As a study aid, I am distributing a review sheet that lists most of the people, places and terms we have studied so far during the semester. They are drawn from your readings and my lectures. This list is by no means exhaustive and I reserve the right to give terms on the exam which do not come from this list. A few of the terms may seem completely unfamiliar because we have not yet covered them in class. You will not be responsible for this material. The death of John Hyrcanus will serve as the chronological limit for the midterm. The material that we cover on Tuesday will not be covered on the exam.
The first section of the exam will consist of ten identifications. Each identification will consist of four parts: a) simple identification b) significant achievement or characteristic c) place d) date- the proper century will suffice (make sure to indicate BCE or CE).
For example:
Maimonides-- philosopher, reconciled Judaism and Aristotelianism, Egypt (Spain would also do), 12th century CE.
Shulhan Arukh -- code, first major codification of Jewish law after Mishneh Torah, Tsefat (Land of Israel, Palestine also acceptable), 16 th C CE.
The first section will be worth 20 pt. Each part of the ID's will then be 1/2 pt each. Students often forget to answer all 4 parts (usually they leave out place since for the most part we only cover Palestine. Make sure to give a full answer- I am essentially giving you a gift here.) Each answer should be no more than one line. The section as a whole should take you no longer than 10 min.
The second section will be a choice of 4 short essays. Each essay should be no longer than 1 or 2 paragraphs (around 3 to 5 sentences). This section is worth 38 pts and should take you no longer than 20 minutes or so.
The last section of the exam will be a longer essay question. The essay will count for 48 pts of the exam and should take you around 45 min. Make sure that you plan accordingly.
Your essay should, first and foremost, demonstrate that you have a solid grasp of the primary sources we have covered thus far. I do not want you to simply reiterate what I have said in class. Don't be concerned with whether or not you know the right answers (in many cases there is none). Concentrate on providing a good answer that stems from a critical reading of the primary sources. Use the secondary materials and class lectures as a way to contextualize your own ideas. Be as specific and clear as possible.
Above all else, make sure that you answer the question. For example, I might ask: 1) Describe the three changes that Herod instituted in his kingdom 2) What was the significance of these changes? [No- we have not covered Herod's reign yet]. An essay which presented a general account of Herod's reign and discussed whether or not he was an inherently good or evil ruler would not sufficiently answer the question. An essay which identified three significant changes initiated by Herod but failed to directly address the significance of these changes would also be insufficient. I realize that this advice seems self-evident, but you would be surprised how common errors such as these can be.
If you have any questions, problems or concerns, please feel free to contact me by email, post a question on the blog, or set up an appointment to meet with me.
All the best. חג שמח
-LRS
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
The Hasmoneans and the Fragmentation of the Seleucid Empire
I thought it might be helpful to you to see the way in which the Maccabean revolt is characterized by an expert in Seleucid history. The following excerpt from a book called From Samarkhand to Sardis by Susan Shermin-White and Amelie Kuhrt uses the revolt to describe in more detail the formation of new political units in the Seleucid empire during the second half of the second century BCE as the central power in Antioch withered and crumbled. These petty Hellenistic kingdoms for the most part modeled themselves after the imperial government they had managed to win independence from. The Hasmoneans were no exception. The narrative provided by I and II Macc allows specialists in Seleucid history to look more closely at the manner in which new political entities in the empire may have emerged:
"An aspect of the Seleucid state in this period that has been given great, perhaps undue, prominence by some historians in relation to the question of its disintegration is the appearance of 'separatist states'; that is, parts of the empire, such as Elymais, Persis, Mesene, Commagene and Judaea apparently sought to establish separate, independent local dynasties, although the chronology of these secessions is not always clear. From the late 160s on, southern Babylonia seems to have split off under a ruler named Hyspaosines who was probably the Seleucid satrap (Tarn 1938, 214; see above); similarly, in Elymais Kamnaskires I (Strabo XVI 1,18; Tarn 1938,466) also became independent, possibly a little later at the time of the Parthian conquest by Mithridates I (Le Rider 1965, 353-435; Frye 1984, 273). From some point either in the third or early in the second century a local dynasty of governors (frataraka) ruled in Persis, but under the suzerainty of the Seleucid kings. Rather like Kamnaskires and Hyspaosines, they too seem to have become independent rulers only by c. 140 as a result of the upheavals caused by the Parthian advance (Frye 1984, 159-61; Wiesehofer 1986; 1988; in press; Koch 1988; cf. above pp. 30; 76-7). At an unknown date in Antiochus IV's reign Commagene, too, seems to have become a separate state under local rulers who gradually built the region into an independent hellenistic kingdom using Seleucid dynastic names and drawing heavily on Iranian and Greek cultural traditions (cf. Dorner 1975; Colledge 1987, 158-9). Where the ultimate allegiance of such rulers was to lie depended inevitably on the power struggles between the Parthians and Seleucids. It is impossible to make any inferences, on the basis of the tiny bits of evidence for these moves, as to how Seleucid rule was perceived at this time within these regions.
