We continue looking at Philo's philosophical discussion of shepherds. We are in section XIV where Philo has just finished telling us something about the character of prosperous Egyptians. Then he goes on to say that people may ask those who claim to be of the shepherding mindset why they would live in Egypt, "the country of the body and the passions."The answer is that they are just sojourners, not inhabitants, because "the soul of every wise man has heaven for its home." According to Philo, wisdom is the true home of the soul, this body is just a place to hang out for a while. Philo appears to be a mind-body dualist.
Pause.
I am not a cursing person, but if I was ever tempted to curse it would be after hearing one of these "this world is not my home" statements. Folks, this world is darn well every person's home. It's the only home we have, and the only home we or our descendants will ever have, if we don't destroy it first. Learn to accept it. Find a way to love the only life you have.
Unpause.
Philo ends this extended metaphor by comparing shepherds, those who rule the flock of their soul well, with kings. He compares keepers of sheep, those who are sluggish and indulgent, with bakers, who supply the means of gluttony to those who wish to gorge themselves.
After that, Philo continues his philosophising with another metaphor about true horsemen and mere riders. I point this out to remind us that Philo's intent in all these metaphors is to extrapolate a spiritual message, not to explore the actual sociological function of shepherds. Nevertheless, we are given glimpses of the standing of shepherds in Egyptian society.
Note that we are not talking about first century Israelite society, which has a distinctly different culture. The original argument was that shepherds were despised, lowly, and unclean in that culture. We certainly do see disdain for sheep tenders by rich Egyptians. I would guess that Egyptians did not make Philo's philosophical distinction between sheep tenders and shepherds. The book of Genesis, chapters 46 and 47, is where Philo decides a distintinction is made between those who tend livestock and shepherds. In 46:2 Joseph says, "the men are shepherds, they tend livestock," making no distinction between the two occupations. It is all in Philo's philosophy. However, the distinction of shepherd and sheep keeper is an interesting one, and before we are done we will encounter it again in a different manner.
Showing posts with label Philo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philo. Show all posts
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Shepherds part 4
If you are still hanging around I appreciate it. Life has to be navigated when the unexpected happens. Sometimes even the expected requires more resources than previously imagined.
Let's continue looking at Philo's shepherding metaphors in his writing On Husbandry. I was last in section XI, which ends with "but what is really desirable is, that our mind should govern all our conduct, like a goatherd, or a cowherd, or a shepherd, or, in short, like any herdsman of any kind; choosing in preference to what is pleasant that which is for the advantage both of himself and of his flock." We have seen that the mind is either a keeper of sheep, pleasure seeking and indulgent, or a true shepherd, diligently controlling the various parts of the body or the flock.
Philo goes on to say, in section XII, that being a (metaphorical) shepherd is a good thing. This is evidenced by Psalm 23, which says "The Lord is my shepherd..." God governs his flock of people and the elements according to law and justice. According to Philo, It is impossible for god to be anything else but a good shepherd, doing what is necessary for the entire world.
In section XIII, Philo goes on to say that a soul governed by god has no need of other things. He seeks after the knowledge of a shepherd and laughs at being a mere keeper of sheep. Then he tells us that Joseph told the Israelites to tell the Pharoah that they were keepers of cattle. (Sheep and other herded animals were all considered cattle.) However, the Israelites, when asked their occupation by Pharaoh, replied that they were shepherds. Philo seems to think this was a deliberate distinction and that the Israelites were allying themselves with their god.
In section XIV, Philo tells us that the Israelites' boast of being shepherds is equivalent to a king boasting of his power and dominion. "Yet, if the discussion had been merely about the care of goats or sheep, perhaps they would have been ashamed to make such an admission through desire to avoid dishonour; for such occupations are accounted inglorious and mean among those who are loaded with great prosperity, without being at the same time endowed with prudence, and especially among kings." Aha! Here we have finally come across a true cultural statement about people who take care of cattle for a living. Philo tells us that rich people who are not endowed with prudence consider the occupation of tending sheep to be "inglorious" (defined: shameful, disgraceful, dishonorable) and "mean" (defined:inferior, poor, lowly). So, in a way, Philo does intimate that shepherds (actual, not metaphorical ones) were despised and thought lowly, by the rich. Considering Philo's phraseology here, it seems that he may not be of that opinion himself.
Further more we must remember Philo is living in Alexandria, Egypt. He is speaking of first century Egyptian opinion of the occupation of shepherd, not first century Israelite opinion. He makes this clear when he says, "And the Egyptian character is by nature most especially haughty and boastful whenever so slight a breeze of prosperity does merely blow upon it, so that men of that nation look upon the pursuits of life and objects of ambition of ordinary men, as subjects for laughter and downright ridicule."
