The Martyrdom of Sts Perpetua and Felicitas

"Next she asked for a pin to fasten her untidy hair: for it was not right that a martyr should die with her hair in disorder, lest she might seem to be mourning in her hour of triumph." (paragraph 20)
I find it very interesting that martyrdom is such a thing of pride in this era. I was under the impression that after their death people admired the martyrs, along the lines that they did not die in vain, but rather for their faith. But throughout this piece, the people seem to be relishing their condemnation and death, and see it as their "hour of triumph." Rome turns it into a spectacle through the use of wild beasts and gladiators, but the martyrs accept this show and go along with it, putting their hair up and giving birth prematurely so that they can all die together. This honor of death is due in part to the honor that came with Jesus's death, and also partially the Stoic idea of an honorable death, according to the reading guide. These people seem to me to be dying to gain glory, rather than for their beliefs in Jesus. When a death becomes this much of a spectacle, is it really out of faith, or is for the honor that came along with being a martyr? 

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

"I have used the following procedure: I asked them whether they were Christians. Those who admitted it I asked a second and a third time, menacingly. The persistent, I ordered to be led away (for execution)." I found it interesting that Pliny gave those on trial a second and even third chance to deny that they were Christian and to be let free with no more questions asked. It seems to be that they did not want the Christians to have martyrs because it actually strengthened instead of weakening their movement as intended. Jewish martyrs "adopted the ideal of martyrdom as a witness that imitated the suffering and death of Jesus." Being a martyr for Christianity was considered to be a great and noble act for followers of Christianity. It served to strengthen their movement as well. What speaks more highly of a movement than followers who are willing to die for their beliefs? It is because of this that those persecuting Christians did not want more martyrs. "They are not to be sought out," Trajan says to Pliny. They did not wanted to aid the Christian movement by creating more symbols for possible followers to look up to. I would like to hear other opinions on this subject. Do you agree or do you think there is another possible reason for why the persecutors seem hesitant to create more martyrs?

John 18

"After Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley to a place where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered" (NRSV John 18:1). Each of the other gospel authors recount Jesus' time in the Garden of Gethsemane with detail. Mark, Matthew, and Luke each include a verse where Jesus prays to God and asks him to allow Jesus to avoid crucifixion if there was any other option. This is not seen in the Gospel of John. I believe that the author of John is trying to portray Jesus as a stronger figure that does not show fear or hesitancy in such a trying time. I believe he does this to make Jesus a more attractive figure to want to follow and commit to the teachings of because it is natural for people to want a strong and fearless leader. I'm interested to hear other thoughts on why the recount of the Garden of Gethsemane is so skimpy in the Gospel of John.

The Gospel of John

"And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14). When I was looking at the chart you gave us that compared and contrasted the four gospels, I noticed that the idea of Jesus as the eternal Word and the Word made "flesh" was only depicted in the gospel of John. This is made me wonder why John found it necessary to include something like that. Rather than beginning with a genealogy, he begin with tracing Jesus back to God as the "word" becoming "flesh," or Jesus coming as God's only son coming down to earth in the flesh. So why might John have included this striking passage? Maybe he is trying to relate Jesus back to the beginning of creation, when, according to the bible, God used his "word" to create everything. Saying that Jesus is the "word made flesh" could mean that God used the same rationality and power in creating his son that he did in creating the world. It could also help identify Jesus as being a part of God because if God is the word, and Jesus is the word made flesh, then that would make Jesus a part of God. By saying that Jesus was the "word made flesh" John might also be emphasizing Jesus's human qualities. Although Jesus is God, he is also a human and he is portrayed to be imperfect, possibly as a way for people to relate with him. Jesus suffers from temptation, anger, and eventual death, which are all very humanistic characteristics. We saw an example of this in Aeneas, describing him as a very 'human' hero. Attributing these characteristics to Jesus shows that even though he was one with God, he was also very human in his struggles, giving the people hope that they could be forgiven for their human sins. What do you think the significance of this passage is? Why do you think that John was the only Gospel writer to introduce this idea?  