The one area that is well documented in this respect is Judaea, which throws light on the kinds of local complexities and rivalries that could arise in a subject community under Seleucid imperial rule. The central texts on which reconstruction of the events rests are I and II Maccabees, extremely hard to analyse because of their highly emotive, biased and even, at times, fictitious character. They reflect a later perception of the revolt against Seleucid rule as a 'Holy War' in which Israel stood alone against the massed hostile forces of the Macedonian and Greek world. They have therefore become a manifesto for the evolving history of Jewish orthodoxy and the definition of Judaism and Jewish identity - all of which has an importance quite divorced from the realities of the fairly small-scale local upheaval that the revolt really was. As with other communities, Antiochus III, like other kings before him, had recognised and actively confirmed and supported the rights of the Jewish ethnos to live under its own laws (the Torah) and social conventions subject to the usual Seleucid tax demands, as well as including hefty grants of immunity to leading sections within the community (cf. above pp. 51-2). It seems clear from Maccabees that a group, called by the text Hellenisers (the exact meaning of which is unclear) and led by the high-priest Jason of Jerusalem, presented themselves as captivated by Greek culture and some typical Greek urban practices. They appear to have begun a move to turn Jerusalem from an ethnos centered on the temple with its traditional cult into a polis of Greek type and with a Greek dynastic name, Antioch (cf. above 183-4). They themselves approached the king, Antiochus IV, and thought to have asked for city status, to which the king appears to have agreed - a fact of some interest since, by doing so, he revoked the policy of his father, Antiochus III. In what way this movement resulted in some interruption and a temporary transformation of the Yahweh cult remains highly ambiguous and fiercely debated (Bickerman 1937; Hengel 1974; 1980; Millar 1978), although the fact that it did so cannot be doubted. A group of pious Jews are presented as being outraged at the sight of their fellow-Jews exercising nude in the gymnasium and wearing new-fangled clothes, such as the, to them, curious Greek hat, thepetasos (I Maccabees 2.15; II Maccabees 4.7-14; cf. above pp. 183-4), and, of course, as horrified at the perversion of traditional religious practices. Firm repressive action, using military force, was taken by the Seleucid authorities against the aggressively orthodox rebels who attempted to impose their beliefs and cultic conventions on the Judaean peoples by brutal means. That this persecution of Jews by Antiochus IV was limited to Judaea and probably needs to be understood primarily in political, rather than specifically religious, terms is clear from a petition sent to Antiochus by the Samaritans and granted by him…
One important outcome of this conflict was the emergence of the Maccabee family as the secular and religious leaders of the Jewish Community, who eventually (in 129 under John Hyracanus) founded themselves an independent dynasty closely modeled on that of the Seleucid kings (see above p. 138). It should be emphasized, against a widespread misconception, that the revolt of the Maccabees did not lead to the secession and independence of Judaea in 164 (cf., for sample, I Maccabees 10.1-9; 10.20; 10.59-60; 13.40); rather, what is striking is the way in which the later Maccabee leaders prided themselves on their close relations with the Seleucid kings and how much they valued, and competed for the honour of being elevated to, the status of royal 'Friends' (cf., for example, I Maccabees 10.20; 10.89; 11.57-8). Only after Antiochus VII's military defeat and death and the major loss of crucial territories, in terms of economic and military Resources, did Judaea come into being as an independent petty kingdom."
from Samarkhand to Sardis p.224-8
"An aspect of the Seleucid state in this period that has been given great, perhaps undue, prominence by some historians in relation to the question of its disintegration is the appearance of 'separatist states'; that is, parts of the empire, such as Elymais, Persis, Mesene, Commagene and Judaea apparently sought to establish separate, independent local dynasties, although the chronology of these secessions is not always clear. From the late 160s on, southern Babylonia seems to have split off under a ruler named Hyspaosines who was probably the Seleucid satrap (Tarn 1938, 214; see above); similarly, in Elymais Kamnaskires I (Strabo XVI 1,18; Tarn 1938,466) also became independent, possibly a little later at the time of the Parthian conquest by Mithridates I (Le Rider 1965, 353-435; Frye 1984, 273). From some point either in the third or early in the second century a local dynasty of governors (frataraka) ruled in Persis, but under the suzerainty of the Seleucid kings. Rather like Kamnaskires and Hyspaosines, they too seem to have become independent rulers only by c. 140 as a result of the upheavals caused by the Parthian advance (Frye 1984, 159-61; Wiesehofer 1986; 1988; in press; Koch 1988; cf. above pp. 30; 76-7). At an unknown date in Antiochus IV's reign Commagene, too, seems to have become a separate state under local rulers who gradually built the region into an independent hellenistic kingdom using Seleucid dynastic names and drawing heavily on Iranian and Greek cultural traditions (cf. Dorner 1975; Colledge 1987, 158-9). Where the ultimate allegiance of such rulers was to lie depended inevitably on the power struggles between the Parthians and Seleucids. It is impossible to make any inferences, on the basis of the tiny bits of evidence for these moves, as to how Seleucid rule was perceived at this time within these regions.
