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.
I’m interested in your reaction to “Joseph and Aseneth”, which I also found to be very different in tone from the story of Joseph as told in Genesis.
ReplyDeleteYou describe “Joseph and Aseneth” as maybe not “fully religious”. I think you imply that the “romantic novel factors” and the later date of composition are for you key differences in the religiousness (so to speak) of the text. This surprises me because I found “Joseph and Aseneth” to be very heavy handed in its emphasis on piety and the distinction between Jew and Gentile. For me it was the story of an over-proud character who, rejected by a godly person, learns humility so that she might be subsequently accepted by that same person (and, by extension, by God). For me this was far from a “secular response” to Genesis.
That said, I think what you wrote points very clearly to the issue of literary genre or mode and how changing views or receptions of certain literary features can cause something to be viewed as religious or secular, frivolous or serious, high or low. I’ve recently been thinking about how we tend to regard tragic or sad narratives as somehow more elevated, more seriously artful, than comic or happy narratives. I wonder if “Joseph and Aseneth” would seem to us more weighty if it ended more like Romeo and Juliet than My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
The issue of the age of the text is also important, and I’m glad you pointed it out. The mere antiquity of texts can also elevate them. A farce by Rossini or Mozart is high art to 21st-century audiences; likewise the most ancient shopping list or recipe for stew attracts scholarly attention. If we read “Joseph and Aseneth” as later, as derivative, does it lose some of its lustre?
Thanks for your post. I look forward to reading your blog as the course continues!
That is what's bothering me, actually. In canon Old Testament, there is little to no Gentile conversion unlike the New, and piety is not very present either (just look at the slaughter of the Levits when Moses got back from M. Sinai the first time and saw the whole golden calf debacle - that's not exactly pious is it?) - and since "J&A" have both, this makes it more apocryphal than canon in my mind.
DeleteThe fact that it was written in Greek rather than Hebrew also makes me think that it's a more Christian, than Judaic (i.e. later) text. In any case, I did enjoy reading it as well: it was fun, slightly sappy and very enjoyable all the same. Thanks for the response, too.