The Amanuensis in Scripture: Who it is? Its importance in hearing the Feminine Voice of Scripture

 The Amanuensis in Scripture: Who it is? 

Its importance in hearing the Feminine Voice of Scripture

It should come as no surprise to us (who have been taught the old standard line about 30 men who wrote the Bible) that not every word purported to appear in certain books was written by the original author whose name may appear on the book. A very simple example of this concerns the death of Moses, which is referenced in a narrative text found in Deuteronomy 34. While this text is certainly a part of the Mosaic body literature, which we call ‘the Law of Moses” or ‘the Torah’, it is clear that this text is added by some type of an authorized secretarial figure. This is just one place where we find this phenomenon taking place. 

In fact, not only are small explanatory texts added or placed in collections of books written by others, but whole books which bear the names of certain persons, were in fact written by other people, known as “amanuenses”, an academic word for a ‘secretary.’

It might also be a surprise to some that divine beings also have their own texts written by human hands. Note the following quote:

“There are five books in the New Testament which represent the basic teachings of Christ within a historical framework. They are called the four Gospels and the Book of Acts. The first four books account for the period when Christ taught in the flesh (both before and after his resurrection) and the fifth occupies the period from the conclusion of his earthly teaching (Acts 1:4-11) and continues with the progression of that teaching (now directed from heaven) until it reached the city of Rome.

There is a unity of purpose and design within these five historical books. Indeed, the Book of Acts is as much a "Gospel" as the first four, though it is common to designate only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by the literary term "Gospels." This is a proper designation because the fifth book is simply a continuation of Luke's Gospel. It would be perfectly proper to call Luke's first composition "The First Gospel of Luke," and the Book of Acts "The Second Gospel of Luke." The internal evidence shows that both are truly "Gospels" in the strict sense of the word. This means there are really five Gospels in the New Testament, not four.

This fact has been recognized by scholars. As mentioned before, Luke's first Gospel deals with the teachings of Christ while he was in the flesh, while the second is the Gospel of the Holy Spirit directed by Christ from heaven, Note the appraisal of Ehrhardt. "The whole purpose of the Book of Acts ... is no less than to be the Gospel of the Holy Spirit" (The Construction and Purpose of the Acts of the Apostles, St.Th., XII, 1958, p.55). (Ernest L. Martin, Restoring the Original Bible, ASK Publications: 1994, pg.332))  

Most of the New Testament books were not written by the people directly whose names appear on them.

“As for the Gospel of Mark, it has long been known that John Mark was recognized as the secretary, or amanuensis, of the apostle Peter. Indeed, in the Gospel of Mark the great humility of Peter is conspicuous in all parts of it. Where anything is related which might show Peter's weakness, we find it recorded in detail whereas the other Gospels often show Peter's strengths. In Mark there is scarcely an action by Christ in which Peter is not mentioned as being a close observer or communicant. All of this affords a reasonable deduction that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was an eyewitness and close observer of the events recorded about Christ's life from the baptism of John to his crucifixion in Jerusalem. The ancient testimony of Papias, in the early second century, that Mark was the secretary of the apostle Peter (and not the actual eyewitness himself) has such good credentials, and the internal evidence of the Gospel itself is so compatible to this view that it seems evident that the Gospel of Mark is really the Gospel of Peter.” (ibid. pg. 335-336)  

“There was no reason for such a change because it can be shown that Mark and Luke were simply the secretaries for two apostles: Peter and Paul. It was common in the first century for men of authority to have amanuenses (official secretaries) to write their letters or books for them. Paul used such people on many occasions. His writing of the Book of Romans is an example. "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" (Romans 16:22). Most, if not all, of Paul's epistles were actually written by amanuenses whom he maintained on his staff of transcribers. Since Luke was a companion of Paul, it is perfectly proper to assume that Luke's Gospel and the Book of Acts were actually the historical record which Paul called "my Gospel" in Second Timothy 2:8.” (ibid. pg.335) 

Now, if it was common for some of the men of Scripture to have and use amanuenses are we to be surprised if some of the men whose writings appear in Scripture acted as amanuenses mainly for their mothers? This should not surprise us at all and in fact, we have direct testimony in Scripture that this is exactly the case. Note Proverbs 31:1:

           

"The words of King Lemuel. An oracle that his mother taught him."  (Proverbs 31:1 ESV)

No one knows who this Lemuel is (some say it is Solomon and if that is the case, then the person who authored this section of Scripture is Bathsheba!) Who is the author makes no difference. What is important is that this text of Scripture is 100% authored by a woman and transcribed by her son, her secretary.

