i n e importance of JNew iesianienl JBackgrouncl

IShiaìes in molicai Kesearcn: i n e fcvíl j tge

in Luke l l s 3 4 as a Lase b>liicliyj

David A. Fiensy Professor in Biblical Studies Kentucky Christian College

The study of NT background is a pursuit that should not be taken lightly. It is crucial to understand the cultural and literary milieu of the events and people of the NT. This can only be accomplished by a knowledge of the biblical and cognate languages, a mastery of the rel­evant literature, a study of archaeology, and a basic knowledge of the ancient social world. After a survey of these topics, a test case is pre­sented in which the concept of the evil eye mentioned in Luke 11:34 is explained.

ό λύχνος του σώματος έστιν ό όφθαλπιός σου. όταν ό όφθαλπιός σου απλούς ή, και όλον το σώττιά σου φωτεινόν έστιν. έπαν δε πονηρός η, και το σώμα σου σκοτεινόν (Κατά Λουκαν 11:34)

ΕΊΚΠ π« rwTffiD riman riM&n ^ Ί Π -en ΏΊΠ γν ΊΟΊΚ ΰϋντ "ΊΤΙ

(ΓΤΠΚ 2:16)

The words above, whether written in different alphabets than ours or

spoken, are strange to us. They roll off our tongues only with difficul­

ty, in word orders that seem most unhandy. Even when we learn the

words and understand the message we find the texts speaking about

things that are foreign. We are clearly in another cultural world, in

another time, and with a different people. This is the world of the NT.

It is not a world that we can readily or instinctively comprehend. It is a

world that, were we to be transported to it, would puzzle us and send

us into a profound culture shock.

Stone-Campbell Journal 2 (Spring, 1999) 75-88

SCJ2 (Spring, 1999): 75-88

W H Y N E W TESTAMENT BACKGROUND STUDIES?

I once took a course, years ago, with a title similar to this paper. The professor began his lectures with a charateristically modest state­ment something like this: "This course is a luxury, not a necessity. If you can take an exegesis course in its stead, then you should do it. This course is only for those who have extra time on their hands." I almost dropped the course at that point, but, mildly intrigued by the topic, I decided to stick it out. Halfway through the course I was glad that I had remained because I found the topic utterly fascinating and enjoy­able. Years later I concluded that NT background studies were not the icing on the cake of NT studies; it was the flour from which the cake is made. This enterprise is not a hobby one pursues in addition to the serious stuff of exegesis; it is the way the serious stuff is done. Several reasons support this:

First, the NT was written in history. That means that people spoke not only in their own languages but also in their own mythos or worldview. Therefore, we must understand the human element in reve­lation. On the one hand, the biblical authors were extraordinary people guided by the Holy Spirit conveying the timeless revelation of God; on the other hand, they were all people of their time.

This conclusion means that our subject is both distant and differ­ent. We read of demons, visions, healings, and expectations of immi­nent end. These things to some moderns and postmoderns are imme­diately dismissed and all but passed over, much like a child who passes over the genealogies in reading the OT. But as Martin Hengel has pleaded, we must relinquish our post-Enlightenment feeling of superi­ority and seek to understand these matters in their own time and in their o\yn language.1 To look at them through the lens of our time alone is to misrepresent and misunderstand them.

Second, I believe in the incarnation of Jesus. He was fully God; he was also fully man. Thus, he acted and spoke as a man. As N.T.

1. Martin Hengel, "Problems of the History of Christianity," Paper presented to Asbury Seminary, April 1997. Also, JJ. Scott, "On the Value of Intertestamental Jewish Literature for New Testament Theology" JETS 23 (1980) 315-323: "History is the setting and framework for Biblical revelation and is also a part ofthat revelation itself."

76

David A . Fiensy: The "Evil Eye" in Luke 11:34

Wright explains, scholars have tried to describe Jesus in one of three

ways. The first he calls an icon, the second a silhouette, and the third a

portrait.2 The first places little emphasis on the humanity and historical

situation of Jesus. The second despairs of seeing much more of the his­

torical Jesus than his shadow or bare outline. The third view says that

we can see the historical Jesus essentially for what he was. The last view

takes seriously the humanity of Jesus and requires rigorous investiga­

tion of the historical sources.

