Jonathan Henkin, Emily Watkins, Simone Gore and Jonah Rank are signed up to complete their first assignment for today.
You can post your assignments as responses to this blog entry. Make sure you let everyone know what you are writing about. Remember to include your name somewhere in your post. I will try to archive all of your work so that it will be easy for students to find later on in the semester.
If you can't post and would like to, send me your assignment as an email attachment and I will post it for you.
See you all tomorrow,
LRS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jon Henkin-Wed. 9/20/06 –Ancient Jewish History-Loren Spielman-Assignment #1
Introduction for Readings: Josephus BJ (Jewish War) I: 184-215, 401-428
The focus of these 2 excerpts is the Roman takeover of Judea, with the second set of readings focusing almost exclusively on the actions taken by king Herod. The first set of readings opens with a description of the power struggles for control of Judea. After the death, in 67 B.C.E, of Shelomziyyon Alexandra, her sons Hyrcanus and Aristobulus vie for leadership of the Judean territory. Hyrcanus initially loses his positions in the priesthood; however he recruits a powerful man named Antipater, from the Idumean clan, as his main ally. Together, the forces of Hyrcanus and Antipater defeat Aristobulus (Ben-Sasson 222-3).
It is at this point that we pick up Josephus, who says that Aristobulus was “poisoned by Pompey’s friends” (I: 184). Antipaters achieves great success in battle when he defeats a legion of Egyptians pursuing Mithridates of Pergasus. As a reward, he is granted by Roman citizenship by Julius Caesar, who appoints Antipater as viceroy of Judea and Hyrcanus as Kohen Gadol. Antipater tours Judea, essentially threatening the population to comply with the rule of Hyrcanus. However, at the same time Hyrcanus sees that Antipater does not have the fortitude to rule over Judea. He therefore appoints his oldest son, Phasael, as governor of Jerusalem and his younger son, Herod, as governor of the Galilee. One of Herod’s first acts is to demolish the troops of a warlord named Ezekias who was ravaging the Syrian frontier. Josephus says that “Up and down the villages and in the towns the praises of Herod were sung, as the restorer of their peace and possessions” (I: 205).
However, over time, a number of high-ranking officials become annoyed at the seeming lack of activity undertaken by Hyrcanus and proclaim themselves the heads of state. Herod, as punishment to the rebels, without explicit orders to do so, and contrary to Jewish law, has them executed. Hyrcanus is enraged at this show of excess brutality and power and summons Herod to trial. Herod travels to the Galilee, armed with a force strong enough to not be caught off guard but not so strong as to appear as if he has designs of overthrowing Hyrcanus. Hyrcanus clears Herod of the charges of manslaughter, partially on the advice of one Sextus Caesar, but also, according to Josephus, “for he loved Herod” (I: 211).
Herod retreats to Damascus, but Hyrcanus believes it is only a matter of time before Herod attacks him. Indeed, when Sextus Caesar names Herod governor of Coele-Syria and Samaria, giving him a vast increase in power, Herod marches of Jerusalem with the intent to dispose of Hyrcanus. However, Herod’s anger is tempered by his father and brother, who remind Herod that though Hyrcanus had put him on trial, it was to Hyrcanus that he owed his acquittal as well as much of his political success.
We move, then, on to the second set of writing. This collection is mostly about the exploits of Herod during his reign as king of Judea, from 37-4 B.C.E. Josephus starts with perhaps his crowning accomplishment-the expansion of the Second Temple and the large wall that he builds around it, the part which remains standing today we know as the Kotel. Josephus says that “The expenditure devoted to this was incalculable, its magnificence never surpassed…” (I: 401). He also erects other settlements and fortresses with names such as Antonia, Caesareum, and Aggripeum. Josephus sums up acutely by saying that “In short, one can mention no suitable spot within his realm, which he left destitute of some mark of homage to Caesar” (I: 407). (Note that he means Augustus Caesar, not Julius.) Josephus goes at great length to describe the process of construction of a new port city on the Mediterranean named Caesarea. He also, as Josephus says, “did not neglect to leave memorials of himself” (I: 410). He gives the name Herodium to a fortress on the Arabian frontier and a hill near Jerusalem.
