Contempt

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 250 of 253 · 20 per page

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  he laid at his birth, his cradle, together with the shirt which his mother made, the pillar on which he leaned when disputing in the Temple, the water-pots in which he turned water into wine, the nails, and pieces of the cross, are shown in Rome, Ravenna, Pisa, Cluny, Angers, and elsewhere. The table of the last Supper is at Rome, in the church of St. John in the Lateran; some of the bread at St. Salvador in Spain; the knife with which the Paschal Lamb was cut up, is at Treves.887 What semblance of possibility is there that that table was found seven or eight hundred years after? Besides, tables were in those days different in shape from ours, for people used to recline at meals. Fragments of the cross found by St. Helena are scattered over many churches in Italy, France, Spain, etc., and would form a good shipload, which it would take three hundred men to carry instead of one. But they say that this wood never grows less! Some affirm that their fragments were carried by angels, others that they dropped down from heaven. Those of Poitiers say that their piece was stolen by a maid-servant of Helena and carried off to France. There is still a greater controversy as to the three nails of the cross: one of them was fixed in the crown of Constantine, the other two were fitted to his horse’s bridle, according to Theodoret, or one was kept by Helena herself, according to Ambrose. But now there are two nails at Rome, one at Siena, one at Milan, one at Carpentras, one at Venice, one at Cologne, one at Treves, two at Paris, one at Bourges, etc. All the claims are equally good, for the nails are all spurious. There is also more than one soldier’s spear, crown of thorns, purple robe, the seamless coat, and Veronica’s napkin (which at least six cities boast of having). A piece of broiled fish, which Peter offered to the risen Saviour on the seashore, must have been wondrously well salted if it has kept for these fifteen centuries! But, jesting apart, is it supposable that the apostles made relics of what they had actually prepared for dinner? Calvin exposes with equal effect the absurdities and impieties of the wonder-working pictures of Christ; the relics of the hair and milk of the Virgin Mary, preserved in so many places, her combs, her wardrobe and baggage, and her house carried by angels across the sea to Loreto; the shoes of St. Joseph; the slippers of St. James; the head of John the Baptist, of which Rhodes, Malta, Lucca, Nevers, Amiens, Besançon, and Noyon claim to have portions; and his fingers, one of which is shown at Besançon, another at Toulouse, another at Lyons, another at Bourges, another at Florence.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  His whole family shared in this hatred. Francesca had an excessive fondness for dancing and revelry, a violent temper, and an abusive tongue. Calvin called her "Penthesilea" (the queen of the Amazons who fought a battle against the Greeks, and was slain by Achilles), and "a prodigious fury."748 He found out too late that it is foolish and dangerous to quarrel with a woman. He forgot Christ’s conduct towards the adulteress, and Mary Magdalene. A disgraceful scene which took place at a wedding in the house of the widow Balthazar at Belle Rive, brought upon the family of Favre, who were present, the censure of the Consistory and the punishment of the Council. Perrin, his wife and her father were imprisoned for a few weeks in April, 1546. Favre refused to make any confession, and went to prison, shouting: "Liberty! Liberty! I would give a thousand crowns to have a general council."749 Perrin made an humble apology to the Consistory. Calvin plainly told the Favre family that as long as they lived in Geneva they must obey the laws of Geneva, though every one of them wore a diadem.750 From this time on Perrin stood at the head of the opposition to Calvin. He loudly denounced the Consistory as a popish tribunal. He secured so much influence over the Council that a majority voted, in March, 1547, to take the control of Church discipline into their own hands. But Calvin made such a vigorous resistance that it was determined eventually to abide by the established Ordinances.751 Perrin was sent as ambassador to Paris (April 26, 1547), and was received there with much distinction. The Cardinal du Bellay sounded him as to whether some French troops under his command could be stationed at Geneva to frustrate the hostile designs of the German emperor against Switzerland. He gave a conditional consent. This created a suspicion against his loyalty. During his absence, Madame Perrin and her father were again summoned before the Consistory for bacchanalian conduct (June 23, 1547). Favre refused to appear. Francesca denied the right of the court to take cognizance of her private life. When remonstrated with, she flew into a passion, and abused the preacher, Abel Poupin, as "a reviler, a slanderer of her father, a coarse swine-herd, and a malicious liar." She was again imprisoned, but escaped with one of her sons. Meeting Abel Poupin at the gate of the city she insulted him afresh and "even more shamefully than before."752 On the 27th of June, 1547, Gruet’s threatening libel was published.753 Calvin was reported to have been killed. He received letters from Burgogne and

