A third way: Non violent protest
January 8, 2016 1:14 PM Subscribe
The true meaning of turn the other cheek Roman law permitted soldiers to force civilians to carry their gear for one mile, but because of abuses stringently prohibited more than one mile.
If they ask you to do that, Jesus says, go ahead; but then carry their gear a second mile. Put them in a disconcerting situation: either they risk getting in trouble, or they will have to wrestle their gear back from you.
The references for this I have found so far is from Peter Smith's Improvising The Practice Of Nonresistance as Creative Mimesis and The MacArthur New Testament Commentary
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:24 PM on January 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:24 PM on January 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think the man of twists and turns is onto something -- I'm pretty skeptical about this explanation of the verse. This claim that Jesus is referring to a Roman law sounds to me like a later rationalization of a fairly confusing verse. In my five minutes of googling I can't find any commentary or reference that cites an actual ancient independent source for this law. Can anyone else?
posted by dd42 at 1:31 PM on January 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dd42 at 1:31 PM on January 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
An interesting way to think about non-violent protest, but I also did some quick googling and didn't find much in the way of citation for these explanations.
posted by Secretariat at 1:42 PM on January 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Secretariat at 1:42 PM on January 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I didn't read the man of twists and turns references as a rebuttal and I had no problem immediately finding this:
http://unorthodoxfaith.com/2008/06/16/jesus-non-violence-and-roman-law/
posted by Michele in California at 1:43 PM on January 8, 2016
http://unorthodoxfaith.com/2008/06/16/jesus-non-violence-and-roman-law/
posted by Michele in California at 1:43 PM on January 8, 2016
Sounds like someone is seeing what they want to see in the sermon on the mount, a hobby nearly as old as the sermon itself!
posted by blue_beetle at 1:44 PM on January 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 1:44 PM on January 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
To illustrate with the saying about turning the other cheek: it specifies that the person has been struck on the right cheek. How can you be struck on the right cheek? ...[Y]ou can be struck on the right cheek only by an overhand blow with the left hand, or with a backhand blow from the right hand (Try it).
But in that world, people did not use the left hand to strike people. It was reserved for "unseemly" uses. Thus, being struck on the right cheek meant that one had been backhanded with the right hand. Given the social customs of the day, a backhand blow was the way a superior hit an inferior, whereas one fought social equals with fists.
This means the saying presupposes a setting in which a superior is beating a peasant. What should the peasant do? "Turn the other cheek." What would be the effect? The only way the superior could continue the beating would be with an overhand blow with the fist--which would have meant treating the peasant as an equal.
I'm not going to say this is wrong, but it makes a couple of assumptions that would need backing up before I would buy it.
For example, a superior wouldn't strike an inferior with his left hand, because that's the butt-wiping hand? Honestly, I'd expect the blow to be a left-handed one. "Impudent slaves get a taste of my stink palm," and such. For a show of contempt, it'd be hard to top a blow from the shit-hand.
Let's say that the poo-hand is not used for violence. I backhand some mope with my right hand on his right cheek, preserving my butt-wiping hand for its duties, and said mope then offers up his left cheek for another blow. What's to stop me from administering an open-handed palm slap with my right hand rather than an overhand blow with the fist? Smacking someone to express contempt and strip away their dignity can be done with an open forehand or backhand.
Anybody got any backup for these claims? Very odd. I do like the idea behind them, though.
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 1:45 PM on January 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
But in that world, people did not use the left hand to strike people. It was reserved for "unseemly" uses. Thus, being struck on the right cheek meant that one had been backhanded with the right hand. Given the social customs of the day, a backhand blow was the way a superior hit an inferior, whereas one fought social equals with fists.
This means the saying presupposes a setting in which a superior is beating a peasant. What should the peasant do? "Turn the other cheek." What would be the effect? The only way the superior could continue the beating would be with an overhand blow with the fist--which would have meant treating the peasant as an equal.
I'm not going to say this is wrong, but it makes a couple of assumptions that would need backing up before I would buy it.
For example, a superior wouldn't strike an inferior with his left hand, because that's the butt-wiping hand? Honestly, I'd expect the blow to be a left-handed one. "Impudent slaves get a taste of my stink palm," and such. For a show of contempt, it'd be hard to top a blow from the shit-hand.
Let's say that the poo-hand is not used for violence. I backhand some mope with my right hand on his right cheek, preserving my butt-wiping hand for its duties, and said mope then offers up his left cheek for another blow. What's to stop me from administering an open-handed palm slap with my right hand rather than an overhand blow with the fist? Smacking someone to express contempt and strip away their dignity can be done with an open forehand or backhand.
Anybody got any backup for these claims? Very odd. I do like the idea behind them, though.
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 1:45 PM on January 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
I always thought the point of the pack and the cloak was to just to reduce somebody who tries to humiliate you into humiliation, to publicly shame them.
The "right hand/backhand" stuff never struck me as any more credible than the idea that there's a gate in Jerusalem called the Eye of the Needle- it reeks of a just-so story devised to avoid the obvious interpretation.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:48 PM on January 8, 2016 [17 favorites]
The "right hand/backhand" stuff never struck me as any more credible than the idea that there's a gate in Jerusalem called the Eye of the Needle- it reeks of a just-so story devised to avoid the obvious interpretation.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:48 PM on January 8, 2016 [17 favorites]
the article heavily quotes the work of a scholar and theologian, Walter Wink, in fact most of it is taken straight from his article Jesus' Third Way (PDF). Wink died in 2012.
posted by 15L06 at 1:53 PM on January 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by 15L06 at 1:53 PM on January 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Christian pastors do so love their just-so stories.
The thing about backhanding people seems at least a little bit plausible plausible with no additional references (though Harvey Jerkwater brings up some good points), but the explanation about carrying a soldier's gear is extremely suspect. Why one mile? What "abuses"?
Wikipedia has this page, where the alleged law is described thusly:
The verse is a reference to the practice of "impressment" which, among other things, allowed a Roman soldier to conscript a Jewish native to carry his equipment for one Roman mile (milion = 1,000 paces, about 1,611 yards or 1,473 metres)[citation needed] -- no easy task considering a Roman soldier's backpack could weigh upwards of 100 pounds (45.4 kg).