Have you ever noticed how close Solomon and his mother were? I have always been blown away at the image of the King bowing down to his mother when she requested to see him! Talk about respect and honor being displayed to one’s mom!

“So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her and bowed down to her. Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king's mother, and she sat on his right.” (1 Kings 2:19 ESV)

So, now that we have this very specific open example of a son being the secretary for his mother, can we find any other instances of this in Scripture? One may be very surprised at what one might find if we are just willing to be open to the idea.

One of the most important texts which definitely has a feminine voice is found in Proverbs 1-9.

This section is one long proverb and note an important point: it includes the following information:

"hear, my son, your father's instruction and forsake not your mother's teaching." (Proverbs 1:8 ESV)

I challenge anyone to read the next eight chapters with the idea in mind that what is being presented to their son is advice coming from dad and mom!

This is especially the case when you get to chapter seven. Review verses 6-27 and pay attention to whom is speaking. Is this dad speaking? I don't think so. What do you think?

It may not exactly take a village to raise a child, but what happens in the village certainly contributes to and can influence the raising of children. - Final

It may not exactly take a village to raise a child, but what happens in the village certainly contributes to and can influence the raising of children. - Final

When we look at the case of the Prodigal Son and the reconstruction proposed by Bailey, we can see how important what is taking place in the “village” is to what is going on around and connected to the life of all of the villagers. This is where doing something shameful not only reflects badly back on the individual, but it can reflect back poorly on the whole family, and even the whole extended family.  This is a very powerful deterrent to bad behavior when you realize that if you behave badly, then your family may be perceived to have something fundamentally wrong with it and then your brother and sisters become unmarriageable and your father may no longer be able to be accepted to undertake commerce in any real substantive way. It just goes to show how "make" or "break" these kind of cultural systems in ancient times were. They could be very unforgiving.

A good example of this is found in Judges 20. Look at how the acts of just a few people escalated into a civil war! Lines had been crossed and the targets of the wrath were deemed to be so unacceptable to anyone that the only solution was to just wipe them off the face of the earth. This is an extreme example, but let us understand that the Bible in ancient times had elements of tribal culture and this must be taken into account in attempting to inject ideas from the book of Proverbs into our modern world with little or no serious reflection. (which unfortunately, is what many are today doing with no reflection or attempting to consider what Scripture may mean rather than just want Scripture says)

This is why in ancient time’s shame and honor exhibited strong control over the actions of the individual and if we hope to understand ancient Bible texts, we better take this into consideration. 

Let’s look at a more modern example of this in operation. 

At one time, I lived in the great state of Texas, a place that I have such fond memories of family and friends. In Texas today, there exists an interesting example of how what is taking place in the village and the issues of shame versus honor still today are very much in operation. 

I can remember in some of my travels in Texas with my relatives, we would sometimes go into some locales which were religiously very conservative areas. One manifestation of this conservatism of the local people was that in some counties, it was not possible to purchase alcohol. 

It has been decided collectively by the governing authorities in those counties that they were going to pass local ordinances banning the sale of alcoholic beverages. In those communities, it had been determined that they were not going to have alcohol present in their communities.

Now, imagine the looks one might get in such a place if one walked down the street openly carrying a bottle of wine, even one unopened. Certainly, it might be the object of raised eyebrows at a minimum and doing that could lead to a run in with the law. This collective idea in that area that it is shameful and even illegal to drink alcohol gave to those people an ascribed honor by refraining from drinking alcohol. 

I think it is perfectly fine for the people living in those areas to make such legislations if the majority of the people agree to the same. 

Let us be sure that this issue affects how children are raised in those communities. When a child passes into another county in a car and sees all the liquor stores lined up on the border of the next county, he or she will certainly know that there is something different about where he lives. People are living differently due to collectively accepted rules and norms. We can apply this idea when looking at Scriptures in the Old Testament in particular and trying to better understand them.

I believe we need to take this principle into consideration when we are looking at Scripture and realize that there are layers in existence on top of the culture and the society and we must take a multidimensional view of society incorporating the Biblical texts into their proper place in that society and seek to better understand how they interacted with the society and how people implemented them in their daily lives. I believe that if we take this idea into consideration, we are going to be on the road to having a better understanding of what was taking place in the Biblical villages, towns and cities in ancient times and how people may have implemented Scriptural teachings in their lives.