To be continued.
Let's continue looking at Philo's shepherding metaphors in his writing On Husbandry. I was last in section XI, which ends with "but what is really desirable is, that our mind should govern all our conduct, like a goatherd, or a cowherd, or a shepherd, or, in short, like any herdsman of any kind; choosing in preference to what is pleasant that which is for the advantage both of himself and of his flock." We have seen that the mind is either a keeper of sheep, pleasure seeking and indulgent, or a true shepherd, diligently controlling the various parts of the body or the flock.
Philo goes on to say, in section XII, that being a (metaphorical) shepherd is a good thing. This is evidenced by Psalm 23, which says "The Lord is my shepherd..." God governs his flock of people and the elements according to law and justice. According to Philo, It is impossible for god to be anything else but a good shepherd, doing what is necessary for the entire world.
In section XIII, Philo goes on to say that a soul governed by god has no need of other things. He seeks after the knowledge of a shepherd and laughs at being a mere keeper of sheep. Then he tells us that Joseph told the Israelites to tell the Pharoah that they were keepers of cattle. (Sheep and other herded animals were all considered cattle.) However, the Israelites, when asked their occupation by Pharaoh, replied that they were shepherds. Philo seems to think this was a deliberate distinction and that the Israelites were allying themselves with their god.
In section XIV, Philo tells us that the Israelites' boast of being shepherds is equivalent to a king boasting of his power and dominion. "Yet, if the discussion had been merely about the care of goats or sheep, perhaps they would have been ashamed to make such an admission through desire to avoid dishonour; for such occupations are accounted inglorious and mean among those who are loaded with great prosperity, without being at the same time endowed with prudence, and especially among kings." Aha! Here we have finally come across a true cultural statement about people who take care of cattle for a living. Philo tells us that rich people who are not endowed with prudence consider the occupation of tending sheep to be "inglorious" (defined: shameful, disgraceful, dishonorable) and "mean" (defined:inferior, poor, lowly). So, in a way, Philo does intimate that shepherds (actual, not metaphorical ones) were despised and thought lowly, by the rich. Considering Philo's phraseology here, it seems that he may not be of that opinion himself.
Further more we must remember Philo is living in Alexandria, Egypt. He is speaking of first century Egyptian opinion of the occupation of shepherd, not first century Israelite opinion. He makes this clear when he says, "And the Egyptian character is by nature most especially haughty and boastful whenever so slight a breeze of prosperity does merely blow upon it, so that men of that nation look upon the pursuits of life and objects of ambition of ordinary men, as subjects for laughter and downright ridicule."
To be continued.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Shepherds part 3
Last time I posted a link to a piece of writing by the first century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. It is titled "On Husbandry." I think it is pertinent because Philo actually lived during the time Jesus was supposed to have lived and this writing discusses shepherds.
Before we get to shepherds, skim through the first few section of the writing until you arrive at section VII. Philo begins by showing what he believes are the concrete and philosophical differences between a husbandman, a farmer with agricultural skill, and a mere tiller of the soil. One cares for the land and the growing things on it, probably because he is the owner. The other is a mere hireling concerned about his wages. Philo goes on to talk of the various growing things that represent bad traits and how they are tamed, pruned, or destroyed by the husbandman. Then there are the good plants that bear fruit and represent virtues. These are encouraged to grow and multiply. This is the "husbandry of the soul." The mere tiller is an "unjust man" and bears the "heaviest burdens without knowledge." Philo says Moses, in the scriptures, has made an example of Noah as a husbandman and Cain as a mere tiller. (V:20-21)
Philo infuses his extended metaphors with real life examples of differences in life station within a single field of occupation, farming. I don't think he realized the prejudices he betrayed in himself. The wealthier, more educated man with property is equated with the more caring and more virtuous person. The mere wage earner, the tiller, is akin to a murderer, because of what Moses supposedly wrote in the scriptures. I know Philo intended to use this example as a spiritual application, but I find it useful as a look at the sociological class constructs of that era. Next we will see a similar treatment given to Philo's idea of the difference between true shepherds and mere keepers of sheep.(VI:29)
Philo now tells us that a good and faithful superintendant of the flock of the soul is a shepherd, an indifferent manager of the flock is called a keeper of sheep. People are said to have parts of themselves compared to flocks of sheep, specifically: the mind, the five senses, the organs of speech and the organs of generation. Individuals must superintend all these parts of themselves.
