Update and shepherds wrap up.

Hi, our family recently rescued and abandoned 5-6 week old kitten. He has been taking up a lot of my time and I've had to readjust my daily schedule. Plus school has started and kids need a mom who is available, no matter how old they are. When I returned to see where I left off, I groaned. I'm tired of the shepherd question. So, I will summarize what I learned and be done:

*Shepherds are not called unclean in Hebrew or Egyptian literature. They were a common occupation in ancient times. Egyptians owned and herded sheep, ate mutton, and used wool.

*Shepherds were considered common laborers and looked down on by the elite wealthy Egyptians and elite rabbinical Hebrews. However, they were not "the lowest of the low."

*Egyptians had a sheep headed god named Khnum. The symbols of Egyptian royalty included a shepherds crook and a flail, which encompass animal husbandry and agriculture.

*Shepherds were required to keep their flocks out of the city and in designated or approved grazing areas. This was for practical reasons and not because they were "banished."

*There is a nuanced distinction between those who merely tend sheep and those who own the flocks. I am not talking of Philo's metaphor here but of the reality of life. The picky laws and commentary in the Talmud make this distinction for legal purposes, not as social commentary. Some rabbis stated that shepherds who owned their flocks might let them accidentally graze on land that was not theirs. Therefore they were technically thieves or robbers, because they benefitted from stolen goods, whatever the sheep ate. Even if they tried their best to keep their sheep from straying on to other's property, they could not be certain it would never happen. Those who merely tended sheep for wages were not guilty of theft, because they recieved no profit when the sheep ate from fields that did not belong to the owner of the sheep.

Thieves and robbers, even imaginary ones, were disqualified from serving as witnesses in legal cases. They also disqualified many other professions such as sailors, potters, shop keepers, camel drivers, and of course, all women. One rabbi in the Talmud admonishes his fellow rabbis not to let their children enter one of these professions, because it would disqualify them from serving in the jewish legal system.

Even though the hired hand shepherds were not automatically considered robbers, they still could not serve as witnesses in court. There were other qualifications which included being educated in Torah and being land owners. Sounds like the rabbis and the religious elite, the ones who made the rules, were the ones who got the privileges. Go figure.

*In one place, there was an odd rule that three shepherds could testify together, but that was disputed. I also seem to remember a story in the Talmud about a rabbi who used to be a shepherd.

*I never saw any indication that shepherds were any more despised than any other ordinary people of the first century.

The end. Next time we will get back to the bible.

Shepherds part 8

In paragraph 9 of Mr. Alcorn's article Shepherd's Status, we read "In the course of 400 years, the Egyptians prejudiced the  Israelite's attitude toward shepherding." Again, there are no sources to back this up and no reasons to believe it is true.

In paragraph 10, we see a statement that shepherding in Palestine decreased after the Israelites occupied the land and settled down. Again, no sources to back this up. Not surprisingly, Mr. Alcorn seems unaware of the current scholarship, supported by archaeology, that shows the Israelites probably originated and developed  from within the Canaanite people. They were Canaanites to begin with.

Mr. Alcorn continues to make statement after statement of dubious historicity, with no sources given. In paragraph 12, this claim is made: "In the days of the prophets, sheep herders symbolized judgement and social isolation. (Zephaniah 2:6)."   I don't think Mr. Alcorn read the context of that passage in Zephaniah very well. The shepherds represented Yahweh's people, the remnant of the house of Judah. They were supposed to show god's loving care for his chosen ones.

We are given Dr. Joachim Jeremias as a source for the statement that shepherds were "despised in everyday life." We are not told in which of Dr. Jeremias's writings we would find this, or where he got his information.

Paragraph 13 says, "Shepherding had not just lost its widespread appeal; it eventually forfeited its social acceptability. Some shepherds earned their poor reputations, but others became victims of a cruel sterotype. (Sources ??) The religious leaders maligned the shepherd's good name; rabbis banned the pasturing of goats and sheep in Israel, except on desert plains." We will see there is a small kernel of truth in the last statement when we examine the Mishnah's statements about shepherds. But it is not the whole truth.