This plunges us into the debate of Jesus' historical and cultural

environment. As Richard Horsley warns, some have attempted—espe­

cially recently, but the attempt is an old one—to "de-Judaize" Jesus.3 A

careful look at the resources suggested below makes that portrait of

Jesus unlikely. Wright sees two main streams of thought and research

on the historical Jesus in this century. The first views Jesus essentially in

non-Jewish, Hellenistic terms.4 The second pictures Jesus essentially in

Jewish terms.5 The first school he calls the New Quest and the second

he terms the Third Quest. For example, Burton Mack maintains that

Jesus was a Cynic philosopher or close to it,6 but Brad Young calls

Jesus the Jewish Theologian.7

The same situation is true for Paul. Jewish detractors in the dis­

tant past as well as recently label Paul an apostate while Christian

detractors call him the Hellenizer of the pristine faith.8 However, Mark

Nanos states: "We can now read the NT as a Jewish book."9 He also

2. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 9.

3. R. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996) 1.

4. Wright, Jesus, 28-82.

5. Ibid., 83-124.

6. Β. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 68.

7. B.H. Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995).

8. See most recently H. Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1986) and idem., Paul and Hellenism (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1991).

9. M. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans. The Jewish Context ofPauVs Utter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 4.

77

SCJ2 (Spring, 1999): 75-88

calls the author of Romans "a thoroughly Jewish Paul." Similarly, debates over racial and social matters take place in the context of geog­raphy. Paula Fredrickson reminds us that we have not only at present a quest for the historical Jesus but also a quest for the historical Galilee.10

Was it Hellenistic? Jewish? destitute? well-off? urban? rural? One can see from this observation that the NT background is not simply a luxu­ry subject but makes a crucial difference in how one views Jesus.

Third, it must be observed that reading the NT is a cross-cultural experience. Learning a new culture is never easy. It involves a new lan­guage or languages, customs, ideas, forms of entertainment, foods, clothing, housing styles, and much else too vague to classify. As R. Rohrbaugh observes:

Not only does one have much new to learn, but also one frequently grows uneasy when one finally realizes that one's own familiar and much-loved culture is not the standard for all humanity. As anxiety over societal differ­ence mounts, a profoundly unpleasant culture shock often sets in.11

The problem is that people do not experience culture shock as we should when we read the NT. Americans read it as if it were written by Americans for Americans, assuming they instinctively know what it means.

W H A T I S THE C O N T E N T OF

N E W TESTAMENT BACKGROUND STUDIES?

The ethnocentric hermeneutics of reading the NT as if it is by and for us becomes modified when one first begins to study biblical lan­guages. The Greek language appears strange, especially all of those endings! One begins to realize that interpreting the NT is not really so easy. It only appeared easy up to then because of relying on someone else's translation. It is like the student that took a course in Cicero's Latin but read all semester only the English translation.12

10. P. Friedrickson, Paper read at the SBL, New Orleans, 1996. U.R. Rohrbaugh, "Introduction," The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, ed.

R. Rohrbaugh (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996) 2. 12. Students say to me, "I just want to understand the NT. I don't want all those opinions of

other people." I respond that I think that is a good impulse. Now to realize this goal you need to

78

David A. Fiensy: The "Evil Eye" in Luke 11:34

After gaining some facility in Greek it is possible to conclude that one has now arrived as an interpreter. Unfortunately, that is as far as some go, limiting themselves to finding special spiritual insight from Greek verb tenses and the like. But, Greek is not the only NT lan­guage; often Greek is only a "diaphonous veil" over the original Semit­ic language.13 Thus, one must learn Hebrew and Aramaic in order to be able to interpret the NT better. It is not going too far to add that Latin and Coptic should also be studied.

