After yesterday’s post, another blogger commented:
What was their own standing in their own community? We can’t know, I think. But from the texts alone, it seems evident that they had their own business and one of them, at least, owned a boat. Several of them had houses (one passage in the Gospel says something to the effect that Jesus, too, owned a home). The passage you cited indicates some political connections – as does even Judas’ betrayal. We know that several wealthy women bankrolled the ministry.
We also know that these were Jewish boys belonged to a culture where literacy was *highly* valued. For the largest majority some training happened at the local synagogue – illiteracy would not have been a problem although, shall we say, “Finesse” would not have been included in the rough training in possibly all three languages (Greek for the LXX, HEbrew & Aramaic for the scrolls).
He began to make the point that I was teasing at yesterday. We make some very pious assumptions about the people that we find in the New Testament, and often assumptions that are made without looking at the details of Scripture and thinking about the type of people that they are probably describing or what the situations that the people are involved in say about them. In passing, I would argue that the passage I cited yesterday show more than “some political connections” as the gate guards were able to recognize John even at night. That speaks of more than “some connections.” Let me give you some ideas about people in Scripture that may surprise you.
Mary Magdalene (or “Mary the Magdalene,” as she is consistently called in the New Testament) is never called a prostitute in Scripture. That slander arose in the sixth century AD in medieval Europe. The New Testament does say that Jesus cast seven demons from her. And, the New Testament goes on to show her as a pre-eminent figure who traveled with the apostolic band. She witnesses the crucifixion, and the Gospels agree that she is the first witness to the Resurrection. The Eastern Orthodox call her Equal-to-the-Apostles and give her high honor. In fact, some of the Eastern Orthodox texts refer to her as “Apostle to the Apostles.” A final note, while many say that her name in the New Testament, “Mary the Magdalene,” means that she comes from the town of Magdala, it is equally true that in the common Aramaic spoken at the time, Magdalene actually has a meaning. Her recorded name in the New Testament could just as accurately be translated as, “Mary the Great.”
Were Joseph and Mary poor? There is no clear answer to this question. Various scholars have interpreted Jesus’ care for the poor and his stories about them to indicate that he himself had grown up in poverty. But, that is not certain. If the Eastern Orthodox tradition is true, then Joseph was a widower of good means who was specifically chosen because of his ability to care for Mary. While it is true that Jesus was born in a manger, that was because all the habitations were full. What is true is that the Gospels picture Joseph as being able to afford renting a house in Bethlehem after the throngs left. Please re-read the story of the Magi and you will see that they find the Holy Family in a house sometime after Jesus’ birth, but before he has seen his second birthday. It also appears that Joseph was able to give Jesus a good education as people are always marveling about his erudition and knowledge of the Scriptures, and he knows how to properly carry himself at dinner parties. Jesus is always addressed as a rabbi, which meant that he probably wore the rabbi’s standard dress, which again would indicate special training. It is not necessary to assume that all of Jesus’ knowledge came miraculously because he is the Son of God. In fact, that would tend to violate what Saint Luke says in his Gospel, which is that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and found favor with all.
How untaught were the Apostles? There is no way of knowing that. But, I will point out that Matthew, the tax collector, must have been able to easily read and write in order to keep accounts. In the Gospel of John, two Greeks are shown going to Philip to ask permission to meet Jesus. While Philip is from Galilee, his name is a Greek name and the Greeks go to him to make their request. This could be an indication that he is multilingual. As Huw pointed out, all Hebrew boys would have been expected to be able to read Scripture out loud in the original Hebrew and to write as necessary. Aramaic was the language of the region. Greek was the trade language, and Latin was the language of the occupying troops. The Holy Family lived in Egypt for a while. You get the idea. There is a high probability that all the apostles were multilingual, at least Hebrew, Aramaic, and probably Greek.
As Huw has pointed out, the Gospels specifically state that several rich women supported Jesus and followed the apostolic band. Some of those same women are found at the Cross, and later on the way to the tomb. There is an indication of a common treasury, since the Gospel of John mentions that Judas used to steal from it. A final indication is that Jesus’ robe was so rich that the guards by the Cross decide not to simply make it into rags but to cast dice for it. That is, the robe is considered by the guards to be of such high (expensive) quality that it will be worth washing the blood from it and keeping it in one piece. That is not the outfit of a poverty-stricken country preacher.
I could go on, but I hope that these two days of comments will encourage you to go back to the Scriptures and read what they actually say and don’t say.
Hope I didn’t give to much away! But apart from piety these legends of poverty are used for political agendas which usage ma
Oops. Sorry about that. What I was saying was : this usage makes me angry…
Well, Pope John Paul II approached Communism as a Christian Heresy, which heresy took the Prophets admonitions about “Woe to the Rich” and “Justice for the Poor” and ran with them on an Apocalyptic tangent, unbuffered by anything else. Chesterton writes of Christian doctrine being a dynamic balance of opposting doctrines “any one of which could on its own, unbalanced by the others, lay waste a world.”