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Calvin, defamed the doctrines of the gospel and of the Church of Geneva." To this he replied that in what he had formerly written against Calvin, in his own defence, he had not intended to injure him, but to show him his errors and faults, which he was ready to prove by Scripture and good reasons before a full congregation. This was a bold challenge. Calvin was willing to accept it, but the Council declined, fearing to lose the control of the affair by submitting it to the tribunal of public opinion. The friends of Servetus would have run the risk of seeing him defeated in public debate. That charge, however, which seemed to betray personal ill-feeling of Calvin, was afterwards very properly omitted. On the following day, the 16th of August, Berthelier, then smarting under the sentence of excommunication by the Consistory, openly came to the defence of Servetus, and had a stormy encounter with Colladon, which is omitted in the official record, but indicated by blanks and the abrupt termination: "Here they proceeded no further, but adjourned till to-morrow at mid-day." On Thursday, the 17th of August, Calvin himself appeared before the Council as the real accuser, and again on the 21st of August.1176 He also conferred with his antagonist in writing. Servetus was not a match for Calvin either in learning or argument; but he showed great skill and some force. He contemptuously repelled the frivolous charge that, in his Ptolemy, he had contradicted the authority of Moses, by describing Palestine as an unfruitful country (which it was then, and is now). He wiped his mouth and said, "Let us go on; there is nothing wrong there." The charge of having, in his notes on the Latin Bible, explained the servant of God in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, as meaning King Cyrus, instead of the Saviour, he disposed of by distinguishing two senses of prophecy—the literal and historical sense which referred to Cyrus, and the mystical and principal sense which referred to Christ. He quoted Nicolaus de Lyra; but Calvin showed him the error, and asserts that he audaciously quoted books which he had never examined. As to his calling the Trinity "a Cerberus" and "a dream of Augustin," and the Trinitarians "atheists," he said that he did not mean the true Trinity, which he believed himself, but the false trinity of his opponents; and that the oldest teachers before the Council of Nicaea did not teach that trinity, and did not use the word. Among them he quoted Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. Calvin refuted his assertion by quotations from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  They wished, moreover, to refer the affair to the Churches of Switzerland which, in the case of Bolsec, had shown themselves much more tolerant than Calvin. Servetus demanded such reference. Calvin did not like it, but did not openly oppose it. The Council, without entering on the discussion, decided that Calvin should extract in Latin, from the books of Servetus, the objectionable articles, word for word, contained therein; that Servetus should write his answers and vindications, also in Latin; that Calvin should in his turn furnish his replies; and that these documents be forwarded to the Swiss Churches as a basis of judgment. All this was fair and impartial.1182 On the same day Calvin extracted thirty-eight propositions from the books of Servetus with references, but without comments. Then, turning with astonishing energy from one enemy to the other, he appeared before the Little Council on the 2d of September to protest most earnestly against their protection of Berthelier, who intended to present himself on the following day as a guest at the Lord’s table, and by the strength of the civil power to force Calvin to give him the tokens of the body and blood of Christ. He declared before the Council that he would rather die than act against his conscience. The Council did not yield, but resolved secretly to advise Berthelier to abstain from receiving the sacrament for the present. Calvin, ignorant of this secret advice, and resolved to conquer or to die, thundered from the pulpit of St. Peter on the 3d of September his determination to refuse, at the risk of his life, the sacred elements to an excommunicated person. Berthelier did not dare to approach the table. Calvin had achieved a moral victory over the Council.1183 In the mean time Servetus had, within the space of twenty-four hours, prepared a written defence, as directed by the Council, against the thirty-eight articles of Calvin. It was both apologetic and boldly aggressive, clear, keen, violent, and bitter. He contemptuously repelled Calvin’s interference in the trial, and charged him with presumption in framing articles of faith after the fashion of the doctors of the Sorbonne, without Scripture proof.1184 He affirmed that he either misunderstood him or craftily perverted his meaning. He quotes from Tertullian, Irenaeus, and pseudo-Clement in support of his views. He calls him a disciple of Simon Magus, a criminal accuser, and a homicide.1185 He ridiculed the idea that such a man should call himself an orthodox minister of the Church. Calvin replied within two days in a document of twenty-three folio pages, which were signed by all the fourteen ministers of Geneva.1186 He meets the patristic quotations of Servetus with counter-quotations, with Scripture passages and solid arguments, and charges him in conclusion with the intention "to subvert all religion."1187