Josephus also lists many of the places outside Judea that received the benefit of Herod’s generosity: Tripolis, Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, Rhodes, Athens are just some of the cities to whom Herod gives gifts of food, architecture, or other important materials. He also helps re-start the Olympic Games, which took place on his visits to Rome; he gives the Games a massive influx of funds and is named president of the Games. Josephus says that “The enumeration of the debts and taxes discharged by himself would be endless” (I: 428). He does conclude, however, that “Often, however, his noble generosity was thwarted by the fear of exciting either jealousy or the suspicion of entertaining some higher ambition…” (I: 428).
Indeed, Herod’s legacy today can be seen in two of the most spectacular sites in Israel: the Western Wall and Masada, which, before it was the last stand of the Zealots was improved and renovated by Herod (Ben-Sasson 243). Like many of the most powerful Romans, Herod was a powerful, cruel, and terrible man who also did many great things and, for better or for worse, his legacy as the builder of Judea can be still clearly witnessed to this day in the place where he reigned for more than 3 decades.
-Ben-Sasson, Haim Hillel, ed. A History of the Jewish People. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.
-Josephus Jewish War I: 184-215, 401-428
Emily Watkins
September 25, 2006
Ancient Jewish History 1010
Close Reading of Kohelet
The book of Kohelet begins by stating that it is what “Kohelet son of David king in Jerusalem” said. There are several things that are peculiar about this introduction. The only son of David to be king in Jerusalem was Shlomo, but it is not clear why he takes on another name. In addition, these are not the writings of Kohelet, but what he “said”. The Hebrew uses the words “אמר” and “דברי” which both refer to speech, not writings. Shlomo is credited with writing this, Shir haShirim, and Mishle, all of which have very different themes, however I will focus on Kohelet.
One of the first things that is apparent when reading the text is the repetition of certain phrases throughout the text. One such repeating phrase is “(all is) futile and pursuit of wind”. This phrase appears five times in the first four chapters alone, generally after an explanation of how the world is meaningless. Kohelet also frequently speaks of what is “under the sun”.
Kohelet is a mix of several different writing styles. They are not separated into sections, but rather switch back and forth in quick succession. In some sections Kohelet speaks in verse, while in others he speaks in prose. Kohelet also has a habit of asking questions that do not have apparent answers such as, “Who can possibly know what is best for a man to do in life – the few days of his fleeting life? For who can tell what the future holds for him under the sun?” (6:12) Some questions are more rhetorical appearing simply to argue his point and some seem to be more directed at a higher power who could perhaps answer them. Kohelet sometimes speaks in patterns with repeating words or a series of opposites. The first example of this, which has become popular with a song by The Byrds, is a list of opposites, “a time to live, a time to die, a time… a time for slaying and a time for healing, a time for tearing down and a time for building up” (3:2-3). The next series does not involve a formulaic repetition of words, but rather a play on words as it says, “tov shem m’shemen tov”, “A good name is better than fragrant oil” (7:1). This is almost like a mirror, with “tov” and “shem” reversing in the second half of he phrase to “shem(en)” and then “tov”.
Frequently throughout the text Kohelet seems to be giving advice to his readers. He, an apparently old man who has seen the whole world from his high up place on the throne, is giving advice to the reader, though it is unknown who this intended reader is supposed to be. Perhaps it is from a position of self-perceived wisdom that Kohelet preaches his findings of the world to his audience, but the purpose is very unclear. It does not seem likely that a king would give advice to his subjects, commands seems more expected. Perhaps we can infer that he is speaking to his children who will one day possess the crown. Indeed the text mentions his son saying, “Against them, my son, be warned.” (12:12). However, we do not know if he is speaking literally or metaphorically here and therefore cannot conclude anything about the audience.
The overall theme of this work is that ultimate everything is futile and meaningless. Although Kohelet clearly speaks of a God, he does not see a purpose to existence. “Man has no superiority over beast, since both amount to nothing.” (3:19). This theme of meaninglessness, seems to contradict the idea of giving advice. If Kohelet truely believed that “both [man and beast] came from dust and both return to dust” then what would be the purpose of giving advice? If everything is meaningless then it seems that there is point in bettering a doomed world. Or perhaps this advice is the little bit of hope left in Kohelet.
