Tag: New Insight

This essay will show that when the founding process of Christianity took place the events leading up to the new movement were spread over a time span of approximately 500 years and involved a number of crucial shifts such as the religion itself, the surrounding culture, and the political climate.

Following the exile of the Jews into Babylon in 538 BCE after Persia conquered them, Cyrus came to power and released the Jews to return to Palestine and rebuild the temple. It was a time of renewal and reform and in 400 BCE a resurgence of Judaism took place with prophets recalling people to the lifestyle.  Here in Palestine the Jews of Judaism began to follow the rituals of Torah, “Way”, Temple and Priesthood.  

However, a shift had taken place and not all Jews were prepared to leave where they were living and return to start afresh again in Palestine.  Therefore, while those in the Diaspora fostered the emergence of Pharisaic Judaism, with the teaching of the Talmud, accompanied by debate taking place in the synagogues. In 333 BCE. Alexander the Great carried out his conquest of Ancient Near East opening up Greek Empire with the spread of Language, Culture and Arts.  

Synagogue and Scribes emerge for the Diaspora Jews and Torah “Way” changes to “Teaching” discussion & debate.   In 63 BCE Roman Conquest took place with severe persecution for the Jews erupting with some revolts.  

In this turmoil a messianic hope was revived amongst the Jews.  A division between two sects of Judaism the Pharisees and the Saducees had developed.  Within this climate of dispersion and diversity, persecution and division, Hellenism’s influences, involved such as then Hellenising influence of Language, Culture and Arts, the distance and the alienating changes that would naturally occur between the Palestinian Jews and the Jews who did not return, the stagnant bureaucracy of Rabbinical Judaism all caused the people to be dissatisfied enough to break away from it.  

Within this melting pot a new movement sprang up.  Its founder was a prophetic type figure calling the leaders to reform.  His message was not a new one.  His was the same message as the prophets of old, that of God’s love for his people, calling them to return to the essence of their religion, “to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with their God” (Micah).  He was put to death by the consensus of those he opposed.  

The “crisis of continuance” was met.  New leaders arose and the threefold “interrelated phenomena of belief, event, and activity” carried the movement forward.  The gathered community shared the belief in the resurrection of the dead.  The event of ‘Pentecost’ as recorded in the Book of Acts falls into the even category where those gathered received “spiritual empowerment”.  The “Activity-phenomena”, of these three saw acts of healing, teaching, and preaching.  The outcome was conversions and the new religious movement flourished (p 60, Pratt, Formation of the early Church in Study Guile RELS 112).  

In sum, Rabbinical Judaism was in a time of change.  Centrifugal forces caused by Hellinism and Rome was producing pressure from without.  Centripetal forces within the movement came from changes in the fundamentals of their religion, between Temple and Synagogue, Torah and Talmud, – “Way” and “Teach” – Priest and Rabbi.  The division between the Pharisees and Sadducees would also have had its influence in opening up a breach, thus making way for a new movement such as Christianity to succeed. 

END

ANCIENT HISTORY: Citizen and Society in Ancient Rome.

Question: What role did women play within the Roman family? Did they have a role in Roman society outside the family?

To discover what role women played within the Roman family (familia) and outside it, different social classes of women and their various roles in the home and society will be considered in this essay: women’s official role in the family, occupations outside the home, religious activities, women in politics and education.  I will argue that women’s roles changed due to two main factors: the blurring of the Roman domestic and public spheres, and, an ideological shift that took place in the in the law under Augustus. As a direct result of these two factors, Roman women, particularly patrician women, gained greater social, economical, and political freedom under the law and in society.

The Roman woman was not confined to the home and hearth, as was the Greek upper-class woman.  However, her gender identity was held by the Roman state to be biologically scripted, being ‘linguistically and socially constructed in the interests of patriarchal power relations’.[1]  The obvious difference between the Roman matron and her Greek counterpart is discernable due to the blurring of the domestic and public spheres in ancient Roman society.

The elite Roman family’s role, as a major, if not the main political unit, in a staunchly and traditionally patriarchal system, ‘was able to furnish its womenfolk with what modern political scientists label a ‘power base’.[2]  The official role of the Roman upper class mother (mater), the wife of a patrician, was to prepare their freeborn sons (filius) to become fruitful Roman citizens (civis romani) with all the pride that this job involved.  It was due to this central role that the Roman woman was honoured.

Therefore, because of the way in which the Roman upper-class family was structured, the upper class Roman matron (matrona) held an official position as lawful wife, lawful mother and citizen.  In this central position from the private sphere, in both political and social significance, Roman women were required to participate in men’s lives in order to assimilate their values and act as faithful transmitters of them.  Entrusted with this fundamental instrument for the perpetuation of a transmittance of a culture, it could be said that Rome’s political system depended upon the Roman matron’s co-operation to continue to function as it did.

Not withstanding her familial duties, all of Rome’s women and children were under the law of the male head of the household (paterfamilias); this law greatly-hindered her freedom.  Romans considered the woman as intellectually inferior to the male of the species, ‘Our ancestors established the rule that all women, because of their weakness of intellect, should be under the power of guardians’. [3]

However, an ideological shift took place in the law, during the imperial period of Augustus’ reforms, bringing with it a measure of autonomy for women (27 BC-AD 14).  ‘Guardianship terminates for a free-born woman by title of maternity of three children, for a freed-woman under statutory guardianship by maternity of four children: those who have other kinds of guardians … are released from wardship by title of three children’. [4]

Outside the home, the history of women and politics in ancient Rome reveals an unofficial women’s politics of protest.  Cato, as early as 195 BC, complained, ‘must we accept law from a succession of women?  Our ancestors would not have a woman transact private matters of business without a guardian, but we allow them to visit the Forum and the Assembly, to support a bill, to canvas for the repeal of a law.  Let them succeed in this and what limit to their ambitions will there be? [5]  Finally, upper class Roman women’s involvement in imperial Roman society arrived in their influencing the emperor’s choice of policy and a candidate, so much so that, Cato the Censor, 195 BC said, ‘once or twice women came close to co regency. [6]

The Roman upper-class woman had a responsibility to her husband, her family and the state to remain chaste and at least appear to uphold the traditional ideological image and role.  ‘Here lies Amymone, wife of Marcus, best and most beautiful, worker in wool, pious, chaste, thrifty, faithful, a stayer-at-home’. [7]  Though the sources for women are limited, these describe, in the main, what men wanted to convey about women.  However, there is a difference between social ideology and social behaviour; between the prescriptive and the descriptive.

In keeping with Rome’s prescriptive ideology, the Roman woman’s fidelity provided alliances with other patrician houses (gens).  These alliances were due, in the main, to the Rome’s upper-class daughter’s (filia) training to comply with Rome’s traditional ideology regarding women through marriage.   Training was carried out by their mothers.

The description given of Murdia reveals her as such a daughter, albeit described through male words and ideals.  ‘She determined to maintain the marriages given her by her parents to worthy men, with obedience and proprietary, and as a bride to become more beloved because of her merits, to be thought dearer because of her loyalty, to be left in greater honour because of her judgment, and after her death to be praised in the estimation of her fellow citizens’. [8]  Faithful daughters such as Murdia provided the link in the Roman system, marrying together families for political power.