Another reason that merely studying Greek does not empower one fully to interpret the NT is that languages are only the first step. Craig Evans points out that those aspiring to interpret the NT face two principal difficulties.14 The first is learning the biblical languages; the second is becoming familiar with the cognate literature. This cognate literature includes the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek OT, Philo, Josephus, Rabbinic literature including the Talmud, Midrashim, and Targums, the NT apocrypha, the early church fathers, and the Gnostic writings.

Evans is essentially correct, and at least five reasons may be given for studying these sources:

First, study of cognate sources helps avoid anti-Jewish bias. The typical understanding of Jews is that Jews are Pharisees; Jews are legal­ists; Jews are interested only in externals; and Jews are hypocrites. One can read this in journals15 and can hear it from the pulpit. However,

learn Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Coptic. You need to buy yourself several airplane tick­ets to libraries such as the Vatican library and then begin to collate mss to form your own text. Next master the ancient literature. Now you can begin, "Just to read the NT."

13. Many have observed the Semitic background to the NT. See M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946); and D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967). A.J. Festugiere and P. Fabre, L· monde gréco-romain au temps de Notre Seigneur (Paris: Bloud and Gray, 1935).

14. C. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992) 1.

15. V. Knowles, "Is There a Pharisee in the House?" Christian Standard 119/4 (1984) 68-70. Though well meaning (the author wants to root out "Pharisee" types from the church), the arti­cle evidences a lack of understanding both of the Pharisees in general and Jesus' interaction with them in particular.

79

SCJ2 (Spring, 1999): 75-88

this comes from not reading rabbinic literature. The people that wrote these texts cannot be so easily characterized in these ways.

Second, study of cognate sources supplies the theological and legal background of the NT. Much about ancient Judaism is not clear without information in the rabbinic, pseudepigraphical, and Qumran texts. For example, the controversy over works of the Law in the Pauline letters can be illuminated when we compare them with the Qumran document called 4QMMT.16 When one contrasts this view of the proper Jewish life with that of Paul's we see Paul's point.

Third, study of cognate sources sensitizes one to the OT text. It is all too easy to read the OT only with a view toward understanding NT theology. These studies press one to take the OT on its own terms. Rabbinic literature in particular is extremely serious about understand­ing the minutiae of the OT. Things I pass over are debated at length. Such study is similar to what rabbis were doing in the NT period.17

Fourth, these cognate sourses expose one to hermeneutics often employed in the NT, especially in Paul's letters.18

Fifth, these cognate sources confront one with a mass of social and cultural issues and customs that may illuminate the study of the NT. For example, many scholars have speculated on the meaning of the name Judas Iscariot. What does Iscariot mean? We know from the Mishnah that to designate someone "Ish" (=man from) and then give the name of his village was quite common.19 Thus, Iscariot does not mean zealot or the like. It simply indicates his village of origin: man from Keryat.

Much of the value of reading the background literature is indirect not direct. However, that does not make it any less important.

Evans's admonition to go beyond merely studying the languages to the study of the literature is incomplete. He omits the need to study pagan, classical literature.20

16. M. Abegg, "Paul, 'Works of the Law' and MMT" BAR 20/6 (1994) 52-55,82.

17. See especially the Hebrew midrashim, a careful reading of which opens new vistas in under­standing of the OT.

18. F.F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959); D. Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutics in Palestine (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975).

19. Aboth 1:3,4; 3:7,8. The Hebrew word ÊTK ('ish) means "man."

20. H.D. Betz, "Antiquity and Christianity" JBL117 (1998) 3-22.

80

David A . Fiensy: The "Evil Eye» in Luke 11:34

He also neglects to mention the study of the archaeology of the Mediterranean world. John D. Crossan argues for the following method­ology in the Jesus quest: 1. Context, 2. Text, 3. Conjunction.21 Context for Crossan includes Palestinian archaeology, Jewish and Roman history, and cross-cultural anthropology. By text, he refers to ascertaining the earliest texts. Conjunction asks whether the texts and contexts link up. Archaeology quite rightly is part of the mix of interpretation.

