Omnino - Volume 11 by vsuenglish

Omnino Undergraduate Research Journal

VOLUME 11

VALDOSTA STATE UNIVERSITY

Omnino Undergraduate Research Journal

VOLUME 11

Faculty Advisor Dr. Anne Greenfield

Managing Editors Elaina Adcock Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

Student Editors Jaidenne Braggs Jon Brewer Madisyn Earls Camille Ham Kilie Huckleby Kaneathia Kendrick Isabella Schneider Carissa Zaun

Graphic Designer Raegen Register

Contents Introduction

by Dr. Anne Greenfield Omnino Faculty Advisor

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

By Maya Commodore Faculty Mentor: Dr. Becky K. da Cruz Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

By Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez” Faculty Mentor: Dr. Christine James Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter

By Ben Elliott Faculty Mentor, Dr. Maren Clegg-Hyer Department of English

The Effect of Social Media Influencers on the Diet Choices of People Aged 18-30

By Stephanie Petrillo Faculty Mentor: Dr. Heidi Gonzalez College of Nursing and Health Sciences

Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God: 97 A Textual Criticism of John 1:34 By Kim Fromkin Faculty Mentor: Dr. Fred Downing Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women: 109 A Comparison of Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman” By Tristan Tyson Faculty Mentor: Dr. Maren Clegg-Hyer Department of English

Introduction by Dr. Anne Greenfield, Faculty Advisor to Omnino

Volume 11 of Omnino features six articles, deriving from VSU’s departments of English; Philosophy and Religious Studies; Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice; and—for the first time ever—the College of Nursing and Health Sciences. Each published article has been subjected to a rigorous, double-blind review process, wherein each was refereed by two VSU faculty members who have expertise in the article’s topic. These six student authors along with their faculty mentors are to be congratulated on their top-notch research and writing. The Omnino editors hope each year to broaden our scope and to feature the research and writing of VSU’s students in as many academic disciplines as possible. In fact, we are now accepting submissions for our forthcoming volume 12, due January 17th, 2022. We publish essays from every field of research at VSU, and we invite undergraduate students to refer to our submission guidelines at https:// www.valdosta.edu/colleges/arts-sciences/english/studentresources/student-publications/omnino/submit.php.

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children By Maya Commodore Faculty Mentor: Dr. Becky K. da Cruz, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice

Article Abstract: This article analyzes migrant children’s due process rights under the Trump Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy. The article first provides an overview of prior and current legislation that affects migrant children’s legal protections, immigration status, and the process of deportation for migrant children; explores issues resulting from the current legislation, such as the lack of legal representation for migrant children and the burden on the immigration courts; and discusses the protections that can be pursued by a migrant child or their guardian. This article then also offers insight into the traumatic experience migrant children may endure while trying to reach the United States for asylum; addresses proposals by the House of Representatives and the Senate, such as The Equal Protection of Unaccompanied Minors Act, Keep Families Together Act, and Enforce the Law Act, and how their proposals affect immigration; and concludes with proposed solutions to the deprivation of due process rights of migrant children.

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

Introduction Imagine a courtroom filled with children ranging from ages three to sixteen, a prosecutor standing on one side of the room, and a judge sitting on his bench. The children in the courtroom are sitting and waiting for their turn to be tried for being in a country that can grant them safety from wrongful persecution and violence. Some of the children have lived in the country for as long as they can remember and call the country “home.” Imagine the child stepping forward before a judge and being told that they can no longer stay at “home,” and that they must return to where they originally came from. Note, that in this scenario, the child has no attorney and no parent to defend them. This is the situation that thousands of migrant children are exposed to daily. This is the “due process” that the United States of America gives to migrant children. This article intends to bring awareness to the treatment of migrant children in the United States. This article will analyze the current rights that migrant children have within the United States’ criminal justice system as well as explore how the Trump Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy impacts our immigration courts’ procedures in prosecuting migrant children. The article will then highlight some of the predominant flaws of the immigration procedure, the problem of how the immigration procedure is conducted, and the effect of the immigration procedure on migrant children. Furthermore, the article presents the efforts made by the legislation to fix this immigration procedure and concludes with possible steps that address the issue.

Maya Commodore

Background In recent years, illegal immigration rates have been relatively high in countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.

(Congressional Research Service, 2019) Individuals are leaving these countries for various reasons such as seeking economic opportunity, a place of refuge from violence, or a place of refuge from natural disasters. According to the Congressional Research Service, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are some of “the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere” (Congressional Research Service, 2019). Additionally, these countries experienced high homicide rates over the last decade.

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

(The World Bank: Percentage of population living below the national poverty line). (Congressional Research Service, 2019)

(Congressional Research Service, 2019) 10

Maya Commodore

Since 2015, “[h]omicide rates have fallen” in each of these countries, however, they are still “high by global standards” (Congressional Research Service, 2019). As for vulnerability to natural disasters, “El Salvador and Guatemala are among the fifteen countries in the world most at risk from natural disasters” (Congressional Research Service, 2019). It is for these reasons, that individuals are leaving their countries in the hopes of obtaining a better life, not only for themselves but for their families also. Below is a chart that displays the number of encounters that the United States Border Patrol officers had with illegal migrants.

(U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2021) According to the chart, immigration of single adults steadily increased from 2018 to 2020, while the number of single minors saw its peak in 2019 and its lowest rates in 2020. The number of family units that arrived in the United States was at its highest in 2019, reaching over four hundred thousand families. 11

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

To deter illegal immigration, the Trump Administration implemented a “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement policy to “discourage illegal migration into the United States and reduce the burden of processing asylum claims” (Congressional Research Service, 2019). The policy requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute all adult immigrants that were arrested for crossing the border illegally, even if they are seeking asylum or have children with them. When illegal immigrant adults are arrested, the adults are placed into federal criminal detention centers. Since children are not permitted in these facilities for safety reasons, they are then separated from their parents and “transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for custody and care” and “… treated as an Unaccompanied Alien Child” (Congressional Research Service, 2019). When a migrant child arrives at the United States border without a parent or guardian, they are also defined as an unaccompanied alien child (UAC). The term UAC originates from the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), and since the term has a statutory definition, that means that a UAC does have protections and provisions that exist in current law (Benson P. L., 2018, p. 1294). According to Professor Lenni B. Benson in his article “Administrative Chaos: Responding to Child Refugees—U.S. Immigration Process in Crisis,” the predominant source for federal “legal authority is in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)” which has been amended numerous times since its initial adoption in 1952, and has paved the way for the TVPRA which establishes the protections for UACs (p. 1293).

Protections a UAC can Pursue Under the current law, there are multiple protections that a young person could seek to gain residency within the United States. One protection that can be given is the “U” and “T” status. “U” status pertains to individuals “that have been victims 12

Maya Commodore

of crimes within the United States,” and “T” status refers to individuals “who have been trafficked to the United States.” The entity that can grant this status to a child is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS); they can also grant short-term resident status and full immigrant status (Benson P. L., 2018, p. 1294). Another protection that a UAC can be granted is a family petition. The family petition permits a parent or stepparent who is a permanent resident of the United States to sponsor their child to immigrate into the United States. The petition also allows the parent or stepparent to exercise the same protection to an “unmarried minor, under the age of twenty-one as an immediate relative” (Benson P. L., 2018, p. 1296). This means that a U.S. citizen can sponsor the citizenship of a relative who is under the age of twenty-one. Alternatively, children who have been “abused, neglected, abandoned, or similarly harmed” could apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). To receive this status, the child has to petition the state court with jurisdiction over them and demonstrate “that reunification with one or both parents is not possible,” and that it is in their best interest to remain within the United States (Benson P. L., 2018, p. 1296). The final protection that the child can apply for is asylum or refugee status. If a child, like an adult, has a “wellfounded fear of persecution,” or has experienced persecution in the past for either “political opinion, race, nationality, religion, or membership in a particular social group,” the child “may be considered for asylum protection…”; or the child may “have a claim for protection adjudicated externally” and have the case brought before the United States to claim the status of “refugee” (Benson P. L., 2018, p. 1297).

Issues Despite having these protections in place in existing law, the due process for unaccompanied migrant children is, at the very least, being manipulated and at the most being 13

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

completely deprived to them. According to the American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Standards for the Custody, Placement and Care; Legal Representation; and Adjudication of Unaccompanied Alien Children in the United States, “Unaccompanied Children shall be accorded the full rights of children. Unaccompanied children who are refugees shall also be accorded the full rights of refugees” (American Bar Association, 2018). Since unaccompanied children should be granted the same rights as children within the United States, the rights of said children should be thoroughly acknowledged.

Rights of Children in the United States The Department of Justice (DOJ) states that a child’s rights are activated upon the child being placed into custody after the filing of the charge, or charges, placed against them. Children are afforded the same constitutional protections as adults are with some exceptions and additions. They have the right to know the charges that are placed against them; this also includes that their parents be notified of the charges made against the child and be present at the child’s hearing. A special exception is given to alien children which is that if a child “is an alien, a reasonable effort must be made to reach his parents, and if not feasible, prompt notice to his country’s Consulate should be made” (United States Department of Justice, n.d.) The child also has “the right to have counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to remain silent” per the court case In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (United States Department of Justice, n.d.). They are also granted the protections of the Fourth Amendment which grants a child a probable cause hearing if the child is arrested without a warrant. Children are also entitled to the Fifth Amendment which protects them from self-incrimination and the exclusionary rule which omits evidence that was obtained in such a way that violated the child’s rights. A child is not entitled to a trial by jury because children are treated as delinquents and not criminals. Therefore, children are processed as juvenile delinquents “in a manner more paternal and diagnostic than that afforded…” to adults (United States Department of Justice, n.d.). 14

Maya Commodore

The combination of rights granted to children by the United States Constitution and the protections that can be granted to unaccompanied children should result in the fair treatment of children who migrate to the United States. However, some of these rights are not being fully given to unaccompanied children, nor do these children have the ability to gain some of the protections that are offered by the United States due to there being loopholes in the law and limits to how much protection can be given.

Rights not being Granted to a UAC When comparing the rights of a child in the United States to that of a UAC, it is noticeable that a UAC only gets a fraction of the rights that a child with U.S. citizenship receives. The parent of the UAC is not provided the opportunity to be present at the child’s trial because the parent has committed a federal crime by crossing the border illegally and is being held at a federal detention center. The U.S. government uses the rule “Best interests of the Unaccompanied Child” to keep the parent and the child separated (American Bar Association, 2018). The concept of considering the best interest for the child is “deeply rooted in U.S. law,” but applying the concept to UACs did not become a part of U.S. immigration law until the passing of TVPRA (Subcommittee on Best Interests of the Interagency Working Group on Unaccompanied and Separated Children, 2016, p. 4). Essentially, the rule allows the government to make the argument that it is in the best interest of the child’s safety that the parent be detained since they have committed a federal crime. Though the government makes this claim, depriving the child of their parent’s presence at their hearing violates the child’s right to Due Process. In addition to not having their parent present at their trial, the UAC is not guaranteed their right to representation by an attorney either. Due to so many children waiting to appear before the immigration court, there are not enough lawyers to match the increasing need. Immigration judges 15

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

do grant continuations for those who have not yet received counsel at “no expense to the government,” however, that only increases the time that the child spends in the immigration system (Benson P. L., 2018, p. 1302).

Issues Within the Justice System Another serious problem is that the immigration courts are overburdened with the demands of the Trump Administration to prosecute all immigrants entering the country illegally. The Congressional Research Service released an article on the administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy, which stated that the separation of families was “a consequence of the Trump Administration’s Zero-Tolerance Policy, not the result of an explicit family separation policy” (Congressional Research Service, 2019). Though its intent may have been merely to discourage illegal migration, the policy only made matters worse for the families and the immigration court system. There is also the issue that the protections available to UACs cannot be granted by the immigration courts but rather are only provided by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). This mandates that the child go through two separate processes at the same time. If the UAC wants to apply for a “U” or “T” status, a family petition, or an SIJS, they have to go through the USCIS either before or while they are going through the Immigrations Court’s process because the immigration court does not have jurisdiction to grant these protections (Benson P. L., 2018, pp. 1294-1295). Additionally, there are caps placed on the “U” and “T” status protections which causes long delays in processing applications. The remaining protections do not have a cap or statutory quota (Benson P. L., 2018, p. 1295). The chart below lists the protections that can be granted to a migrant, as well as data that demonstrates how many are accepted or denied for the fiscal year of 2019.

Maya Commodore

Protections Applicable to Migrants Protections

Granting Agency

Caps

Filed/ Received

Accepted/ Approved

Rejected/ Denied

U Status

USCIS

10,000

47,225

17,856

5,130

T Status

USCIS

5,000

2,253

991

581

Family Petitions ~ USCIS

None

247,682

212,058

35,624

SIJS*

USCIS

None

20,721

23,145

2,545

Refugee/ Asylum

U.S. None Government

Unknown

29,916

Unknown

*Juvenile Protection Only ~yearly average ** Data comprised from sources: (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2020; Citizen Path, n.d.; and Baugh, 2020, p. 1).

Based on the data collected in the chart above, the cap for the “U” status is 10,000 while the cap for the “T” is 5,000 (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2020, p. 5). It should be noted that the number of U statuses approved exceeded the cap of 10,000; those who are approved for the status but do not make the cap cutoff are “placed on the… waitlist until another slot becomes available (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2020, p. 8). As for family petitions, on average, 247,682 are filed. Of those filed, 35,624 are either rejected or denied (Citizen Path, n.d.). Additionally, the U.S. received 20,721 petitions for the SIJS status but only approved 23,145 and denied 2,545; it should also be noted that, while it is not listed in the chart above, 29,299 were pending during the 2019 fiscal year (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2020). Lastly, the number of individuals who applied for these protections is not known, however, Homeland Security did report that “29,916 were admitted to the United States as refugees during [the fiscal year of] 2019” (Baugh, 2020, p. 1). Remember, the child has to prove that they were persecuted or that they have a reasonable fear that they will be persecuted for either the child’s “political opinion, race, nationality, religion, or membership in a particular social group” for these protections to apply (Benson P. L., 2018, p. 1298). 17

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

This requirement is not easy for a child to articulate because the persecution they are experiencing is typically a result of organized crime and gang culture (Benson P. L., 2018, p. 1298). In an article by Long, a writer for the Human Rights Watch, it is noted that some migrants from Honduras stated that they were subjected to serious threats from the local gangs (Long, 2016). If a claim like this is made to a border patrol officer who is tasked with screening for those who qualify for asylum, the officer is supposed to refer the migrant to USCIS. However, it does not appear that these claims are being referred to the USCIS by these officers even though they are required by law to do so. It is hypothesized that the lack of referrals to the USCIC is due to the border patrol officers’ unsympathetic attitude towards immigrants (Long, 2016). If children are sent back to these countries that have a prominent issue with violent gangs after having conveyed their fear of persecution, the child’s life is at further risk.

What UACs have to Endure It is a major flaw in the application of the UAC’s Due Process rights to expect that the child pursues these protections on their own. In Los Angeles, California, the executive director of Immigrant Defense Law Center, Toczylowski, described what it is like to represent a threeyear-old UAC in court: “… in the middle of the hearing, [the child] started climbing up on the table… it really highlighted the absurdity of what we’re doing with these kids” (Jewett & Luthra, 2018). Clearly, in this case, the child does not understand the seriousness of his situation, and the same can be said for hundreds of other unaccompanied children. The court does not take into consideration the age of the child when requiring the child to appear in court, nor do they consider the state of mind the child is in after being separated from his/her parents. 18

Maya Commodore

The experience of the migrant child before arriving in the United States must be considered. In an article by NPR’s Rhitu Chatterjee, Chatterjee explains that the child has experienced trauma such as “violence, extortion, police complicity, and government inaction” from their native country in addition to traveling through Mexico and witnessing horrific situations like “rapes, assaults, violence, and death” before even crossing the U.S. border (Chatterjee, 2019). Once the children are separated from their families and detained in a federal detention center, they then begin to experience more trauma within those facilities which affects their mental health. According to Chatterjee, a “study in Social Science & Medicine found that 32% of children at a detention center showed signs of emotional problems.” Children who are being detained in these facilities are experiencing “high rates of emotional distress” and are showing various behavioral symptoms such as: “wanting to cry all the time, wanting to be with [their] mom, conduct problems, such as fighting with other kids or having temper tantrums, peer problems, not having a lot of friends, or only wanting to interact with adults,” on top of having severe cases of PTSD (Chatterjee, 2019). The separation of migrant children from their parents and detention facility placement after enduring trauma from their journey to the United States, also violates the child’s Eighth Amendment right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment.

Legislation Regarding Immigration Procedures Once it was made known that children were being separated from their parents, Congress began making efforts to pass legislation that would end the separation of families in migrant cases. The Senate introduced two bills: 1) the Keep Families Together Act and 2) the Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act. The Keep Families Together Act “[p] rohibits an agent or contractor of the DHS, the DOJ, or the HHS from removing a child who is under the age of eighteen and 19

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

has no permanent immigration status from his or her parent or guardian…” (United States Senate, 2018). The Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act “[a]mends the Immigration and Nationality to extend protective custody over alien children under the age of eighteen who are accompanied by a parent and apprehended at the border…” (United States Senate, 2018). The House of Representatives has also proposed two bills. The first bill, the Equal Protection of Unaccompanied Minors Act, aims to set out clear standards for “[f]amily detention and the treatment of unaccompanied alien children…” (United States House of Representatives, 2019). The second bill introduced by the House, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, aims to “cancel and prohibit removal proceedings against certain aliens with a path toward permanent resident status.” (United States House of Representatives, 2019). Of these bills, The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 is the bill that has made the most progress thus far. It has already been passed by the House of Representatives and made it to the Senate for consideration.

Efforts by the Executive Branch Even the executive branch has acted in favor of ending the “Zero Tolerance” policy. President Donald Trump, on June 19, 2019, signed an executive order that ended the policy he put in place the previous year. The order intends to stop separating children from their parents and detain them all “together while they await their court dates in criminal and immigration court” (Park, Detrow, & Snell, 2018). As for President Biden and his Administration, they are taking additional steps to assist migrants and their families, and to address the root causes of migration in Central America. According to Southern Border Ambassador Roberta Jacobson, “[t]he president has committed to seeking $4 billion over four years to address the root causes of migration including 20

Maya Commodore

corruption, violence, and economic devastation exacerbated by climate change” (The White House, 2021). The ambassador additionally states that the funds will go towards “communities, training, climate mitigation, violence prevention, and anti-gang programs” instead of government leaders, so the Administration can work on creating “safe, prosperous, and democratic countries” (The White House, 2021). The plan proposed by the Biden Administration comes in two phases. The first phase will “address the causes that compel individuals to migrate…” from their countries by “working across the whole government,” which will allow the Administration to reassess and rethink the “international protection and refugee resettlement and asylum processing to ensure fair and faster consideration” (The White House, 2021). The second phase of the plan will focus on expanding legal and safe avenues for migrants who are seeking protection to come to the United States. However, the Administration emphasizes that the border is not open and discourages migrants and migrant families with small children from making “the dangerous trip to try and enter the United States in an irregular fashion” (The White House, 2021). Additionally, the Biden Administration has “ended the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols which sent people back to Mexico to wait… for a chance to present their asylum claims” (The White House, 2021). The Administration was also successful in closing the Matamoros Migration Camp, which was the “most dangerous” migrant camp in the United States (The White House, 2021). Furthermore, the Administration is restarting the “Central American Minors Program for children to be reunited with a parent who is legally in the United States”; this program was active under the previous Administration, but the program was “abruptly ended… leaving 3,000 children, already approved, stranded” (The White House, 2021).

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

These efforts made by the Biden Administration are in response to the significant increase that has begun within the last two months. The chart below shows that there is a 28% increase between January and February alone; to put it in perspective, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents (USCBP) are encountering “nearly 3,500 migrants a day” (Romo, 2021). Additionally, within the same time period, “the number of children and families seeking to enter the U.S. more than doubled,” in conjunction with a sixty percent increase in the “number of unaccompanied minors from Central America” (Romo, 2021). The USCBP and the Administration are trying to respond to this influx to the best of their ability, however, there are simply not enough beds available in the country’s shelters (Romo, 2021). The influx of migrants coming to the U.S. is due to “ongoing violence, natural disasters, food insecurity, and poverty in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras,” as well as the change in administration (Romo, 2021). With the Biden Administration being a sharp contrast to the Trump Administration, migrants may conclude that the chances of reaching safety in the U.S. are now greater than they have been within recent years.

Maya Commodore

(U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2021) Though both the Legislative and Executive branches have made efforts to handle the increased rates of immigration, their efforts have not resolved the issue. For legislation to be passed in Congress, both the Senate and the House of Representatives must vote and pass the bill before it is made into law. However, the process can take a while and not many bills make it through both the House and the Senate. Additionally, President Trump’s executive order, though it has a good intention, does not guarantee the Due Process rights of UACs. Furthermore, with the Biden Administration in office, in addition to the House and the Senate being predominately Democratic, there is now a higher chance for the previously mentioned bills to be passed through both chambers. 23

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

Conclusion The immigration system as a whole needs a great deal of reform, especially when it comes to providing due process for UACs. The United States government must start by not detaining children who are not accompanied by a parent or guardian in federal facilities. If the child must be detained by the federal government, then it should only be for a brief amount of time with agencies that are not related to the enforcement of immigration law. The migrant children have already endured trauma and they need to be treated with care (Benson P. L., 2018, pp. 1320-1322). The fact that the child is required to go through a legal process with the USCIS and with the immigration court is too extensive and overwhelming for any child. At a minimum, the U.S government should merge the two processes and create one system that a child can go through so that the powers of deciding which protections to give the child is given to one entity instead of two. Additionally, there needs to be properly appointed advocates for UACs in the United States, and the immigration court should create an adjudication model that allows for a proper medical and mental evaluation of the children before these cases are ever heard in court (Benson P. L., 2018, p. 1320). If UACs have proper counsel, their counsel can see to it that these evaluations are conducted and can offer the guidance through the legal process these children desperately need. Currently, the system is tailored more to prosecuting adults than children. Therefore, the U.S. government must make changes in how UACs are processed in the immigration courts. These are special cases deserving of our utmost attention to ensure the rights of migrant children are protected.

Maya Commodore

Furthermore, the responsibility of seeking federal protection from the U.S. government should not fall solely on a child. It cannot be expected that children have the ability to understand how to defend themselves or plead their cases in a courtroom, especially if the child has already been traumatized. It cannot be forgotten that these children have endured and witnessed terrible crimes and conditions. If the United States believes that a child in the U.S. should be granted more rights due to his/ her young age, then the United States should apply that same belief to UACs. Therefore, the U.S. should make sure that the child is granted adequate counsel so that the attorney can file the necessary motions to get their client the protection(s) they need.

