Keryg 2018: Did the Ethiopian eunuch have a Kindle?
Of course not. But I was wondering today as the lesson from Acts 8: 26-40 was read, particularly this:
Now I'm picturing him riding in the chariot holding the Isaiah scroll (which would be seriously large) - or was it something else? I'm assuming that since this man was in charge of the Queen's treasury he was wealthier than the average Palestinian Jew, but did even wealthy people typically have a set of the scrolls of the Law and the Prophets in their own homes? (Apologies for getting us into the realm of conjecture, but perhaps there's someone here who knows!)He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
Comments
Having gone through all these thoughts (and there are probably many more, we can start to think of the substance of the passage.
--If it were a straight road and a well-trained horse, he might have been able to manage mixing reading with occasional driving.
--Maybe it was just a section of Isaiah? And designed to be more portable? Wouldn't necessarily be a huge Torah scroll.
--It's thought that Solomon and the Queen of Sheba had a son together, Menelik (Wikipedia). As an adult, he reportedly spent time with his dad, then returned to Ethiopia with the Ark of the Covenant and an entourage that included sons of priests. If that's true, then Judaism did reach Ethiopia, regardless of any transfer before or after.
(And this lineage eventually gave us Rastafarianism, which is rooted in Haile Selassie, the last emperor of Ethiopia.
--Look up "Lemba Jewish Africa". The Lemba people are black Africans, but have also said that they're Jewish. There was a lot of publicity, maybe 30 years ago, because someone checked that out via DNA. They do have Jewish DNA markers; and the markers for the priestly occur more often in the Lemba than in other Jewish groups. IIRC, their origin story is that they came to Africa with Menelik. And they keep various Jewish customs.
I imagine that he was not reading the AV save in his mind. Was he reading in Hebrew, Aramaic/Greek? Interesting to speculate. Had he had a Kindle he could of course have enlarged the font so as to make it easier to read in a bumpy chariot, and at the same time in a translation into a language he read.
Or not ...
Perhaps BT, his horse had some sort of apparatus attached to its rear end that could generate a 12V charge from methane.
It's true we don't know the purpose of his visit to Jerusalem, except that he came to worship. He could have been a pilgrim to one of the festivals. He wouldn't have been a fully accepted Jew, so limited to the outer courts of the Temple. But, wanting to be as near the action as possible. Perhaps he had procured a set of scrolls for the Jewish community back in Ethiopia, and was working his way through them on the journey - who doesn't like a good book to read on a long journey? And, who doesn't want to read a new book as soon as they can?
It is a pity that we don't know more about this man. He is important in that he as a non-Jew was one of the early converts to Christianity. It would be satisfying to be told more.
After all, if it was one of the Servant Songs (Isaiah 53:7,8 according to The Queer Bible Commentary, page 573), he could quite easily have memorised it.
If he was anything like Sir Humphrey Appleby or Bernard (Yes, Minister) he could probably memorise fair chunks of text
AIUI in those days people not only read aloud but prayed aloud This is how we know what Jesus prayed at Gethsemane.
Who heard him? The disciples fell asleep.
Yes. Reading silently was not a practice at the time of Acts.
As for the spread of Judaism, it is fairly well established that there were Jewish diaspora groups in Egypt, along the Nile. So it isn't unreasonable to think that this could have spread up the Nile into what we know today as Sudan but then would have been referred to Ethiopia.
In fact, not long ago it was confirmed by DNA that some Jews made it as far as Zimbabwe.
The advantage of actually saying the words is to slow you down and make sure that you do actually read it and don't gulp chunks of words at a glance (out of acquired reading-skills).
I would think the Ethiopian Eunuch was saying it to himself "regular" though; being a Newbie and also perhaps wanting to get it into his head or maybe even feel better about being treated "rotten" by the authorities (Acts 8:33a). And having his own chariot and all he could do whatever he wanted.
I think the passage had almost certainly been brought to his attention before, and he knew what it meant and was reciting it in Hebrew.
I’ll admit it is a practice I have found salutary, both for this reason and for the reason you give.
A number of people have said that most folks in the first century were illiterate. I have often heard people claim as much, but I know of no basis in fact for that idea. Do any of you have a reliable source of this claim, or is it just assumed that it must be so?
[/Tangent]
The Ethiopian eunuch, being a senior court official, would have been literate in his own language (some form of Amharic???) and possibly any other language in which he had to do business. If he had been a God-fearer for some time and had a lot of contact with Jews, it wouldn't be surprising if he was fluent in Hebrew.
(I've known a number of people - especially from Africa - who have been fluent to 5 or more languages.)
Mark
"A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind."
Mark 14 v 51 - 52
Can I suggest it never really did? Do we think God did really once have a thing against eunuchs?
Back to the suggestion about Daniel 1.7 - v.8 can be read both in support of either argument but the words "in this way" are more on the side of other defilement having already occurred. V.4 is much more strongly against it, with the 4 handsome young men having been chosen because one of their characteristics was that they had no physical defect.
I know that some of my comments on this thread have been light-hearted, and I also know that the various problems that Karl.B refers to are there. That said, fo us the important point is that this is the conversion of a total foreigner, not even a Samaritan with their imperfect links to orthodox Judaism. And not just a foreigner, but a leading official in the government of his own country.
Thanks for the correction. That makes more sense given the fraught relationship between Augustine and Jerome.
That is why I find the Eunuch's question about what is there to prevent him from being baptized very revolutionary.
I think it was Augustine (Hippo) and Ambrose.
I suspect it was a very common occurrence.
Actually silent reading is a relatively modern innovation. up until the 18th century and beyond it was regarded as being a bit 'occult and suspicious behaviour'.
Almost certainly why the account found its way into Acts of The Apostles.