Josephus on Circumcision (Letter to a Colleague)

Lately I've been reading through Josephus' "The Life of Flavius Josephus" when I was reminded of something we briefly discussed: the issue of "conscience" in St. Paul. I quoted Romans 2.14-15:

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."

At the time you commented something to the effect that he may not have meant what I thought he means. You may be quite right (I’ve filed it away for another day), but of interest in Josephus was the following passage:

“At this time it was that two great men, who were under the jurisdiction of the king [Agrippa] came to me out of the region of Trachonius, bringing their horses and their arms, and carrying with them their money also; and when the Jews would force them to be circumcised, if they would stay among them, I would not permit them to have any force put upon them, but said to them, "Every one ought to worship God according to his own conscience, and not to be constrained by force; and that these men, who had fled to us for protection, ought not to be so treated as to repent of their coming hither." And when I had pacified the multitude, I provided for the men that were come to us whatsoever it was they wanted, according to their usual way of living, and that in great plenty also. (23/112).” Italics mine.

Again a similar reference to conscience, here tied to what appears to be a rebuttal of forcible conversion. It is interesting to note the similarities between Paul and Josephus: both operating in a more Hellenistic environment, cosmopolitan, self-proclaimed Pharisees... One can also note that Josephus here offers a minor refutation of that aspect of Paul’s work which seemed to place circumcision among Jews in a highly prominent position (and a major refutation of those abusers of history who go beyond any ambiguity in Paul). Perhaps we see here once again a failure to appreciate the rhetorical structure of Paul’s letters and the worlds in which he lived.

I know that certain communities, like Qumran for example, could be quite strict about membership, but if Josephus is any indication, Jewish sentiments regarding circumcision and conversion during this time were not quite as black and white as Paul or many more contemporary commentators seem to indicate.

La Voix

Mon berceau s'adossait à la bibliothèque,

Babel sombre, où roman, science, fabliau,
Tout, la cendre latine et la poussière grecque,
Se mêlaient. J'étais haut comme un in-folio.
Deux voix me parlaient. L'une, insidieuse et ferme,
Disait: 'La Terre est un gâteau plein de douceur;
Je puis (et ton plaisir serait alors sans terme!)
Te faire un appétit d'une égale grosseur.'
Et l'autre: 'Viens! oh! viens voyager dans les rêves,
Au delà du possible, au delà du connu!'
Et celle-là chantait comme le vent des grèves,
Fantôme vagissant, on ne sait d'où venu,
Qui caresse l'oreille et cependant l'effraie.
Je te répondis: 'Oui! douce voix!' C'est d'alors
Que date ce qu'on peut, hélas! nommer ma plaie
Et ma fatalité. Derrière les décors
De l'existence immense, au plus noir de l'abîme,
Je vois distinctement des mondes singuliers,
Et, de ma clairvoyance extatique victime,
Je traîne des serpents qui mordent mes souliers.
Et c'est depuis ce temps que, pareil aux prophètes,
J'aime si tendrement le désert et la mer;
Que je ris dans les deuils et pleure dans les fêtes,
Et trouve un goût suave au vin le plus amer;
Que je prends très souvent les faits pour des mensonges,
Et que, les yeux au ciel, je tombe dans des trous.
Mais la voix me console et dit: 'Garde tes songes:
Les sages n'en ont pas d'aussi beaux que les fous!'

Baudelaire

The Devil

After some conversation with a friend regarding the Christian notion of hell (though of course not a notion limited to Christianity), I've decided to write about that arch-demon in charge of the place, that slithering seducer, that "accuser": Satan.

What a colourful figure this Satan has been made out to be! For some a serpent, for others a wart-covered travesty, still others an angel of light.. the portrayals are "legion".

Let's begin at the beginning (we'll follow the monotheistic tradition). First, Satan, the devil, was not the serpent in the garden of Eden. This is quite clear from the narrative of Genesis 3. Here we are introduced to what the scripture calls a "crafty serpent". Oddly, though we have just been told that everything the Lord God had made was "good" here we encounter a creature that is manifestly not good. Where did he slither from (or rather walk, since his curse was to slither, indicating that this serpent actually moved about some other way)? Of course his existence is assumed in the narrative, as in so many other mythic accounts of astonishing creatures. It's beside the point for the purposes of the story. Regardless, this crafty fellow in no way resembles that fallen angel Jesus would later speak of. He's a punk animal who is either jealous of these two dimwits (though to be sure the woman, who does the speaking, is the intelligent one here), or is a legitimate emancipatory figure (more about this another time perhaps).