Class and social distinctions were set according to a moral standard, by age and by whether women were slave (servus) or free, along with marital status.  Fundamental subdivisions such as young virgin, celibate adult, wife, wife married only once and widow, carried all the way through to religious observances.  Such distinctions played their part to maintain social control over Rome’s women and their prescribed roles in that society. [9]

Before Christianity finally took over, Rome had its traditional state religions as well as the imported Oriental exotic varieties.  Both kinds of religions held exclusive public festivals for women to both enlist divine aid or to divert the wrath of a deity. [10]  However, other than the perpetual priesthood of Rome’s six vestal virgins, buried alive for punishment if found out for breaking their chastity vows, the priests of Rome’s religions were male.  Nevertheless, in private, women of Rome were the traditional keepers of religion.  Cicero reminds his wife of the division that was in Roman society between the religious and the secular, the woman and the man: ‘The [ideal] division of labour – the cultivation of the heavenly powers by the woman and the care of the mundane by the man’. [11]

Roman women, unlike their Greek counterpart, dined with men and went out in the street.  However, certain proprietaries did prevail in which Kathleen Corley proposes that aspects of Grece-Roman meal etiquette were undergoing changes that reflected larger cultural forces throughout Greco Roman society.  ‘Just as women were moving into public roles and gaining rights previously denied them under a more restrictive Greek social code, Roman women were attending public meals. [12]

Such meals were a standard feature of Roman society.  Banquets, therefore, provided a role for slave women to fulfil, such as, waiting on tables, working as musicians and dancers.  The slave women’s duties also included sexual favours, carried out following the main meal.  This is when drinking and other frivolous behaviour took place. [13]

A large number of home-born women slaves (verna) fulfilled various roles in wealthy Roman households.  There, they were involved in every manner of general domestic duties, as well as wet nurses, and, depending upon their background and country of origin, even educators.  In some instances, a woman slave may even be the housekeeper of a villa.  Varro, on agriculture, records that slave women were involved in agricultural activities on a country estate which meant being involved in hard labour: ‘being able to tend the herd or carry firewood and cook the food, or to keep things in order in their huts’. [14]

The Roman master had sexual access to all his slave women.  For some of Rome’s males, slave women were, inevitably, a source of income for him as part of Rome’s sex trade.  There, slave women worked as prostitutes in brothels, inns, or public baths, as were women actors and entertainers who sometimes appeared nude and performed sexual acts on stage.  Slave women could buy their freedom or be granted it by their owner while either alive or by will at death.

Roman women, over the centuries, took every opportunity to break free from the confines of Roman ideology.  The impact of two generation of civil war (90-30 BCE) and heads of noble families killed, or exiled, saw educated and leisured women become enterprising women, using whatever means they had at their disposal.  Valeria Messalina, in accosting and winning in marriage the autocrat Sulla; Caecilia Metella, used her position for political influence.  Others, such as Cicero’s wife, Terentia, ran financial affairs through her steward, and profited at her husband’s expense.  Yet, others, such as Cato’s half sister, Servilia, used her skills through family connections. This was to make alliances thru the marriages of her daughters with rising politicians of many kinds of groups.[15].

Scholars have offered scant evidence of ancient Roman women’s education and their role in it.  However, a recent work states ‘from the late republic onwards upper-class girls, as a rule, received an elementary education and quite a number of them followed (part of) the course in grammar on a level with the boys of their class … in the liberal arts, especially mathematics and philosophy’.[16]  C. Musonius Rufus, a Stoic philosopher, argued for the education of girls to make her a chaste wife, a prudent manager of the household and a good mother, who would guide her children and her grandchildren by example.[17]

Through education, women’s lives took on new meaning, influences, and new roles.  Cornelia, the mother of the Graccchi (200 BC) was the earliest highly educated women we know of, and was a patron of Greek scholars and men of letters in her later years.[18]  Cornelia ‘had a good knowledge of literature, of playing the lyre, and of geometry, as well as being a regular and intelligent listener to lectures on philosophy’.[19]  Other Roman women who received education had access to libraries.  Women of patrons of literature and learning are also mentioned in the same work by Hemelrijk.

During the period of Republican Rome, women are reported as speaking in court for the first time, due to the unsettled times and loss of men at and in the war.  Maesia of Sentinum earned the name ‘Androgyne’ for pleading in her own defence.  Afrania ‘was addicted to lawsuits… a notorious example of female abuse of court’.[20]  The famous argument put forward by Hortensia, who, because of the heavy taxes of civil war, she pleaded before the triumvirs on behalf of Rome’s wealthy matrons, in 42 BCE, is well known  ‘Why should we pay taxes when we have no part in the honours, the commands, the statecraft for which you contend against each other with such harmful results’.[21]

Roman women, particularly patrician women, gained greater social, economical and political freedom for themselves and ultimately, for other women of Rome, due to the blurring of the public and the private sphere.  Such blurring provided the women with a power base in the home.  In the time of Augustus, an ideological shift took place that also allowed them some autonomy.  Civil wars affected Rome’s society and women’s roles and women themselves, by their own efforts, saw their roles and power expand within and outside the home, amongst women of the upper as well as the lower classes.

[1] Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, But She Said: Feminist practices of biblicaliInterpretation, Boston, 1992, p. 88. 

[2] Judith Hallett, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society: Women and the elite family, Princeton, 1984, p. 29.

[3] Naphtali, Lewis & Meyer, Reinhold, (ed), Roman Civilization, Sourcebook 11: The Empire, London, 1966, p. 543.

[4] Elaine Fantham, Helene Peet Foley, Natalie Boymel Kampen, Sarah B. Pomeroy, H. A. Shapiro, Women in Classical World: Image and text, Oxford, p. 303.

[5] Richard A. Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome, London, 1992, p 1.

[6] ibid., p. 6.

[7] Mary R. Lefkowitz & Maureen B. Fant, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome: A source book in translation, Baltimore, 1992, p. 17.

[8] ibid., p 17-18.

[9] Sarah Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: women in classical antiquity, New York, 1975, p 206.

[10] Ibid., p. 206.  

[11] ibid., p. 205.

[12] Kathleen E. Corley, Private Women, Public Meals: social conflict in the synoptic tradition, Massachusetts, 1993, p. 24.

[13] ibid., p 47.

[14] Fantham, Foley, Kampen, Pomeroy, op. cit, p. 267.

[15] Ibid., p. 272.

[16] Emily A. Hemelrijk, Marona Docta: Educated women in the roman elite from Cornelia to Julia Domna, 1999, London,p. 59.

[17] ibid., p. 61-4.

[18] Ibid., p. 54.

[19] Ibid., p. 272.

[20] ibid., p. 273.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Rome

[21] Ibid., p. 273.   Hortensia, daughter of consul and advocate Quintus Hortensius Hortalus, earned notoriety during the late Roman Republic as a skilled orator. She is best known for giving a speech in front of the members of the Second Triumvirate in 42 B.C. that resulted in the partial repeal of a tax on wealthy Roman women.

END

The major features of the development phenomena for Judaism

‘All religions have gained the shape substance and even substantive content that they have, through the complexity of human interaction and historical process’. Discuss this statement with reference to the major features of the development phenomena for Judaism’.

It is impossible to talk about the Jewish people without talking of their religion, the Promised Land and the coming Messiah. Up to this present day, many forces have been at work in shaping Israel: the elect community, the Torah, the Jewish academies, the development of Jewish literature, the Jews suffering with their struggle for survival, their persistence and adaptation, their exile and return.

This essay will show that these forces are major features of the development phenomena of Judaism. Through the complexity of this human interaction and historical process, they have shaped Judaism to make it what it is today.

Grounded in the Jewish past are the character of Judaism and its resources for transformation. To be Jewish is to be a part of a community. The initial shaping of the individual character of the Jew is in the home. There, the Jewish mother shapes her children’s futures by imparting her religion, educating them in its rituals and prayers. From the time they went into exile, the next stage of modelling for the Jewish community’s cohesiveness is the local synagogue, ‘the theological significance of community in Judaism finds expression in religious, social, and national life’ (Plaskow 1990 80). Although each synagogue is semi-autonomous, higher authority structures and decision-making was invested in the Sanhedrin and its teaching academies.

A shift had taken place when the Jews went into exile, in Babylon (586-538 BCE). The destruction of the second temple (70 CE) became a critical turning point for the Jews that brought about changes in the Jews religion that paved the way for the next two thousand years.  From the time of the Destruction, the centrality of the temple, its priesthood and the sacrifices became obsolete.  The formative era of the difficult process of self-transformation of the Jews had begun.

The Pharisees became the pivotal point for the Jews survival; they had earlier formulated doctrine toward individualism and a universalistic approach. With this new understanding of the essence of Judaism, the people could survive without a country and a state. Spiritual progress was not limited to geographical borders; the God of Israel was the God of the whole earth as well as the God of the Jew that observed Torah.