The Gospel According to Luke

My fellow classmates,
The Bible, both the New Testament, as well as the Hebrew Bible, are viewed differently than many other texts since it is a holy text. Given that, one thing that does not sit well with many readers is the idea that there are inconstancies in the Bible, leading to confusion in what message to follow. In the middle of Luke, chapter 12 to be precise, in the midst of a parable, " He (Jesus) said to his disciples 'Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear' "( Luke 12.22). While this can be seen as Jesus saying to just not worry about earthly life and your body here, that in and of itself contradicts the teachings and philosophy of Paul. Paul, a believer that the end of the world would be coming in his lifetime and that the body would be made immortal, was preaching for people to take utmost care of their bodies. He even said if you are a virgin, don't get married. This message is quite contrasting to the explanation Jesus gave in Luke. I think that the differences in message is entirely based on the time, and the corresponding belief about the return of the Messiah. Luke, writing later perhaps now believes the return is not imminent and will put these words into Jesus' mouth telling people not to worry about life on earth. Paul, with his belief about the com in and end of the world happening soon, stresses taking utmost care of the body. What do you think? Is there anything else that could influence this change in idea? Would having these two sources confuse early Christians?
Andrew DaRosa

Gospel of Matthew

“Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at Jordan, to be baptized by him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3.13-15, NRSV)

It struck me as very odd that Jesus, who is sinless and the Son of God, sought out his own baptism. I considered the possible messages that this baptism could imply for Christianity and one conclusion that I drew was this baptism helped to humanize Jesus.  While Jesus was sinless and thus had no need to be baptized, others could look at his baptism as a sign of humility. It might have been comforting to worship someone who does not consider himself above the common man. By being baptized, all Christians can identify with Jesus. Perhaps this was a way to make Christianity more appealing for its followers?

However, at the same time I don’t believe that it is common to want to worship someone who is relatable or human. It is easier to worship someone who is divine and infallible because it provides comfort in knowing that a higher power has a plan.

Another possible explanation for Jesus’s baptism is that it helps legitimize John the Baptist. If even Jesus is willing to be baptized by John then clearly John should be a respected religious authority. This explanation still seems to be an insufficient justification for the baptism in my opinion though. Does anyone else have any ideas as to what the appeal or benefit may be for John the Baptist baptizing Jesus?

The Gospel of Mark

My fellow classmates,
The role of the Pharisees in Mark's gospel is basically how Catholics have been conditioned to see the Pharisees. In chapter 3, verses 2-6, Mark states "They(Pharisees) watched him(Jesus) to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they may accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand 'Come forward'. Then he said to them, 'Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or kill?' But they were silent. He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man 'Stretch out your hand.' He stretched it out and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. (Mark 3:2-6) This plays right into the rude, strict, uncaring way people see them nowadays. However, at the plenary on emerging Christianity, Dr. Ullucci talked about how those were misunderstandings and that was not how things were. Taking his historical view as accurate, this would lead me to believe that Mark was manipulating the view the Christians reading his gospel would have of the Pharisees. I believe that Mark was attempting to make sure there was a clear delineation between the Jewish faith as practiced at Jesus' time, and the, in his opinion, better Christian faith that developed from Jesus. The Pharisees and Jewish elite were unjustly, according to Dr. Ullucci, portrayed, and this reason, I think, is to give Christians reading the gospel a more independent identity. What do you think the purpose of Mark's descriptions of the Pharisees is? Do you think the description is completely accurate?

The Gospel of Mark

In Chapter 4, Jesus compares the kingdom of God to a mustard seed, saying, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade," (Mark 4:30-32). In this parable, Jesus is saying that although this religion is starting small, one day it will grow to be great, and will become the refuge of many. Jesus used many parables such as this to explain things in ways that all kinds of people could understand them. In this way, he could relate the truths of God in familiar settings and languages that were common to the people at the time. Using these stories, he was able to gain the attention of large crowds. Since these stories were easy to remember and filled with symbolism, they were also easily spread to other people. Parables also often provided an open-ended metaphor that allowed followers to interpret them for themselves. This made them think and reflect on their faith and on what Jesus was saying. Using parables, Jesus was able to take on a new approach to teaching and was also able to attract a lot more people to the faith. What do you think about Jesus's use of parables as a means of teaching? Do you think they were effective? Or were they just confusing?