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

References American Bar Association. (2018, August). Standards for the Custody, Placement and Care; Legal Representation and Adjudication of Unaccompanied Alien Children in the United States. Retrieved from Americanbar. org: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/ publications/commission_on_immigration/standards_ for_children_2018.pdf Baugh, R. (2020, September). Annual flow report September 2020: Refugees and asylees: 2019. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/refugee_and_ asylee_2019.pdf Benson, L. B. (2018). Administrative Chaos: Responding to Child Refugees-U.S. Immigration Process in Crisis. Washington & Lee Law Review, 1287-1322. Chatterjee, R. (2019, August 23). Lengthy Detention Of Migrant Children May Create Lasting Trauma, Say Researchers. Retrieved from NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/ health-shots/2019/08/23/753757475/lengthy-detentionof-migrant-children-may-create-lasting-trauma-sayresearchers Citizen Path. (n.d.). Family-Based Immigration in the United States. Retrieved from Citizen Path: Immigration Forms Made Simple: https://citizenpath.com/family-basedimmigration-united-states/ Congressional Research Service. (2019, June 13). Central american migration: root causes and u.s policy. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/14782/Downloads/Central%20 American%20Migration%20Root%20Causes%20 and%20U.S.%20Policy.pdf

Maya Commodore

Congressional Research Service. (2019, February 26). The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy. Retrieved from Congress.gov: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45266 Jewett, C., & Luthra, S. (2018, 27 June). Immigrant toddlers ordered to appear in court alone. Retrieved from The Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune. org/2018/06/27/immigrant-toddlers-ordered-appearcourt-alone/ Long, C. (2016, October 16). “You Don’t Have Rights Here”. Retrieved from Human Rights Watch : https://www. hrw.org/report/2014/10/16/you-dont-have-rights-here/ us-border-screening-and-returns-central-americansrisk#page Park, M., Detrow, S., & Snell, K. (2018, June 20). Trump Signs Order To End Family Separations. Retrieved from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/20/621798823/speakerryan-plans-immigration-votes-amid-doubts-that-billscan-pass Romo, V. (2021, March 11). Number of unaccompanied minors entering u.s. soared in february. Retrieved from npr: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/975916980/number-ofunaccompanied-minors-entering-u-s-soared-in-february Subcommittee on Best Interests of the Interagency Working Group on Unaccompanied and Separated Children. (2016, May). Framework for considering the best interests of unaccompanied children. 1-45. Retrieved from https://www.law.georgetown.edu/human-rightsinstitute/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/07/BestInterests-Framework.pdf

Analysis of Due Process for Migrant Children

The White House. (2021, March 10). Press briefing by press secretary jen psaki and special assistant to the president and coordinator for the southern border ambassador roberta jacobson, march 10, 2021. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/press-briefings/2021/03/10/press-briefing-bypress-secretary-jen-psaki-and-special-assistant-to-thepresident-and-coordinator-for-the-southern-borderambassador-roberta-jacobson-march-10-2021/ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2020, February). Annual report on immigration applications and petitions made by victims of abuse -- fiscal year 2019. 4-16. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ document/reports/Annual_Report_on_Immigration_ Applications_and_Petitions_Made_by_Victims_of_ Abuse_-_Fiscal_Year_2019.pdf U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2020, April). Number of I-360 petitions for special immigrant with a classification of special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) by fiscal year, quarter and case status. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/ I360_sij_performancedata_fy2020_qtr2.pdf U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2021, March 3). Southwest land border encounters. Retrieved from U.S. Customs and Border Protection: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/ stats/southwest-land-border-encounters United States Department of Justice. (n.d.). 118. Arresting Juveniles. Retrieved from The United States Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminalresource-manual-118-arresting-juveniles

Maya Commodore

United States Department of Justice. (n.d.). 121. Constitutional Protections Afforded Juveniles. Retrieved from The United States Department of Justice: https://www.justice. gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-121-constitutionalprotections-afforded-juveniles United States House of Representatives. (2019, January 15). H.R.574 - Equal Protection of Unaccompanied Minors Act. Retrieved from Congress.gov: https: www.congress. gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/574text?q=%7B%22 search%22%3A%5B%22H.R.+574%3A+Equal+Protec tion+of+Unaccompanied+Minors+Act%22%5D%7D& r=1&s=4 United States House of Representatives. (2019, June 04). H.R.6 - American Dream and Promise Act of 2019. Retrieved from Congress.Gov: https://www.congress.gov/ bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6 United States Senate. (2018, June 07). S.3036 - Keep Families Together Act. Retrieved from Congress.Gov: https:// www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3036 ?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22keep+families+t ogether+act%22%5D%7D United States Senate. (2018, June 20). S.3093 - Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act. Retrieved from Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115thcongress/senate-bill/3093?q=%7B%22search%22 %3A%5B%22S.+3093%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=5

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth By Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez” Faculty Mentor: Dr. Christine James, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

Article Abstract: For millennia, popular Christian tradition has affirmed Satan as an evil antagonist who desires the downfall of humankind into sin and to usurp the authority of God. In asserting this tradition, many theologies were added to Satan’s background (e.g., his ancient fall from heaven and his rule over fellow fallen angels and/or demons), further separating his agenda from God’s will. However, this tradition only shows half (if even that much) of what biblical authors (and by extension likely a majority of first-century Jews and possibly Christians) believed about Satan. Previous scholarship on Satan has usually focused on intertestamental conflicts (both sectarian and national) and appealed primarily to the Gospel traditions to show his evolution from a loyal angel of God in the Hebrew Bible to the evil antagonist of popular Christian tradition. This article examines not only those conflicts but also the popular intertestamental literature and Pharisaic thought which commonly depicted Satan as a loyal, albeit devious, servant of God. Furthermore, this article argues for how the majority of biblical authors likely believed Satan a loyal angel tasked with enacting necessary evils into the world and with improving humanity in accordance with God’s will.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

Satan has long personified evil in Christian and Jewish thought. Throughout the New Testament, he is called ho Poneros, “the Evil One” (Matt. 13.19), ho Satanas, “the Adversary” (Mark 3.26), and diabolos, “Devil” (Matt. 4.1).1 The New Testament reports he tempts and antagonizes humans (especially Jesus) seemingly to turn them away from God and into sin. Popular Christian tradition has since cited biblical passages to describe Satan as a former angel who fell from heaven and now leads an army of demons against God and humans.2 However, the figure of Satan in early Jewish and Christian thought remains far more complex than this interpretation, as different ancient interpreters portrayed him in various and evolving lights, many of which maintain his devotion to God. Biblical scholars have debated Satan’s role/history in biblical thought, bringing significant evidence against the traditional Christian interpretation. From this evidence, I argue that although people over the last millennia have commonly believed Satan solely to be an enemy to God3 and tempter to humankind, in his original biblical context he primarily serves4 as a loyal, angelic agent of God to improve humanity in accordance with God’s will.5 1 For the purposes of this article, all citations from the New Testament are from The New Oxford Annotated Bible Fully Revised 4th edition. 2 Such popularity has helped lead to prevalence in the United States of beliefs in Satan and demons, especially among Christians surveyed—66.7% of Protestants said they believe Satan absolutely exists while 57.9% believe demons absolutely exist. This number drops to approximately 50% for Catholics and most other religious people regarding Satan and even less regarding demons. Meanwhile, Jewish people surveyed report less than 5% absolute belief in either (see the ARDA’s summaries of Baylor University’s 2007 Religion Survey, Wave II: “Belief in Satan” and “Belief in demons”). Given the divide in beliefs, this highlights the importance of discussing biblical debates on Satan. 3 At least one New Testament source, John, appears to definitively assert this. 4 In other words, after comparing scholars’ differing interpretations on Satan, I argue the majority of biblical authors, as shown through their works, assert Satan as a loyal, angelic agent of God, as opposed to the popular Christian interpretation that the majority of (if not all) biblical authors believed him an enemy to God. 5 God’s will here is defined as God’s desires for His subjects, e.g., obedience, steadfastness, humility, or even punishment, or God’s plan for humanity’s/the world’s future.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

Ha-satan in the Hebrew Bible Most critical, biblical scholars agree that Satan was originally viewed as an angel of God in the Hebrew Bible. The earliest biblical record of Satan occurs in the book of Job (ca. 5th century BCE). Here, the text introduces Satan (then known by the title, not a proper name, ha-satan, meaning “the Adversary”) as a member of God’s heavenly court—God’s angels that obey His every command. “And one day, the sons of God came to stand in attendance before the LORD, and the Adversary, too, came among them” (Job 1.7).6 The text then describes ha-satan previously as roaming the earth, implying that his God-given tasks occur there. Ha-satan, after God brings his attention to the righteous man Job, proceeds to question Job’s loyalty and devotion to God, asserting perhaps that Job only praises God because God has blessed Job with an abundance of family and wealth. After receiving God’s permission along with specific guidelines for the task, hasatan kills Job’s children and livestock, but Job praises God, nonetheless. Ha-satan later asks God again for permission to ruin Job’s life, and once again with God’s allowance and guidelines, ha-satan this time afflicts Job’s skin with a horrible rash. Yet, Job never curses God aloud (Job 1-2.10). Here, most scholars do not see an evil antagonist but a loyal angelic subordinate enacting the will of God on earth. First analyzing God’s court, Sydney Page, a former Taylor Seminary professor of the New Testament, points out that other ancient Near Eastern theologies also had heavenly courts but in which the lesser deities were not always subordinate (450). The Hebrew faith appears to have adapted such heavenly court concepts to a more monotheistic sense where all the sons of God are subject to His will. God’s guidelines also reveal ha-satan cannot act independently. “And the LORD said to the Adversary, ‘Look, all that he has is in your hands. Only against him do not reach out your hand... Here he is in your hands. Only preserve his 6 For the purposes of this article, all citations from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament are from Robert Alter’s translation entitled The Hebrew Bible.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

life’” (Job 1.12; 2.6). Page points out that not only does God Himself turn ha-satan’s focus toward Job (Job 1.8) but all credit, as mentioned by both ha-satan and Job (Job 1.21; 2.5), goes to God for the suffering (Page 451-452). Read under this light, the prologue to Job appears to say God Himself desired ha-satan to test Job, and to ensure the test did not kill Job, God set clear limits7 for His angel. In this light, the prologue also attests to Israel’s solidifying monotheism where any other heavenly beings are subordinate and thereby implied as completely loyal to God. In this case, many scholars agree ha-satan acts as God’s “Tester of human fidelity” (Malone 15). Ha-satan tests people’s faiths to prove their loyalties to God.8 Ha-satan’s second appearance occurs in the book of Zechariah (ca. 520 BCE) when he stands at God’s side as an accuser against Joshua the high priest. Zechariah 3 occurs when Joshua and many exiles return from Babylon to Israel. Scholars such as Elaine Pagels, Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University, show that the rural population resented the returning exiles’ claim to power, in this case priestly power, for they were essentially another invading force. As such, ha-satan takes the side of the exiles, about to accuse Joshua of trespasses that make him unfit for the priestly office (Pagels 43-44). Nonetheless, God rebukes hasatan before he can utter even one accusation, demonstrating God’s intention to restore the priesthood with Joshua and welcome the exiles back as His people (Zech. 3). Here begins most scholars’ differing views on Satan’s evolution. Peter Malone, a Yarra Theological Union professor of theology and Scripture, argues that this story is indicative of Satan becoming a malevolent enemy to humans and God (16). Pagels may agree, as she believes the concept of Satan evolved through 7 While these limits do not necessarily promote the notion that God desires ha-satan’s actions to reach them, they at least imply that God is not opposed to such intense actions in this instance. That said, perhaps these limits are implying a command to reach them for if God desired less harm to befall Job, logically the limits should reflect that. 8 This perhaps reflects the “God of Old” where God is not omniscient and requires agents to roam the Earth and report back to Him, in this case reporting the true nature of one’s faith. See James Kugel’s, Bible Department Professor Emeritus at Bar Ilan University, How to Read the Bible p. 108-118.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

usage of the name to antagonize one’s enemies. Henry Kelly, Emerit Distinguished Professor of English at the University of California, however, believes ha-satan here merely fulfills the same (or at least similar) duties as in the book of Job. Just as ancient inspectors in Egypt and Persia went out into their communities and subsequently reported illicit activities to the king, so too does hasatan go out into the earth and report back to God (Kelly 23-28).9 In aligning more with Kelly’s view, one may also see ha-satan in Zechariah as desiring the best man be chosen for the priesthood, one who ultimately will take on the greatest intermediary task for God on earth. The entire Hebrew population thus depends on such leadership, hence ha-satan plays an integral role in ensuring Judah’s religious future with God. Thus, although God rebukes ha-satan before he can utter an accusation, the angel remains loyal to his role as an investigator/accuser for God in helping select the high priest, backing off when his input is not needed. Before continuing to trace Satan’s history into 1st Chronicles, it is prudent to discuss the roles of satans in the Hebrew Bible. In Hebrew, satan means “adversary,”10 hence the addition of ha denotes an article symbolizing a title, in this case “the Adversary.” Adversaries could come in human (1 Sam. 29.4) and divine (Num. 22) forms. Human adversaries might include military and political opponents while divine adversaries are angels sent by God to impede one’s path (in Numbers quite literally).11 Thus, ha-satan holding this name as a title implies obstructing humans’ paths12 is 9 Although this parallel fits Zechariah and similarly perhaps Jude (discussed below), admittedly it is not exact in describing the Job account. Nonetheless, ha-satan’s duties are implied to occur on the earth (Job 1.7; 2.2), and God’s statement to ha-satan may imply that his next task is to investigate Job through trials and report back the earnestness of Job’s faith. 10 The term “adversary” is not inherently evil or antagonistic but is merely oppositional. Sometimes adversaries are necessary to enact justice, for example, a prosecutor opposing the defendant, or an executioner opposing someone sentenced to death. As such, context is everything when reading this term in the Bible and determining if the “adversary” is for or against God and His subjects. 11 In Numbers 22, one does not see ha-satan specifically but an angel of God who physically blocks Balaam’s (a professional curser working for the Moabites against the Israelites) path. This shows how angelic adversaries are under God’s command and enact His will on Earth. 12 This is to say people’s paths toward righteousness. In other words, “paths” refers to their faiths or moralities (as with Job). Satan may also obstruct people’s progression toward worldly achievements, such as rewards or statuses when people have sins to

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

his job. Nonetheless, if God Himself sends any of these adversaries upon someone, then the credit goes to God, not the servant.13 These themes appear to continue into 1st Chronicles 21 (ca. late 5th century BCE): “And Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to take a count of Israel… And it [taking the census] was evil in the eyes of God on account of this thing, and He struck Israel” (1 Chr. 21.1-2; 7). Here, Satan14 acts to ensure Israel receives its just punishment15 as people must face consequences, lest they continue to transgress through their behaviors. This passage’s significance lies in comparison with 2nd Samuel 24 (ca. late 7th to 6th century BCE). “And once more the wrath of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, count Israel and Judah’” (2 Sam. 24.1-2). While God still punishes Israel with three days of plague (2 Sam. 24.15), here God is responsible, not Satan, for inciting David to sin. Scholars agree the Chronicles are dated after the writing of Samuel, even using Samuel as a source. This indicates significance to the change of who causes David to sin. Many scholars also cite the idea that the Chronicler did not wish to claim that God tempts people to sin or causes evil (Page 454; Stokes 95). This does not equate Satan with later traditions wherein he tempts people to sin against God’s will, but it does relate a shift in that direction if God Himself is detached from temptation. Nonetheless, one must still consider that this model of Satan, in comparison with the above sources of Job, Zechariah, and Numbers, appears consistent with the Hebrew concept of subordinate angels acting as intermediaries of evil or temptation on behalf of God. repent for (as possibly in Zechariah). 13 As such, unlike human adversaries who may act to promote their own agendas apart from God’s will, divine adversaries only enact God’s will. 14 There remains considerable debate over the identity of the satan in this passage. Ryan Stokes, a Carson-Newman University associate professor of religion, details in depth the various arguments for these interpretations and asserts his conclusion that this satan is an angel but not ha-satan (Stokes 95-106). Meanwhile Robert Alter, a professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California, and Page believe this is ha-satan now called Satan (Alter vol. 3, 907; Page 454-455). 15 The original cause for this punishment remains uncertain as 1 Chr. 20 relates stories of David’s army defeating Israel’s enemies but nothing that would indicate a grave offense.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

Satan in the intertestamental period literature Satan further develops during the intertestamental period (ca. 420 BCE-30 CE) as writers began perceiving the world within a cosmic struggle between good and evil. However, despite further attributions of evil to Satan, he nonetheless remains a servant of God in this literature. During this period, Jews began splintering off into different sects. Critical here are the Pharisees and the Essenes. The Pharisees delved deeply into the Hebrew Scriptures, interpreting them to discover hidden meanings and clarify the laws within. In defense of their faith, the book Jubilees (ca. 135-105 BCE) retells the stories of Genesis and part of Exodus in alignment with Pharisaic thought. Here, scholars such as William Caldwell in one of his 1913 articles in the journal The Biblical World believes Jewish thought shifted fully to absolving God of evil. Instead, Mastema (another name for Satan) replaces God in stories where God tempts people, kills people, or even hardens someone’s heart (e.g., Pharaoh in Ex. 14.4) to ensure punishment would befall him (Caldwell, no. 2, 100).16 Mastema also tries to accuse the Hebrews of sins, thus warranting his restraint by other angels to ensure his job17 does not compromise God’s plan to rescue them from captivity (Kelly 39-40). Nonetheless, Satan still can only act within the parameters approved by God, e.g., God allowed Satan dominion over one-tenth of the evil spirits/demons which originally God’s angels were to bind. This ensured Satan had enough agents to carry out his objectives18 upon humankind (100). In keeping with this tradition of reattributing evil to Satan, Jubilees also does so with the Serpent of Genesis. 16 See Abraham’s temptation in Gen. 22, God’s attempted murder of Moses in Ex. 4.24, and Pharaoh’s hardened heart in Ex. 14.4. 17 Compare to Satan’s job as an accuser in Zech. 3 where he dutifully challenges Joshua’s ascension to the priesthood contrary to God’s long-term plan. 18 Caldwell is somewhat unclear on whether Satan’s antagonism against humans by testing, tempting, killing, or otherwise is in service to God or stems from Satan’s own malicious desires. Kelly, though, conjectures that Satan’s objective here is to ensure the people do not repent by tempting them to further sin, thereby ensuring the need for God’s punishment through the flood (Kelly 37-38).

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

However, many scholars agree that this Serpent in the original Genesis 3 account is little more than a talking creature—certainly not a satan, let alone ha-satan. Christine Hayes, Robert F. and Patricia Ross Weis Professor of Religious Studies in Classical Judaica at Yale University, compares this Serpent to other ancient Near Eastern fables such as Aesop’s Fables which also used talking creatures as literary devices through which to tell the stories. She further supports this by referencing how many Genesis accounts reflect tales such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, thereby utilizing neighboring sources as the basis for their own accounts (Hayes 10:47). Unlike Hayes though, who sees no correlation of a tempter in the Serpent, scholars such as Caldwell, as in another of his 1913 articles in The Biblical World, and Malone do believe the Serpent acts as such in Genesis (Caldwell, no. 1, 30; Malone 15). Yet, the text itself does not call the Serpent evil or even a tempter, thereby more firmly correlating it to Satan. Instead, it is merely “cunning” (Gen. 3.1) and acts in a way19 to advance the story by telling half-truths to Eve (Gen. 3.5). Ancient interpreters though at some point attributed this creature to Satan, causing Jubilees’ concept of Satan in this passage to later help form the basis of the Christian belief that he has tempted humans since their creation. The First Book of Enoch, dating to the second and first centuries BCE, while not specifically evolving Satan, does provide more framework for later concepts. Most prominent is the story of the Watchers, which retells the opening of Genesis 6, detailing sons of God mating with human females, thus producing Nephilim, commonly translated as giants (Gen. 6.1-4). The adaptation in Enoch describes the roles of these angels (sons of God)20 as to “instruct the children of men to do 19 This is indeed deception and I think it implies temptation, yet not to the degree of equating it to Satan. The parallels to other ancient Near Eastern literature appear to match the story instead of a later grand antagonist concept. 20 The meaning of “sons of God” is debated in Judaism, some believing “sons” are authoritative humans or even descendants of Seth, those more aligned with God than Cain’s descendants. Nonetheless, this paper will align with the understanding that the “sons” are indeed angels as this fits with the traditional ancient Greek and Hittite narratives which commonly had divine entities mate with humans. Hence, as with much else in Genesis (such as the creation narratives), this story likely reflects the incorporation of prior religious stories into this incipient monotheism. Note also

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

judgment and uprightness” (Caldwell, no. 2, 101). However, the angels lusted after the women, subsequently mating with them instead, thereby yielding God’s punishment upon both humans and the angels, the latter God isolated “to await further judgment at the end of time” (Kelly 35). The later edition to Enoch, the Similitudes, dating to the first century CE, details the Watchers as following the Satans (another series of angels who tempt, accuse, and punish people on earth as seen in Job, Zechariah, and 1st Chronicles), thereby being misled into sin (Caldwell, no. 2, 101). While the specific Satan is not seen here, the origins of evil and sin are ascribed to the Satans. The original Watchers story in Enoch nonetheless has since formed the framework for later Christian thought that Satan and many of his minions were once fallen angels. As Caldwell points out, the Similitudes detail the role of Satans as angels loyal to God who enact the unfortunate but necessary evil-related tasks of temptation, accusation, and punishment (Caldwell, no. 2, 101). So, even though Jewish thought may have shifted to blame the Satans for the evil of the Watchers, these angelic adversaries nonetheless only act as God wills them. Mastema is not much different. As mentioned, he can only act within God’s will, thereby remaining a servant of God, and consistently follows his God-given directives. And so, when viewing the intertestamental period under a lens of attributing evil and sin to Satan instead of God, God remains in command of His angels, or at least the Satans. The primary change then is this creation of an intermediary but not exactly an antagonist.21 Pagels traces the evolution of Satan during this period in a different manner, claiming the social turmoil as antagonizing the concept of Satan. Aside from the Pharisees, another early Jewish sect, the Essenes drew heavily on the First Book of Enoch and that the Watchers are led by Azazel. This references Lev. 16.8-10, which depicts this enigmatic word as either the wilderness itself or an evil spirit who rules the wilderness. 21 The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (ca. 1-50 CE) should nonetheless be noted as this portrays Satan as an archangel and his subordinate angels (the Watchers in this story) being thrown out of heaven. Satan is also equated with the Serpent of Genesis in this book, desiring humans’ destruction. Still, given the late date of this work, it is unclear how influential it was in the first century CE, but it did become popular throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries (Caldwell, no. 2, 101-102).

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

Jubilees to develop their own cosmology (Pagels 56). Unlike the Pharisees who secluded themselves socially from their Jewish neighbors, the Essenes went further by secluding themselves geographically—living out in the wilderness at locations including Qumran as early as the second century BCE.22 This allowed them to practice their faith as they interpreted it, rejecting the newly implemented politics in Jerusalem.23 The Essenes developed their thought in terms of a cosmic struggle between good and evil. The past centuries had shown numerous wars and foreign powers reigning above all others— Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Even when Israel reclaimed its independence, another rival power conquered it soon after, leading to the climax of dominion under Roman rule with the destruction of the second Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. Furthermore, the internal fighting among Jews (the split into multiple sects) only heightened this dilemma as a divided house cannot stand. For the Essenes, only this transcendent battle, in which Satan represented evil against God, the good, explained their current situation.24 Under this lens, Pagels analyzes Satan. She asserts the Essenes used the term “Satan” along with others—“sons of darkness” and “congregation of traitors”—to demonize their enemies; meanwhile those on God’s side (in this case only the Essenes themselves) were labeled the “sons of light” (Pagels 58). The people had to choose a side and if they went against the Essenes, then those people were effectively followers of Satan. The Essenes also called Satan by other names including Beliar25 22 It is noteworthy that Qumran was only a day’s journey from Jerusalem so there was some potential for communication with the community at large, though not near as much as had the Pharisees. 23 The Essenes rejected the new priesthood detached from the bloodline of Aaron (A Brief Introduction 41). 24 This may have resulted from Persian influence of Zoroastrianism during Persia’s reign over Judah (ca. 539/538-333/332 BCE). While the Zoroastrian dualism of a monotheistic God Ahura Mazda, representing order, versus his adversary Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), representing chaos, parallels the Essenes’ view well, many scholars debate whether or not Zoroastrianism had significant influence on early Judaism. See Jack Sanders’ (former head of the University of Oregon’s Department of Religious Studies) article “Whence the First Millennium? The Sources Behind Revelation 20.” 25 Beliar was used in Jubilees as a contrast to God, thereby implying its meaning of “evil” or wickedness,” yet scholars are divided on whether Jubilees means it as a concept or an entity (Kelly 65).

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

(Pagels believes this a Hebrew pun to say “without light”), once again utilizing old terms26 in describing enemies as “sons of darkness” (Pagels 58-59). In essence, the term “Satan” evolved in Essene philosophy to meet the growing internal conflict as Jews reformulated their old terms and utilized them against their political and religious opponents.27 The majority of the Jewish population during this period likely held beliefs aligned closer with Pharisaic thought. Bart Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, estimates the Essene population at about 4,000 people. Furthermore, he estimates the Pharisee population at about 6,000 people. However, the majority of the Jewish population belonged to neither these nor any of the other established sects28 (A Brief Introduction 38). Also, the Essenes secluded themselves off in the wilderness, so beyond their own communities, the Pharisaic thought likely held more influence.29 Under this Pharisaic view, Satan evolved as an intermediary for tasks related to evil on behalf of God, but never grew into a force opposed to God. Nonetheless, Pagels’ analysis of Satan does account for Jesus’ views of good versus evil in the Gospels and a significant portion of Satan’s evolution there too.

