John J. Pilch immerses us in the world of the Ancient Near East (hereafter ‘ANE’), inviting us to view Scripture through the eyes of the text’s original audience. Making excellent use of recent sociological and anthropological research he carefully explains cultural traditions, practices, and beliefs which would otherwise be completely unfathomable to contemporary Western eyes. This paper will provide an overview of topics covered by Pilch’s book, with a particular focus on heaven, the Samaritans, and individualism vs. collectivism.
Afterlife
Pilch notes that the ANE conception of afterlife bears little resemblance to its Christian counterpart. The Hebrew word ‘sheol’—meaning ‘pit’, and synonymous with ‘grave’—was eventually associated with the ‘netherworld’, a spiritual realm where the shades of the dead resided in a state of darkness and diminished existence. Under Second Temple Judaism (largely as a result of Hellenic influence) sheol became an intermediate location for souls awaiting punishment or reward.[1]
The Septuagint’s use of ‘Hades’ is not equivalent to the Greek mythological concept, but merely a translation of sheol. In the New Testament it refers specifically to a place of punishment for sin.[2] The Greek word ‘Gehenna’, associated with fire and punishment (Enoch 54:1-2; Matthew 5:22) refers to the Valley of Hinnom, understood by some archaeologists as a public crematorium for refuse and the bodies of criminals. It later acquired an association with eternal punishment (Matthew 10:28; Mark 9:42-48).[3]
Heaven
The ancients described the cosmos in language modern readers would consider phenomenological; that is, language which describes the world and events as they appear to the observer. Today such language is commonly used in a figurative sense, but in the ANE it was understood literally.
Scriptural descriptions of ‘heaven’ are a case in point. In the Bible, ‘heaven’ is a generic term for the expanse above Earth and the dwelling place of God.[4] Heaven is first mentioned in the Genesis creation account, where the Hebrew words rāqîa and šāmayim are variously translated ‘expanse’, ‘heaven’, and ‘sky.’
Modern readers can be forgiven for thinking that when Scripture uses words which are translated as ‘sky’ it refers to a vast open space high above our planet, but Pilch reveals the error of this assumption. The rāqîa is a physical dome; a ‘firmament’, as some Bibles render it.[5] The primary function of this dome is to separate the waters upon the earth from those above.[6]
In biblical cosmology the sky also contains heavenly bodies: sun, moon, and stars. These are not located far beyond our planet in the vacuum of space, but upon the face of the sky itself. While the stars are fixed, the sun and moon are capable of motion.[7] The sky is presumably impermeable, but occasional reference is made to openings which allow the passage of natural elements and other objects[8] sent by God.[9] Divine communication also comes from the sky, sometimes in the form of extreme weather conditions.[10]
The distinction between the sky and the realm of God is described in physical rather than metaphysical terms. One tradition implies it is possible to travel through a hole in the sky to God’s dwelling place on the other side.[11] The same tradition provides examples of worthy persons who have made this journey.[12]
The metaphysical heaven is described in later OT literature as a place where the enthroned Yahweh holds court with divine beings.[13] This is an important affirmation of God’s sovereignty and omnipotence. He is Lord of the earth, of all living creatures, and even of the heavens themselves.[14] By the Christian period ‘heaven’ has become synonymous with the presence of God,[15] yet Pilch reminds us that the NT concept should not be conflated with modern theology.[16]
Pilch’s analysis of the ANE heaven is extremely useful from an exegetical perspective. Too often we unintentionally superimpose modern meanings on biblical language, subconsciously driven by a need to reconcile the text with our own modern, scientific understanding of the world.
Genesis 1 is a case in point: even Christians who pride themselves on their literalism will nevertheless insist that ‘rāqîa’ is equivalent to our modern word ‘sky.’ But this is concordism,[17] not literal interpretation. When we realise that the ancients must be allowed to mean what they say, passages such as the Genesis creation account actually become more comprehensible[18] and harmonise properly with the rest of Scripture. There is no need to force anachronistic interpretations.
Desert
Modern Westerners typically envisage deserts as barren, sandy wastelands hostile to animals and vegetation. Yet Pilch observes that most deserts of the Middle East are ‘tame deserts’ with a dry season and a wet season; the latter bringing storms, torrential rain and flash floods, rejuvenating plant life and refilling the natural reservoirs upon which native animals rely.
Peoples of the ANE typically defined deserts by reference to the scale of human occupation rather than climate or geography. A ‘desert place’ was largely undeveloped, with a sparse population (if any at all). Communities outside the city limits were considered of negligible value, since urban life represented civilisation as the educated classes understood it.
