The Others Review

Last night I watched The Others. It was highly praised in the YouTube comment sections and as an avid fan of horror I figured I would give it a shot. I was not disappointed. Considering it was made in 2001 I was a bit skeptical. Generally I consider 2000–2009, with some exceptions of course, to be a pretty lousy time period for horror films. The movie has Nicole Kidman in it which is a huge plus and she does a phenomenal acting job.

Here’s the wiki synopsis:

Grace Stewart (Nicole Kidman is a devout Roman Catholic mother who lives with her two small children in a remote country house in the British Crown Dependency of Jersey in the immediate aftermath of World War II. The children, Anne (Alakina Mann) and Nicholas (James Bentley), have an uncommon disease, characterized by photosensitivity, so their lives are structured around a series of complex rules to protect them from inadvertent exposure to sunlight. The arrival of three servants at the house — aging Mrs. Bertha Mills (Fionnula Flanagan) elderly gardener Edmund Tuttle (Eric Sykes), and a mute girl named Lydia (Elaine Cassidy) — coincides with a number of odd events, and Grace begins to fear they are not alone.

The movie is pretty dark throughout the film lighting wise and interestingly enough one of the scariest scenes is when the light comes in. Otherwise the story centers around a mother and her two kids who are experiencing strange occurrences. The movie isn’t exactly very scary so to say, but it is definitely very suspenseful and keeps you on edge throughout the entire film.

One of the reasons the film seems so eerie is that the family is British. Personally, in horror films, I have always considered little British children to be a very scary element. Perhaps another reason why I was a bit more scared (though like I said, ultimately it’s not a very scary movie) is because it takes place in a large, old house with very dark lighting. My family’s house in Minnesota is a large, old, and dark house. As a kid I was always scared to be home alone because of all the noises the house makes such as the floors creaking, old pipes, and whatnot. So there was probably an element of that at play for me.

Although part way through, probably the first half, you might think you know where it’s going, you’re most likely wrong. I didn’t start to put the pieces together until the very end. The plot twist is beautifully done and the movie actually ends on a pretty happy note. There are few startling moments that really keep you hooked. The entire film has a very dark and eerie feel to it which makes up for the lack of scariness overall. And the plot twist at the end is really good. Overall I’d say it’s probably one of the better horror movies I’ve seen from the early 2000s.

Rating: 6.5/10

–M

Quick Thought On Mattew 1.21-23

In the first chapter of Matthew lies an interesting and frequently overlooked flaw. In 1.21 the angel tells Mary that she will “give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.”

Yet then just two verses later, Matthew says that this fulfills the prophecy that “the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.”

The problem is that we have two different names in the running for this new born son. Why does Matthew say that this fulfills the prophecy, that he will be named Immanuel, if they name him Jesus? Why isn’t he named Immanuel?

The answer is pretty simple. The word Immanuel, as Matthew reports, means ‘God is with us.’ Matthew, by citing the Immanuel prophecy, is opening up his gospel by stating that God is with us. This is a theological point Matthew is trying to make and so he not only opens with it, but he closes with it.

Jesus tells his disciples in the last verse of Matthew’s gospel (28.20); “Remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Seen in this light, the Immanuel reference in 1.21 is not so much of a contradiction as it is a literary device employed by Matthew to hammer home a theological message; god is with us. Matthew opens by proclaiming God is with us, and he closes with Jesus confirming that he is with us.

–M

1 Corinthians Reference of 1 Enoch

In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians there is an interesting passage that seems to be referencing a passage from the Book of Enoch. In chapter 11 Paul discusses women covering their head and makes a strange comment about angels.

6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10 For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Verse 10 is where Paul makes the angel comment. He then goes on to ask a few rhetorical questions about whether or not it is proper for women to pray to God with their heads uncovered. From there he moves on to talk about the Lord’s supper. Yet in that one line he makes an obscure reference to angels. He cites the reason women ought to have their head covered is “because of the angels.” Where is this idea coming from?

This is likely a loose reference to the Book of Enoch and it’s account of the descent of the angels. In 4Q Enoch b, verses 1-4 the “sons of the sky” who are the angels in heaven, look down to earth and are turned on by the women. They then decide to go down to earth and find women for themselves and mate with them.

1 [a]ll the days [of your life…] 2 It happened that when [in those days the sons of men increased,] 3 pretty and attractive [daughters were born to them. The Watchers, sons of the sky, saw them and lusted for them] 4 and said [to each other: Let’s go and pick out women from among the daughters of men and sire for ourselves]

So the angels descend to heaven and begin to “penetrate them” and they teach them sorcery. The women then become pregnant and give birth to giants. This passage from Enoch is itself a reference to Genesis which briefly mentions giants. “The Nephilim (giants) were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them.” (Gen 6.4) The ensuing wickedness and rampant sinning leads God to wipe out the human race with the flood.

