Proskynesis – Worship – Bow Down

Writing a review of John J Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins’ book, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Eerdmans, 2008), the issue of proskynesis came up. Was Jesus “worshipped” as God? Not really, according to the authors. Proskynesis had variable meanings (worship, bowing down, self-prostration). On the “higher end” of the scale is worship in its fullest sense. On the “lower end” is submission to a higher authority, like bowing down before a king.

For the authors, Jesus was recognised as preexistent and divine, but not on binitarian terms.  As the messiah, Son of Man, son of God, etc. he was recognised as “a god” (Gospel of John) or the principal angel (Revelation), or God’s “first creature”. So “worship” of Jesus refers to submission to his power and authority, and his divinity, they appear to suggest, was more “functional” than “ontological”. Perhaps a social-scientific reading of “worship” and “divinity” is needed here. Any takers?

Theological issues aside, I was sent this picture below demonstrating something similar to proskynesis on the “lower end” of the scale. It demonstrates the customs of Venda culture, and how children greet adults. This is self-prostration really in action, and note the hands laid on top of each other.

Proskynesis in Venda Culture

I think these little ones look exquisite! The Venda people is situated in the northern parts of South Africa, in the Limpopo Province. Traditionally, in black cultures, much respect is shown for seniors, as this photo amply demonstrates. Another example is that when a youth greets an older man, he must not look him in the eyes, but look somewhere to the floor or to the sides as a sign of respect. (Of course, for Westerners this would be a sign that the youth is trying to hide something.)

The Resurrection of Jesus

I am busy preparing a paper for next year’s NTSSA conference (at the University of KwaZulu-Natal), the main theme being the resurrection of Jesus. My main interaction will be with Pieter Craffert, and here is a summary of his work on Jesus’ resurrection (though still rough around the edges).

*******************************

Pieter Craffert’s (2008) recent contribution on the historical Jesus questioned traditional studies, in that they are all trapped in a (Western ethnocentric) positivistic historiographical framework. For this kind of scholarship, battling to come to grips with the gospel narratives, the “historical” Jesus cannot be like the Jesus portrayed in the gospels. The real Jesus lies somewhere “beneath” the text and must be approached by identifying “authentic” material. Historical reconstructions, of which there are as many as there are scholars who engage in them, are then based on these “authentic” materials. Craffert argues, however, that scholars must move away from their ontological monism and accept that there are pluralities of worldviews, the first century Galilean context of Jesus notwithstanding. In this regard the historical Jesus lies within (not somewhere beneath) the text (cf critique of Van Aarde ??). The gospels must be seen as cultural artifacts produced by a particular culture about a specific type of social personage. To avoid ethnocentrism, the gospels need to be interpreted through culturally sensitive engagement utilizing cross-cultural analysis and critique. It is a bit like putting a fish back in water, where it properly belongs. The point is, Jesus and the gospels formed part of a worldview and cultural context quite different to that of the Western world and cannot be interpreted from the values and assumptions about reality that form part of that world. In analyzing Jesus according to the shamanic complex, Craffert’s study quite successfully brings to our attention the “otherness” of Jesus, his person, as well as his socio-cultural context.

As far as the resurrection of Jesus is concerned, Craffert states “that resurrection is a culture-specific notion about the afterlife and dependent for its reality on a whole range of cultural assumptions. Therefore, it is to be suggested that the documents are in the first place not testimonies about Jesus’s resurrection as if that can be taken as a homoversal human phenomenon” (2008:384; emphasis original). Polyphasic cultures would take as real what those in monophasic cultures would not consider as real, so the resurrection does not speak to a common human reality. Israelite afterlife options were cultural realities connected to some kind of body-soul dualism, and “the acquisition of experiential knowledge in a cycle of meaning” (2008:393). In polyphasic cultures ASC experiences could contribute knowledge about what is real and not real, and the resurrection of Jesus, or rather, the outcome of his resurrection, falls into this category.

Craffert (2008:394-95) explains that two sets of knowledge are relevant to a polyphasic culture’s cycle of meaning. The first concerned beliefs about the human body and the potentials of human existence. The astronomical complex were connected to beliefs about stars and angels. People could experience heavenly journeys, and many texts illustrate that people could transform into angels or astral beings after death, and in any particular case were dependent on, or at least supported by ASC experiences (sleep, mystical ascent). The second set of knowledge concerns the various afterlife options. This involves a circular and feedback process between “the particular ways of obtaining knowledge and views on both the human being and afterlife options. It was experienced souls in souled or spirited bodies that also encountered afterlife experiences” (2008:395; emphasis original).

