In Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.5, presumably from the second century of our era, the basic oneness of human nature is contrasted with the extraordinary variety of people:

The die or seal used for the “first person” produces a different image each and every time, yet there was but one die, used an infinite number of times. Furthermore, the “original” behind the biblical pronouncement in Genesis 1.27 (So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.) is inaccessible. In contrast, ancient mints needed to change their dies frequently because they wore out quickly and had to be replaced. And yet the coins were very similar. In fact, the evenness and authority of this stamp mattered more than the coin’s metal value. The similarity of the coins and all kinds of fiduciary money, in turn, made and makes the task of governing and controlling people that much easier. In contrast to this attitude, the unrepresentable divine agent is said to be more willing to relinquish control of representation and have images of self which can be very different from each other, and have value in and of themselves.

In Mark 12.17, the same elements are at play: a divine agent, earthly kings, a coin, and the business of images. Jesus is at the temple in Jerusalem, confronted by Pharisees and Herodians, the government critics and government representatives of the time. They flatter him for making no differences between people (however different they are: οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων; cf. Deuteronomy 10.17, Leviticus 19.5, etc.), as the torah demands. They have arranged to ask him a trick question: “Is it lawful to pay the census to Caesar or not?” In response, he requests a silver coin, which he lacks, because of poverty or religious piety which required that no money (and certainly no images) be used in or even near the sacred precinct (it is precisely this renunciation to the ease of transactions that made it sacred). He then asks whose image and inscription the coin bears: Τίνος ἡ εἰκὼν αὕτη καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφή. When he is told they belong to Caesar (without being given any of the disturbing details the inscription would bear, like “son of divinized Augustus”), he answers: “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” a famous answer often used in the past to support various degrees of separation of church and state. The immediate point of the answer, however, is that there are limits even to the powers of a Caesar. His apparatus of coercion could have his name and picture printed on only so many thousands of metal coins or stone statues, whereas the divine imprint could be detected everywhere, beyond the great variety of nature and human beings. Two different types of claims on people and their labor.

We live in a world where the power to print or coin images on matter, and claim and appropriate the product for oneself, is more extensive than ever before, reaching even into the plant, animal and human domains. We live in a world not so different from that of antiquity, in that this wondrous power is being abused, just as it was in ancient times. It is not intellectual exploration itself that is at fault, but how it is controlled and used. Modern institutions and corporations are putting their own image and brand even on the stuff of life, which one would have thought could never be owned again. We are buying these images. So, as a result, one can imagine oneself working as hard as ever, one’s whole life, and paying a large part of one’s salary for health, genetically engineered and patented foods, software, energy, education. How are we going to respond to this situation?

A new book on the discovery and debates surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls is out: John J. Collins, The Dead Sea Scrolls; a biography (Princeton UP, 2012). John Collins has long been interested in messianism and apocalyptics and can be heard talking about these topics inter alia on NPR.

Bolletino N. 0089–11.02.2013

Fratres carissimi,

Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vitae [vita] communicem. Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum. Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam.

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commissum [commisso] renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora vicesima, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse [sit].

Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis pro omni amore et labore, quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis. Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim.

Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII

BENEDICTUS PP XVI

John Rick from Stanford University will be at UCSC on February 13th (Wednesday, February 13th, 12:30 pm, Soc Sci 1 − Rm 110) for a talk entitled:

When Religion Was Radical: The Very Formative Site of Chavin de Huantar, Peru.

Abstract: The Formative Period (1800-200 B.C.) in the Central Andes was a time of major socio-political reorganization, and although there is some evidence of economic and subsistence change, the major differences are based in the activity of the major ceremonial centers scattered throughout the region. At Chavin de Huantar, the World Heritage ‘type site’ for much of this period, long-recognized, dramatic and enigmatic features are now making new sense. After 20 years of investigation using methods capable of revealing some of the planning, innovation, and ritual activity that developed there, the radical nature of these religious systems becomes very apparent, hinting at both a highly strategized manipulative ideology, and perhaps more than a bit of historical consciousness. [from Cameron Monroe, Anthropology, UCSC]