Satan in the Gospels In studying the Gospels, Pagels highlights the same pattern of demonizing enemies in light of a cosmic struggle as seen in the Essene literature. In many regards, this logically follows as Jesus sought out John the Baptist, who many scholars 26 In this case Belial; see 1 Sam. 2.12; Judg. 19.22. Alter translates “sons of Belial” in both passages as “worthless men/fellows.” Compare also to Azazel; see footnote 20. 27 Furthermore, the fact that the Essenes described their own term “Satan” as a once loyal angel to God but now a fallen traitor leading an army of darkness implies that their true enemy did not come from Rome or another foreign power but within Israel itself, possibly in the form of the sects. 28 These were the Sadducees (mostly priests and politicians) and the Fourth Philosophy (freedom fighters against Rome). 29 Further evidence for Pharisaic thought having the most influence is that Judaism has continued their traditions to this day through studying the Talmud (derived from Pharisaic laws and stories).

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

believe an Essene. As many passages attest, Jesus held a very similar viewpoint to the Essenes (Mk. 3.23-27; 8.33; Jn 8.44), calling out opponents as following the Devil (Satan) and insisting that a divided people are doomed to crumble.30 Nonetheless, the Gospels show a complex mixture of thought on Satan, not always depicting him as an antagonist to God. Beginning with the earliest Gospel, Mark31 (ca. 70 CE), Satan is introduced within the first chapter—right after Jesus’ baptism: “And the Spirit immediately drove him [Jesus] out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him” (Mk. 1.12-13). As with the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 19.8), Jesus endures a lengthy stay in the wilderness to prepare him for his upcoming ministry.32 Here in Mark, Satan appears to act in accordance with God’s will by once again performing his job as seen in the Hebrew Bible and intertestamental literature.33 However, one must not take this as decisive evidence that Satan remains a loyal servant of God in the Gospels. The next instance of Satan shows quite the opposite viewpoint. In Mark 3, Jesus reportedly exorcises demons, leading scribes from Jerusalem to claim he is possessed by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons and likely another term for Satan (Mk. 3.22). Jesus says, “How can Satan cast out Satan… And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come” (Mk. 3.23, 26). When read under the lens of a cosmic struggle, this implies Satan’s (the leader of evil against 30 The Gospels also relate Jesus’ messages against the Essenes’ supposed hatred of enemies, calling instead for people to love their enemies and pray for persecutors (Matt. 5.43-48). Jesus thus relayed a paradoxical message, mixing Essene demonization of opponents with love and respect for those opponents. 31 It should be noted that scholars are divided as to the identities of the Gospel authors. See A Brief Introduction 57-58 for Ehrman’s initial assessment of Gospel authorship. Siding more with the position that they are anonymous Greek authors, the names Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John here are placeholders. 32 Page compares this to other times God tested His subjects, often serving to mature them: Abraham in Gen. 22 and the Israelites in Ex. 20 (Page 457). 33 Unlike in John (discussed later), Satan acting against Jesus in this manner does not necessitate antagonism toward Jesus but rather an obstacle to overcome to prove his loyalty to God and fitness for ministry. This may also align with Pharisaic conceptions of Satan, discussed below, which believed his tests/temptations often meant not to lead people permanently away from God, but to prove people’s faiths in God, to bolster them against temptation if overcome, or even to instill humility should they succumb to temptation.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

God’s good) rule remains strong, as he is not divided among himself, unlike Jesus’ fellow Jews who are divided against him. Satan is invoked only twice more in Mark: “The sower sows the word. These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them” (Mk. 4.14-15). Here, Satan misleads people so that they may not understand the hidden plan34 of God, but the select few disciples of Jesus are called to understand God’s kingdom. Once again, this echoes the Essene belief that they would play an integral part in the cosmic struggle and that Satan misleads those who live apart from the Essene community. The last instance of Satan here comes as Jesus proclaims the Son of Man35 must suffer and die because of his own people. “He [Jesus] said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things’” (Mk. 8.32-34). Here, Peter acts in a similar fashion to Satan (pushing Jesus away from God’s plan), prompting Jesus’ rebuke as if Peter were Satan (Kelly 84). Although not as defined as the later Gospels relate, Satan appears in Mark thus as a tempter and an evil ruler who misleads people away from God. Perhaps his initial appearance as a mere agent to prepare Jesus through temptation stems from earlier traditions of Satan as an intermediary for God, but in the context of the rest of Mark, one can see how Satan’s temptations may imply ulterior motives against both humankind and God. Examining Matthew (ca. 80-85 CE), Satan embodies more qualities reminiscent of an evil antagonist but still acts within God’s will. Here, Satan takes on the names ho Peirazon, “the tempter” (Matt. 4.3)36 and diabolos, “slanderer” or “Devil” (Matt. 4.8). Satan is also called ho Poneros “the Evil One” (Matt. 13.19), replacing the name 34 “Hidden plan” here refers to God’s plan for actualizing the Kingdom of Heaven, for ushering in the end of days and the new era on Earth which Jesus likely believed starts with his death/resurrection. 35 This references Jesus himself, according to Mark, as opposed to Michael, as implied by Daniel 7.13. See Alter vol. 3, 778. 36 Matthew still asserts that God led Jesus to the wilderness, implying the temptation was all according to God’s plan.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

Satan (Mk. 4.15). This title holds greater significance when relating the passage to the Lord’s Prayer. “And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one” (Matt. 6.13).37 Page argues that this implies God determines when humans face trials. Here Jesus affirms that just as when he faced temptation in the wilderness, God is responsible for that temptation, and as in Job, God desires His subjects to pass His tests (Page 458-459). Hence, Satan acts as an agent for God to help His followers mature. Matthew’s other three passages on Satan nonetheless depict an evil antagonist. Matthew 12.25-29 retells Jesus’ parable of a house divided against itself: “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand” (Matt. 12.26). Unlike in Mark, Matthew specifies that Satan commands a kingdom.38 Jesus furthers this in his parable of the sower, distinguishing the members of God’s kingdom apart from the members of Satan’s (Matt. 13.37-39). Both of these instances echo the Essene belief in the cosmic struggle of good versus evil, demonstrating Satan indeed appears to rise against God. Jesus furthers this when he says, “[t]hen he [the Son of Man] will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’” (Matt. 25.41). Here, although Satan as the devil has not yet fallen into his eternal punishment, Jesus foretells the eventual defeat of Satan along with the victory of the Son of Man, the king of God’s kingdom.39 Pagels notes the verbiage here to demonize Jesus’ enemies. As with other passages where Jesus calls his opponents evil (e.g., Matt. 12.34), these instances of calling out the “children of the evil one” (Matt. 13.38) and proclaiming eternal punishment for such people furthers the idea of Satan as antagonistic. Pagels also supports this interpretation with the 37 Many common interpretations which Christian congregations cite ask God to deliver them from evil instead of “the Evil One.” Hence, if one uses that translation, one removes Satan from much of the discussion. 38 This kingdom itself likely implies rising up against God. 39 Overall in Matthew, Satan is depicted in a mixture of forms as both constructive to humanity and antagonistic to God.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

hostilities between Jesus and the Pharisees in Matthew40 (Pagels 82-84).41 These conflicts further represent the divide between the sects during the Roman era.42 Examining Luke (ca. 80-85 CE), Satan takes on a more powerful role, furthering the cosmic divide of heaven and earth. Luke adds to Jesus’ wilderness temptation story: “Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And the devil said to him, ‘To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please’” (Lk. 4.5-6). Here, Luke elaborates on Satan’s kingdom as the earth; a stark opposition to God’s kingdom of heaven. Nonetheless, Kelly notes how Satan claims that he was given his kingdom, something only God could bestow (Kelly 95). Once again, the Gospels depict Satan as acting within God’s will by preparing Jesus for his ministry, even if Satan himself does not appear to desire assisting God. Perhaps Luke’s greatest contribution to modern doctrines of Satan lies in the famous Fall of Satan passage. “He [Jesus] said to them, ‘I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning’” (Lk. 10.18). Many readers, and even some scholars, argue that this line references Isaiah. “How you are fallen from the heavens, Bright One, Son of Dawn! You are cut down to earth, dominator of nations” (Isa. 14.12). Here Malone agrees, believing Jesus intended to compare Satan to the Babylonian king described in Isaiah 14 (Malone 19-20). Thereby the Bright One (commonly translated as Daystar) contains the double meaning that not only had the king fallen from his reign but Satan fell from heaven (compare the Watchers of Enoch) before the events of Genesis 3.43 40 See Matt. 23.15, 36. 41 Ehrman speculates that the anonymous Gospel writer’s (here called Matthew) community faced criticism from local Jews, possibly Pharisees. This may explain the emphasis on conflicts between them and Jesus in this Gospel (A Brief Introduction 92). 42 During the first century CE, the sects were at constant odds with Sadducees siding with the Romans in exchange for political power and Zealots/Sicarii violently fighting to liberate Israel until they were themselves defeated and the Jerusalem Temple destroyed around 70 CE (see A Brief Introduction 38-43). 43 This usage of Isaiah causes Satan to adopt the name lucifer, “Daystar” or “Lightbearer” in Latin, cited as his original angelic name in heaven. In comparison to other biblical texts, Jesus is the only other person called lucifer as in Revelation 22.16 and 2nd Peter 1.19, relating to Jesus’ claim as “the light of the world” (Jn. 8.12).

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

However, many scholars disagree. Hebrew prophets commonly utilized figurative language to convey their messages not so much to tell the future but often to warn of consequences should people continue in their present actions.44 Here in Isaiah, the prophet speaks to the Babylonian king, not Satan (Isa. 14.4). Furthermore, the Luke passage appears to speak in “the prophetic past tense,” using the past tense to refer to the future (Kelly 99). Hence, Jesus means to say Satan will fall from heaven, thereby foretelling his eventual defeat in the cosmic struggle. This interpretation fits with the surrounding context of the passage with Jesus rallying people to God’s kingdom and cursing those who oppose it (Lk. 10.1-20). Luke twice more shows Satan’s complexity as he acts on behalf of God to test the Apostles. First, Satan targets Judas Iscariot: “Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve; he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers of the temple police about how he might betray him [Jesus] to them” (Lk. 22.3-4). This could either show another example of Essene philosophy verses other Jewish philosophies (in this case likely Sadducee) or may allude to Judas failing when tempted by money.45 The latter case may be further evidenced when Jesus addresses his Apostles later in the chapter. He says, “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Lk. 22.31-32). Both Kelly and Page interpret “demanded” as Satan “requested” permission to test the Apostles for which either God and/or Jesus has allowed the request (Kelly 102; Page 459-460). Although the Apostles’ faiths were shaken from the crucifixion, after seeing Jesus resurrected, their faiths only grew stronger just as he desired. Hence, God tests his subjects to 44 See Walter Brueggemann’s, a widely influential Old Testament scholar, The Prophetic Imagination. 45 Kelly argues that unlike evil spirits who “entered” possessed people, Satan attempts voluntary moral failures, meaning that likely this was a test which Judas failed (Kelly 101). This may also reflect Pharisaic tradition, discussed below, which believed that even though Satan prompted the sin, humans are responsible for their own decisions or for failing his tests.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

help them mature. In this case, Luke may have meant to convey that Satan’s trials prepared the Apostles for the next step in their mission to proclaim that faith to the nations (Lk. 24.46-48).46 As with the prior Gospels of Mark and Matthew, Luke portrays a mixture of thought depicting Satan at times opposed to God but at others seemingly aligned with God’s will. In John (ca. 95 CE), Satan takes on his most antagonistic role in the New Testament Gospels. Here, Jesus’ enemies on multiple occasions are described as either devils or associated with the Devil/Satan. One instance occurs when Jesus addresses a group of Jews before him. They assert that they follow their patriarch Abraham, and as such their true father is God Himself. However, Jesus asserts that they reject him and his message which came directly from God. As such, their true father is the Devil (Jn. 8.31-47). Here, the internal conflict that Pagels has noted becomes most explicit. Jesus directly calls out his own community as followers of Satan which have no place in God’s kingdom. Furthermore, earlier Jesus calls Judas Iscariot a devil: “Jesus answered them, ‘Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.’ He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him” (Jn. 6.70-71). Comparing to Mark’s and Matthew’s accounts, neither Satan nor the devil appears related to Judas in his betrayal. Yet by the time of John’s writing, such characters and events appear to have evolved to the point of demonizing such enemies, further turning the once dutiful Satan into a lord of evil. This theme appears to continue when Jesus’ enemies come to arrest him in the garden (Jn. 18.1-7). Page asserts that Jesus believed they were tools for Satan, evidenced by Jesus’ foreshadowing prior. “I will no longer talk much with you [the disciples], for the ruler of this world [Satan] is coming. He has no power over me” (Jn. 14.30). Aside from the assertion that Satan rules an earthly kingdom apart from God’s, if read in relation 46 It should be noted that Acts contains continued demonization of opponents, including Satan, (Acts 5.3-4; 10.38; 13.6-11; 26.17-18) in line with its prior volume Luke. The latter two passages here may show that Paul even agreed with such demonization/distinction of devil followers versus God followers, yet Paul’s views on Satan in his undisputed letters, discussed below, suggest otherwise.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

to the garden story, then Jesus’ enemies, the followers of Satan, consist of soldiers [Romans], priests [maybe Sadducees], and Pharisees (Jn. 18.3).47 Nonetheless, Page reads these passages in light of the entire Gospel where Jesus eventually triumphs over death through the resurrection. Although Satan believes he has won a victory by defeating Jesus’ earthly body, Satan has unwittingly advanced God’s will that Jesus die, sparking the beginning of the end for Satan’s kingdom (Page 461). From all this, the Gospels show a complex character of Satan. Over the decades, Satan began transforming from a mere tester/tempter to a lord of an earthly kingdom—the leader of darkness who only desires God’s downfall. Although this latter theme is prevalent in John’s Gospel, in full context, Satan remains God’s servant, bringing God’s plan into action even if Satan does not will it. As such, he has not yet evolved fully into the later, popular doctrines’ complete antagonist to God, but the framework is set to make that leap in the next early centuries CE.48 Still, many passages (Mk. 1.12-13; Lk. 22.5, 31-32; and possibly Matt. 6.13) show another side of Satan’s complexity, a side where he acts either in alignment with God’s will (Mk. 1.1213), or at the least with His permission (Lk. 22.31-32), through temptation/testing often with God’s (or Jesus’) intention to grow the target’s faith or possibly to propel God’s plan for humanity (Lk. 22.5).49 This possibly reflects the prevalent first-century CE Pharisaic traditions which asserted that Satan acts on behalf of God through necessary evils against humans, often to improve their faiths/moralities.

47 The inclusion of all three of these opponents parallels three of the Essene’s political enemies and may further reflect continued conflicts among the Gospel author’s community and local Jews as this Gospel often antagonizes Jews as a whole (A Brief Introduction 115). 48 See Martin 675-677. 49 As with John, one may read Judas’ betrayal in Luke then as a way to advance Jesus’ mission through the cross. Thus, although Judas failed the test, God still used this to advance His own plan.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

Pharisaic views on Satan Returning to the Pharisaic view, the “oral” law, later compiled in the Talmud (ca. 189 CE) along with Jewish commentaries on that law, demonstrates the popular Jewish thought during this period.50 Hershey Friedman and Steve Lipman in their 2009 article in the Journal Thalia: Studies in Literary Humor detail how Satan remains a complex and loyal servant of God in Pharisaic/Talmudic thought. They argue Satan takes on three roles previously identified separately in Jewish beliefs: the evil inclination, the Angel of Death, and the previous tempter/accuser as seen in the Hebrew Bible (Friedman 32). The evil inclination51 is one of two inclinations believed in Talmudic literature, ingrained in humans since their creation. “[T]hen the LORD God fashioned the human, humus from the soil, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the human became a living creature” (Gen. 2.7). The original Hebrew for the word “fashioned,” va-yetzer, here contains two yuds, a Hebrew letter. However, grammatically, the word should only contain one yud, leading to one Jewish belief, stemming from the idea that the Torah cannot contain errors, that human was formed twice, once with the inclination to good and once with the inclination to “evil” (otherwise known as the opposite of good as this does not always mean evil, sometimes simply not doing “good”). Humans are called to rise above the evil inclination, always striving to do “good.” Attributing Satan here reflects his role as a tempter. Not only does he specifically tempt people in grand situations as with Job and Jesus, but Satan consistently tempts humankind as a part of human nature. Nonetheless, as people are called to rise above this inclination, this makes Satan’s role here necessary to improve humanity by providing a constant trial and reminder to do what is right.52 50 This thought continued to grow as the Pharisees gained political power after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE (A Brief Introduction 39). 51 The following information on the “evil inclination” was gathered from a congregational discussion on the subject at Congregation Ner Tamid in Georgia, led by Rabbi Joseph Prass. 52 The evil inclination is also necessary to illuminate the inclination to good. Good has no meaning if one cannot do otherwise, just as a choice is not truly a choice without an alternative.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

The Angel of Death53 serves “to take human souls from this earth” (Friedman 32). Talmudic thought often believes Satan here respects his targets, desiring their deaths dignified and clean. One popular depiction has Satan holding a blade over his victim’s head, but rather than drawing blood (thereby making the deceased’s family ritually impure by touching blood), Satan lets one drop of poison slide down the blade and fall into the victim’s mouth. Satan also is described as allowing his Jewish victims extra time to live should they have unfinished business such as writing an important religious manuscript (37-40). Here, Satan appears far different from John’s portrayal as desiring Jesus’ downfall, even by means of crucifixion—perhaps one of if not the most undignified death in the Roman era. While not a friend to humans in Talmudic thought, Satan nonetheless desires the best for his victims. Furthermore, Talmudic literature describes Satan as a teacher of important lessons. One story details Plimo the sage who constantly ended his prayers with “an arrow in Satan’s eyes” (35). This infuriated Satan, causing him to convince Plimo that he had killed someone with his harsh words of criticism. Satan later appeared before Plimo, instructing him to instead pray “May the Merciful Lord rebuke Satan” (35). Thereby, the story relates the lesson that one should never wish harm upon another but instead should hope one’s enemies repent from their ways instead (35). This concept of Satan desiring humankind’s improvement continues into his temptation accounts. The Rabbis also told stories of great men tempted successfully by Satan. In two stories of devout Rabbis, each unfortunately was prideful on how well he kept the law. Thus, Satan tempted each by disguising himself as a beautiful woman, leading each astray from his usual path (one was led halfway up a tall tree, the other halfway across a wide river) before revealing himself [Satan]. If even these important figures fell to temptation, people should give more sympathy toward sinners (Friedman 34). 53 See Ex. 12.13.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

The accounts continue with many other retellings of biblical characters or later Rabbis, but most make clear that Satan acts often to improve his targets and even to teach later readers/listeners through these tales. The Rabbis’ tales show that everyone may succumb to temptation, reminding people to remain ever vigilant, striving to follow what is right and showing sympathy to those who cannot resist temptation. As such in this Pharisaic thought, Satan primarily improves humanity for God, even if it involves using underhanded tactics or even evil actions. These stories, unlike the Essene traditions of Jesus, likely influenced the Apostle Paul’s depictions of Satan in his undisputed letters.

Paul’s views on Satan in the undisputed letters Paul (originally Saul) of Tarsus was a Pharisee in the first century CE who likely studied under Gamaliel, perhaps the greatest rabbi of his day, in Jerusalem. Throughout Paul’s years in Pharisaic circles, undoubtedly, he became learned in the “oral” law which may have even caused him to directly oppose Jesus during his ministry (Porter 73).54 After Paul’s conversion to Christianity, he expanded the incipient Church throughout the Roman Empire, frequently writing to his congregations to address issues (especially false teachers), settle disputes, and provide encouragement. While Paul’s views naturally shifted to a degree under his newfound faith,55 his letters echo the Pharisaic thought which shaped his Jewish outlook.

54 Stanley Porter, President of McMaster Divinity College, believes Paul likely met Jesus 2-4 times, at least in Jerusalem during Jesus’ last week, especially at Jesus’ trial if Gamaliel was likely present in the Sanhedrin. See his When Paul Met Jesus for his full arguments. 55 Continuing Porter’s thought, Paul plausibly reformulated some of his outlooks in light of remembering Jesus’ direct teachings (see Porter 122-177), but as I demonstrate in this section, I doubt this applies much if at all to Paul’s views on Satan.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

Examining Paul’s seven undisputed letters (ca. 50-60 CE), he appears to view Satan as an agent of God tasked with evil duties including temptation and punishment to direct or redirect people to God’s path—certainly not the commander of demons as depicted in the Gospels (Mk. 3.22).56 Nonetheless, if people fail the tests, it could lead to dire consequences. Comparing 1 Thes. 3.5-6 and 1 Cor. 7.5, in both cases, Paul worries for his communities that Satan will tempt them, in the former regarding their faiths, in the latter regarding their marital obligations to only be with their spouses. But more so, Paul worries about the people succumbing to temptations. This echoes Job and the “oral” law where even though Satan is responsible for the temptation, humans are ultimately responsible for their own responses. Here, Paul hopes his communities will endure, and in the case of the Thessalonians, they remained strong in their faiths. Paul also relates to the Corinthians that Satan punishes the wicked. Regarding a man Paul sees as extremely sexually immoral, Paul says “you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5.5). Kelly, Page, and other scholars argue Paul does not intend “flesh” to mean the human body but more along the lines of a sinful lifestyle—one following worldly desires instead of God’s will (The Bible 2006; Page 462). Kelly furthers this, relating Paul’s command to hand over the man with God handing Job over to Satan (Job 2.6) for which Satan may afflict him but not kill him (Kelly 58). This also aligns with Paul’s belief that salvation occurs while one is alive. Hence, Paul likely views Satan as punishing those who are cast out of the church in the hopes that they rehabilitate and return to the church.57 56 This is further supported by Dale Martin’s, former Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, and Kelly’s explanations of Pharisaic differentiation between daimones (foreign idols) and pneuma (evil spirits) which the Essenes possibly equated (Martin 667-674; Kelly 56). Compare also Acts 16.16 and 1 Cor. 11.14, 20. 57 Page agrees that such excommunication will force the sinner to confront his own sinful lifestyle but disagrees that Satan desires that lifestyle’s destruction. Instead, Page believes Satan acts to keep people away from God’s path but that God still uses Satan for His greater plans despite Satan’s own agenda (Page 462-463).

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

Perhaps the most anomalous Pauline passage on Satan occurs in 2nd Corinthians when Paul is worried he may become too boastful. “Therefore, to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated” (2 Cor. 12.7).58 Paul discusses in 2 Cor. 11-12 his credentials and deeds—his Abrahamic lineage, his service to Christ, his service to his communities, his endurance of persecution, and his seeing of visions.59 As such, he has every reason to boast, however the messenger (potentially translatable as “angel”) of 2 Cor. 12.7 prevents Paul from this sin, a task never seen in the Gospels. Kelly offers the possibility that Satan, through one of his angels, tempted Paul toward another sinful act, hence the “torment” line, but nonetheless, the intention was for Paul to overcome both sins by recognizing the approaching sin of pride (Kelly 62-63). Additionally, in comparing Paul’s statement that this satanic messenger prevented him from becoming boastful, one may see a parallel with the prior Talmudic stories of the Rabbis who also became boastful, thus prompting Satan’s temptations to break their prides. This may then imply Paul succumbed to Satan’s temptation (or at least halfway as the rabbis did), contrary to Kelly’s assertion, as the messenger (or angel) desired Paul to fail, thereby realizing even he can sin—he should not boast of his strengths. Furthermore, Page notes that Paul credits God for the affliction (2 Cor. 12.8-9) 60 as God uses one’s weaknesses to grow one’s strengths (Page 464). Here Paul not only implies that Satan’s messenger acts in accordance with God’s will, but that Paul’s own weaknesses (potentially his own sinful acts) reveal or increase his strengths. 58 It should be noted that while the NSRV translates this verse with the term “elated,” the term hyperairōmai is commonly read as “conceited” (see the NIV translation of 2 Cor. 12.7). Kelly uses the term “puffed up” (Kelly 62). Meanwhile Page, although using “elated,” agrees it references pride (Page 464). 59 Paul uses the third person to refer to himself in 2 Cor. 12.1-6 when he speaks of another “who was caught up to the third heaven,” showing he indeed can boast of this too as others likely had (The Bible 2037). 60 Additionally, Page notes how Paul’s claim that the thorn “was given me” (2 Cor. 12.7) implies that God gave Paul the thorn, further evidencing its beneficial, although burdensome, nature. Nonetheless, Page believes that although God used this thorn for good, Satan himself desired Paul’s downfall against God’s will (Page 464).

