Scenes From Jerusalem's Wailing Wall

So, my schedule here in Jerusalem is very full and intense, which means that blogging is difficult to get around to.  With so many photos and video clips taken, I thought that I'd be selective here and offer just a few shots of the Wailing Wall (or Western Wall or Solomon's Wall) within the Old City (the term "Old City" is used to refer to ancient Jerusalem, which was a walled city and which is different, of course, than modern Jerusalem, which surrounds it).  So, here are some photos and a videos with brief descriptions.

(This is a picture from near the old German hospital looking diagonally towards the Wailing Wall. The Wall is located just below the Muslim Dome of the Rock, which is related to the near Al Aqsa Mosque (which would be just off to the right of this picture). The Wall is known as the Western Wall as it is located on the Western portion of the temple mount in 2nd Temple / King Solomon period. It is nick-named the Wailing Wall because Jews can often be heard lamenting or wailing there, crying out for the coming of the Messiah, among other things. Click the image to make the photo larger.)

  (This is a head-on shot of the Wailing Wall. While there is much serious study and prayer that goes on in this area, you can also see celebrations taking place and people doing routine things like talking on cell phones, etc. Those praying at the wall can slip pieces of paper through cracks with prayers on them that are seen as something akin to sacrifices/offerings to God.)
 

(If you look at the bottom right corner of this picture, you will notice a group of young boys following a father who is carrying his son upon his shoulders. They are all singing and making noise. They are celebrating the boys Bar Mitzvah. This particular day is Dec. 27th, 2011, which is the day before Hanukkah ends. There were numerous celebrations (see the video below) which were taking place in this area on that day.)

 

(Here you can see Jews and even a non-Jew praying at the Wall. Non-Jews are welcome. In recent history the Pope visited the Wailing Wall and prayed there and also slipped a piece of paper through one of the cracks. Notice the giant Menorah off to the right in the photo. It has 9 candelabras, which is different from the traditional 7-armed menorah. The 9-armed menorah is in celebration of Hanukkah.)

 

(In this picture, we are looking at a portion of the Wall which is located under a tunnel. Within this tunnel there are large bookcases with Hebrew scriptures and commentaries. There are also many desks. Devout and studied Jews will often sit in this tunnel, facing the Wall, and meditate, pray, study, read, etc. Notice those stand and those sitting. Also take note of the differences in garb, some being traditional and some not.)

  
(Again, here is a shot of some folks reading and praying.)
  (Here is a brief video I shot of some Hanukkah celebrations taking place at the Western / Wailing Wall.)
***UPDATE:  Just as I was finishing writing this post, something incredibly moving and intense happened to me!  The place where I'm staying here in Jerusalem is located in an apartment complex.  For about the last hour the woman upstairs, who I just learned was a Holocaust survivor, has been wailing and crying like nothing I've ever heard in my life.  On top of that, she is beating her head against the walls and floors.  Evidently, she goes through these spells quite frequently.  It is so eerie.  Chills have come over me like never before.  It is hard to convey through typing at this point but the sheer anguish and hurt almost seem inhuman!  I seriously have never heard any kind of emotion on this level from anybody!!!  It is the realest, rawest display of emotion, so much so that, one can almost imagine themselves in the horrors of the Holocaust there with here.  I am deeply moved and am almost paralyzed with shock and fear.  It is so bad that I had gone out to wake my hosts, thinking that a child or woman was being severely (and I mean severely!!!!!) beaten and that we really needed to call the police.  My hosts proceeded to tell me of her story.  The stark irony is that this all was going on during a post on the Wailing Wall here in Jerusalem, a place where Jews mourn, grieve and pray deeply for deliverance from suffering, for the coming of the Messiah and the heartbreak of their devastated past.  All I can really say right now is, this will be experience that may haunt me for the rest of my life!

Walking The Abraham Path

A friend of mine sent me a link to a fascinating site yesterday. Perhaps this is old news to you but it was new to me. The site deals with "The Abraham Path" that is being recreated in the Mid-East. Here's a bit about the site. After you read this, check it out (click HERE):

"The Abraham Path is a route of cultural tourism that retraces the journey made by Abraham (Ibrahim) through the heart of the Middle East some four thousand years ago. Three and a half billion people — over half the human family — trace their history or faith back to Abraham, considered the father of monotheism. The Abraham Path honors this shared cultural heritage by linking together into a single itinerary of outstanding interest and beauty the ancient sites associated with Abraham and his family."

The Messiah Tablet: Is It A Big Deal?

As you may have heard by now, researchers and scholars have been discussing an ancient tablet dating to about the 1st century BC, written with Hebrew markings, that refers to a dying and rising Messiah figure. Ben Witherington, one of my former professors has given his two-cents and other notables like Ada Yardeni and Daniel Boyarin have also weighed in on it. The advertisement on Yahoo’s front-page (now moved to the "Buzz" section), in my opinion, is quite misleading: “Tablet Raises Debate On Christianity’s Origins”. Really, this debate is not about the origins of Christianity. A better and more accurate title might be: “Tablet Raises Debate On Christianity’s Originality”.