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Zwingli saw in Halley’s comet, which appeared a few weeks before the disaster of Cappel, a sign of war and of his own death. The independent and heretical Servetus believed and practised astrology and wrote a defence of it (Apologetica Disceptatio pro Astrologia). Nothing of this kind is found in Calvin. He denounced the attempt to reveal what God has hidden, and to seek him outside of his revealed will, as an impious presumption and a satanic delusion. It is right and proper, he maintains, to study the laws and motions of the heavenly bodies.983 True astronomy leads to the praise of God’s wisdom and majesty; but astrology upsets the moral order. God is sovereign in his gifts and not bound to any necessity of nature. He has foreordained all things by his eternal decree. Sometimes sixty thousand men fall in one battle; are they therefore born under the same star? It is true the sun works upon the earth, and heat and dearth, rain and storm come down from the skies, but the wickedness of man proceeds from his will. The astrologers appealed to the first chapter of Genesis and to the prophet Jeremiah, who calls the stars signs, but Calvin met them by quoting Isa. 44:25: "who frustrateth the tokens of the liars and maketh diviners mad." In conclusion he rejects the whole theory and practice of astrology as not only superfluous and useless, but even pernicious.984 In the same tract he ridicules the alchemists, and incidentally exhibits a considerable amount of secular learning. Calvin discredited also the ingenious speculations of Pseudo-Dionysius on the Celestial Hierarchy, as "mere babbling," adding that the author of that book, which was sanctioned by Thomas Aquinas and Dante, spoke like a man descended from heaven and giving an account of things he had seen with his own eyes; while Paul, who was caught up to the third heaven, did not deem it lawful for man to utter the secret things he had seen and heard.985 Calvin might have made his task easier if he had accepted the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, which was known in his time, though only as a hypothesis.986 But in this matter Calvin was no more in advance of his age than any other divine. He believed that "the whole heaven moves around the earth," and declared it preposterous to set the conjecture of a man against the authority of God, who in the first chapter of Genesis had pointed out the relation of the sun and moon to the earth. Luther speaks with contempt of that upstart astronomer who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy and the sacred Scripture, which tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Hungary is commonly said to produce oxen; Bavaria, swine; Franconia, onions, turnips, and licorice; Swabia, harlots; Bohemia, heretics; Switzerland, butchers; Westphalia, cheats; and the whole country gluttons and drunkards ... . The Germans, however, are a religious people; not easily turned from opinions they have once espoused, and not readily persuaded to concord in matters of schism; every one valiantly and obstinately defending the heresy he has himself adopted."1058 This unfavorable account of Germany, borrowed in part from Tacitus, was much modified and abridged in the second edition, in which it appears as "a pleasant country with a temperate climate." Of the Swabians he speaks as a singularly gifted people.1059 The fling at the ignorance and superstition of the Spaniards, his own countrymen, was also omitted. The most interesting part of this geographical work on account of its theological bearing, is the description of Palestine. He declared in the first edition that "it is mere boasting and untruth when so much of excellence is ascribed to this land; the experience of merchants and travellers who have visited it, proving it to be inhospitable, barren, and altogether without amenity. Wherefore you may say that the land was promised indeed, but is of little promise when, spoken of in everyday terms." He omitted this passage in the second edition in deference to Archbishop Palmier. Nevertheless, it was made a ground of accusation at the trial of Servetus, for its apparent contradiction with the Mosaic account of the land, flowing with milk and honey." § 143. Servetus as a Physician, Scientist, and Astrologer. Being supplied with the necessary funds, Servetus returned to Paris in 1536 and took his degrees as magister and doctor of medicine. He acquired great fame as a physician. The medical world was then divided into two schools,—the Galenists, who followed Hippocrates and Galen, and the Averrhoists, who followed Averrhoes and Avicenna. Servetus was a pupil of Champier, and joined the Greek school, but had an open eye to the truth of the Arabians. He published in 1537 a learned treatise on Syrups and their use in medicine. It is his most popular book, and passed through four editions in ten years.1060 He discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood or the passage of the blood from the right to the left chamber of the heart through the lungs by the pulmonary artery and vein. He published it, not separately, but in his work on the Restitution of Christianity, as a part of his theological speculation on the vital spirits. The discovery was burnt and buried with this book; but nearly a hundred years later William Harvey (1578–1658), independently, made the same discovery.1061 Servetus lectured in the University on geography and astrology, and gained much applause, but excited also the envy and ill-will of his colleagues, whom he treated with overbearing pride and contempt. He wrote an "Apologetic Dissertation on Astrology,"1062 and severely attacked the physicians as ignoramuses, who in return denounced him as an impostor and wind-bag.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  For when the duty was to meditate diligently on their lives, and engage in imitating them, men made it their whole study to contemplate and lay up, as it were in a treasury, their bones, shirts, girdles, caps, and similar trifles. "I am not unaware that in this there is a semblance of pious zeal, the allegation being, that the relics of Christ are kept on account of the reverence which is felt for himself, and in order that the remembrance of him may take a firmer hold of the mind. And the same thing is alleged with regard to the saints. But attention should be paid to what Paul says, viz., that all divine worship of man’s devising, having no better and surer foundation than his own opinion, be its semblance of wisdom what it may, is mere vanity and folly. "Besides, any advantage, supposed to be derived from it, ought to be contrasted with the danger. In this way it would be discovered that the possession of such relics was of little use, or was altogether superfluous and frivolous, whereas, on the other hand, it was most difficult, or rather impossible, that men should not thereby degenerate into idolatry. For they cannot look upon them, or handle them, without veneration; and there being no limit to this, the honor due to Christ is forthwith paid to them. In short, a longing for relics is never free from superstition, nay, what is worse, it is the parent of idolatry, with which it is very generally conjoined. "All admit, without dispute, that God carried away the body of Moses from human sight, lest the Jewish nation should fall into the abuse of worshipping it. What was done in the case of one ought to be extended to all, since the reason equally applies. But not to speak of saints, let us see what Paul says of Christ himself. He declares, that after the resurrection of Christ he knew him no more after the flesh, intimating by these words that everything carnal which belonged to Christ should be consigned to oblivion and be discarded, in order that we may make it our whole study and endeavor to seek and possess him in spirit. Now, therefore, when men talk of it as a grand thing to possess some memorial of Christ and his saints, what else is it than to seek an empty cloak with which to hide some foolish desire that has no foundation in reason? But even should there seem to be a sufficient reason for it, yet, seeing it is so clearly repugnant to the mind of the Holy Spirit, as declared by the mouth of Paul, what more do we require?" The following is a summary of this tract: — What was at first a foolish curiosity for preserving relics has degenerated into abominable idolatry. The great majority of the relics are spurious.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  He completed the work in a few months and published it in Latin and French in the beginning of 1554.1206 It had an official character and was signed by all the fifteen ministers of Geneva.1207 Beza aided him in this controversy and undertook to refute the pamphlet of Bellius, and did so with great ability and eloquence.1208 Calvin’s work against Servetus gave complete satisfaction to Melanchthon. It is the strongest refutation of the errors of his opponent which his age produced, but it is not free from bitterness against one who, at last, had humbly asked his pardon, and who had been sent to the judgment seat of God by a violent death. It is impossible to read without pain the following passage: "Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he banishes all those human affections which soften our hearts; that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honor, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories?" Calvin’s plea for the right and duty of the Christian magistrate to punish heresy by death, stands or falls with his theocratic theory and the binding authority of the Mosaic code. His arguments are chiefly drawn from the Jewish laws against idolatry and blasphemy, and from the examples of the pious kings of Israel. But his arguments from the New Testament are failures. He agrees with Augustin in the interpretation of the parabolic words: "Constrain them to come in" (Luke 14:23).1209 But this can only refer to moral and not to physical force, and would imply a forcible salvation, not destruction. The same parable was afterwards abused by the French bishops to justify the abominable dragoonades of Louis XIV. against the Huguenots. Calvin quotes the passages on the duty of the civil magistrate to use the sword against evil-doers (Rom. 13:4); the expulsion of the profane traffickers from the temple (Matt. 21:12); the judgment on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1 sqq.); the striking of Elymas with blindness (13:11); and the delivery of Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan (1 Tim. 1:20). He answers the objections from the parables of the tares and of the net (Matt. 13:30, 49), and from the wise counsel of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34).