The one area that is well documented in this respect is Judaea, which throws light on the kinds of local complexities and rivalries that could arise in a subject community under Seleucid imperial rule. The central texts on which reconstruction of the events rests are I and II Maccabees, extremely hard to analyse because of their highly emotive, biased and even, at times, fictitious character. They reflect a later perception of the revolt against Seleucid rule as a 'Holy War' in which Israel stood alone against the massed hostile forces of the Macedonian and Greek world. They have therefore become a manifesto for the evolving history of Jewish orthodoxy and the definition of Judaism and Jewish identity - all of which has an importance quite divorced from the realities of the fairly small-scale local upheaval that the revolt really was. As with other communities, Antiochus III, like other kings before him, had recognised and actively confirmed and supported the rights of the Jewish ethnos to live under its own laws (the Torah) and social conventions subject to the usual Seleucid tax demands, as well as including hefty grants of immunity to leading sections within the community (cf. above pp. 51-2). It seems clear from Maccabees that a group, called by the text Hellenisers (the exact meaning of which is unclear) and led by the high-priest Jason of Jerusalem, presented themselves as captivated by Greek culture and some typical Greek urban practices. They appear to have begun a move to turn Jerusalem from an ethnos centered on the temple with its traditional cult into a polis of Greek type and with a Greek dynastic name, Antioch (cf. above 183-4). They themselves approached the king, Antiochus IV, and thought to have asked for city status, to which the king appears to have agreed - a fact of some interest since, by doing so, he revoked the policy of his father, Antiochus III. In what way this movement resulted in some interruption and a temporary transformation of the Yahweh cult remains highly ambiguous and fiercely debated (Bickerman 1937; Hengel 1974; 1980; Millar 1978), although the fact that it did so cannot be doubted. A group of pious Jews are presented as being outraged at the sight of their fellow-Jews exercising nude in the gymnasium and wearing new-fangled clothes, such as the, to them, curious Greek hat, thepetasos (I Maccabees 2.15; II Maccabees 4.7-14; cf. above pp. 183-4), and, of course, as horrified at the perversion of traditional religious practices. Firm repressive action, using military force, was taken by the Seleucid authorities against the aggressively orthodox rebels who attempted to impose their beliefs and cultic conventions on the Judaean peoples by brutal means. That this persecution of Jews by Antiochus IV was limited to Judaea and probably needs to be understood primarily in political, rather than specifically religious, terms is clear from a petition sent to Antiochus by the Samaritans and granted by him…
One important outcome of this conflict was the emergence of the Maccabee family as the secular and religious leaders of the Jewish Community, who eventually (in 129 under John Hyracanus) founded themselves an independent dynasty closely modeled on that of the Seleucid kings (see above p. 138). It should be emphasized, against a widespread misconception, that the revolt of the Maccabees did not lead to the secession and independence of Judaea in 164 (cf., for sample, I Maccabees 10.1-9; 10.20; 10.59-60; 13.40); rather, what is striking is the way in which the later Maccabee leaders prided themselves on their close relations with the Seleucid kings and how much they valued, and competed for the honour of being elevated to, the status of royal 'Friends' (cf., for example, I Maccabees 10.20; 10.89; 11.57-8). Only after Antiochus VII's military defeat and death and the major loss of crucial territories, in terms of economic and military Resources, did Judaea come into being as an independent petty kingdom."
from Samarkhand to Sardis p.224-8
These are the assignments from last week.
Sorry that I took so long to get them up on the website. You can also find the assignments in PDF format on the right side of the page.
