13 March 2024
R/OB mention how accents can be the basis for discrimination. In the Bible, we rarely have a clue about how that affected the narrative. It was mentioned once in the Old Testament when there was war between two tribes (Judges 12) from which we get our figure of speech regarding the word shibboleth.
But it shows up more prominently in the life of Jesus. He was born Judean, but raised in Galilee, so He sounded like the latter. The Galilean accent was distinctly different, and garnered a "Redneck" flavor in Judea. Peter, warming himself during Jesus' trial gave himself away by His Galilean accent.
The bigger issue is the geographical prejudices that are sometimes manifested in accents. I was once told that the German I learned in college made me sound Austrian; care to guess where my professor was from? It worked in my favor because apparently the Austrians were well regarded among the German speaking lands in Europe. Actual Germans visiting the other countries were not so welcome. The authors recount experiencing similar prejudices and being puzzled because they couldn't tell the difference.
Again, they note that Jews were pretty rough on each other over small differences. Nathanael didn't think much of Nazarenes, and apparently most other Jews didn't either. Thus, referring to Jesus as "from Nazareth" was often a mark of disrespect. This was particularly true coming from the urbanites in Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, from a Roman standpoint, Jerusalem was a backwater on the fringe of the empire. The taxes taken from the district Rome called "Palestine" didn't even make a difference to the imperial budget; it was more the necessity of controlling the only usable land bridge between lands to the north and Egypt. The book doesn't mention it but, at some times in Roman history, being sent to administer the Jews was not a choice assignment for Roman officials.
Historical note: The only reason Herod was treated with any favor by Rome was because of how much hard warfare he conducted on Rome's behalf against her enemies to the east. Their favor faded rather quickly over the decades after Herod's passing.
Americans experience church divisions often enough. It's either some doctrinal issue or a simple matter of one or more charismatic leaders competing for power. The division Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians may well have been ethnic based. The authors note that Apollos was Alexandrian, which carried a reputation all its own. Peter was called by his Aramaic name (Cephas) and those who spoke that language were known to act with some prejudice against Jews from the Diaspora. The city of Corinth was quite cosmopolitan, and the church had a lot of Latin and Greek speakers, as well.
Perhaps the primary reason Paul doesn't mention doctrinal quarrels in that context is because the partisan conflict was ethnocentric, plain and simple.
The chapter concludes with a very icky attempt to fight prejudice, asking all the same questions you get from a wokie lecture. But then the authors get back on track and go on to suggest you make note of where Scripture and commentaries point out the geographical or ethnic origin of someone. The folks in ancient times had their own prejudices. The authors won't tell you that some prejudices are at least partially justified, including to some degree those that come against ourselves. I no longer accept lecturing from anyone about racism, but I don't mind talking with other folks about what constitutes rudeness. I also give God room to use anyone in my life He pleases.
Still, the biggest problem we have is assuming our culture is, or should be, the human default. That's what this whole book is about.
Note how Paul in particular works with a wide array of ethnic characters, a long way from when he enters the narrative with very strong biases. Notice how Boaz took advantage of his kinsman's prejudice against Moabites by mentioning that claiming Naomi's property meant marrying Ruth, specifically mentioning she was Moabite. Do you remember all the nasty things Moab did to Israel? Some of the worst aren't even recorded in Scripture, but show up in external sources. And I believe nobody misses how Jews and Samaritans were hostile against each other under the smothering "Pax Romana" because of how each tried to make the other miserable before Rome showed up.
I find it odd how the authors mention Ruth the Moabite without noticing how prejudice can work in favor of God's agenda, being exploited by God's servants. They overemphasize passages that appear to suggest there are no ethnicities in Christ, but often miss the point of how those passages fit into the context of the message. In other words, the authors are blinded by their own intellectual prejudices.
I won't summarize their questions at the end of the chapter, because they are laden with the false notion that racism is inherently sinful, instead of simply human nature. However, they do mention how Delilah was Samson's enemy because of where she was from, and what a fool he was for ignoring that. They also note how the beating in Philippi was tinged with Roman hatred for Jews in general, and how Jesus was a complete nobody from the world's point of view, even hated for His ethnic identity.
Comments
jaybreak
Wasn't there some debate as to whether the Nazareth mentioned in the NT was an actual place? Looking it up briefly, it seems to be resolved in favor of its existence. But I wonder if it was a rather small, unimportant place, there's not likely to be any extra-Biblical mentions of it, right?
CatRez
Correct. There is no certainty it existed as a town, and there is a lot of debate about the name, etc. However, scholarship generally believes it existed and was simply of no great importance.
This document is public domain; spread the message.