In a previous article, we discussed the importance of employing the proper sociocultural perspective in cross-cultural studies. The present article will build on the same concepts. To recap briefly, we will quote the above mentioned article:

A socio-cultural perspective... is interested in explaining patterns of behavior and thought within the proper system of inherited conceptions. It's thinking inside the box, culture as an integrated whole. Language and other behaviors derive meaning from social systems. As such, to understand the words of Jesus and the early Christian message, we must understand the 'social facts' that precede them. Therefore, the meaning of a symbol (e.g., a word, an artifact, a behavior) must be understood by its relationship to other symbols within this historically transmitted framework. In this sense, meaning is culturally relative in that we seek to understand any aspect of a culture within its own context. ¹

Relativity has become a bad word in some circles so some clarification is in order. People may be concerned about moral relativity or the relativity of truth. These are valid concerns. However, cultural relativity is a horse of different color. It makes no claim as to what is morally right or what is truth. These questions cannot be answered by anthropology. Perhaps an example would be helpful at this point.

In John's Gospel, we find Jesus sitting next to Jacob's well at midday. The scene takes place near the Samaritan town of Sychar. In the 4th chapter, we read:

A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me something to drink.” (For his disciples had gone into the city to buy food.) Then the Samaritan woman said, “How can you, being a Judean, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink? (For Judeans do not associate with Samaritans.) ²

After their exchange about living water, Jesus then asks the woman to return with her husband. The dialog ensues until it is interrupted by his disciples' return.

At that time, his disciples returned and were astonished that he was speaking with a woman. Yet no one asked, “What do you need?” or “Why are you speaking to her?” ³

This text assumes many social values that can be lost on us as modern readers. (The explanatory note by the author is a rare assist in high context literature. This suggests the author anticipated his readers might be unfamiliar the Judean / Samaritan relationships.) Archeology and physical anthropology may be able to determine the location of Jacob's well and what type of diet the villagers had, but these disciplines do not answer the all important why question. Cultural anthropology provides us with comparative data to help fill in the blanks. In other words, we are given the missing pages of the social script the players are following. Without this cultural knowledge, we are tempted to overlay our own values and beliefs. ⁴

Our ancient informants tell us that attitudes toward gender roles, purity and pollution, honor and shame, and kinship organization were very different than our own. In fact, all of these elements are present in the scene at Jacob's well, even if tacit. Why didn't the Samaritan woman acquiesce to Jesus' initial request? What social “oughts” influenced her response? Why did Jesus ask for her husband? Why were the disciples astonished that he was speaking with a woman? The author assumes his readers possess the necessary cultural knowledge to answer most, if not all, of these questions. We, however, are twenty centuries removed. Women work outside the home. They converse openly with non-relative males. We view ourselves first and foremost as individuals. We do not inherit the collective honor of our lineage. Social stratification for us is not based on caste or tribe. These values are fundamental to how we view the world and our place in it. Cultural anthropology helps us step out of our world - at least with one foot - so we may get closer to the world of Jesus and the first Christians.

Let's synthesize the discussion up to this point. Meaning is culturally relative... for the bible tells me so. The author of John illustrates this point when he interjects, “For Judeans do not associate with Samaritans.” He wanted to make sure his readers were aware of all the social “oughts” that had been breached in the exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Had Jesus, a Judean, touched a vessel previously used by a Samaritan, he would have become ritually unclean. His Hellenized readers may have been unaware of Judean purity taboos. Accordingly, the author clues them in to the fact that not only are gender roles in play, as they would have expected, but so are rules of purity and pollution. The social norms expected of Jesus and the Samaritan woman, that is, how they should have behaved, were important to the author. He wanted to be sure his readers had the correct “culture” in mind when the text was read.

So, then, culture studies can help us get a hold of another society's values and beliefs. John 4 exemplifies what was said previously: the meaning of a symbol (e.g., a word, an artifact, a behavior) must be understood by its relationship to other symbols within this historically transmitted framework [culture]. However, whether it is morally right for a woman to speak to a non-relative is not the business of anthropology. Whether it is true that Jesus would become unclean is not the business of anthropology.

