Me thinks people are trying to project their current understanding of personhood (at birth--or earlier) into what might have been the ancient understanding of personhood 2,000 years ago.
No, that not what people here are doing. To the contrary, methinks that’s what Lemos is doing—imposing modern definitions and concepts on ancient writings.
And as I pointed out above, nothing in the article we can read speaks to attitudes or understandings of personhood 2,000 years ago. What Lemos relies on are writings from 2,500 years or more ago.
Me thinks people are trying to project their current understanding of personhood (at birth--or earlier) into what might have been the ancient understanding of personhood 2,000 years ago.
No, that not what people here are doing. To the contrary, methinks that’s what Lemos is doing—imposing modern definitions and concepts on ancient writings.
And as I pointed out above, nothing in the article we can read speaks to attitudes or understandings of personhood 2,000 years ago. What Lemos relies on are writings from 2,500 years or more ago.
You assume the idea of personhood changed between the Exodus and the time Jesus. For one thing, most of the Old Testament books did not come together until around the 6th century BCE, meaning there would really have been only 600 years difference. I would argue not much changed in the concept of personhood in that time difference.
In pre-modern societies, the lives of children were not regarded as unique or valuable in the same way as they are in modern societies, in part as a result of high infant mortality. When childhood began to develop its own distinctive features, including graded schools to teach literacy, other skills, and cultural knowledge, this view changed. This only happened in the last 250 years.
In ancient Jewish culture, the concept of personhood for children was different from modern understandings. While children were certainly valued and protected, they were often seen as part of their family unit rather than as fully independent persons with individual rights.
By the age of two, a child would be recognized as a member of the family and community, but they would not have the same legal or social status as an adult. The concept of personhood evolved as children grew older and reached key milestones, such as the age of majority (13 for boys and 12 for girls in Jewish tradition).
Me thinks people are trying to project their current understanding of personhood (at birth--or earlier) into what might have been the ancient understanding of personhood 2,000 years ago.
No, that not what people here are doing. To the contrary, methinks that’s what Lemos is doing—imposing modern definitions and concepts on ancient writings.
And as I pointed out above, nothing in the article we can read speaks to attitudes or understandings of personhood 2,000 years ago. What Lemos relies on are writings from 2,500 years or more ago.
You assume the idea of personhood changed between the Exodus and the time Jesus.
No, I don’t assume that. I question your unsupported assumption that the verses Lemos relies on may be evidence of “what might have been the ancient understanding of personhood 2,000 years ago.” They’re evidence of ideas at the various books of the Hebrew Scriptures were written and complied. They don’t tell us anything one way or the other about 500+ years later.
For one thing, most of the Old Testament books did not come together until around the 6th century BCE, meaning there would really have been only 600 years difference.
I know that. That is precisely why I said “[w]hat Lemos relies on are writings from 2,500 years or more ago.”
I would argue not much changed in the concept of personhood in that time difference.
I would argue that the history of the African slave trade and enslavement in the United States, including the US Constitution’s provision for counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, rebuts your argument. Ditto colonial and American treatments of First Nations.
In ancient Jewish culture, the concept of personhood for children was different from modern understandings. While children were certainly valued and protected, they were often seen as part of their family unit rather than as fully independent persons with individual rights.
Much the same could be said of anyone who wasn't a man and the head of the family. And the concept of “individual rights” is pretty anachronistic in this context.
By the age of two, a child would be recognized as a member of the family and community, but they would not have the same legal or social status as an adult.
On what do you base this claim—specifically the significance of the age of two?
Look, I’m very well aware that ancient societies held a variety of views about what we’d now call personhood, including the personhood of children. I’ve been aware of that for decades, including that such views were not at all monolithic across cultures and were often nuanced.
We’re talking here specifically about prevailing Jewish views at the time of Herod. You have made a claim about that that is contrary to anything I’ve ever read about Jewish attitudes at that time. You have supported your claim by citing one author, and the only article we can read by that article, aside from not addressing the same period of time, strikes me at least as just sloppy.
Feel free to think what you will, by all means. But I’m afraid nothing you’ve said or pointed to is at all convincing to me.
I can't get my head round the numbers implied, but this seems like a good time to move on.
And this seems like a reasonable chance to speculate on the evil ones perspective. For many imaginings the massacre of the innocents must have seemed like a minor win.
We are told that he can't understand the light.
I don't think there's much scriptural, but on the off chance there's an interesting tradition or anything.
