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.

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.