Corinthians 12

In this chapter, we see lines such as "Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but many (1 Corinthians 12.14, NRSV)" and "But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there be no dissension within the body (1 Corinthians 12.24-25, NRSV)." These lines represent part of Paul's metaphor of the human body. In this metaphor, Paul gives greater credence to the perceived inferior parts of the body rather than the apparent greater parts. He uses this metaphor to represent the societal paradigm in which he lived. Doing this, he opens up his parish to the greater part of the population; he opens it up to the lower classes, which is the most populous class. He also, though, insults the upper class calling them "the same (1 Corinthians 12.25, NRSV)" as the lower class. He does this for the only reason that could make sense. He does this to increase the attractiveness to the most populous class of society, while making his religion about equality; in doing this, Paul is making a statement about other religions and his own. He is differentiating his religion as one of equality no matter what: including socio-economic class. He is promoting the lower classes by stating, "giving the greater honor to the inferior member (1 Corinthians 12.24, NRSV)", but my question is: is Paul being passive-aggressive here? Is he insulting the perceived level of the higher classes, while at the same time making his religion more attractive to the lower class? If he is doing this, Paul is extremely cunning and manipulative in the way he uses his propaganda techniques.

Corinthians 7

"'It is well for a man not to touch a woman.' But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Corinthians 7.1-4, NRSV).
When I read this statement, I openly laughed aloud. First, Paul is stating that it is not okay for a man to touch a woman unless it is for purely for reproductive means. He is denying the right of touch in the name of Christianity. How insane is this? We give up our right to touch one another for the right to go to heaven? Then, he goes on to give man's conjugal rights and his own body to his wife, and in turn, give the women's conjugal rights and her own body to the husband. How does this even make sense? We give up a right we're not even supposed to use unless for reproduction to our husband/wife. In the twenty-first century, we can easily see this as taboo, but I wonder if this was taboo in Paul's time. Was sexual behavior seen as immoral? Diogenes had sex in the middle of a town with his wife to challenge taboos, so how can touching a woman in this time period, 400 years after Paul, be seen as immoral?

1 Corinthians

"...women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church," (1 Corinthians, 14:34-35). In this chapter, Paul is talking about what should be done when people gather together for church. He says that two or three prophets should speak and that everything should be done for the purpose of building up the church. He then makes sure to explicitly mention that women should not be a part of this tradition. Paul also addresses women in Chapter 11 saying that women must wear a veil as a "symbol of authority" over their head when they pray so as to not disgrace it.  I've obviously observed this oppression of women in most of the Bible, with the exception of a few key figures. I also am aware that the idea that women were subordinate to their husbands (and men in general) was the norm in the time period that this was written. However, sometimes I feel like Paul contradicts himself when putting women in this position. In Chapter 12, he uses the human body as a metaphor for the church of Christ. He writes that "the body does not consist of one member, but many members" (1 Corinthians 12:14)  and argues that no member is more important or less important than another, they are all essential. He says, "God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member," (1 Corinthians 12:24). If this is the case, then why is the so-called "weaker sex" not given a greater role of authority within the church. It seems that the women are thought to be no where near as essential to the church as the males, and as the "inferior member," that they are not given any honor that could compare with the "superior member." What do you guys think about what Paul writes in his letter? Do you feel like he contradicts himself in saying these things?

Acts 9

"But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name."" (Acts 9:15-16, NRSV).
I may be grasping at straws here, but reading this text, and this excerpt in particular, I thought I noticed some similarities between the god of Stoic belief described by Seneca, and the behavior of god in this passage. God takes a fatherly role over Saul as he chooses him to be his vehicle to spread his teachings. The Stoics believed that gods held a fatherly relationship with men, meaning that they wanted to better the men through adversity. The Stoics also embraced and welcomed adversity and suffering. Saul is going to face great suffering but it will be for a greater good according to the text.
"Saul, like the prophets, was chosen for a special purpose" (Acts 9:15, Annotations). The Stoics believed that the gods only subjected certain men to suffering because those men were the ones who were worthy of it because they had great potential. Here, god has hand chosen Saul for a great task, that will surely entail suffering, because he is worthy of such a task.
I will open this for discussion now. What are your thoughts?