And then we can move onto the angels and trinity, where we have the whole book. (Unless the conversation turns in a different direction)
Just to point out in Jewish custom a child does not receive full status until their Bar Mitzvah, or. in the case of girls, Bat Mitzvah,
I hope we are done arguing over the tree in the forest.
My main point remains: there are still Holy Innocents that are being killed today especially in conflict zones throughout the world. Let's not forget them.
Just to point out in Jewish custom a child does not receive full status until their Bar Mitzvah, or. in the case of girls, Bat Mitzvah,
You’re confusing and conflating status as adults, which is what Bar and Bat Mitzvahs are about, with status as persons, which is what you’ve been talking about in the context of whether or not killing infants might have been deemed less egregious than killing older persons.
I hope we are done arguing over the tree in the forest.
Just to point out that you’re the one who brought this up and who keeps arguing for it.
My main point remains: there are still Holy Innocents that are being killed today especially in conflict zones throughout the world. Let's not forget them.
And [from Herod's evil actions] this seems like a reasonable chance to speculate on the evil ones perspective. For many imaginings the massacre of the innocents must have seemed like a minor win [for evil, I hope that was obvious].
...
And then [tomorrow] we can move onto the angels and trinity, where we have the whole book. (Unless the conversation turns in a different direction)
That we've got the whole bible to tell us God's perspective. Whether in an "all scripture is inspired sense", or the various ways the individual books reveal him.
The "angel of the Lord" formation in the old testament often comes across as a very close messager (almost like part of the trinity). Luke's use I think is less special.
Is it meaningful to ask if the angels were messagers of Jesus, the Father, the Spirit, or doing what they felt best.
Genuine question. I'm struggling to phrase it without potentially coming across as rude, sorry.
Do you think angels can act on their own behalf, excluding the fallen ones? Or have I misunderstood? Again, I am not meaning to sound rude -- I was just surprised by how I read your comment. I am interested in your answer.
I think the angels that we see stuff about in scripture all appear to have been specifically sent. What they’re like the rest of the time, I don’t know.
I suspect I'm inconsistent (and in any case if posing a question would want it to allow replies from a wider perspective)
Culturally there are concepts like 'guardian angel' which normally assume semi-independence. And the conceit of considering the angels thoughts requires assuming they can have some.
The ones explicitly sent with a message, are definitely seen as dependable messengers. That's fairly easy to picture.
I do feel that 'worship' requires some autonomy of some kind. If I were to set puppets to do something similar for me it would be really weird, and while a lot of it is because I'm not glorifiable (unlike God)...
So in that sense the more the singing angels are reacting to God's glory the easier I'll find it.
The OT angel of the lord, on the other hand seem a very thin mask. The people who meet so, seem to have no doubt they have interacted directly with God.
Thank you. Plenty to ponder. I do not think of angels very much, despite the Orthodox emphasis on a personal guardian angel (mine must feel ignored!)
I watched a short video earlier today on the Heiland, a 9th century poem in Old Saxon that tells the life of Jesus in a a style familiar to people at that time. The video focussed on the Christmas verses; interesting to see how the story was reimagined in Saxon culture. Might try and give the relevant sections a read before Christmas.
Thank you. Plenty to ponder. I do not think of angels very much, despite the Orthodox emphasis on a personal guardian angel (mine must feel ignored!)
I watched a short video earlier today on the Heiland, a 9th century poem in Old Saxon that tells the life of Jesus in a a style familiar to people at that time. The video focussed on the Christmas verses; interesting to see how the story was reimagined in Saxon culture. Might try and give the relevant sections a read before Christmas.
I need to find and read the Heiland. That sounds awesome!!
I suspect I'm inconsistent (and in any case if posing a question would want it to allow replies from a wider perspective)
Culturally there are concepts like 'guardian angel' which normally assume semi-independence. And the conceit of considering the angels thoughts requires assuming they can have some.
The ones explicitly sent with a message, are definitely seen as dependable messengers. That's fairly easy to picture.
I do feel that 'worship' requires some autonomy of some kind. If I were to set puppets to do something similar for me it would be really weird, and while a lot of it is because I'm not glorifiable (unlike God)...
So in that sense the more the singing angels are reacting to God's glory the easier I'll find it.
The OT angel of the lord, on the other hand seem a very thin mask. The people who meet so, seem to have no doubt they have interacted directly with God.
I'd always understood that the "Angel of the Lord" in the OT is (usually) God the Son. That would be all the spots where he accepts worship, offerings, etc. and says "I" without prefacing it with "The Lord says," or some such. I think there might be one case where someone is called "Angel of the Lord" and specifically refuses some divine perquisite--I can't recall if it was worship or an offering--but generally, anybody who gets called "Angel of the Lord" seems to be cool with those things, and any angel who isn't called that, isn't. From what I recall.