Citation needed, indeed. Note that "civilian" has been swapped for "Jewish native" in this case.
Michelle in California's link embellishes matters with a plausible-sounding Latin name for this law:
You see, there was a Roman law called lex angeria which allowed a soldier to compel a civilian to carry his pack for one milion – 1,520 paces.
Except Google's never heard of lex angeria. It's not on Wikipedia's list of Roman laws, either.
All of it has the smell of a classic urban legend. No authoritative original source, embellishments and slight variations between retellings, makes the teller seem impressively knowledgeable in a way that can't be easily checked by the listener...
posted by tobascodagama at 1:53 PM on January 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
The thing about backhanding people seems at least a little bit plausible plausible with no additional references (though Harvey Jerkwater brings up some good points), but the explanation about carrying a soldier's gear is extremely suspect. Why one mile? What "abuses"?
Wikipedia has this page, where the alleged law is described thusly:
The verse is a reference to the practice of "impressment" which, among other things, allowed a Roman soldier to conscript a Jewish native to carry his equipment for one Roman mile (milion = 1,000 paces, about 1,611 yards or 1,473 metres)[citation needed] -- no easy task considering a Roman soldier's backpack could weigh upwards of 100 pounds (45.4 kg).
Citation needed, indeed. Note that "civilian" has been swapped for "Jewish native" in this case.
Michelle in California's link embellishes matters with a plausible-sounding Latin name for this law:
You see, there was a Roman law called lex angeria which allowed a soldier to compel a civilian to carry his pack for one milion – 1,520 paces.
Except Google's never heard of lex angeria. It's not on Wikipedia's list of Roman laws, either.
All of it has the smell of a classic urban legend. No authoritative original source, embellishments and slight variations between retellings, makes the teller seem impressively knowledgeable in a way that can't be easily checked by the listener...
posted by tobascodagama at 1:53 PM on January 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
These explanations not only fly in the face of everything Jesus seems to be about in the gospels, but really don't sound like anything Gandhi wrote about satyagraha.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:55 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by shakespeherian at 1:55 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eh, as far as reinterpretations go, it's not as bad as Eye of the Needle being a real place so riches are no worry, mannnnnnnng.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:03 PM on January 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 2:03 PM on January 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Gosh, it's almost as though the Bible were a unique cultural product with specific relevance to an culture existing thousands of years ago on the other side of the world and different from ours in almost every way imaginable!
posted by Naberius at 2:05 PM on January 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Naberius at 2:05 PM on January 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
I will just briefly note that I honestly did not expect this to be controversial. My ex was both a Roman history buff and grew up in a very religious family and read the bible cover to cover three times before he left the church. So I had heard of this Roman law through him. Thus, the piece sounded plausible to me based on stuff I knew through someone I deemed a reliable source. It also fits with what I knew of Jesus, such as him angrily turning over the money changers tables.
Sorry. Oops.
posted by Michele in California at 2:07 PM on January 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sorry. Oops.
posted by Michele in California at 2:07 PM on January 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I forgot to add above with the info on the original article and its author Walter Wink, that I am very curious to find more supporting backgroung info. Wink, the original author having been a scholar and theologian in my eyes gives it more credibility than it might otherwise have. I will keep digging as it is intersting but suppose one would have to read the works of Wink to find Wink's sources for his claims.
posted by 15L06 at 2:07 PM on January 8, 2016
posted by 15L06 at 2:07 PM on January 8, 2016
Except Google's never heard of lex angeria
There is a lex angaria, which leads me to Lex Talionis in Early Judaism and the Exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 5.38-42: Historical Background And Context Of Matthew 5.39-42, James Davis. A reivew:
There is a lex angaria, which leads me to Lex Talionis in Early Judaism and the Exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 5.38-42: Historical Background And Context Of Matthew 5.39-42, James Davis. A reivew:
In Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus overrides the Old Testament teaching of 'an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth' - the Lex Talionis law - and commands his disciples to turn the other cheek. James Davis asks how Jesus' teaching in this instance relates to the Old Testament talionic commands, how it relates to New Testament era Judaism and what Jesus required from his disciples and the church.posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:11 PM on January 8, 2016
To be specific, I have no doubts that Roman soldiers required civilians to carry things for them occasionally. Think of Golden Ass 9.39 (bad translation here), where a Roman solder forces a Greek civilian to carry his baggage to the next town. I interpret this not really as a matter of law, though, except in so far as Roman soldiers possess the physical force and legal authority to make civilians do pretty much whatever they want.
Basically I find it pretty doubtful that a) the government cared very much about abuses and b) there was specifically a law saying that civilians were limited to carrying things for only 1 mile.
But I'm very happy to be proven wrong.
posted by dd42 at 2:12 PM on January 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Basically I find it pretty doubtful that a) the government cared very much about abuses and b) there was specifically a law saying that civilians were limited to carrying things for only 1 mile.
But I'm very happy to be proven wrong.
posted by dd42 at 2:12 PM on January 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
the article heavily quotes the work of a scholar and theologian, Walter Wink, in fact most of it is taken straight from his article Jesus' Third Way (PDF).