The Evil Eye

The above discussion was fairly straightforward – nothing of real controversy. However, the native's perspective can also raise a number of more difficult questions. We will now address one area of ancient Mediterranean culture that may be unfamiliar to modern readers, namely, the evil eye. First, a brief introduction to the concept:

The ancient Middle Eastern belief was that light is literally generated in the heart and is transmitted out through the eye onto whatever objects are in one’s gaze. Because heart and eye are closely bound together, the good or evil light that originates in the heart is always revealed by what comes forth from the eye. The eye thus reveals the character of the person. Good-hearted people possess good eyes and throw off good light; evil-hearted persons possess evil eyes and throw off evil light. Moreover, since this light actually falls on whatever a person looks at, it also brings into being what the heart producing intends. In this way generous persons can look on others and do actual good, while envious persons can look on others and do actual damage.” ⁵

This may sound strange, but when one reads the ancient sources the belief is not altogether unreasonable. Plato provides us with an ancient description of how the eye functions:

First of the organs they fabricated the eyes to bring us light, and fastened them there for the reason which I will now describe. Such fire as has the property, not of burning, but of yielding a gentle light, they contrived should become the proper body of each day. For the pure fire within us is akin to this, and they caused it to flow through the eyes, making the whole fabric of the eye-ball, and especially the central part (the pupil), smooth and close in texture, so as to let nothing pass that is of coarser stuff, but only fire of this description to filter through pure by itself. Accordingly, whenever there is daylight round about, the visual current issues forth, like to like, and coalesces with it and is formed into a single homogeneous body in a direct line with the eyes, in whatever quarter the stream issuing from within strikes upon any object it encounters outside. So the whole, because of its homogeneity, is similarly affected and passes on the motions of anything it comes in contact with or that comes in contact with it, throughout the whole body, to the soul, and thus causes the sensation we call seeing. ⁶

Plutarch lived during the first and second generations of Christianity. He is extremely useful to us as he records a number of contemporary views on a variety of subjects. We often generalize and speak of the Greek view of the soul, or the Jewish idea of the body. However, just like the present, there were many competing views in antiquity. The following is a summary of various theories on how the eye functions. Plutarch writes:

Democritus and Epicurus suppose that sight is caused by the insertion of little images into the visive organ, and by the reception of certain rays which return to the eye after meeting the object. Empedocles supposes that images are mixed with the rays of the eye; these he styles the rays of images. Hipparchus, that the visual rays extend from both the eyes to the superficies of bodies, and give to the sight the apprehension of those same bodies, after the same manner in which the hand touching the extremity of bodies gives the sense of feeling. Plato, that the sight is the splendor of united rays; there is a light which reaches some distance from the eyes into a cognate air, and there is likewise a light shed from bodies, which meets and joins with the fiery visual light in the intermediate air (which is liquid and mutable); and the union of these rays gives the sense of seeing. ⁷

All of the theories listed by Plutarch share a common feature: something is emitted from the eye. The description may consist of rays, particles or fire, but something comes out. Essentially, the eye was believed to be a conduit for a stream that originated inside the body. This “fire” was reinforced by outside light to produce perception of the object after returning to the eye. Believe it or not, the evil eye is not unreasonable in this context. Plutarch writes:

A discourse happening at supper concerning those that are said to bewitch or have a bewitching eye, most of the company looked upon it as a whim, and laughed at it. But Metrius Florus, who then gave us a supper, said that the strange events wonderfully confirmed the report... “The cause why anything is so, reason must find out; but that a thing is so, testimony is a sufficient evidence; and we have a thousand instances of this sort attested. We know that some men by looking upon young children hurt them very much, their weak and soft temperature being wrought upon and perverted, whilst those that are strong and firm are not so liable to be wrought upon. And Phylarchus tells us that the Thibians, the old inhabitants about Pontus, were destructive not only to little children, but to some also of riper years; for those upon whom they looked or breathed, or to whom they spake, would languish and grow sick. And this, likely, those of other countries perceived who bought slaves there. But perhaps this is not so much to be wondered at, for in touching and handling there is some apparent principle and cause of the effect.”

Plutarch responds:

True, said I, but methinks there is some small track to the cause of this effect, if you come to the effluvia of bodies. For smell, voice, breath, and the like, are effluvia from animal bodies, and material parts that move the senses, which are wrought upon by their impulse. Now it is very likely that such effluvia must continually part from animals, by reason of their heat and motion; for by that the spirits are agitated, and the body, being struck by those, must continually send forth effluvia. And it is probable that these pass chiefly through the eye. For the sight, being very vigorous and active, together with the spirit upon which it depends, sends forth a strange fiery power; so that by it men act and suffer very much, and are always proportionably pleased or displeased, according as the visible objects are agreeable or not. Love, that greatest and most violent passion of the soul, takes its beginning from the eye; so that a lover, when he looks upon the fair, flows out as it were, and seems to mix with her. And therefore why should any one, that believes men can be affected and prejudiced by the sight, imagine that they cannot act and hurt as well? For the mutual looks of mature beauties, and that which comes from the eye, whether light or a stream of spirits, melt and dissolve the lovers with a pleasing pain, which they call the bittersweet of love. For neither by touching or hearing the voice of their beloved are they so much wounded and wrought upon, as by looking and being looked upon again... And of all diseases, soreness of the eyes is the most infectious; so strong and vigorous is the sight, and so easily does it cause infirmities in another. ⁸