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

Nonetheless, I should address other interpretations of this passage.61 Some readers compare the messenger of 2 Cor. 12.7 to Paul’s earlier mention of Satan and his ministers (“super-apostles” who had proclaimed their own version of the gospel contrary to his own). “For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11.13-15).62 However, if Paul was confronted by one or at least compared to one, would this not seem instead to bolster Paul’s own pride as he already claimed himself “not in the least inferior” to them (2 Cor. 11.5)? Their messages after all run contrary to Paul’s, thereby fueling the idea that his message is superior.63 Other interpretations assert the thorn was some sort of persecution. Yet, Paul already stated he can boast of enduring persecution (2 Cor. 11.21, 23-29) and he distinguishes his weaknesses from persecutions after the thorn passage (2 Cor. 12.10). More suffering then should have the adverse effect from humility. One additional interpretation suggests the thorn as a visionary impairment as potentially seen in Gal. 4.13-15.64 Although this interpretation could account for a weakness Paul suffered, a weakness which could help grow Paul’s strengths, it does not fit with the concept of a “messenger.” Whether human 61 Here, I take inspiration from Porter’s biblical exegesis example (see Porter 73-121) as this particular point warrants more discussion given its implications of Satan as a force for good. More than that, if Paul viewed Satan within the realm of Pharisaic thought, this potentially demonstrates that many early Christians may also have viewed Satan as firmly against pride—the sin in popular Christian tradition most associated with Satan by taking Isa. 14 and Ezek. 28.11-27 out of their prophetic contexts and instead citing Satan as attempting to usurp God’s sovereignty. See John Pentecost’s (former Distinguished Professor of Bible Exposition, Emeritus at Dallas Theological Seminary) theological take on Satan in his Your Adversary the Devil (Pentecost 11-29). 62 This passage could also allude to Paul viewing people as followers of Satan. However, here Paul does not explicitly say they follow Satan, but likely implies Satan uses them to lead others astray. 63 Additionally, Paul appears to differentiate this satanic messenger from the satanic ministers by specifying the term “messenger” instead of repeating “minister” as he does with “super-apostle” (2 Cor. 11.5; 12.11). 64 Page also believes this a likely answer but admits there is not enough evidence to say for certain the thorn’s nature (Page 464).

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

or angelic, messengers were always beings in the biblical texts,65 never physical maladies. As such, Kelly’s prior assertion of an angel,66 or at the least a human, who tempted Paul’s desires67 while his guard was down appears most plausible (Kelly 62-63). Still, overcoming a temptation seems just another accomplishment to boast about, yet succumbing to weakness and moving forward from defeat teaches humility and increases one’s strengths. This in effect, as evidenced by the rabbis’ temptation stories,68 brings out the most in Paul’s line “for whenever I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12.10). 2nd Corinthians also poses two anomalous passages which must be considered regarding Paul’s view of Satan. The first is, “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4.3-4). Here, Paul mentions the “god of this world” prevents certain people from believing the gospel. Upon initial glance, the passage appears similar to John’s “ruler of this world” (Jn. 14.30) and Satan’s deceitful actions in the Gospels (Mk. 4.14-15). That said, 2 Cor. 4.4 may also reference God Himself for God is known to blind minds in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.69 Kelly leaves 65 See Phil. 2.25 and Lk. 7.27. 66 Perhaps the “messenger” then refers back to Satan who can take the form of “an angel [messenger] of light” (2 Cor. 11.14). Though, this still seems unlikely given that the messenger of 2 Cor. 12.7 appears differentiated from Satan through the term “of.” Hence, this messenger is more likely human. 67 Which desires specifically are then up to interpretation but they were at least strong enough for Paul to appeal thrice to God for the trigger (the messenger) to leave him. 68 Here I also refute Page’s assertion that Satan acts to harm Paul or bring “about his downfall” (Page 464-465). While Satan may act so in the Gospels, the first-century Pharisaic thought likely kept Satan’s and God’s wills aligned. Furthermore, in the rabbis’ stories, Satan only leads them halfway to their temptations before revealing the humbling deception. 2 Cor. 12.7 likely then was rehabilitative which would necessitate Paul’s return while alive to righteousness through humility. 69 See Isaiah 6.9-10 and 2 Thess. 2.11. If “perishing” in 2 Cor. 4.3 references those facing condemnation or punishment for prior sin, 2 Cor. 4.4 may further relate to Isa. 6 and 2 Thess. 2, as God continues to ensure punishment upon people by these blinding actions. See also 2 Sam. 24; 1 Chr. 21; and Ex. 10-11.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

2 Cor. 4.4 open for interpretation but agrees that the evidence may go both ways for seeing “the god of this world” as either God Himself or Satan in a governing role70 (Kelly 66-67).71 The other passage invokes the name Beliar, a term not seen elsewhere in the New Testament72 and divergent with Paul’s exclusive usage of ho Satanas when referring to Satan. “Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Beliar? Or what does a believer share with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6.14-15). Scholars are divided regarding the authenticity of this passage, for 2 Cor. 6.14-7.1 reads as if inserted into the fluid narrative of the surrounding verses–2 Cor. 6.13; 7.2. In comparison, 1 Cor. 15.34-35 appears also inserted to many scholars, relating instead beliefs from 1st Timothy, believed a forgery by many scholars73 (The Bible 2019). If scholars are correct about the insertion of 1 Cor. 15.34-35, perhaps this paragraph invoking Beliar is equally outstanding. Scholars further assert the concepts and vocabulary are unlike anything Paul uses in his undisputed letters (The Bible 2032). The distinctions between light and darkness, right and wrong, believer and unbeliever are more reminiscent of Essene ideology.74All this evidence suggests Paul may not have ever truly used the term Beliar in his letters. Nonetheless, assuming the passage is genuine, scholars such as Kelly cannot reach a conclusion as to the meaning of the term here. It may refer to the concept of evil as potentially seen in Jubilees75 or possibly Satan 70 See Luke 4.5-6 and Kelly 95, as mentioned above, potentially showcasing Satan in a divinely ordained position of authority over the Earth. 71 Presuming 2 Cor. 4.3-4 does reference Satan, the actions depicted are still reminiscent of the other passages cited (including those in footnote 69) as showing divine actions of ensuring punishment, especially when compared to Jubilees’ and 1st Chronicles’ shifting from God’s to Satan’s actions. 72 Its predecessor term “Belial” is used in the Hebrew Bible. See footnote 26. 73 See Ehrman’s book detailing ancient forgeries Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. 74 There are other examples of divergent lines supposedly said by Paul and each seems equally out of place when compared to Paul’s views on Satan. See footnote 76 and the discussion of Ephesians below. 75 See footnote 25.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

himself as the embodiment of evil. Whether or not then he is an antagonist to God is still debatable. Still, the evidence suggests these passages may have interpretations aligned with Pharisaic thought prevalent in the first century CE or in the latter’s case may not genuinely reflect Paul’s theology. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, predicts that God will remove Satan/his influence from them. Part of Paul’s conclusion relays his concern for troublemakers in the church and then relates the following to Satan, “I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them… The God of peace will shortly crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16.17, 21). Here, Satan is potentially tempting the community to see if they remain true to the faith Paul preaches. Nonetheless, one may infer as Kelly does that God remains in control of Satan as He has since the Joban account (Kelly 63). Furthermore, in examining what Paul says about the troublemakers, “[f]or such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites” (Rom. 16.18), one does not see a demonization of opponents as in the Gospels but rather another assertion that humans are following their own desires, not Satan’s76 which aligns with his earlier letters’ views. Appealing to Paul’s Pharisaic background, his desire for “[t]he God of peace to crush Satan under” (Rom. 16.20) the people’s feet then appears as a grand remark that peace will triumph in the community rather than alluding to a greater cosmic struggle. In viewing the greater picture of the first century CE, Paul’s views aligning with his fellow Pharisees’ shows a surprising contrast with the demonizing accounts seen in the Gospels. These Pharisaic views would further develop Jewish thought for which many beliefs, including those on Satan, are still held by numerous Jews today. 76 This contrasts Acts 13.10 where Paul is reported to have labeled the magician Elymas a “son of the devil.” Given that Paul never uses the term “devil” in his undisputed letters and overall appears to view Satan as an agent of God to improve humanity, this passage in Acts may reflect its author’s views rather than a genuine Pauline statement. See Ehrman’s critique of Acts versus Paul’s letters in A Brief Introduction 188-190 for other examples of discrepancies possibly caused by Acts’ author altering facts in line with his own views.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

Satan in other New Testament literature In addition to the majority of diverse biblical thought on Satan in the Gospels and Pauline thought, other early New Testament authors77 (ca. 60-100 CE) viewed Satan in various lights, most of which appear to align with Pharisaic conceptions. Kelly details the rest of the New Testament’s depictions of Satan, beginning with the other letters traditionally attributed to Paul, although many scholars now dispute this authorship.78 1st Timothy relates a similar excommunication passage (1 Tim. 1.19-20) to the one seen in 1 Cor. 5.5. Common interpretations have also believed this letter to later describe Satan as fallen from heaven as the author warns of an aspiring bishop possibly becoming subject to the same judgment as the Devil. “He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil” (1 Tim. 3.6-7). However, Kelly disagrees, believing this passage echoes Satan’s role as an accuser in Zechariah.79 1st Timothy’s author, in Kelly’s view, thus hopes the aspiring bishop will not become conceited, thereby incurring the accusations of Satan (Kelly 114-117).80 2nd Timothy relates that Satan tempts Christians to abandon their faiths (2 Tim. 2.25-26), but interpreters debate whether God or the Devil desires this—the former implying God desires Christians to succeed, the latter implying the Devil desires them to obey him instead (Kelly 118-119). The NRSV reads “God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 77 Aligning with Ehrman’s take on these authors in A Brief Introduction, this article views none of them as biblical tradition has, that being the actual significant figures around Jesus, e.g., the disciples John, Peter, and Paul. 78 See Ehrman’s Forged. 79 After all, Satan did not fall from heaven by God’s judgment long ago in Pharisaic thought. Hence, there is no basis for comparison to God’s supposed condemnation of Satan. 80 Once again, this echoes the Pharisaic tradition of associating Satan with warnings against pride.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

25-26), seemingly implying it is the Devil’s desire for followers. Nonetheless, the author, who most scholars agree also wrote 1st Timothy, desires the dissenters to repent, thereby escaping the Devil’s captivity. As such, although this letter perhaps takes a step further in saying the Devil’s followers do his bidding as opposed to following their own desires, it still implies they have the freedom to leave their prison, possibly implying a rehabilitative role for the Devil after initially using them. 2nd Thessalonians depicts God and Satan working together: The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned. (2 Thess. 2.9-12) Here, Satan works for God to solidify unbelievers in their rejection of the Christian faith so that they will face condemnation (Kelly 119-120). This echoes the Hebrew Bible’s depictions of both God and Satan, here in 2nd Thessalonians placing full credit on God for deluding the people.81 Ephesians discusses the Devil and how he seeks to inflict evil upon humans. Although traditionally ascribed to Paul,82 this letter appears to echo the Gospel traditions more. Aside from utilizing the terms “Devil” (Eph. 4.27) and the “Evil One” (Eph. 6.16) seen in Matthew, the letter alludes to a greater cosmic struggle involving current rulers and authorities (Eph. 6.12). In referencing this greater struggle, the author uses the analogy of spiritual armor which believers must don to stand firm in their 81 This may also further aid the argument for “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4.4) being God Himself if God is said to delude people’s minds. Furthermore, although this article only affirms the validity of Paul’s undisputed letters, if 2nd Thessalonians was written by Paul, this could then be completely cited as evidence for the equation. 82 Ehrman argues against this tradition. See Forged 108-112.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

faiths (Eph. 6.10-17). Kelly points out that the Devil seeks out gaps in the armor, possibly caused by excessive anger,83 through which to strike humans. As such, ultimately humans through anger let him pierce (or find an opening) in their armors of faith. So, if he enters, the fault is on the humans (Kelly 123-124). This letter, as such, potentially shows a blend of Gospel and Pharisaic traditions where the Devil/the Evil One desires his subjects to sin, yet such people are called to remain resolute in their faiths, accepting the blame should they fail. Whether or not then the Devil acts as a full antagonist to God and humans or merely as an intermediary of evil for God’s people to strengthen their faiths84 is up for interpretation. Hebrews depicts the Devil as in control of death (Hebr. 2.14-15). Yet Jesus destroys the Devil (people need not fear death) through Jesus’ sacrifice, but since death still occurs, interpreters struggle to understand if Satan still commands death. Kelly mentions that Satan may still nonetheless act as a tester (Hebr. 2.18) (Kelly 126-128). Overall, Hebrews only definitively links Satan to death without expounding upon his loyalties to God. Jude and 2nd Peter (in referencing Jude) detail a conflict between Michael, God’s archangel, and Satan (Jude 8-10; 2 Peter 9-11), 85 here the Angel of Death and implied one of “the glorious ones”—angelic dignitaries serving God, where both desire the right to dispose of Moses’ corpse. Kelly infers that Michael believes Moses righteous enough to warrant burial by God’s highest angel (Kelly 129). Jewish tradition on the story (possibly referencing the lost work the Assumption of Moses) meanwhile depicts Satan believing Moses has committed the sin of murder, making him unworthy of Michael’s actions (The Bible 2,150; Kelly 129). Michael throughout the ordeal does not blaspheme Satan, instead citing the phrase “the Lord rebuke 83 See Eph. 4.26. 84 Compare Matt. 4.1-11; 6.13. 85 Both letters also appear to reference Enoch’s Watchers (Jude 6, 13, 15-16; 2 Peter 2.4-9), leading many to believe Satan a fallen angel here. But Kelly argues instead that the Devil appears distinct from the Watchers (compare also the Similitudes) in these passages instead as a glorious one (Kelly 131-134).

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

you” (Jude 10; Zech. 3.2), echoing Zechariah and perhaps also the Talmudic story of Satan’s lesson to Plimo. As such, even Satan deserves respect for doing his job as an accuser/ the Angel of Death and if someone has a grievance with Satan, that person should simply trust Satan to God (Kelly 128-130). 1st Peter depicts the Devil as a tempter and an accuser, ready to bring charges against people for succumbing to the sin perhaps he even prompted. “Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in your faith, for you know that your brothers and sisters in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering” (1 Peter 5.8-9). Antidikos, “adversary”, often specifically means an adversary in court, an accuser. Kelly agrees with this translation, asserting the lion parallel of devouring means the Devil is looking to insist upon, in the divine court, punishments for sinners. Hence, people should stand up to him as their strong faiths will overcome any trials, which Kelly further believes Satan places upon the community as inferred by the notion to resist the Devil (Kelly 134-136).86 James absolves God from testing/tempting people (James 1.12-15), instead seemingly blaming it on the evil inclination but not Satan.87 Still, later in the letter, the people are called to stand against the Devil, thereby causing him to flee (James 4.7). The prior passages (James 4.1-4) continue to place the blame for sin upon humans’ own desires. If temptations come from within, and yet the Devil is invoked as someone to oppose, there appears reason to believe the two are the same here, possibly implying the Devil may constantly provide temptations as a part of human nature, but that he does so as a reminder for people to draw near to God instead (see James 4.8). Revelation, as a future vision, shows the resurrected Jesus now ruling nations of earth as Satan once did (Rev. 1.5). Jesus speaks to angels in charge of various Christian communities. 86 While the translation of “accuser” instead of “adversary” makes sense, if read otherwise, one can see how it could detail an antagonist to God and humanity, one who is on the prowl for people to lead into sin. 87 If this passage aligns with some Pharisaic thought, the two may have been equated.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

He demonizes a group of Jews in Smyrna, proclaiming them members of the Synagogue of Satan for blaspheming the local Christians. The Smyrna government, to which the Jews are complaining, is believed also under the Devil’s control as it throws the Christians in jail. Nonetheless, this all occurs as a test of the Christians’ faiths (Rev. 2.8-11). Kelly notes how Satan overall acts as a tester/tempter here, potentially to expose false Christians and reveal true ones. But those who fail can still repent (Kelly 141-147). Satan, under the title ho Kategor, “the Accuser” is also described as still performing his role in the heavenly court, even though he will eventually fall from heaven (Rev. 12.7-12). “For the accuser of our comrades has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God” (Rev. 12.10). Contrary to the popular belief88 by readers that Satan fell from heaven long ago, Revelation appears to relate how Satan accuses the Christian martyrs (comrades) before he falls. Eventually he will be removed from his position,89 though at the time of the vision, he remains the Accuser (Kelly 153-154, 159).90 From all this in Revelation, the text still shows Satan acts against the Christian communities, but he nonetheless does so as an agent of God.91

88 Malone details a similar view, equating Rev. 12.9 to the Isa. 14.12 falling Daystar passage (Malone 21). 89 Revelation 20 depicts Satan being sealed away for a thousand years, a potential allusion to the Zoroastrian eschatological millennium—1,000 year periods where either good (Ahura Mazda) or evil (Ahriman) would dominate in a cosmic struggle. See Sanders 451-456. The thousand years may instead reflect Ps. 90.4, which says a day for God is 1,000 years for humans. 90 Satan’s removal prevents further deception of the world (Rev. 20.3), possibly reflecting punishment for all the evils (even if necessary) he committed in his duties. Or, at the least Satan’s deceits are no longer needed in the future. Nonetheless, Rev. 20.7-10 relates Satan’s revival to lead Gog and Magog against Israel. In alluding to such a prophecy (although the original does not reference Satan) in Ezek. 38-39, Revelation may thus continue Satan’s actions as an agent of God in helping fulfill His oracle to the nations for which Israel will eventually rise again as God’s children who He will never again turn from (Ezek. 39.24-29; Rev. 21.1-7). 91 Kelly speculates Jesus’ demonization of Jews as a Synagogue of Satan as such is merely hyperbole or even from a separate tradition than latter portions of Revelation (Kelly 143).

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

Lastly, 1st John equates sinners with following the Devil and not God.92 Anti-Christs (heretics) 93 had spread their message within the community. This letter, likely written by a later member of the community attributed to John’s Gospel,94 maintains the same traditions of demonizing opponents and portraying Satan as an earthly ruler. Of all the texts analyzed, this alone may reflect Satan as only an antagonist to God. However, the only clear assertion here is precisely those two traditions. If the letter echoes John’s Gospel, then Satan may not have developed yet past an unwitting servant of God, but Satan is used as a way to distinguish the Christians from the rest of the world.

Implications and conclusions From the evidence presented, I do not see Satan in the Bible as an antagonist against God, except in significant portions95 of the Gospels,96 in the Johannine letters,97 and possibly Ephesians. Rather, Satan mostly acts in accordance with God’s will to improve humanity and exact necessary evils into the world. Biblical writers nonetheless depict a wide variety of ideas for how Satan acts in the world. Sometimes he tests people’s faiths (Job 1-2.10; Mk. 1.12-13); other times, similar to ancient Near Eastern inspectors, he accuses people of sin, perhaps even sin he prompted (Zech. 3.1; 1 Peter 5.8). Furthermore, he may punish the wicked (1 Cor. 5.5), lead people to their just punishments (1 Chr. 21.1-2, 7), or even humble the proud (2 Cor. 12.7). These traditions all stem from the original concepts of Satan in (and some prior to) the Hebrew Bible along with intertestamental Pharisaic thought, and all starkly contrast the Essenes’ apocalyptic outlook. 92 1 John 3.8-12 helped spark the tradition that Cain was a spawn of the Devil (see Gen. 4.1-14). 93 Although the term has since been used to refer to Satan (see Malone 20-21), the Johannine letters distinguish between the two. See Kelly 160-163 and 1 Jn. 4.5-6, 5.19. 94 See A Brief Introduction 331. 95 There remains significance in that the synoptic Gospels do not show a unified view of Satan as an antagonist to God even within their own texts. 96 I also include Acts here as essentially a continuation of Luke. 97 While Satan is not present in the other letters, enemies are still called anti-Christs. See 2 John 7.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

The significance of demonizing opponents, including Satan, must not be overlooked. The passages equating Satan as ruling over this earthly realm (Lk. 4.5-6; 1 John 5.19) and religious enemies following Satan’s command (John 8.44; Rev. 2.9) not only mirror the sectarian conflicts within the Roman occupied Israel (a fierce conflict in itself)98 but also framed the mindsets who later elevated Satan as an enemy to God. These concepts evolved to the point that Satan desires the downfall of all humans. This furthermore places the blame of evil in the world upon Satan in reinterpreting Gen. 3. However, while these views comprise a significant portion of Gospel99 and Johannine traditions, these are not necessarily the views of Paul or the Jewish majority during the Roman period. Given that Paul’s Pharisaic traditions appear to hold Satan as a loyal servant of God while John’s Gospel appears to portray Satan as an enemy to God, these diverse views show a debate of Pharisaic versus Essene thought within the scriptures themselves.100 As such, the New Testament literature may further contain passages detailing Pharisaic thought opposed to the blended traditions in the Gospels. Perhaps even the Gospels themselves (or at least the original stories before compilation) comprise more Pharisaic assumptions then their authors realized. On the other hand, perhaps the two Corinthians passages mentioning “the god of this world” and “Beliar,” the latter if genuinely Pauline, are hinting at a greater blend of dualistic Essene thought in Pauline theology than previously thought.101 Such possibilities I believe warrant further examination of what other intertestamental factors influenced the New Testament authors’ and editors’ thoughts in their theologies. This thereby 98 Again, this may also represent the cosmic struggle on earth between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman in Zoroastrianism. 99 Again, I include Acts here and possibly Ephesians as the latter echoes Gospel thought. 100 Matthew’s Gospel showing conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees (e.g., Matt. 23) may reflect a literal form of this debate. Compare also to debates against the Sadducees (Matt. 22.23-34). 101 This may have further support given Porter’s assertions of possible meetings between Paul and Jesus and thereby a possible greater affinity of Paul to Jesus’ theology, though how much influence Jesus may have had over Paul’s Pharisaic views is still questionable, at least regarding Satan and a greater cosmic struggle, given the evidence presented in this article.

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

could illuminate any hidden sectarian debates manifested in later Judeo-Christian literature and apologetics. Early developments of Satan may yet hold a greater variety of thought. Other texts including the Ascension of Isaiah and a variety of non-canonical Gospel accounts102 held popular sway in the early centuries CE which may demonstrate more views of Satan as an evil antagonist who will have no further allowance even in the lowest levels of heaven. Several forged letters were also in circulation among the early Christian churches, e.g., “Paul’s” third letter to the Corinthians,103 but never made it into the Christian canon. Such writings may hold further diverse thought on Satan, demonization, and evil present in the early Church. Yet these accounts may also reflect later fictions and local theologies rather than facts and genuine Hebrew views. Other extra-biblical Jewish sources should be examined under both Essene and Pharisaic (and more if applicable) lenses to determine with certainty how such sources fit into the greater whole. Overall, while these sources may illuminate further hidden thoughts on Satan, I remain confident that Satan acts in the biblical scriptures104 mostly to benefit humanity as God wills. If scholars’ evidence correctly supports the majority of biblical thought on Satan affirming his loyalty to God, this may also suggest that one’s true enemy does not lie beyond but rather within oneself. The struggles sent by Satan are as those sent by God, obstacles and tests to improve or to reveal deceit. True evils on the other hand arise from humanity’s own volitions. Under this lens, one likely closer to most biblical authors’ intentions, people should not create a scapegoat but instead take responsibility for their own actions. As such, much of the New Testament may imply that whatever divisions exist within the communities on earth, the solutions lie in addressing the hearts of each individual rather than retaliating or blaming an external entity, be it Satan, another human, or another community. Continued scholarship on these matters may thus illuminate a deeper message, forgotten due to the demonization of God’s loyal agent on earth: ha-satan. 102 See Rodolphe Kasser’s (late renowned Coptic translator) The Gospel of Judas Second Edition 103-154. 103 See Forged 88-90. 104 And so also in the minds of a majority of biblical authors.