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  would rout his enemies. All of this took place at the threshing floor of the entrance to the gate of Samaria. The threshing floor was an open space like a town square where public assemblies were held. Later, in the prophetic books, we often find “oracles against the nations” proclaiming woes upon the enemies of Israel. The rally on the threshing floor of Samaria illustrates the Sitz im Leben , or setting in life, of such oracles. Micaiah is identified from the beginning as a dissident. “I hate him,” says the king, “for he never prophesies anything favorable about me, but only disaster.” Political and personal sympathies have a bearing on the content of prophecy. The messenger who goes to fetch Micaiah is exceptionally candid: “The words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king; let your word be like the word of one of them and speak favorably.” This is tantamount to an admission that the prophets as a group tell the king what he wants to hear. Micaiah, inevitably, does not. He claims to have had a vision of all Israel scattered like sheep without a shepherd. The implication is that the king will be killed in battle. The most interesting aspect of this story, however, is how Micaiah explains his disagreement with the other prophets. We might have expected him to accuse them of conspiring, as they surely had in light of the messenger’s comment. To do so, however, might undercut belief in prophecy altogether. Instead, Micaiah reports an extraordinary vision of his own. He saw the Lord sitting on his throne. According to one strand of Israelite tradition, a human being could not see God and live (cf. Exod 33:20). Micaiah, however, represents a tradition that we shall meet again in Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1, in which prophets claim to have had visions of God. (This tradition is at the root of the later development of Jewish mysticism.) We cannot fail to notice the similarity between the Lord, on his throne, surrounded by his host, and the kings of Israel and Judah on their thrones on the threshing floor of Samaria. God is imagined in the likeness of a human king, but more exalted. The prophet becomes privy to the deliberations of the heavenly council. The Lord consults his heavenly courtiers, and his question is remarkable: “Who will entice Ahab, so that he may go up and fall at Ramoth- gilead?” The Lord is setting the king up for disaster, just as he had set up the

