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.

February 28

For this week, we had to read 2 Esdra and Revelations. After reading them, I understood the initial split between modern Judaism and Christianity, even though the pair had shared origins.

It all really started, I reckon, around the time of sacking of the Temple and the overall destruction of Jerusalem, and the eventual dissolution of Israel. The anonymous author of 2 Esdra talks about that event in very raw, uncompromising tones: he talks about the land of Israel, the second coming of Jerusalem, and of the destruction of the Eagle of Rome (presumably, though he does not name names) by the Lion of David. He uses metaphors and allegories; the titular character has an active dialogue with an angel, Uriel, but 2 Esdra adheres to its point: why Israel, the Promised Land is suffering so, why the Jews are suffering so, and will the divine promise is executed?

That promise, incidentally, is not so much of Moses on Mount Sinai, even though the Mosaic Laws were kept in mind by the author too, but to Abraham in the desert – will the Jews be as sand underfoot or as stars in the sky? Whether rightly or wrongly, this question mattered heavily to the Jewish nation of old and may have influenced their political decisions, especially in the actions of the pre-exilic prophets.

By contrast, the author of Revelations was a Christian, albeit an early one. He has not quite severed all of his ties with Judaism, but is in the process of doing that all the same. Just like the author of 2 Esdra he uses metaphors and is anti-Rome (Rome at the time of Nero was quite anti-Christian), but his metaphors are more literary and elaborative, he is more emotionally detached than his 2 Esdra counterpart is.

For the Christians, Rome at the time of Nero and immediately after his demise was Babylon, or the Whore of Babylon, worthy of nothing else but destruction. In this the author of Revelations (the apostle John is the popular version) comes very close to the author of 2 Esdra, but throughout Revelations he is almost over the top with all the symbolisms and metaphors – what rider on what horse symbolizes what and etc. He can be carried away with that because he is more detached from Rome’s spiritual corruption – furthermore, to him that corruption is spiritual rather than corporeal: he does not care so much about the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem and Israel, for he is a Christian, not a Jew.

Whether or not Jewish nationalism (especially of the times of yore) was good or bad for the country can be argued about. However, severing that nationalism from themselves, was the action that set the Christians apart from the Jews back in the antiquity. The Christians basically declared themselves to be cosmopolite – “neither Hellene nor Jew” – and that is why the orthodox Jews did not recognize them and had conflicts with them.

Ah well, God has judged the two faiths themselves. Nowadays, Jews have Israel and Jerusalem back to themselves (though they have to fight for it again, as they did in the days of the Maccabees), while Christianity is spread almost worldwide and shows no signs of abating.

February 13

Today’s lecture had continued the matters of the last week, by talking about Judith in the first hour. Judith is an apocryphal heroine who had saved Israel from the Assyrian army of Holofernes. Naturally, this is a very famous story, since in ancient times there were few occasions for women to decapitate men and became heroines of state especially on a semi-official basis, and consequently Judith was often depicted in more modern paintings. On this occasion, we saw five of the Renaissance paintings, each one depicting this warrior woman after she had decapitated Holofernes or was in the process of doing so. This is appropriate, seeing how that act was the zenith of Judith’s career as a heroine and literary character, but it also showed how little else there was about her – as a literary character Judith is rather finite. She is not unlike the heroic characters of the Roman republic, which would save their country from the foreign invader, and then return to their humble ploughs, or in case of Judith – humble widowhood. As a literary character Judith is more of a socio-political allegory than a well-rounded person.

The second half of the lecture was taken by the discussion of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes sects. All of them (and also the Zealots) arose after the failed Hellenization of Israel. The Pharisees and Sadducees are mentioned in the New Testament as well since they are religious opponents of Christ and the Apostles: the Pharisees believed in the immortal soul (according to Flavius Josephus), while Sadducees did not. Also, the Sadducees were popular only among the nobility of Israel, while the Pharisee cult was more widespread.

The other cult, the Essenes, were not mentioned in the New Testament directly, thought it is possible that John the Baptist belonged to them. While the Pharisees and the Sadducees were more of secular cults, the Essenes were monastic in their nature: they had no women or slaves among their number, their lives were dedicated only to study of the Torah and hard manual (agrarian) labour – this all brings to mind the lives of the Christian monks up to the medieval times at least.

It also should be noted that the Essenes, just like the Zealots, are not mentioned in the New Testament – certainly not as much as the Pharisees and the Sadducees and certainly not in such negative tones. Perhaps the apostles were on friendlier terms with them? However, the Essenes did leave a certain important mark in history – the Dead Sea scrolls that we began to cover on this lecture as well.

Found in Qumran these scrolls describe a self-sufficient community that is rather Essene in its essence rather than otherwise. It also creates an image of life in Israel at that time and as such the Scrolls are a valuable source of information, and not just of religious, for religion and society in Hasmonean Israel were tightly interwoven (and it is thought that the Dead Sea scrolls describe Pharisees as the enemies of the community, for example).

Today’s lecture was very interesting and has covered a wide range of topics. I have enjoyed following it and hope that the future lectures will be just as good.

February 6

Today we have started to talk about the founding of the Hasmonean dynasty – an important landmark in Jewish history, for it was Israel’s last moment of glory before the Romans have conquered them and burned down the Temple; the Hasmoneans were the last true kings of Israel; with them gone, Israel as a nation was over for a long time too.

The lecture itself – certain technical differences notwithstanding – emphasized the historical aspect of today’s topic too. The first part of the lecture was dedicated to the history itself – history of the Israel after the Babylonian captivity and the rise and demise of Alexander the Great of Macedonia (the Seleucids and Ptolemies mentioned in the Maccabees descended from his generals who helped him conquer the known world of the time), who brought Judea in contact with the rest of the world – and with Hellenization.

Hellenization is the idea that all of the world should adhere to Greek – Hellene – ideas and ideals, something that did not go well with Judea, who had its own ideas and ideals quite different from those of the Greeks. Still, there was a number of Jews who were willing to be Hellenized, and moreover, initially, during the reign of Antiochus III, Judea was given special status and allowed to keep its religious differences and privileges too.

That changed when Antiochus IV took over the Seleucid Empire and revoked Judea’s privileges, before trying to convert it to Hellenism by force. The political and religious corruption of Judea’s elite did not help matters any either, and so Judea rebelled – and rebelled successfully, as in 141 B.C.E Judea became independent once more and for the last time, until the Romans came and conquered it for good. (In a fit of dramatic irony, during the anti-Seleucid revolt, Judea was actually on good terms with the Romans and considered them its allies.)

The second part of the lecture, however, focused on showing how the Maccabees, though historical in context, were not. Rather, they were aimed at ‘making history’ by legitimizing and glorifying the Hasmonean dynasty, after their rule was consolidated, it seems. Thus, the Maccabees (the book, that is) role was to legitimize Hasmonean history, and their report of the Hasmonean uprising is politically slanted, in a manner of speaking.

For example, there was the matter of Antiochus IV’s demise. The horrid way he had perished in Maccabees was shown as very similar to the deaths of the impious kings and other Biblical villains, implying that the Maccabees are not fully trustworthy as a historical resource; thus all that was read in the book must be taken with a grain of salt or two.

Regardless of that, today’s lecture was very, very good and interactive. The information was new and exciting and undoubtedly fun to learn. The technical side of the affairs was slightly rusty, but it was one of those unforeseen circumstances that no one can foresee. I.e. it was still a very enjoyable lecture and I was happy to attend it as well.