This in turn is an excerpt from Wink's 1998 book, The Powers That Be. Wink comes across as having a great breadth of knowledge (and he was a well-educated theologian, with a PhD from Union Theological Seminary), but the work doesn't seem very scholarly. There's no way to know where he's getting this stuff from; his writing doesn't include citations or even attempt to quote original sources in many places. Granted, it seems to be intended for a popular rather than scholarly audience, but these explanations simply can't be traced.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:14 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
This in turn is an excerpt from Wink's 1998 book, The Powers That Be. Wink comes across as having a great breadth of knowledge (and he was a well-educated theologian, with a PhD from Union Theological Seminary), but the work doesn't seem very scholarly. There's no way to know where he's getting this stuff from; his writing doesn't include citations or even attempt to quote original sources in many places. Granted, it seems to be intended for a popular rather than scholarly audience, but these explanations simply can't be traced.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:14 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Angaria in the EB, which gets me to Angaria in Rabbinic Literature , D. Sperber. L'antiquité classique , Année 1969 , Volume 38 , Numéro 1 pp. 164-168.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:20 PM on January 8, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:20 PM on January 8, 2016
I mean, look: Let's add in even just a tiny bit more context. This is Matthew 5: 38-42 if you want to follow along.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:24 PM on January 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. [emphasis mine]If Jesus' real purpose was to tell you how to nonviolently resist oppression here, why does he begin by saying not to resist?
posted by shakespeherian at 2:24 PM on January 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
If Jesus' real purpose was to tell you how to nonviolently resist oppression here, why does he begin by saying not to resist?
Speculating (as I am neither a Christian nor a biblical scholar): Sometimes, resistance increases the problem. There are multiple different examples of this idea in the world. The Chinese finger puzzle teaches you that the more strongly you try to pull your fingers out, the more stuck you are. There is a scene in a Harry Potter book where the solution is to relax. Fighting the plant (or whatever) only keeps you more stuck.
I used to say on an email list I was on "Fighting against the fighting is just more fighting." If you want peace, fighting people for it doesn't get you there.
posted by Michele in California at 2:31 PM on January 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Speculating (as I am neither a Christian nor a biblical scholar): Sometimes, resistance increases the problem. There are multiple different examples of this idea in the world. The Chinese finger puzzle teaches you that the more strongly you try to pull your fingers out, the more stuck you are. There is a scene in a Harry Potter book where the solution is to relax. Fighting the plant (or whatever) only keeps you more stuck.
I used to say on an email list I was on "Fighting against the fighting is just more fighting." If you want peace, fighting people for it doesn't get you there.
posted by Michele in California at 2:31 PM on January 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
I remember explaining this interpretation to a Christian for the first time almost 15 years ago, so this theory is not new. I must have read it somewhere.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 2:31 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 2:31 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah I just did some finger math and how long ago this was talked about in a Bible Study because I remember it pretty clearly. It's been just over 20 years since I stopped going to church so it had to have been before that. No idea where it came from but this explanation is at least that old.
posted by Jalliah at 2:42 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Jalliah at 2:42 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've always found it useful to imagine the cheek & other cheek mentioned are in fact butt cheeks.
posted by chavenet at 2:43 PM on January 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 2:43 PM on January 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
I have no idea if this interpretation is true or not, but it is pretty close to how I was taught to interpret these passages 15 plus years ago. I don't recall it being an idea of passive resistance, but rather about complying with unjust law & punishment in an over-the-top fashion, to the point of making the person punishing you look like an abject ass. If the powerful person was entitled to strike you once for something you did, you "turned the other cheek" - offered the other side of your face for another blow. If they could demand your cloak, you gave them every piece of clothing. Demand you carry something for a mile? Keep going. And so forth. It's not non-compliance, but over-compliance, with the idea being it makes whoever is carrying out the oppression look even more unjust and abusive.
posted by nubs at 3:06 PM on January 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by nubs at 3:06 PM on January 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
this Quora reply to a question on the historical accuracy of Wink is interesting as the author of the reply claims to be the grandson of Wink.
posted by 15L06 at 3:09 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by 15L06 at 3:09 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've always taken 'turn the other cheek' to be not an instruction to acquiesce to authority, but instead a means to rob it of power: nothing you do can hurt me, I have strength, God's righteousness on my side etc
posted by Flashman at 3:31 PM on January 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Flashman at 3:31 PM on January 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
I have always prefered the Nietzschean concept of Jesus, wherein submission and love are active expressions of the will to power, full expressions of a person who is wholly self-possessed. Of course, for Nietzsche, everything that has followed from that, as a result of Paul's foundation of Christianity, has been a bitter and sickening quagmire of reactivity and ressentiment. So less cheery overall.
posted by howfar at 5:03 PM on January 8, 2016
posted by howfar at 5:03 PM on January 8, 2016
I mean, I do think the paraphrase of "acquiesce so much that it shames your oppressor" is correct just as a direct reading of the words of the verses themselves. Providing weird ahistorical explanations for a reading that doesn't really need external support is just distracting more than anything else.
posted by tobascodagama at 5:12 PM on January 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 5:12 PM on January 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am too tired to deal much with this discussion tonight, but I'll just point out a few things.
1) This is taken from Marcus Borg's book Jesus: The Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. You can see a fuller excerpt here.
2. Borg is not some credulous fundamentalist pastor. He was notoriously liberal--a leading member of the Jesus Seminar, and very skeptical about the historicity of much of the Bible. He had excellent scholarly credentials, a D.Phil from Oxford. That doesn't mean he's right about this or that he did adequate homework for every page of his book, but you guys are nipping at the ankles of someone who knew what he was talking about. I think it's kind of a shame that this skimpy excerpt was posted, because Borg's works are worth grappling with in their entirety. This doesn't really do it justice.
Just read the book. Most of you would like Borg. He's your kind of guy.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:47 PM on January 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
1) This is taken from Marcus Borg's book Jesus: The Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. You can see a fuller excerpt here.
2. Borg is not some credulous fundamentalist pastor. He was notoriously liberal--a leading member of the Jesus Seminar, and very skeptical about the historicity of much of the Bible. He had excellent scholarly credentials, a D.Phil from Oxford. That doesn't mean he's right about this or that he did adequate homework for every page of his book, but you guys are nipping at the ankles of someone who knew what he was talking about. I think it's kind of a shame that this skimpy excerpt was posted, because Borg's works are worth grappling with in their entirety. This doesn't really do it justice.
Just read the book. Most of you would like Borg. He's your kind of guy.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:47 PM on January 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
Longer, better excerpt here.