The article goes on to say, "The Mishnah, Judaism's written record of the oral laws, also reflects this prejudice, referring to shepherds in belittling terms. One passage describes them as 'incompetent'; another says no one should ever feel obligated to rescue a shepherd who has fallen into a pit. Mr Alcorn does not tell us where in the mishnah we can find these statements. My guess is he didn't actually check to see if they are there.

If you read the Wikipedia article on the Mishnah you will see that it is a collection of documents about oral traditions and laws, supposedly passed down from through the ages. They were written and edited by rabbis, combined with other documents written and edited by rabbis. Some of the documents are comentaries on the Mishnah. All together, the collection is called the Talmud, and there are two versions of that. Think of the whole thing as a kind of law library reference encyclopedia.

In the next post I will attempt to uncover just what we can find about shepherds in these documents.

Shepherds part 7

We are on paragraph seven of Randy Alcorn's article Shepherd's Status. Here he states, "Egyptians considered sheep worthless for food and sacrifice. Egyptian art forms and historical records portray shepherds negatively. Neighboring Arabs—their enemy—were shepherds, and Egyptian hatred climaxed when shepherd kings seized Lower Egypt."  As usual, he gives no sources.

 I did a Google search of "shepherds in Egyptian art" and saw a few depictions of actual Egyptian shepherds. I saw no negative depictions of shepherds. I did a search of "sheep in egyptian art" and hit a jackpot, including a photo of a ram mummy. The caption under the photo explains the role of sheep in ancient egypt. There are multiple paintings and relief carvings depicting sheep in agricultural settings. I also found that there was a ram headed god named Khnum. There are also sheep headed sphinxes. The shepherd's crook was an Egyptian symbol of kingly authority and is found in many depictions of pharoahs. I can find no negative depictions of shepherds.

Jewish historians in the article "Sacrificing a Lamb in Egypt" suggest that the Egyptians held sheep sacred to the god Khnum. Therefore, they might have not have been happy with the Israelite's practice of sacrificing rams. The article seems biased in favor of the historicity of Moses and the Exodus but it brings up some interesting points. 

The Wikipedia article on "Ancient Egyptian Cuisine" includes mutton as a meat food for Egyptians. It give the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt as a source. Unfortunately, you have to pay to access the encyclopedia online. Other articles say the Egyptians ate mutton, but I couldn't find some that provide sources. 

Here are some more articles of interest:
Ancient Egyptian Bestiary:Sheep
The Sheep in Ancient Egypt (Sources not given, but some interesting pictures)

About the shepherd kings that Mr. alcorn refers to, they were the Hyksos, referred to as shepherd kings by Josephus. Josephus associated them with the Israelites and the Exodus. If you read the article thoroughly, you can see that the origin of the Hyksos and their occupation of parts of Egypt are somewhat shrouded in mystery. The term "shepherd kings" comes from Josephus and was a mistranslation on his part. The actual meaning of hyksos appears to have been "foreign kings." There doesn't seem to be any other reason to identify them as shepherds. 


Mr. Alcorn's statement above appears to fall apart when we take closer look at actual Egyptian Art and history. He has taken the Biblical account of Genesis as fact, without doing the research to see if it lines up with what can be known through historical evidence.

To be continued.

Shepherds part 6

Let's take another look at the article Shepherd's Status. We have seen that Mr. Alcorn offers no evidence for his statement, in paragraph four that shepherds were on the bottom of the Palestinian social ladder in the first century.

Paragraph five goes on to show that Genesis and Exodus imply shepherding is a noble occupation because many of the so called patriarchs were shepherds. I would add Abel, Abraham, And Moses to the list of notable Bible shepherds.

