Thursday, May 14, 2020

Matthias

Today is the feast of St. Matthias, Apostle. The story about him in Acts 1 is interesting in a number of ways. It occurs between the Ascension and Pentecost; Jesus has given his disciples their mission but they have not yet received the full measure of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, it often gets skipped over. But we learn a number of things from it. The disciples are meeting regularly in fairly large groups. The eleven Apostles left are explicitly mentioned, as are Mary the Mother of Jesus, the women, and the brothers of the Lord. (The women are mentioned not as if they were just a generic bunch of women but as if they were a well-defined even if perhaps not formally defined group. This fits with a number of things said in the Gospel of Luke, e.g., Luke 8:1-3, Luke 23:54-56; cp. Mark 15:40-41.) But the gathering that chooses Matthias has about 120 disciples all told (which number may have only included the men, since Peter only addresses the men).

Peter is quite clearly the leader here; he tells them that Scripture says that Judas needs to be replaced and they do it (the word he uses is dei, i.e., 'It is required'). In fact, while it is never said, the whole thing is structured as if Peter had called the meeting specifically in order to do what they end up doing. Peter's reason is based on Scripture; he quotes Psalm 69 and Psalm 109. The latter is straightforward in its application ("May another take his place of leadership"), although the word for 'place of leadership' is 'supervision', episkopen. The other one reads a bit oddly in English: "May his place be deserted; let there be no one dwelling in it." It seems a little odd to quote that no one should dwell in his place in an argument that you should fill his place. But read in context, the verses both come from very similar passages: they are from the psalms that tend to embarrass people today, the ones in which the enemies of the psalmist are cursed. The verses in Acts 1:18-19, about what happened to Judas, are often read as parenthetical, but the thought of Peter's argument follows directly from them, not from Acts 1:17. The line of thought is: The Scripture had to be fulfilled which spoke of Judas (v. 16); Judas was one of their ministry (diakonias) (v. 17); with the payment for his injustice (adikias), he bought a field and died (v. 18); everybody in Jerusalem heard about it so called it the Field of Blood (v. 19); because Scripture says, "May his place be deserted...." and "May another take his place...." Thus Peter is reading the cursing passages of the Psalm as being about Judas. What it says about him in Psalm 69 is fulfilled by his death; so what it says about him in Psalm 109 must be fulfilled as well. I find it interesting that they don't replace him until he is dead; the word for 'dwell' here (katoikon) suggests permanent settlement, so the curse on Judas is that his apostleship is not permanent.

In any case, what Peter says is necessary to do is to make "one of these", i.e., the Apostles, from the men who accompanied the Lord Jesus the whole time from his Baptism to his Ascension and a witness of the Resurrection. This in fact ends up being the entire backstory we know about Matthias: he was with Jesus the whole time from the Baptism to the Ascension. We know nothing else about who he was. The men there pick two -- Joseph Barsabbas, also called Justus, and Matthias.

But two is not one of these. So what they do then is pray to God, knower of the hearts of all, that He will point out which one of the these two that He has chosen to take the place for this service (diakonias) and apostleship (aposteles) from which Judas traveled (the word could also mean 'die') "to his own place". Then they cast lots. Casting lots was, of course, common. It is also possible, given the comment about Judas going to his own place, that they had Leviticus 16:8 in the background. In the atonement offering, the high priest makes an atonement before the Lord with the sacrifice of a bull and two goats. The goats are split, one for the Lord and one "for azazel" (in the Hebrew; we don't know for sure what the word meant) or "sent away" (in the Septuagint), by lot, and the one "for azazel" is then sent into the wilderness. More likely, lots were the standard way in which Temple duties were assigned. Regardless, when the lots were cast, Matthias became one of the Apostles.

And that's the last we hear about him. According to the most popular tradition, after preaching in Jerusalem a while he went down into "Ethiopia" (by which is likely not meant Ethiopia but Colchis in the Caucasus, in modern-day Georgia; Herodotus claimed that the Colchians were descended from the Ethiopians). Of his death, the traditions are all over the place; he was martyred by crucifixion in Sebastopolis (in modern-day Turkey) or by stoning and beheading in Jerusalem or by stoning in Colchis, or he simply died of old age in Jerusalem.
M ↓   Markdown
?
Anonymous
0 points
13 years ago

What would it mean to "think with one's body"?

B
branemrys
0 points
13 years ago

The real question is what it would mean not to think with one's body. Some ways in which we do:

  • We estimate heights relative to eye-level.
  • Goal-directed movement involves constant kinaesthetic feedback -- it's not a mere brain-to-hand thing, for instance, but a complex interaction.
  • We develop motor learning skills.
  • We count with our fingers, thus using our bodies directly as cognitive instruments.
  • When trying to rotate imaginary shapes, we can use our hands to simulate the rotation, thus keeping track of the sides.
  • When trying to understand what someone else's feelings are, it often helps to go physically through the same motions and facial expressions.
  • We make use of 'gut feelings'.
  • We analogize things to our bodies (Roger Scruton has some good discussion of this, if I recall correctly, in the context of music).

In other words, we measure with our bodies, simulate with our bodies, train our bodies to give the right solutions to problems, use our bodies as metaphors, not to mention sense with them. The list could be made very long. Despite the fact that we do this a lot, we don't do it very systematically, nor do we take full advantage of the potential. And despite that only very specific kinds of cognitive activity, a much smaller number than our full cognitive panoply, can be located wholly in the brain, we still tend to think of ourselves as stuck inside our skulls somehow. But when I am counting with my fingers, my cognitive act of counting is not in the brain; it's a brain-nervous system-muscular system  interaction involving brain, arm, and hand.

B
branemrys
0 points
13 years ago

Hmm. MrsDarwin had a comment, but it seems to have bypassed Disqus somehow.   Here it is:

I was going to protest "Love is drama", but on further consideration this makes sense. Drama is change, and love (at least human love) requires constant change and alteration to thrive. Even an externally happy, peaceful love demands constant internal self-abegnation and readjustment of priorities on the part of the individual lovers - "dying to self" is the traditional religious description of the drama of love.

?
Anonymous
0 points
13 years ago

For research purposes: sent that comment from my cell phone.