequently, anyone wanting a clearer understanding of the historical, social and political context of the Bible would benefit from the huge amount of archaeological and textual research of Egypt. Ancient Egypt Magazine is a particularly accessible and helpful resource. It is published bimonthly and is written by academics and postgraduate students for a general-interest market.
I was perusing the latest issue and two items in their ‘News’ section struck me as being of interest some readers of this blog. Continue reading →
One of the things that provoked discussion at last week’s Advent Seminar concerned a remark made by Leon Morris (1992: 29) that the angel’s instruction that “[Mary] will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus…” (Matt 1:21a) is, in the context of Mary’s predicament, highly significant.
It is important to remember that in pre-industrial societies marriage was not simply an agreement between two individuals, but a contract between two families. In ancient Mediterranean cultures, betrothal would have usually been initiated with a meal at the woman’s parent’s home (M. Pesachim 3:7), this would also be attended by the payment of an indirect dowry (M. Ketubot 5.2); a negotiated payment by the ‘groom’s’ family paid to the betrothed couple. This would have been part of the overall Bride-wealth.
VIOLATION AND BETRAYAL
Therefore, Mary’s unexpected pregnancy was not only a violation of sexually appropriate behaviour, but it could have also have been seen as a betrayal of the two family groups involved and the agreement that bound them together. Joseph’s response to this news would directly impact upon the wider kinships groups and would have risked pitching one family against the other.*
Matthew openly addresses the socially awkward nature of Mary’s pregnancy face on. In fact, in his genealogy (1:1-17), he places Mary at the end of a list of four other women (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah) whom Jewish tradition viewed as being, to borrow from Brown (1993:73), “instrument[s] of God’s providence” despite their morally dubious reputations.
The point that Morris makes is that, although Joseph was within his rights to divorce Mary, the angel, not only instructed him against this, but also directed him to name the child. The naming of a child was the father’s right (which makes Gabriel’s instructions to Mary in Luke 1:31 so surprising!). However, this act meant significantly more than simply deciding a name. In naming Jesus, Joseph was officially accepting Jesus into his family (including wider family) as his son. It was a commitment of paternity and responsibility.
“CAST IT OUT”
The darker side of this act (if the father decided not to accept the child) was drawn to our attention by David (McLoughlin)who also then referred to a papyrus letter (P.Oxy 4.744) written in 1 B.C.E. that was found at the Oxyrhynchus sitein Egypt.
The letter, dated 29th year of the Emperor Augustus, 23rd day of the Egyptian month Pauni (17th June 1 B.C.E.), is from Hilarion to his pregnant wife Alis. The overall tone of the letter is very tender. Hilarion is away in Alexandria. He reassures Alis that he is thinking of her and that she should not worry. Although he has not yet received his pay, he assures her that as soon as he does, he will send it up to her. However he also gives her this instruction concerning the unborn baby:
“Above all, if you bear a child and it is male, let it [live], but if it is female, cast it out.”
The word here for ‘cast it out’ (ἔκβαλε) is the same word used in the Gospels to describe Jesus expelling (casting out) demons.
Within the patriarchal structure of antiquity, the ultimate decision of whether a baby should live or die rested in the father’s (or head of the household’s) hands. In a world where offspring could become a dangerous drain upon a household’s resources, infanticide was high.
NEO-NATAL BODY DUMP IN ASHKELON
Excavations of neo-natal body dumps in Late Roman Period Israel have shown that infanticide was fairly common. Research of such a dump in the sewer system under a Roman bathhouse in Ashkelon and comprising the skeletal remains of about 100 babies (up to approximately 3 months old) suggests that ‘unwelcome’ or ‘inconvenient’ babies that were the result of extra-marital relationships were (literally?) cast away. Moreover, infanticide appears to have been viewed as the favoured means of family planning allowing sex selection and birth order to take place (see: M. Faerman et al. 1998).
Bathhouses had a reputation for being places that encouraged promiscuity and prostitution and the report by Faerman et al. (1998:864-865) show that, although frequently a means of sex selection (in favour of males), the unusual number of male remains at the Ashkelon site suggest that infanticide could also have been used as a way to ‘deal’ with babies that were the result of prostitution and/or promiscuous liaisons.
Care must be taken before indiscriminately drawing parallels between evidence from the late Roman period and applying it to late Second Temple Judaism. However, as Faerman et al’s (1998) report indicates, this is far from an isolated incident and not restricted to one particular period. Forms of infanticide appear to be have been present (and recognised) within Palestinian Jewish tradition, even though precise attitudes to it are hard to discern (see Murphy, 2014).