Engage with the Borg. Resistance is futile.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:52 PM on January 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Engage with the Borg. Resistance is futile.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:52 PM on January 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
I have no idea if this interpretation is true or not, but it is pretty close to how I was taught to interpret these passages 15 plus years ago. I don't recall it being an idea of passive resistance, but rather about complying with unjust law & punishment in an over-the-top fashion, to the point of making the person punishing you look like an abject ass. If the powerful person was entitled to strike you once for something you did, you "turned the other cheek" - offered the other side of your face for another blow. If they could demand your cloak, you gave them every piece of clothing. Demand you carry something for a mile? Keep going. And so forth. It's not non-compliance, but over-compliance, with the idea being it makes whoever is carrying out the oppression look even more unjust and abusive.
I'm not sure about the potential law that existed, but if my trusty lexicon is to be believed, the verb that underlies the idea of "forced to carry" is a word (angareusei) that was often (but not always) used for forced compliance coming from a legal or military authority. (More than one lexicon suggests the word is derived from the Persian, in which there was a messenger or courier that could compel others into service, also.) What is perhaps interesting is that the only other place in Matthew's gospel that this word is used again (at least as a verb) is in 27:32, where Simon is "compelled into service" to carry the cross of Jesus. I would think this probably wasn't coincidental in terms of Matthew's textual development of sacrificial compliance. The only other place in the entire New Testament that this word is used is Mark 15:21, which is also about Simon being compelled into service (and probably was the original source for Matthew's material). I wonder if both of these instances in Matthew and Mark were intended bring to mind that those who were to follow Jesus were to "pick up their cross and follow [him]" (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34). Near the climax of the story, Simon seems to enact this command literally, which depicts a following of Jesus's example of over-compliance to his mission, rather than resistance or non-compliance. Simon's example then becomes an example for Matthew's readers to follow, also, reflected earlier in the Sermon on the Mount.
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:07 PM on January 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure about the potential law that existed, but if my trusty lexicon is to be believed, the verb that underlies the idea of "forced to carry" is a word (angareusei) that was often (but not always) used for forced compliance coming from a legal or military authority. (More than one lexicon suggests the word is derived from the Persian, in which there was a messenger or courier that could compel others into service, also.) What is perhaps interesting is that the only other place in Matthew's gospel that this word is used again (at least as a verb) is in 27:32, where Simon is "compelled into service" to carry the cross of Jesus. I would think this probably wasn't coincidental in terms of Matthew's textual development of sacrificial compliance. The only other place in the entire New Testament that this word is used is Mark 15:21, which is also about Simon being compelled into service (and probably was the original source for Matthew's material). I wonder if both of these instances in Matthew and Mark were intended bring to mind that those who were to follow Jesus were to "pick up their cross and follow [him]" (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34). Near the climax of the story, Simon seems to enact this command literally, which depicts a following of Jesus's example of over-compliance to his mission, rather than resistance or non-compliance. Simon's example then becomes an example for Matthew's readers to follow, also, reflected earlier in the Sermon on the Mount.
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:07 PM on January 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Those excerpts from Borg have no reference except to the aforementioned Walter Wink.
Listen, I'm not saying that no such law ever existed. I'm just saying that all roads lead back to Wink here, and Wink apparently didn't cite any sources. It doesn't matter how smart or well-read or non-credulous you are if you don't cite your fucking sources.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:40 PM on January 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Listen, I'm not saying that no such law ever existed. I'm just saying that all roads lead back to Wink here, and Wink apparently didn't cite any sources. It doesn't matter how smart or well-read or non-credulous you are if you don't cite your fucking sources.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:40 PM on January 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
cheekily trolling power is fun, but it never works as well as it seems it will. From Rome to Chicago, power has never played by its own rules.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:47 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:47 PM on January 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Definite shades of "eye of the needle" here. Although goodness knows that passive-aggressive over-compliance in an effort to shame/irritate is hardly out of line with the rest of the text. (c.f. "Bless those that curse you. In doing so you shall heap burning coals upon their head.")
posted by Scattercat at 6:49 PM on January 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Scattercat at 6:49 PM on January 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't recall it being an idea of passive resistance, but rather about complying with unjust law & punishment in an over-the-top fashion, to the point of making the person punishing you look like an abject assThis is how I've always viewed it. Specifically, I read the "extra mile" verse in the context of Romans 12:19-21:
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”... with most of the emphasis on the middle verse, which I could paraphrase as "be so nice in return that said annoying person realizes they are being a bit of a dick, and hopefully decides to modify their behavior."
To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
I think that's a brilliant piece of psychology, and from experience it works pretty well. Often I've seen people have a lights-go-on moment where they realize there might be another option to whatever nonsensical or damaging behavior patterns they're caught up in, and decide to try something else than what they're used to. But it's like you have to deliberately present them with an alternative, so they're aware that there actually is an alternative.
Pentecostals call this type of thing "moving in the opposite," which I think is a ridiculous term, but it describes something really valuable.
Not avenging yourself and actually forgiving is still as difficult as ever, of course, but the prescription is there deliberately.
posted by iffthen at 7:00 PM on January 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
The trick, if you ever happen to get stuck carrying the military gear, is to head directly to the nearest beach, at which point Jesus should help you out a bit, and the Roman soldier will get all confused about sets of footprints.
posted by Kabanos at 7:09 PM on January 8, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 7:09 PM on January 8, 2016 [15 favorites]
Often it works well to adopt an affect sort of like that of Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock — just be pathologically sweet and nice and giving and humble and willfully naive when people expect hostility and aggression and pride.
However, as Stokley Carmichael observed, this approach doesn't always work.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:59 PM on January 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
However, as Stokley Carmichael observed, this approach doesn't always work.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:59 PM on January 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
It doesn't matter how smart or well-read or non-credulous you are if you don't cite your fucking sources.