It won't be until much later, until the time of the Persian conquest, that we start to hear about Satan, the naughty angel and accuser of humanity. Before the Jews were immersed in Persian culture and adopted their notion of a Good and Evil principle, there was only God as principle. The prophet Amos makes this clear for example: "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6- evil: ra‛/râ‛âh). For the ancient Jews it was taken for granted that a sovereign and all-powerful God could alone be responsible for both good and evil. Apparently some were uncomfortable with this idea though, and once the idea of an evil principle, a fall-guy, was introduced from a brand of Zoroastrianism the Jews encountered during the captivity (Zervanism), Satan was quickly introduced into the oral and scriptural tradition. There are some pretty clear examples of this:

2 Samuel 24:1 (Pre-Persian Conquest): Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

and the exact same story told during/after the Persian conquest in Chronicles:

1 Chronicles 21:1: Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

In the post-conquest interpretation, it was Satan who incited David, obviously glossing the now distasteful idea that God would incite his anointed in such a manner and then punish him for it! Satan takes the fall..

Every single Hebrew Scripture (OT) reference to Satan takes place after the Persian conquest (see also Zechariah) with the possible exception of one book: Job. The debate still goes on whether this is an ancient story or a more recent one. Perhaps it is a combination of the two.. though I disagree that the Satan story is a later addition. It seems obvious to me that this is an integral part of the tale (if you're curious ask).

By the time we get to the Christian Scriptures a lot has happened. We won't trace the origin and evolution of the notion of hell. There is, however, one interesting reference to "Tartarus" in 2 Peter 2:4: "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell (NIV footnotes the Greek "ταρταρωσας" -Tartarus-), putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment..." Tartarus, as any classicist knows, is a Greek conception of the underworld, more hellish, it seems, than Hades (though of course even the conception of Tartarus evolved over time). It was said that if a bronze anvil falls into the earth, it would take 9 days to reach there. Interesting how Greek mythology and Christianity would bump into one another.. though not that surprising as it is obvious from recent conversations I've had that culture continues to inform a Christian reading of hell.

It should be obvious what I'm suggesting here: Satan, the devil, is not.. never was. He was a necessary evil, literally. He had explanatory power, made sense, was handy. I've heard people say, "but that's exactly what he wants you to think, that he doesn't exist!" A rather odd argument wouldn't you say?

Baptism in the Churches of Christ (Blog comment)

I will also add here the importance of baptism within this church’s soteriology. It has been typical, I think, for disillusioned members to criticize the Church of Christ’s insistence on adult baptism by immersion as too dogmatic, as missing the point of grace, as reducing the salvific act of Christ to a mechanical/automatic gesture, etc. It is ironic that it is precisely here in baptism that the Church of Christ so closely resembles a Catholic sacramentalism, an earthly/mortal gesture which somehow contains within it a divine/grace-ful/spiritual possibility. At one time the sacraments were an acute point of criticism for non-Catholic members: i.e. “it is ridiculous to think that the host literally becomes the body of Christ, that at a given point in the mass the base earthly elements transubstantiate into the body of our Lord etc.” But today I think the situation is entirely different. Are the churches not precisely embracing a sacramental understanding of Church, of the community, of nature? This is why I think it is so ironic that many disgruntled former members of the church have been so critical of baptism (and the same applies to congregational singing, precisely insofar as it too is sacramental in nature). In their pursuit of the “spiritual” they have completely overlooked the possibilities already inherent in their tradition. That baptism is not only sacramental in the Churches of Christ, but also a visible sign of a commitment, an initiation into a community, and of course an intimate gesture made in complete fidelity to the Kingdom and all its citizens (and by proxy, to the whole world as a citizen devoted to peace and the building up, rather than breaking down of humanity), all this seems forgotten in the narrow view of some who elevate human sentiment/feeling (“heavy emotion”) as an absolute, as if in a kind of gnostic ecstasy one can transcend the elemental (all the while disparaging the very thing their “spirituality” depends on and is rooted in, i.e. the human body, the waters of baptism, the basic “stuff” of the world). It is for this reason a substantial approach may be located within the Church of Christ conception. Your blog, in a somewhat more humble way, celebrates this I think.