Before the Destruction Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai went to Jabneh in order to establish there a cultural centre for the Jewish people.  In hindsight, this move proved crucial to the survival of the Torah and the Jews.

Torah means revelation: first the five books of Moses, later, the whole Hebrew Scriptures; still later, the oral and written revelation of Sinai, embodied in the Talmud.  Finally, it comes to stand for, to symbolise, what in modern language is called “Judaism”: the whole body of belief, doctrine, practice, patterns of piety and behaviour, and moral and intellectual commitments that constitute the Judaic version of reality (Neusner 1972 21).

An academic Sanhedrin was set up at Jabneh, with the combined functions of education, legislation, judicature, and government.

The task of the Jabneh Sanhedrin was to teach and transmit the oral Torah, by the Midrash (to teach) and the Mishnah (to walk) methods.  Outstanding differences of opinion were resolved and recorded.  Epstein claims that from Jabneh there sprang these series of Midrashim in which the centuries long process of Biblical interpretation reached a high point never equalled (1968 116).

The Jabneh centre was soon recognised as the central religious authority by Jews in Palestine and beyond, even to distant Persia.  The scholars of Jabneh recast the divine services and liturgy; they adapted by substituting the animal sacrifices for prayers.  In external political matters, the Sanhedrin set about providing a wide range of religious, civil, and criminal law as far as the Roman rulers would allow.

During this important early formative era, human intervention again changed the course of the Jews: the Bar Kocheba revolt altered the historical landscape.  Following the revolt, a period of unparalleled persecution resulted.  With the closure of centralised authority and self-government at Jabneh, another door opened.  Shefaram became the centre of authority under the new leadership of Judah, the Prince, whom the Romans appointed Patriarch.  In the meantime, a council of sages met at Lydda, to decree that a Jew, in order to save his or her life, might violate any of the commandments save three, idolatry, murder and incest (which included adultery).  The decree was destined to become the fundamental guiding principle of Jewish life in all the centuries that followed.

Thus were the Jewish people scattered to the four corners of the earth without a state, country, or government.  The Torah, given independent authority, survived and lived on in the hearts and minds of the Jews.  The Jews unity came through their collective knowledge of the Torah disseminated in the local community worldwide, and their allegiance to the one and only God. With a living body of literature that confirmed their own history to them, a unique religion, and a culture that survived in microcosm in all of its host countries, the Jews were destined to preserve their national consciousness.

While under Christian (Byzantine) rule another uprising in Palestine resulted in the final expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem (135 CE).  Babylon continued for a while as the heart of the Diaspora, where the Jews remained stable under the authority of the Exilearch.  The Sanhedrin continued to the seventh century when the rise of Islam began to dominate the Middle East (The Gaonic Age, roughly 650-1100 CE).  It was during this time, when Jews came under Islam rule that their learning and culture, particularly in Spain and across North Africa, blossomed exceedingly.

Compared to their previous persecuted existence under Christian rule, life improved for the Jews under Muslim rule.  The Gaon, the heads of the academies flourished and a great literary output ensued.  The Jews identity, by this time was not with Palestine or Babylon, but with the Dispersion.  ‘It will not be until the twentieth century that that there will be a significant change to this dominant trend: Jews living as a nation or an elect community “set apart” within host societies which are variously tolerant or hostile’ (Pratt 1993 152).

However, it would be a grave mistake to define the community monolithically.  Living in such a diversity of cultures, both external and internal pressures brought about the next great shift in Judaism.  As would be expected, differences resulted, not only in cultural background and customs, but also in economic, learning, and observance between different Jews.  Some examples of this are the Karaism/Karaites with the latter taking an exceptionally fundamentalist hard line view, rejecting the Talmud and Talmudic Judaism.  The Jews in Spain, Shephardi Jews, spoke Ladino (Spanish-Hebrew dialect) and reflected Babylonian Judaism and Spanish influences.  Meanwhile Ashkenazim, the European Jews, who lived under Christian rule, also evolved their own rituals and language – Yiddish (German-Hebrew dialect) in their rich spiritual world.

These two cultural and geographical differences, together with their differences in religious affiliation and understanding introduced a great tapestry of colours and patterns that are still evident today in the state of Israel.  There, in modern Israel, groups and organizations work toward their integration (Plaskow 1990 116).  Persecutions arose for the Ashkenazi Jew under Christian rule and a distinctive feature of this era, the Crusades (1095-1270), European Christian armies, set out to recover the holy land from Islam.  This particular historical cauldron found Jews lumped in with Muslims and rather than recant, many Jews chose martyrdom for their faith.

The Jew is not a stranger to persecution and massacres; theirs is a history of suffering.  Persecution and isolation continued with the Medieval Christian church.  It would be easy to pass comment that persecution actually worked on the Jew’s behalf, shaping and moulding them as if it were part of their destiny.  However, such trite comment shows a romantic notion that suffering is good for people; it does not take into account the inestimable horror each individual Jew and the community at large has undergone because of a refusal to accept difference.

By the Late Dark Age (1100-1350), the Blood Libel caused persecution and massacres to happen.  The libel instigated a gullible population that believed Jews used the blood of Christian children in their Passover festivities.  At the Council of Florence (1442), the Christians formulated a doctrine that excluded the Jews.  That which had previously been specifically pagan anti Judaism was formally taken over by the Imperial Church.

However, the Jewish history is not only sufferings, but also a history of successes.  Alongside the persecutions and massacres influential literature such as Jewish philosophy, developed by Moses Maimonides, and Jewish Mysticism called Kabbalah emerged.  Jewish women of this era, in their limited religious space, in their homes, alongside the flourishing literature of this period, developed writings (tkhines). This literature reveals the other half of the Jew’s lived history – the lives of Jewish women and the Jew’s family life (Plaskow 1990 48).

Fanatical fundamentalist Muslims saw the end of the golden age of the Shephardi Jews in Spain. On the eve of the modern era, (1350-1700), in Eastern Europe, the Jews were disbarred from the universities, excluded from corridors of power, prevented from engaging in wider educational, social and commercial life (Kung 1992 154).  The Ashkenazim dreamt of returning to Jerusalem.  The one profession they could engage in was money lending.  Just as they had found a golden age under Islamic rule in Spain, so this period in history prepared the Jew for the modern period.  Capitalism was about to take the lead in the processes of social and political development of Western civilization.  However, it also cast the Jew in a new dye.

The Jews either remained under Muslim rule or in Europe gathered in ghettos in Poland.  Warsaw became the ghetto capital of the Jewish world in the West.  Here the local synagogue and the urban Jew gained a different identity again.  A new dawn broke with a general cry of liberty and tolerance. The European Enlightenment (1700-1900), the Reformation and the Age of Reason liberated minds previously enslaved to religious superstition and dogma,

Throwing off their distinctiveness, the Jew emerged and participated in political and civil emancipation and contributed to ‘science, music, philosophy and medicine – to name but a few’ (Pratt 1993 156). A variety of effects from this time, especially the influence of new literature changed the Jews religious landscape.  Intellectual challenge and change, which led to the commencement of new reforms and developments, emerged through the writings of the humanist, Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786), the most influential German-Jewish philosopher of the eighteenth century: the first modern Jew.

The Jews were faced with a fundamental threat to its existence and identity through the writings of Mendelsshon and the age of reason.  The European Jewish community began to discard its identity with Otherness.  The Jew could walk free and experiment with the new age of science and reason.  A fundamental threat to the community’s existence loomed large. Pratt (1993 157) points out that ‘any religious group when faced with a comprehensive or fundamental threat to its existence and identity will produce from within its own ideology a resolution of last resort – or at least a self-assertive bulwark against the threatening insurgency’.  Zionism, the Jewish socio-political movement to reclaim and return to the land, was the internal response to the cultural threat of Mendelssohn’s humanism.

