microcosm and mediator

This collection of Professor Malina’s various essays on the social world in which Christianity came into being is superb. One reviewer’s comment that the collection seemed uneven is warranted, but it should not bring the rating down to only three stars. I believe this is easily five-star book, but a few weaker essays bring it down to four. Malina’s meticulous work on investigating the social world of first century is highly illuminating. N.T. Wright and John P. Meier both rightly criticize excessive use of sociological models, but as can be seen in this collection of essays, they have in an important value in scholarly study of the New Testament and related literature. It is also important to know, especially for those reading the various presentations of the Historical Jesus, Crossan, Meier, and Wright all use Malina’s essays in their works.

Here are the various essays , in order, and my capsule review of them:

Part I: The Question of Reading

1 Reading Theory Perspectives:
A great introduction to this collection. It starts out with a little analogy of two American’s in Israel coming to a sign in Hebrew. And then another block quote in Greek. To the average person, these letters have no value, they are just squiggles on paper. But to the ancient person who knew Greek and/or Hebrew they had immense value, just as the words in English I am typing right now. Malina goes on to show (much like Crossan in Part I of the “The Historical Jesus”) is that the world of the Gospels (and Epistles) is vastly different than our own. Not only were they written in an ancient language, the various authors and redactors lived in a totally different social context.

Part II: The Question of First-Century Mediterranean Persons

2 First-Century Mediterranean Persons: A Preliminary View
This essay tries to reconstruct how the average Mediterranean person viewed the world. It also attempts to show how families were viewed, economics, etc. This strikes me as similar to what Crossan does in “The Historical Jesus”. Rather than reconstruct the First-Century world solely from contemporary Jewish writings (for the study of the NT) it is more focused on the general Mediterranean world. While I find this important, the portrait presented is too broad. I think John Meier makes this case forcefully in Volume III of the “A Marginal Jew” series. Nevertheless, I think this essay, read in concert with other studies (such as Wright, Borg, Crossan, Meier, Vermes, etc) is important.

3 The Mediterranean Self: A Social-Psychological Model
This is probably the most speculative of the essays. Meier in Volume II of his work, cautions against excessive use of modern sociological and psychological models on reconstructing the world of Jesus and the Gospels, and I think Malina places a little too much trust in them this time around. I still found it fascinating and when I approach the text of the New Testament I will never read it the same.

4 Mary and Jesus: Mediterranean Mother and Son
Probably one of the most interesting essays in the collection. Takes a look at family life as it could have been in the Mary/Joseph family. Speculative, yes, convincing, slightly. A great critique on patriarchal enshrinement of Mary and the cult assigned to her by the celibate male authorities. That is the one thing most important in this essay, it shatters the layers of legend, myth and theology that have grown up around Mary since her humble beginnings as a poor Nazarene mother (see Jaroslav Pelikan’s “Mary through the Centuries” for a careful review of how Mary has been interpreted in Western Culture). I think he should have incorporated more of her Jewish context, rather than focusing primarily on her Mediterranean context, as Crossan himself points out on page 16 of “The Historical Jesus” Nazareth was a “very Jewish” town. And Crossan, like Malina, discounts the Jewish context too much for the sake of the broader Mediterranean context, but even he realizes that the town where Jesus grew up was a very observant town. This is Paula Fredriksen’s critique in her book “Jesus of Nazareth” as well as N.T. Wright and John Meier’s critique of Hellenizing too much Jesus and his early followers.

Part III: The Question of Significant Roles in the First-Century Mediterranean

5 Was Jesus a Charismatic Leader?
How was Jesus honored during his lifetime? Using Max Weber’s definition of “charisma” and “charismatic” Malina then goes on to see how Jesus perceived in his social context as a religious figure. Although Vermes is not cited, he is, as far as I know (besides Marcus Borg’s adaptation of Vermes’ thesis) to associated Jesus with charismatic leadership. Is this a subtle critique of Vermes’ argument presented in his classic “Jesus the Jew”? I can’t say for sure.