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  DAVID AS OUTLAW AND MERCENARY The later chapters of 1 Samuel, however, paint a more complex picture of David as bandit leader and mercenary. He is forced into these roles by the constant threat of violence from Saul. Nonetheless, David emerges as an opportunist who can tailor his loyalties to the circumstances in which he finds himself. He continues to pursue his career as a military leader, and this is in large part why Saul fears him and tries to eliminate him. When David is not in the service of a king, he must support his troops by whatever means available. In 1 Samuel 25 he does this by demanding a protection payment from a sheep farmer in Carmel: “Now your shepherds have been with us, and we did them no harm, and they missed nothing all the time we were in Carmel” (25:7). The farmer is named Nabal, which means “fool.” His folly lies in his failure to recognize the threat posed by the bandit’s demand. In contrast, his wife, Abigail, is clever and beautiful, and she intervenes to buy David off. When Nabal hears what happened, he dies suddenly, and David takes Abigail as a wife. The story is told in such a way as to imply that the Lord was with David, that Nabal was not only a fool but a mean and ungracious person, and that Abigail was properly generous and appreciated David. Nonetheless, the story looks all too familiar to anyone familiar with novels or films about godfathers and gangsters in the modern world. Frequent invocation of the name of the Lord cannot hide the fact that David is engaged in extortion. In 1 Samuel 22 David leaves his parents with the king of Moab for safekeeping. In chapter 27 he enters the service of the Philistine king of Gath, who allows him to settle in the town of Ziklag. From there he staged raids on peoples to the south. The text is careful to insist that he only pretended to stage raids on Judah, and in fact this is quite credible in the context, since Judah was his power base. But the fact that the people whom he slaughtered, in acts of naked aggression, were Amalekites, does little to redeem his moral character in the eyes of the modern reader. Rather, the picture we get is of an unscrupulous opportunist.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  Baal-berit. One might argue, therefore, that Shechem is simply reverting to being a traditional Canaanite city-state. The people of Shechem soon tire of Abimelech, and civil war breaks out. According to Judges 9, Abimelech razed the city and burned its tower. The archaeological evidence indicates that Shechem was destroyed in the mid- to late twelfth century. (It had previously been destroyed in the fourteenth century.) Whether this destruction is reflected in the story of Abimelech, we do not know. It is of interest, in any case, that the biblical story provides an instance of the destruction of a Canaanite city that has nothing to do with invaders, whether Israelite, Philistine, Egyptian, or anything else. Internal warfare between Canaanites was also a cause of destruction in Canaan in the Early Iron Age. Abimelech encounters poetic justice in the end. He is mortally injured when a woman throws an upper millstone on his head—no small feat for a woman! The Deuteronomist, who had little sympathy for Abimelech, renders judgment: “Thus God repaid Abimelech for the crime he committed against his father in killing his seventy brothers,” and the curse of Jotham on Shechem is fulfilled.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  CHAPTERS 25–32: THE ORACLES AGAINST THE NATIONS The oracles against foreign nations in Ezekiel are mostly set after the fall of Jerusalem. The first cluster of oracles (chap. 25) refers to Israel’s immediate neighbors, Ammon, Moab, Edom, and the Philistines. They are accused of mocking Jerusalem after its fall and, in the case of Edom, of “acting vengefully.” Such accusations are common in the exilic and early postexilic literature. There are oracles against Moab in Jeremiah 48 and against Ammon in Jer 49:1-16. The entire book of Obadiah, a total of 21 verses, is taken up with oracles against Edom, including one that invokes the Day of the Lord (v. 15) with a brief conclusion promising salvation on Mount Zion. Edom is also the target of Isaiah 34 and Jer 49:7-22. The condemnation of Edom is taken up again in Ezekiel 35. The main cluster of oracles in this section of the book is directed against Tyre, the Phoenician coastal city to the north. Tyre is also accused of rejoicing at the fall of Jerusalem, apparently because it anticipated opportunities of plunder. But Tyre had little time to rejoice. It was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar for thirteen years. It eventually submitted to Babylon, but it was not destroyed or pillaged as Ezekiel had prophesied. The failure of the prophecy is acknowledged in 29:17- 18. Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would carry off plunder from Egypt as compensation for his effort against Tyre, and that Egypt would be desolate for forty years (29:13). This, too, did not happen. Egypt remained independent until it was conquered by the Persians in 525 B.C.E. In fact, the only prediction that Ezekiel got fully right was the destruction of Jerusalem. Nonetheless, his oracles were preserved and enshrined in Scripture. The oracles against Tyre dwell at length on the wealth of Tyre, derived from its trading, especially in chapter 27. (According to 28:13, Tyre accepted slaves as payment in some cases.) There is evident envy in these oracles. They arise out of the mutual grudges between neighboring cities. The desire for revenge and the gloating over the fall of another are not among the most edifying material in the Bible. Nonetheless, these oracles have had a profound impact on later tradition, not least because of their influence on the book of Revelation in the New