Plutarch believed that smell, voice and breath were caused by streams of particles emanating from some “body.” When these particles came into contact with another person, they excited the sense organs producing real physical effects. Likewise, the eye sent out streams of particles that could produce love, sickness, and even death. Thus, envy, greed, and like could be manifested externally causing real harm. Superman has nothing on the evil eye. Fascinators had super-breath and death-ray eyes. Pliny relates Isogonus' (Epigonus) tale about the Triballians and Illyrians who were supposedly able to kill men with just a look. Phylarchus tells of the Thibbi, mentioned above, who were able to make grown men sick with not only a look, but with their breath or voice as well. ⁹

Ancient literature is replete with references to the evil eye. This belief spread to Europe and the Americas and has survived even into our time. As of today, there are over six-hundred evil eye trinkets on eBay. This does not include ancient artifacts. In antiquity, avoiding the gaze of fascinators was serious business. Just about anyone could possess the evil eye regardless of gender, age, class, or occupation – it didn't matter. However, some people were more suspect than others. Rivals, strangers or the physically deformed were more likely to be possessors as were greedy or envious people. Sometimes beautiful children would be disguised or hidden from view since they were considered especially vulnerable to attack, as noted by Plutarch. Good fortune and competition for status could also trigger envy.

Various strategies arose to distract the gaze of a fascinator. Statues of a satyer, a mythical beast of part human and part horse (or sometimes goat) composition, were placed in gardens for protection. Rings and amulets depicting the evil eye were also used to thwart its damaging effects - “like against like” or evil against evil. Similarly, sailing vessels would have the evil eye painted on the port and starboard sides of the bow. Even obscene hand gestures and spitting were considered deterrents. ¹⁰

Only A Greek Superstition?

The Greeks were not the only culture to be wary of the evil eye and its effects. Philo accuses the Egyptians of being an evil-eyed people. ¹¹ The belief in death-ray vision is also represented in Jewish culture. Some rabbis taught that the evil eye could bring about death. ¹² The Judeans, like the Greeks, invented strategies for protection. The Talmud instructs:

If a man on going into a town is afraid of the Evil Eye, let him take the thumb of his right hand in his left hand and the thumb of his left hand in his right hand, and say: I, so-and-so, am of the seed of Joseph over which the evil eye has no power... ¹³

Don't judge the rabbis as superstitious just yet. The evil eye is even present in the Old Testament. The Septuagint contains numerous references including Proverbs 23:6; 28:22; Deuteronomy 15:7-9; 28:54-57; and also Sirach 14:6-10; 18:18; 31:13; Tobit 4:1-21; Wisdom 4:12.

Do not dine with an evil-eyed man or desire his food. (Proverbs 23:6, my translation)

An evil-eyed man desires quick riches, but he does not know that the merciful will have power over him. (Proverbs 23:6, my translation)

The one who is tender and very delicate among you with the eye shall bewitch his brother... (Deut. 28:54, my translation)

Some may be tempted to dismiss this by saying that “rabbis” were responsible for translating the Septuagint, too. It's just an example of Hellenized Jewish thought. But is it? “Evil eye” is in the Hebrew text as well as the New Testament. We cited the LXX as it has more examples, it represents a larger tradition, i.e., it has more books.

Jesus and the Evil Eye

What is Jesus' teaching on the evil eye? In high context literature like the New Testament, these references could be difficult for modern readers to pick out. However, he did speak about the evil eye on more than one occasion. In fact, we do have some fairly explicit examples, though they are often smoothed over in our modern translations. For instance, Mark 7:20-23:

[Jesus] said, “What comes out of a person defiles him. For from within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, and folly. All these evils come from within and defile a person.” (NET)

The Greek behind the English word envy is ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός (eye evil). Conforming to English syntax, this is of course evil eye. As the ancient references cited above indicate, envy is not an adequate English translation. Jesus' description follows the outline of the ancient Middle Eastern belief presented in our introductory quote concerning to the evil eye. Evil starts in the heart, comes out and manifests externally.