Jonah Rank
September 25, 2006
His1010x Ancient Jewish History
Instructor- Loren Spielman
II Baruch
Though not canonized in the Jewish Bible, II Baruch, also known as Apocalypse of Baruch, survives today as an important source for inferring the natures of early Jewish eschatological, mythological, and prophetical philosophies. II Baruch, an apocalyptical writing that is preserved in full form only from a 19th century Syriac translation of an earlier Greek transcription (which today exists only in fragments) and translations deriving from those two sources, is dated, according to its author (Baruch, if the work is indeed as eponymous as claimed) to the twenty fifth year of Jeconiah, king of Judah (and, still according to the author, is based on Baruch’s visions from the evening before and after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE). Scholars of such extracanonical literature, such as Yehoshua M. Grintz, dissent with the the Apocalypse of Baruch’s claims and surmise that the work was written originally in Hebrew shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. but before the Bar Kokhba revolt (in the early mid-second century of the common era). Scholars comparing Jewish literature also often note the many parallels and agreeing accounts in II Baruch and Rabbinic Literature. For example, Manasseh’s five-faced idol which Baruch discusses is recounted both in the Talmud and in Devarim Rabbah. Thus, while II Baruch remained part of the Apocrypha, many of its ideas are clearly consistent with early Jewish theology. II Baruch offers the modern scholar many clues as to early Jewish philosophies.
II Baruch is full of repeated actions, abstract images, and allusions to canonical sources. According to the work (note that from hereon, references made regarding Baruch’s actions and the actions of other characters are their actions as recorded as occurring in II Baruch), Baruch hears that the destruction of the Temple will be a temporary destruction: that the Temple culture will in fact be revived after its approaching demise. Baruch, on the subsequent day, sees a vision of four angels burning Jerusalem as a fifth angel extricates holy objects from the Temple to preserve the vessels until, the anticipated moment of II Baruch’s eschatological concerns, the end of days. Baruch, who, aside from apparently being a prophet, is Jeremiah’s scribe, is commanded by God to tell Jeremiah to leave Jerusalem’s ruins with the exiled Jews while Baruch remains in the land. After Jeremiah heeds God’s order (relayed by Baruch), Baruch hears a voice tell him that he will survive until the end of days: a point in time that Baruch identifies as equivalent to the arrival of the Messiah. Though it is not clear why, Baruch fasts for seven days and then is told that the messianic age will come after all the souls that need to be born will have been created. II Baruch’s eschatological preaching permeate huge portions of the remaining text.
II Baruch then turns to Baruch prophesying to the people that the Temple will be rebuilt, re-destroyed, and again rebuilt – for eternity. Baruch then sees visions of natural (though, really, unnatural) phenomena – all of which symbolize the prophesied epochs of the Temple culture through the arrival of the Messiah. Baruch then travels to Hebron and fasts for seven more days and is now told by the same voice that the righteous people who have died will come back to life in the days of the Messiah. The final prophetic vision of II Baruch, portraying six “black waters” and six “bright waters” (respectively symbolizing great canonical sins of man and six elite polities of Baruch’s people’s history) vying to rise to the top of the envisioned world, concludes with the advent of the Messianic kingdom. With the conclusion of II Baruch, Baruch praises God and thanks God for these revelations Baruch believes to have encountered and, to cap his experiences, writes letters to the tribes of Israel to recount his eschatology’s advice: the tribes of Israel, if they fully repent their actions, will be granted redemption and the long-awaited Messianic era.
SOURCES CITED:
“Baruch, Apocalypse of.” Encyclopaedia Judaica: CD-ROM Edition. CD-ROM. Jerusalem: Keter, 1997.
Slick, Matthew J. 2 Baruch. 2002. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. September 25, 2006 http://www.carm.net/lost/2baruch.htm.
Simone Gore
9/28/06
AJH
Professor Spielman
An Examination of First Maccabees (1.1-4.3)
First Maccabees has a historical preface that briefly tells the back story of the Seleucid Empire : “It came to pass after Alexander, the son of Phillip, who came from the land of Chittim, had utterly defeated Darius…”(1 Macc.1.1-3). The story relates, in what is a primary believable narrative, the story of the Seleucid conquest of Judea and the subsequent rebellion against the government due to their enactment of cruel anti-Jewish laws. For the purpose of this response, I will analyze First Maccabees via the use of language.
