←back to thread

The staff ate it later

(en.wikipedia.org)
477 points gyomu | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Y_Y ◴[] No.45105801[source]
> Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same with their secret arts. For each one threw down his staff and they turned into serpents. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.

- Exodus 7:1-12 (NIV)

Many moons ago I had a girlfriend who worked on an nationally broadcast afternoon show where they often had guest chefs demonstrating dishes, so I would come home from my thankless PhD work to eat Michelin-starred food from a lunchbox. Overall not so bad.

replies(5): >>45106174 #>>45112053 #>>45113394 #>>45113470 #>>45114493 #
bambax ◴[] No.45113394[source]
Not sure what the quote has to do with anything here, but it's a as good an opportunity as ever to say that large parts of the "Old Testament" draw most of its inspiration from the code of Hammurabi ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"), the Epic of Gilgamesh (which gave us, notably, the story of the deluge, and the dark role of the serpent) and Ancient Egypt, to which it owes, among many others, the concept of eternal life and the idea that man was made in God's image.

To be "in God's image" was one of the titles of Pharaoh.

And about the staff: early depictions of Jesus often have him holding a magic wand [0], as he was considered by followers and ennemies alike to be a magician. The "Three Wise Men" or "Three Kings" (?!) that show up at his birth are just "magi" (magicians) in the original text [1].

[0] https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi

replies(9): >>45113557 #>>45113684 #>>45114068 #>>45114434 #>>45114700 #>>45115715 #>>45115776 #>>45115905 #>>45120418 #
danhau ◴[] No.45114068[source]
These depictions can probably be dismissed, just as any other depiction of Jesus. That painting has been made long after his death. The only clues to his likeness are deductions from biblical texts and historical context. For example, he most likely didn‘t have long hair (1. Corinthians 11), and he also wasn‘t European looking (should be obvious).
replies(1): >>45114273 #
barry-cotter ◴[] No.45114273[source]
> he also wasn‘t European looking (should be obvious).

Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines all look very similar and Jesus was definitely of the Levant. I hope you won’t deny Spaniards and Greeks are European.

replies(1): >>45114335 #
krapp ◴[] No.45114335[source]
In this context, "European" means "white." Jesus probably did not look like the bearded white hippie commonly depicted in Western (primarily American and British) iconography.

Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines may or may not look similar (seems a bit broad, like the geographical definition of "European") but they also don't often look like "white people." Especially not in Egypt or the Levant.

replies(3): >>45115981 #>>45116109 #>>45116183 #
watwut ◴[] No.45116109[source]
As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird.

Likewise, not counting Spaniards into white is weird too, but at least it does not betray complete lack of knowledge about what counts as Europe.

replies(3): >>45116174 #>>45116300 #>>45116371 #
krapp ◴[] No.45116300{3}[source]
>As an European, I find the definition of European that excludes Spaniards super weird.

Because you are, as I suspect many people will, intentionally misreading the context of my comment.

I am implying that the use of "European" herein does not literally refer to the geographic region known as "Europe," but rather that in the context of a statement about the likely physical appearance of Jesus it should be understood as a statement about race and ethnicity whereby "European" is a politically correct descriptor for the common set of physical traits often described as "white," as is represented in Western depictions of Jesus, particularly where traits like skin color, eye color and hair color are concerned.

replies(2): >>45116867 #>>45126588 #
1. barry-cotter ◴[] No.45126588{4}[source]
99.99% of the population of the Mediterranean basin at the time Jesus lived were white, almost certainly more given that the trans-Saharan slave trade was a creature of the camel and post dated the Arab conquest of North Africa.
replies(1): >>45126640 #
2. acdha ◴[] No.45126640[source]
“White” didn’t exist at that time and the people of the Mediterranean certainly didn’t think of themselves as one homogeneous group. The various peoples had prejudices about each other which only consolidated into a hierarchy when the trans-Atlantic slave trade needed to legally define who couldn’t be property. Prejudices by, for example, the English or American against Greeks or Italians lasted into the 20th century.
replies(1): >>45135856 #
3. CRConrad ◴[] No.45135856[source]
> Prejudices by, for example, the English or American against Greeks or Italians lasted into the 20th century.

Which is a bit funny, considering how they asdmired the ancient Greeks and Romans. Why did they consider their culture and statecraft as so ideal, if they considered the people that originated them as so inferior?

replies(1): >>45140883 #
4. acdha ◴[] No.45140883{3}[source]
From what I’ve read, there was a lot of thought about them having fallen from their ancestors. Some of the eugenics types wrote about this as a cautionary tale about mixing with other races or letting them share power. The reasoning only makes sense if you start with the conclusion and work backwards trying to make it fit.