Pilch illustrates this by recalling Gaius Gracchus’ reference to Tuscany as a desert even though it contained ‘large estates developed by hordes of slaves.’[19] Another example is the account of Jesus feeding the 4,000/5,000 (e.g. Mark 6:30-34; Mark 8:1-10) which describes the location as ‘desolate’ or ‘isolated.’ This is not a literal desert as we understand it, but a ‘wilderness’ area; a place of minimal human occupation.
Citizenship
Citizenship in the ancient world was highly prized. It conveyed identity and unique socio-cultural privileges, including certain forms of legal protection. Roman citizens were entitled to full judicial process, exempt from torture, and could not be punished without trial (Acts 22:25-29; 16:37-39).
Yet ancient citizenship does not correspond to its contemporary counterpart.[20] Hellenic citizenship identified a person with a city rather than a nation, and was reserved for those born to freeborn Athenian parents. In some areas citizenship was not a static concept but lay across a spectrum of entitlement.[21]
Resident aliens grouped together for ‘protection, support, and acceptance’[22] on the basis of common ethnicity, profession and/or ideology. Even a citizen would be considered an alien if he strayed too far from his home territory,[23] but acceptance into a faith-based community could mitigate this and other distinctions.
Samaritans
Pilch also examines the Samaritans, whose presence in the land was a source of ongoing tension for the Jews. Traditionally claiming descent from the northern tribes of Israel, the Samaritans are described by Josephus and the Deuteronomic Historian as the progeny of expatriates from lands conquered by the Assyrians.[24]
While modern Samaritans claim most of them have always remained faithful to the God of Israel, Jewish literature—particularly the Bible and Josephus—paints them as unorthodox outsiders with a legacy of polytheism and other theological corruptions.[25]
Conflict between Jews and Samaritans reached a flash point when the latter were excluded from participation in the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and city walls under Ezra, and responded with sabotage.[26] The Jewish/Samaritan relationship was forged in the coals of this mutual antagonism. Seven centuries later, Jesus found it still burning fiercely.
During the Greek invasion Samaritans took the side of Alexander the Great, while Jews supported Persia. Unfortunately this did not stop Alexander from attacking Samaria, and the Jews exacted their own revenge on the Samaritans through John Hyrcanus.[27]
Under Roman occupation the Samaritans were responsible for two major outrages which inflamed the Jews like never before. The first involved the defiling of the Jewish temple with human bones.[28] The second involved the murder of one or more Jewish pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem for Passover.[29] In the latter case Jews retaliated violently, and were brutalised in their turn by Roman authorities who supported the Samaritans.[30] Yet the Jews appealed to Rome and Caesar finally delivered them a legal victory.[31]
Even though Samaritans are rarely mentioned in the NT, these historic tensions and prejudices are clearly evident. Jews will not even share common objects with them,[32] while the word ‘Samaritan’ itself has become a byword for heresy and demonic possession.[33] Jesus acknowledges these tensions with his provocative choice of a Samaritan hero in an emotive and culturally subversive parable.[34]
The gospel writers specifically mention devout Samaritans who accept Jesus,[35] and the fact that they do so suggests they found this surprising and unusual. We also find a reference to Samaritan anti-Semitism: notice that Jesus is refused entry to a Samaritan village when they learn he is travelling to Jerusalem.[36]
There is a tendency among modern Christians to romanticise the Samaritans as underdogs and view Jesus’ ministry to them as an act of emancipation which legitimised their relationship with God and His people.[37] Yet the Samaritans were not underdogs, and Jesus shows no interest in changing attitudes on either side of the Jewish/Samaritan controversy. Far from legitimising Samaritan beliefs, he bluntly observed that they worshiped Yahweh in a state of ignorance and error.[38]
Overall the NT makes no definitive statement about Jesus’ opinion of Samaritans, and his interaction with them varies across the gospels. Depending on which account we read, Jesus’ opinion of the Samaritans appears more or less indifferent but never explicitly negative or positive.[39] While it is difficult to say how much these accounts are affected by cultural concerns, there is no doubt such concerns were not only present but also recognised and understood by the NT’s original audience.[40]
Individualism vs. collectivism
Pilch opens a section entitled ‘Individuals? or Stereotypes?’ with an anecdote which neatly contrasts two radically different perspectives: Western and African.[41] The former value individualism; the latter collectivism. Both are culturally inclined to interpret Scripture in a particular way; thus the message they see in the story of Joseph is unconsciously coloured by their own preconceptions.[42]
Pilch notes that the collectivistic personality is normative throughout the world of the Bible,[43] while individualism was virtually unknown in the biblical world. This remains true in the 21st Century, even though individualism is more common than ever before.[44] To explain these subjects Pilch uses a mixture of sociological commentary and biblical case studies.