Back to Paul, the comment about women covering their heads so the angels will not be tempted seems to be a clear reference to Enoch. As this literature was widely popular among various sects, it makes sense that Paul would have been aware of it.

–M

The Divine Messiah Reza Aslan Missed

In his 2013 best selling book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Dr. Reza Aslan argued that the historical Jesus should best be understood as a radical revolutionary fighting against the Roman occupation. According to Aslan, Jesus was a poor Jewish peasant who was a disciple of John the Baptist. From there he began his own movement (though he did not intend on starting a new religion) preaching the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. Aslan stresses that the kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed was to be an earthly kingdom, not a heavenly one (I disagree). It would be a literal kingdom on earth that would reestablish the Davidic rule over Israel.

After his violent cleansing of the temple, Jesus was arrested by the local authorities and was executed by the Romans for his zealous actions as well as for proclaiming to be the messianic king. This pissed off the Romans because only they could appoint kings. 

Aslan’s book was met with controversy and many were unnecessarily harsh on him. Perhaps the most notable of these incidents was the disastrous Fox News Interview. Yet as Prof. Dale Martin has pointed out, his thesis is nothing new to the field of early Christianity and is frankly in many ways a rebranded version S.G.F. Brandon’s Jesus and the Zealots. Martin’s review, and others as well, seem to suggest that while Aslan’s book is very well written, it’s nothing new, contains some glaring errors, and relies to heavily on outdated scholarship. Richard Carrier suggested that Aslan seems to simply ignore all the scholarship that disagrees with his thesis. Craig Evans highlighted some geographical and historical errors in his book as well.

That being said, Dr. Aslan is not an acting scholar in the field. Though his B.A. is in religious studies, his PhD is in sociology, not New Testament, early Christianity, theology, ancient history, or even classics. He currently teaches creative writing at UC-Riverside, which is evident as his writing in Zealot is superb.

For this post, I will focus on one element that Aslan got very wrong. For decades, scholars have fallen down the rabbit hole trap of proclaiming that the Jewish messiah was not suppose to be a ‘divine’ or ‘son of god’ figure. The commonly touted narrative goes that; the Jews were expecting a human messiah, not a divine or son of god messiah. Generally this does hold up for many sects of ancient Judaism, including the one(s) that rejected Jesus as the messiah in the years following his death. So by and large, yes the messiah was suppose to be a political leader, a militaristic badass who would come in and wipe out the enemies of Israel (the Romans at the time) and from there he would reestablish the Davidic throne and restore the kingdom of Israel. In most cases this was an earthly person. However, this is not universally true among Judaism.

As I have previously posted, Judaism in the first century was widely sectarian and thus what was true for some sects of Judaism was not necessarily true for others. Even on points they did agree on, they differed on what those points meant. 

Aslan states in his book:

“There is, however, one thing about which all the prophecies seem to agree: the messiah is a human being, not divine. Belief in a divine messiah would have been anathema to everything Judaism represents, which is why, without exception, every text in the Hebrew Bible dealing with the messiah presents him as performing his messianic functions on earth, not in heaven.”

Again, while this depiction of the Jewish messiah generally hold up, there are sects of Judaism that did believe in a ‘son of God’ messiah. John J. Collins, in his book King and Messiah as Son of God, argues that the Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246) in the Dead Sea Scrolls makes reference to a son of god figure, and that the best understanding of that figure is as the Jewish messiah.

The text reads:

He will be called the Son of God, and they will call him the Son of the Most High like a shooting star. that you saw, so will be thier kingdom, they will rule several years over the earth and crush everything, a people will crush another people and nation (will crush) nation. Blank (space left balnk in the manuscript) Until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from warfare. Their kingdom will be an eteranl kingdom, and their paths will be righteous. They will judge the earth with truth, and all (nations) will make peace. The warfare will cease from the land, and all (nations) will worship him. The great God will be their help, He Himself will fight for them, putting peoples into their power, all of them. He will cast them away before him, His dominion will be an everlasting dominion and all the abysses

Here we are given a description of the appearance of a son of God figure during a time of strife. This is typical apocalyptic language and though some have argued that the sequence of events (the son of God comes, and then all hell breaks lose i.e. “a people will crush another people and nation will crush nation) indicates that the son of God is a part of the wickedness frequently described in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Collins argues this is not the proper way to read the text. He points to Daniel 12.1 where the rise of Michael is followed by a “time of anguish.” Also, in 4 Ezra 13, the man from the sea appears but immediately after there appears, “an innumerable multitude of men were gathered together from the four winds of heaven to make war against” him. Thus the idea that simply because the savior figure has arrived, in apocalyptic literature, does not mean that the time of turmoil is over. 