Anti-Semitism, rather than being eradicated during the age of reason, lurked close to the surface of the Christian community.  The Nazi Holocaust (shoah), the final solution to the Jewish question in anti-Semitism quarters of Europe identified itself.  These self-assertive bulwarks of the two opposing forces, Zionism and Holocaust, led to the establishment of a Jewish state and the massacre that wiped out four in every ten of the worldwide Jewish population.

The modern state of Israel came into being in 1948 with Jewish identity and self-assertiveness bound up in it.  With the freedom to express their religion, more changes took place and new shoots in contemporary Judaism sprang up and branched out.  The Holocaust left its indelible mark on the Jew, with many questioning the very fundamentals of their faith: how could a God they call Father allow such atrocities to happen to them?  Their questioning having had its affect upon the Jews continues to reverberate.  Such questioning has its consequences in religious expression, which results in the Jewish people are retaining their very essence: their religious identity.  This religious identity is still developing to this present day, ranging from Torah-true to inter-faith dialogue, the ordination of women rabbis to joyful forms of worship and distinctive dress, to a secularised reinterpretation of Judaism (Pratt 1993 160-162).

In sum, community has acted for the Jews as a cohesive agent, giving them worldwide identity as well as providing for them a deep abiding sense of comfort in times of great trial.  On an equal basis with community is the Jew’s love of Torah.  Adaptation of doctrines to the presiding circumstances, Torah’s continual development through the great body of commentary acting upon it and the Jew, has provided them with their very essence for being.  Torah has acted as a conduit that spanned oceans, national borders and aided in creating its own unique Jewish culture.  The human interaction of centuries of persecution and suffering, together with their successes, aided the Jew in their struggle for survival.  History has also acted like a great cauldron, at times advancing the Jews, other times hindering their progress, but never diminishing them.

All of these factors have brought the Jews to where they are today.  The long process of history and the treatment they received from their host countries, hostile or otherwise, all worked toward their development.  Today it is and is still working to make the Jews what they are today: a progressive modern nation of diversity and influence, ever transforming itself as it seeks to throw down roots and grow in what it perceives as the fulfilment of their dream to return to their land from exile and await their ultimate promised salvation, their Messiah.

Bibliography

Burke, T. P.  2001, The Major Religions: An introduction with texts, Blackwell, Oxford

Epstein, I.  1968, Judaism: A historical presentation, Penguin Books, London.

Kung, H.  1992, Judaism: Between yesterday and tomorrow, Crossroad, New York.

Neusner J.  1972, There We Sat Down: Talmudic Judaism in the making, Abingdon Press, Nashville.

Plaskow, J.  1990, Standing Again at Sinai, Harper & Row, New York.

Pratt, D.  1993, Religion: A first encounter, Longman, Auckland.

RELS 112.  2002, Study Guide and Unit Notes: Introduction to world religions B, The University of New England, Armidale.

Tilby, A. & Yule, J, D.  1991, A Lion Handbook: The World’s Religions, Albatross Books, NSW.

Patricia

END

Introduction

“Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly or indirectly, than any other single faith”  Mary Boyce.

The four main terms to define the religion.

These four terms are, ‘holding to the doctrine of Ahura’; ‘opposed to the daevas;  ‘followers of Zorasteraster’; and ‘worshipper of Mazdah’

“One is the path of truth, the paths of others are no paths” f/n 17

This essay will show in what respects contact with the teachings of the Prophet Zoroaster, brought about changes in Persian ideas about religion and the gods.  To accomplish this the Ancient Persian religion will be compared with the Inscriptians of King Darius.  However these Inscriptions do not necessarily show the extent to which the teachings of the Prophet affected Darius.

Contrary to ancient Persian beliefs Zoroaster promogulated grand concepts of the one Creator, dulaism, and the great cosmic struggle, with the demand for continual moral endeavours.  In contrast to these, the ancient Rig-Veda was essentially polytheistic.  The Rig-Veda was the sacred text of the Aryan people, developed orally when the stone age was giving way to the bronze age of chariot warfare (1700-1500 BCE).  Originally, the Aryan people moved south off the steppes and across an advanced civilization in central Asia.  Turning south east they conquored India before turning south west onto the plateau of Iran.

The religious society into which Zoroaster was born was similar to that of the Rig-Veda in India.  There is debate among scholars whether Zoraster lived during this formative period or during the reign of Darius (600 BCE).  In the Rig-Veda two classes of diety are distinguished, the ‘asuras’  and the ‘deavas’, the former being more remote from and the letter being closer to human beings.  The greatest of the asuuras  is Varina, the protector of Truth, who is the guardian of the moral law; whereas, the greatest of the daevas is Indra, the war god of the Aryans, who is the personification of victorious might and who is not at all concerned with Moral Order.

This fundamental antagonism, therefore, was already in the Rig-Veda, as were Truth (Asha) and the Lie (druj). Zoroaster does not start from any abstract principle.  Zoroaster thrust this fundamentasl antagonism right into the forefront of his religious teaching.  He considered the daevas to be no gods at all but rather malificient powers who refused to do the will of the monotheistic God he worshipped, the Wise Lord, Asura Mazda ‘.

The followers of the Lie, in Zoroaster’s day, were predatory , maurauding tribal society which destroyed both cattle and people, a menace to any settled ordered socirty.  Their behaviour was related to their belief system: their gods were like them, evil incarnate and to be treated as such.  A false religion.  The daevas and their followers chose evil and those who follow the evil are favoured by the daevas..

Zoroaster dethrones the daevas.  However Zoroaster does not see the followers of the Lie as incorrigable; they are free to choose the Good.  Therefore, the goal of Zoroaster is to see their conversion, ‘between these two (the good and the bad original spirits) the welldoers (or wise) have rightly chosen, but not so the evil doers. (Yasna 30: 3).

Zoroaster has an intellectual vision of God’s goodness.  He starts with the concerete situaltion as he finds it in Eastern Iran, amongst his own  Iranian (Aryan) people: pastoralist, settled agricultural community devoted to tilling the soil and the raising of cattle. Zoroaster taught that people have a choice ‘listen with your ears to the best things, reflect with a clear mind, man by man, each for his own self, upon the two choices for decission, ready in full awareness tpo declare yourselves before the great retribution’ (Yasna 30 Doc 103).  Those who follow the Lie are like the daevas, who have afflicted humankind: ‘Thus they chose the Worst Thought, then rushed into fury, with which they have afflicted the world of mortals’ (Yasna 30:6).  The Prophet shows no compromise and no mercy to the followers of the Lie.

The Zorasterian religion also has its roots in this same very distant past as the Rig-Veda does, to Indo-European times.  In its own right Zoroastrianism was the state religion of three great Iranian empires, which flourished almost continually from the sixth century BC to the seventh century CE, and dominated much of the Near and Middle East.  Iran’s power and wealth lent it immense prestige.  Judaism, Christianity, Islam and in the East, northern Buddhism, as well as a host of Gnostic faiths, all adopted some of its leading doctrines.  One of these was the afterlife.  The old Ahuric religion consigned all lesser mortals to a subterranian life after death.  Zorasteraster offered resurrection and the hope of heaven, not only to the ‘princes, warriors and priests who served the gods’ as propo-Indo Iranians had, (Boyce p 14) but to the ‘lowly persons – herdsmen, and women and children, indeed, ‘Whoever, whether man or woman, Mazda Ahura … and all those whom I shall join in glorifying such as you, with all those I shall cross over the Bridge of the Arbiter’ (Yasna 46: 10, Doc 104).

Other doctrines, such as final judgment were introduced, for example, ‘he shall be the first there at the retributions by (molten) metal (at the final judgement) (Yasna 30:7).  ‘but their own soul and their own conscience shall torment them when they reach the Bridge of the Arbiter  forever to become the guests in the House of Deceit’ (Yasna 46:11 doc 104).