The individualistic paradigm measures personal worth and success on the basis of individual achievements, possessions and rights, while extolling the virtues of independence and personal freedom.[45] Groups are considered little more than a means to an end,[46] and the individual feels free to act in his or her own interests even at the expense of the group.[47]
The prevailing personality type of the biblical world is overwhelmingly collectivistic.[48] Under this paradigm identities are typically group-based; the individual is subsumed within categories such as race, family, tribe, and religion, which collectively define their personal worth.[49] Aside from the traditional markers of age and gender, status is primarily dependent upon the reputation and standing of one’s family (as opposed to personal merit), hence the importance of genealogies.[50]
The individualistic attitude prized by modern Western society was frowned upon by the ancients.[51] Their sociocultural world was governed by a rigid system of honour and shame under which one person’s gain was another’s loss[52] and the (unwarranted) promotion of individuals posed a threat to the stability of the group.[53] The collectivistic paradigm also preferences consultation over individual action, but this does not imply a democratic model.[54]
In an individualistic culture stereotypes are typically rejected, since it is considered unreasonable to generalise about a group on the basis of one member’s attitude or behaviour. In a collectivistic culture the opposite is true, since every member is assumed to be representative of the group.[55] Due to the consistency of collectivistic behaviour, this assumption is often correct; thus stereotypes have a legitimate place in collectivistic culture and generalisations can be made without a pejorative implication.[56]
Western readers might see evidence of individualism in certain psalms of praise[57] and lament,[58] and Jesus’ instruction to ‘deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me.’[59] But Pilch carefully contextualises these passages. The psalmists’ personalities are collective rather than individual;[60] they identify with their group.[61] Similarly, Jesus’ exhortation includes a collectivistic reference to family, not merely individuals.[62] Yet his call to discipleship is still highly provocative, since it undercuts the common familial ties.[63] Listeners would have considered this a radical message.
Again the value of Pilch’s work is found in its application to exegesis. His anecdotal hook on page 78 has great appeal, both for its humour and its explanatory power. The insights provided by Hofstede are invaluable for understanding relationships between individuals and groups within the ANE. This is particularly relevant to stories such as the condemnation of Cain, who rightly observes that expulsion from his community amounts to a death sentence.[64] Loss of collective identity is potentially fatal in a world where safety is found in numbers and the group is valued over the individual.
Notice also Abraham’s desperate plea with Yahweh in Genesis 18:23-32. Modern readers commonly consider Lot the only person worth saving, and struggle to understand why Abraham doesn’t just ask for him. Yet Abraham will not reduce his ‘price’ below ten persons. Why? Because he is a collectivist; in his eyes Lot is not an individual but the head of a family. Thus to save Lot he must beg for them all.
Marriage
Pilch challenges our cultural expectations with the provocative statement that ‘A good number of languages, including biblical Hebrew, have no word for marriage!’[65] Instead the Bible uses terms which describe a change of relationship with the spouse and/or their family, such as ‘to take a woman as wife’ and ‘selects a certain man as his father-in-law.’
This concept of ‘taking’ a woman reflects the patriarchal norms of the ANE, under which the female becomes the property of the male—a transaction formalised via the ‘bride price’ paid by the groom’s family—although Pilch assures us ‘the woman is more than property.’[66] Some may be surprised by his assertion that ‘marriage in the Bible… is not a religious event’[67] but rather the uniting of two families through their respective representatives for mutual gain. Yet the evidence bears this out.[68]
Marriages were carefully arranged events which included the matching of appropriate partners between two families, often at a very young age.[69] This was as much the parents’ responsibility as their right. Betrothal carried the same moral obligations as marriage; infidelity during the pre-married state was equivalent to adultery.
Noble death
Pilch’s primary illustration of noble death comes from Eleazer, a scribe of the Maccabean era, who allegedly chose execution rather than eating pork forced upon him by the Hellenic invaders. His story is a morality play, providing a strong exhortation to uphold behaviours and values of critical importance to ancient Jewish society.[70]
Eleazar is described in terms which define him as a paragon of virtue: very old, handsome, male, devout, honest, and a high ranking scribe. Each of these attributes was individually respected. Taken together, they add up to an exemplary individual.[71]
When his friends invite him to escape death by eating permitted meat while feigning to eat pork, Eleazar refuses on the grounds that this is deceptive. He cannot die with a good conscience if younger Jews believe he has capitulated to the Greeks. There is a principle at stake, a public responsibility to uphold, and a fatalistic inevitability about his demise.[72] In one sense, Eleazar dies because he has to; because the conditions of the story require it. There can be no alternative exit for a man of his calibre.