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  more distinctive: “I will punish the officials and the king’s sons and all who dress themselves in foreign attire” (1:9). Adoption of foreign dress appears again as a source of conflict much later in the Maccabean crisis in the second century B.C.E. but is not otherwise an issue in the Hebrew Bible. Zephaniah probably spoke early in the reign of Josiah, before the Deuteronomic reform. It is unlikely that the reference here is to Josiah’s sons, since the king was very young when he came to the throne. The phrase may be a general reference to the royal house. The foreign style that was fashionable was probably Assyrian, since Assyria was still the overlord. This is the most explicit indication in the Hebrew Bible that adoption of Assyrian customs was an issue in seventh-century Judah. Some scholars argue that many of the abuses addressed in the Deuteronomic reform (such as the worship of the host of heaven) were due to foreign influence in this period. Zephaniah returns to his indictment of Jerusalem in chapter 3. He denounces it as a “soiled, defiled, oppressing city.” Officials, prophets, and priests alike are accused of infidelity. The priests are accused of doing violence to torah, which in this context probably refers to priestly instruction rather than to the Torah, or Law. The point is that the priests betray the things they are responsible for: that which is sacred, and instruction. All these people will be punished “on that day.” Like Isaiah, however, Zephaniah expects the Lord to leave a remnant (3:13). These will be “a people humble and lowly,” a designation reminiscent of Micah 6. It is a plausible inference that Zephaniah and this “humble” people would have supported Josiah’s reform, which swept away idolatrous worship and foreign influence from Jerusalem. Zephaniah has clear links to the eighth- century prophets Amos, Isaiah, and Micah. His book is a link in the chain of development that led from the preaching of these prophets to the Deuteronomic reform. Like most prophetic books, Zephaniah has been edited to end on a positive note. From the viewpoint of the postexilic editors, the condemnation of Jerusalem should not be the last word. So they appended an oracle proclaiming that the Lord has taken away the judgments against Jerusalem. Zephaniah himself had said that the Lord was within Jerusalem, in accordance with the royal ideology (3:5) although he saw this presence as dangerous. The editor saw it as assuring. Since the Lord is in its midst, Jerusalem need fear disaster no more. The postexilic origin of this closing oracle is clear in 3:20, which speaks of gathering Judah and bringing it home.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  18, that God is manifested primarily in fire or in the power of nature. Instead, the Deuteronomist insists, God is manifested primarily by the voice and the words of commandment. But while the Deuteronomist corrects the theology of the traditional story by relativizing the importance of the fire, there is no correction of the ethics of Elijah. The virtue of his (murderous) zeal is affirmed, and he is given a new mission, to anoint a new king in Syria and to anoint Jehu as king of Israel. In fact, it is Elisha who anoints Jehu, but Elisha derives his authority from Elijah. As we learn in 2 Kings, Jehu acts with the same kind of zeal as Elijah in slaughtering the enemies of YHWH. Elijah is also told to anoint Elisha as his successor. He is not actually said to anoint the younger prophet, but he casts his mantle over him, which has the same effect. The act of anointing does not have to be taken literally. The essential point is that he confers authority on Elisha and appoints him to the task of prophecy. A different kind of story is told about Elijah in 1 Kings 21. Here the issue is not Baal worship but social injustice. Ahab wants the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which is beside his summer palace. He offers to buy it, but Naboth refuses because it is his ancestral heritage. Ahab broods in frustration, but Jezebel takes action. She has false accusations brought against Naboth and has him stoned. Ahab takes possession of the vineyard. The situation is reminiscent of the incident of David and Bathsheba. There also a king wanted something that belonged to another man and eventually resorted to murder to get his way. There also the king was confronted by a prophet. There is a striking contrast, however, between the approach of Nathan and that of Elijah. Nathan induced David to condemn himself by appealing to values that the king shared. Such an appeal may not have been possible in the case of Ahab. In any case, Elijah makes no attempt to win the king over but pronounces a judgment, in effect a curse, on both Ahab and Jezebel. In fact, the coup that terminated Ahab’s line came not in his lifetime but in that of his son. The Deuteronomist explains this by saying that Ahab humbled himself and was given a reprieve. The confrontation between Elijah and Ahab, however, sets a pattern that is often repeated in the books of the prophets. The prophets whose oracles are

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  worshiped, but the existence of others was not denied. Even Second Isaiah seems to grant the pagan gods a limited form of existence on some occasions: “Bel bows down, Nebo stoops, their idols are on beasts and cattle. . . . They cannot save the burden, but themselves go into captivity” (46:1–2). But statements like this are mere mockery. The prophet denies that there is any reality to these gods beyond the idols made by their worshipers. The critique of idols in Second Isaiah must be seen against the background of the role of statues in Babylonian worship. The cult image was the basic means of representing the presence of the deity. These images were usually made of precious wood and either covered with garments or plated with gold. In the great majority of cases, they had human shape and proportions. They had staring eyes made of precious stones, and elaborate garments that were changed ceremonially. These statues were the focus of the sacrificial cult, and they were carried in processions. When the images were carried off by conquerors, the gods were thought to go with them. The statues were consecrated in ceremonies that supposedly opened their eyes and mouths, and thereafter were treated as if they were alive. Food was placed before them twice a day. The “leftovers” were sent to the king or consumed by the temple clergy. The care and proper clothing of these statues was a major activity of the temple personnel. Many scholars now think that there were cult images in the Jerusalem temple prior to Josiah’s reform. The biblical tradition, however, is staunchly aniconic, and the roots of this tradition are old, even if it was not always normative. In ancient times the Deity was represented simply by standing stones. Later he was thought to be enthroned invisibly above the ark in the Jerusalem temple. To the Jewish exiles, the care lavished on wooden statues was simply ridiculous. Second Isaiah inaugurates a long tradition of satire against idols. He focuses on the process by which they were made. “A man cuts down a tree, makes a fire with part of it to warm himself and heat his food, and makes the rest into a god and calls on it to save him” (44:9-20). Of course the prophet is not being fair to the Babylonians. The statue was not the god or goddess, but only the instrument by which their presence was mediated to the worshiper. In Israelite religion the temple served the same purpose without representing the Deity so directly. It