Finishing up a syllabus for a week from Thursday, and I kind of want to put this in there.
posted by aaronetc at 9:46 PM on January 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
Finishing up a syllabus for a week from Thursday, and I kind of want to put this in there.
posted by aaronetc at 9:46 PM on January 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
The Roman law we know about is pretty well documented. You're not going to find Roman laws that are known to some random Christian apologist but which aren't easy to locate in other sources. On the other hand, modern Christian apologetics not infrequently contain weird claims about historical facts (like the "eye of the needle" one above, or the alleged court records of Jesus' trial) that aren't true but which are difficult or impossible to refute. So, citation or it didn't happen.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:26 AM on January 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:26 AM on January 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Although goodness knows that passive-aggressive over-compliance in an effort to shame/irritate is hardly out of line with the rest of the text. (c.f. "Bless those that curse you. In doing so you shall heap burning coals upon their head.")
So, I briefly attended church and bible study in my twenties. An older woman at bible study talked about how, when she was younger, she (gleefully) interpreted the phrase about "heap coals upon their head" as some kind of metaphor for burning someone. Then, at some point, she had it explained to her that it referred to a practice where, when your fire at home went out -- which was potential death, because fire was both warmth and cooking -- you would go ask for coals from someone else's fire and it was put in a container that you carried on your head, much like how women in Africa still carry water today. So, the way I heard it, heaping coals upon someone's head was about giving them the means to restart their own fire at home. It was an act of good will, not vengeance.
(Still not a Christian nor biblical scholar, but still heard this different from someone I understood to be more knowledgeable than average about the meaning of the stuff in the bible.)
Also, Weird Al did use "turn the other cheek" as a butt reference in Amish Paradise, though it took me ages to get that.
posted by Michele in California at 11:22 AM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
So, I briefly attended church and bible study in my twenties. An older woman at bible study talked about how, when she was younger, she (gleefully) interpreted the phrase about "heap coals upon their head" as some kind of metaphor for burning someone. Then, at some point, she had it explained to her that it referred to a practice where, when your fire at home went out -- which was potential death, because fire was both warmth and cooking -- you would go ask for coals from someone else's fire and it was put in a container that you carried on your head, much like how women in Africa still carry water today. So, the way I heard it, heaping coals upon someone's head was about giving them the means to restart their own fire at home. It was an act of good will, not vengeance.
(Still not a Christian nor biblical scholar, but still heard this different from someone I understood to be more knowledgeable than average about the meaning of the stuff in the bible.)
Also, Weird Al did use "turn the other cheek" as a butt reference in Amish Paradise, though it took me ages to get that.
posted by Michele in California at 11:22 AM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Michele, does that sound like a coherent reading of the text to you? I can't see any reason to think that it's talking about someone whose fire has gone out and who is (coincidentally) going around insulting people.
Does the idea of carrying coals on your head even make any sense? Coals aren't like water; they're light and are presumably found in every home. Would anyone even need or want a "heap" of coals, rather than a burning splinter of wood? Have you read other references to people walking around with piles of coals on their head? I rather think this is an "eye of the needle" sort of explanation: a superficially plausible reading that conforms to the reader's prejudices.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:55 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Does the idea of carrying coals on your head even make any sense? Coals aren't like water; they're light and are presumably found in every home. Would anyone even need or want a "heap" of coals, rather than a burning splinter of wood? Have you read other references to people walking around with piles of coals on their head? I rather think this is an "eye of the needle" sort of explanation: a superficially plausible reading that conforms to the reader's prejudices.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:55 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, it sounds like a coherent reading of the text to me or I would not have shared it.
posted by Michele in California at 1:08 PM on January 9, 2016
posted by Michele in California at 1:08 PM on January 9, 2016
The "spare a light" reading comes from Kenneth Wuest, who was a Greek scholar. He wasn't an idiot, but equally I'm not sure that he knew enough about what he terms "Bible times" in a social-historical sense to make this pronouncement:
The Bible is full of inconsistent morality, philosophy, history and theology. That doesn't make it worthless, except to people who want to imagine it's the revealed word of God, and therefore have to spend time disguising what it is in order that they might pretend it is what they'd like it to be.
posted by howfar at 1:41 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
“In Bible times an oriental needed to keep his hearth fire going all the time in order to insure fire for cooking and warmth. If it went out, he had to go to a neighbour for some live coals of fire. These he would carry on his head in a container, oriental fashion, back to his home. The person who would give him some live coals would be meeting his desperate need and showing him an outstanding kindness. If he would heap the container with coals, the man would be sure of getting some home still burning. The one injured would be returning kindness for injury.”It just feels like apologia, to me. There's no reason I can see to think of it in that way. The "burning with shame" reading seems a bit less tenuous, but to be honest the most obvious reading is the literal one: "Be nice to him, he'll get his".
The Bible is full of inconsistent morality, philosophy, history and theology. That doesn't make it worthless, except to people who want to imagine it's the revealed word of God, and therefore have to spend time disguising what it is in order that they might pretend it is what they'd like it to be.
posted by howfar at 1:41 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
In a recent AskMe, I told the anecdote of a German friend of the family being told by her doctor to treat her vaginal yeast infection with a "vinegar douche." In German and French, douche just means shower. She was puzzled as to a) how that would help her vagina and b) how do you get the vinegar into the showerhead?
This was not someone transported across 2000 years who had no familiarity at all with modern American medicine, houses etc. It was a single word appropriated from her native language to mean something completely different that had her tripped up.
So I have no trouble believing that many common assumptions about what specific passages of the bible mean are wildly out of line with what they meant to people in biblical times, who did not speak modern English and were living in a culture alien to what most modern peoples are familiar with. I was willing to readily believe people like my ex husband and this older woman from bible study who had been Christian a long time and was telling a story about how her understanding of the bible had grown because I understood them to have deep knowledge of the subject and to be sincere and honest people.
As stated repeatedly here: I am not Christian. I am also not trying to disrespect Christianity. My interest is more in historical and cultural insights and I also have a long standing interest in what works socially/interpersonally. It certainly wasn't intended to try to make anyone uncomfortable for whom this document is an article of faith and not just a form of history book. I am not Christian and have not spent much time in church or reading the bible, yet I had previously heard that the "walk a mile" line was about Roman soldiers impressing people into service and there was a law related to that. So I simply assumed this was common knowledge. I was floored that it became a point of debate as to whether or not such a law even existed. I did not believe it to be either anything obscure nor untrue/inaccurate.
posted by Michele in California at 2:34 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
This was not someone transported across 2000 years who had no familiarity at all with modern American medicine, houses etc. It was a single word appropriated from her native language to mean something completely different that had her tripped up.