Batya Weinstock
October 3, 2006
Ancient Jewish History
The First Book of Maccabees
After Alexander of Macedon defeats Darius, the Median and Persian king, he begins to not only reign over Darius’ kingdoms, but wages wars, captures land and assassinates rulers. Alexander’s successors also “[do] much evil” throughout their respective provinces. Among his evil successors is Antiochus Epiphanes, who conquers both Egypt and Jerusalem with force, brutality and arrogance. Before he seizes Jerusalem, however, the people of Israel are already facing problems with the adoption of heathen ritual and the rebellion from Jewish Law; as it states “…there arose out of Israel lawless men…they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, in the heathen fashion, and submitted to uncircumcision, and disowned the holy agreement.”(375-376)
In Jerusalem, Antiochus enters the Beit haMikdash and “in arrogance”(376) removes items such as the altar, lampstand and “secret treasures”(376). The text mentions Antiochus’ arrogance again, on page 376 as it states, “He massacred people and spoke with great arrogance.” It’s use conveys a possible additional aspect to the relationship between Antiochus’ siege of Jerusalem and the religious disobedience taking place at that time. Perhaps the Jews associated Antiochus’ haughtiness and confidence with factual superiority and therefore strove to further imitate his and his peoples’ ways?
Despite the eager acceptance of heathen practices by many, Antiochus’ siege still spawns intense mourning throughout the land. This grief only increases as two years later, Antiochus cunningly convinces the people of Jerusalem to trust him before he un-expectantly attacks and destroys much of the city and its people. Jerusalem loses her people and with them, her sanctuary’s use and city’s religiosity. Antiochus succeeds in conforming many of the people of Israel so that they, and his own people are practicing the same rituals and following the same laws. It seems at this point in the document that the people of Israel have been split into to very different groups; one group has willingly and perhaps even eagerly adopted heathen practices while the second group was forced “to hide in every hiding place they had.”(378)
The attempt to conform the people of Israel soon turned violent as the Greeks began in “Chislev, in the once hundred and forty-fifth year”(378) to murder the men, women and families who were circumcising their sons. The document suddenly focuses on a specific family on page 379 and tells of Mattathias, a decedent of a priest who transports his family from Jerusalem to Modin. Mattathias laments to his five sons about the atrocities taking place in Jerusalem and in her temple. The family not only refuses to follow the heathen practices but Mattathias even murders a man complying to the king’s order to make a heathen sacrifice, and the commanding officer whose orders the man was following. After this act of defiance Mattathias exclaims, “Let everybody who is zealous for the Law and stands by the agreement come out after me.”(380) It is at this moment that the people of Israel not willing to comply to Antiochus’ decrees (except for Mattathius’ family) form a secluded camp in the wilderness in order to escape their oppression. Antiochus’ army attacks them on the Sabbath but the people refuse to fight due to their religious beliefs; they are all murdered -–“ to the number of a thousand.”(381) This tragedy convinces Mattathius that if attacked on the Sabbath, he and his sons must fight in order to protect themselves.
The following scene in “The First Book of Maccabees” is one that transforms the natures of Mattathius, his sons and his comrades into the stereotypical ‘Maccabees’ that are courageous and righteously violent in their attempt to retain Jewish Law within Israel. Perhaps the reason for this change is that Mattathius and his sons are joined by “Hasideans, war-like Israelites, every one a volunteer for the Law.”(382) The men advance from their hiding and begin destroying heathen altars, circumcising Israel’s children and “[rescuing] the Law from the hands of the heathen and their kings.”(382)
From this point forward, Mattathius and his sons are forceful fighters with significant motivation and a clear mission. They seem to replace fear and grief with fervor and impatience. It is interesting to note where this transformation takes place for it is immediately after their fellow rebels fall that Mattathius and his sons realize the grave danger that they and their beliefs are facing. Mattathius recognizes that unless they use force to combat their oppressors, his people will be erased not only from Jerusalem but from the “face of the earth.”(381)
The Apocrypha, The First Book of Maccabees
Sorry that I took so long to get them up on the website. You can also find the assignments in PDF format on the right side of the page.
Batya Weinstock
October 3, 2006
Ancient Jewish History
The First Book of Maccabees
After Alexander of Macedon defeats Darius, the Median and Persian king, he begins to not only reign over Darius’ kingdoms, but wages wars, captures land and assassinates rulers. Alexander’s successors also “[do] much evil” throughout their respective provinces. Among his evil successors is Antiochus Epiphanes, who conquers both Egypt and Jerusalem with force, brutality and arrogance. Before he seizes Jerusalem, however, the people of Israel are already facing problems with the adoption of heathen ritual and the rebellion from Jewish Law; as it states “…there arose out of Israel lawless men…they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, in the heathen fashion, and submitted to uncircumcision, and disowned the holy agreement.”(375-376)
In Jerusalem, Antiochus enters the Beit haMikdash and “in arrogance”(376) removes items such as the altar, lampstand and “secret treasures”(376). The text mentions Antiochus’ arrogance again, on page 376 as it states, “He massacred people and spoke with great arrogance.” It’s use conveys a possible additional aspect to the relationship between Antiochus’ siege of Jerusalem and the religious disobedience taking place at that time. Perhaps the Jews associated Antiochus’ haughtiness and confidence with factual superiority and therefore strove to further imitate his and his peoples’ ways?