6 Patron and Client the Analogy Behind Synoptic Theology
Taking the same approach Crossan does in his books about Jesus and Mediterranean society. He puts the theology of Jesus in this “economic” context of the relationships between patron and client as understood by First-Century Mediterranean. I think Wright’s discussion of Jesus’ theology (and that of the Christian community) in “Jesus and the Victory of God” is much more cogent and convincing. And interesting essay, but again one of the weaker ones.

Part IV: The Question of Time as First-Century Mediterranean Value

7 Christ and Time: Swiss or Mediterranean?
Meier in Volume II of “A Marginal Jew” highly commends this essay, but thinks Malina takes his point too far. I think he is right. The overly-apocalyptic thesis propagated by Adolf Von Harnack, Albert Schweitzer, and currently Bart Ehrman is thoroughly debunked and put in its proper context (that of 19th century Northern Europe) but this does not mean it needs to be dismissed outright (as Malina, Borg, Crossan and the Jesus Seminar in general does). A more nuanced view as developed by E.P. Sanders in “Judaism: Practice and Belief” and “Jesus and Judaism” and John Meier in the Marginal Jew series is by far the most convincing. I also find N.T. Wright’s reconstruction of Second-Temple Judaism in his “New Testament and the People of God” the best treatment available. An important essay and one of the best in this volume.

Part V: The Question of the Received View

8 The Received View and What it Cannot Do

I think I can safely say that this is one of the essays the previous reviewer was referring to as being “out of place”. This essay is not really about the New Testament, but rather about social science and its applications. Definitely geared towards those with an interest in cultural anthropology and sociology and not necessarily NT scholars or lay-theologians. I did not find it particularly interesting, but that is not to say that those with an interest in the subject matter will find it valuable in this collection

My final word:
This book should be on any person interested in the cultural milieu of the New Testament.

What does it mean when we eat?

Does it have any spiritual significance?

Eating is central to human existence. It is something we all do, everyday. It sustains us, it keeps us moving, it brings us together. Some of the best conversations I have had, with Lauren or my friends, have been over a meal. There is something about food that connects us. I think there is a connection because it is something we all must do. It is something we all share in common, no matter how different the society or culture we come from. 

Cultural anthropologists tell us that in all cultures, food plays an important role. In the early evolution of religion, pre-historical cults seemed to venerate animals and nature precisely because they gave them food. One could say that it is food that sparked the evolution of a religious consciousness in hominid brains.  This should show us how important food is to our identity as a species.

And those of us drawing on the wells of the Judeo-Christian tradition know very well that it was food that cost us our place in paradise, in that timeless myth found in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Eastern Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann tells us humans were created hungry, that food is central to our identity as being created in God’s image and likeness, that food is the very principle of life. Food is something we are supposed to consume, but with proper thanksgiving to God. The thing that Adam and Eve did was to break the fast God had given them; which was to not eat of a particular tree. God had given them every other tree, fruit, or vegetable in the Garden, except that particular one. Some Christian exegetes (the Church Fathers) have said that it was not a permanent fast, but they had to grow in knowledge and relationship (to God and one another) before they could fully partake in the creation.

This is significant. The Genesis story does not disparage food. Neither does fasting try to rid us of our “embodiedness”. It shows us that food is so special, holy and sacred, that before we can truly enjoy it we must understand how important it is to God.  Paul tells us to learn how to “glorify God in our bodies” (1 Corinthians 6:20). When we do this we learn that our physical desires are not just needs to be met, but opportunities to encounter God’s goodness, serving God’s love here and now.

In fact, up until the Reformation in the West, food was central to Christian worship. The Eucharist is still the focus in Anglican, (some) Lutheran, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Now obviously Christians (even those with communion as central to worship, such as the Catholics and Orthodox) have not always understood the significance of this. There were periods in Christian history where neglect of bodily desires was hailed as virtuous living (I have heard pious tales of certain monks who only ate once a week at the Eucharist, which is not only scary, but sinful and unhealthy).  I think this is where Christianity can most benefit from its earthy, revelatory Jewish roots than from its metaphysically inclined Hellenistic ones.  In Judaism, food is still essential to its theology. If one has ever taken the time to read the Torah (the first five books of the OT) they can see how closely food consumption was regulated by God. It was something God took seriously and ethical eating was very important.  And in the tradition of the Christian church we will still eat after we die, after the Resurrection of the Dead; we will still be bodies, like Jesus still ate after his resurrection.