So I have no trouble believing that many common assumptions about what specific passages of the bible mean are wildly out of line with what they meant to people in biblical times, who did not speak modern English and were living in a culture alien to what most modern peoples are familiar with. I was willing to readily believe people like my ex husband and this older woman from bible study who had been Christian a long time and was telling a story about how her understanding of the bible had grown because I understood them to have deep knowledge of the subject and to be sincere and honest people.
As stated repeatedly here: I am not Christian. I am also not trying to disrespect Christianity. My interest is more in historical and cultural insights and I also have a long standing interest in what works socially/interpersonally. It certainly wasn't intended to try to make anyone uncomfortable for whom this document is an article of faith and not just a form of history book. I am not Christian and have not spent much time in church or reading the bible, yet I had previously heard that the "walk a mile" line was about Roman soldiers impressing people into service and there was a law related to that. So I simply assumed this was common knowledge. I was floored that it became a point of debate as to whether or not such a law even existed. I did not believe it to be either anything obscure nor untrue/inaccurate.
posted by Michele in California at 2:34 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
So I have no trouble believing that many common assumptions about what specific passages of the bible mean are wildly out of line with what they meant to people in biblical times, who did not speak modern English and were living in a culture alien to what most modern peoples are familiar with.
Okay, but the Bible was not written in English; it's translated into modern English by very intelligent and learned people who do their very best to understand the context and content of what's written in the original languages.
posted by shakespeherian at 3:45 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Okay, but the Bible was not written in English; it's translated into modern English by very intelligent and learned people who do their very best to understand the context and content of what's written in the original languages.
posted by shakespeherian at 3:45 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, I am aware of that and, in fact, took two quarters of Greek in college which happened to use the bible as the text we studied because that is one of the two most common texts used for bible study.
I don't like how this discussion seems to have become about me in some sense and not about what these passages may mean. I don't know any way to more clearly state that I am not claiming authority here, not claiming that my understanding is the absolute correct one and only truth, was not acting in bad faith when I went "Oh, neat! I think I shall post this to Metafilter." etc.
So I am planning on stepping away from this, because it feels to me like some kind of witch hunt. Like people just are not willing to let me off the hook for some imagined and unforgiveable offense.
posted by Michele in California at 3:51 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't like how this discussion seems to have become about me in some sense and not about what these passages may mean. I don't know any way to more clearly state that I am not claiming authority here, not claiming that my understanding is the absolute correct one and only truth, was not acting in bad faith when I went "Oh, neat! I think I shall post this to Metafilter." etc.
So I am planning on stepping away from this, because it feels to me like some kind of witch hunt. Like people just are not willing to let me off the hook for some imagined and unforgiveable offense.
posted by Michele in California at 3:51 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't really speak for anyone else in here but I'm not trying to implicate you whatsoever -- and as far as I can tell by reading, neither is anyone else. Folks are responding to the content of the linked article and the (lack of) support for its argument by way of citations, the stuff we know about 1st century Roman culture, etc. It's the same nit-picky stuff we do in every thread here. The only difference, if there is one, is that -- and again, there's no reason to read this as a reflection on you -- this appears to be a pretty poorly-supported article with argumentation which sounds to a lot of us like it's based on post-hoc justification and just-so stories, which is the same kind of thing often encountered by several folks in other contexts surrounding other bits of 'not what you thought!' contemporary Christian apologia.
I also don't see any comments in this thread which are antagonistic toward the article because it violates deeply-held Christian beliefs, nor does anyone seem to care whether you are personally a Christian.
It just seems like a kinda dumb argument based on bad reasoning, and folks are explaining their thoughts on that.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:00 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I also don't see any comments in this thread which are antagonistic toward the article because it violates deeply-held Christian beliefs, nor does anyone seem to care whether you are personally a Christian.
It just seems like a kinda dumb argument based on bad reasoning, and folks are explaining their thoughts on that.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:00 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not familiar with the ideas in the original link (if you thought most people were, why post them, really?) and found them interesting- so I wanted to know more. Since the original link didn't provide any hints of where to start finding out some of the historical facts, I started googling- and that's where things started to feel a little fishy. On one hand, there's a couple of different individuals behind these statements that sound like respected scholars- but on the other hand, I saw these same ideas mirrored around the web without any further references or citations, which smells a little like urban legend, or maybe those scholars being quoted out of context. And I'd hate to be accidentally repeating an urban legend as a fact. No personal attack intended!
posted by Secretariat at 5:56 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Secretariat at 5:56 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every objection leveled in this thread, either against the argument itself, about "but what about 'don't resist evil'," or about the lack of citations, or about various translations, is answered in Engaging the Powers, which was Wink's third book in the scholarly Powers trilogy--all three of which are available on Amazon (Unmasking the Powers, Naming the Powers, and Engaging the Powers). The Powers trilogy is intensely scholarly, and not as accessible to the public, hence The Powers That Be and its focus more on implementation of the ideas rather than citation. Saying that Wink doesn't cite his sources is facially false, as a full quarter of Engaging the Powers is endnotes. You can even look up "angaria" via "look inside" Engaging the Powers on Amazon, which takes you directly to the footnotes on the topic.