The Iranian people who settled in the West, the Medes and Persians, on the Eastern side of the Zagros mountains, were the first Iranians to enter recorded history (900 BCE).  These tribes sustained contact over several hundred years, partly as neighbours, partly as subjects, with neighbouring ancient urban civilizations.  Media and Persia occur repeatedly in Assyrian records of military expeditions onto the Iranian plateau. They were surrounded by Northern Assyria, Urartu, South Elam and Babylon.  The Medes and the Babylonians conquered the Assyrian empire (614-612) then subjected the Persians who had by this time made themselves rulers of the kingdom of Anshan, in the south-west of Iran.  The Medes ruled for sixty years.

In the period when the Medes conquered the Persians, Zorasterastrian missionaries and political marraiges between the royal Medes and Persians meant the Medes court being infiltrated by the teachings of Zorasterstrian.  The Medes provided priests, the Magi, for both themselves and the Persian tribes.  In 549 the Persians, led by Cyrus the Great, of the Archemenian family, a son in law of the reigning Median king, rebelled and defeated the Medes and founded the first Persian Empire.

At this time the Persians were already Zorastianists.  However, they still held onto their past, such as the old gods and the priests who officiated, the Magi.  Zaehner claims ‘there are probably no two problems in Zorasterian studies more vexed than that of the religion of the Archemenian kings, the Avestian religion of Zoroaster and that of the part played by the Magi in the development of Zoroasterism’ (p 154).  The Avestian religion began and developed in Eastern Iranian lands.  For its development in the West the inscriptions of the Archemenian kings and the Greeks are its main source, particularly Herodotus.

However, Herodotus’ Magi, for example, is typical of later Zoroasterism, in particular, the slaying of noxious beasts, the exposure of the dead and incestuous marraiges, all typical of the later stratagum of the Avestas and not the original doctrine belonging to Zoroaster himself.  Zaehner suggests the Magi were an hereditary class entrusted with the supervision of the national religion, whatever form it might take asnd wherever it might be practised in the Empire.  As a consequence of this there are various interpretations placed upon the noun, Magi..  For Zoroaster, the term magus  simply meant God’s ‘gift’ of the Good Religion to the Prophet.

The Persians of Archaemenid times were notable in worshipping the triad of deities Ahura Mazda, the goddess Anahita, and Mithra (fire), all Yazatas (divine beings worthy of worship), who were to be the principal divinities in the Avesta, in having the Magi as their priests. The prophet Zorasteraster vehemently opposed the Magi’s practises.  Following the Prophet’s death, the followers of Zorasteraster tolerated the reintroduction of the older gods, in the great hymn to Mithra, from the Avesta, into the Prophet’s strictly monotheistic creed in the role of created spirits.  Here, the great hymn to Mithra shows the reintroduction of worship of this triad of dieties‘I will worship Mithra (the Indi-Iranian god),with libations,… with haoma mixed with milk’ (Yasna 10: 6);  ‘ and the stars, and the moon, and the sun.  At the strewed baresman we worship Mithra, ruler of all lands’ (:145).  Fire, the son pf Ahura Mazda (:3).

Zoroaster also fervently denounced animal sacrifice where intermingled with the cult of the Haoma plant, both Magi practises.  The rite centred around the juice of the plant as the elixir of immortality and ‘from whom death flees’. Zoroaster did not object to the Haoma rite as such, but to the daeva – worshippers’ method of performing it.  Their drunkenness probably disgusted him because it would have seemed to him sacrilige against the plant-god which was a sacrimental centre of the cult. (p 87 Zaehner).  Zaehner claims that Zorasteraster only condemns its consumption when combined with a bull sacrifice in which the plant appears to be burnt (p 86).

Overall the teachings of Zoraster show a respect for the earth, particularly water, which is to be kept pure, as Good Health is associated with it.  He sees Ahura Mazdah as the friend of animals as well as the rest of his creation.  It is not clear whether the prophet is appealing on behalf of the faithful community or cattle in the care of their pastor in Yasna 29:1 ‘ The cruelty of fury and violence, of wontonness and brutality, holds me in bondage.  I have no other pastor but you’. The worshippers of the daevas, on the other hand, slaughtered cattle in vast quantities, ‘the fury generated by the deceitful’ (Yasna 30: 2).    Zaehner says they raided ‘in ill considered manner, impulsively, and at any time they felt a sharp urge to do so’.  The reading shows something of the agony of mind that the Prophet was in concerning the surrounding culture he lived in when he composed the following lines.  ‘To what land shall I flee? Where go for refuge?  I am excluded from my family and my clan; the community I am with does not satisfy me, neither do the deceitful rulers of the country … I know why I am powerless, Mazda: because my cattle are few and I have few men (Yasna 46: 1-2, Doc 104)

Because Zoroaster opposed the daevas  ‘‘I confess myself a worshipper of Mazda, a follower of Zarathushtra, a hater of daevas’ …,(Yasna 10), would have experienced considerable persecution from the Magi, along with the usual scepticism that accompanies a familiar person who claims a divine and unique revelation.  Nevertheless after the fall of the Archemenids it was the Magi who rescued and put the religion back on its feet, so to speak, albeit changed.  Until he left his tribe and encountered a queen, Hutaosa, willing to believe, along with her husband, Vishtaspa, the prophet struggled with fruitlessness, bringing with him only one convert, his cousin.  However, the Inscriptions of King Darius tell the fuller story of the spread of the Prophet’s teachings.

It is obvious from King Darius’s Inscriptiaon on the Rock face at Bisitun, that the king is writing to a people who had a consciousness of good and evil, of monotheism, heightened awareness of selves in the universe and of ethical standards and of justice . Found on the highway between Teheran (in Iran, Ancient Persia) and Baghdad (In Iraq, Ancient Babylon) the inscriptionsof Darius fulfill at least two of the the four main terms to define the religion.  These four terms are, ‘holding to the doctrine of Ahura’; ‘opposed to the daevas;  ‘followers of Zorasteraster’; and ‘worshipper of Mazdah’.  The last term became standardised as the official designation of the religion (Zaehner p 154).

The Bisitun Inscriptions, written in Old Persian, Babylonian (Akkadian)  and Elamite, along with the confession of the Zoroasterian religion, records the rebellions Darius put down when he came to power; they also reveal the extent of unrest the kingdom was in as regards Archemeniad rule. We have no way of knowing from the inscriptions whether Darius was opposed to the daevas, seen as they do not mention them.  Nor can we be sure that the king was a disciple of Zoraster.

However, Darius certainly went to great lengths to show the readers at this linguistic and cultural crossroad that he was opposed to the Lie, Wickedness, Disorder and those who followed the Lie; that he was the authorititive ruler on earth in the things of good government and peace, just as Zoroaster was in the spriritual realm and Ahura Mazda in the heavenly realm.  The dualism between Truth and Lie of Zorasteraster’s teachings are also prominent in Darius’ inscriptions.

Darius constantly emphasisis the opposition that exists between Truth and Lie.   He shows he is a worshipper of Ahura Mazda in the opening lines of both the inscriptions at Bisitun rock and the Susa statue, found near the palace of Darius in Susa, Persia.  These two are both written in Persian, Elamite and Akkadian, and both show that the great king Darius agrees with Zorasteraster concerning Ahura Mazda, the Creator God, ‘Auramazda is a great God, who created the earth below, who created the sky above, who created humankind, who created happiness for humankind, who made Darius king (Doc 109:1 & Doc 110: 1).

The Susa Statue Inscriptions repeats the above inscription, and also sees all the king’s good qualities, both physical and moral, coming from the bounteous hand of Mazda.  Darius is a worshipper of Ahura Mazda, and believes in the afterlife, a teaching of Zoroaster, ‘Whoever worships Auramazda, divine blessings shall be upon him, while alive and when dead’.  Bounteous supply of both material and spiritual gifts are in the hand of God, ‘He is bounteous to the needy by his teaching’ (Yasna 30: 7).

According to the inscriptions, ‘Lying’ meant much the same for Darius as it did for the Prophet: nine kings whom Darius defeated, are accused of having lied (Doc 108, The Bisitun Inscription: 52 (1) – (9).  Rebels against the established order are accused of being deceitful, ‘Deceit made them rebellious, so that these men deceived the people” (54).   The rebels lie in that they claim to be kings, when in fact they are no such thing.  Ahura Mazdah does not originate evil.