But why is food central to Christian worship, and what happens when it is neglected as central to our understanding of God’s relationship to the world? Well it is central because as biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan points out, the egalitarian meal, was a motif of Jesus’ entire ministry. The open table was central to Jesus’ understanding of his mission from God.  And also Jesus himself, on the night of his crucifixion, instituted a special meal, that became fundamental to the rag-tag group of followers that followed him after his resurrection.  Along with baptism, the Eucharist (or the breaking of bread, as the New Testament refers to it) was essential to the identity of this group Jewish messianists. Now, in the early church, the Eucharist was not just a little wafer (or piece of bread if you’re Orthodox) and a little bit of wine. It was an entire meal. The earliest catacomb icons show us this, as well as Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. This is where I am critical of churches where they may have communion every week, but fail to continue and extend the Eucharistic banquet with a lunch for the fellowship of the baptized and confirmed and the unbaptized. Hospitality is THE Christian virtue. Sharing of food is central to our theology. And if we are going to close off the Eucharist from certain people, we should most definitely have a meal prepared for them after the service. It only makes sense.  And when we neglect communion food is no longer sacred and the communal identity of a particular church become splintered (which is why Protestantism continually splinters). And eventually in the greater culture food become a commodity, not a gift, a tool, not a blessing (look at American capitalism’s non-Eucharistic Christian roots).

 In the Orthodox tradition the food that becomes endowed with the very presence of Christ is given for the “life of the world”. What we do when we partake of communion, is to partake, in faith, that one day every person, every being, every thing, will be partaking of God. It is an eschatological act. It is not for the death of the world, or the punishment of the world, or the exclusion of the world, but for the LIFE of the world.  The whole rhythm of Christian existence should be maintained by the dance of thanksgiving and eating, fasting and prayer, sharing and celebration.

 Every meal we eat should be eaten and relished with joy and thanksgiving; it should have a “Eucharistic identity”.   But of course, this is not true for our society today. No, we no longer take time to prepare food. We don’t have to grow, maintain and harvest food. We have lost our connection to the earth and her life giving power. This is why it is so hard to be thankful for food, because it really doesn’t cost us anything, we can just drive through Taco Bell and get a cheesy-beefy melt for 89 cents.  And we eat alone, which is unnatural from an evolutionary viewpoint and a theological one. Food is best enjoyed among companions and friends. Michael Polanyi (author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”; which EVERYONE should read) said that we don’t really eat anymore. We consume. Food is just something we do mechanically. Every time I eat alone in a Wendy’s dining room, or at my house, I feel extremely lonely (it could be for other reasons though right now!) and broken, like I’m missing something significant. And it’s because I am. Like the Eucharist, food is given in order to make us whole. That is why we should eat healthy and eat with people. Food is essentially relational. We are connected to those who grew it, who prepared it and those we share it with. John Zizioulas (another Orthodox theologian, but EVERYONE should read his book “Being as Communion”, a study of Ontology from a Cappadocian Trinitarian perspective) says that the “Eucharist constitutes the Church” and I would add to that saying that, being Eucharistic constitutes true and fulfilled existence.

 So food is important. And this is why we should pray before, during and after every meal. Our prayer doesn’t necessarily have to be formal. We can eat prayerfully without saying one word. Just to enjoy the food, know where it came from, and enjoy the company of your friends is enough. It’s what Jesus’ did. And his is why we should avoid, at all costs, eating alone. Food is best enjoyed accompanied with prayer, good (wholesome) food (and yes pizza counts in my book) and if you can, some beer or wine (because it was given to “gladden the heart of man” Psalm 104:15).