I would imagine that if one thought about it, they could think of other ways in which collective cultural ideas influence how whole societal segments look at specific practices and ways of life and how these ideas dramatically influence individual and collective behavior.

So, how can we better understand what may have been taking place in the ancient cultures here in the Holy Land and how this may have affected how people raised their children? 

I have pointed out in my book “Thy Rod and Thy Staff, They Comfort Me: Christians and the Spanking Controversy” (get it free here - http://parentingfreedom.com/samuelmartin.pdf) that it could very well be that corporal punishment in ancient times did not at all represent the first resort of parents when it came to wayward children. And why? We have to understand that especially in rural areas, there was a very strong cultural system of control of behavior that was overarching and contributing to all aspects of controlling the individual and collective behavior. 

I have pointed out that it could be that corporal punishment may have been considered a last resort for the wayward youth who if he (mainly it concerned boys also) continued to pursue inappropriate activities, this corporal punishment was what he was certain to expect, but this time not at the hand of his father, but rather at the hand of legal judicial authorities who would, if they had to, to keep public order, administer corporal punishment on boys who had done something contrary to the law of the country. Such beating could have been quite severe and as many as 39 lashes could have been administered at any one time.

This is how  the idea of the village and its influence on the individual and the whole collective society can help us to perhaps have a better understanding of God’s Word and perhaps also to look at Scripture in a more comprehensive and holistic way. Certainly, if we do this, we may have a better chance to understand the role of corporal punishment in the Bible and we are meant to understand this issue today in light of the revelation of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. 

It may not exactly take a village to raise a child, but what happens in the village certainly contributes to and can influence the raising of children. - Part 5

Did the Biblical society influence the collective behavior of people?

 

Acheived and Ascribed Shame - A case study using the Parable of the Prodigal Son

“20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.” (Luke 15:20-24)

Comment: When we continue to review this story, we put ourselves back into the story of this second son who has gone and pursued a wayward lifestyle. But we see the father having compassion on his second son and runs to meet him and the celebration ensues.

Now, in this first century context, the behavior of this second son was seen as scandalous and reprehensible. In fact, as mentioned previously, had the neighbors known what this son had really done, his name could have very well been blotted out of memory seeking to distance this community from such a rebel in the hopes that no other youths would follow his horrifying example of outright rebellion. 

Let’s be clear. We are here talking about rural farming conservative people. They are not city folks or living in or near a port city which was much more secular and had much greater foreign influences. Here you are talking about conservative Bible believers and these people were God fearing, simple family oriented farmers generally speaking and they were working to maintain and perpetuate their conservative family oriented lifestyles. Young men who ask to cash out of their families’ inheritance, leave the area leaving a rural farming family to fend for themselves, pursuing profligate lifestyles in big cities who end up wasting all their money and then have the nerve to come back and show their faces in their home towns were not people that the local folks looked up to. On the contrary! When that boy came back, had the local people known what he had done, he might never have even made it alive into the village. Sound extreme? Let us once again remind ourselves of some aspects of the cultural environment we are talking about here. The following text from the Torah can put some perspective on what we are talking about here.

“18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Now, note the above mentioned law in general was rarely implemented and especially after the Temple was no longer in existence, but it just goes to show the attitude of people concerning “stubborn and rebellious sons.” In short, they did not take kindly to these types of individuals who are a threat to a whole way of life. 

Continuing, we can think that when he talks about the ring on the finger, the best robe and the fatted calf, this all had to be done as a part of the story being told? Let’s be clear. The ring on the finger, the best robe and the fatted calf and inviting the neighborhood to a feast is not to celebrate the return of a profligate loser to the community. Even today, who would throw a huge party and pull out all the stops to rejoice the return of a family member who left the family in a hard spot, cashed out on his inheritance, went on holiday and blew it all and then came back home begging just to have a roof over his head? Not a real high point in the history of the family and certainly the stock of the family among its neighbors would certainly sink to all time lows were they to advertise the massive failure of this young person.