The Prophet in the same way, prays on behalf of the believers, ‘to these people, Ahura grant strength and the Rule of Truth, and also of Good Thought, through which comfort and peace may come about.  I have indeed recognised, Mazda, that you are the first provider of these things (Yasna 30:10).  Mazda, like Darius, manifests justice in that he is the servant of bounteous Ahura Mazda, the source of all good things.

There is no evidence that Darius was a confessed disciple of Zoroaster.  He does not mention him by name.  Nevertheless, the God of the Akhaemenes household was Ahura Mazdah, the Wise Lord, spelt in one word in Darius’ inscriptions.  These inscriptions, albeit for political purposes, nevertheless show that the monarch worshipped the prophet’s monotheistic God.  Darius, according to his innscriptions. adhered to primitive Zorasterianism.   However, Darius, like Zorasteraster ‘between these two (spirits), not even the gods (daeva) chose correctly’ (yasna 30:6), also recognised the existence of other gods‘.  Darius confesses, Aharamazdah brought me help, and the other gods that there are’ (Doc 108:62, Darius the Great: The Bisitun Rock Inscription).

Darius sees himself as holding the kingdom given him by the will of the God on trust for him,  “by the will of Ahura Mazdah I am king (Doc 108:5); I hold this Empire (Doc 108 The Bisitun Rock Inscription). Such was Ahura Mazdah’s will; he chose Darius, a man out of the whole earth and made him king of the whole earth.  Zoroaster held this same sense of destiny: ‘this one here has been found by me (Good Thought’s reply) to be the only one who has heeded our teaching, namely Zarathushtra Spitaama.  He desires, Mazda, for us and for Truth, to sound forth hymns of praise, … (Yasna 29:8, Doc 102).

Darius acknowledges that Ahuramazda, ‘he brought me help’ (Doc 108: 31).  Darius holds to the same diagnosis of evil as being the manifestation of the Lie as does the Prophet.  Rebellion against the king amounts to rebellion against God.  Rulers are divinely appointed; it is their responsibility to hold all wrongdoing in check : ’You who shall be king hereafter, guard yourself carefully against Deceit; the evil force opposed against Ahura Mazdah; the man who is deceitful, punish him severely (108 :55).

God had made Darius king and his it was to see that peace reigned in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet.  Darius says, ‘to the people I restored the pastures and the herds, the household slaves and the houses … I established the people in their places, Persia and Media and other provinces, as before. I brought back what had been taken away (Doc 108: 14).  All usurpers therefore must be eradicated.

Darius was well aware of the danger to rulers of rebel usurpers; the Akhaemenes line of kings sprang from Cyrus the usurper.  Darius himself came to power when he joined the conspiritors, and killed the Magi usurper to the Akhaemenes throne.  Herodotus claims Darius, belying his future reliance upon the inscriptions to testify to his moral stance, claims that the future king said that there are ‘many occassions when words are useless, and only deeds will make a man’s meaning plain’ (Herodotus, Book Three page 183: 72).

On the same occasion, Herodotus has Darius denying Truth, where he is involving himself in situational ethics and reasons thus: ‘’If a lie is necessary, why not speak it? We are all after the same thing, whether we lie or speak the truth: our own advantage’.  Men lie when they think to profit by deception, and tell the truth for the same reason – to get something they want, and to be the better trusted for their honesty.  It is only two roads to the same goal’.

Two other inscriptions of Darius, the Suez Canal Inscriptions of Egypt, and the introductory note, written in Persian, Elamite and Akkadian and the Susa Statue Inscriptions both repeat the same confession of Zoaster’s God by Darius’, ‘Arumazda is a great god, who created the earth below, who created the sky above, who created humankind, who created happiness for humankind, who made Darius king (Doc 109:2 & Doc 110:1).

However, the same Susa Statue Inscription, written in hieroglyphic Egyptian, reveals another side of Darius’ belief system.  For example, the same inscription incorporates Darius into the framework of the royal theology of Heliopolis, as son of Atum-Rey, ‘The good god, who rejoices in Truth (Ma’at) , chosen by Atum the Lord of On (Heliopolis) to be the master of all that is encompassed by the Aton (sun-disk), because he recognises him as his son and his agent’.  The inscription also acknowledges the goddess Neith as giving him ‘the bow she wields, to overthrow all his enemies, doing as she had done for the benefit of her son Rey, at the first time, (the beginning of time), so that he is strong to repulse those who rebel against him, to subdue those who rebel against him in the Two Lands’ (Doc 110:2).

It is possible that Darius was as his predecessor, Cyrus, who showed religious tolerance to those he ruled over to continue worshipping their gods in their own way.  For example Cyrus was proclaimed a Messiah by the Jews because he not only allowed them, during their exile in Babylon, their own monotheistic belief in Yehwah, but made it possible for them to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple there.  ‘Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus … that thou mayest know that I, the Lord which call thee by thy name … though thou hast not known me  (Isa 45:1&5).

In conclusion, we see that the ancient Persian beliefs were drastically changed by Zoroaster. The inscriptions of Darius show that he was a worshipper of Ahura Mazda , but there is no proof that he was a disciple of Zoroaster and his teachings concerning the he four main terms to define the religion. These four terms are, ‘holding to the doctrine of Ahura’; ‘opposed to the daevas;  ‘followers of Zorasteraster’; and ‘worshipper of Mazdah’

Studies in Religion – Religious Literature: The choice of texts is nearly always political as well as theological in nature

Question: Outline the ways in which religious professionals are involved with the production, interpretation and use of sacred texts. Summarise both the positive aspects and the limitations of such involvement from the point of view of a community of believers. Give specific examples from any of the five major religious traditions whose texts we have studied.

In outlining the ways in which religious professionals of the five major religions are involved with the production, interpretation, and the use of sacred texts, I will argue that there is evidence that the professional’s agenda was political as well as theological. On the surface, the religious professionals involvement appears to have placed limitations on the text and hence the community of believers. However, the positive aspects of the sacred text by the community of believers, for which I will give specific examples, far outweigh the limitations. The examples come from the Christian New Testament.

The decisions made in what to keep and what to discard in the initial and in some instances, the ‘long process of selection and decision-making, culminating in the final production of written sacred texts, has been, in all five major religions of the world, largely made by male religious professionals. This is certainly the case of the Hebrew and the Christian sacred texts. ‘Over the years the vast majority (perhaps 99%) of commentaries, study guides and other helps to understanding the Bible have been written by men. [1]  The sacred texts were relevant, not only to the turbulent socio-cultural, economical, and political context that originally produced them, but also theologically, to the debates and struggles going on at a relatively early stage of the religion in question. The ‘canon’ or the closed documents as accepted ‘revelation’ therefore, were ‘chosen by the victors in the early struggles, and thus the choice of texts is nearly always political as well as theological in nature.’ [2]

The same socio-political context within which the production of sacred texts took place is discernable where the Hindu texts are concerned (1500-1200 BCE; Hindu dating: 2,500 BCE). The Hindu texts are largely a creation of the Brahmin priests who belonged to the Aryan invaders. Most scholars would agree that the Aryan invaders brought with them the Vedic (verses, psalms or hymns) literature written in Sanskrit. However, Merlin Stone argues that the Vedic literature that reflects the patriarchal lifestyle of the Aryans was influenced when they encountered the peaceful, matrilineal, goddess worshipping community. ‘The Aryans, however, by the time of their invasion, had ‘long since abandoned matriarchy and had a patriarchal family system as well as a patriarchal form of government.’ [3]  Finally, the Brahmin priests and members of the ruling class produced and added the Upanishads to the Vedas (800-400 BCE).