As for ordinary angels, from everything I've seen in Scripture, they seem to be creatures a lot like us, but higher in the natural scale of being--so they have free will, intelligence, emotions, etc. but don't apparently possess material bodies (though I gather there was a fight about that in medieval times). I'm not surprised that the ones God sends tend not to show independence, it's not like the interactions they have with people are super-long, and I wouldn't choose even a human messenger who had such a need to show his independence that he did it during the errand and possibly messed up my message! I expect when angels are on their own time, they do all sorts of things without direction, just as we do.
I’m suddenly imagining an angel with a Teletubby-like screen on his belly, through which God speaks. So you’d see the angel but also be able to say you’d seen God…
Something that came up in discussion around my house--for those three months Mary was at Elizabeth's house, there were two women present and three men (all right, two of them babies), all preachers in their lifetimes. NONE of the men could speak.
As we don't have the service at my parish, I read the Royal Hours (four short services of Psalms, hymns and prayers) in very early preparation for (Old Calendar) Nativity. Not sure if people are bored by these extra-Biblical imaginings -- tell me to shut up if you are -- but words are put in Mary's mouth:
O Virgin Mary, when Joseph was racked with sadness, on the way to Bethlehem, you said to him, “Why are you miserable and troubled, seeing me pregnant? Are you completely ignorant of the tremendous mystery unfolding in me? Well then, put away all your fears, and understand the extraordinary wonder. God, in His mercy, has come down to earth, and He is now in my womb, and He has taken flesh. You will see Him born of me, as He wills; and you will be filled with joy; and you will worship Him, as your Creator, the One whom Angels unceasingly extol and glorify, as they do the Father and the Holy Spirit.”
She is also referred to as "the unmated heifer" elsewhere in these services: which I assume is some OT reference I am not familiar with!
'unmated heifer' sounds Leviticus like doesn't it.
Leviticus seemed to be mostly male animals, but Numbers 19 has a red heifer (unyoked, so presumably young) which is sacrificed and the ashes used to make holy water. (Thinking about it it's been mentioned before as there's an American breeding program to make them available)
Sods law, Probably turn out to be a name of the Egyptian goddess Hathor or something.
The orthodox liturgy version of Mary has no tact does she.
For some reason I imagine Joseph being just told about the pregnancy and then by the angel visitation that it's ok. But Mary must have tried to explain herself (which means Joseph's dream wasn't on an empty mind).
Different threads are different, but here the liturgy seems fitting. You get some idea for what people thought in the medieval period through them, and we can compare that to modern feelings and (the limited) biblical text.
Comments
And as I pointed out above, nothing in the article we can read speaks to attitudes or understandings of personhood 2,000 years ago. What Lemos relies on are writings from 2,500 years or more ago.
You assume the idea of personhood changed between the Exodus and the time Jesus. For one thing, most of the Old Testament books did not come together until around the 6th century BCE, meaning there would really have been only 600 years difference. I would argue not much changed in the concept of personhood in that time difference.
In pre-modern societies, the lives of children were not regarded as unique or valuable in the same way as they are in modern societies, in part as a result of high infant mortality. When childhood began to develop its own distinctive features, including graded schools to teach literacy, other skills, and cultural knowledge, this view changed. This only happened in the last 250 years.
In ancient Jewish culture, the concept of personhood for children was different from modern understandings. While children were certainly valued and protected, they were often seen as part of their family unit rather than as fully independent persons with individual rights.
By the age of two, a child would be recognized as a member of the family and community, but they would not have the same legal or social status as an adult. The concept of personhood evolved as children grew older and reached key milestones, such as the age of majority (13 for boys and 12 for girls in Jewish tradition).
I know that. That is precisely why I said “[w]hat Lemos relies on are writings from 2,500 years or more ago.”
I would argue that the history of the African slave trade and enslavement in the United States, including the US Constitution’s provision for counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, rebuts your argument. Ditto colonial and American treatments of First Nations.
Much the same could be said of anyone who wasn't a man and the head of the family. And the concept of “individual rights” is pretty anachronistic in this context.
On what do you base this claim—specifically the significance of the age of two?
Look, I’m very well aware that ancient societies held a variety of views about what we’d now call personhood, including the personhood of children. I’ve been aware of that for decades, including that such views were not at all monolithic across cultures and were often nuanced.