In section VII, Philo shows what happens when the superintendant of the flocks indulge them and let them have everything they want, even if it is not good for them. Then the "flocks" get out of control and stray, even if the superintendant tries to reign them in. There comes a slippery slope, leading to gluttony, drunkenness, and illicit "amorous gratifications." These people are mere keepers of sheep.
Those who would be called shepherds practice restraint, inflicting punishment on those parts of the flock that stray. (It sounds suspiciously like self mortification.) Shepherds prefer those things that are "useful, Though mixed with unpleasantness, to those that are pleasant but pernicious." Philo says this is why Jacob and Moses were called shepherds. Moses also declared "The assembly of the Lord shall not be like sheep who have no shepherd."
Philo then compares governing one's own flock (remember it is a metaphor for soul and body) with the various types of government in his world at that time. Not only is tyranny and anarchy evil, but even too much gentleness is to be despised because it is injurious to leaders and subjects, leading to disrespect and insolence.
To be continued.
Before we get to shepherds, skim through the first few section of the writing until you arrive at section VII. Philo begins by showing what he believes are the concrete and philosophical differences between a husbandman, a farmer with agricultural skill, and a mere tiller of the soil. One cares for the land and the growing things on it, probably because he is the owner. The other is a mere hireling concerned about his wages. Philo goes on to talk of the various growing things that represent bad traits and how they are tamed, pruned, or destroyed by the husbandman. Then there are the good plants that bear fruit and represent virtues. These are encouraged to grow and multiply. This is the "husbandry of the soul." The mere tiller is an "unjust man" and bears the "heaviest burdens without knowledge." Philo says Moses, in the scriptures, has made an example of Noah as a husbandman and Cain as a mere tiller. (V:20-21)
Philo infuses his extended metaphors with real life examples of differences in life station within a single field of occupation, farming. I don't think he realized the prejudices he betrayed in himself. The wealthier, more educated man with property is equated with the more caring and more virtuous person. The mere wage earner, the tiller, is akin to a murderer, because of what Moses supposedly wrote in the scriptures. I know Philo intended to use this example as a spiritual application, but I find it useful as a look at the sociological class constructs of that era. Next we will see a similar treatment given to Philo's idea of the difference between true shepherds and mere keepers of sheep.(VI:29)
Philo now tells us that a good and faithful superintendant of the flock of the soul is a shepherd, an indifferent manager of the flock is called a keeper of sheep. People are said to have parts of themselves compared to flocks of sheep, specifically: the mind, the five senses, the organs of speech and the organs of generation. Individuals must superintend all these parts of themselves.
In section VII, Philo shows what happens when the superintendant of the flocks indulge them and let them have everything they want, even if it is not good for them. Then the "flocks" get out of control and stray, even if the superintendant tries to reign them in. There comes a slippery slope, leading to gluttony, drunkenness, and illicit "amorous gratifications." These people are mere keepers of sheep.
Those who would be called shepherds practice restraint, inflicting punishment on those parts of the flock that stray. (It sounds suspiciously like self mortification.) Shepherds prefer those things that are "useful, Though mixed with unpleasantness, to those that are pleasant but pernicious." Philo says this is why Jacob and Moses were called shepherds. Moses also declared "The assembly of the Lord shall not be like sheep who have no shepherd."
Philo then compares governing one's own flock (remember it is a metaphor for soul and body) with the various types of government in his world at that time. Not only is tyranny and anarchy evil, but even too much gentleness is to be despised because it is injurious to leaders and subjects, leading to disrespect and insolence.
To be continued.
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Shepherds part 2
As promised, we will look at the two articles I was given in support of the idea that shepherds in the first century were unclean, despised outcasts. Today, I will focus on the first: Shepherd's Status by Randy Alcorn. Notice that the Wikipedia article on Mr. Alcorn reads like an endorsement commercial. He's probably got people managing his public information. Here is information about his educational background. He apparently has had books on the NYT best seller's list. I'm guessing that very few Christians would question his sincerity, knowledge, and authority. If something he writes sounds reasonable, it is probably accepted without much thought. Most people don't question one of their own tribe who has reputation and influence. It's human nature.
Unless you are a skeptic. Then you are more likely to weigh what you hear against your personal experience and reality. You also ask yourself if there are alternate viewpoints that need to be considered. From where and when did the author's information originate? Is the original material reliable? Who was the author of that? Does it actually say what others claim it says? Is too much liberty taken with the original material, making it apply to things it doesn't mention? Are modern inferences being made about ancient attitudes and lifestyles? These are some questions I asked myself. I admit up front, it took me some time to figure out how to find what I was looking for, and how to find enough material to satisfy my curiosity.