Anyone who is interested in the topic of nonviolence would be well rewarded by the effort to go through the full trilogy or at least the original Engaging the Powers book and ignore the low-effort, 'common sense, just-so stories' dismissals above.
posted by Planter at 3:17 PM on January 12, 2016
Anyone who is interested in the topic of nonviolence would be well rewarded by the effort to go through the full trilogy or at least the original Engaging the Powers book and ignore the low-effort, 'common sense, just-so stories' dismissals above.
posted by Planter at 3:17 PM on January 12, 2016
This is interesting! Unfortunately I can't see a "look inside" bit of Engaging the Powers on Amazon - not sure if that's because I'm in the UK. Would it be possible to provide the sources? While angaria is clearly historical, there are some pretty significant specifics about punishment for abusing the power that it would be extremely interesting to know the sources for. Wink's interpretation of the passage is very specific, and it would be interesting to gauge how likely it is that the Matthew author(s) and/or their sources actually intended that reading.
posted by howfar at 3:47 PM on January 12, 2016
posted by howfar at 3:47 PM on January 12, 2016
Anyone who is interested in the topic of nonviolence would be well rewarded by the effort to go through the full trilogy or at least the original Engaging the Powers book and ignore the low-effort, 'common sense, just-so stories' dismissals above.
I looked up your reference, thanks. What a mess of citations - they're from popular encyclopedias, obscure journals, dictionaries, you name it. And the ones I have access to tell us that the word "angaria" means forced labour or the forced supply of food, horses, women, whatever. The closest he gets to an original source is a second-hand reference to the Talmud Yerushalmi. I looked that one up too: it's just a passage that uses the word "angaria" in connection with soldier's commandeering a borrowed donkey. No mention of miles or a soldier's obligations in that context. This does not substantiate Wicks' claim that there was a specific Roman law that specifically compelled people to carry a soldier's backpack one mile, but punished the soldier if his target carried it for longer. I strongly suspect that there was no such law, because if it existed it would be easy to cite the law itself.
Look, I don't want to offend you or anyone else, but this is a very common pattern in apologetics: a very specific claim is made, and substantiated with pages of pseudo-references that sum up to precisely nothing. Yes, I think it's clear that Jesus in Matthew is counseling non-violence. Yes, part of the reason is that it discomfits the villain. That's hardly original to Wicks. I don't think the original bits of his claim would add much to our understanding of that passage if they were true, but as far as I can see they're not true (or at least not proven.) All I've seen from the bit of Wicks that I've read is pseudo-erudition of the sort that impresses people who can't look up sources.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:57 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I looked up your reference, thanks. What a mess of citations - they're from popular encyclopedias, obscure journals, dictionaries, you name it. And the ones I have access to tell us that the word "angaria" means forced labour or the forced supply of food, horses, women, whatever. The closest he gets to an original source is a second-hand reference to the Talmud Yerushalmi. I looked that one up too: it's just a passage that uses the word "angaria" in connection with soldier's commandeering a borrowed donkey. No mention of miles or a soldier's obligations in that context. This does not substantiate Wicks' claim that there was a specific Roman law that specifically compelled people to carry a soldier's backpack one mile, but punished the soldier if his target carried it for longer. I strongly suspect that there was no such law, because if it existed it would be easy to cite the law itself.
Look, I don't want to offend you or anyone else, but this is a very common pattern in apologetics: a very specific claim is made, and substantiated with pages of pseudo-references that sum up to precisely nothing. Yes, I think it's clear that Jesus in Matthew is counseling non-violence. Yes, part of the reason is that it discomfits the villain. That's hardly original to Wicks. I don't think the original bits of his claim would add much to our understanding of that passage if they were true, but as far as I can see they're not true (or at least not proven.) All I've seen from the bit of Wicks that I've read is pseudo-erudition of the sort that impresses people who can't look up sources.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:57 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
howfar, sorry, but there are several dozen citations, all but a few are sources in foreign languages, usually transcriptions of sources or scholarly journals. Look Inside should be available in the UK, though. There is no specific citation for "a law that limits angaria to one mile", which he points out is inferred from the wording of the text, and his citations are more as to the coercive nature of angaria on both beast and person, contemporary descriptions of its application, and discussions of discipline for Roman troops over the abuse of civilians such as a decree from the Roman authorities in Egypt and the Theodosian code. He does note that the existence of such a law at the time is "nearly universally assumed by scholars", and cites several other laws from across time periods during the Roman Empire limiting angaria and specifying penalties for violating those limits, as well as discussing the Centurion's role in the Roman army for disciplining troops for such infractions. I've tried pasting in the Amazon link to it below the text here, but I'm not sure it gets you to the specific reference.
Wink's argument is not isolated on this particular statement, but is part of a careful reading in the historical context (using your left hand, levitical laws and practices on debt and using garments as collateral, the mistranslation of 'do not resist evil') as well as the canonical traditions present in other works (other new testament epistles generally being written earlier than the gospels, or expressions of source traditions in noncanonical works like the Gospel of Thomas). If you're interested in the specific arguments about nonviolence, the Powers books (or at least Engaging the Powers) are going to be among the best sources in the Christian tradition on the topic. If you're more interested in the biblical criticism or interpretation in general, but don't care so much about the topic of nonviolence, Crossan's "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant" does some very interesting textual, cultural, and historical analysis and Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus is a bit shrill at points but does an interesting job of illustrating contradictory texts and deliberate revisions to new testament works (Wink discusses those, too, but again, in the context of his specific theme). The practice of impressment, though, and the repeated attempts of the Roman Empire to place restrictions on it, isn't something that is really in dispute (outside of Metafilter). At any rate, if these are topics of interest, those might be some useful avenues of inquiry.
To Joe in Australia, "popular encyclopedias, obscure journals, dictionaries, you name it" is an interesting way to characterize actual ancient texts and scholarly resources, and "apologetics" is a bizarre category to apply to Wink, but I'm not sure where you'd expect scholars to discuss specialized topics. Perhaps I should ignore scientists on global warming since they work in "obscure journals" like Nature or Journal of Reviews of Geophysics rather than serious easily google-able-for-Metafilter-argument-fodder sources like Buzzfeed and People. I mean, I don't want to offend you or anyone else, but clearly nobody can be serious if they develop a work of scholarship over twenty years based on established scholarship without having to catch up everyone whose knowledge of Matthew stopped in Southern Baptist third grade sunday school or knowledge of climate stopped in eighth grade earth science class. Clearly, the answer is that they are pseudo-erudite and I am a fucking genius, because cognitive bias. I don't know why Michele would have wanted to take her leave of such a discussion! (I certainly am, too.)