Despite the eager acceptance of heathen practices by many, Antiochus’ siege still spawns intense mourning throughout the land. This grief only increases as two years later, Antiochus cunningly convinces the people of Jerusalem to trust him before he un-expectantly attacks and destroys much of the city and its people. Jerusalem loses her people and with them, her sanctuary’s use and city’s religiosity. Antiochus succeeds in conforming many of the people of Israel so that they, and his own people are practicing the same rituals and following the same laws. It seems at this point in the document that the people of Israel have been split into to very different groups; one group has willingly and perhaps even eagerly adopted heathen practices while the second group was forced “to hide in every hiding place they had.”(378)
The attempt to conform the people of Israel soon turned violent as the Greeks began in “Chislev, in the once hundred and forty-fifth year”(378) to murder the men, women and families who were circumcising their sons. The document suddenly focuses on a specific family on page 379 and tells of Mattathias, a decedent of a priest who transports his family from Jerusalem to Modin. Mattathias laments to his five sons about the atrocities taking place in Jerusalem and in her temple. The family not only refuses to follow the heathen practices but Mattathias even murders a man complying to the king’s order to make a heathen sacrifice, and the commanding officer whose orders the man was following. After this act of defiance Mattathias exclaims, “Let everybody who is zealous for the Law and stands by the agreement come out after me.”(380) It is at this moment that the people of Israel not willing to comply to Antiochus’ decrees (except for Mattathius’ family) form a secluded camp in the wilderness in order to escape their oppression. Antiochus’ army attacks them on the Sabbath but the people refuse to fight due to their religious beliefs; they are all murdered -–“ to the number of a thousand.”(381) This tragedy convinces Mattathius that if attacked on the Sabbath, he and his sons must fight in order to protect themselves.
The following scene in “The First Book of Maccabees” is one that transforms the natures of Mattathius, his sons and his comrades into the stereotypical ‘Maccabees’ that are courageous and righteously violent in their attempt to retain Jewish Law within Israel. Perhaps the reason for this change is that Mattathius and his sons are joined by “Hasideans, war-like Israelites, every one a volunteer for the Law.”(382) The men advance from their hiding and begin destroying heathen altars, circumcising Israel’s children and “[rescuing] the Law from the hands of the heathen and their kings.”(382)
From this point forward, Mattathius and his sons are forceful fighters with significant motivation and a clear mission. They seem to replace fear and grief with fervor and impatience. It is interesting to note where this transformation takes place for it is immediately after their fellow rebels fall that Mattathius and his sons realize the grave danger that they and their beliefs are facing. Mattathius recognizes that unless they use force to combat their oppressors, his people will be erased not only from Jerusalem but from the “face of the earth.”(381)
The Apocrypha, The First Book of Maccabees
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Josephus BJ 2:184-203 by Adam Weiler
Adam Weiler
Loren Spielman
Ancient Jewish History Assignment
Josephus BJ 2:184-203
What struck me the most interesting about this source is the Jewish commitment to the laws of their fathers. The Jews are willing to go to war against Rome or even be killed as long as a statue of Emperor Gaius (or any image for that matter) is not placed in their temple. It appears that unlike the Persians and the Hellenistic Rulers, the Roman Caesars did not have much regard for the Jewish Law.
Unlike Gaius, Petronius is much more reasonable. He listens to the Jew's complaints and tries to find a solution. In the end he even defends the Jew's case to Gaius –under the risk of death. This may indicate that although the Jews had strained (at best) relationships with Roman Caesars, with other Romans, maybe Romans actually located in Judea and the surrounding area they had better relationships. This source shows how important the Temple is to the Jews- they are willing to die rather then desecrate it. Also the fact that the Jews in mass appeal to Petronius is interesting. Either this matter was so important that people just flocked to the cause or perhaps the Jews had no efficient and or official person that could serve as an "ambassador" between them and the Romans and so they had to send a crowd instead. How much of what Josephus says is actually true I do not know. However, I do think that we can learn from this text that the Jews held their ancestral laws to be very important and that relations between them and Rome were shaky.
Josephus Ant. 18: 261-309
This text tells much of the same story but with some changes and extra details.