First Maccabees certainly gives the aura of historicity, and the main detraction from the “accuracy” is the tendency of the author(s) to use very biased language. However, it is easy to the see the prejudice within the text, “And he [Alexander of Macedon] made his way to the end of the earth and despoiled a multitude of nations” (1 Macc. 1.3). Did Alexander really despoil a multitude of nations? According to Anthony Padgen, “Alexander had been relatively constrained in his handling of defeated populations” (Padgen 9). It is interesting how the author(s) loathe Alexander, perhaps they have fond recollections of folk tales of the generosity of the Persians. Another interesting use of language is when “On the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, he [Antiochus Epiphanes] erected a dreadful desecration upon the altar” (1 Macc. 1.44). Dreadful desecration, is that a dysphemism for idol? The loathing of “heathen” behavior runs rampant through the language of the text, which is logical, because after all the Maccabees were fighting against Greek influence and the government enforcement of pagan practices.
The whole pattern of writing shifts (from diction to tone) when dealing with the Jews and the Temple. In fact, several times First Maccabees waxes poetical and switches to verse: “And they shed innocent blood all around the sanctuary…The inhabitants of Jerusalem fled away because of them,/And she became a place where strangers lived…Her dishonor was as great as her glory had been” (1 Macc. 1.37-40). The poetry here is poignant and heart-wrenching, which helps to underline the cause of the Maccabees (i.e. the return to the proper practice of worship and the rededication of the Temple). A very interesting aspect about First Maccabees is the apparent Jewish flight from Jerusalem due to the enforcement of the anti-Jewish laws, like the murder of circumcised infants. This flight was more or less a miniature exile of observant Jews into the Judean heartland. This phenomenon is mentioned twice within the text, in the above poem “The inhabitants of Jerusalem...”and “Then many seekers for uprightness and justice went down into the wilderness to settle, with their sons and wives and their cattle” (1 Macc. 2.29-30). Another striking part of First Maccabees is the apparent massing of slave traders before the presumed destruction of Judea “And he [Lysias] sent with them [his generals Nicanor and Gorgias] forty thousand men and seven thousand horses to go to the land of Judah and destroy it, as the king had commanded” (1 Macc. 3.39). A large force, so it follows that the presumed destruction of Judea would be great, so “The merchants of the country heard about them [the Seleucid army] and they took a great quantity of silver and gold, and fetters, and came to the camp to get the Israelites for slaves” (1 Macc. 3.41-42). I imagine that the massing of slavers before an imminent battle may have been a relatively common occurrence in ancient times. However, at this point the slavers were not to enslave the Israelites at this time do to the strategy of Judah Maccabee and the other sons of Mattathias.
Perhaps, part of the language issue might result from translation. Norman Gottwald suggests, “The Books of Maccabees did not enter the canon, in spite of their thrilling accounts of Jewish national revival, because they were written in Greek” (Gottwald 414). Anything that is translated loses something with the resulting transformation into another language and gains something of the translator’s biases. Perhaps part of the feel of the language results from translation. A general idea about the author’s biases is apparent within the repeated words that can stand for the themes, found within the text, like profane, heathen, glory, and zeal. The themes are the profanation of the Temple and Judaism by the heathen, and the resulting zeal of the righteous Maccabees will and does restore the glory of the Temple and proper Judaic practice (banned by Antiochus, according to the text), like circumcision, the observance of Shabbat, etc. Verily, zealotry is lauded in the text. Mattathias is described as slaying a Jew performing idolatry, and is likened to Pinchas of the Pentateuch. The text also praises the practice of the Maccabees and their followers of forcible circumcision.
Ultimately, First Maccabees is a story of the glorious zealots triumphing over the profane heathen. This text gives important insight into the life of religious Jews during the Seleucid period as well as the behavior of slave traders. The language (albeit slightly marred from translation) is a good method for analyzing First Maccabees, because the language is basically all that we as historians have to work with.
Works Cited
First Maccabees. Coursepacket. JTS, 2006.
Gottwald, Norman. The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-literary Introduction. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1987.
Pagden, Anthony. Peoples and Empires. New York: The Modern Library, 2001.
Post a Comment