There was, of course, a variety of afterlife notions (immortality of the soul, astral immortality, or resurrection of the body, or any combination of these), and “each notion was created in a particular Israelite cycle of meaning. Put the other way around: none of them described objective reality or how things were after life, but offered particular cultural constructions thereof” (2008:398). So in the case of Jesus’ resurrection the gospels and Paul give evidence of the following:

He resumed an Israelite continued existence, described as a resurrection, which was based on stories that his tomb was found empty and that he was encountered (seen) by his followers after his death … Jesus’s followers were convinced  … that he had entered an Israelite afterlife existence. None of these sources claim anything about the event itself. (Craffert 2008:399; emphasis original)

Craffert also argues that ASC experiences loomed large in understanding Jesus not as dead in the grave, but as alive, where he was either seen, or appeared to someone (Gal 2:12, 16; 1 Cor 15:5-8). What points to ASC experiences is Jesus is presented as shape shifting, and was often not recognized (Mat 28:17; John 20:14; Luke 24:16). Whatever form they take, “the resurrection accounts are filled with a cultural reality based on a culturally approved way of gaining knowledge” (2008:402). Craffert then explains:

Given the afterlife options available and the cycle of meaning of first-century Israelite people, they were convinced that he was no longer dead, but alive and well in the realm of the ancestors, immortals, or other divine beings. For some, he probably existed as a star somewhere among the other stars (angels, immortals, and divne beings) … For his cultural contemporaries, Jesus’s body was resurrected as a real and truly first-century Israelite resurrected body that after Jesus’s death, happened as a cultural event and via cultural phenomena. (Craffert 2008:405, 407)

The latter is perhaps a strange description, for the New Testament is basically univocal in stating that Jesus was “seated at the right hand of God”, although Craffert mentions in passing on pp. 418 that Jesus was at right hand of God, and then also, and here is a problem, also in the company of other Israelite ancestors. What makes Jesus so unique then? Anyhow …

Craffert continues that there is ample testimony that in some cultural settings religious leaders, healers or other people of importance were believed to continue their existence as ancestors or as the living dead still having an influence in the life of their followers (2008:408). And Jesus as son of man/son of God (or Galilean shamanic figure) appears to have been familiar with the heavenly territory and expected to resume a postmortem existence as a resurrected figure. Such expectations would have been conducive to ASC experiences of his followers, and visionary experiences often occur during states of mourning and sadness, especially after a violent or unexpected death (2008:410-413).

Craffert’s analysis is interesting and challenging, but it also leaves you wondering whether notions of “resurrection” are not being reduced to cultural subjectivity (i.e. Israelite “resurrection” is not a homoversal phenomenon) to such an extent that it actually becomes utterly useless outside of that culture. But that’s a topic for another day!

The Parables of Jesus

For anybody interested in the parables of Jesus, here are two great articles by Ernest Van Eck:

 

Interpreting the parables of the Galilean Jesus: A social-scientific approach

Abstract

This article proposes a methodology for interpreting the parables of Jesus. The methodology put forward has as starting point two convictions. Firstly, the difference between the context of Jesus’ parables as told by Jesus the Galilean in 30 CE and the literary context of the parables in the gospels has to be taken seriously. Secondly, an effort has to be made to at least try to avoid the fallacies of ethnocentrism and anachronism when interpreting the parables. In an effort to achieve this goal it is argued that social-scientific criticism presents itself as the obvious line of approach. Operating from these two convictions, the method being proposed is explained by using 12 statements (or theses) which are discussed as concisely and comprehensively as possible. It is inter alia argued that the central theme of Jesus’ parables was the non-apocalyptic kingdom of God, that the parables are atypical stories (comparisons), and that the parables depict Jesus as a social prophet.

 

When patrons are not patrons: A social-scientific reading of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–26)

Abstract

 This article presents a social-scientific interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Attention is first given to the history of the interpretation of the parable and to the integrity and authenticity of this interpretation. A social-scientific reading of the parable is then presented in terms of the strategy and the situation of the parable. In terms of the latter, the parable is read against the backdrop of an advanced agrarian aristocratic) society in which patronage and clientism played an important role. Regarding the parable’s strategy, it is argued that the different oppositions in the parable serve to highlight their only similarity: those who have the ability to help do not help. The gist of the parable is that patrons who do not act like patrons create a society wherein a chasm so great between rich and poor is brought into existence that it cannot be crossed.

Jesus the Galilean Shaman

I have recently finished reading the book, “The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective”, written by Pieter Craffert.  Unfortunately I could not attend a discussion on it today in Pretoria (due to the responsibilities towards wife and our newborn baby) but had attended one last month at the NTSSA annual meeting where it was briefly discussed. 