Erick Roziewski “Rodriguez”

Works Cited Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible. Translated by Robert Alter, W. W. Norton and Company, 2019. 3 vols. “Belief in Satan.” theARDA, https://www.thearda.com/ QuickStats/qs_70.asp. “Belief in demons.” theARDA, https://www.thearda.com/ QuickStats/qs_75_p.asp. The Bible. The New Oxford Annotated Version, fully revised 4th ed., edited by Michael D. Coogan, Oxford UP, 2010. Brueggemann, Walter. The Prophetic Imagination. 2nd ed., Fortress Press, 2001. Caldwell, William. “The Doctrine of Satan: I. In the Old Testament.” The Biblical World, vol. 41, no. 1, 1913, pp. 29–33. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3142352. Caldwell, William. “The Doctrine of Satan: II. Satan in ExtraBiblical Apocalyptical Literature.” The Biblical World, vol. 41, no. 2, 1913, pp. 98–102. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/ stable/3142425. Ehrman, Bart D. A Brief Introduction to The New Testament. 4th ed., Oxford UP, 2017. Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperOne, 2011. Friedman, Hershey H., and Steve Lipman. “Satan the Accuser: Trickster in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature.” Thalia, vol. 18, no. 1, 1998, pp. 31. ProQuest, https://search. proquest.com/docview/1312103382?accountid=14800. The Gospel of Judas. Edited by Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, National Geographic Society, 2008. Hayes, Christine. “Lecture 4. Doublets and Contradictions, Seams and Sources.” YouTube, uploaded by YaleCourses, 3 December 2012, https://youtu.be/GK2PBAG3064. Holy Bible. New International Version, Zondervan, 2011. 65

Satan: God’s Agent on Earth

Kelly, Henry Ansgar. Satan: A Biography. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kugel, James L. How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. Free Press, 2007. Malone, Peter, M.S.C. “THE DEVIL.” Compass, vol. 43, no. 1, 2009, pp. 14-25. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/ docview/230048567?accountid=14800. Martin, Dale Basil. “When DidAngels Become Demons?” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 129, no. 4, 2010, pp. 657– 677. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25765960. Page, Sydney H. T. “SATAN: GOD’S SERVANT.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 50, no. 3, 2007, pp. 449-465. ProQuest, https://search.proquest. com/docview/211186194?accountid=14800. Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. Vintage Books, 1995. Pentecost, J. Dwight. Your Adversary the Devil. Kregel Publications, 1969. Porter, Stanley E. When Paul Met Jesus: How an Idea Got Lost in History. Cambridge University Press, 2016. Sanders, Jack T. “Whence the First Millennium? The Sources Behind Revelation 20.” New Testament Studies, vol. 50, no. 3, 2004, pp. 444-456. ProQuest, https://search. proquest.com/docview/197141024?accountid=14800. Stokes, Ryan E. “The Devil Made David Do It... or ‘Did’ He? The Nature, Identity, and Literary Origins of the ‘Satan’ in 1 Chronicles 21:1.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 128, no. 1, 2009, pp. 91–106. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/ stable/25610168.

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter By Ben Elliott Faculty Mentor, Dr. Maren Clegg-Hyer, Department of English

Article Abstract This paper, alongside contemporary likeminded scholarship, seeks to explore a Post-Lapsarian reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter via the lens of allegorical hermeneutics. To this end, the work’s core cast, larger setting, and Puritan community will be examined as filling the roles of Adam, Eve, Satan, God, Cain and Abel, and Eden itself. Hester, having tasted sin, finds herself cast from the world she once knew, which, in the case of Hawthorne’s work, is the social sphere of Puritan women. In this reading, her compatriot in sin, Arthur Dimmesdale, is allegorized as Adam, and their shared progeny, Pearl Prynne, with mind to her duality, serves the role of both Cain and Abel. Finally, the work’s antagonist, Roger Chillingworth, serves as another stand-in for God but, in his wickedness, also Satan. In examining the text in this manner, the project opens the text up to both secular and religious readings, and, by analyzing the ways in which Prynne and the characters around her react to this fall from grace and its consequences, the work can be recontextualized as an examination of sin, temptation, and the theological ramifications of the Fall of Man. Furthermore, this reading strives to allegorize Hawthorne’s work alongside the biblical canon to allow for a more three-dimensional and evocative interpretation of the work. 67

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter

Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, centered around themes of sin and salvation, is a work that is intensely fixated on matters of the soul. As such, and with a mind to the work’s religious colony setting, the struggles of Hawthorne’s core cast mirror biblical crises of faith and can be recontextualized as biblical allegory. While this idea has been explored in scholarship before, these readings seldom agree on which part of the Bible is being adapted due to a variety of scholarly opinions and, in lieu of agreement, present the work through a variety of lenses. One often touched upon but seldom explored interpretation of Hawthorne’s work is the recontextualization of the novel as fixating on the biblical Fall of Man. With the work’s distant past setting, focus on ostracization and changing circumstances in the face of sin, and ruthless demonization of Hester Prynne, one can easily draw connections between the work’s core cast and that of the Bible story. Particularly, the work’s central characters and environments, being viewed in this perspective, allow more complete examinations of judgement, sin, and what follows, and, by extension, addresses questions of biblical interpretation within the lens of allegorical hermeneutics. Exploration of these further meanings invites a deeper understanding of both Hawthorne’s work and the unexplored questions posed within the earliest chapters of Genesis. Born on July 4th of 1804 in Salem, Massachusetts, Nathaniel Hawthorne “lived in genteel poverty with his widowed mother and two young sisters in a house filled with Puritan ideals and family pride in a prosperous past” (Hawthorne, Scarlet Letter: Signet Classic Edition i). After graduating from Bowdoin College in 1825, Hawthorne returned to his birthplace with aspirations of becoming a writer. Twelve years later, in 1837, he found a modicum of success with the first of his major works, Twice-Told Tales. However, the author did not see exemplary success until the publication of The Scarlet Letter in 1850, around 25 years since beginning his career as a writer. He struck gold once more the following year with the publication of The 68

Ben Elliott

House of the Seven Gables. Then, he served a brief, four-year tenure as the American Consul in Liverpool, England. After this time, Hawthorne traveled extensively in Europe for many years before returning to Massachusetts in 1860. He died four years later on May 19th, 1864, while in Plymouth, New Hampshire (Hawthorne, Scarlet Letter: Signet Classic Edition i). With an eye to the work’s Puritan setting, many critics of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter tend to focus on the work’s examination of divine versus secular forgiveness as being both of irremovable importance to the work’s core conflict as well as a direct critique of the common conception of Puritan society. As succinctly stated by Janice Daniel in “‘Apples of the Thoughts and Fancies’: Nature as narrator in The Scarlet Letter,” “The human dramas which transpire in Hawthorne’s fiction have long been recognized as those in which he develops his theme of the importance of community” (307). Both David Heddendorf’s “Anthony Trollope’s Scarlet Letter” and Constance Hunt’s “The Persistence of Theocracy: Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter” similarly highlight the importance of secular forgiveness for the work’s characters. In Heddendorf’s examination, the author, despite framing Hawthorne’s conflict through that of Anthony Trollope’s Orly Farm, redresses the trial of Hester Prynne as something of primarily secular concern rather than something divine. While the character’s actions are considered sinful within the Christian faith, her problems lie not with the scorn of God but rather with that of her countrymen: “Although characters in both novels urge divine forgiveness as the ultimate balm and cure, the stories themselves insist on the need for human forgiveness— not only forgiveness by Hester’s husband, Roger Chillingworth, and Lady Mason’s stepson, Joseph, but by the wider community that observes and judges the two women” (Heddendorf 3). Here, it is not that Heddendorf is disavowing each character’s respective searches for divine forgiveness but, instead, that he is making it abundantly clear which of the two judges of morality holds more direct sway over the character’s life. While God forgives the soul, 69

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter

it is the unwavering scorn of the public eye that gazes cruelly upon the transgressions of those who fall outside of its body. Hunt explores this same idea through the value of theology in the work and, also, the hypocrisies of Arthur Dimmesdale: “Dimmesdale’s hypocrisy goes to the very heart of the inner tension within the Puritan theocracy between belief in original sin, its corollary that the individual can only be saved by God’s grace, and a social and political order intolerant of human beings’ imperfect and fallen nature” (Hunt 5). In drawing this distinction between God’s grace and the intolerance of the Puritan community, Hunt construes the Puritan community and its relationship with religion as being a house divided against itself which, in turn, is heightened via the sharp critiques of Hawthorne’s own writing. Hawthorne’s work is also frequently reinterpreted in light of its Christian themes and symbols. However, despite sharing a common source material, these examinations can vary wildly. One example is James Ellis’ “Human Sexuality, the Sacrament of Matrimony, and the Paradox of the Fortunate Fall in The Scarlet Letter” in which the author recasts Hester as “the reconciliation of man’s natural sexual passion” and Dimmesdale as “the soul’s aspiration after God” within the “sacrament of matrimony” (53). While this example only places the conflict within a Christian context, some analyses see the work allegorized as referring to a specific part of the Bible. However, different scholars have interpreted the work as vastly different parts of the Bible. Some examples of these wide-ranging interpretations come via examining Tadd Ruetenik’s “Another View of Arthur Dimmesdale: Scapegoating and Revelation in The Scarlet Letter” alongside Evan Smith’s “Re-figuring Revelations: Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter.” Ruetenik, whose paper focuses primarily on interpreting the character of Arthur Dimmesdale, states the following explicitly: “Arthur Dimmesdale is Adam, who assumes the sin of Eve not because he follows her in committing an individual sin, but because sin cannot be completely individuated” (72). In 70

Ben Elliott

hearkening back to Eden, Ruetenik’s paper makes use of the earliest sections of Genesis. While partially the subject of this paper, his interpretation is by no means the only one available. As aforementioned, Evan Smith’s article goes the complete opposite route by examining The Scarlet Letter via the book of Revelations: “In The Scarlet Letter, allusions to the Book of Revelation determine the basis of the novel’s theme and structure to an extent not fully recognized by most critics of the novel who have failed to note that Hawthorne attempts in this work a comprehensive refiguration of the Biblical apocalypse” (91). Though, initially, the two papers seem to have little, other than their subject matter, in common, it is through these ties that both can be drawn together to expand upon one another. In fact, Ruetenik’s claim is echoed and deepened in other likeminded pieces of scholarship such as Darrel Abel’s “Hawthorne’s Dimmesdale: Fugitive from Wrath,” and Debra Johanyak’s “Romanticism’s Fallen Edens: The Malignant Contribution of Hawthorne’s Literary Landscapes.” To begin chronologically, Abel’s article expands on this idea by exploring the character of Dimmesdale at length. Though Abel never explicitly makes the same connection that Ruetenik does, the language he utilizes with the character alongside the observations he makes about his characteristics does not feel completely divorced from Ruetenik’s own reading. Specifically, Abel focuses on alienating Dimmesdale from the larger Puritan community via his saintly naiveté and an “angelic otherworldliness” (Abel 88). While this analysis expands upon the character, Johanyak’s article reexamines the utilization of the natural world as both Edenic and threatening interchangeably: “. . . The Scarlet Letter (1850) is centered in a haunting setting distanced from reality in time and location…and this tale emphasizes a woodland setting that provides an alternative and somewhat softened framework for her isolated character” (360). While much of The Scarlet Letter’s scholarship centers upon Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale, the character of Chillingworth does serve as the focus of a small multitude 71

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter

of scholarly articles. Two such examples are Claudia Durst Johnson’s “Impotence and Omnipotence in The Scarlet Letter” and Dan Vogel’s “Roger Chillingworth: The Satanic Paradox in The Scarlet Letter.” In the first, Johnson paints Chillingworth as an impotent male since the character has technically been cuckolded by Dimmesdale: “A retelling of the novel as a tale shaped by impotence is initially invited by Chillingworth, a character who fits the classical stereotype of the impotent man—an old man who marries a young wife, a husband who has been cuckolded” (596). Since this observation is grounded within the work itself, this particular reading can be placed upon any number of interpretations of Chillingworth as an almost immutable element. Vogel’s article blends this character discussion with the previously mentioned biblical allusions by casting Chillingworth as The Scarlet Letter’s devil and placing him under the Devil’s paradox: the idea that, in doing evil, there is good and vice versa (272-73). In acknowledging this, Vogel further complicates the already gray morality of Hawthorne’s text by casting aside the labels of protagonist and antagonist in favor of a more real-world ethicality.

Man in Mask of Maker: Puritan Society as a Substitute for God Much like a stage play’s set, this analysis hinges on establishing the “world,” or, in this case, community, of Hawthorne’s text prior to discussing its players. More specifically, it must first be proven that Hawthorne’s villagers can be allegorized as a secular, surrogate God. In this analysis, one must keep in mind the Puritans’ religious fervor and Old Testament anger in exacting punishment against Hester Prynne. While Puritan society’s intrinsic religiosity needs little textual evidence to be proven, Hawthorne provides ample evidence via their treatment of Hester that supports the claim that they function as a vengeful surrogate God. Here is one example from the text, 72

Ben Elliott

“Throughout them all, giving up her individuality, she would become the general symbol at which the preacher and moralist might point . . . thus the young and pure would be taught to look at her . . . as the figure, the body, the reality of sin” (Hawthorne 154). In utilizing Hester as a learning tool for the community, the Puritan values are reaffirmed constantly, which initially seems to make her punishment appear unyielding. This endless cruelty is further supported through Hawthorne’s decision to label the punishment as “the undying, the ever-active sentence of the Puritan tribunal” (Hawthorne 166). Though Prynne rises above the punishment via her good deeds toward the second half of the novel, the character is still irrevocably divided from larger Puritan society due to her initial sin. However, her efforts can be recontextualized as the actions of a repentant sinner attempting to regain the favor of God, but, even in her good deeds, Prynne is prevented from ever fully reintegrating herself to Puritan society due to the irrevocability of her actions. This irreparable barrier between the two parties is emblemized via Hawthorne’s labeling of the Puritans as “a people among whom religion and law were identical” (Hawthorne 97). This division is also further supported by Hawthorne’s description of the unmendable tear between Hester and humanity: “The links that united her to the rest of humankind—links of flowers, or silk, or gold, or whatever the material—had all been broken” (Hawthorne 310). Though the colonists bore no flaming sword against Prynne, the harsh social stigmas against Prynne definitively disbar her from ever being able to fully reseat herself within her old life. This irreversibility of her fall from grace is supported through the Puritans’ decision to bar Prynne from creating sigils of purity through her needlework as it speaks to the fact that, having been stained by sin, she can never be fully pure again: “But it is not recorded that, in a single instance, her skill was called in to embroider the white veil which was to cover the pure blushes of a bride. The exception indicated the ever relentless vigor with which society frowned upon her sin” (Hawthorne 73

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter

162). The Puritans’ role as both judge and executioner in the trial of Hester Prynne also showcases their absolute authority over the lives of the individuals within their community. This all-ruling dominion of the Puritan community is typified in Hawthorne’s list of potential “criminals” who might find themselves placed upon the platform and punished before the community. From the “anticipated execution of some noted culprit” to a “sluggish bond-servant” to an “undutiful child. . . given over to the civic authority,” Hawthorne makes it explicitly clear that the iron fist of Puritan justice swings often and with great vigor against any who violate the Puritan social code, and it is in the way that Hawthorne demonstrates both this reach and severity that the Puritans, within the framework of their own community, attain a pseudo-Old Testament Godhood (Hawthorne 96-97). Here, it also becomes interesting that the power structure erected by the Puritans is largely supported by an aversion to finding oneself cast out of the unit and a desire to be dominated by said social structure. Secularly, the first of these concerns could be understood as a riff on man’s early interrelationship with nature and God which, in turn, creates room to cast the second concern as being a socially supported formalization of the first. As the community that ostracizes, punishes, and rejects Hester Prynne, the larger Puritan community also, conveniently, serves as Hawthorne’s Eden, as exemplified by the starting divide between Hester Prynne’s life before and after her fall from grace. While nothing in the text states what exactly Prynne’s life might have been like before, the drastically increased difficulty of her life following her exposure implies that her previous life was filled with little hardship. Despite this lack of information, it can be inferred from her post-fall home that her circumstances have been greatly diminished: On the outskirts of the town, within the verge of the peninsula, but not in close vicinity to any other habitation, there was a small, thatched cottage. It had been built by an earlier settler, 74

Ben Elliott

and abandoned, because the soil about it was too sterile for cultivation, while its comparative remoteness put it out of the sphere of that social activity which already marked the habits of the emigrants. (Hawthorne 157) Prynne is literally forced to exist outside the framework of Puritan society by her sin and, in this case, Puritan society is akin to Eden. This separation from God is also exemplified in the scene in which Prynne attempts to grasp the sunlight, which, in dissipating before she is able to enter the light, draws a further stark distinction between Prynne and society: “‘Mother,’ said little Pearl, ‘the sunshine does not love you. It runs away and hides itself . . .’ . . . As [Hester] attempted to [grasp the light], the sunshine vanished…” (Hawthorne 344-46). In being connotatively associated with growth and plenty, the sunlight is more associated with Edenic nature rather than the harsher natural world outside of the Puritan community’s walls, but the plot of land that Prynne finds herself living on is unfit for cultivation, which juxtaposes the plenty of Prynne’s prior life amongst the lush overgrowth of Eden with the barrenness of an untamed Earth. This contrast is supported through the ways in which Hawthorne goes on to describe nature, particularly the woods, as compared to the opulent garden of the governor’s house. Whereas the woods are described as consisting of “pinetrees, aged, black, and solemn, and flinging groans and other melancholy utterances on the breeze,” the garden, which, in turn, would be a captive nature as maintained by Puritan society, is promised to be lush with flowers “more beautiful ones than [found] in the woods” and “a number of apple trees” (Hawthorne 184, 206, 207). The inclusion of apple trees within this pseudogarden of Eden also likens the two further. Thus, the Puritan community acts as the Edenic world from which Hester is cast by her original sin. 75

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter

Flesh of my Flesh: Hester Prynne as Eve Besides her role in being vilified by the community, Hester Prynne can also be allegorized as Hawthorne’s Eve in several other ways. First, her exposure, in taking place first chronologically, serves to label Prynne as the first “sinner” between herself and Dimmesdale, and as such, her public shaming before the community can be interpreted as the church’s tendency to vilify Eve over Adam due to both her act of eating the apple first and, more implicitly, her sex. Like Eve, Hester is made a model upon which the Puritans can foist their sexist “images of woman’s frailty and sinful passion” (Hawthorne 154). It could also be said that Hester has acquired a “forbidden” knowledge of sex through her dalliance with Dimmesdale that would have betrayed her expected role as a Puritan woman. While this is easily comparable to Eve’s betrayal of God’s one rule in the garden, her gained knowledge could also place her as an object of envy within the eyes of the larger community. This jealousy is emblemized in the ornateness of Prynne’s condemning sigil: “On the breast of her gown, in fine red cloth surrounded with an elaborate embroidery and fantastic flourishes of gold thread, appeared the letter ‘A’” (Hawthorne 103). With its fine attention to detail, the “A,” in spite of its meaning, is described as almost opulent with its “gorgeous luxuriance of fancy” (Hawthorne 103). Also, Hawthorne’s exploration of Prynne’s motherhood likewise aligns her with a biblical Eve. One such quotation comes from the scene in which Hester is displayed publicly: “God, as a direct consequence of the sin which man thus punished, had given her a lovely child, whose place was on that same dishonoured bosom, to connect her parents for ever with the race and descent of mortals. . .” (Hawthorne 173). First, this quotation draws a direct line of causation between the act of sin and the conception of Hester’s/ Eve’s progeny, 76

Ben Elliott

and its emphasis on “the race and descent of mortals” as something sprung from sin speaks to the transposition of Adam and Eve from their immortality in the garden to their and their future children’s mortal lives upon Earth. The circumstances under which Prynne delivers her child are also important as the dismal conditions of the prison can be interpreted as the biblical “pains of childbirth” that Eve is punished with: “. . . the wooden jail was already marked with weather-stains and other indications of age, which gave a yet darker aspect to its beetle-browned and gloomy front” (Hawthorne 93).

Speech of an Angel: Arthur Dimmesdale as Adam In addition to being Hester’s compatriot in sin, Dimmesdale is also cast as Adam through his initial description: “Therefore, so far as his duties would permit, he trod in the shadowy by-paths, and thus kept himself simple and childlike, coming forth, when occasion was, with a freshness, and fragrance, and dewy purity of thought, which, as many people said, affected them like the speech of an angel” (Hawthorne 130). In this quotation, Dimmesdale’s “simple” and “childlike” “purity of thought” set him apart from his peers in highlighting both his alleged innocence and his outward piety. Particularly, it is his association with youth that likens Dimmesdale to Adam as a man possessing faculties far younger and less world weary than his age/physical appearance would initially suggest. In his paper “Hawthorne’s Dimmesdale: Fugitive from Wrath,” Darrel Abel explores this same idea but instead focuses on Dimmesdale’s otherworldliness which equates him with the more-than-human pre-fall Adam: “The traits chiefly emphasized in Hawthorne’s initial characterization. . . are his learning, especially his theoretical knowledge of good and evil; his inexperience and ignorance of worldly things. . . All of these visible traits and manners can be interpreted as signs of angelic otherworldliness” (88). 77

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter

Dimmesdale functions as a masculine counterpart to Hester in the ways in which he interacts with the community. Whereas Hester was readily demonized, it is even in Dimmesdale’s final moments that he is still pardoned by a portion of his flock: “It is singular. . . that certain persons, who were spectators of the whole scene, and professed never once to have removed their eyes from the Reverend Mr. Dimmesdale, denied that there was any mark whatever on his breast, more than on a new-born infant’s” (Hawthorne 500-01). In this, there is also a counterpoint to Hester’s own demonization due to her sex. Unlike his Eve, Dimmesdale is unable to be condemned by his flock. Likewise, they act as foils to one another in their reactions to guilt. While Hester elects to serve her community despite their antagonism toward her, Dimmesdale, upon feeling the weight of his sin once more off his chest, immediately finds himself assailed by thoughts of new, black stains of sin. Whereas Hester forgoes temptation in an act of penance, Dimmesdale finds himself almost overcome upon leaving the forest, and, while he does not act upon these urges, his temptations during chapter 20 paint him as someone who is far more concerned with living with himself rather than truly serving others. Given consideration to his role as the town’s priest, his reaction is highly ironic when juxtaposed with Hester’s own attempts to save her soul alongside her sullied reputation. In this, there is an implication that one must assume one’s sin to begin the process of healing, and, though not rooted within the Bible’s Genesis, this idea can be carried onto the manner in which Eve has been demonized by the church throughout history. To cite an example from the First Epistle of Timothy, the author utilizes Eve’s initial sin as a basis for religiously-backed sexism thus deferring blame away from Adam: “Do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet / For Adam was formed first, then Eve. / And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who deceived and became a sinner” (1 Timothy 2:12-14). Similar to Dimmesdale’s avoidance of his own sin, the injection 78

Ben Elliott

of sexist thought in biblical teachings reveals a male tendency to place blame upon women in the name of reaffirming unjust systems. Prynne’s public humiliation against Dimmesdale’s equal-but-unstated sin serves as just another example of such views made manifest.