Here Aristobulus, brother of King Agrippa, Helcias the Elder, other powerful members of the house and the civic leaders appeal to Petronius to write to Gaius and get him to change his verdict rather then let things turn to war. The local rulers and people of power did not any violence in the region they wanted their stability. Another detail is the friendship between King Agrippa and Gaius. At a banquet thrown in his honor Gaius promises Agrippa whatever he wants. Agrippa asks that Gaius cancels his order to erect a statue in the Jewish Temple. At first Gaius agrees but when he gets Petronius's letter that says the Jews will revolt if he erects the statue. He gets angry at Petronius and decides to have him killed (luckily for Petronius Gaius is assassinated soon). What's interesting is that here Josephus claims that the Jews would have never revolted. They would have been willing to die but not to actually revolt.
These sources seem to be conflicting. Although the one in Antiquities may just be a more fleshed out version of what was written in the Jewish Wars. But we can certainly see from both that the Jews valued their law (which I am assuming is based on the Torah) and that the local leaders and people of power wanted peace and stability and were willing to let the Jews practice their religion and law to achieve this peace. The Emperor all the way in Rome seem to care less about stability of a little region and more about his general honor and whether his orders were being carried out.
Loren Spielman
Ancient Jewish History Assignment
Josephus BJ 2:184-203
What struck me the most interesting about this source is the Jewish commitment to the laws of their fathers. The Jews are willing to go to war against Rome or even be killed as long as a statue of Emperor Gaius (or any image for that matter) is not placed in their temple. It appears that unlike the Persians and the Hellenistic Rulers, the Roman Caesars did not have much regard for the Jewish Law.
Unlike Gaius, Petronius is much more reasonable. He listens to the Jew's complaints and tries to find a solution. In the end he even defends the Jew's case to Gaius –under the risk of death. This may indicate that although the Jews had strained (at best) relationships with Roman Caesars, with other Romans, maybe Romans actually located in Judea and the surrounding area they had better relationships. This source shows how important the Temple is to the Jews- they are willing to die rather then desecrate it. Also the fact that the Jews in mass appeal to Petronius is interesting. Either this matter was so important that people just flocked to the cause or perhaps the Jews had no efficient and or official person that could serve as an "ambassador" between them and the Romans and so they had to send a crowd instead. How much of what Josephus says is actually true I do not know. However, I do think that we can learn from this text that the Jews held their ancestral laws to be very important and that relations between them and Rome were shaky.
Josephus Ant. 18: 261-309
This text tells much of the same story but with some changes and extra details.
Here Aristobulus, brother of King Agrippa, Helcias the Elder, other powerful members of the house and the civic leaders appeal to Petronius to write to Gaius and get him to change his verdict rather then let things turn to war. The local rulers and people of power did not any violence in the region they wanted their stability. Another detail is the friendship between King Agrippa and Gaius. At a banquet thrown in his honor Gaius promises Agrippa whatever he wants. Agrippa asks that Gaius cancels his order to erect a statue in the Jewish Temple. At first Gaius agrees but when he gets Petronius's letter that says the Jews will revolt if he erects the statue. He gets angry at Petronius and decides to have him killed (luckily for Petronius Gaius is assassinated soon). What's interesting is that here Josephus claims that the Jews would have never revolted. They would have been willing to die but not to actually revolt.
These sources seem to be conflicting. Although the one in Antiquities may just be a more fleshed out version of what was written in the Jewish Wars. But we can certainly see from both that the Jews valued their law (which I am assuming is based on the Torah) and that the local leaders and people of power wanted peace and stability and were willing to let the Jews practice their religion and law to achieve this peace. The Emperor all the way in Rome seem to care less about stability of a little region and more about his general honor and whether his orders were being carried out.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Gabriella Theisen
The First Book of Macabees
The overall portrayal of the story clearly reveals the first book of the Maccabees to have been written by a Jew. The narrator is extremely traumatized by the events that took place, and he feels extremely invested in the temple and the Jewish people‘s plight and survival, for example, “ The very earth was shaken over its inhabitants, and the whole household of Jacob was covered with shame.” (line 46.The Apocrypha,378.) The narrator refers to Jewish texts and Jewish historical knowledge, and the sophisticated, persuasive description of the story seems to show the narrator to have held some level of status.
The first Book of Maccabees presents a brief historical description of the events that took place leading up to the destruction of temples, and the Israelite’s heroic fighting. The book also provides a vivid description of what happened through the lens of a person who is Jewish, and seems to want teach others about what happened, the importance of supporting the Jewish people under the Jewish God.