In his birth narrative, Matthew appears to be aware of the scandalous nature in which a betrothed woman is found to be pregnant. He tells the birth from Joseph’s point of view. In the shame-honour culture of first century Palestine, Mary’s apparent violation of sexual mores (and even law) reflected badly upon him (and their respective families too). Joseph’s response to the angel was not a decision to be made between two lovers, but one that bore the heavy weight of the concerns of two families that had financially entered a marriage contract and the down-payment (on Joseph’s side) had already been paid. To accept the child was to bring the shame of the mother and the mother’s family into his own family. Most would echo Hilarion’s injunction to Alis concerning the birth of a daughter in the case of this illegitimate child; ‘throw it out.’
And so the angel instructs Joseph to take this young girl (shrouded in scandal) into his family as his wife and, when the baby is born, to “name him Jesus.” A few short verses later (v. 25), Matthew uses those same words again to explain how, on the birth of the baby, Joseph “named him Jesus.”
This is a significant and profound act for Joseph. On one level, he is naming the child, a relatively common name, Yeshua (Joshua). On a deeper level, he is accepting this baby as his own, bringing him into his household. On a deeper level still, he his publicly demonstrating that in accepting this child (born amid the dark rumours of scandal – whether sexual misconduct or rape), he should be allowed to live.
* For more information see: Hanson and Oakman, 1998:31-43 and Chilton, 2005: 84-110.
Brown, R. (1993) The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. New edn. New York: Doubleday
Chilton, B. (2006) ‘Recovering Jesus’ Mamzerut‘. in. Charlesworth, J.H. (2006) (ed.) Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans. 84-110.
Finding something on the internet that is fun, absorbing AND good for research is always something to be welcomed and widely shared!
Here is a chance to work with ancient papyrus documents from Graeco-Roman Egypt that have never before been properly examined on a project calledAncient Lives. You could find yourself working on a third century letter, or a sixth century set of accounts, or even a second century biblical text…!
The Egyptian urban centre of Oxyrhnchus (roughly 160 km south west of Cairo) was excavated by Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt between 1886 and 1907. One of the most apparently unpromising places of their excavations turned out to be the most valuable: the town’s rubbish dumps. Because of the lack of rain and arid conditions, they discovered thousands upon thousands of papyrus documents dating from the third century BCE to the seventh century CE. Their contents, mainly written in Greek, provide us with valuable information of day to day life at this time. As well as numerous letters and accounts of daily transactions, the collection also include early Christian writings, biblical texts and classical works.
Numbering over 500,00 pieces, means that there are still many fragments that have yet to be properly examined. One of the major tasks is their transcription. Transcription is the process where the writing on the papyrus is retyped using a formalised alphabet making the text a lot clearer to read.
The innovative Citizen Science platformZooniverse, together with the University of Oxford, have provided a way for every one to be involved in transcribing ancient papyri without having to have any specialist knowledge – and you do NOT have to be able to read Ancient Greek (although familiarity with the alphabet would be a help). Together they have set up a transcription workspace on theirAncient Lives project.
Images of the fragments can be viewed on a screen with facilities to rotate and zoom. There is also the capability to record and measure each fragment. There is a short tutorialexplaining the functions of the workspace tools after which you will be presented with an image of a papyrus fragment and you can get straight to work!
The transcription process is easy. Clicking on a letter on the fragment places a coloured spot over it, you can then decide which letter or symbol it matches most closely to on your keyboard that is positioned just below the screen. In this case kappa, upsilon and theta have already been transcribed. The next letter is highlighted with a blue dot and the cursor (not seen in the screenshot) is over the letter ‘rho’ and highlighting it. The ‘map’ in the inset screen on the right indicates where you are in relation to the complete fragment. Alongside transcription, each fragment requires measuring. This is done by clicking on the ‘MEASURE’ tab.
Another valuable feature is the Talk facility that allows you to write comments, questions and join in discussions about the particular image on which you are working. Once you have finished transcribing and measuring the fragment, you can review your work by using the ‘Light Box’.
This displays all the fragments on which you have worked. Information about each fragment (how many times it has been transcribed, measured and any discussion about it) is revealed by clicking on the image.
This is a wonderful opportunity for those who would like to get involved in working with ancient manuscripts. Although this work can be done without any knowledge of ancient Greek, a familiarity with its alphabet (remember only majuscule – approximating to the Western upper case) was used at this time. It is absolutely ideal for those who attended the Summer Greek course in August and want a fun way to avoid getting rusty! Additionally there is a very helpful blog administered by the ‘Ancient Lives’ team and regular twitter updates – @ancientlives.