At the same time, I am reminded of the statement of Jesus to the effect that he was homeless, that he had no place to lay his head. Perhaps there is “voluntary poverty” involved?
Another consideration has to do with the understanding of “poverty” among First Cenutry Jews. I am writing from memory here and have no sources (don’t remember what the sources were either) in front me, but IIRC, there was a concept prevelant at the time that equated poverty with devotion to Torah, and therefore God. This idea was grounded in a couple of other ideas, such as that of the elect remnant who can depend only upon God for susentance, but it apparently resonated with many in that Palestine was occupied by the pagan Romans thus making such devotion potentially if not actually risky for anyone or any group within Judaism. IMHO, this makes sense on a couple of levels and helps us to understand why the Gospel of Matthew records “Blessed are the poor in spirit” while in Luke we read, “Blessed are the poor.” It also helps us to understand, I think, such stories as that of the rich young man.
If you were going to go in that direction already, Fr. Ernesto, forgive me for getting ahead of you.
Yes, there is a significant difference between voluntary poverty and involuntary poverty. Voluntary poverty or the voluntary giving up of things in your life (such as celibacy) has very strong support in both Scripture and Holy Tradition. But simple poverty, with perhaps the exception of Saint Luke, does not have such strong support in and of itself.
But, Huw makes an excellent point. Many of the oh so wonderful tales of poor people living out their lives in dignity, with self-respect, and helping others are all too often misused in order to contrast with those who “complain” or “cry for justice.” These are then made to seem as greedy people who simply want a free lunch and not really “justice.” This is akin to those in the old Deep South who always used to point to the well-behaved “darkies” as versus those out-of-state agitators who were merely criminals because they disobeyed the laws.
Funny, I have always read Scripture in support of the agitators and, given stories like that of the rich man and Lazarus, found the other way of reading it pretty hypocritical, but I know that you are right: “Slaves be obedient to your masters” and all that.
I am convinced that God often has more than one stream of things going and that I often miss several of the streams. GRIN. On the one hand, there is the stream that does speak of the place of obedience in the life of all of us. But, the prophets and apostles have a clear stream of prophetic intervention against those who violate the human beings that he has created.
Perhaps the best way to integrate the two streams is to talk about attitude. Apparently God differentiates between people who have an inappropriate attitude and people who are defending the oppressed from a heart that has the right attitude.
Apparently God differentiates between people who have an inappropriate attitude and people who are defending the oppressed from a heart that has the right attitude.
One application of which is why you’re posting this from Florida instead of Cuba itself.
See my comment above re Chesterton.
Perhaps his “having no place to lay his head” as he said to the one who desired to follow him meant not that he was poor, but that he was constantly traveling at that point and he didn’t “know” from day to day where he would sleep. It’s like saying, “hey, we’re on the road and we sleep where we can.”
That would tend to be my interpretation of the passage, given the presence of a treasury and the fact that Jesus did not wear poor garments.
As to whether Joseph and Mary were poor… Luke 2:24 records that the sacrifice given to atone for Mary’s ceremonial uncleanness was “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” Leviticus 12:8 says that this was the sacrifice given if the woman was too poor to sacrifice a lamb and a bird.
Good point! I had forgotten that Scripture. Thank you for bringing that one up.
Mary Magdalene (or “Mary the Magdalene,” as she is consistently called in the New Testament) is never called a prostitute in Scripture. That slander arose in the sixth century AD in medieval Europe.
I’ve heard Mary Mag’s “Ho” rep traced to theological speculation that combined/confused her with a “woman of ill repute” (the one with the big jar of perfume) mentioned in the previous scene, then “elaborated on this the way you’d expect from clerics and monks vowed to celibacy since age six.” Result — a lot of out-on-a-limb speculations resulting in “pornography for monks” (just as it’s gender-bent mirror image of “Bridal Mysticism” cast Christ as Edward Cullen for generations of cloistered nuns), resulting in a just-as-out-on-a-limb opposite response a la Da Vinci Code.
At least that’s what I’ve picked up amid all the noise in the channel.
If you Google the name of Mary Magdalene under their images tab, you will see that most images of her picture her as somewhat unclothed. In other words, the prostitute idea continues.
There is one sinful woman who washes Our Lord’s feet with tears. He says she is forgiven.
Magdalene is a woman who gave precious balm to the feet of Our Lord.
What you call “the slander” is St Gregory the Great saying they were the same woman. St Ignatius of Loyola does not.
St Gregory also says she is St Mary sister of St Martha and St Lazarus the Four Days Dead. He also says HE is the same as the poor Lazarus who came to Abraham’s bosom.
You may call it hasty scholarship or not, but since that woman was clearly FORGIVEN and clearly loved Our Lord much for it, it is not as if there were some stain left on her.
It is not about the stain left on her. It is about the medieval use of Mary Magdalene to depict all women as somehow dangerous.