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  Israel repeatedly looked for political solutions instead of turning to the service of YHWH. The repeated assassinations and palace coups indicated only fickleness. “They made kings, but not through me; they set up princes, but without my knowledge” (8:4). In a vivid passage in chapter 7, he compares the conspirators to adulterers, who become “sick with the heat of wine” when a new king is crowned (7:5) and ultimately “devour their rulers” (7:7). The repeated violation of treaties also shows their lack of fidelity (6:7; 10:4; 12:1) and is symptomatic of their infidelity toward their God. In an intriguing passage (12:2-3), he suggests that Israel/Jacob was wayward from the beginning: “In the womb he tried to supplant his brother, and in his manhood he strove with God.” Hosea knew the traditions about Jacob now found in Genesis 25 and 32, but he did not regard them as a matter of pride for the descendants of Jacob. Hosea is scathing about attempts to seek help from Egypt and scarcely less so of attempts to appease Assyria. “Ephraim has become like a dove, silly and without sense; they call on Egypt, they go to Assyria” (7:11). The complaint that “Ephraim went to Assyria, and sent to the great king” (5:13) could refer to any of the times that Israel submitted to Assyria. Since the passage is also concerned with Judah, the most likely reference is to the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war. The reliance on Egypt is especially ironic in view of Israel’s origin. Hosea remarks caustically: “they shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king” (11:5). The return to Egypt carries double meaning. They return to Egypt to look for help, but this only brings on the wrath of Assyria, and so they end up in servitude again—their condition in Egypt before the exodus. It is not clear just how Hosea thought Israel should have responded to the Assyrian threat. Most probably, he believed that if Israel focused on the service of YHWH and avoided international intrigue, the threat would not have arisen in the first place. This judgment may be naïve from a historical point of view. Assyria would have demanded tribute in any case. But the prophet was right that Israel only ensured its own destruction by its attempts to resist Assyria and to form coalitions against it, and that attempts to solve its problems by changing kings were futile.

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  that his use of female imagery is predominantly negative and associates women primarily with promiscuity and impurity. The allegory of chapter 16 is problematic at best, and it suggests deep-seated problems in the kind of priestly theology that informs the prophet’s preaching. The prophet further expresses his disdain for Jerusalem by associating it with Samaria and Sodom (v. 46). The promise that all three cities will be restored (vv. 53-63) is surprising in the context, and we must wonder whether it was originally part of the allegorical oracle. There is a clear allusion to Hosea 2, however, in the promise that “I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth” (Ezek 16:60; cf. Hos 2:15-23). Even the restored Jerusalem, however, will still be tainted by the association with Samaria and Sodom. Female imagery figures again in the oracle in chapter 23 on the two women, Oholah (Samaria) and Oholibah (Jerusalem; the names can be read as “her [own] tent” and “my tent is in her,” respectively, with the implication that YHWH’s residence was in Jerusalem). Again, both cities/women are accused of lusting for Assyrians and Babylonians, which is hardly a fair description of the historical relationships. It is true that both cities were defiled by the foreign armies, but rape rather than lust would be the appropriate metaphor. Yet, according to the prophet, YHWH turned in disgust from them. Unfortunately, men have often turned in disgust from women who were raped, and accused them of “wanting it.” Ezekiel’s accusations against Samaria and Judah are more complex than this. While the guiding metaphor is adultery, in the form of idolatry, there are also charges of human sacrifice and of profaning sanctuary and Sabbaths (23:36-39; note, however, that in 20:25-26 human sacrifice is included among statutes of YHWH that were not good, which he had given Israel “to horrify them”). Yet here again the violence of the punishment (stripping and disfiguring, vv. 25-26) constitutes a dangerous allegory. Whatever Ezekiel’s attitude to actual women may have been, the disgust for the personified Jerusalem that he attributes to YHWH and his sanction of violence against her provides a very unfortunate model for male-female relations. Political Allegories

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  THE REIGNS OF DAVID AND SOLOMON (1 CHRONICLES 10–2 CHRONICLES 9) David (1 Chronicles 10–29) The history proper begins with the death of Saul. The Chronicler omits David’s reaction to this event but adds his own evaluation: Saul died for his unfaithfulness and because he had consulted a medium for advice rather than relying on the Lord. He skips over the civil war between David and the house of Saul, and proceeds directly to the anointing of David as king at Hebron and the capture of Jerusalem. At this point, he inserts a list of David’s officials that is an expanded form of the list in 2 Samuel 23. First Chronicles 12:1-22 tells of various people from Benjamin and Gad who joined with David while Saul was still alive. This passage has no basis in Samuel. This is followed by further lists of David’s forces. Zadok, better known as a priest, appears here as “a young warrior” (12:28). The decision to bring the ark up to Jerusalem is reported in more detail than in 2 Samuel 6, with emphasis on the involvement of priests and Levites. The procession with the ark is interrupted when the unfortunate Uzzah touches it and dies (as in 2 Samuel 6–7), and is only resumed in 1 Chronicles 15, after the congratulations of Hiram of Tyre, reference to David’s marriages and children in Jerusalem, and a Philistine campaign (1 Chronicles 14; cf. 2 Sam 5:11-25). The interruption of the ark narrative allows time for David to prepare a place and pitch a tent for it. The completion of the narrative provides the occasion for the first major expansion of the narrative by the Chronicler. David decrees that no one but the Levites are to carry the ark. The Chronicler then provides lists of priests and Levites who are entrusted with this task, and also of the singers and cultic musicians. David, we are told, wore a robe of fine linen and a linen ephod. This rather dignified apparel does not fit well with the picture of the king leaping and dancing, thereby incurring the contempt of his wife Michal in 15:29 (cf. 2 Sam 5:20-23). Chronicles, however, omits the complaint of Michal that he had