This is not a debate about origins as much as it is originality. The fact of the matter is, the “dying and rising Messiah-type” figure, even if it did exist in Hebrew thought prior to Jesus, means quite little. In all reality and in my estimation, it has no significant bearing on Christianity. I know when I say this that I am at odds with some prominent scholars but seriously, I think many—including the non-scholarly “Yahoo”—are off-base.

There are a number of reasons as to why I’m saying this. Firstly, let's just assume the claim that Jesus took this idea from Judaism or somewhere else. Just because he adopted the idea or notion of a dying and rising messiah / savior figure from somewhre else, means next to nothing. Jesus borrowed parables, theological principles, scripture, analogies, etc. from the people and culture He lived in. If He “borrowed” or “adapted” the idea, oh well.

Secondly, the “dying and rising” theme was present in ancient Mediterranean astrology and agricultural stories/myths. Some of these are found in Hebrew thought long before Jesus. It has long been known that Jesus did not come up with this idea. This is nothing novel (thus, to make the assumption of the previous claim, is to assume something erroneous). What was novel about Christianity, however, was that where the other stories were mythic narratives or pagan beliefs, the first Christians claimed that Jesus, as a human, was literally killed and raised as “The” Messiah.

Thirdly, and I shall not belabor this point, but some will have a problem with the tablets because they may call their “predicting” Jesus into question. I have written a number of posts concerning this aspect of Jesus and have repeatedly shown that the things Jesus said would happen, before they happened, were not so much predictions (as in telling the future) as the logical consequences and outworkings of what He heard that the religious and political leaders of His day were planning to do to Him. Check those posts out HERE and HERE.

In the end, the tablet does little for Jesus, modern or ancient Christianity and certainly, it does nothing to discredit any of them. Other than affirming what scholarship has already known about “dying and rising” savior figures, this tablet is probably most valuable for recognizing the fact that ancient Hebrews had strong views on this matter—which, again, we’ve known for quite a while. So, while this has really, nothing to do with the origins of Christianity, it does have a few things to say about the originality of Christianity—namely, that some aspects of it weren’t all that original. In the end, though, originality isn’t what made Christianity catch on. What made Christianity spread like wildfire is that Jesus wasn’t simply a mythic figure but rather, an actual human who was killed and raised. He was the “dying and rising” Savior / Messiah, par excellence.

$20 Well Spent: Chaim Potok

I stopped into Half-Price Books today and picked up a collection of works from one of my favorite authors, certainly my favorite Jewish author, Chaim Potok. If you've yet read any of his books, I would highly encourage you to get ahold of a few. A good starter is his work The Chosen. It's a very fun, thought-provoking, academic, easy-read. It can also shed tremendous light on how to deal with loved ones who have different views or who may seemed to have strayed from the family's faith. It also offers some insights into the struggle students often face when they go off to college or become more critical thinkers and begin to ask questions of their faith (e.g. evolution/creation, biblical interpretation, etc.). Anyway, after sitting in the doctor's office for 2 and 1/2 hours this morning, I went and picked up some books to make me feel better. Indeed, I do feel better as this was $20 well spent. Here's what I picked up:

The Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek & Latin Contour of Mark’s Gospel: Studies in Mark, Pt. 25

A few posts ago, I wrote about some of the circumstances surrounding the composition of Mark’s Gospel. In that post, I argued that the Gospel according to Mark was the product (attested to by the Church Fathers) of Mark recording a number of lectures given by Peter in Rome, where Peter compared Matthew and Luke’s accounts. It was during this time that the Romans sitting in the crowd, asked Mark for a copy of his documenting of the lectures. (Click the following link for more on this: Composing Mark.)

What this means, of course, is that Mark’s account was produced in the main, for a Roman audience. What I want to do in this post is to show how the many explanations of both Aramaic terms and Jewish customs in Mark’s work, give strong credence to the fact it was indeed, written in Rome for those of Roman orientation and/or origin. Furthermore, I will show a list of Latinisms and Latin load words that have been uncovered in the text. Surely, Mark would not have included such idioms (which, unlike the Aramiac terms and Jewish practices, he does not have to explain) and terms had his audience not been Roman.