Overall I find Craffert’s approach quite convincing, well, at least most of it, barring that he falls short of explaining Jesus’ arrest, trial and execution, and other aspects as well (eg why he was believed to be Israel’s Messiah), which also was not the purpose of the book. The description below of the book is from memory and aims to give a brief overview of Craffert’s most salient arguments.

Craffert argues that historical Jesus scholars are trapped in the positivistic historiographical framework which basically points to the following: the real Jesus cannot be like the Jesus portrayed in the gospels.  The real Jesus lies somewhere beneath the text and must be approached by identifying “authentic” material.  Historical reconstructions are then based on these “authentic” materials.  Craffert argues, however, that scholars must move away from their ontological monism, and accept that there are a plurality of worldviews, the first century Galilean context of Jesus notwithstanding.  In this regard the historical Jesus lies within (not somewhere beneath) the text (something he also emphasised to me in a personal conversation).  The gospels must be seen as cultural artifcats produced by a particular culture about a specific type of social personage.  Using a cross-cultural approach this social personage can be understood, or better approached when appreciating the cultural context, quite different to that of the western world.

As a social personage, Craffert argues that the best model that fits Jesus is the shamanic complex.  Shamans (and related spiritual experts) regularly enter ASC’s (altered states of consciousness) which translates into healing and new wisdom/knowledge for their communities.  Craffert sees Jesus baptism and the transformation on the mountain as ASC’s, for example.  Also like shamans, Jesus was “possessed” by a spirit, but in this case it was claimed to be the Holy Spirit.  He also sees that Jesus’ regular visits to the divine world explains the language of Jesus as “Son of God” and the “Son of Man”. 

Also Jesus’ healing must be seen within its context.  Craffert, and here much controversy will ensue, argues that Jesus healing was aimed at culturally conditioned illnesses .  Jesus’ reputation as a healer spread and performed “biopsychosocial” healing , where illness and cure was determined as much by people’s beliefs and the social/cultural environment as belief in the healer (similar to the placebo effect).  If believing in something can make you ill, believing in a doctor or a pill, much like a healer will also affect healing.  I just wonder whether biopsychosocial healing can explain all the healing accounts in the gospels.

Craffert also argues that the birth narratives would have taken shape already in Jesus’ lifetime, due to his reputation, and were not later legendary material added to the tradition.  The resurrection appearances can also be explained in terms of ASC’s of his followers.  They continued in what was already ocurring before Jesus’ death – this argument I do not find convincing in all cases.

What Craffert’s book does is to open a world very different to that of the westerner and to appreciate the otherness of Jesus, his person and his social and cultural world.  The challenge for historical Jesus scholars is to follow in the footsteps of Craffert and thoroughly take their investigations into this alien world and to reconstruct Jesus as part of that world, and not their own.  The other challenge remaining would be to translate that Jesus for contemporary relevance, so that Jesus is not merely a Galilean Shaman that lived in the first century, but a Lord who is understandable and also lives in our world today.

 

Book Received: Jesus and the Peasants

As he had promised at the Context Group Meeting in Portand (March, 2008), Douglas Oakman sent me a copy of his latest book, “Jesus and the Peasants” (Cascade Books, 2008).  It is published in the same series my book was published: Matrix: The Bible in Mediterrannean Context).

Containing both previously published and new articles, the outline of the book is as follows:

Part 1: Political Economy and the Peasant Values of Jesus
1. Jesus and Agrarian Palestine: The Factor of Debt
2. Jesus and the Problem of Debt in Ancient Palestine
3. The Buying Power of Two Denarii (Luke 10:35)
4. How Large Is a “Great Crowd”? (Mark 6:34)
5. The Ancient Economy
6. The Ancient Economy and St. Johns Apocalypse
7. Money in the Moral Universe of the New Testament
8. The Economics of Palestine

Part 2: The Jesus Traditions within Peasant Realities
9. Social Meaning and Rural Context: The Mustard Seed Parable of Jesus
10. Rulers’ Houses, Thieves, and Usurpers: The Beelzebul Pericope
11. “All the Surrounding Country”: The Countryside in Luke-Acts
12. Was Jesus a Peasant? (Luke 10:30-35)
13. Cursing Fig Trees and Robbers’ Dens (Mark 11:12-25)
14. The Lord’s Prayer in Social Perspective

Part 3: The Peasant Aims of Jesus
15. Models and Archaeology in the Social Interpretation of Jesus
16. Jesus the Tax-Resister
17. Jesus, Q, and Ancient Literacy in Social Perspective

Also present are a number of models and figures.  I have not read it as yet, but I look forward to doing so!  Thanks Doug!