• From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books (2018)

  The idea that a Persian king would give the Jews in his kingdom unlimited authority to slaughter their enemies is simply incredible. Perhaps the crowning irony of the book is that so many Jews and Christians over the centuries accepted it as historical. Scholars who try to salvage a historical core from this fantastic story are only slightly less gullible than their precritical ancestors. As presented in the Hebrew Bible, the book appears to be a festal legend: a story told to explain why a festival (Purim) is celebrated. The actual origin of this festival is unclear. It is not strictly a religious festival. No prayers or sacrifices are prescribed, but drinking to inebriation is permitted by the Babylonian Talmud ( Megillah 7b). The name Purim is explained in Esth 3:7 as referring to the casting of lots (cf. 9:26). The fact that lots were cast before Haman to establish the day, even before he secured the decree from the king, may suggest that Purim was a pagan festival before it became a Jewish one. Many scholars, however, think that this explanation of the name is not its original meaning. The LXX gives the name as phrourai (watchers or guards). The first attestation of the festival is in 2 Macc 15:36, where it is called Mordecai’s day. It should be noted that the provision for a festival is not found in the Greek AT. Some scholars take this as evidence that the link with Purim was not part of the original story, but it is possible that it was omitted by Christian scribes, for whom the festival was irrelevant. The idea of a festival commemorating a slaughter has a parallel in Herodotus, who says that the Persians celebrated a festival called Magophonia to commemorate the slaughter of the magi who seized power after the death of King Cambyses (Herodotus 3.79). The story of Esther has very little in common with the story of the magi, but the Jewish festival may have been suggested by the Persian one. The reference in 2 Maccabees is also the earliest attestation of the story of Esther. No trace of the book has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This may be a matter of chance; only a small scrap of Chronicles is found there. But in view of the number of texts that have been found in the Scrolls, the absence of Esther must be regarded as significant. Some scholars have argued that Esther would have been rejected by the Qumran sect for theological reasons, but this is not convincing. The Scrolls include many texts that never attained the status of

• From Little Sister: A Memoir (2019)

  See what we’re saving you from?” Going to each of the other Little Sisters, he held the radio to their ears and withdrew it after a few seconds. “Have you ever heard anything so awful?” he asked. “It’s terrible,” said Mariam. In unison, we agreed. “They call themselves the Beatles,” Father went on. “What a name! What group would name themselves after a bug? That’s the diabolical world out there for you. Aren’t you lucky to be here dedicating your lives to God for all eternity?” His piercing black eyes seemed to be directed at me. It was as though he somehow knew that I wanted to be out in that “world of the devil.” I averted his gaze and answered with the rest of the Little Sisters. “Yes, Father.” He left, and Sister Catherine resumed her instruction. Once we became postulants, she explained, we would be segregated from the rest of the children and no longer allowed to mingle or play with them. By October, the finishing touches were being put on a common room at the end of our corridor. The other prepostulant Little Sisters seemed excited, and I tried to play along, as the days creeped inexorably toward what felt like impending doom. Each evening after dinner, I retreated to the chapel, ostensibly to pray, but as I knelt with folded hands, my contemplation took the form of questions. Why had I been handed this fate? Why could I not get married and have children? Why was the world that I craved to explore about to be closed forever to me? 41 Veni, Sponsa Christi (Come, Spouse of Christ) 1964 T he day of our postulancy was November 24. I was sixteen years old. During First Breakfast, the twelve of us—eight Little Sisters and four Little Brothers—knelt on the steps in front of the altar, and Father asked the same question of each of us. “Do you freely give yourself to God?” I answered, “I do.” It was a lie. As the ceremony continued, the Big Sisters sang one of my favorite hymns, but one I had never wanted to have sung for me: Veni sponsa Christi (Come, spouse of Christ) Accipe coronam quam Dominus (Accept the crown which the Lord) Tibi praeparavit in aeternum (Has prepared for you for all eternity) I would now be known as Sister Anastasia, MICM–a Slave of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Numb with the burden of what that meant, I rose and returned to my seat. Sister Elizabeth Ann smiled at me, something she seldom did in the chapel. I thought I saw tears glistening in her eyes. Was she happy for me? I couldn’t tell. Or did she know that deep down inside I was miserable and fearful? I knelt down, locking my gaze on Mount Wachusett in the distance. I blinked hard to squelch my own tears. The atmosphere at the Center that day was one of celebration.