In addition, the use of archaeology has been given recent empha­sis by Richard Horsley.22 As he maintains, only by a thorough compari­son of the Gospels, the rabbinic literature and archaeological remains can we begin to get an accurate picture of Galilee in the days of Jesus and his disciples. The differentiation, archaeologically and epigraphic-ally, of Upper and Lower Galilee, the excavation of cities such as Sepphoris, Meiron and Bethsaida, and the analysis of Galilean economy all can have a crucial bearing on our understanding of the times in which Jesus lived. Once again, the gain is not so much in direct paral­lels as in an indirect context for reading the NT texts. Therefore, NT interpreters must be conversant with Palestinian and Mediterranean archaeology in the Herodian or early Roman period.

Evans also says nothing about the study of social anthropology. Important to this field are Rohrbaugh and Malina. Malina, in a multi­tude of publications, has sought to point out the core values of Mediterranean society (honor and shame, limited good), and to describe the ancient Mediterranean personality as contrasted with someone in the United States in the twentieth century. In contrast to the intro­spective and individualistic character of most Americans, Malina con­cludes that ancient Mediterraneans were neither.23

First, they were collectivistic. They thought of themselves in terms of the opinion of at least one other person (the central person of the group). They needed at least one other person to feel that they knew

21. J.D. Crossan, "Methodology and Historical Jesus Research," paper read at the SBL in New Orleans, 1996.

22. R. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee, 2-8.

23. B. Malina, "Understanding New Testament Persons," in R. Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, 41-61. See also B. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1993).

81

SCJ2 (Spring, 1999): 75-88

who they really were. Americans value self-reliance and pursuing their own goals, not group goals. In collectivistic societies, behavior is deter­mined by group goals. The defining attributes in the ancient Mediter­ranean culture include: family integrity, solidarity, and keeping the pri­mary in-group in good health.

Second, Malina maintains that ancient Mediterranean culture was anti-introspective :

If persons felt badly or well, they should look outside themselves to per­sons around them rather than inside, into the psyche, the soul, the mind, for the cause of their feeling. For it was outside that one could find an answer to why one felt depressed or elated, anxious or at ease, worried or excited, fearful or confident, and the like.24

Thus, individuals are always playing to an audience from which they want approval or honor. The most significant in-group for Med­iterranean peoples is the kin group.

The results of Malina's research are fascinating, often surprising and discomfiting. These are insights that no conscientious exegete can afford to ignore. But Malina's method is problematical. He counsels, "If I think I can immediately apply the text, I probably misunderstood it." In other words, the culture of the ancient Mediterranean is so different from ours that people should be confounded when they read the NT. If not, then they have only superimposed their own culture upon it. However, cau­tion should be exercised in accepting this principle. The problem is that this approach can easily become minimalistic. It is only a variant of the old criterion for historical Jesus study called dissimilarity. Since Christians accept the basic worldview of the NT, is it reasonable to suggest that reading the NT should always seem strange to them? Still, Malina's dic­tum should make us cautious in assuming too easily that the NT is in our hip pocket. We must appreciate its cultural difference.

L U K E 11 :34 A N D N T BACKGROUND

Philologist, Talmudist, archaeologist, and social anthropologist: these are demanding roles for anyone to play. The NT exegete will not

24. Ibid, 47.

82

David A. Fiensy: The «Evil Eye» in Luke 11:34

likely be an expert in all of them. H e or she must at least be an inter­

ested observer in all of these areas and make use of them when the text

demands. Let us now take as an example the text quoted at the begin­

ning of this paper regarding the evil eye.

Jesus said: " T h e eye is the lamp of the body. When the eye is

good, 2 5 the whole body is illuminated; and when the eye is evil, the

body is in darkness" (Luke 11:34).