---
[Link]
posted by Planter at 6:08 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wink's argument is not isolated on this particular statement, but is part of a careful reading in the historical context (using your left hand, levitical laws and practices on debt and using garments as collateral, the mistranslation of 'do not resist evil') as well as the canonical traditions present in other works (other new testament epistles generally being written earlier than the gospels, or expressions of source traditions in noncanonical works like the Gospel of Thomas). If you're interested in the specific arguments about nonviolence, the Powers books (or at least Engaging the Powers) are going to be among the best sources in the Christian tradition on the topic. If you're more interested in the biblical criticism or interpretation in general, but don't care so much about the topic of nonviolence, Crossan's "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant" does some very interesting textual, cultural, and historical analysis and Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus is a bit shrill at points but does an interesting job of illustrating contradictory texts and deliberate revisions to new testament works (Wink discusses those, too, but again, in the context of his specific theme). The practice of impressment, though, and the repeated attempts of the Roman Empire to place restrictions on it, isn't something that is really in dispute (outside of Metafilter). At any rate, if these are topics of interest, those might be some useful avenues of inquiry.
To Joe in Australia, "popular encyclopedias, obscure journals, dictionaries, you name it" is an interesting way to characterize actual ancient texts and scholarly resources, and "apologetics" is a bizarre category to apply to Wink, but I'm not sure where you'd expect scholars to discuss specialized topics. Perhaps I should ignore scientists on global warming since they work in "obscure journals" like Nature or Journal of Reviews of Geophysics rather than serious easily google-able-for-Metafilter-argument-fodder sources like Buzzfeed and People. I mean, I don't want to offend you or anyone else, but clearly nobody can be serious if they develop a work of scholarship over twenty years based on established scholarship without having to catch up everyone whose knowledge of Matthew stopped in Southern Baptist third grade sunday school or knowledge of climate stopped in eighth grade earth science class. Clearly, the answer is that they are pseudo-erudite and I am a fucking genius, because cognitive bias. I don't know why Michele would have wanted to take her leave of such a discussion! (I certainly am, too.)
---
[Link]
posted by Planter at 6:08 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
To Joe in Australia, "popular encyclopedias, obscure journals, dictionaries, you name it" is an interesting way to characterize actual ancient texts and scholarly resources [...] I mean, I don't want to offend you or anyone else, but clearly nobody can be serious if they develop a work of scholarship over twenty years based on established scholarship without having to catch up everyone whose knowledge of Matthew stopped in Southern Baptist third grade sunday school [...]
Oh for goodness' sake.
He cites the Talmud Yerushalmi but not directly: only via some Protestant theologian who died in 1949. That shows that Wink didn't have access to the TY – or couldn't read Aramaic. This is the limit of his original sources. One citation that is not even on point. I don't know if I made it clear that I do have the TY and can read Aramaic?
Besides that bogus Talmudic citation he cites four dictionaries (Jastrow, Liddell-Scott, TLL, and some Aramaic-German dictionary published in 1901); the Encyclopedia Judaica; a shortish books on ships in the Talmud (Nautica Talmudica – I'm having difficulty seeing how it could possibly be relevant, given the period, the location, and the subject); and a bunch of other weirdly-chosen journal articles.
You know what would be a proper citation? To a Roman-era text dealing with angaria, or to a modern journal of Roman law, or a textbook on Roman law, or something like that. Or, in a pinch, a citation to an early Jewish work that supports his claim. But he doesn't do any of that. Wink cites dictionaries. Dictionaries! And all their definitions say is things like "ἀγγᾰρ‑εία, ἡ, impressment for the public service". None of this actually helps his case. It's the old Gish Gallop: throw references out there and make your opponent waste his time refuting them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:00 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh for goodness' sake.
He cites the Talmud Yerushalmi but not directly: only via some Protestant theologian who died in 1949. That shows that Wink didn't have access to the TY – or couldn't read Aramaic. This is the limit of his original sources. One citation that is not even on point. I don't know if I made it clear that I do have the TY and can read Aramaic?
Besides that bogus Talmudic citation he cites four dictionaries (Jastrow, Liddell-Scott, TLL, and some Aramaic-German dictionary published in 1901); the Encyclopedia Judaica; a shortish books on ships in the Talmud (Nautica Talmudica – I'm having difficulty seeing how it could possibly be relevant, given the period, the location, and the subject); and a bunch of other weirdly-chosen journal articles.
You know what would be a proper citation? To a Roman-era text dealing with angaria, or to a modern journal of Roman law, or a textbook on Roman law, or something like that. Or, in a pinch, a citation to an early Jewish work that supports his claim. But he doesn't do any of that. Wink cites dictionaries. Dictionaries! And all their definitions say is things like "ἀγγᾰρ‑εία, ἡ, impressment for the public service". None of this actually helps his case. It's the old Gish Gallop: throw references out there and make your opponent waste his time refuting them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:00 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've actually heard the "burning coals were actually a nice thing to give" explanation, too, but that just makes the whole phrase gibberish. "Be nice to mean people; by doing that, you'll be being really nice to them!"
But then, people who indulge the most in passive-aggressive shaming tend to also want to deny it the most if it comes up, so the bizarre circumlocutions make sense. Just like people who want to brag about how charitable they are tend to not actually want to be obligated to give that much, ergo the "eye of the needle" explanation justifying why it's totally okay to keep most of your money and stay rich despite what appear to be explicit instructions to the contrary.
posted by Scattercat at 12:55 PM on January 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
But then, people who indulge the most in passive-aggressive shaming tend to also want to deny it the most if it comes up, so the bizarre circumlocutions make sense. Just like people who want to brag about how charitable they are tend to not actually want to be obligated to give that much, ergo the "eye of the needle" explanation justifying why it's totally okay to keep most of your money and stay rich despite what appear to be explicit instructions to the contrary.
posted by Scattercat at 12:55 PM on January 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older "You’re a survivor now, not a victim." | How does that make you feel? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by cstross at 1:22 PM on January 8, 2016 [8 favorites]