Individualized Crest

My sister recently sent me an individualized crest based on some information I had given her some time ago. Each element of the crest is personally meaningful to me or my partner. I really like it. Thanks Marcia!

Check out her website.

René Descartes (A translation)

Quaecumque sub perceptionem nostram cadunt, vel tanquam res, rerumue affectiones quasdam, consideramus; vel tanquam aeternas ueritates, nullam existentiam extra cogitationem nostram habentes.

Cum autem agnoscimus fieri non posse, ut ex nihilo aliquid fiat, tunc propositio haec: Ex nihilo nihil fit, non tanquam res aliqua existens, neque etiam ut rei modus consideratur, sed ut veritas quaedam aeterna, quae in mente nostra sedem habet, vocaturque communis notio, siue axioma. Cuius generis sunt: Impossibile est idem simul esse et non esse: Quod factum est, infectum esse nequit: Is qui cogitat, non potest non existere dum cogitat: et alia innumera, quae quidem omnia recenseri facile non possunt...

Whatever things fall under our perception we consider as (1) things or the affections of things, or (2) as eternal truths, that have no existence outside our thoughts.

But when we recognize that something is not able to be made out of nothing, then the proposition: “Ex nihilo nihil fit” is not a thing that exists, nor even considered as a mode of something, but as a kind of eternal truth, having its seat in our mind, and is known as a common axiom or notion. Of this class are: “It is impossible simultaneously to be and not to be; What is done, cannot be undone; The man who thinks is not able to not exist when he thinks [He who thinks must exist when he thinks];” and innumerable others, all of which cannot be easily counted...

What is the meaning of Jesus? (To a comrade)

Don't mind at all.. feel free to post whatever you write me.

What or who is Jesus? Is this not the question you pose? He is neither angelic nor heroic. In fact, he is a failure. But let us not read this statement outside of its proper context. He is a failure precisely insofar as his life led to no real break in the situation. He came from nowhere, for a time was a someone, accrued those followers who glimpsed in him something higher than those animal interests so common in our species. But in the final hour all left him: his monument was little more than the tattered clothing of a common Jew, once a disciple "committed unto death" in this Nazarene cause, left behind when their owner fled for his life at the first sign of opposition. Pilate certainly never said the words "Ecce homo!" Perhaps only to ridicule this worm standing before him. Perhaps only appended to the gospel letter long after the fact. Here was no man, but something much less!

But you understand the radical break in history the death of this worm would wreak. Had the story ended with the crucifixion we would be left with any other self-deluded messianic fool, a lesson for other fools. History is replete with them. The life and death of this madman had zero consequences within the previous order. All those who were formerly willing to die with him (and declared so!), now returned to the sea whence they had been called with tail between legs. Zero consequences=zero Event. Ah but the world and ages this void would soon fill! No angels, no heroes present.. but grace was present.

We will not speak of "historicity." A truth is not of the historical order. We will speak of a break within a situation, a "creative novelty" if there ever was one. We will speak of maximal consequences, of the maximal existence of an inexistent. Why else is the Nazarene's "biography" so dispensable for St. Paul? It is clear that it is so because it is the biography of a madman and failure. It is a lesson for fools. But St. Paul is no fool! For him it is clear that the Resurrection retroactively reinstates this man from Nazareth: not his virgin birth, not his life among his disciples (Paul has no interest in biography), but his Death. This is so because the Death immanentizes the possibility of the Resurrection.

If we are to locate the meaning of Jesus in the regime of the given, it is here at this impossible moment, at this hole punched into the cosmos, a void circumscribed by being's appearance. That this void had such consequences is not a fantastic determination. This is merely its historical and political one. Fantasy is not a proper designate here. It belonged to the previous order of Messianic nationalism (an order Judas himself defended and grew disenchanted with). We are reminded of René Magritte's famous painting of a pipe with the inscription "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" beneath it. Here too might we not inscribe the field of the historical Nazarene with the words: "Ceci est un Immortel"?

Correlation

A man who catches birds with a net

Should have a long reach

Sky-windows make difficult spaces

For men with short arms.

More difficult still

For birds who know only liberty.

A jail to free you with, (to free the catcher)

A group of old men sitting quietly

Watching birds and other feathered things.