With the production of the Upanishads, a system was introduced, whereby an elitist social hierarchy with the Brahmins at the top into place to exercise social and political control over the rest of the Aryan and the indigenous populace. ‘There was an increasing development of the caste system, … one could carry out social functions (marry eat and so on) only within one’s particular caste’. [4] The Indo-Aryan discriminatory attitude toward gender and race shows up in the Aryan’s literature. ‘The mind of a woman brooks not discipline. Her intellect has little weight’. ‘In India there is the clearest evidence of the Indo-Aryan invasions (light coloured skinned people) and the conquest of the original goddess –worshipping people, (dark-skinned people) the worshippers of Diti, the Great Mother Goddess, who when intransigent were called by the Aryans, ‘demons’, and when willing converts were called ‘monkeys and bears.’ [5]  This was also a time when society was rapidly changing. New economical and political forces were rising with new leaders.  Amongst the flourishing cities, kingdoms, republicans, and a strong merchant class surfaced. Buddhism began to emerge around this time of social and political change. [6]

The socio-political context of the historical Buddha was not unlike the time when the Upanishads were added to the Vedas. Most historians believe that the discourses and dialogues attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, (600 BCE), the Tipitaka, the sacred text of the Theravada Buddhists, (Sri Lanka, Laos, Thailand and Burma), and believed to be the words of Buddha, continued to be developed over several centuries. Taken from memory of the oral linage of monks, the Pali Canon, as the Tipitaka is known, was recorded finally around 100 CE. Included in the Canon are scholastic and later added philosophical treatises (Abhidhamma-pitaka). In Mahanyana (China, Korea and Japan) and Vajraayana (Tantric) Buddhism (developed over 200-1200 CE), canonical texts also include teachings believed to come from the transcendent (non-embodied) Buddha and revealed through mediational deities to great sages of the tradition.’ [7]

The Jewish sacred texts, the Tanak, or Old Testament, consist of three major sections of a very complex arrangement of material written at various times. Scholar’s conjectures and theories claim they were collected and written by four different sources, J, E, D, and P, ranging from the ninth to the fifth century BCE with the material composed in the fifth century much older material in part. If we take these four theories of dating, similar social and political patterns emerge as with the other sacred texts.

The J theory of dating relates to the reign of David or Solomon (900-1000 BCE). This was a time of centralisation of political power for the Hebrews and the centralisation of the cult of Yahweh. The E sources are dated about the eighth or ninth century BCE, fitting in with Solomon’s politically oppressive reign, with the division of Judah and Israel following his death, and the activities of the pre-exile prophets. The D sources date around the time of the fall of Jerusalem and after the exile (597 [587] – 539 BCE). At the time of the P sources, composed around fifth century BCE, with the Chronicler (1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah) around 400 BCE, there was a resurgence of Judaism with the prophets recalling people to Torah ‘way’ lifestyle. This was also around the time of the emergence of Pharisaic Judaism.

Some writings (Ecclesiastes) compiled about 250 BCE, were in the time after the Greek occupation. The Book of Daniel, (167-164 BCE), although written as if set in the neo-Babylonian period (626-539 BCE) was produced within the context of Hellenism’s language, culture and arts having infiltrated the Jewish way of life. It was not until the council of Jamnia, (90 CE), that the books belonging to the time of Greek occupation and after were confirmed. The final contents of the Hebrew Scriptures decided upon by the religious professionals, the rabbis, were in the first century CE, when professionals in the newly formed Christianity had already completed their major texts (51-60 – 100 excludes the Pastoral letters), which texts built upon the Hebrew Scriptures. The Pastoral letters of Paul (ca. 100-140) show a leaning towards institutionalising the church, with a hierarchy that includes bishops, deacons and elders. [8]  By the time of 300 CE, an institutional structure and expression saw an all male non-Jewish hierarchical leadership.

The Christian texts, produced during a time of upheaval and political unrest, were influenced by a number of crucial changes taking place: the radical shift in the development of Judaism, the surrounding Hellenistic culture and the turbulent political climate, when Rome conquered Greece, (63 BCE). This turbulence revived in the Jews a message of messianic hope. Israel’s social groups show a theocrasy with the clergy, the Levites, at its head. The socio-economic situation shows marked difference between those of the aristocracy, including the priests, belonging to Herod’s court and those who were at the bottom of the social ladder, such as slaves, day labourers, scribes and beggars to name a few. [9].

The Roman-Jewish war (66-70 CE), Paul and Peter’s martyrdom (60’s CE) and the radical break with Judaism at Jamnia, when Christian Jews were expelled from the Jewish synagogues, left their imprint on the writings and the selection process of accepted documents by the professionals who finally produced the sacred canon of Christian texts (100-250 CE). During this time (100-250 CE), the Apologists formulated such doctrines as, ‘Messiah had come, was the ‘son of God’ and the ‘Saviour of the world’; The Great Creeds were also formulated, addressing right belief and right practice, and certain breakaway groups, such as Gnosticism, and Marcion formulated diverse doctrines to mainstream Christian beliefs. The same dual pattern is evidenced in the production of the Muslim texts.

Mohammad, over twenty-two years, from 610 CE, on ‘The Night of Destiny’, began to receive revelations that continued over a period of twenty-two years. It was a relatively short time, during the Caliphate of ‘Uthman (644-56 CE), in comparison with other sacred texts, that the authorised version of the Qur’an was sealed with the mark of authorisation. The rise of Islam is similar to the turbulent socio-political context in which the Upinishads were appended to the Vedas. Muhammad’s tribal group was a part of a new commercial power group. Muhammad, like other religious prophets before and after him, championed justice issues. The Qu’aran is said to contain the direct revealed words of God to Muhammad. Unlike the other sacred texts, there is no systematic theology or doctrine.

In traditional Judaism and Christianity, unlike the Qu’aran, produced soon after the prophet, Muhammad’s death, the Bible is recognized as the unique record of God’s dealings with people over the ages. The Hebrew Scriptures, (Old Testament), consist of written records interpreted as God speaking directly through the prophets to his people. The four Gospels in the Christian sacred texts (New Testament) is said to record the direct words of Jesus of Nazareth, as well as his life and work. It claims that Jesus Christ was the one in whom ‘the Word became flesh.’ It also describes the rise and spread of the early Christian Church.

Introduction to one version of the New Testament [10] claims that the contents are for the discerning and understanding of what God is saying to the community of believers. The introduction of the New Revised Standard version of the King James Bible [11] lists five uses for the Christian Bible, ‘it is intended for use in public reading and congregational worship, as well as in private study, instruction, and meditation’. In all of the five major religions, an extraordinary amount of control and trust is placed into the hands of religious professionals to interpret the sacred text and the deity to the community of believers.

In the case of the five uses listed above, three of these uses, public reading, congregational worship and instruction come under the control of the religious professional.  Such control has limiting ramifications in terms of the community of believers exercising reasoning powers and autonomy. The other two uses, private study and meditation, however, does allow independent and private interpretation. Nevertheless, the professionals, in the main, expect the activities of private study and meditation to also be carried out in a confessional manner: the text believed to be divinely inspired and to be read in textbook fashion.

This control by the religious professionals over the interpretation of the sacred text however, cannot negate the individual believer’s interpretation. The final authority of the interpretation and the use of the sacred texts therefore, rest with the reader as to the illumination or inspiration they receive as they read. This is the reason why independent interpretation, be it in private study or in the critical approach of the scholars, where carried out apart from the religious professionals, is viewed as a threat and is brooked at every turn. Furthermore, for anyone interpreting the text, Elisabeth Clark [12] warns, ‘the leap from literature to “life” is always precarious.’ This precariousness makes the opportunity of exploring other avenues of thought regarding the sacred text extremely limiting for the lay person, where there is a lack of linguistic, sociological, feminist, historical and other scholastic tools, used today to uncover biased and possibly misinformed and archaic rendering of the text.

The precariousness Clark warns of becomes reality when one considers that interpretation has not remained constant and unchanging despite some who view it as such. ‘All sacred writings are interpreted writing.’ [13]  Where the confessional approach, in the sense that literal meaning is placed upon text, is concentrated, use is still made of commentators, thus passing through a third interpretation before use. Any use of the sacred text means ‘that it now becomes an interpretation of the interpreted text. [14] Elisabeth Shussler Fiorenza [15] also reminds us of the radical difference between representation and reality that ‘renders the historical world’ in which the texts produced by their religious professionals ‘irredeemably past and inaccessible.’