We’re talking here specifically about prevailing Jewish views at the time of Herod. You have made a claim about that that is contrary to anything I’ve ever read about Jewish attitudes at that time. You have supported your claim by citing one author, and the only article we can read by that article, aside from not addressing the same period of time, strikes me at least as just sloppy.
Feel free to think what you will, by all means. But I’m afraid nothing you’ve said or pointed to is at all convincing to me.
And this seems like a reasonable chance to speculate on the evil ones perspective. For many imaginings the massacre of the innocents must have seemed like a minor win.
We are told that he can't understand the light.
I don't think there's much scriptural, but on the off chance there's an interesting tradition or anything.
And then we can move onto the angels and trinity, where we have the whole book. (Unless the conversation turns in a different direction)
I hope we are done arguing over the tree in the forest.
My main point remains: there are still Holy Innocents that are being killed today especially in conflict zones throughout the world. Let's not forget them.
Just to point out that you’re the one who brought this up and who keeps arguing for it.
That I can agree with.
The "angel of the Lord" formation in the old testament often comes across as a very close messager (almost like part of the trinity). Luke's use I think is less special.
Is it meaningful to ask if the angels were messagers of Jesus, the Father, the Spirit, or doing what they felt best.
Do you think angels can act on their own behalf, excluding the fallen ones? Or have I misunderstood? Again, I am not meaning to sound rude -- I was just surprised by how I read your comment. I am interested in your answer.
I suspect I'm inconsistent (and in any case if posing a question would want it to allow replies from a wider perspective)
Culturally there are concepts like 'guardian angel' which normally assume semi-independence. And the conceit of considering the angels thoughts requires assuming they can have some.
The ones explicitly sent with a message, are definitely seen as dependable messengers. That's fairly easy to picture.
I do feel that 'worship' requires some autonomy of some kind. If I were to set puppets to do something similar for me it would be really weird, and while a lot of it is because I'm not glorifiable (unlike God)...
So in that sense the more the singing angels are reacting to God's glory the easier I'll find it.
The OT angel of the lord, on the other hand seem a very thin mask. The people who meet so, seem to have no doubt they have interacted directly with God.
I watched a short video earlier today on the Heiland, a 9th century poem in Old Saxon that tells the life of Jesus in a a style familiar to people at that time. The video focussed on the Christmas verses; interesting to see how the story was reimagined in Saxon culture. Might try and give the relevant sections a read before Christmas.
I need to find and read the Heiland. That sounds awesome!!
I'd always understood that the "Angel of the Lord" in the OT is (usually) God the Son. That would be all the spots where he accepts worship, offerings, etc. and says "I" without prefacing it with "The Lord says," or some such. I think there might be one case where someone is called "Angel of the Lord" and specifically refuses some divine perquisite--I can't recall if it was worship or an offering--but generally, anybody who gets called "Angel of the Lord" seems to be cool with those things, and any angel who isn't called that, isn't. From what I recall.
As for ordinary angels, from everything I've seen in Scripture, they seem to be creatures a lot like us, but higher in the natural scale of being--so they have free will, intelligence, emotions, etc. but don't apparently possess material bodies (though I gather there was a fight about that in medieval times). I'm not surprised that the ones God sends tend not to show independence, it's not like the interactions they have with people are super-long, and I wouldn't choose even a human messenger who had such a need to show his independence that he did it during the errand and possibly messed up my message! I expect when angels are on their own time, they do all sorts of things without direction, just as we do.
Who says God doesn't have a sense of humor?
As we don't have the service at my parish, I read the Royal Hours (four short services of Psalms, hymns and prayers) in very early preparation for (Old Calendar) Nativity. Not sure if people are bored by these extra-Biblical imaginings -- tell me to shut up if you are -- but words are put in Mary's mouth:
She is also referred to as "the unmated heifer" elsewhere in these services: which I assume is some OT reference I am not familiar with!
Leviticus seemed to be mostly male animals, but Numbers 19 has a red heifer (unyoked, so presumably young) which is sacrificed and the ashes used to make holy water. (Thinking about it it's been mentioned before as there's an American breeding program to make them available)
Sods law, Probably turn out to be a name of the Egyptian goddess Hathor or something.
The orthodox liturgy version of Mary has no tact does she.
For some reason I imagine Joseph being just told about the pregnancy and then by the angel visitation that it's ok. But Mary must have tried to explain herself (which means Joseph's dream wasn't on an empty mind).
Different threads are different, but here the liturgy seems fitting. You get some idea for what people thought in the medieval period through them, and we can compare that to modern feelings and (the limited) biblical text.