Glass and shiny excrement

A rock is more glorious

Crushing you with no regret

Its shape is elemental

A force of nature (a primary force)

But you are its disintegration

Up dear bird, fly...

silhouette - correlation

Trinity and Politics (Kathryn Tanner)

I attended a lecture last night entitled: "The Trinity & Politics: Is the Trinity Really the Best Guide to the Proper Way to Live Together?" given by Yale Divinity School professor Kathryn E. Tanner. In a nutshell her argument was that Trinitarian relational models are fraught with complications due not only to certain ambiguities concerning the relations of the Trinity, but the ability to interpret Trinitarian relations along similar lines of more monotheistic models, i.e. hierarchical, patriarchal, non-individualistic (in the sense that personal identities are often blurred), subordinationist, etc. She is certainly correct about this and I agree that Trinitarian models have been over-hyped.

What then should the model be? Well one potential model is Christ himself, who as the God-man, is the exemplar of human-Trinitarian relations, not just immanently, but economically, i.e. not just between the persons of the Trinity itself, but between God and humans. How should Christians relate to one another and the Other? Not by using the Trinity as a guide to living interpersonally, but by looking to Christ in his relations to the Father and the Spirit, and in his relations to other people.

Afterwards I had the privilege to speak with Dr. Tanner regarding her lecture. Let's move away from this Trinitarian morass in favour of another model, yes. But my claim is not that Jesus is the better option here, but a more radical one. Jesus as an exemplar is itself fraught with ambiguities and pitfalls. I asked Kathryn if her version of Christ isn’t in fact an idealized one. What of those scriptures where Jesus obviously discriminates against others (it is only the woman’s faith in him that surprises Jesus, whereas her initial appeal for help was ignored) Matt. 15?

Not only, I argue, is her Jesus idealized, it doesn't take into account the impossibility of using Jesus as a model. Jesus may be human, but he is also, as the 2^nd person of the Trinity, intrinsically different than other human beings. Yes he is fully human! But he is simultaneously something quite different. Wasn’t this Watt’s critique, that Jesus, as the unique son of God, is in a very different position than the rest of humanity and so had an advantage, even if this advantage was practically denied by Jesus? The difference is that while Jesus may have denied his divinity (kenotic movement etc) and became a wretched human (weak, mortal etc), unlike other humans he had the ability to divest himself of divinity in the first place. There will always be a minimal gap between Jesus and other humans no matter how much like the poorest of them he became (and this without taking the miracles into account).

The radical move would have been to leave aside not only the Trinity, but Jesus as well. What Christians need is not an already impossible model, an idealized God-man, but a model who can have no special claims to divinity, who is intrinsically like us, who models in his/her life a radical fidelity lived out in the field of social relations.

Techno-Digital Apocalypticism

Just reflecting tonight on the techno-digital-post-human future. Last year for example, Craig Venter and a team of twenty scientists publicly announced that after 10 years and $40 million dollars they were able to create the first reproductive synthetic life form.

Craig Venter and Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0.

The team manufactured over a million base-pairs of the genome without using any natural DNA. In addition, they engineered genetic "watermarks" out of genes and proteins so that future scientists could identify which cells were synthetic. These watermarks can be spelled out to make a variety of names, phrases, and even an email address to contact the creators. In the case of Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0, one of my favourites would have to be Joyce's "To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life."

What else tonight? Well here's another one regarding human-tech interface. A quote from Ray Kurzweil:

“Today, we treat Parkinson’s with a pea-sized brain implant. Increase that device’s capability by a billion and decrease its size by a hundred thousand, and you get some idea of what will be feasible in 25 years. It won’t be, ‘OK, cyborgs on the left, humans on the right.’ The two will be all mixed up.” The Guardian, 2007.

There are many examples in the media lately about new human-tech interfaces that will boost human efficiency or health. The ethical war rages. I wonder what this will do to our definition of "life" and "human"?

Ian Sample, Guardian.

Niwuzzle

Photo Credit James Jackson Elmira Observer 2011.

Check out this article regarding a friend's adventures in puzzle development.

Courons à l'onde en rejaillir vivant!

O my soul, seek not after immortal life, but exhaust the realm of the possible. Pindar, Pythics, III

[We are these spaces]

The hidden dead are well off in the dirt;
Warming them, it keeps their mystery dry.
Noon up above, noon without movement
In self-absorbed creation of yourself...
Perfected head and perfect diadem,

I am what's changing secretly in you.