Literacy
Modern readers take literacy for granted but Pilch reminds us it was extremely rare in the ancient world, with literacy rates at 10% or lower. This raises questions about Jesus’ own abilities, which were unusual for his time, place and socio-economic status.[73]
Following Yaghjian (1996), Pilch identifies several different forms of literacy in the 1st Century AD which do not necessarily involve the ability to write: auraliteracy (remembering and understanding what is heard), oraliteracy (remembering, understanding and substantially repeating what is heard), oculiteracy (linguistically decoding what is read from a written text) and scribal literacy (the capacity to read and interpret a document).
The most gifted scribes were not only able to read, interpret and copy documents accurately, but could also read and interpret their own work.[74] This was a sacred trust which placed them among the upper echelons of Jewish society. In light of the vast socio-economic gulf between them, Jesus’ regular victories over the scribes were as humiliating as they were baffling.[75]
Dreams
Pilch begins his consideration of dreams with a few notes on consciousness, observing that ‘consensus reality’ is invariably a cultural construct.[76] States of consciousness we define as ‘alternative’ might be considered normative by other peoples.
Dreams were important to the ancients—particularly in the context of spirituality—though there seems to have been little agreement on their origins and interpretation. Plato was skeptical about the idea that dreams came from the gods, while Aristotle flatly denied it.
Artemidorus—a Greek mystic of the 2nd Century BC—composed an extensive guide to the interpretation of dreams, variously categorising them as symbolic (metaphorical), predictive (referring to a future event), and oracle (guidance for the dreamer). Some commonality notwithstanding,[77] these definitions correspond reasonably well to the examples we find in Scripture.[78]
Jesus
Pilch’s reflections on ‘The Middle Eastern Jesus’ are especially valuable for what they teach us about the dangers of anachronistic thinking. Jesus did not share the cultural values, social norms and political biases of 21st Century Western Christians, and we should avoid reading them into the text. Instead we must accept that he was a product of his time.[79]
Contemporary Christians may be surprised and even dismayed to find Jesus endorsed theocracy rather than disestablishmentarianism,[80] and spoke primarily of the present rather than the future.[81] He was no Calvinist or postmodern humanist, but instead viewed humanity as possessing inherently good and bad tendencies. This, too, was the result of cultural conditioning.[82] Pilch laments that Jesus has been chronically misrepresented in the West, effectively rendering him the victim of identity theft.[83]
Music
Music played an important part in certain cultural practices of the ANE, as demonstrated by the presence of flute players at the death of the synagogue leader’s daughter in Matthew 9:23 (a common practice, as the Mishnah confirms[84]). Yet this raises questions about the nature of the instruments and their specific role in the proceedings—questions the text leaves unanswered.[85]
Instruments mentioned in Scripture may bear the same name as those we know today, but this is largely the result of translation decisions, which may not be strictly accurate. A case in point is the reference to ‘flute’ in Psalm 151:2, now regarded by some scholars to be more correctly translated ‘lyre.’[86]
The challenge for modern believers seeking guidance from Scripture is that it was not originally written for them, but for an audience that lived thousands of years earlier, in a different place, with a different culture.
The inspired writers produced ‘high context’ literature in which sociocultural knowledge is frequently assumed. Scripture reflects this, making little effort to explain details we might prefer the authors to elaborate on.
The gulf between their knowledge and ours has serious implications for interpretation—a fact too often under-appreciated by exegetes. Pilch effectively bridges that gulf with a clever, accessible book which opens a window on the cultural world of the Bible.
[1] J. J. Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 4.
[2] Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 4.
[3] Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 5.
[4] ‘In the Bible, heaven refers either to the physical sky above the earth or to the realm of God.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 7.
[5] ‘It is as firm and solid as the earth (Job 37:8), yet the psalmist says that God stretched out the heavens “like a tent” (Ps. 104:2; see also Isa. 40:22). This sky is supported by pillars (Job 26:11).’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 7.
[6] Genesis 1:6-7, ‘God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.’
[7] ‘A countless number of stars (Gen. 15:5) were affixed in the sky (Gen. 1:14-18), but the sun and moon coursed across it.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 7.
[8] This applies equally to rāqîa and šāmayim; see for example Genesis 7:11, where God opens ‘the floodgates of the heavens [šāmayim].’ Such statements suggest there was little distinction between rāqîa and šāmayim in the minds of the ancients.