Historically, Antiochus III upheld Seleucid rule over Palestine with a similar governmental and traditional system as those held during the Ptolemaic period. Persian Judea maintained it’s own government and religious system, in fact Antiochus granted Judea certain financial pardons. Great changes in domestic policy however, came after Antiochus III lost in battle against Rome. As a result, the Seleucids faced extremely high debts to the Roman Republic, a financial burden that greatly altered the Seleucid’s relations with the Jewish community. During this period, the Seleucids did not care to destroy the Jewish religion, but had no qualms pillaging wealthy ancient synagogues to make money. The first section, in the First Book of Maccabees depicts the historical turning point after the death of Alexander “ He mustered a very mighty army and ruled over the lands and rulers of the heathen, and they paid him tribute.” (line 5,6. The Apocrypha. 375) The author’s description of Alexander as a mighty ruler makes sense; Under the rule of Alexander, the Judeans practiced their own traditions in a political environment that supported cohesion among different peoples (this however, becomes a problem later on)
The period of warfare and bloodshed documented after Alexander’s death is written here, “ his servants succeeded him…..for many years, and they did much evil on the earth” (line 9, The Acrophobia, 375.) Jewish political activity proceeding the Hasmonean Revolt focused primarily on maintain Jewish autonomy. The story reflects this ethnocentric mentality upheld by many Judeans. The story might even be viewed as a moral lesson, calling for Jews to follow the “Law.” In the second paragraph, the author describes “lawless men” who came out of Israel wanting to assimilate with the “heathen” in pursuit of an easier and safer life. As the story unfolds, those who assimilated became “slaves of wrongdoing” (The Acrophobia, 376) people who took part in desecrating the temple and committing disgusting atrocities against the Judeans. These actions stand in great contrast to characters like Mattathias, and his son Judas, as well as the other Israelites that died for the Jewish cult. Mattathias makes profound statements in the story, where he declares that he would never let the king forsake the religion of his forefathers. The persona given to the both characters, and to the Israelites as a whole not only make for heroes in the story, but also promote strong will. For Jews during the period the story was redacted, faith and personal strength was crucial for Jewish autonomy. Part of why the author might have written this story so vividly, might have served as a piece to inspire Jews to stay on the religion.
It is also extremely interesting how the author does not mention much about the Judean God directly. Instead, the author quotes Mattitius or Judas refusing to abandon the “Law.” The author never goes into detail about what the “Law” stands for exactly, rather it is a vague symbol of the Jewish God. The “Law” is characterized to be supported by God, seen for example, how the few Israelites are able to take on the entire Antiochus’ and the Roman armies. The First Book of Maccabees serves many purposes, and it is hard to tell whether it was written shortly after the events at hand, or if it was much later. At time that religion was often based on citizenship, or kingdom rule, the story functions most profoundly in how it stands as a strong record that aims to prove that the Jewish cult is the true religion under God.
The First Book of Macabees
The overall portrayal of the story clearly reveals the first book of the Maccabees to have been written by a Jew. The narrator is extremely traumatized by the events that took place, and he feels extremely invested in the temple and the Jewish people‘s plight and survival, for example, “ The very earth was shaken over its inhabitants, and the whole household of Jacob was covered with shame.” (line 46.The Apocrypha,378.) The narrator refers to Jewish texts and Jewish historical knowledge, and the sophisticated, persuasive description of the story seems to show the narrator to have held some level of status.
The first Book of Maccabees presents a brief historical description of the events that took place leading up to the destruction of temples, and the Israelite’s heroic fighting. The book also provides a vivid description of what happened through the lens of a person who is Jewish, and seems to want teach others about what happened, the importance of supporting the Jewish people under the Jewish God.
Historically, Antiochus III upheld Seleucid rule over Palestine with a similar governmental and traditional system as those held during the Ptolemaic period. Persian Judea maintained it’s own government and religious system, in fact Antiochus granted Judea certain financial pardons. Great changes in domestic policy however, came after Antiochus III lost in battle against Rome. As a result, the Seleucids faced extremely high debts to the Roman Republic, a financial burden that greatly altered the Seleucid’s relations with the Jewish community. During this period, the Seleucids did not care to destroy the Jewish religion, but had no qualms pillaging wealthy ancient synagogues to make money. The first section, in the First Book of Maccabees depicts the historical turning point after the death of Alexander “ He mustered a very mighty army and ruled over the lands and rulers of the heathen, and they paid him tribute.” (line 5,6. The Apocrypha. 375) The author’s description of Alexander as a mighty ruler makes sense; Under the rule of Alexander, the Judeans practiced their own traditions in a political environment that supported cohesion among different peoples (this however, becomes a problem later on)
The period of warfare and bloodshed documented after Alexander’s death is written here, “ his servants succeeded him…..for many years, and they did much evil on the earth” (line 9, The Acrophobia, 375.) Jewish political activity proceeding the Hasmonean Revolt focused primarily on maintain Jewish autonomy. The story reflects this ethnocentric mentality upheld by many Judeans. The story might even be viewed as a moral lesson, calling for Jews to follow the “Law.” In the second paragraph, the author describes “lawless men” who came out of Israel wanting to assimilate with the “heathen” in pursuit of an easier and safer life. As the story unfolds, those who assimilated became “slaves of wrongdoing” (The Acrophobia, 376) people who took part in desecrating the temple and committing disgusting atrocities against the Judeans. These actions stand in great contrast to characters like Mattathias, and his son Judas, as well as the other Israelites that died for the Jewish cult. Mattathias makes profound statements in the story, where he declares that he would never let the king forsake the religion of his forefathers. The persona given to the both characters, and to the Israelites as a whole not only make for heroes in the story, but also promote strong will. For Jews during the period the story was redacted, faith and personal strength was crucial for Jewish autonomy. Part of why the author might have written this story so vividly, might have served as a piece to inspire Jews to stay on the religion.