Imp or Angel: Pearl Prynne’s Duality as Cain/ Abel As the offspring sired by both Hester and Dimmesdale, Pearl Prynne serves as both the work’s Cain and Abel figures. The fact that the character can be read as either of the first sons of man speaks to the character’s nebulous descriptions and the idea that, in being born of man rather than directly created by God as a fully grown adult, the babe is of Earth rather than Eden: “. . .that little creature, whose innocent life had sprung, by the inscrutable decree of Providence, a lovely and immortal flower, out of the rank luxuriance of a guilty passion” (Hawthorne 172). This idea that Pearl is conceived of sin and therefore drawn to it, proves to be the character’s core conflict within this reading. In the earlier descriptions of Pearl, she is described as cherublike, even in lieu of her serving as a symbol of her mother’s sin: “By its perfect shape, its vigour, and its natural dexterity in the use of all its untried limbs, the infant was worthy to have been brought forth in Eden. . .” (Hawthorne 173). In being “worthy to have been brought forth in Eden,” there rings the favoritism that eventually would result in the violence propagated by Cain upon Abel, and it also acknowledges a purity of soul that is more reminiscent of Abel instead of Cain. Here, Pearl can easily be read as a child who, were it not for the sins of her progenitors, would have been right at home within Puritan society. However, Pearl is just as easily written as Cain, especially as the work progresses. One striking scene that depicts this shift comes during the scene in which Pearl lashes out against the Puritan children for not associating with her: “Pearl saw, and gazed intently, but never sought to make acquaintance. If spoken 79

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter

to, she would not speak again. If the children gathered about her. . ., Pearl would grow positively terrible in her puny wrath, snatching up stones to fling at them, with shrill, incoherent exclamations, that made her mother tremble. . .” (Hawthorne 182). In being ostracized from the community, Pearl lashes out with violence and aggression in a way directly rooted in the Cain-Abel mythos, and, though it might be an overly on-thenose examination, her utilization of a rock as her tool of violence is, of course, decidedly Cain-esque. Also, just as Cain struck his brother down in jealousy and anger, so too does it serve as Pearl’s basis for exacting vengeance, and, regarding the role of Puritan society, the two acts of aggression are linked by both method and feeling of abandonment. In never resolving the issue of characterization, Pearl is, interestingly, left in a liminal space between truly becoming Cain or Abel, but, in this, her nebulous moral identity plays into the uncertainty surrounding the eventual fate of children born of sin and affirms her character as both through her question’s open-endedness.

A Man of Heaven or Hell: Roger Chillingworth as Both God and Satan Finally, the character of Roger Chillingworth can fulfill the roles of both God and Satan in the text depending on perspective. In labeling him as the first of the two, one need only look as far as the work’s core conflict. Like God, the one most betrayed by Hester Prynne’s trial is Chillingworth by means of their marriage. However, in this, his deformity and weakness of body alongside the actual act of being cuckolded label him as an enfeebled, elderly man. Shortly following the character’s initial appearance, he speaks briefly on his work with alchemy: “My old studies in alchemy,” observed he, “and my sojourn, for above a year past, among a people well versed in the kindly properties of simples, have made a better physician of me than many that claim the medical degree” (Hawthorne 140). Though Hawthorne elects to describe him as a physician for the rest 80

Ben Elliott

of the text, Chillingworth’s status as an alchemist is worthy of note as, in many ways, alchemy is far more comparable to the supernatural works of a god than that of a physician’s hard science. Moreover, in being associated with the natural world through his utilization of herbs to “treat” Dimmesdale, the character retains a strong relationship with the natural world not seen elsewhere in the novel: “. . .it was observed that he gathered herbs and the blossoms of wild-flowers, and dug up roots and plucked off twigs from the forest-trees like one acquainted with hidden virtues in what was valueless to common eyes” (Hawthorne 234). Furthermore, Dimmesdale’s treatment and guilting, in being administered by Chillingworth, can then be seen as acts of divine punishment, and, in this, Chillingworth then becomes another avatar for the wrath of God. Though Puritan society fulfills a similar role, the personal relationships between Chillingworth and the targets of his scorn, again align him more specifically with the Fall of Man’s betrayed God rather than the more general version of God portrayed by the larger community. However, Hawthorne also explicitly likens the character to the Devil frequently throughout the work. One such example would be when Chillingworth is referred to as having “a glare of red light out of his eyes, as if the old man’s soul were on fire and kept on smoldering duskily within his breast, until by some casual puff of passion it was blown into a momentary flame” (Hawthorne 329). Furthermore, the character dies shortly after completing his “devil’s work” against Arthur Dimmesdale, which implies that the character’s sinful pursuit was the only thing keeping him alive: “. . .in short, there was no more Devil’s work on earth for him to do, it only remained for the unhumanised mortal to betake himself whither his master would find him tasks enough, and pay him his wages duly” (Hawthorne 503). Regardless of interpretation, both readings of the character are enriched through his voyage “deep into his patient’s bosom, delving among his principles, prying into his recollections, and probing everything with a cautious touch. . .” 81

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter

(Hawthorne 240). This knowledge of damnable secrets implies an element of supernatural abilities and possible omnipotence that is at home whether Chillingworth be devil or deity.

Conclusion Hester Prynne’s and Arthur Dimmesdale’s exiles from a puritanical Eden is rife with biblical allegory, as is Pearl’s duality as both Cain and Abel. Their adversary’s diabolical efforts likewise suggest a loose but well-evidenced retelling of the Fall of Man. Thus, The Scarlet Letter’s narrative of sin and redemption is enriched by being examined alongside religious canon. Remapping the character conflicts to this allegory, in fact, allows a deeper understanding of character mindsets and motivations. Interpretations of The Scarlet Letter can be informed by and reflect on the tensions and character crises inherent within the book of Genesis’ account of the Fall of Man.

Ben Elliott

Works Cited Abel, Darrel. “Hawthorne’s Dimmesdale: Fugitive from Wrath.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction, vol. 11, no. 2, 1956, pp. 81–105. JSTOR, www.jstor. org/stable/3044111. “Bible Gateway Passage: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 - New International Version.” Bible Gateway, www.biblegateway.com/ passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A11- 15&version=NIV. Daniel, Janice B. “`Apples of the Thoughts and Fancies’: Nature as Narrator in the Scarlet Letter.” ATQ, vol. 7, no. 4, Dec. 1993, p. 307. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=fth &AN=9410050848&site=eds-live&scope=site. Ellis, James. “Human Sexuality, the Sacrament of Matrimony, and the Paradox of the Fortunate Fall in The Scarlet Letter.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 29, no. 4, Sum 1980, pp. 53–60. EBSCOhost, search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&Auth Type=ip,shib&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000788639&site=e ds-live&scope=site. Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter. iBooks for iPhone 10, 1864. ---. The Scarlet Letter: Signet Classics Edition. Signet Classics, 1959. Heddendorf, David. “Anthony Trollope’s Scarlet Letter.” Sewanee Review, vol. 121, no. 3, Summer 2013, pp. 368–375. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1353/ sew.2013.0079.

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter

Hunt, Constance C. T. “The Persistence of Theocracy: Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter.” Perspectives on Political Science, vol. 38, no. 1, Winter 2009, pp. 25–32. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3200/PPSC.38.1.25-32. Johanyak, Debra. “Romanticism’s Fallen Edens: The Malignant Contribution of Hawthorne’s Literary Landscapes.” CLA Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, 1999, pp. 353–363. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44323211. Johnson, Claudia Durst. “Impotence and Omnipotence in the Scarlet Letter.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 66, no. 4, 1993, pp. 594–612. JSTOR, www. jstor.org/stable/366035. Ruetenik, Tadd. “Another View of Arthur Dimmesdale: Scapegoating and Revelation in The Scarlet Letter.” Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture, vol. 19, 2012, p. 69. EBSCOhost, search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&Auth Type=ip,shib&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.41925334&site=e ds-live&scope=site. Vogel, Dan. “Roger Chillingworth: The Satanic Paradox in The Scarlet Letter.” Criticism, vol. 5, no. 3, 1963, pp. 272–280. JSTOR, www.jstor. org/stable/41938352.

The Effect of Social Media Influencers on the Diet Choices of People Aged 18-30 By Stephanie Petrillo Faculty Mentor: Dr. Heidi Gonzalez, College of Nursing and Health Sciences

Article Abstract: Influencers on social media are prevalent in the lives of young people today and impact their decisions. The purpose of this research was to better understand the effect that social media influencers have on the diet choices of people aged 18-30. Health professionals must understand the impact of influencers on the diet choices of young adults, as nearly two-thirds are overweight in the United States. The researchers in this study created a Qualtrics survey and sent it to Valdosta State University’s student body after IRB approval. According to the results, the primary reason for using social media was to connect with others. The majority of participants stated they used social media 4-6 hours/ day. The main reason people aged 18-30 years viewed health posts from social media influencers were for weight loss, exercise, and to obtain healthier food recipes. The results of our study indicate that family is a significant reason for the diet choices of our participants. Almost one third of the participants stated they changed their diet at least once within the past year because of a social media influencer. Therefore, health professionals must consider social media as an essential platform to engage with young adults to promote healthy behaviors.

The Effect of Social Media Influencers on the Diet Choices of People Aged 18-30

Introduction Young people today have multiple options for digital entertainment on social media. The stars on social media, also known as influencers, have become extremely popular and they impact the decision making of their followers. Blogs, Vlogs, Instagram, and YouTube accounts are the favorite channels for social media influencers and influencer marketing (Balaban & Mustatea, 2019). Social media influencers are defined as online personalities with a large number of followers, across one or multiple platforms who serve as content creators, opinion leaders, and entrepreneurs (Balaban & Mustatea, 2019). As media idols, influencers can function as role models for young people and often appear as ordinary people making them more relatable to their followers. Some influencers have found tremendous fame and wealth from their exceedingly large number of followers. For example, Ryan’s World features an 8-year-old boy named Ryan who reviews branded toys. Ryan had over 18 million followers and earned $22 million in 2018. The success of an influencer is strongly connected to their image, their connection to the audience, and their authenticity (van Eldik et al., 2019). Due to their perceived credibility, the messages they spread are perceived as authentic, rather than as branding and advertising. Therefore, social media influencers have become an important asset for advertisers, as they manage to address their target audience with product recommendations in highly pertinent and entertaining content (De Veirman et al., 2019). In fact, digital advertising reached $900 million dollars in 2018 and is expected to only increase in the future. Influencer marketing is a rapid growing area that has yet to evolve, however, influencers need to be aware of the importance of trustworthiness for building long-lasting relationships with their followers (Balaban & Mustatea, 2019). It is important for health professionals to understand the impact of influencer marketing on the diet choices of young people. Over two-thirds (70.2%) of people 20 years of age and older are overweight in the United States. Celebrity endorsements and social media influencers who promote energy-dense foods and beverages may contribute to poor dietary choices (Zhou et 86

Stephanie Petrillo

al., 2019). In fact, young adults are among the largest consumers of sugar-sweetened beverages and fast food, and they consume the lowest levels of vegetables and fruits (Rounsefell et al., 2019). According to Rounsefell, et al. (2019), frequent social media exposure to image-related content (viewing idyllic images of celebrities or peers) increases the risk of young adults having a negative impact on their body image and food choices. Searching for health influencers is challenging on social media because the health category is a broad one. People have a wide variety of ideas about what constitutes a healthy lifestyle. Some of the health influencers’ content on social media derives from physicians, fitness gurus, self-taught vegan recipe creators, and those who connect with people who want to lose weight. One of the most popular health influencers on Instagram is Diane Sanfilippo. She is a certified nutrition consultant with two New York Times bestsellers (“Practical Paleo” and “Keto Quick Start”), has 118,000 followers, and sells her own Balanced Bites lines of spices and frozen meals (IZEA, 2020). Due to the growing use of social media, influencers are more prevalent in the lifestyles of young adults, which could affect whether they tend make healthy or unhealthy diet choices. This study provides insights into the importance of social media influencers as a source of the diet choices of young people. This population was chosen because there is evidence that young people use mobile platforms more than any other population (Balaban & Mustatea, 2019) and are more influenced by social media than any other population (De Veirman et al., 2019). The group of young users aged 16-24 were the most active, followed by 25-34 yearolds (Balaban & Mustatea, 2019). The purpose of this research was to examine each of the following research questions: 1. What is the extent or scope of social media influencers on the diet choices of people aged 18-30 years of age? 2. How likely is a person aged 18-30 years willing to change their diet based on social media influencers? 3. What influences the diet choices of people aged 18-30? 87

The Effect of Social Media Influencers on the Diet Choices of People Aged 18-30

Data Collection There is little existing research about the specific influential factors of diet choices among this population. To complete this study, the researchers created an online Qualtrics survey to gather data about influencers on diet choices in people aged 18-30. The survey included questions regarding social media use, credibility of social media influencers, and whether diet choices were affected by social media influencers. In addition, the survey posed questions regarding social, behavioral, and other determiners of diet choices among this population to adequately determine if there was a significant effect of social media influencers on diet choices in this population. After IRB approval, the quantitative data was collected by distributing the survey via email to the student body at Valdosta State University. The researchers obtained consent from participants and offered a $5 incentive to students for participating in the research. The researchers accepted 200 participants and reached their participant cap in less than 70 minutes of the survey going live. The researchers kept the survey data and incentive information separate to maintain anonymity. The participants were instructed at the end of the survey to email the faculty researcher to receive their incentive. The researchers replied to every participant’s email with VSU’s Confidential Research Payment Receipt form via Docusign to collect signatures and payment information (participant Cash app tag or Venmo code). Each participant who took the survey and emailed the faculty member by the expressed due date received their incentive from the researchers.

Stephanie Petrillo

Data Analysis and Findings The quantitative data were analyzed by exporting our Qualtrics survey data into SPSS. A level of significance of 0.05 was used in the test of difference. A survey among 227 Valdosta State University students aged 18-30 (n = 227; M = 2.18; SD = 0.42), including 161 females; 65 males; and 2 who preferred not to select gender was conducted. The two most prevalent identified races of participants included 53.22% as African-Americans and 34.33% as Caucasian-Americans. To answer RQ 1 (What is the extent or scope of social media influencers on the diet choices of people 18-30 years of age?) we asked participants which (if any) social media networks/ influencers were used for health/diet advice. Instagram (21.14%), YouTube (19.57%), and Pinterest (14.29%) were among the most popular platforms with 9.98% of participants stating they do not use social media sites or influencers for health/diet advice (see Appendix A – Table 1). We used the t-test to compare the difference in the frequency of social media use between 18-24 years (M = 4.70, SD = .779) versus 24-30 years (M = 4.73, SD = .732) and found no significant difference between the groups t(217) = -.190, p = .850 > .05. (See Table 1). The main reasons for the participants using social media sites was to connect with others (34%), personal networking reasons (26.75%), and for new ideas (23.4% - diets, recipes, beauty tips) (see Table 2). The participants most expressed time spent on social media sites each day was 4-6 hours (33.2%) and 1-2 hours (31.8%). However, the most common reasons the participants viewed health posts from influencers were weight loss/healthy diets (35.1%), food recipes (31.7%), and exercise (30.3%).

The Effect of Social Media Influencers on the Diet Choices of People Aged 18-30

Table 1. Most popular platform used for health advice

Table 2. Most common reasons for using social media

To answer RQ 2 (How likely is a person aged 18-30 years willing to change their diet based on social media influencers?) we asked participants several questions using a Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The findings included: 63.5% participants trust a medical professional over an influencer for health advice, the majority of participants agreed that they are more likely to try different diets if the influencer is attractive, a famous celebrity, or fit athlete, if it helped them save money, or if it taught them to cook new foods. The 2 most common reasons cited for the participants being willing 90

Stephanie Petrillo

to change their diet based on social media influencers were if participants perceived they needed to be healthier or if the influencer had a large number of followers who were successful (great reviews or before/after pictures). The majority of the participants disagreed (31.7%) that they had changed their diets in the past 6-12 months because of social media influencers. In fact, 49.5% of the participants stated they had never changed their diets based on social media influencers, while 31.2% stated they had changed their diets once in the past 6 months based on social media influencers (see Appendix A – Table 3). We used the t-test to compare the difference in the frequency of diet change because of social media between the group 18-24 years (M = 1.79, SD = .821) and the group 24-30 years (M = 1.73, SD = .769), and we found no difference between the groups t(217) = .419, p = .675 > .05. Table 3. Likelihood of participants changing their diet based on influencers

To answer RQ3 (What influences the diet choices of people aged 18-30?) we asked the participants several questions about their diets. The most popular diets among the participants were omnivore (42%), a normal, balanced diet recommended by the AHA (28%), and a no pork diet (8.1%). The main reason for the participants citing their diet choices included it being the diet they grew up eating (44.7%), the majority of their 91

The Effect of Social Media Influencers on the Diet Choices of People Aged 18-30

friends/family follow this diet (19.7%), they have good results eating this particular diet (12%), and the impact on their budget (10.3%) (see Table 4). We used the chi-square test to compare the difference in the reason for choosing diets between 18-24 years and 24-30 years and found no significant difference between the two groups. X2 (8, N = 219) = 6.718, p = .567 > .05. Table 4. What influences the diet choices of people aged 18-30?

Discussion The researchers expected to better understand how influencers on social media affect the diet choices of people ages 18-30. Young adults are reported as having the unhealthiest diets regarding the consumption of fast food and sugar-sweetened beverages (Rounsefell et al., 2019). A healthy diet is defined as eating 5 portions of fruits and vegetables every day (Chudasamaet al., 2020). A meta-analysis found that a high intake of fruits and vegetables not only increased life expectancy, but significantly reduced the risk of heart disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (Chudasama, et al., 2020). Therefore, young adulthood is an important time to learn healthy diet choices to prevent long-term health implications such as heart disease or diabetes mellitus. Our findings were consistent with the current research in that 42% of our participants reported eating an omnivore 92

Stephanie Petrillo

diet, which includes both plant and animal foods. The results of our study indicate that family is a significant reason for the diet choices of our participants. Approximately 65% of the participants stated they chose their diets based on the foods they grew up eating or foods their family and friends currently eat. According to our results, the majority of participants stated they used social media 4-6 hours/day and the most common social media platform used by participants was Instagram. The primary reason for using social media was to connect with others. The main reasons people aged 18-30 years viewed health posts from social media influencers were for weight loss, exercise, and to obtain healthier food recipes. Young people are continuously exposed to unhealthy food images on social media (Folkvord et al., 2020). The current research does support the use and popularity of influencers as a new type of celebrity that young people follow to gain advice. Influencers often exhibit and catalog a luxurious lifestyle that their followers do not have but desire to have (Chae, J. 2018). In addition, due to their perceived credibility and likeability, the messages seem more authentic to followers (De Veirman et al., 2019). Future Research and Summary This initial study will likely open up new avenues of exploration leading to future research involving the impact of social media influencers, larger populations, specific diets, and specific social media sites that influence individual diet choices. Other avenues worth exploring are whether and how social influencers can be involved in specific health campaigns (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity) (Folkvord et al., 2020). After reviewing the results, it is important that health professionals empower young people to understand the power of influencer marketing and to beware of social media influencers when it comes to making choices that impact their health. 93

The Effect of Social Media Influencers on the Diet Choices of People Aged 18-30

This research is important because it helped us better understand how and why young people choose specific diets and more specifically, what impacts those choices. A recent study by Rounsefell et al. (2019) confirms our findings and reports that social media use can negatively impact body image and healthy food choices among young adults. Over a quarter of the participants (31.7%) in our study stated they changed their diet at least once within the past year because of a social media influencer. Therefore, health professionals must consider social media as an essential platform to engage with young adults to promote healthy behaviors and body images (Rounsefell et al., 2019).

Stephanie Petrillo

References Balaban, D. & Mustapea, M. (2019). Users’ perspective on the credibility of social media influencers in Romania and Germany. Romanian Journal of Communication & Public Relations, 21(1), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.21018/ rjcpr.2019.1.269 Chae, J. (2018). Explaining Females’ Envy Toward Social Media Influencers. Media Psychology, 21(2), 246–262. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1328312 Chudasama, Y. V., Khunti, K., Gillies, C. L., Dhalwani, N. N., Davies, M. J., Yates, T., & Zaccardi, F. (2020). Healthy lifestyle and life expectancy in people with multimorbidity in the UK Biobank: A longitudinal cohort study. PLoS Medicine, 17(9), 1–18. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003332 De Veirman, M., Hudders, L., & Nelson, M. R. (2019). What is influencer marketing and how does it target children? A review and direction for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10,1. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2019.02685 Folkvord, F., Roes, E., & Bevelander, K. (2020). Promoting healthy foods in the new digital era on Instagram: an experimental study on the effect of a popular real versus fictitious fit influencer on brand attitude and purchase intentions. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1677. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12889-020-09779-y IZEA, Jan 3, 2020. Top health Instagram influencers. https://izea.com/2020/01/03/health-instagraminfluencers/#:~:text=Diane%20Sanfilippo,on%20 different%20types%20of%20diets.

The Effect of Social Media Influencers on the Diet Choices of People Aged 18-30

Rounsefell, K., Gibson, S., McLean, S., Blair, M., Molenaar, A., Brennan, L., Truby, H., & McCaffrey, T. A. (2019). Social media, body image and food choices in healthy young adults: A mixed methods systematic review. Nutrition & Dietetics, 77(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/17470080.12581 van Eldik, A. K., Kneer, J., Lutkenhaus, R. O., & Jansz, J. (2019). Urban influencers: An analysis of urban identity in YouTube content of local social media influencers in a super-diverse city. Frontiers in Psychology, 10,1. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02876 Zhou, M., Rajamohan, S., Hedrick, V., Rincon-Gallardo Patino, S., Abidi, F., Polys, N., & Kraak, V. (2019). Mapping the celebrity endorsement of branded food and beverage products and marketing campaigns in the United States, 1990–2017. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19). https://doi. org/10.3390/ijerph16193743

Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God: A Textual Criticism of John 1:34 By Kim Fromkin Faculty Mentor: Dr. Fred Downing, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

Article Abstract: The problem of the literary relationship of the gospel traditions continues to be a debated issue in the scholarship of the New Testament. The relationship of John 1 and the so-called Synoptics is a microcosm of this debate. In translating texts concerning the baptism of Jesus, the Synoptics specify Jesus as the “son” of God by using the Greek term υιός, while the Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the “chosen” of God with the use of the Greek term εκλεκτός. Throughout all of John’s gospel, Jesus is identified as the Son of God as seen in the Synoptic accounts except in the baptismal story in John 1:34. The thesis of this article is that there are two common themes of Jewish tradition surrounding the ideologies of “sonship” and “chosen” in connection with the sacrament of baptism. Therefore, this article will analyze works from various scholars to explore the textual variations in John 1:34. The discussion of the two themes “sonship” and “chosen” provides a heuristic introduction to the Synoptic problem and an opportunity to consider the growth of two ideas concerning Jesus which shaped the early church in the first and second centuries.

Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God: A Textual Criticism of John 1:34

In translating the Synoptics and the Gospel of John there is a contradiction in the texts concerning the baptism of Jesus at the Jordan River. The Synoptics specify Jesus as the “son” of God by using the Greek term υιός, while the Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the “chosen” of God with the use of the Greek term εκλεκτός.1 Throughout all of John’s gospel, Jesus is identified as the Son of God as seen in the Synoptic accounts except in the baptismal story in John 1:34. Several questions arise from such differences. Scholars argue as to why Jesus would be identified as the “chosen” of God in one single account and nowhere else in John’s gospel. Additionally, there are questions on whether the writer intentionally changed the language from “son” to “chosen” or from “chosen” to “son.” It is also possible that the language changed when it was translated. One scholar suggests that the use of the word εκλεκτός predates the word υιός.2 If εκλεκτός predates υιός, and υιός is present in all four gospels, it may be the case that the Gospel of John predates the Synoptics. If John’s work predates the other three gospels, then the question arises as to who composed the texts since most scholars agree that John’s work is uniquely different. Many consider Mark’s account to be written first, and Matthew’s and Luke’s work to be primarily copies of Mark.3 This article analyzes works from various scholars, specifically those of John A. T. Robinson, in order to explore two common themes of Jewish tradition surrounding the ideologies of “sonship” and those “chosen” by God in connection with the sacrament of baptism as a way of understanding the possibilities of the textual variations in John 1:34. The discussion of the two themes “sonship” and “chosen” provides a heuristic introduction to the Synoptic problem and an opportunity to consider the growth of two ideas concerning Jesus which shaped the early church in the late first and early second centuries.