[9] ‘There were also windows in the sky (Isa. 24:18) through which God could shower the earth with gifts or punishments: rain (Gen. 7:11; Luke 4:25; Acts 14:17), manna (Exod. 16:14; Ps. 78:24), even the wind or spirit (Num. 11:31; Job 26:13; Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13; Matt. 3:16; Acts 2:2; 1 Pet. 1:12).’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 7.
[10] ‘The sky serves as a vehicle for audio-visual communication from God. “He works signs and wonders in the sky and on earth” (Dan. 6:27). The rainbow is one such sign (Gen. 9:12-17). Thunder, the “voice of God”, is another sign (Exod. 20:22; Jer. 25:30). Meteorological phenomena announce God’s intentions to those who know how to interpret them (Luke 21:11, 25).’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 7.
[11] ‘According to the ancient Israelite tradition, God created an open sky for Adam “so that he might look upon the angels singing the triumphal song. And the light, which is never darkened, was perpetually in paradise” (2 Enoch 31:2-3). Of course, after the disobedience of the first creatures that opening to the other side was closed. In fact, Israelite tradition in general believed that this hole or opening was permanently closed. Yet God could open it as desired.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 7-8.
[12] ‘These were mainly holy people like Enoch (see Gen. 5:21-23 and the books of Enoch dating from the third century B.C.E. to the third century C.E.) but especially prophets like Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), Daniel (Dan. 7-12), Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:1), and John (Rev. 4:1-2).’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 8.
[13] ‘The prophet Micaiah reports this experience: “I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven [Hebrew šāmayim, thus literally the sky] standing beside him on his right hand and on his left” (1 Kings 22:19). The throne is the symbol of royal authority in a monarchic society. It symbolises the monarch’s ability to effectively control the behaviour of the kingdom’s subjects and to extract loyalty from those subjects.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 8.
[14] ‘In the Israelite tradition, Isaiah wrote: “Thus says the Lord: The sky is my throne” (Isa. 66:1 LXX). And Matthew’s Jesus echoes this belief: “But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven [the sky], for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool…” (Matt. 5:34-35; see also Matt. 23:22).’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 9.
[15] ‘In the New Testament, heaven is clearly the destiny and destination of righteous believers (2 Cor. 5:1; Eph. 2:6; Phil. 3:20; Rev. 11:12). Yet heaven in these instances is less a place than a presence or, more accurately, being with God for all eternity. Heaven, especially in Matthew, is a metonym for God.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 9.
[16] ‘It is very useful to keep in mind the differences between the Bible and theology in their use of the word “heaven.” Readers of the Bible can’t go wrong by substituting “sky” all of the time, whether referring to the physical sky or to the divine realm, the abode of God and the spirits. When contemporary theologians speak of heaven, they usually are referring to a human state or condition of bliss and happiness which is rooted in the vision and enjoyment of God, technically called the “beatific vision.”’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 9.
[17] Concordism is the idea that Scripture is consistent with scientific evidence, when both are correctly understood. It is particularly common among fundamentalists whose view of inerrancy does not allow the prima facie meaning of Scripture to contradict verifiable scientific facts (though they tend to draw the line at evolution). This requires them to insist that ‘rāqîa’ does not refer to a solid canopy—despite the clear meaning of this word—because we all know the sky is actually a vast expanse of air.
[18] For example, it is difficult to see how the rāqîa can separate ‘the water under the expanse’ from ‘the water above it’ (Genesis 1:7) unless it is a physical canopy. You cannot support a large body of water on thin air.
[19] ‘It is a place inhabited by barbarians, who are by nature little inclined to live in cities. In such an ethnocentric perspective, barbarians are considered intermediate beings between the human and animal kingdoms.’ They were fated to be slaves, but slavery allows them to improve their lives in some way.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 28-29.
[20] ‘The Bible has no real equivalent to the modern understanding of citizen and citizenship.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 63.
[21] ‘For instance, Ptolemy Is reported to have allowed those Judeans living in Egypt who were “initiated into the mysteries” to be “on the same footing as the citizens of Alexandria” (3 Macc. 2:30). Josephus insists that this was full-citizen status (Antiquities 12:1; 10.5.2), but scholars recognize that various grades of citizenship existed in Alexandria.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 63.
[22] Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 63.
[23] ‘One commonality between biblical and modern cultures is a basic distinction people make between insiders and outsiders. A citizen is an insider in the country of birth but an outsider everywhere else.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 64.
[24] ‘Contemporary Samaritans claim that they have directly descended from the Northern Israelites tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. …The Deuteronomic Historian, in contrast, relates that the Samaritans descended from colonists who were relocated in regions of Samaria from lands that the Assyrians had conquered: Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sephar-vaim (2 Kings 17:24). …This view is also reflected in Josephus (Antiquities 9.277-91).’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 73.