It is also extremely interesting how the author does not mention much about the Judean God directly. Instead, the author quotes Mattitius or Judas refusing to abandon the “Law.” The author never goes into detail about what the “Law” stands for exactly, rather it is a vague symbol of the Jewish God. The “Law” is characterized to be supported by God, seen for example, how the few Israelites are able to take on the entire Antiochus’ and the Roman armies. The First Book of Maccabees serves many purposes, and it is hard to tell whether it was written shortly after the events at hand, or if it was much later. At time that religion was often based on citizenship, or kingdom rule, the story functions most profoundly in how it stands as a strong record that aims to prove that the Jewish cult is the true religion under God.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Seleucid Period
The assignment sign up sheet is now available on the blog. Those of you who have not signed up for all three slots should email me and let me know which open slots they can fill.
There was a little bit of confusion last class about the Zenon Archive. Really, all you need to know is certain details from Josephus' Tobaid romance can be verified by archaeological evidence.
It seems as though the Tobaids were in close contact with the Ptolemaic government. We know this because correspondence between a "Toubias" (Greek for Tobiah) and Apollonius (second in command to Ptolemy II) were discovered in Egypt. A fortress discovered in the Trans-Jordan has some features that are similar to Josephus' description of Hyrcanus' (son of Joseph son of Toubias) fortress. An inscription with the name Tobiah was also found on site.
Toubias, Jospeph and Hyrcanus all appear to be descendants of Tobiah the Ammonite from the book of Nehemiah.
As for next class, continue reading Ben Sirach and Koheleth. We will also discuss the excerpt from Josephus' Jewish Antiquities Book 12, a charter granted by the Seleucid king Antiochus III to the Jews.
I suggest that you get started reading I and II Maccabees if you can. At the very least you can use the excerpts from the course packet. For those of you who are more ambitious, try reading all of I and II Macc. There are several good versions of the text as these books are part of the Apocrypha and are preserved in most Christian Old Testaments:
1) The Anchor Bible series volumes 41 and 41a (ed. Jonathan Goldstein) has a good translation but his notes can be a little outlandish at times.
2) The Apochrypha ed. by Goodspeed
3) The NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) Bible
4) The RSV (revised standard version) which can be found online here.
5) For the ambitious, the Hebrew text of I Macc reconstructed by Uriel Rappaport can be useful to look at- ספר מקבים BS1825.53 .R36 2004
There was a little bit of confusion last class about the Zenon Archive. Really, all you need to know is certain details from Josephus' Tobaid romance can be verified by archaeological evidence.
It seems as though the Tobaids were in close contact with the Ptolemaic government. We know this because correspondence between a "Toubias" (Greek for Tobiah) and Apollonius (second in command to Ptolemy II) were discovered in Egypt. A fortress discovered in the Trans-Jordan has some features that are similar to Josephus' description of Hyrcanus' (son of Joseph son of Toubias) fortress. An inscription with the name Tobiah was also found on site.
Toubias, Jospeph and Hyrcanus all appear to be descendants of Tobiah the Ammonite from the book of Nehemiah.
As for next class, continue reading Ben Sirach and Koheleth. We will also discuss the excerpt from Josephus' Jewish Antiquities Book 12, a charter granted by the Seleucid king Antiochus III to the Jews.
I suggest that you get started reading I and II Maccabees if you can. At the very least you can use the excerpts from the course packet. For those of you who are more ambitious, try reading all of I and II Macc. There are several good versions of the text as these books are part of the Apocrypha and are preserved in most Christian Old Testaments:
1) The Anchor Bible series volumes 41 and 41a (ed. Jonathan Goldstein) has a good translation but his notes can be a little outlandish at times.
2) The Apochrypha ed. by Goodspeed
3) The NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) Bible
4) The RSV (revised standard version) which can be found online here.
5) For the ambitious, the Hebrew text of I Macc reconstructed by Uriel Rappaport can be useful to look at- ספר מקבים BS1825.53 .R36 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