The reading, “the people of God will rise up” can also be read as “he will raise up the people of god.” Given those points it is safe to read the son of God figure as the ‘savior’ figure in the story who will raise up the people of God and conquer their enemies. 

It is therefore in my opinion more reasonable to identify this son of God character as the Jewish messiah. He is here depicted as a coming Jewish ruler who will overthrow the wickedness and establish a new dominion forever. Collins suggests the basis for calling this figure the son of God is from Psalm 2 (you are my son, today I have begotten you) and 2 Samuel 7 (he will be a son to me and I will be a father to him). 

Thus the claim that there is no connection between a son of God and messianic expectation, or that a son of God messiah would be an “anathema to everything Judaism represents” can no longer be supported. While it is true that this messianic concept was not widespread throughout Judaism it at least existed. Some Jews were expecting a divine messiah. 

Furthermore, there is another instance where the Dead Sea Scrolls maybe referring to a messiah who is divine in some sense. The Messianic Apocalypse in 4Q521 refers to a messiah who will come and rule heaven and earth. Interestingly, he is associated with several miraculous signs, many of which are actually found in Matthew and Luke in their gospels.  The signs associated with this messiah include; healing the wounded, opening the eyes of the blind, raising the dead, and bringing good news to the poor. All four of those can be found in Matthew and Luke. The opening the eyes of the blind and raising of the dead would certainly be miraculous feats, and unlike the synoptics where Jesus says “by the power of god” or “your sins are forgiven,” not “I forgive your sins” 4Q521 explicitly states that he, meaning the messiah figure will do the miracles. This would certainly imply some kind of divinity. 

[…For the hea]vens and the earth shall listen to His Messiah […] For He shall heal the critically wounded, He shall raise the dead, He shall bring good news to the poor, He shall (unknown), He shall lead the [hol]y ones, and the hungry He shall enrich.

All this seems to indicate that there were Jews who expected a divine (in some sense) messiah or a son of God messiah. Thus, Dr. Aslan has misrepresented the state of sectarian Judaism in his book and his statement, “that it would have been an anathema to Judaism” is simply not true. It was not widespread among Jews, but it certainly existed.

–M

Love Triangle: The Connection Between Luke 1.30-35, The Hymn to Aphrodite 192-200, and 4Q246

While reading James VanderKam’s The Meaning of the Dead Scrolls I came across a new way to look at Luke 1.30-35. Previously I had taken the approach that Luke was echoing the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite in his account of the angel appearing to Mary. Yet VanderKam seemingly agrees with John J. Collins in his assessment, that the Lukan passage is influenced by 4Q246 from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Luke 1.30-35 reads as:

^“30The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. ³¹And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. ³²He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. ³³He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’ ³⁴Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’^* 35The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born^* will be holy; he will be called Son of God.”

Now compare that to the Homeric hymn to Aphrodite 192-200

Then Aphrodite the daughter of Zeus answered him: “Anchises, most glorious of mortal men, take courage and be not too fearful in your heart. You need fear no harm from me [195] nor from the other blessed ones, for you are dear to the gods: and you shall have a dear son who shall reign among the Trojans, and children’s children after him, springing up continually. His name shall be Aeneas,because I felt awful grief in that I laid me in the bed of a mortal man: [200] yet are those of your race always the most like to gods of all mortal men in beauty and in stature.

The words in bold are my doing. In both cases an angel  appears to a woman and informs them that they need not be afraid because they are in good favor with god (the gods). The angel next reveals that the woman will conceive a child who will reign forever and ever.

This seems to be an undeniable parallel and we can conclude that it is highly likely that Luke used the Homeric hymns as a reference when constructing his narrative.

And yet Collins raises a great point about the Dead Sea Scrolls when he opined, “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Luke us dependent in some way, whether directly or indirectly, on this long lost text from Qumran.” When reading his translation of 4Q246 1.9-2.10 it is evident that both Luke and the DSS share themes regarding the son of god and the son of the most high.

[…] will be called great, and be designated by his name. “Son of God” he shall be called, and they will name him “Son of the Most High.” Like sparks which you saw [or: of the vision], so will be their kingdom. For years they shall rule on the earth and they will trample all. People will trample on people and city on city, [interval] until the people of God arises [or: until he raises up the people of God] and all the rest from the sword.

While the parallel with the Dead Sea Scroll is more narrow than the parallel with the hymn to Aphrodite, there is still a clear reference to someone who “will be great” and be called “son of the most high.” Even in the DSS passage we get an indication of some kind of kingdom ruling for many years which is also found in the Lukan text.

Though I regard the Homeric hymn parallel to be far stronger than the DSS passage, both no doubt may have influenced Luke in his writing.