For a skeptic, there are no ultimate authorities on any topic. Noone has all the answers. There are only resources and experts. Even experts can have biases and make mistakes. One doesn't have to be an expert to point out biases and mistakes, but everyone should be ready to back up their statements with some kind of reasonable evidence. We should also be ready to accept evidence that shows us to be wrong.
My personal experience reading the Bible shows me that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is full of references to sheep and shepherds in positive ways. Just check a concordance. Mr. Alcorn, in the fourth paragraph of his article "Shepherd's Status" (linked above), states that things had changed by the first century. He says, "In Christ's day, shepherds stood on the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same unenviable position as tax collectors and dung sweepers. Only Luke mentions them."
That paragraph contains some elements of truth but not the whole truth. While it is true that only Luke mentions the shepherds of the nativity. The word shepherd is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, John, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. Mr. Alcorn's statement gives the impression that any New Testament mention of shepherds is solely in the book of Luke, because shepherds were so poorly thought of. Notice he does not give any 1st century biblical or extra-biblical references that actually say shepherds were considered as lowly as tax collectors and dung sweepers. Maybe he will later.
Some (NIV) Biblical references are: Matthew 9:36, 25:32, 26:31, Mark 6:34, 14:27, John 10:2, 10:11, 10:12, 10:14, 10:16, Hebrews 13:20, 1Peter 2:25, 5:2, 5:4. Most of these passages are similes or metaphors which refer to people as sheep and Jesus as a shepherd. Jesus is called the good shepherd, the great shepherd, and the chief shepherd. Nowhere does there appear to be any suggestion that shepherds were despised.
I will end today's post with a link to an excerpt from the writings of Philo of Alexandria, a first century Jewish philosopher, who lived in the time of Jesus but never mentioned him. In the section titled "On Husbandry," you will find paragraphs referring to shepherds from part IX to about XV. We will examine them next time.
To be continued.
Unless you are a skeptic. Then you are more likely to weigh what you hear against your personal experience and reality. You also ask yourself if there are alternate viewpoints that need to be considered. From where and when did the author's information originate? Is the original material reliable? Who was the author of that? Does it actually say what others claim it says? Is too much liberty taken with the original material, making it apply to things it doesn't mention? Are modern inferences being made about ancient attitudes and lifestyles? These are some questions I asked myself. I admit up front, it took me some time to figure out how to find what I was looking for, and how to find enough material to satisfy my curiosity.
For a skeptic, there are no ultimate authorities on any topic. Noone has all the answers. There are only resources and experts. Even experts can have biases and make mistakes. One doesn't have to be an expert to point out biases and mistakes, but everyone should be ready to back up their statements with some kind of reasonable evidence. We should also be ready to accept evidence that shows us to be wrong.
My personal experience reading the Bible shows me that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is full of references to sheep and shepherds in positive ways. Just check a concordance. Mr. Alcorn, in the fourth paragraph of his article "Shepherd's Status" (linked above), states that things had changed by the first century. He says, "In Christ's day, shepherds stood on the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same unenviable position as tax collectors and dung sweepers. Only Luke mentions them."
That paragraph contains some elements of truth but not the whole truth. While it is true that only Luke mentions the shepherds of the nativity. The word shepherd is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, John, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. Mr. Alcorn's statement gives the impression that any New Testament mention of shepherds is solely in the book of Luke, because shepherds were so poorly thought of. Notice he does not give any 1st century biblical or extra-biblical references that actually say shepherds were considered as lowly as tax collectors and dung sweepers. Maybe he will later.
Some (NIV) Biblical references are: Matthew 9:36, 25:32, 26:31, Mark 6:34, 14:27, John 10:2, 10:11, 10:12, 10:14, 10:16, Hebrews 13:20, 1Peter 2:25, 5:2, 5:4. Most of these passages are similes or metaphors which refer to people as sheep and Jesus as a shepherd. Jesus is called the good shepherd, the great shepherd, and the chief shepherd. Nowhere does there appear to be any suggestion that shepherds were despised.
I will end today's post with a link to an excerpt from the writings of Philo of Alexandria, a first century Jewish philosopher, who lived in the time of Jesus but never mentioned him. In the section titled "On Husbandry," you will find paragraphs referring to shepherds from part IX to about XV. We will examine them next time.