Most commentators explain the verse as referring t o a healthy eye,

unders tanding α π λ ο ύ ς (haplous, "heal thy," " s o u n d " ) t o mean t h a t

when one listens to Jesus' teaching (or God ' s light), he is like a person

who can see. Others interpret the word t o mean " p u r e " and see this as

an ethical admonit ion. Thus , when one is pure of heart, he has the

light of God. 2 6

What is striking when one reads ancient texts is how often the

concept of the evil eye appears. The Talmud has several references t o

it:

25. The Greek word απλούς means according to BAGD: "single, simple, sincere, clear, sound,

healthy, generous, or guileless." But in this context it contrasts with the evil eye and thus should

be rendered with the vague "good."

26. 0. Bauernfeind, "απλούς" in G. Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,

trans. G.W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 1:386, says the word means either

healthy or pure. Thus the evil eye that contrasts with it is unhealthy or impure; C. Spicq,

Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. J.D. Ernest (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994)

1:169-173, writes that if the word be understood in the physical sense, it means healthy or nor­

mal and contrasts with the unhealthy eye; and if the word be understood in the ethical sense, it

means a pure heart and contrasts with a clouded eye of the depraved will. E. Schweizer, The

Good News According to Matthew, trans. D.E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) 163, writes that

απλούς is the simple eye that admits God's light into the entire body and the evil eye causes ter­

rible darkness of the heart (thus does not admit light). T.W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 93, writes that the απλούς eye is clear, sound, or healthy and the

poneros or evil eye is diseased. I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978)

489, writes that απλούς means simple, single, sincere, or generous. He maintains that this con­

trast is probably one between single and double vision. If a person is single-mindedly receptive

to the light of the gospel then his whole being will be filled with light. On the other hand the

πονηρός (poneros, "evil") or evil eye is one in poor condition, that is, one who rejects the

gospel. Finally J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV{Ntw York: Doubleday, 1985)

940, seems to understand the significance of the evil eye but argues that that meaning will not fit

the context here.

83

SCJ2 (Spring, 1999): 75-88

"The evil eye and the evil inclination and hatred of mankind drive a man

out of the world" (Aboth 2:16, the Hebrew text quoted at the beginning

of this paper).

"[Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai] used to say, 'Go and see which is that evil

way which a man should shun.' R. Eliezer said, 'An evil eye.' R. Yehoshua

said, 'An evil associate.' R. Yose said, 'An evil neighbour'" (Aboth 2:13).

Thus, as one can discern from these two texts from the Mishnah,

the evil eye is not simply an unhealthy eye but really is evil. This is

observed from the contexts in which it appears, first alongside the evil

inclination (inclination to sin) and hatred of mankind, and, next,

alongside an evil associate and an evil neighbor. The evil eye is that

which does evil as all of these other entities do evil.

This evil was so feared in antiquity that measures were often taken

to protect oneself from it. Here are two protectives mentioned in the

Talmud:

R. Yohanan used to sit at the gates of the ritual immersion place. He said,

"When the daughters of Israel come from the ritual immersion place they

look at me and have offspring as handsome as I." The rabbis said to him, "Is

not the master afraid of the evil eye?" He said to them, "I am from the off­

spring of Joseph. The evil eye has no power over us as the scripture says

(Genesis 49:22), Ά fruitful bough is Joseph, a fruitful bough over the eye.'"27

If anyone is going up into a town and is afraid of the evil eye, let him take

the thumb of his right hand in his left hand and the thumb of his left hand

in his right hand, and say:_"I, so-and-so the son of so-and-so, am of the

offspring of Joseph and the evil eye has no power over us. . ." If he is

afraid of his own evil eye, he should look at the side of his left nostril.28

Thus, in the first instance, simply being of the offspring of Joseph

assures one of protection against the curse of the evil eye. In the sec­

ond case, one should also take additional protective measures, namely

the hand grip which evidently was seen as warding off the spell. Also

27. b. Ber. 20a. The text of Genesis actually reads,"A fruitful bough beside a fountain." The

Hebrew word ]\L) ((ayin) can mean either a fountain or an eye. Thus by a play on words (called

midrash) the interpreter can apply this text to the evil eye.