Here is a chronological list of Aramaic uses as they occur in Mark’s Gospel:

* 3.17 (Boanerges – “which means, sons of thunder”)
* 4.12 (here quoting Isaiah, Mark veers from the LXX and follows the Aramaic Targum)
* 5.41 (Talitha Kum – “which means, Little girl, I say to you, get up”)
* 7.11 (Korban – “that is, devoted to God”)
* 7.34 (Ephphatha – “which means, be opened”)
* 10.46 (Bartimaeus – “which means, son of Timaeus”)
* 14.36 (Abba – no explanation, though one might take the following 'ho pater' as a parenthetical mark and thus, as an explanation)
* 15.22 (Golgotha – “which means, the place of the skull”)
* 15.34 (Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani – “which means, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me”)

One can see that after each Aramaic term or phrase that is used (with the possible exception of Abba in 14.36), Mark offers an explanation. Needless to say, he would not have wasted time, ink or parchment on writing down explanations of these terms had his audience been familiar with them. Aramaic, the language of the land of Galilee (esp. Palestine) was not the language of Rome, Latin and Greek were. What this suggests is that Mark was not composed for an Aramaic or Galilean audience.

Throughout Mark’s work, the reader also encounters a number of places where Mark takes some time to explain Jewish traditions and/or beliefs. These passages are as follows:

* 7.3-4 (“The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles and dinging seats.”)
* 14.12 (“On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread—when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb—Jesus’ disciples asked Him…”)
* 15.6 (“Now it was the custom at the Festival to release a prisoner whom the people requested.”)
* 15.42-3 (“It was Preparation Day—that is, the day before the Sabbath—So as evening approached…”)

What can we learn from these explanations? Well, just as he would not have had to explain Aramaic terms to an Aramaic crowd, Mark would not have had to define Jewish rituals and holy days to a predominantly Jewish crowd! So, we can gather from these explanations that the crowd was neither Aramaic speaking nor Jewish. However, there are a number of clues in Mark’s text that suggest that the audience was Roman. One of the most helpful textual clues come with all of the Latinisms and Latin loan words/phrases. Here is a list, which most textual scholars agree on—I have compared this list to other New Testament works, noting where Mark’s uses are unique or where they might correspond with other important uses:

* 2.23 (hodon poiein – Lat = iter facere; unique to Mk.)
* 3.6 (sumboulion edidoun – Lat = consilium dederunt; Mt. usually uses sumboulion elabon)
* 4.21 (modios – Lat = modius; Unique to Mk.)
* 5.9 (legei – Lat = legio; Lk. uses this once at 8.34)
* 5.15 (legiona – Lat = legio)
* 6.27 (spekoulator – Lat = speculator; Unique to Mk.)
* 6.37 (denarion – Lat = denarius)
* 12.14 (kensos – Lat = census)
* 12.42 (lepta; unique to Mk.)
* 12.42 (kodrantes; Used once in Mt. at 5.26)
* 15.15 (hikanon poiein – Lat = satis facere; Unique to Mk.)
* 15.15 (phragellan – Lat = fragellare; Used once at Mt. 27.26)
* 15.16 (Praitorion – Lat = Praetorium; Used once at Mt. 27.27)
* 15.19 (tithentes ta gonata – Lat = genua ponentes; Unique to Mk.)
* 15.39 (kenturion – Lat = centurio; Unique to Mk. When used in Mt., Lk. and Acts, the term is ekatontarches or a derivative of it)
* 15.44 (kenturiona – Lat = centurio)
* 15.45 (kentruionos – Lat = centurio)

As can be seen in the terms above, not all of these Latin terms/phrases are unique to Mark. Indeed, when Mark retells the passion events, he adopts a couple of Matthew’s Latin terms (e.g. verses 27.26, 27). Just as well, there are other terms, such as denarion that are used repeatedly throughout the New Testament. However, there are a number of terms and phrases that are unique only to Mark’s account. What can we deduce from this data? For one, it shows that Mark purposefully adapts his account, which is based on Mt. and Lk., to fit a Roman audience. Second, since Mark does not offer explanations of these terms but simply works them in, is telling; unlike the Aramaic words and Jewish customs, no explanation is needed. Had Mark’s audience not been Roman, we would have expected him to, as he did with the Aramaic words and Jewish practices, to explain. Thirdly, it shows that Mark had some knowledge of Latin but not a lot; he still wrote in Greek!

Thus, it appears, from a textual analysis of Mark’s account that his audience is clearly Roman. This comports well with my previous argument that indeed, Mark wrote in Rome at the request of Roman persons who were in the audience listening to Peter speak. With this knowledge, we might begin to look for some relationships between Paul’s letter to the Romans, the letters he wrote while locked-up in Rome, Roman historical works and Mark’s work. For instance, one can easily see how Romans 14 and Mark 7.1-23 speak to similar issues. One could also see how the opening of Mark’s work (often criticized for seeming abrupt, which I totally disagree with) is Roman in demeanor (click here to read a previous post of mine on this subject: Mark’s Opening Scene).

In forthcoming posts, I will continue to offer evidences for the circumstances surrounding the composition of Mark’s work, for now, think on these things.