When Hamlet says, "We defy augury," modern readers are likely to understand this in terms of such familiar expressions as to defy comprehension and take it to mean, "Whatever is predicted of us, we can ignore the prediction and do otherwise." In fact, Hamlet's meaning is very nearly the opposite: We ignore omens that would allow us to predict and prevent future events, because all is fated and the future cannot be changed.
The naïve reader is liable to make a similar mistake in interpreting Jesus' famously cryptic statement to Simon Peter: "The cock shall not call out till thou hast denied me thrice." Thinking of such expressions as when pigs fly or when hell freezes over, the reader is likely to understand Jesus as saying, "You will certainly never deny me."
There are multiple obvious problems with this reading, though. What can thrice mean, for instance? That Peter might deny Jesus once or twice but that three times was unthinkable? And isn't the whole construction backwards? We say, "That won't happen until pigs fly," not, "Pigs won't fly until that happens."
As it happens, there is very strong textual evidence that what Jesus meant was, "You will certainly deny me, this very night." As strange as it may seem, multiple ancient authorities attribute to the "cock" (ἀλέκτωρ) a distinctive cry or "crow," sometimes represented as kukuriku or some similar onomatopoeia, and apparently cocks used to "crow" with such regularity that farmers used to use them as a sort of natural alarm clock, rising "at cockcrow" -- that is, at dawn. Thus, Jesus almost certainly meant, "You will deny me thrice before daybreak."
What to make, then, of the fact that Peter apparently never did deny Jesus, not even once, but stood with him when all the other disciples had abandoned him and was crucified alongside him? And how to reconcile the whole story with the very obvious fact that the cock has no call and is in fact proverbial for its silence?
Secular scholars will explain it away, of course. Jesus simply made a mistake, they will say, and his prophecy did not come true. And the ἀλέκτωρ that is represented in the New Testament, the Homeric Hymns, Pindar's Odes, and elsewhere as "crowing" loudly and regularly must have been some other species than the silent barnyard fowl we know today.
The faithful, however, can recognize the very strong evidence that the biblical ἀλέκτωρ is none other than our familiar cock or rooster, that this very animal used to give a distinctive call every day at dawn, and that all this "crowing" abruptly and miraculously ceased when Peter -- in the naïve, not the Shakespearean sense -- defied augury.
6 comments:
William,
Regarding this statement : "We ignore omens that would allow us to predict and prevent future events, because all is fated and the future cannot be changed".
IMO, we ignore omens because our EGO convinces us not to listen to our Soul which our Soul
is where intuition and creativity is sourced.
Creativity allows us to 'manifest' something into being, that didn't before exist.
That's what the 'crowing' is about, which is the "Speaking" something into existence, much like the Bee and its Honeyed words.
Honey can nurture AND it can also be used to heal open wounds.
Allowing and trusting ourselves to ignore our Ego and 'listen' to our Soul instead, and then applying that knowledge from our Soul is freedom.
That process is how we tap and utilize our Free Will, which is priceless.
The Future absolutely can be changed.
Debbie, I accept the reality of free will and the possibility of literally changing the future.
This post is a thought experiment asking what might have happened if Peter had made the other choice, as he surely could have done.
Roosters are silent and have no call? Did I misunderstand a joke, or are we living in two different realities?
I was with Illuminatus until I suddenly understood the last sentence of comment #2.
"This post is a thought experiment asking what might have happened if Peter had made the other choice, as he surely could have done."
Ah... now I think I. got it. I think what you're getting at is: "One man's modus ponens, is another's modus tollens".
Posts from alternate timelines do occasionally slip in here. Apologies for any confusion!
Post a Comment