March 20

Lately, the texts for our lectures discuss the beginning of the Judeo-Christian split and the possible reasons behind it. From what I have read in the materials and heard during the lectures, I began to suspect that one of the reasons that this split has occurred is in the fact that Christians started to re-interpret the Jewish prophecies and scriptures.

This has started with Jesus himself, I believe. Though he claimed to be a savior (a messiah), he certainly did not behave as one according to the Jewish religious canon, but rather he reinterpreted it as and when he saw fit to do it. Incidentally, there is nothing particularly inherently wrong with it: at that time, the Jews themselves often interpreted and reinterpreted their canon as they saw fit: four official variation of the Jewish faith show this, to say nothing of the various sects, such as Dead Sea one. The Christians, in the beginning, were just one Jewish sect out of many, and only their elevation by the emperor Constantine gave them their new status as a global – or at least all-European – religion.

The Jews, for better or for worse, did not quite realize the change in the relationship between them and the Christians, and that resulted in a rather rocky relationship between the two groups. On one hand there was the harassment of Christians by the Jews and of Jews by the Christians; on the other...

Even with Constantine’s edict (let alone some time before it), the Christians were ‘new kids on the block’ both in terms of religious history and European history in general. Therefore, when they began to send missionaries to new countries and people, such as the German tribes in the north, they began to encounter such problems as proof – how could they prove to the Germans, the Franks, the Celts, etc that there really had been Jesus, he was crucified, he ascended, etc? The northerners were less sophisticated people than the people of the Mediterranean Sea basin were, they did not believe in myths and legends and logical speeches slash philosophies, they were more of a ‘doubting Tom’ sort of people, and they needed something concrete. The Jews, who were around for much longer than the Christians were at this point, served as this concrete proof – maybe unwillingly, possibly in a negative way regarding the Crucifixion, but serve as proof they were.

The Jewish faith has also served another purpose – to bulk up the Bible. As a recent lecture revealed, about three quarters of New Testament consists of letters, personal documentation (and of the remains one half are the Gospels) that are short, precise and to the point – and also lack even the scanty description and the hefty religious history of the Genesis. When preaching to initially sceptical people of northern Europe anything that could help sway them was considering important enough to be Christian, and that included the Torah, refurbished and eventually reinterpreted as Old Testament.

And so, as far as I can see, the relationship between Jews and Christians has started uneasily, and it continued uneasily, and it remains relatively uneasy even in modern times. Does anyone wants to disagree?

March 13

When did the Judeo-Christian conflict start? The ‘canonical’ answer is to be found in the Gospels, I suppose, as shown in the conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees & the scribes (the Sadducees?), and later on between them and Jesus’ disciples. However...

The trick here that Judaism was initially both a religion and a national identity for the Jews, but after the Babylonian captivity this tandem became very convoluted, as at least 4 official (and possibly all sort of unofficial) Jewish sects/religious directions became evident. Jesus’ teachings, though destined to greatness, at that time were just another noisy sect, as pointed out in “Jesus Christ, Superstar” musical. What is more, Jesus and his apostles might have perceived themselves thusly too, or at least as still being Jewish, as Paul’s letter to Galatians indicates: Paul thinks of himself as a Jew in that instance.

This transforms the initial Judeo-Christian confrontation into something internal, at least to the eyes of the pagans such as the Romans. Certainly at the times of Nero, of Titus and Vespasian, the Roman government did not really distinguish between the two branches of monotheism at all. But then came Constantine (who, admittedly, was not discussed in this course) and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, giving it an edge over Judaism.

There is nothing as bitter as quarrels between close relatives, and I guess that the Judeo-Christian conflict is no exception. Even Paul’s Letter to Galatians, his Jewish claim notwithstanding, heralds the beginning of a split, as indicated by his use of Ishmael/Isaac parable. Ishmael, incidentally, is assumed to be the ancestor of the Arabs, so Paul’s use of him (and of Isaac) is rather apocryphal, as a matter of fact.

(Actually, Jesus himself may have initiated it when he not quite claimed to be the Messiah yet behaved clearly not as the ‘canonical’ Jewish Messiah. But then again, as indicated by the Dead Sea sect, various ‘apocryphal’ sects were not uncommon in Israel at that time, so Jesus did not invent anything new, not really.)

In any case, the split that began at the time of the Galatians continued to deepen, obviously. And, of course, it was only chance that had put Christians over their religious cousins, but that does not change the situation: i.e., as soon as Christians gained the upper hand they began to dominate their religious cousins including various unpleasant excesses.

Conversely, though, as the Gospels indicate, that while the Jews had the upper hand (and Israel was not destroyed), they did not behave any better either. Family quarrels, even when put on a higher level, are bitter.

However, what about our course? Well, apparently next week we will start to study the fledgling (and deteriorating) relations between the Jews and the Christians. Paul’s Letter to Galatians is merely a first swallow of things to come. In modern times, though, this rift shows signs of closing, so perhaps it is important not to dwell on the past too much, and that is something to think about as well.

March 6

When we began reading texts in this course, the first texts we had to read, among others, where the canon Genesis and the apocryphal Jubilees. While reading this, I noticed that they were very different: the canon text was dry and matter-of-fact, while the apocryphal one was much elaborate and descriptive. One may even say that it was a further development/literary evolution of the canon.

Then, the previous week we had to read 2 Ezra from Old Testament and Revelations from New Testament, and here the tone of the texts was very descriptive and elaborate – very different from the dry-cut tone of Genesis, much more similar to Jubilees.

Finally, this week we had to read Gospel of Mark, and here the tone was closer to Genesis instead. Considering that this text is the first in New Testament, this allows me to draw a conclusion that the gradual elaboration of the Biblical texts was a chronological process and may have been affected by the pagan influences as well.

More precisely, Genesis was written before the exile, when Israel was relatively isolated from more powerful pagan influences such as Babylonian or Greek, and as such it is one of the more ‘canonical’ texts, it is very matter-of-fact. 1 Maccabees, which we have also read, are something of a ‘missing link’: this book is factual on one hand, but written in a very fancy tone. 2 Ezra is written probably at the very end of the existence of the ancient Israel, and it is very evocative and metaphorical, like Revelations, but unlike Genesis. Apocryphal Jubilees, “Joseph and Asenath”, etc, were probably written around that time too.

Gospel of Mark, however, is like Genesis and unlike Revelations – or Gospel of John, for that matter. It is very concise, very matter-of-fact, and focused not on divine miracles, even the Resurrect and the Ascension, but on realism and on Christ’s parables. Therefore, if the Gospels are biographies of Christ, then the Gospel of Mark might be the most precise, especially since the popular opinion is that Matthew and Luke had used the Gospel of Mark as one of the literary sources for their gospels. This means that the Gospel of Mark is also older than their Gospels (and also the Gospel of John), but also that it is more ‘old-fashioned’ than the rest of them.

Finally, this means that the process of the Biblical texts, both Old Testament and New, from factual/‘canon’ to fancy/‘apocryphal’ may not have been completely continuous, in a single straight line. Rather, it was probably more convoluted, with the elements of both writing styles appearing at different times almost regardless of the time – almost. The factual, canon text was still the first one to be used in the Bible.

Then again, the dry, ‘old-fashioned’ writing style of Gospel of Mark may mean only that Mark, regardless of his conversion to Christianity, was a conservative, old-fashioned fellow, and wrote his book in a writing style that he was more comfortable – as opposed to more modern and liberal John, as evident by the Gospel of John. Either way, these revelations are part of the reason why I am enjoying this course so much and hope to enjoy it in the future.