1 See the parallel in the Greek and English translations of Mt. 3:13-17; Mk. 1:9-11; Lk. 3:21-22; Jn. 1:29-34. 2 Christopher W. Skinner. “Son of God” or “God’s Chosen One” (John 1:34): A Narrative-Critical Solution to a Text-Critical Problem. (Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no. 3, 2015) pp. 345. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=rfh&AN=ATLAn3826627&site=eds-live&scope=site. 3 See the Synoptic Problem, Stephen L. Harris, Understanding the Bible. (McGrawHill, 2011) p. 350.

Kim Fromkin

Many scholars agree that the Gospel of John is the last gospel to be written. It is assumed that John was written sometime between 90-100 CE with the Synoptics being written between 70-90 CE.4 A close study suggests that like the Synoptics, John was not written by one single author but by various Jewish or Palestinian groups, including Samaritans, Essenes, protoGnostics, and possibly some disciples of John the Baptist.5 John A. T. Robinson has a slightly different perspective on the Gospel of John, especially concerning the date and compilation of the book. His theory is that the book went through a series of developing stages.6 In that process he thinks there were several revisions from an earlier first edition. Robinson argues that the Johannine literature has elements that seem to provide evidence of writings prior to the Jewish War including the written words and works of Jesus dating between 40-60 CE.7 He believes that the first edition of John was authored during this time with that edition being established sometime between 75-85 CE in Palestine with later revisions coming from Asia Minor in 90 CE.8 Based on Robinson’s theory, the writing of John’s gospel began in 40 CE. The first edition circulated from Palestine to Asia Minor with many revisions before the finished work was established in 100 CE. This is a 60-year timespan with a religious war right in the middle. Robinson claims there are too many gaps in the history of the material itself.9 In this time period there were many ideas and theologies throughout the region. As the Jews rebelled against Rome, leading up to the war, seemingly within the religion itself believers were rebelling against various theologies, 4 Ibid. 352. 5 Ibid. 409. 6 John A. T. Robinson. Can We Trust the New Testament? (Mowbrays, 1977) p. 84. 7 The outbreak of the Jewish war was in 66 CE. Robinson sees a mass of evidence leading to a major revaluation of the historical tradition behind the Fourth Gospel concluding that it reflects intimate contact with the Palestinian world that was obliterated in 70 CE. Robinson uses R. E. Brown’s timeline to date the writings of the Fourth Gospel composed in five stages. John A. T. Robinson Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 265, 267, 270. 8 Ibid. 270. 9 Ibid. 267.

Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God: A Textual Criticism of John 1:34

especially those pertaining to Jesus. Followers of Jesus sought to establish a defined Christianity. Therefore, much writing took place encompassing vast perspectives in which some of these writings were hidden for preservation and not discovered until much later. Many of these ideas confirm Hebraic and Hellenistic cultures.10 Other earlier writings provide the idea that there are “links between an original apostolic tradition” to earlier times in history that became much of the “later finished gospel.”11 Robinson suggests that in this time gap, there seems to be more of a Jewish background as the writers appeared more dedicated to the study of Jewish tradition.12 One of these traditions is the sacrament of baptism. Another tradition is that some people were “chosen” for such a time as this, as in the story of Esther, as a prophetic voice, a leader of God’s people, kings, and priests.13 These “chosen” ones were selected by God for a generation to bring about his plan and purpose for his children. Not only does the Gospel of John have elements of a Jewish background and the traditions of an old religion, it also has newer ideas rising from “conservative evangelicals” in the first century CE with continued traditions like baptism and persons “chosen of God” spilling over into modernity.14 10 John A. T. Robinson. Can We Trust the New Testament? (Mowbrays, 1977) p. 82. Scholars agree that during the time surrounding the Jewish War there were many diverse groups. Robinson suggests that John’s gospel went through several developing stages and was influenced by writers of these diverse groups including Hellenistic Jews, and Jewish sectarians that made up the Qumran communities such as the Essenes, Nazarenes, and zealots. Scholars concur that the Essenes vacated Jerusalem and fled into the Qumran region because the Temple services had become corrupt. Robinson states that the gospel of John is predominantly a historical book with ancient Jewish language signifying Hebraic cultures and ancient Jewish traditions but is also a by-product of the Dead Sea Scrolls escalating out of the Qumran region, and was written in simple Greek to Hellenistic Greek speaking Jews along with writings from an Ephesian elder. Hebraic cultures would have been the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Qumran communities as mentioned, and the Hellenistic cultures would have been Jewish peoples influenced by Greek philosophies. 11 Robinson uses Brown’s work who sought to make this connection. John A. T. Robinson Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 270. 12 Ibid. 308. 13 E.g. Est. 4:14; Jer. 1:4; Ex. 3:4-10; 1 Sam. 16:1, 1 Sam. 2:28 14 Robinson uses the phrase “conservative evangelicals” as a modern interpretation of an old way of reading. John A. T. Robinson Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 308.

100

Kim Fromkin

If Robinson’s theory is correct that the Fourth Gospel predates the Synoptics and that there were multiple authors of various authorship over a wide timespan, it could explain the altered titles of Jesus from “chosen” to “son” or vice versa. In looking at John’s prologue, there is “a series of incomplete understandings” of who Jesus is.15 One understanding is that Jesus was the incarnation of God, the Son of God. Another understanding is that Jesus was the Messiah. A final understanding involves the idea that Jesus was chosen by God, hand selected among God’s own children, to lead the people of Israel in a crucial time of history where governmental rulings and the faiths of various religious sects collided. For Robinson, the Gospel of John is a “history of ideas” where the language and thought forms changed through the revision process and the book is an expansion of material based on a group of people’s needs.16 Specifically, in John 1:34 there is evidence of textual variances that seemed to have changed, possibly through one of the revision processes as some translations specify “chosen” and others specify “son.”17 However, scholars debate these variances. Flink, using the works of Bart Ehrman, suggests that “orthodox scribes occasionally altered the text to defend the orthodox theology and what they thought the text meant because some of the readings were prone to be misunderstood and used by heretics.”18 Flink claims there is supporting evidence asserting that the original text of John 1:34 was ο εκλεκτός (chosen) which does not support John’s Christology in the remainder of the gospel but rather other sects of Christianity within the early church that were possibly expelled from the synagogue.19 15 Christopher W. Skinner “Son of God” or “God’s Chosen One” (John 1:34): A Narrative-Critical Solution to a Text-Critical Problem (Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no. 3, 2015) p. 345. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLAn3826627&site=eds-live&scope=site. 16 John A. T. Robinson. Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 270, 280. 17 See the discussion on the textual variances. Scholars say it is difficult to determine whether the original translation was “Son of God” or “chosen of God.” There are also other suggestions of the variances of “the Son, the chosen one” and “the Son, the chosen of God.” Timo Flink New Variant Reading of John 1:34 (Andrews University Seminary Studies, vol.45, no. 2, Aut 2007) p. 191 EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001656634&site=eds-live&scope=site. 18 Ibid. 191. 19 Ibid. 192.

101

Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God: A Textual Criticism of John 1:34

“Sonship” and “chosen” are two different yet common themes that circulated in various groups within Jewish traditions. Both can be seen in the Jewish tradition of the sacrament of baptism. One group, those of the mystery religions, believed in the idea of “divine sonship.”20 This group of believers had a “wide influence” in the Greco-Roman world during the days of Jesus.21 Members of this group observed communal and baptismal rituals with other groups of the early church where their god was invisibly present, allowing them to absorb the divine body into themselves, “housing a god within” where the human is awakened to their divine potential and shares in God’s eternal life through purification.22 While sonship is said to be of Jewish tradition, the words “Son of God” are not mentioned in the Old Testament, only “sons of God” in Genesis 6 when they had intercourse with the daughters of men and in Job 1 when the “sons of God come to present themselves before the Lord.”23 Sonship is however, a common theme in all four gospels. Throughout the New Testament the word υιός (son) is heavily used. In the Fourth Gospel alone υιός appears 52 times, 42 of which refer to Jesus identified as the “Son of God.”24 Elements of the mystery religions could have influenced the Johannine writing in what Robinson calls this “gap in history” and could have been revised later by orthodox leaders of the early church, who could have adopted some aspects of the “divine sonship” idea from the mystery religions giving John’s gospel the divine human of Jesus. According to Ehrman, orthodox writers not only altered passages but accentuated their own views of the divinity of Jesus in which he became the Son of God at his baptism.25 20 Paul Carus The Greek Mysteries, A Preparation for Christianity (The Monist, vol. 11, no. 1, 1900) p. 122 JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27899193. 21 Stephen L. Harris Understanding the Bible (McGraw-Hill, 2011) p. 322. 22 Ibid. 322. 23 E.g., Gen.6 The sons of God were considered fallen angels; Job 1:6 Satan was one of the sons of God coming before the Lord. 24 Christopher W. Skinner “Son of God” or “God’s Chosen One” (John 1:34): A Narrative-Critical Solution to a Text-Critical Problem (Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no. 3, 2015) p. 343. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&db=rfh&AN=ATLAn3826627&site=eds-live&scope=site. 25 Bart D. Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early

102

Kim Fromkin

For other groups observing the sacrament of baptism in Jewish tradition, the ceremony was a consecration ceremony, an ancient Jewish ritual, especially for priests. Only after this consecration and a series of others could a priest enter the Holy of Holies and begin ministry performing liturgical functions.26 For some early Christian writings after the baptism processional, the “gates of the heavenly Temple are opened,” then the priest “sees the Glory within where God then gives him a blessing of the priesthood” where the angels speak, “Now see how we have elevated you above all and how we gave you the anointing of eternal peace.”27 This ritual seems to confirm the “chosen of God” ideology and seems to reflect the moment of Jesus’ baptism when he comes up out of the water and God speaks “this is my son in whom I am well pleased.”28 However, John’s version says “this is the chosen of God” spoken not by angels or God as in the Synoptic accounts, but by John himself as he was quoting an earlier prophecy given to him by the Spirit.29 In Jewish tradition, baptism was a holy sacrament in becoming a high priest which may suggest that Jesus’ baptism represented his becoming a high priest, chosen by God. If Robinson’s timeline of the writings of the works and words of Jesus dating back to 40-60 CE is correct, it would seem that the baptismal ceremony of Jesus in John 1:34, a priestly tradition, would have been required before Jesus’ ministry could begin as required by Jewish tradition. This supports the idea that “chosen” was used first, which is supported by Robinson’s “gap in history” theory. Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2011) p. 63. 26 It is suggested that the Fourth Gospel has elements of and has been considered Gnostic. In the footnotes of DeConick’s article she claims that Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan was a transference into the priesthood as part of the Christian baptism originating from Syrian tradition. April D. DeConick. The True Mysteries: Sacramentalism in the Gospel of Philip (Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 55, no. 3, 2001) p. 235, 236. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/1584809. 27 Ibid. 235. DeConick gives several different references on the sacrament of baptism throughout Jewish tradition (specifically esoteric Jewish traditions) in her work. This reference is taken from the Testament of Levi which originates in an apocryphal and pseudepigraphal text known as The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs that scholars believed to have been completed around the 2nd century CE by the Essene sect. Fragments of this material was found along with the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran. 28 E.g. Mt. 3:17; Mk. 1:11; Lk. 3:22. 29 Jn 1:34 based on the SBL Greek New Testament version.

103

Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God: A Textual Criticism of John 1:34

There were other groups and writers present in this 60year period that shared (similar yet different) ideas with all four gospels such as the Essenes that dwelled in Qumran. They believed there was more than one Messiah and that each Messiah was an “elect of God.”30 Some scholars see a close relationship with John’s prologue in the Fourth Gospel with the Qumran texts indicating Essene influences found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and suggesting a connection with other “esoteric Jewish writings such as the Odes of Solomon and rabbinical texts of a mystical character.”31 The tradition of a “chosen one” was a title used in Qumran and Hebrew literature, having Old Testament roots in the figureheads of Moses, David, Samuel, Noah, Jacob, and others.32 According to these ancient Jewish roots, Israel was a “chosen” peculiar community of people above all nations which makes its way through the New Testament in 1 Peter as “the chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.”33 While some later writers describe Jesus as the “Son of God,” the ancient roots of one being “chosen” appears only at the baptism of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and seems to be “more in harmony with what seems to have been the early Gospel tradition” stemming from early Jewish traditions with the idea of a heavenly voice speaking at the baptism.34 The Essene group believed in this “chosen” or “elect of God” ideology. The term “Messiah” was a title referring to this ideology at Qumran of an expected one, a Messiah to come later.35 30 Joseph A. Fitzmyer Aramaic “Elect of God” Text from Qumran Cave IV (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, Oct. 1965) p. 353. EBSCOhost, search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=rfh&AN=ATLA000 0702943&site=eds-live&scope=site. 31 Oscar Cullmann. The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity (Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 74, no. 4, 1955) p. 222. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/3261667. 32 Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Aramaic “Elect of God” Text from Qumran Cave IV (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, Oct. 1965) p. 366. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000702943&site=edslive&scope=site. 33 Deut. 14:2; 1 Pet. 2:9 34 Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Aramaic “Elect of God” Text from Qumran Cave IV (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, Oct. 1965) p. 349. EBSCOhost, search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000702943&site=eds-live&scope=site. 35 Ibid. 349. Originally the term “Messiah” meant God’s anointed and was applied to Israel’s kings and later applied to coming leaders. For further information, see Sigmund Mowinckel He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in The Old Testament and Later Judaism (Abingdon Press, 1954).

104

Kim Fromkin

In Jewish tradition, the concept of many Messiahs was common. These Messiahs were “righteous teachers” that held many titles such as “son of man, elect one, servant, and elect of God” as seen in John 1:34 as the titles were interchangeable.36 In looking at the consensus of the Dead Seas Scrolls, the Qumran region was inhabited by priests that had been “expelled from the Temple in Jerusalem” that were led into the Judean desert by a man they called “the Righteous Teacher.”37 However, the terms Messiah and Jesus are not specified within the texts. Some scholars suggest that “ancient authors expanded existing composition by adding further material,” making Jesus into what they wanted him to be.38 Ο εκλεκτός του θεός (chosen of God) suggests a larger theme of Qumran Messianism.39 Though there were ideas of divine sonship in some of the groups involving Jewish tradition, it seems that the idea involving the “chosen of God” had more of a Jewish background than ο υιός του θεός (son of God). For years, scholars have suggested that Mark was the first gospel and much of Matthew and Luke were copies of Mark, with John being the final gospel written. Robinson, however, argues that John’s account was first as there was a first edition and many revisions over a wide period before the completion of the final book.40 Based on this theory, along with other scholarship, it seems that ο εκλεκτός του θεός (chosen of God) was an ancient Jewish tradition that could have been written originally in John’s prologue concerning the baptism of Jesus prior to the Synoptics and prior to a more orthodox version in early Christianity. Some of these “newer conservative evangelicals” as Robinson mentioned could have been the cause of these revisions in the Fourth Gospel (from 60-100 CE) making Jesus into what that group needed and wanted him to be which was ο υιός του θεός, the Son of God, a 36 Ibid. 353, 366. 37 For an introduction to the Dead Sea Scrolls see James H. Charlesworth Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Doubleday, 1997). 38 Ibid. 354. 39 Ibid 349. 40 John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 270.

105

Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God: A Textual Criticism of John 1:34

divine human, and God incarnate. Ehrman proposes that these revisions are “textual corruptions” of orthodox scribes and with their transcriptions left future generations of readers and interpreters with “theological controversies.”41 Robinson suggests that the finished book of the Fourth Gospel is written for a different tradition for the church for the first time.42 He asserts that as the times were changing in the then “modern world,” the message to the church was also changing. Robinson proposed that ancient Jewish traditions were crossing over into the ideas of Christianity, mainly from “conservative evangelicals” of the day. Consequently, it appears that as the early Church was being established into a newer, more orthodox religion, the language of an old orthodox religion was evolving and expanding, adding definitions and material to its doctrine to create what the more powerful group of the day needed. That need was a Savior, a Messiah, one chosen by God, someone with divine power who could bring about divine order and salvation to humanity in the times of governmental and religious crises. There is a common Savior who was the Son of God named Jesus in all four gospels. However, what John’s gospel reveals is that there were many groups and mixtures of ideas surrounding the identity of Jesus interwoven in its fabric. Regardless of whether John was written first or last, or the priority of “chosen” versus “son” in John 1:34, the ideologies and theologies of who Jesus was from diverse groups of an old religion and a new religion can still be seen today through the textual variances in the translations.

41 Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2011) p. 63. 42 John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (S.C.M. Press, 1977) p. 306.

106

Kim Fromkin

Bibliography “BibleGateway.” BibleGateway.com: A Searchable Online Bible in over 150 Versions and 50 Languages., www.biblegateway.com/. Carus, Paul. “The Greek Mysteries, A Preparation for Christianity.” The Monist, vol. 11, no. 1, 1900, pp. 87– 123. JSTOR, www. jstor.org/stable/27899193. Charlesworth, James H. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls Doubleday, 1997. Cullmann, Oscar. “The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of Christianity.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 74, no. 4, 1955, p. 213.EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/3261667. DeConick, April D. “The True Mysteries: Sacramentalism in the ‘Gospel of Philip.’” VigiliaeChristianae, vol. 55, no.3, 2001, p. 225. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/1584809. Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford University Press, 2011. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran Cave IV.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, Oct. 1965, pp. 348–372. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=rfh &AN=ATLA0000702943&site=eds-live&scope=site. Flink, Timo. “New Variant Reading of John 1:34.”Andrews University Seminary Studies, vol.45, no. 2, Aug.2007, pp.191–193. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001656634&site=e \\ds-live&scope=site. Harris, Stephen L. Understanding the Bible. McGraw-Hill, 2011.

107

Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God: A Textual Criticism of John 1:34

Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in The Old Testament and Later Judaism. Abingdon Press, 1954. Robinson, John A. T. Can We Trust the New Testament? Mowbrays, 1977. Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. S.C.M. Press, 1977. Skinner, Christopher W. “‘Son of God’ or ‘God’s Chosen One’ (John 1:34): A Narrative-Critical Solution to a Text- Critical Problem.” Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no.3, 2015, pp. 341–357. EBSCOhost, search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN =ATLAn3826627&site=eds-live&scope=site.

108

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women: A Comparison of Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman” By Tristan Tyson Faculty Mentor: Dr. Maren Clegg-Hyer, Department of English

Article Abstract: The issues faced by immigrants in new countries vary and can be exacerbated by social factors relative to one’s respective parent country. In the instance of immigrant women, specifically those from China, these cultural factors can lead to an innumerable number of social obstacles. Instances of these obstacles are present in cross-cultural works such as “The Moon Lady” from Amy Tan’s Joy Luck Club and “No Name Woman” from Maxine Hong Kingston’s The Warrior Woman. Cultural differences that are further strained from one generation to the next can cause resentment toward women from other women. This resentment creates a space where women are systematically silenced in a parent culture, and this practice is often carried over into the new culture via immigration. The silencing of women often leads to more unjust circumstances such as violent acts. With this combination of social and cultural factors, it is evident that Asian immigrant women will face identity issues and crises after immigrating or after being born to first-generation immigrant parents. The problems exacerbated by the patriarchy that these immigrant Chinese women encounter include women receiving harsh treatment from other women, violence against women being condoned, generational silencing of women’s voices, and instances of confusion that lead to identity crises. 109

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women: A Comparison of Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman”

For centuries, men have controlled and oppressed women through institutional patriarchy. The effects and traumas of being subjugated due to gender were especially brutal toward immigrant women. By leaving one instance of oppression and being submitted to another form of patriarchy, immigrant women encounter a variety of social obstacles. Instances of these obstacles are present in cross-cultural works such as Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman.” The problems exacerbated by the patriarchy that immigrant women encounter include resentment from other women, silencing of women, violent acts, and instances of identity crisis, and these factors can particularly impact Asian women immigrating to the United States. In the early 20th century, the residents of China were arguably more traditional in their customs as compared to Americans. American families would see the decline of the American nuclear family by 1960 while concubines were still present in China. Women were subject to becoming concubines or being ‘second wives’ or even ‘third wives,’ who were of lower rank than the husband’s first wife. There are several traditions such as these that differ greatly from norms in the United States. When discussing Asian American literature, especially narratives concerning Chinese-American immigrants, Tan and Kingston are at the forefront of the conversation. Their works are considered landmarks for stories concerning Chinese women and their children who have immigrated to America. Scholars such as Laura E. S. Trombley and Andreia-Irina Suciu identify Kingston as a landmark author in this area. Trombley recognizes that Kingston and her works have created a trans-disciplinary path for teaching Asian American writings. She states, “[a]ll of Kingston’s books have successfully transgressed disciplinary boundaries (a phenomenon all but unimaginable just a few years ago) and are studied at the college level in anthropology, history, sociology, politics, women’s studies, and literature classes” (2). She explains that Kingston has created a space between fiction and nonfiction where real stories can be told while being filled with cultural embellishments. 110

Tristan Tyson

Born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents, Tan was raised in San Francisco. Her novel, The Joy Luck Club, like Kingston’s work, was critically acclaimed and widely received as a look into the narrative of women who struggle with their cross-cultural identities. Matthew James Vechinski considers the popularity of The Joy Luck Club by non-academic audiences. He explains, “In these ways The Joy Luck Club replicates the nonfiction in Ladies’ Home Journal that largely focuses on personal narratives written by women dealing with and overcoming real-life uncertainty” (47). Co-authors John R. Maitino and David R. Peck both argue that looking further, Tan and Kingston have created works that function as comingof-age narratives. The authors present Tan and Kingston as a natural pair and state, “The Warrior Woman can be approached as a book about growing up, a kind of female bildungsroman or novel of development” (274). In addition to naming both Tan and Kingston as landmark Chinese-American literary figures, Helena Grice recognizes them as landmark authors on Chinese-American social issues. In Maxine Hong Kingston: World Contemporary Writers, she explains that Kingston’s work will “locate Kingston within two interconnected, specific cultural contexts: Chinese American history and politics; and the emergence of ethnic feminism in a post-civil rights era” (2). “The Moon Lady” and “No Name Woman” are seminal works of cross-cultural experiences. They tell the stories of immigrant women caught between two patriarchal societies. Kwok-Bun Chan’s work focuses on social and economic trends occurring in America and Asia. After noting that the lives of Asian Americans are getting better and that racism toward them has gradually decreased, he states, “However, the personal and psychological struggle in identifying places between two very different cultures has not eased, and to a certain degree it has even complicated and intensified” (100). Chan describes how immigrant Chinese women bear the brunt of culture shock while enduring oppression from two forms of patriarchy on top of racism. 111

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women: A Comparison of Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman”

In line with Chan, Jing He defines the symbolic imagery revolving around Ying-ying’s night after she falls off the boat. He explains the meaning behind family ties, nakedness, and cross-dressing and their relation to self-identification (308). The patriarchy creates resentment among women and cultural tensions cause discord among familial units. Yu Shi states there are “a number of constraints facing the[se] women everyday: material difficulty, racial-cultural marginalization, and ethnic patriarchal control” (13). Looking deeper, it is apparent that social oppression and strict gender roles in place for women in America and China create inequality, tension, and anger. These emotions can create a passive-aggressive attitude that simmers, or they can boil over into rage that creates devastation for women. This tension and fear of violence that resides in women is created by men but oftentimes can be taken out on other women. These cultural issues and gender frustration are seen in works by both Tan and Kingston. “The Moon Lady” is a chapter in Tan’s novel The Joy Luck Club in which a young girl is navigating her childhood or remembering, later, as an immigrant woman, her place as a girl in China and the others around her as women in patriarch-centered families. Ying-ying is an inquisitive, observant, and thoughtful child. However, these may not be traits typically appreciated in girls of this time. After badgering her Amah, Ying-ying asks her a question boldly, and Amah cries, “Too many questions!” (Tan 69). A child interrogating an elder angers Amah. She tells Ying-ying that she does not need “to understand” and that she should “[j]ust behave, follow your mother’s example” (Tan 69). After scolding her, Amah informs Ying-ying of the correct way she should behave that evening and tells her not to be shameful. This intentional mention of shame is used to teach Ying-ying the way she is expected to act and behave accordingly. While criticism from an elder may be cross-culturally universal, it is uncommon for young children to ponder their own familial rank in relation to their siblings. This event of women placing social expectations on other women is also seen in Ying-ying’s mother. 112