To be continued.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Galatians chapter 1 part 1
After reading chapter 1:
*The first five verses are the letter's greeting, telling who it is from and to whom it is written. Paul describes himself as an apostle, sent not from man nor by men but by Jesus christ and God the father. An apostle is someone who is sent, or a messenger, basically a missionary. Who sent Paul? He claims Jesus and God sent him. Let's be clear though, he is not talking about the living physical man Jesus. As far as the bible shows, Paul never encountered him. Paul is talking of a Christ (messiah) named Jesus (literally Joshua) who he believes is resurrected from the dead. How did he recieve this commission from a formerly dead person? We will find out later in this book.
*A common mistake some modern christians make is to assume that this kind of resurrected messiah talk was unusual in the first century. The truth is the Jews had and still have multiple messianic teachings, and arguments for and against them.. Plus, Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead.
Messiah ben Joseph (son of Joseph)
Messiah in Judaism
Menahem ben Hezekiah
Jewish Eschatology (scroll down to "messianism")
*From reading the above articles we can see that the idea of a messiah was multifaceted and complicated, with many schools of thought. The Old Testament prophetic writings were sometimes read as a code that needed to be deciphered, just as many christians treat the book of Revelation today. There was no overarching consensus about the who, how, where, and when of this messiah. Paul as a first century educated Pharisee, before the fall of Jerusalem, would have been steeped in the traditions, arguments,and teachings of his day. They were not confined to the biblical literature we now call scripture. There were intertestamental writings and the Jews had a rich oral tradition. These people weren't just looking for a messiah. They were willing to see it anywhere, just like christians of today who see the end times and parallels with Revelation in modern events, even stretching facts to make them fit.
*We can see that Paul lived in a world and among a people that expected a leader, one whose name might be recognized as one of the great Israelite heroes, a Moses, an Elijah, a Joseph, a David, or maybe even a Joshua? Maybe that person would be a reincarnation or resurrection of that hero of old. Maybe he would perform similar acts, in reality or symbolically. Paul also lived in a world that was familiar with Hellenic philosophy. He could have been aware of or influenced by the Platonists, the Stoics, the Epicureans, and more, including Hellenistic Jews like Philo of Alexandria. I included all this information because I think it is very important to remember that Paul did not live in a "biblical" bubble as we continue on.
*The first five verses are the letter's greeting, telling who it is from and to whom it is written. Paul describes himself as an apostle, sent not from man nor by men but by Jesus christ and God the father. An apostle is someone who is sent, or a messenger, basically a missionary. Who sent Paul? He claims Jesus and God sent him. Let's be clear though, he is not talking about the living physical man Jesus. As far as the bible shows, Paul never encountered him. Paul is talking of a Christ (messiah) named Jesus (literally Joshua) who he believes is resurrected from the dead. How did he recieve this commission from a formerly dead person? We will find out later in this book.
*A common mistake some modern christians make is to assume that this kind of resurrected messiah talk was unusual in the first century. The truth is the Jews had and still have multiple messianic teachings, and arguments for and against them.. Plus, Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead.
Messiah ben Joseph (son of Joseph)
Messiah in Judaism
Menahem ben Hezekiah
Jewish Eschatology (scroll down to "messianism")
*From reading the above articles we can see that the idea of a messiah was multifaceted and complicated, with many schools of thought. The Old Testament prophetic writings were sometimes read as a code that needed to be deciphered, just as many christians treat the book of Revelation today. There was no overarching consensus about the who, how, where, and when of this messiah. Paul as a first century educated Pharisee, before the fall of Jerusalem, would have been steeped in the traditions, arguments,and teachings of his day. They were not confined to the biblical literature we now call scripture. There were intertestamental writings and the Jews had a rich oral tradition. These people weren't just looking for a messiah. They were willing to see it anywhere, just like christians of today who see the end times and parallels with Revelation in modern events, even stretching facts to make them fit.
*We can see that Paul lived in a world and among a people that expected a leader, one whose name might be recognized as one of the great Israelite heroes, a Moses, an Elijah, a Joseph, a David, or maybe even a Joshua? Maybe that person would be a reincarnation or resurrection of that hero of old. Maybe he would perform similar acts, in reality or symbolically. Paul also lived in a world that was familiar with Hellenic philosophy. He could have been aware of or influenced by the Platonists, the Stoics, the Epicureans, and more, including Hellenistic Jews like Philo of Alexandria. I included all this information because I think it is very important to remember that Paul did not live in a "biblical" bubble as we continue on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)