Friday 13th Post - Acts 2

"Peter said to him, 'Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your bed!'(Acts 9.34, NRSV)." "He turned to the body and said, 'Tabitha, get up.' Then she opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up (Acts 9.40, NRSV)."

I know this might sound critical, but would these lines not go against the Christian definition of faith?Webster defines faith as a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Would proof not such as an actual god bestowing gifts upon people diminish the faith that people have in the Christian belief system. Let me elaborate because this can come across as a confusing train of thought. People believe in a god so as to come to terms around the origin of the universe, but one important fact behind this belief is that there is no concrete proof to his/her existence. This is why we call it faith. It is the faith in a god that gives religion its essence, and giving it credence to concrete ideals implodes the nonexistent structure. I accept that if God came down from heaven and healed my aunt or some random person on the street I would inherently have to believe that he was a god and that it would be logical to worship him, but does this not implode the values that religion holds dear? Is not faith the foundation of religion: to believe blindly and follow religion into the abyss of death? And my final question is: Does this quote make Christianity false? Not to be hyperbolic but if today a man healed a dead person in the name of a god, would not everyone follow this one god? Would we not all follow not blindly but with open eyes this new god that has rightfully proven himself? 

Book 12

In the final passage of the Aeneid, Aeneas says to Turnus, “Do you think you can get away from me while wearing the spoils of one of my men? Pallas sacrifices you with this stoke- Pallas- and makes you pay with your guilty blood” (340).

This last scene in the Aeneid exemplifies the image that Virgil intended for Aeneas to be remembered in. Aeneas kills Turnus, “seething with rage… [and] burying his sword in Turnus’ chest”, however seconds before he had considered allowing Turnus to live (340). After seeing Pallas’ belt on Turnus, Aeneas was overtaken with a new surge of vengeance and finally kills Turnus. This final scene was preceded with countless fighting between the two men with ample opportunity for Aeneas to kill Turner. Thus, I believe that Virgil was very deliberate in the circumstances of Turnus’s death. When considering the significance of this death, I thought that Virgil may have been attempting to inspire the same type of loyalty into Romans listening to the Aeneid. Throughout the epic, Aeneas has proven to be a hero, and he was likely idolized by Romans in 19 BC. His loyalty expressed in his inability to forgive Turnus for killing his ally is an example that Virgil intended for the Romans to admire. In a time with constant civil war, Virgil deliberately created an epic hero whose final act is vengeance for the death of his friend.

Aeneid Books 10-12

“And in the center of all this slaughter Camilla raged, an exultant Amazon, one breast bared for battle, a quiver on her back. Whipping javelins from her hand, or wielding a heavy battle-axe for hours on end… Whom did you strike down first, fierce girl, whom last? How many dying bodies did you leave on the earth?

These lines from page 293, starting on line 770, depict Camilla as a powerful warrior, and also emphasize that she is a woman. She is shown as the leader of this battle, who is fierce and strong. When she dies, the troops disperse, and the battle pauses. The Latin troops are lost without her. This is quite a strong and countercultural role that Virgil gave to a female for his time. Female gods are also given a strong role as Juno and Venus essentially control the warfare. Other women, however, are portrayed as much weaker or as possessions. Queen Amata is shown crying about the prospect of Turnus fulfilling his duty and going off to battle, and Turnus brushes her off and insinuates that she is bothering him. Laviania is also depicted in a typical womanly fashion, as a possession that can be married off to whomever will be best for the kingdom. One could also look back to Dido to see an unflattering portrait of a woman. The contrast between the different roles that Virgil creates for the women in his epic is quite strong, and makes one wonder what Virgil’s view of women was, as well as how these women fit in with the ideal of a good Roman woman.