[We are these spaces]

The Logic of the Site -Tunisia-

Logic of the Site (With modifications). Badiou (2009), 374.

To use our example of Egypt: As a consequence of the sequence inaugurated in Tunisia it is the proof of the singularity of the Tunisian event. Time will tell if this sequence will reach maximal consequences, as people in country after country continue to call for reasonable living conditions and the overthrow of corrupt rulers. In this way the Evental potential of Tunisia is being realized day by day.

Inception -Excerpt from a letter-

"Those who dream of the banquet may weep the next morning, and those who dream of weeping may go out to hunt after dawn. When we dream we do not know that we are dreaming. In our dreams we may even interpret our dreams. Only after we are awake do we know that we have dreamed. But there comes a great awakening, and then we know that life is a great dream. But the stupid think they are awake all the time and believe they know it distinctly." Chuang-tze

And of course the question remains: What difference does it make whether we dream or wake? Both in Inception and our butterfly Philosopher one experiences the same sufferings, the same joys, the same frustrations and anxieties whether the subject sleeps or wakes. Once again the Whole of a given life is a chimera (whether dreamlike or wakeful). It is rather the worlds of a subject which contain truths, mediated through the subjectivity of a subject (asleep or awake).

In other words, the movie ends at an appropriate moment (the top continues to spin and we do not find out whether it topples or not) not because it "keeps us guessing whether we're dreaming or not" (as the website suggests). The point is precisely that it no longer matters. The subjective truths conveyed by the main character finally meeting his children subsumes all other concerns. This is the ultimate truth of the scene. The top represents the Whole of the situation (the possibility of Wakefulness or Fantasy) which is abruptly cut off (cinematographically) because it no longer represents the Real of the situation (the -subjective- localization of the truth of the power of Love). We could say that ultimately we are indifferent to the top. It's being (and representative function) cease to exist from the point of view of the subject, hence, its banishment from sight without further consideration. Whether it stands or falls, it is no longer considered a site of truth for the subject.

The Political Subject -Egypt-

Recent events in Egypt provide the opportunity to elucidate the example of a Badiouan political subject, reactive subject, and obscure subject. The Evental trace, to be named in the statement by Egyptian youth: “Bread, Freedom, Human Dignity,” comparable to revolutionary slogans the world over, indicates the activation of an Evental subjectivity, a subjectivity in which identarian predicates do not play a role: “I don’t belong to any particular political party, I’m one of the people.” At every point the newly subjectivated body must choose to be faithful to the Evental trace or to betray it, to defy curfews which deny it both freedom and dignity, or submit to the wishes of the errant superpower etc.

The reactionary subject is known by the dismissal of the Evental trace as Event. The “demonstrators” will eventually “drift away.” They do not represent the will of the people: “For all the west, starting with the United States, [Mubarak] has always been considered a wisest man and a point of reference. Compared to a population of 80 million, the number of people on the streets is really low" (Berlusconi). Or Sarah Palin’s statements: “...so we need to find out who was behind all of the turmoil and the revolt and the protests so that good decisions can be made in terms of who we will stand by and support" ( This comment further reveals the conservative reactionist’s denial that the body of a truth can be the true source of a creative novelty. Why, for example, must Palin look for a ghostly spectre behind the uprising, rather than recognize a legitimate movement of the people?). It further denies the ability of the activated body to carry out the consequences of its statements without a compromise of its original position, or it undermines its role in the unfolding of the process. For example, Hilary Clinton’s statement: “... our assessment is that the Egyptian Government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”

The obscure subject wills the destruction of the politically subjectivated body. The baltagea, pro-Mubarak “thugs,” activate a fascist political component with the use of “clubs, machetes, swords and straight razors on Wednesday to try to crush Egypt’s democracy movement.” Evidence of this obscure subjectivity can also be found in its naming of an “atemporal fetish,” in this case the designation “War Hero.” Mubarak himself precisely designates the obscurantist’s formulation of “the incorruptible and indivisible over-body” in a televised address during the protests: “The nation remains. Visitors come and go but ancient Egypt will remain eternal, its banner and safekeeping will pass from one generation to the next. It is up to us to ensure this in pride and dignity.”