Jan 30, 2012

On today’s lecture we have covered the matters of the first Jewish diasporas, and how they were reflected in Jewish literature. To do that, we looked at Tobit, an interesting mixture of canon and apocryphal literature of between approximately mid-third and early second century B.C.E.

As far as literary works go, Tobit opens a window in the society of displaced Jews: the titular hero and his relatives live in foreign cities, and Tobiah, in particular, has to travel to meet, rescue and marry his cousin Sarah. In Genesis, Abraham’s wife Sarah too lives in a different place than Abraham, but what marks Tobit apart from Genesis is its’ marital urgency and the emphasis matter on family bonds. This reflects the difference in lives of the Jews when Genesis and Tobit were written: at the time of Genesis, the issue of Jews marrying Gentiles was not as acute as it was in Tobit, and Jews had not yet been driven out of Judea, forcing to be dispersed and come into a greater contact with the Gentiles. Still, this similarity implies that Tobit’s author was at least partially inspired by the story of Abraham and Sarah and had incorporated its elements into Tobit.

Another point of difference between Tobit and the saga of Abraham is the presence of Raphael the angel. By the standards of canon Old Testament, the story of Abraham is quite “angel-intense”, since usually God prefers to work behind the scenes, using people such as judges and prophets to do His work, while angels just deliver messages instead. Not so Raphael in Tobit – here he accompanies Tobiah to Sarah, gives him instructions, and helps him get rid of the demon Asmodeus who has plagued Sarah and killed her grooms before.

(This is another point of difference between Tobit and canon Bible: in canon Bible there are no demons; certainly no literal and corporeal demons as the one in Tobit. This, coupled with the fact that Tobit was written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew, confirms that Tobit is a much later work than Genesis, for example.)

Raphael the angel, Asmodeus the demon, and the magical fish that Tobiah captured and killed to rescue Sarah and his father are all elements not of the Biblical literature, but of the more basic folklore and magical fairy tales of the ancient Jews: Raphael the angel behaves roughly like Puss in the Boots aiding the hero Tobiah in rescuing his wife-to-be and his father. The speeches of Tobit the titular hero and Sarah, conversely, are much more biblical, reminding their audience of passages from Deuteronomy and reassuring them that the hard times of dispersion (such as Babylonian captivity in past) will pass, and God will punish the wicked and show mercy to the righteous and the true believers, no matter what hardships they will suffer before. This must have made Tobit popular in the past, though not popular enough to be included as canon – it was probably written too late for that, and had elements that may have been too frivolous or comic for the rabbis. Regardless, Tobit is still an educational and enjoyable novella and has attracted readers ever since it was written; I certainly had enjoyed reading it and hope that I will read more pieces like it in the future.

Jan 24

Today the reading consisted of the first 5 chapters of the apocryphal book of Jubilees. Just as the canon book of Genesis, it discusses the creation of the world and the early history of the Hebrews. However, there were important differences between the two texts, especially regarding their writing styles.

The books of Genesis were written in a concise, cut and dry tone of voice. There was little to no description, there was little dialogue (and monologue in the latter books), and there were some genealogies. The books of Jubilees had it all, but in a much more descriptive and detailed tone of voice, where all sorts of little bits of information – Cain dying because his house collapsed on him, for example – were added. This made Jubilees more extended than Genesis; it also may have made it more confusing. I certainly prefer the Genesis and the original matter-of-fact tone; Jubilees’ descriptive and flowery narrative just adds a lot of information that is not quite necessary: something that identifies it not just as a secondary work, but a work of an enthusiastic Bible reader, who wanted write his or her own version and did it in the way they wanted to.

The same thing applies for the second reading of the week, “Joseph and Asenath”. It is an elaboration of Genesis 39-41, of Joseph’s life as viceroy in Egypt, and it introduces many new characters, including Asenath’s Joseph’s wife. Just like Jubilees, “Joseph and Asenath” also introduces the same descriptive language that is present in the Jubilees, especially when it talks about Asenath’s conversion to Judaism. (Conversions to Judaism did not often appear in Torah or Old Testament – another point where “Joseph and Asenath” diverge from canon.)

Finally, there are the romantic novel factors, such as Joseph’s rival for Asenath, Joseph’s evil half-brothers who want to kill him for their own reasons, and so on. This, combined with the fact that “Joseph and Asenath” was initially found written in Greek implies that it is a more modern work as a Bible and may not be fully religious at all.

For all of that going on against “Joseph and Asenath”, it was still an interesting and intriguing read with plenty of action and romance going on. Moreover, this piece of fiction is similar to modern Harlequin romance novels – perhaps their literary ancestor in a manner of speaking. Anyways, the romantic tones of this piece did not decrease anything from it, and it was interesting to see the secular response to the religious tone of the Genesis (and probably other books).

Therefore, in conclusion I feel that it can be said that both Jubilees and “Joseph and Asenath” openly introduce the apocryphal writings of the Bible and show why they did not become canon: they do not fit in with the main literary genre of the Bible (documentary rather than romantic) and as such – though the Jubilees, for example – while highly respected by the rabbis, etc., were not made part of the canon. They are still interesting to read, though, and I am happy to have read them.

Jan 16, 2012

Today we have started the discussion of interpreting the origins of the Biblical texts. It was a very exciting, conversation-filled class where the students had the chance to contribute to the topic of discussion – i.e. what had defined the biblical texts in past and present as canon or non-canon, which was the main topic of our discussion.

To accomplish this topic, however, today’s lecture developed gradually. First, we looked at an example of a text – a lyrical song – and asked obvious questions about it: who wrote, for whom, for what reason, under what circumstances, etc. As the students have asked these questions (and were answered them, eventually), they realized that one and the same text can have several interpretations depending on how these questions are answered.

This point was driven further home with the next example – an excerpt of king Solomon’s Song of Songs, an example that connected Biblical texts with that of a romantic song, because, basically, it was both. It was also hard to recognize as a part of Biblical text due to its very confusing textual imagery that does not appear to be straightforwardly religious either.

Then the discussion turned to the issue of translation from the original Hebrew text to other languages, such as Greek, Latin and English. The latter was shown in particular by several examples of Genesis 1:1-3 by their slight differences in translation and grammar. (‘wind of God’ vs. ‘spirit of God’, etc). Also, this was shown on the slide when the gospel of Mathew was compared with one of the earlier prophets: a single stylistic difference resulted in Jesus arriving in Jerusalem on two donkeys instead of one, technically speaking.

Naturally, such changes can have quite an effect (for example, the gospels of Mark and Luke do not have the mangled reference found in Mathew or any reference to this prophecy at all.) Yet, there were accidental changes of translation, and then there were probably more deliberate ones, related perhaps to changing politics of the past: the occupation of Judea by Babylonians and Persians, for example. Another example is the case of Enoch in the more canonical text of Genesis 5 and the more apocryphal text of Sirach: Sirach, being more oriented towards the specifics of Hebrew national culture and away from the more general religious overtones of the Bible gives Enoch more character, explaining that he was pious and that was why he was taken by God, while in Genesis this explanation did not take place. This changed Enoch’s character as well as role in the Genesis – a small difference, but a difference all the same.

Today’s lecture was very interesting and dynamic, full of interesting lectures and even a song. It was very enjoyable and easy to follow and understand. It was full of examples as well, and I, for one, have really benefited from it. Hopefully, the followed classes will be just as exciting and interesting as this one was.