[25] The Samaritan self-identification insists that the majority of them have always been and still are loyal to Israel’s God and to Israelite tradition. …However the identification given by the Bible places Samaritan faith and loyalty to God in doubt. Indeed, the biblical record describes these colonists as henotheists, worshippers of Yahweh, true, but also of other gods brought with them to Samaria from their lands of origin or former residence.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 73-74.
[26] According to the biblical record (Ezra 4), the Samaritans at first rejoiced to learn that those returning from Babylonian exile were charged with rebuilding the temple. But when their offer of assistance was rejected by the returnees, the Samaritans opposed and sabotaged that project (Ezra 4:4-5, 25) as well as the rebuilding of the walls (4:17-23).’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 74.
[27] ‘The Samaritans rallied behind Alexander the Great, while members of the house of Israel remained loyal to Persia. When Alexander destroyed Samaria, the Samaritans obviously became wary of the Greeks. …anti-Samaritan sentiment reached a peak in 128 B.C.E. when John Hyrcanus, governor and high priest in Judea, destroyed the Samaritan sanctuary at Gerizim.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 74.
[28] ‘Sometime during 6-9 C.E., a group of Samaritans secretly joined some Judean pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for Passover. They scattered human bones in the porticoes and sanctuary of the temple, thereby defiling it.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 75.
[29] ‘The basic report is that Samaritans living in Gema, on the border between Galilee and Samaria, murdered one (or many) Judean pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the festival of Passover.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 75.
[30] ‘In retaliation, Judeans from Jerusalem came and massacred the inhabitants of Gema. …the Samaritans managed to keep the sympathies of the local Roman representatives on their side. These Romans imprisoned and murdered Judeans.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 75.
[31] ‘The Judeans remained persistent and eventually had the entire affair moved to Rome, where Caesar ruled favourably in behalf of the Judeans and ordered that the Samaritans be punished.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 75.
[32] John 4:9, ‘So the Samaritan woman said to him, “How can you—a Jew—ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink?” (For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans.)’
[33] John 8:48, ‘The Judeans replied, “Aren’t we correct in saying that you are a Samaritan and are possessed by a demon?”’
[34] Luke 10:30-37.
[35] Luke 17:15-19; John 4:28-30, 30-42.
[36] Luke 9:52-53, ‘He sent messengers on ahead of him. As they went along, they entered a Samaritan village to make things ready in advance for him, but the villagers refused to welcome him, because he was determined to go to Jerusalem.’
[37] Conclusions of this sort are typically based on Jesus’ single conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4. But although this event is countercultural it provides no evidence of social emancipation. Whatever else they might have thought about him, the Samaritans viewed Jesus first and foremost as a Jew—not a social emancipator preaching liberation theology—and their interaction with him was conducted primarily on that basis, as we see from their anti-Semitic prejudice toward him in Luke 9:52-53.
[38] John 4:19-24, ‘The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you people say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.” Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem You people worship what you do not know. We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews. But a time is coming—and now is here—when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”’
[39] ‘Matthew’s Jesus sees his mission exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5; 15:24) and explicitly prohibits his disciples from going among the Samaritans (Matt. 10:5). In contrast, John’s Jesus interacts with a Samaritan woman (John 4), while Luke’s Jesus not only interacts with a Samaritan (Luke 17:11) but tells a parable about a Samaritan who risks his very life tending to a nearly dead stranger who is surely a member of the house of Israel (Luke 10:33).’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 73.
[40] ‘Our high-context ancestors in the faith readily understood the reports they had heard about the Samaritans or about Jesus and the Samaritans in the different accounts of the evangelists. These ancestors were quite aware of the cultural elements that a preacher or evangelist such as Luke or John would be skewing one way or another to make a point. We who live in a very different culture must exert more effort to gain the understanding that came so readily to them.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 78.
[41] ‘A Christian minister in Africa once asked a mixed group of Africans and European missionaries to tell him the main point of the story of Joseph (Ge. 37-50). The European missionaries all noted how Joseph, as an individual, remained faithful to God no matter what happened to him. In contrast, the Africans observed how Joseph never forgot his family no matter how far he travelled away from his homeland or what he had to endure from his brothers.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 78.
[42] ‘The differing interpretations of this story highlight two kinds of human relationships and human behaviours which flow from distinctive personality types: individualist and collectivist.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 78.
[43] ‘The vast majority of the people described in the Bible represent collectivist personality types. Individualist personality types are rather rare in the Bible and in Mediterranean culture in general.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 78.