In the parable of the landowner (Matt 20:1-15), Jesus introduces us to a disgruntled laborer complaining about some Johnny-come-lately who had received the same wages for less work. The landowner responds:

Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous? (NET)

As we mentioned above, generosity is a common trigger for the evil eye. Unfortunately, this rendering does not reflect the cultural meaning or the Greek text. This man was not simply envious of the worker - he was giving the big bossman the ol' stink eye. Yes, Jesus claims the field worker had the “bewitching eye.”

Our ancient informant Plutarch provides us with some additional information on eyesight that may be helpful with the next passage. One may recall that sight is the result of fine particles passing through the “fabric” of the eye. If the eye was diseased or old, the returning particles would be blocked, causing poor eyesight. As Plutarch writes:

We see, said he, some species that come from the object to the eye, which at their first rise are thick and great; and therefore when near disturb old men, whose eyes are stiff and not easily penetrated; but when they are separated and diffused into the air, the thick obstructing parts are easily removed, and the subtile remainders coming to the eye gently and easily slide into the pores; and so the disturbance being less, the sight is more vigorous and clear. ¹⁴

This ancient understanding may shed light on Matthew 6:22-23:

The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! (NET)

It would appear that Jesus' teaching reflects a contemporary understanding physiology. There is also an alternate translation:

The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is generous, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

In our introduction to the evil eye, we noted that “generous persons can look on others and do actual good, while envious persons can look on others and do actual damage.” If this is the sense intended here, Jesus would again be referring to the evil eye belief with light and dark representing good and evil.

Paul and the Evil Eye

“O, foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?”

The term bewitched does not accurately convey the meaning of the Greek term. In fact, it is somewhat misleading. Paul uses the verb βασκαίνω, which, as Louw and Nida note, differs from μαγεύω in that the latter involves the use of so-called black magic while the former does not. βασκαίνω is associated with the evil eye, as in, to cast the evil eye. (Cf. LXX Deu 28:54, 56; Sir 14:6, 8) Recall Plutarch, a contemporary of Paul, and the “bewitching” discussion at his supper. This is, apparently, the sort of “bewitching” that Paul had in mind. However, the following translation would make many modern readers uncomfortable:

“O, foolish Galatians! Who has cast the evil eye upon you?”

In Closing

It is clear that numerous biblical authors refer to the evil eye. We have cited various sources to gain an understanding of this ancient belief. But, like the scene at the well, we are still left with the question of truth. ¹⁵ We can grasp the culturally relative meaning of the evil eye, but, as far as we are concerned, the ancients were wrong. What do we do once we discover that their “meaning” does not square with what we know to be “true”?

In order to get at biblical truth, we must first take the bible on its own terms. To do so one must become acquainted with the cultural world from which it came, both the religious and social aspects. Sometimes this means shedding not only our inherited theological framework, but also our so-called scientific knowledge. The world as it was understood by the biblical authors was not the world of the twenty-first century, nineteenth century, nor the sixteenth century. People of the first century believed in the evil eye. There is no need to explain it away by overlaying some anachronistic framework. This only distorts the message. “Science of the bible” is an anachronism. Language derives meaning from social systems. As such, one must attempt to reconstruct the biblical world in order to understand our sacred texts, using their “historically transmitted pattern of meanings” ¹⁶ as best we can. Of course, apart from divine intervention, there is no way for us to build a complete model. Culture is holistic. It is integrated. Every part is connected. We cannot discuss the religious aspects of the bible apart from its social conventions. Our ignorance of one cultural belief, practice, et cetera, can affect (limit? distort?) our understanding another. ¹⁷ It seems we are left to struggle and constantly reexamine what we know. It is a perpetual call to humility. This has been the pattern for centuries, as if Pilate's question is still echoing in our collective conscious. Thank God we are compelled to move beyond our wrongheaded theologies of the past

So what are we to make the words of Jesus and Paul? Did they really believe in the power of the evil eye as described in the ancient sources? Would it matter if they did? For those who may be troubled by this possibility, there is a plausible explanation. Perhaps Jesus was employing an emic strategy, that is, using native categories to explain and talk about the world around him. In other words, he communicated with people in terms they would understand, terms that did not necessarily reflect our current notion of reality, i.e., culturally relative. This will be the topic of our next article, Jesus, Hades, and Mythology, where we will explore Jesus' use of mythology to preach his message.

Footnotes