It can be looked at as a carefully calculated plan (the cover) to retain the dignity and honor of the family to welcome back the victorious winner who has returned to his home with his head held high after being away on important family business and now he has returned safely to his just reward. This can be how we look at this circumstance of the ring, robe and fatted calf. Here this father saw a chance to restore his son to some semblance of dignity in the eyes of all in the community. What really happened would stay within the family knowledge never to be shared outside. As I said before, were the truth known, not only would the profligate son be jeopardized, but his sin would have affected the whole family negatively. Who in their right mind would ever give their daughter to such a person in marriage, much less a family that produced such a person? In short, everyone was affected by the behavior of such a person. So, what happens next?

25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’” (ESV- Luke 15:25-32)

So, now we see the return of the elder son. He is the one who has stayed loyal in the face of his rebellious brother’s totally unacceptable behavior. When he hears that his brother has returned, he refuses to enter the feast. Think about how this looks? The father is inside having this massive celebration in honor of the hero’s return and his older brother refuses to come inside and join the celebration? I mean this is his only little brother? Talk about awkward. Dad then goes out of the party (another awkward moment when you are supposed to be celebrating with your hero son who has just returned and you just killed the fatted calf and now you are leaving the party? Very out of character for a major celebration for the host to disappear in such a fashion) and “begs” his older son to come inside and join the party (which is a charade in honor of this profligate son). 

The older son will have none of it! Look at what he says which is the strongest indictment yet of the horrible behavior of his little brother, who he has already disowned: “But when this son of yours came (very strong language), who has devoured your property with prostitutes,…” Note this guy is no longer “my brother.” He now equates the father with the son who is reaching down to his level to try to restore him in the eyes of everyone. He even goes and uses stronger language to describe what he did specifically adding fuel to the fire. Remember, once again that this is rural farm country we are talking here and to say that he “has devoured your property with prostitutes” is pretty strong language. In fact, it is scandalous and it is even more so in a rural first century context. 

Now, we'll next consider how we can better understand issues associated with Shame and Honor and how these two issues influence individual and collective behavior.

It may not exactly take a village to raise a child, but what happens in the village certainly contributes to and can influence the raising of children. - Part 4

Did the Biblical society influence the collective behavior of people?

 

Acheived and Ascribed Shame - A case study using the Parable of the Prodigal Son

 

Let’s continue with verse 13 of Luke 15.

“Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living.”

Comment: So here you need to continue reading in a little bit of first century Torah-oriented Israel’s culture into the story. As I said, previously, this is a major affront to the family. How dare could he do such a thing. Really in some ways of looking at it, this young man is more like that one described in Deuteronomy 21:18: the stubborn and rebellious son.

This is often a common theme in films. One of the younger son’s leaves and all of the responsibility for the family falls on the elder son and he resents his younger brother. No doubt, when we look at the actions later of the older brother, we can see someone who is not happy with the activities undertaken by his hooligan little brother.

So now all of the responsibility has fallen on the older brother. He is dealing with the shame of the property sale and his father is busy making up some story to justify the departure of his younger son. No doubt, the father is trying to put a good face on this whole very unorthodox situation. In fact, the shame that this son is bringing on the family not only is a shame to the immediate family, but it also affects the whole extended family, clan, and even the tribe. This is not some trend that the people in the area where this father is living wish to see repeated. In fact, when we consider this story, we have to understand that the life of the younger son now due to his actions could be in danger, believe it or not. It has to be understood that what is taking place here is describing a very tragic situation in a first century cultural context where the Bible is the ruling book of the land.  Let’s go on.

“And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.”

Comment: So now he has reached the low point. He is destitute working as a labourer feeding pigs. What is interesting to note here is the reference to the “pods” that the pigs ate. Here it is to be understood that they are talking about the fruit of the carob tree, which the pods are not good for food, but some animals seem to like them.

Now, what is this young man thinking? He is thinking how he has ruined his life. How he will never marry and have children because no father in his right mind would give his daughter to marry such a loser and rebel against authority and the prevailing culture at that time.

What we can see here is a picture being painted of a ‘rebel’, a one totally outside of the cultural norm of Torah culture in Israel in Jesus’ day. Such a person would have been reviled and called the ‘stubborn and rebellious son” that he was and the agricultural patriarchal community of Israel would have wanted nothing to do with this rebel. The story continues:

17 “But when he  came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’

 

Comment: So here he remembers how good things were at home. Now he has no plan or future to return home as a son in any capacity. He is planning to return home just to have a place to live and food to eat. Nothing more, because he realizes the shame he has brought on his family. But wait! What happens?

“20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.” (Luke 15:20-24 ESV)        


We will continue this story in the next post.