[44] ‘The social analyst Geer Hofstede points out that individualism as a personality type is represented among only 20 percent of the current population of this planet (Hofstede 1980; 1994). This percentage is higher than it has ever been in human history.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 78-79.
[45] ‘Individual worth is based on individual achievements or individual possessions. …Individualists value independence very highly and put a premium on uniqueness. Individualists seek autonomy from social solidarity.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 79.
[46] ‘If [individualists] join a group, it is on the basis of an implicit renewable contract. …Individualists remain with the group only as long as it suits their purposes, or they lose interest or motivation. In this view, a group is simply a collection of individuals.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 79.
[47] Any personal decision is made by the self alone even if it is not in the group’s best interests.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 79.
[48] ‘Such people prefer to be identified by the major group to which they belong rather than be recognised as individuals.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 79-80.
[49] ‘This is why appellations based on family belonging, such as “son of Jonah,” are so common in the Bible. Consider also how few Pharisees are named in the gospels. References usually are just to “a Pharisee.” For this reason, collectivist personalities are also called socio-centric or group-centered personalities. …As a result, the individual or personal worth of a collectivist personality is rooted in familial status, social position, status, or caste.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 79-80.
[50] ‘Hence, personal status is ascribed, that it, it derives principally from being born into a given family. Such a child immediately inherits all the family’s honour built up over generations, as well as all the family’s enemies! This is the point of genealogies in antiquity. They were ordinarily constructed only after a person died and became famous.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 80.
[51] ‘In this context, inner-group achievement and competition are viewed as disruptive.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 80.
[52] ‘Recall the occasion on which the mother of the sons of Zebedee requested from Jesus places of honour for her sons in his kingdom (Matt. 20:20-21). On the face of it, one might think this is a fair request in pursuit of honour. But life in the Mediterranean world is a zero-sum game. If someone gains honour, others have lost it.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 80.
[53] ‘It is hardly surprising that when the ten heard of this request, they became indignant (Matt. 20:24). This is not because the mother beat these ten to an honour they would have sought for themselves. Rather, their indignation demonstrates how disruptive and harmful to the group is the desire of any member to excel over others.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 80.
[54] ‘Any personal decision is made in consultation with the group and often in obedience or deference to its will. When Joshua challenges the Israelites to choose whether they want to serve Yahweh or other gods, he is not soliciting personal decisions. Notice his own judgement: “As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Josh. 24:15). This was not the result of a democratic vote by members of that household.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 80-81.
[55] ‘Because collectivistic personalities are generally not interested in individuals, they tend to accept stereotypes as authentic and trustworthy assessments of people. If one were to read Mark’s gospel and jot down the names of the people Jesus healed, only one appears: “Bar Timaeus” (Mark 10:46). Yet this is not the blind man’s personal name. It is rather his father’s name, the patriarch’s name. …All members of the household, the entire group, will be identified by the patriarch’s name.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 81.
[56] ‘When he identified his place of origin, Paul said, “I am a member of the house of Israel, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city” (Acts 21:39). Trading on his city’s reputation, Paul, like all its inhabitants, could claim similar honourable status.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 81-82.
[57] E.g. Psalm 18.
[58] E.g. Psalm 22.
[59] Mark 8:34-38.
[60] ‘Upon a closer reading, however, it becomes clear that this person is not an individualist but rather a collective personality. He hides behind “our fathers” (v. 4), who are obviously Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The composer of this psalm is living long after those “fathers”, but he makes no reference to his own father. He aligns himself with the patriarchs.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 82.
[61] ‘In the first thanksgiving verses (22-26), the collectivist sentiment continues to shine through. The lamenter will publicise his blessings in the midst of the community and urge them all to praise God. …This shift from singular to plural further illustrates the thinking and behaviour of a collectivistic personality. I am not really different from the others in the group.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 82.
[62] ‘In the two instances when Jesus exhorted listeners to take up their cross and follow him, he urged denial of the family… In other words, when a collectivistic person hears the words “self,” or “me,” or “I,” such a person does not think of an individual “I” but rather of an “I” who is so strongly embedded in a group such as a family to be almost invisible.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 83.
[63] Matthew 10:40, ‘“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”’
[64] Genesis 4:13-14.
[65] Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 111.
[66] Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 111.
[67] Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 111.
[68] Perhaps Israel’s symbolic marriage to Yahweh is the only one which can be considered a religious union, since it was based on a spiritual covenant.
[69] Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 113.
[70] ‘A close reading of the account cannot help but notice the repetition of words associated with the semantic field of “honour”, the core cultural value in the ancient and contemporary Middle Eastern world. Eleazar, a scribe in high position, of noble appearance, preferring death with honour, had the courage to refuse the easy way out, made a high resolve worthy of his years and dignity of his old age, and so on and so on. A core value is one that drives human behaviour. Since a value conveys meaning wrapped in feeling, it is easy to understand the power of core values. Eleazar’s story illustrates this well.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 134.