Paragraph six says that the Egyptians despised shepherds because they were agriculturalists. Mr. Alcorn gives no resource for that information. It is true that in Genesis 43 we are told the Egyptians would not eat with the Hebrew because it was detestable for them, but it does not say that it was because they were Shepherds. In chapter 46, we are told that shepherds were detestable to the Egyptians but it doesn't say why. Nevertheless, in chapter 47, Paroah allow the Hebrews to settle in the land of Goshen and tells Joseph that some of them can take care of the Pharoah's own livestock. Here is proof that the Egyptians of the Bible were not solely agriculturalists. Perhaps Philo was correct in saying that it was the rich ruling class of Egyptians that considered shepherds beneath them in social value.

Here is a very interesting article, "Shepherds and Eating with Hebrews: An Abomination to the Egyptians?" Its authors are Jewish and have expertise in Jewish and Egyptian history. They explain that the kind of purity of the table mentioned in Gen. 43 did not happen until later in Egypt's history than when Joseph would have been alive, if he lived. The authors then describe what form these purity rules took.

Mr. Alcorn also implies that a historical enmity between shepherds and farmers goes back to Cain's murder of Abel. I am not disputing that there have been grievances between farmers, or land owners, and shepherds. We will encounter that prejudice in other forms as we continue. However, I would like us to remember that the Cain and Abel story is mythology. Plus, the historicity of the Genesis account is dubious at best, and was written hundreds of years after the supposed events, probably by Israelite religious leaders. Could those religious leaders have had a reason for portraying Egyptians as despising shepherds, the main occupation of the Israelites' legendary patriarchcal leaders? Could the story of Cain the farmer murdering Abel the shepherd have been symbolic of how the Israelites, who saw themselves as historically nomadic shepherding people, felt about those who were farmers and land owners. In other words, a classic case of projection. We do have only one side of the story in the bible. It has often been assumed the biblical account  is the right/true side and the only side that matters. Life is more complicated than that.

To be continued.

Shepherds part 5

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.

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.

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.

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.

Christian cultural legends- shepherds

I often hear or come across  statements by Christians that are said as though they are obvious historical facts that everyone knows. These things are repeated in articles, sermons, and some books. They usually don't reference the sources of information for the statements, it is just assumed that there is no question the statement is factual because it has been heard so often. If a source is mentioned, often there are no specific quotes or an exact location of the information within the documents mentioned. Because these statements are similar to urban legends, I will call them christian cultural legends. They usually only occur within the culture of christianity and are spread widely without much thought of their origins.

Over the years, I have heard a variety of these not quite right historical  statements, and last week I encountered another one of these cultural legends for the first time. The story of Jesus's birth was being told and particular focus was brought to bear on the shepherds who received the tidings of the birth from the angels and visited the infant.This story is only found in the book of Luke. I heard it said by someone who is in a position of authority in a church that this story was so amazing because "shepherds in the first century were the lowest of the low, despised by society, and considered unclean." This was supposed to prove that god looked only on the heart, not on one's social position or state of ritual cleanness or that Jesus's coming turned social conventions upside down. 

Right away, I questioned the authenticity of this statement and decided to look for verification using a simple google search. What I found was multiple christian sites with articles making that statement, or one similar, almost word for word. Very few referenced where that information came from, and none gave specific quotes or locations where it could be found and verified. However, one contrary article (by a christian)  came right out and called it an urban legend of christianity. I was not alone in my opinion!

My three objections were to the phrases "lowest of the low," "despised," and "unclean." I objected because the bible is full of sheep and shepherding images. Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons, Moses, and  David were shepherds. In fact there is a case to be made that most of the Israelites wandering in the desert had livestock that needed tending. What did that make them? For goodness sake, Psalm 23 calls Yahweh a shepherd. Jesus is also called "the good shepherd." He told parables about sheep.

I mentioned these objections to the person who had made the statement about shepherds in the first century. He said things had changed over the years and by the first century, shepherds were disliked immensly. I was given a couple of links to articles about this topic that agreed with this person's assessment. In my next post on this topic, I will give you the links and explain how I researched the information given. 

To be continued.