28. b. Ber. 55b, also in b. B.Mes. 84a. Translation of all Talmudic passages in this paper is the

author's and is based on the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of The Judaic Classics (Chicago: Davka,

1991-1995).

84

David A. Fiensy: The "Evil Eye33 in Luke 11:34

noteworthy is the fact that one can even do oneself damage with the

evil eye (hence the advice to look at one's left nostril). It was believed

that some people simply had the power of the evil eye, regardless of

whether they wanted to have it or planned to use it or not. If one had

such a power, he might even harm himself without intending to!

Greek literature is also full of references to the evil eye. In a

lengthy discussion (Momita 5.7, 680-683), Plutarch tries to give a

rationalistic explanation for why the evil eye is effective. There are

"emanations" (άπορρόιαι, aporroiai) of particles, he maintains, from

all bodies, especially living bodies. The eye gives off these particles

most abundantly:

Indeed, I said, you yourself are on the right track of the cause (of the effectiveness of the evil eye) when you come to the emanations of the bodies . . . and by far living things are more likely to give out such things because of their warmth and movement . . . and probably these (emana­tions) are especially given out through the eyes.29

According to the contemporary way of understanding the eye,

light enters the eye. Therefore, it is what goes into the eye that mat­

ters. But as this text points out, the ancients believed that small parti­

cles or influences emanated from one's eye and could have either a

good or bad effect on the object they encountered. It was what came

from the eye that counted. Therefore, if one had an evil intent and

possessed certain powers, simply by staring at someone one could

cause him or her much harm.

Although a passage elsewhere in Plutarch hints that not all edu­

cated people in antiquity believed in the power of the evil eye, both

Plutarch and his friend, Mestrius Florus, a prominent Roman, stoutly

defended the belief. They maintained it was common knowledge that

people with the evil eye could hurt others, especially children. Certain

races, namely the Thibaeans of northern Pontus, were believed to be

deadly in their power of the evil eye (Moralia 5.7.680). Plutarch offers

as proof that a look can do harm, the influence of a lover's glance. Just

29. Plutarch, Quaest. Conv. 5.7.680. Translation is the author's and is based on the text in P.A. Clement and H.B. Hoffleit, Plutarch's Moralia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1969; LCL) 8:420.

85

SCJ2 (Spring, 1999): 75-88

as a lover's gaze can excite the passions in the recipient of the gaze, so can an evil look do harm in the recipient (5.7.681). Likewise, the ancients believed that those with a jaundiced eye turned certain flowers away from them when they looked at them (Moralia 5.7.681).

Plutarch and his friend note that some people who have the evil eye use it unintentionally. Thus, in some extreme cases, mothers do not allow the fathers of their children to look long at the children for fear that the father will unintentionally harm them (Momita 5.7.682). Just as the Talmud, Plutarch also mentions that it was believed possible for a person to give himself the evil eye (Moralia 5.7.682).

Plutarch also refers to the protective amulets that many people, especially children, wore around their necks in the hope of warding off the baneful stare. These amulets, said Plutarch, were intended to divert the eye of the evildoer and thereby protect the wearer. Plutarch says the unusual or weird look of the amulet attracts the gaze of the poten­tial evildoer and so lessens his or her powers (Moralia 5.7.681-682).

Archaeology also confirms that the evil eye was much feared in antiquity. Certain objects from the ancient world make it clear, for example, to what the amulets in Plutarch refer. The ancients commonly wore good luck charms, especially male and female genitalia, to ward off the effects of the evil eye. The phallic symbol, which children often wore on a chain around their necks, was a popular good luck charm to defend against the evil eye

A large number of these phallic symbols have been found in Pompei and Herculaneum on frescoes, mosaics, furniture, statuary and other objects. One of these in Pompei is a relief sculture of a phallus in a bakery to ward off the evil eye.30 The customer (or potential evildoer) upon entering the shop was supposed to have his attention diverted to the sculpture and away from the shop owner.