[71] ‘Whether factual or hyperbolic, this story in which the intersection of his noble status as a scribe, the esteem his advanced age demands, and the respect he shows to God all converge, is quite remarkable. The convergence places Eleazar in a very honourable position.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 135.
[72] ‘But does not this behaviour also demonstrate that he was well trained by his feather to endure physical pain, indeed death itself, fearlessly? In other words, he dies like a man in this culture is expected to die.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 134.
[73] ‘If Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah in his village synagogue (Luke 4:16-17), did he belong to an elite minority? Where did he learn how to read (see John 7:15)? If he could read, did he know how to write? Who were the “scribes” with whom Jesus was often in conflict? What did they write?’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 148.
[74] ‘This kind of scribe is described by Ben Sira (Sir. 38:24-39:5). The Sage first contrasts this person with the farmer, the craftsman, the smith, and the potter (Sir. 38:25-42). All of these are necessary for civilisation, but none have the status of the scribe (Sir. 38:33-39:5). Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 151.
[75] ‘Consider the fact that Jesus often not only beats scribe in verbal conflict but leaves them utterly bewildered in verbal jousting. They admire his mysterious ability to interpret the tradition.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 151.
[76] ‘Anthropologists who study and compare many cultures point out that the state of consciousness that we in the West consider “ordinary” or “normal” is actually a construct, not a fixed fact of existence. Indeed, our “ordinary” state of consciousness is, in many ways, quite arbitrary. In other words, human consciousness is capable of a wide horizon of potentials that each culture shapes into a fixed and stable “state.” …We are uncultured into our culture’s consensus reality. In the Bible, we encounter an ancient, Middle Eastern culture’s consensus reality.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 184.
[77] ‘Scholars sometimes distinguish between dreams (only Matthew uses the Greek word onar) and visions (Luke favours these words: horama, optasia, horasis), but anthropologists caution that one should not press the distinction, for they actually overlap and both belong to the category of altered states of consciousness experiences.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 187.
[78] ‘As noted above, prophets and dreamers (prophecy and dreams) are usually paired. Saul laments when he senses that God has ceased communicating with him “either by prophets or by dreams” (I Sam. 28:15). God is understandably disturbed when prophets claim to have received communication in dreams from the deity, but God has not so communicated (Jer. 23:16-32).’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 187.
[79] ‘Thus from a biological point of view Jesus was no different from any other male, but from a cultural viewpoint he was definitely a typical Middle Eastern male very concerned about his honour, his reputation. …Like others in his culture and like 80 percent of the current world population, Jesus was a collective personality. He drew his identity from his group and its opinions.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 244.
[80] ‘If anything is certain about the preaching of Jesus, it is that he promoted theocracy, “the kingdom or reign of God.” Theocracy is the union or identity of “church and state” (to use these anachronistic terms).’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 245.
[81] ‘Jesus shared all the values of his contemporary, fellow Middle Easterners. Just like them, he was focused on the present, albeit a rather expansive present.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 245.
[82] ‘As for human nature, Jesus firmly believed what his tradition taught. Human nature is a mixture of good and evil because, when creating the first humanoid, God implanted in him an inclination or tendency toward good and toward evil. …Jesus was aware of and enumerated the evils that come forth from the heart of a person (Mark 7:21-23) who follows the evil inclination or tendency.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 246.
[83] ‘Contemporary Westerners are familiar with the concept of identity theft. …In a certain sense, time has done that to the Middle Eastern person known as Jesus of Nazareth. Subsequent generations of believers reinterpreted the Middle Eastern Jesus in many ways,, some of which ill fit his distinctive cultural heritage.’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 247.
[84] ‘Commentators offer various comments about the flute players. Most refer to the Mishnah (Ketubbot 4:4; early-3rd cent.-C.E. compendium of opinions in the Israelite tradition): ”Even the poorest in Israel must not furnish less than two flutes and one woman wailer (at the funeral of his wife).”’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 253.
[85] ‘But what exactly is the “flute” in the ancient world? What instrument are the people playing? Why are flute players playing their instruments at a wake?’ Pilch, A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 254.
[86] ‘But the discovery of the Hebrew text of Psalm 151 at Qumran in 1956 sheds new light on this Hebrew word. Sanders’ translation of verse 2, reported in the New Revised Standard Version, reads: “My hands have made an instrument (ugab), and my fingers a lyre (kinnor).’ A Cultural Handbook to the Bible, 254.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)