Tristan Tyson

Ying-ying is allowed to go outside during a family meal. She is told to play with her half-sisters. She treats her half-siblings as less than herself. This is due to the fact that these half-siblings are related to Ying-ying through their father, as the half-sisters are the children of concubines to Ying-ying’s father. Yingying’s mother is the ‘first wife’ to Ying-ying’s father, making her socially more powerful as she outranks his other wives. This results in the mistreatment of the half-sisters by Ying-ying. She makes them sit in the hot sun while she gets to sit in a shaded area, and she shares only small portions of her food with them and gives them the parts she does not want. After Ying-ying gets her nice clothes dirty, she is scolded not for the soiled garments but because she acted out of place as a female child. Her mother tells her, “A boy can run and chase dragonflies, because that is his nature . . . But a girl should stand still” (Tan 72). One can see that the mother-daughter bond is a strong one; however, it is strengthened by discipline rather than love. Amah herself has met inopportune circumstances that relate to her being a woman. After her husband died, Amah gave up being a mother to her son in order to join Ying-ying’s family as a servant, and she undertakes the job of being Ying-ying’s nursemaid. Her role is to be near the family but not a part of it; she functions as a luxury toward Ying-ying’s family. This mistreatment is evident through Ying-ying’s thoughts on Amah, “so I thought of Amah only as someone for my comfort, the way you might think of a fan in the summer or a heater in the winter, a blessing you appreciate and love only when it is no longer there” (Tan 73). The resentment of women by other women is seen again when the family is on a boat and Ying-ying has once again gotten her clothes dirty, this time with fish scales and chicken blood, and is received harshly by her Amah. Amah tells Yingying, “[y]our mother, now she will be glad to wash her hands of you” (Tan 77). Ying-ying fears Amah’s threat that Ying-ying’s mother will banish them to the far away city of Kunming. While Ying-ying’s mother most likely would not banish her, she does not have to deal with resentment that brings ostracization and 113

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women: A Comparison of Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman”

embarrassment, such as characters in Kingston’s “No Name Woman.” While Ying-ying recalls her childhood in China, she is also reliving the experiences she encountered. She gives readers a look at her past, and through this lens, one can see first-hand instances of oppression under patriarchy. Instances of patriarchy in a parent culture are seen through the eyes of the late aunt in Kingston’s “No Name Woman.” The Speaker in “No Name Woman” and Ying-ying at the beginning of “The Moon Lady” are narrating from the present, and thus one can see their transition to a new culture with a perspective coming from the past parent culture. Strong cultural traditions are also seen in Kingston’s The Warrior Woman. Kingston, the author of The Warrior Woman, starts off the novel’s chapter entitled “No Name Woman” with suicide and secrets. The Speaker who narrates “No Name Woman” is arguably Kingston herself. In Maxine Hong Kingston: World Contemporary Writers, Helena Grice points out that, “Kingston juxtaposes and interweaves her adolescent perspective with a retrospective adult commentary upon her experiences” (21). The Speaker is being told a story about her deceased aunt, whom the Speaker knew nothing about, who died in China. The Speaker’s mother tells her that her late aunt, after having become pregnant illicitly, jumped into a well and drowned. Unknown to the Speaker, her aunt’s actions caused embarrassment for her whole family which in turn ostracized not only the aunt but her relatives as well. This ostracization in turn caused resentment and discord in her own home. The Speaker is told the family acts as if there were only sons born to that generation and that she “must not tell anyone” (Kingston 3). Being secretive is a minor issue; however, being treated poorly can lead to the harsh possibility of one committing suicide due to patriarchal mistreatment. The resentment toward the unnamed aunt grows as the aunt’s pregnancy continues. She goes nameless because there is so much shame that is carried with her story. Laura Trombley states that after the suicide of the Speaker’s aunt, “the family killed her name” (80). The Speaker 114

Tristan Tyson

is told that her father no longer acknowledges his sister: “Don’t let your father know that I told you. He denies her” (Kingston 5). Her late aunt is not even a topic up for discussion: “If I want to learn what clothes my aunt wore, whether flashy or ordinary I would have to begin, ‘Remember father’s drowned-in-the-well sister?’ I cannot ask that. My mother has told me once and for all the useful parts” (Kingston 6). This places a silencing of curiosity over the Speaker. The Speaker is also told about a tradition where outcasts are present with their family but shamefully sat at another table: “In a commensal tradition, where food is precious, the powerful older people made wrongdoers eat alone. Instead of letting them start separate new lives like the Japanese, who could become samurais and geishas, the Chinese family . . . hung onto the offenders and fed them leftovers” (Kingston 7). This removal of the late aunt from the family tree and chosen ignorance of her is, in a way, a method of resenting her and keeping her quiet forever for her actions that do not align with the wishes of her patriarchal society. Additionally, the silencing of the late aunt’s story is carried into the next generation by the mother reinforcing this practice on the Speaker. The silencing of Ying-ying’s voice is less dramatic and has more to do with the fact that she is a young child. While she is not exactly disobedient and is more curious than anything, she must learn early on how to act and behave as a young woman. At the beginning of “No Name Woman,” Ying-ying is prefacing her childhood story with a note on her own nature. She explains, “[f]or all these years I kept my mouth closed so selfish desires would not fall out. And because I remained quiet for so long now my daughter does not hear me . . . all these years I kept my true nature hidden, running along like a small shadow so nobody could catch me” (Tan 67). Ying-ying has had experiences with two different patriarchal societies. Even by immigrating to a new country, she was not able to escape being cast into the lesser role of being a good wife and mother. The practice of women being quiet and subservient to their husbands is seen in both Chinese and American patriarchal standards. Ying-ying is able to reflect 115

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women: A Comparison of Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman”

back on her life and see the ways in which she was oppressed and how it changed how she is as a person. She wishes she could tell her daughter that, “[w]e are lost, she and I, unseen and not seeing, unheard and not hearing, unknown by others” (Tan 67). Her explanation as to how she was changed by the patriarchy is eloquent but pained, “I did not lose myself all at once. I rubbed out my face over the years washing away my pain, the same way carvings on stone are worn down by water” (Tan 67). While an exact amount of oppression cannot be measured, not being able to escape from an oppressive institution is draining and weathers down one’s spirit. She goes on to hope this does not happen to her daughter by her “important husband.” Ying-ying’s aforementioned shadow is a symbol of her spirit. It is quiet and intangible but still a part of her. In a way, it is all of the parts of Ying-ying that are made to be othered, her curiosity, liveliness, and bold nature. After Amah scolds her, she is indeed fearful of the threat of exile. She then falls off her family’s rented boat into the water. She is frightened when “a dark shape brushed by me and I knew it was one of the Five Evils, a swimming snake. It wrapped around me and squeezed my body like a sponge, then tossed me into the choking air . . .” (Tan 78). This dark figure, the swimming snake, is a reference to how Yingying feels oppressed by the women around her who act as a conduit for her patriarchal society. While she gasps for air after climbing onto a nearby boat, she encounters more shadows that are fishermen trying to get her out of the water. In this instance, Ying-ying is offered help when she fears for her life, an opportunity not awarded to the late aunt. As for Ying-ying, she has brought her fears and her gender role from the parent culture. In America, Ying-ying’s daughter receives her mother’s worries about her own marriage. As Ying-ying reflects on how the old social norms affected her, she compares herself to a stone that has been weathered down in the new culture of America (Kingston 67). From the parent culture, China, patriarchal norms follow both the Speaker and Ying-ying to America and impact their lives. In the new culture, both the 116

Tristan Tyson

Speaker and Ying-ying view events in their lives from looking at past experiences that have affected them. The silencing of the late aunt, while it is brought to America by her niece, is never ended, just carried along. For the Speaker, she is still unable to ask her family about her aunt, and she does not know how her aunt dressed (Kingston 6). The lasting individual effects of patriarchy on the Speaker has eliminated any space where the Speaker could ask about her aunt. Thus, an instance of double silencing occurs. Silencing occurs most evidently in “No Name Woman” at the “outcast” table. At this table “where all the family members came nearest one another, no one could talk, not the outcasts . . . every word that falls from the mouth is a coin lost. Silently they gave and accepted food with both hands” (Kingston 11). While both men and women could become hostage outcasts, this rule of silence especially applied to women. When the late aunt is asked who impregnated her, she does not speak. Instead of dishonoring another person, she instead “kept the man’s name to herself throughout her labor and dying; she did not accuse him that he be punished with her. To save her inseminator’s name she gave silent birth” (Kingston 11). For fear of further punishment or shaming, unknowing of her looming death, she stays silent. This silence is, of course, a response to her patriarchal society. To speak up was to be too bold, for a woman to bear a child when her husband had been away for years was treacherous, and to accuse another man would be heresy. This silencing present in “No Name Woman” highlights a double standard on sexual conduct. For women, “adultery is extravagance” (Kingston 6). To cheat on one’s husband was not an option, but an indulgence. The Speaker confides that her aunt had not chosen to commit adultery but that, “some man had commanded her to live with him and be his secret evil” (Kingston 6). He did not pay for his crimes while the late aunt suffered in silence. The storytelling by the Speaker’s mother serves two purposes. The first is continued silencing. Before her death, the late aunt is told that she is a “[g]host! Dead ghost! Ghost! You’ve 117

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women: A Comparison of Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman”

never been born” (Kingston 14). Her life and her words hold no weight. The Speaker admits “but there is more to the silence: they want me to participate in her punishment. And I have” (Kingston 16). The generation after the Speaker will most likely not know of their great-aunt. By choosing to forget her, they have removed her from the family. Now she will be one of many women who are silenced by men, their power, and the women who participate in suppressing other women. The late aunt is now eternally abject as she “remains forever hungry. Goods are not distributed evenly among the dead” (Kingston 16). In addition, the purpose of telling the late aunt’s story is to serve as a warning to the Speaker. She has been made aware of what is expected and appropriate for women, as well as informed of the potential consequences. By not knowing her name or asking questions about her aunt, she prolongs the silence surrounding her and also reminds herself what it means to be a woman born into a Chinese family. Even though the Speaker now lives in America, she has been told, by another woman, her family history which carries patriarchal oppressive tones. Both Ying-ying and the late aunt experienced the loss of their voice, the silencing of who they are as people. While Yingying’s voice is drowned out by female relatives and water, the late aunt is suffering in silence from the actions of an adulterer and the shame brought onto her family by the neighboring villagers. While Ying-ying learns her place in society from a young age, the late aunt’s life is ended by not following patriarchal rules. Ying-ying arguably has an easier life than the late aunt from what readers see in the novels. Ying-ying does not encounter the type of violence as experienced by the late aunt. This may be due to the fact that Ying-ying’s family appears to be wealthier while the late aunt and her kin grew up in a rural village. Many of the village families depended on their male family members working abroad and sending money home. This combination of having to work hard to live and being isolated from other communities created a culture where the villagers all knew one another and even knew each family’s background from studying birth charts. This culture, 118

Tristan Tyson

combined with overbearing patriarchal tendencies, caused a custom of heavily relying on traditional customs such as the dowry, the subservience of wives, and women remaining entirely committed to their husbands even if they were to take more wives. These customs also create dark social mores. When a famine, winter, and carelessness are combined with an oppressive culture, they create an environment for violent acts. Violent acts are a more extreme effect of patriarchal control than are present in traditional Chinese customs, and they follow Chinese women even as they immigrate. Violence is what took the late aunt’s life. John Maitino provides insight on the patriarchy’s effect in feminist works as the “feminist critiques of patriarchal abuses of women—the severely restrictive rules imposed on women, social evils such as rape, foot binding, ostracism, and murderous violence—are implicit in these stories” (276). As aforementioned, while her husband was away for work, the late aunt became pregnant. The Speaker’s mother explains that it was long after their husbands departed to work and that, “[w]e did not discuss it. In early summer, she was ready to have the child, long after the time when it could have been possible” (Kingston 3). Unfortunately, the late aunt lived in a small farming village, so there were no strangers and gossip abounded. While the Speaker’s mother began counting the days of pregnancy so did their neighbors: “The village had also been counting. On the night the baby was to be born the villagers raided our house . . . the people with long hair wore it over their faces” (Kingston 4). The fear of an angry mob is not the only thing the late aunt’s family had to fear. The mob soon became violent: “At first they threw mud and rocks at the house. Then they threw eggs and began slaughtering our stock. We could hear the animals scream their deaths” (Kingston 4). The time in which the late aunt became pregnant was during a cold winter while the village was simultaneously going through a famine. The villagers saw her actions as nonessential indulgence. Having an illegitimate child during those tough times was a luxury neither the family nor the village could afford. 119

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women: A Comparison of Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman”

As the villagers came into the house, the family stood together, huddled, in the hallway. The villagers, with their knives dripping the blood of livestock, wrecked the home. They made a point of destroying the late aunt’s room and the objects in it: “They ripped up her clothes and shoes and broke her combs, grinding them underfoot. They tore her work from the loom” (Kingston 4). The villagers’ anger is what led to their violence. The villagers acted in response to the late aunt’s actions. When she became pregnant via adultery, she broke the rules that govern their village. Going against one’s husband is one matter, bringing shame to one’s family is another. What actually drives the villagers to violence is what they deem to be overindulgence during a trying time in their village. They see the unborn child as a careless act that breaks the laws their society is centered around. If the late aunt can break these rules, any woman can do as she pleases. The villagers believe what they are doing is right. The Speaker ponders over this: “If my aunt had betrayed the family at a time of large grain yields and peace, when many boys were born, and wings were being built on many houses, perhaps she might have escaped such severe punishment” (Kingston 13). By attacking the adulteress, the villagers are sending a message. This act signals that the late aunt, a woman, has gone against what is commonly accepted behavior. By punishing her, they proclaim their intolerance of any deviant behavior. After the angry villagers kill the family’s livestock and wreck their home, they take food, clothes, and items that are not broken and leave. As the mob disappears, the family breaks their silence. The family goes from shocked to enraged. The family shouts, “Aiaa, we’re going to die. Death is coming. Death is coming. Look what you’ve done. You’ve killed us” (Kingston 14). They are not angry at the mob but at the late aunt for going against the system. The Speaker explains, “[a] family must be whole, faithfully keeping the descent line by having sons to feed the old and the dead, who in turn look after the family” (Kingston 13). By breaking this unspoken but understood rule, 120

Tristan Tyson

the late aunt has broken tradition. Here, violence is carried out by a group instead of a single male. One can argue that due to the accepted oppression of women, violent acts such as this are not uncommon. In this instance, the villagers are acting as the governing body. In many feminist works, a powerful man or men in places of authority usually carry out the sentencing of the law. After the mob’s attack, the late aunt runs out into the fields. As she lays on the ground, she feels the pains of childbirth. Even though she has not been physically harmed, the traumatic experience has broken her. “‘They’ve hurt me too much,’ She thought. ‘This is gall, and it will kill me’” (Kingston 14). This is due to her being shunned and her knowledge that her baby, a girl child, will not be accepted into her society. To ask her family to raise the child would be dishonorable, and the child would likely live as an outcast. Identifying as female in a male-centered society can place constraints on one’s identity. Kwok-Bun Chan believes that “[c] hildhood and adolescents play a crucial role in the process of identity formation. Experiences and education during this period shape a person’s worldview and determine a possible future self” (101). Moving from one highly traditional, patriarchal society to a new land with its own culture but also possessing its own form of patriarchy can be a jarring cross-cultural experience. Ying-ying, while contemplating on the wonders, fears, and loneliness she has experienced before and after her move, states that while dwelling on these things, she remembers “[h]ow [she] lost herself” (Tan 83). Women on both sides of immigration face these cultural identity issues. In both “The Moon Lady” and “No Name Woman” one can see women being snagged on the sharp edges of cross-cultural experiences that lead to confusion of one’s true nature and loss of identity. In “The Moon Lady,” the night of the Moon Festival is a night of change for Ying-ying. Jing He describes the symbolic imagery revolving around Ying-ying’s night after she falls off the boat: “The illusions of Ying-ying about the Moon Lady in Tan’s The Joy Luck Club also reveal the harsh fact of women’s 121

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women: A Comparison of Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman”

rootless status in a world with all its rules prescribed by men” (308). Ying-ying “is soon rescued by a fishnet, but is mistaken by the fisherman as a bigger girl without a family. Wandering among the crowd of strangers by the riverside, Ying-ying suffers from her identity confusion: without her fine clothes and family’s good fortune, she is indeed no different than a beggar girl” (He 308). Without her family to vouch for her, Ying-ying is no different than any other girl-child. Furthermore, she was wearing underclothes when she fell into the lake, so she appears to be a peasant or “beggar girl” (Tan 79). No one is quick to help Ying-ying, as she does not have her expensive dress clothes on, and she is eventually dumped back at the shore. Jing He continues, “[i]t is at that desperate moment that Ying-ying is attracted by an ongoing shadow show about the moon lady” (He 308). The Moon Lady is lamenting over her exile to the moon for disobeying her husband. She is now lost and alone forever, and Ying-ying, also in a moment of desperation, “cries in deep sorrow, feeling empathetic for the same identity crisis she’s going through” (He 308). Ying-ying runs backstage to see the celestial Moon Lady only to find “a face so tired that she wearily pulled off her hair, her long gown fell from her shoulders. And as the secret wish fell from [Ying-ying’s] lips, the Moon Lady looked at [her] and became a man” (Tan 82). Jing He explains the nature of gender symbolized here: “the fact that the Moon Lady is acted by a man points to the reality that the femininity of women is ultimately determined by patriarchal ideology, while the ugliness of the Moon Lady’s face reveals the ugliness of women’s victimization” (He 309). After this event, Ying-ying is lost but also loses herself. Looking to Ying-ying’s future, which is actually the beginning of “The Moon Lady,” one can see that it took years for Ying-ying to solve her identity confusion. Ying-ying states some of her own confusion stems from the fact that she “moved so secretly”; shadow-like, she now has trouble finding herself. Even after moving to America, Ying-ying, now an adult, is still unsure of who she is. This fear also grows to make her worry 122

Tristan Tyson

about her daughter. Jing He elaborates that “[f]or Ying-ying, the night of the moon festival is a night of change, an epiphany in her life. Finding out the cruel truth behind the illusion of the Moon Lady, the narrator Ying-ying in her late years realizes she has long lost herself, and her secret wish ‘to be found’ could not be fulfilled by anyone but herself” (He 309). That night, Yingying underwent a change in her identity that had long-lasting effects. The event triggered a process of losing her identity that followed her as she immigrated. The epiphany of who she is was only regained with hindsight years later. As Ying-ying reflects that even though her family did locate her later that night, she never believed that they “found the same girl” (Tan 82). Identity confusion is not so easy to sift through for the Speaker in “No Name Woman,” even with the hindsight of hearing her Aunt’s tale. Andrea Suciu speaks on the relevance of the Speaker being a Chinese-American woman: “These stories function as an interface between mother and daughter, between Chinese heritage and American upbringing” (7). Pondering over the story of the Speaker’s late aunt still haunts her. She reflects, “[m]y aunt still haunts me—her ghost drawn to me because now, after fifty years of neglect, I alone devote pages of paper to her” (Kingston 16). She even has an interesting take on the punishment her aunt was dealt: “The real punishment was not the raid swiftly inflicted by the villagers, but the family’s deliberately forgetting her,” as by this act of violence, her aunt and her story has been both erased and silenced (Kingston 16). Violence, or even the fear of it, can also cause issues with one’s own identity. Struggling with one’s identity is, in the end, what caused the late aunt to commit suicide. She broke unspoken rules and transgressed on cultural mores that affect every aspect of her life. The mob’s attack was the beginning of becoming an outcast, but her violation against her family is what solidified her fate. She is now alone with child, without family or her husband. She is only one of many women who were unable to go on with their lives. By losing her reputation, she loses who she is and her own life. 123

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women: A Comparison of Amy Tan’s “The Moon Lady” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman”

The women in “The Moon Lady” and “No Name Woman” are stand-ins for all women under patriarchal suppression. They symbolize the women who have to deal with resentment, fear, violence, and identity crisis. Oppression due to one’s gender subjects one to internalized hate that can manifest as resentment toward other women, such as the treatment of Ying-ying by Amah or the late aunt by her community. The inequality present in patriarchies also leads to victimization, in which women often have to suffer in silence. Silence is a lesser evil compared to the suffering of those subjected to violent acts that were especially inflicted on the late aunt. The violence caused by patriarchy and the multiple other implications brought on by cross-cultural experiences can cause confusion. The confusion of not knowing where one belongs creates a feeling of perplexity about the self. This creates an identity crisis fueled by a variety of social factors. These encounters are not fixed to one culture, and they follow individuals and are planted in new generations in their new cultures. There is no doubt that many immigrant women and their daughters experience several or all of these emotions and circumstances. The oppression of Chinese immigrant women can carry on for generations, perhaps only counteracted by voicing in quiet protest the double jeopardy faced by such women, as evident in Tan’s and Kingston’s works.

124

Tristan Tyson

Works Cited Chan,

Kwok-Bun. East-west Identities: Globalization, Localization, and Hybridization, Brill, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ valdosta/detail.action?docID=468210. Grice, Helena. Maxine Hong Kingston: Maxine Hong Kingston, Manchester University Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, Grice, Helena. Negotiating Identities: An Introduction to Asian American Women’s Writing. Manchester University Press, 2002. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=mzh&AN=2 002534273&site=eds-live&scope=site. He, Jing. “Through the Looking Glass: Female Identity Rediscovery in Chen Ran’s and Amy Tan’s Fictions.” Intercultural Communication Studies, vol. 25, no. 3, Dec. 2016, pp. 306–319.EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=uf h&AN=122621345&site=eds-live&scope=site. Kingston, Maxine Hong. The Woman Warrior: Memoirs of a Girlhood among Ghosts. First ed., New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 1976. Maitino, John R. Teaching American Ethnic Literatures: Nineteen Essays. Vol. 1st ed, University of New Mexico Press, 1996. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN= 22681&site=ehost-live. Peck, David R. Teaching American Ethnic Literatures: Nineteen Essays. Vol. 1st ed, University of New Mexico Press, 1996. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di rect=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=22681& site=ehost-live.

125

Shi, Yu. “Chinese Immigrant Women Workers’ Mediated Negotiations with Constraints onTheir Cultural Identities.” Feminist Media Studies, vol. 8, no. 2, June 2008, pp. 143– 161. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/14680770801980539. Suciu, Andreia-Irina. “Voices and Voicing in Maxine Hong Kingston’s The Woman Warrior.” Americana: E-Journal of American Studies in Hungary, vol. 10, no. 1, 2014. EBSCOhost, direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=mzh &AN=2014306714&site=ehost-live. Tan, Amy. The Joy Luck Club. New York : G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1989. Trombley, Laura E. Critical Essays on Maxine Hong Kingston. New York: London: G.K. Prentice Hall International, 1998. Print. Critical Essays on American Literature. Vechinski, Matthew. “Staging the Reception of American Ethnic Authors in Women’s Popular Magazines: Encountering Amy Tan’s The Joy Luck Club Stories in Seventeen and Ladies’ Home Journal.” Reception: Texts, Readers, Audiences, History, vol. 7, no. 1, 2015, p. 45. EBSCOhost, doi:10.5325/reception.7.1.0045.

Omnino - Volume 11

Articles inside

Patriarchal Effects on Immigrant Women

Rewriting Jesus as the “Son” and “Chosen” of God

Apple Partaken: A Post-Lapsarian Reading of

The Effect of Social Media Influencers on