This belief in the destructive power of the evil eye is found in both the OT and NT. As Rohrbaugh points out, the Bible refers to the

30. See W.H. Stevens, The New Testament World in Pictures (Nashville: Broadman, 1987) 232. See also the amulets with phali worn especially by children for protection on p. 231, and the drawings in J. Elliott, "The Fear of the Leer: The Evil Eye from the Bible to Li'l Abner" Forum 4 (1988)42-71.

86

David A . Fiensy: The "Evil Eye* in Luke 11:34

evil eye quite often31 (Prov 23:6; 28:22; Deut 15:7-9; 28:54-57; Matt 6 :22/ /Luke 11:33-36; Matt 20:1-15; Mark 7:22; Gal 3:1), as does the Apocrypha (Sir 14:3-10; 18:18; 31:12-13; 37:7-12; Tob 4:15-17; 4 Maccabees 1:16; 2:15). Although these texts in the original language refer literally to the "evil eye," they are usually rendered as "envy" or something similar.

Also of great importance is the long history of people fearing the evil eye, fear that certain persons can look at someone and put a spell or curse on them. John Elliott32 shows that Mediterranean people have had and still do have a genuine fear of this phenomenon.33 The evil eye grows out of the core Mediterranean values of honor and shame and the limited good.34 Honor is the greatest value in this society, and the worst horror is shame. Likewise, in a peasant culture there is a sense of limited good. Food is limited, space is limited, and even honor is limit­ed. Thus, if someone has too much wealth, too much food, or too much honor, then he is taking from you. This causes envy, and envy leads to the evil eye, the putting of a curse or spell on the one who has too much or flaunts too much of what he or she has. Today, Mediter­ranean people do not, for example, like their children to be praised too much in public as beautiful or intelligent because that might provoke the evil eye from someone and cause a curse to be put on their chil­dren.35 Not everyone casts the evil eye on others. Only envious people

31. Rohrbaugh, "Introduction," 3.

32. Elliott, "The Fear of the Leer," 42-71. See also by Elliott: "Paul, Galatians and the Evil Eye," CurTM 17 (1990) 262-273; "The Evil Eye in the First Testament: The Ecology and Culture of a Pervasive Belief." The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis, ed. N.K. Gottwald (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991) 147-159. Other useful articles include: J. Duncan M. Derrett, "The Evil Eye in the New Testament." Modelling Early Christianity, ed. P.F. Esler (New York: Routledge, 1995) 65-74; and J.H. Neyrey, S.J., "Bewitched in Galatia: Paul and Cultural Anthropology," C££50 (1988) 72-80.

33. See G.P. Murdock, Theories of Illness (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg, 1980) 38-40, for the evil eye as a phenomenon in the circum-Mediterranean region.

34. For the concepts of honor and shame and limited good in Mediterranean society see among others: B. Malina, New Testament World; H. Moxnes, "Honor and Shame," in Rohrbaugh, Social Sciences, 19-40.

35. Derrett, "The Evil Eye," 66, 70, n. 4

87

SCJ2 (Spring, 1999): 75-88

would do that, but there are plenty of envious people to go around in any culture.

Jesus' saying now takes on a somewhat different meaning. It is

not the light coming into the eye that is the issue but what goes out

from it. The άπλους person, or good person, is a person who has no

double motives. Such a person is single-minded. No envy lurks in the

shadows; what appears to be actually is. This person's gaze causes gen­

uine good to others. However, the one with the evil eye causes evil.

This one is envious of another's success or possessions or family and

either quietly or audibly casts a spell on him or her. This is a dangerous

person whose whole body is in darkness and evil.

Thus, in Luke 11:34 Jesus addresses common occurrences in

ancient Mediterranean life but which to us seem strangely remote. We

do not believe that someone can cast spells on others, let alone with a

weird glance of the eye. We might even ask, "Why would Jesus, who

after all must have known that this sort of hocus pocus does not really

work, have wasted words on this topic?" But to ask such a question is

to speak from this side of the Enlightenment and once again to miss

the point. ^)

88

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.