Nevertheless, with all of its limitations, there are positive aspects for the community of believers who approach the text in a confessional manner or otherwise. A prime example is the instructions given in the Gideon Bible. The exhortation is to the general reading public to benefit from reading the Christian scriptures. Listed are such headings as ‘Help in Time of Need’ and ‘Guidance in Time of Decision’ (Jas 1:5).[16]  Such words as ‘do not worry about your life [17], said to be the spoken words of Jesus, might be used in such a way as to lessen the anxiety people experience in providing themselves and their loved ones in the basic necessities of life. Comfort is sought from the deity, and believers are exhorted to then pass it on to others. [18]

Another way the community of believers is aided is in the way different examples from the sacred text are used for bringing about sought for change in their own lives, such as the story of the Philippian jailer and his family. [19]  The answer for satisfaction in this life is learning how to be content. [20]Overall the Christian message is about finding peace with God, through faith in God and in Jesus Christ. [21] Believers are exhorted to live responsibly, in the community and the world at large, remembering their overall mission of evangelisation of the world. [22]

Other uses of the Christian scriptures include ritual, as with the Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper, [23], liturgical, in singing ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’, [24] for inspirational use and educational purposes. [25]  Prayer is encouraged in communicating toward the deity and gaining something from the deity. [26]  Prohibitions are given for the community, [27] and lastly, the sacred text is used to inspire faith, which although only mentioned twice in the Hebrew sacred texts is referred to at least two hundred and forty-five times in the New Testament.

Given the seeming limitations placed upon the community of believers by the control of the professionals in the production, interpretation and the use of the sacred texts of the five major religions, resulting, in many instances, in limitations such as the isolation of different classes of people because of their race or gender. Nevertheless, the positive aspects the sacred texts offer to the community of believers, and the way, in which they use and apply them, albeit in the face of the religious professionals control and limitations, exceed such limitations.

[1] Study Bible for Women: The New Testament, commentary & notes: Catherine Clark Kroeger, Mary Evans & Elaine Storkey, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1995.

[2] RELS 301, Religious Literature, Studies in Religion, Topic 1: Religious Literature – Sacred Texts, 2003, Armidale, p 32.

[3] Merlin Stone, When God Was A Woman, Verigo, 1976, USA, p. 69.

[4] RELS 301, Religious Literature, Studies in Religion, Topic 2: Hindu Texts, Date, Setting, Content, 2003, Armidale, p. 38.

[5] Stone, When God Was A Woman, pp. 70-2,

[6] RELS 301, Religious Literature, Topic 2: Hindu Texts – Date, Setting Content, 2003, Armidale, p. 37.

[7] RELS 301, Religious Literature, Topic 3: Buddhist Texts – Date, Setting Content, 2003, Armidale, p. 43.

[8] Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5.  The New International Version, Grand Rapids, 1984.

[9] RELS 301, Religious Literature, Topic 5: Christian Texts – Date Setting Content, 2003, Armidale, p. 62.

[10] Authorised King James Version of the Holy Bible, 1973, Oxford University, Oxford,

[11] The New Revised Standard Version, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers 1989.

[12] Elizabeth A. Clark, ‘Women in the Early Church’, Wilmington, 1983, p. 78.

[13] Jean Holm Sacred Writings, in RELS 301,Religious Literature, Topic 7: Uses & Interpretation of Sacred Texts, 2003, Armidale, p. 79.

[14] RELS 301, Re;igious Literature, Topic 7: Uses & Interpretation of Sacred Texts, 2003, Armidale, p. 79.

[15] Mary of Magdala: Remembering the Past  – Because of her Word: Feminist Historical Reconstruction, in But She said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation, 1992, Boston, p. 82.

[16] The Gideons International in Australia, A.C.T.

[17] Matt 6:25-34. The New International Version, Grand Rapids, 1984.

[18] Ibid., 11 Cor 1:3-4, ‘who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God’.

[19] Ibid., Acts 16:30-1, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household’. 

[20] Ibid., Phil 4:11-16,  ^‘I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances’.

[21] Ibid., Rom 5:1. ‘Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’.

[22] Ibid., 1 Cor 10:33, ‘Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way’. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved’.

[23] Ibid., 1 Cor 11:26, ‘For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’.

[24] Ibid., Eph 5: 19-20. ‘Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord,  ²⁰ always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’.

[25] Ibid., 11 Tim 2:24. ‘And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful’.

[26] Ibid., Matt. 6:9-15. ‘This, then, is how you should pray’.

[27] Ibid., 1 Cor 10:23-33. ²³ ‘Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial’. ‘Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive’.  ^{24 ”}Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others’.

END

Roman Male: Politics and Sexuality – was it that of an aggressive dominator?

‘The sexuality of the Roman male (in perfect agreement with his political ethics) was that of an aggressive dominator’ (Cantarella).

Cantarella claimed that ‘the sexuality of the Roman male (in perfect agreement with his political ethics) was that of an aggressive dominator’[1].  It is true that appearing as an aggressive dominator, in politics and sexuality, was crucial to the Roman male’s social status.  This paper will argue, however, that Roman sources that deal with Roman attitudes, rather than support Canterella’s stance of aggressive dominator, in the matter of the Roman male’s sexuality, are, instead, ambiguous.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of Roman ideology that portrayed Roman men’s masculinity as domination.  This principle was the root of the Roman’s structuring of male sexual relations.  The Roman males masculinity and power were also equated with his sexual potency and his fertility[2].

Such ideology explains why the concept of the worship of the father’s generative power, the genius of the paterfamilias, was deeply rooted in Rome’s religious beliefs.  The fertility principle, that male semen was held to have primary generative importance, was the concept behind the whole Roman household.  Indeed, the theory of ‘father’ and the paterfamilias took precedence for Rome’s very survival[3].

This ideology meant that all outward behavioural signs of the Roman male’s ‘masculinity’ and sexual potency were to remain undiminished[4].  It explains why, in the extant texts, the motive behind much of the lampooning and invective literature surrounding his masculinity in attempts to humiliate him[5].  For example, to accuse a Roman male of being susceptible to sexual penetration, pathic, was to identify him as effeminate (mollis).  However, Catharine Edwards argues that accusations of mollitia was more a vivid metonymy for a generalised and pejorative claim, of likening him to women, (effeminate), rather than related directly to his sexual preference[6].

Where Roman ‘masculinity’ was at its most vulnerable, laws were written to protect its status.  Such was the case with male castration.  The state made castration of Roman males a crime (204 BCE)[7].  Another instance is in the case of homosexual[8] relations where two Roman males were involved[9].  Latin only describes particular sexual acts as either polite, or insulting.  ‘In unions of the sexes, it should always be considered not only what is legal, but also what is decent’[10].

Therefore, it was ‘improper’, rather than ‘immoral’ behaviour, for a freeborn Roman man to take the passive role in a homosexual relationship.  Penetration was linked with sexual passivity and effeminacy: womanish behaviour.  Such a relationship between free men was a crime (2^nd or 3^rd cent BCE)[11].  Roman men, who, taking a ‘feminine’, submissive, sexual stance, thus allowing sexual penetration to take place, were despised.  Free men who penetrated adult males were either punishing them or engaging in a rare form of homosexuality[12].  Nevertheless, ‘dominant’ Roman free men enjoyed asserting their sexual ‘masculinity’ with male slaves[13].  In this situation, male slaves were required to take the ‘feminine’, passive, sexual role.

The general assumption was that ‘masculine’ bisexual men penetrated other males (usually boys)[14].  A power relationship in this instance would involve the lover, an older man – a citizen, in pursuit of a boy.  Young boys (puer) were considered powerless: effeminate.  The boy, usually a slave, took a subordinate, passive, ‘female’ sexual role.  A certain doctrinal disqualification seems to bear on the love of boys[15].

Roman men in their youth were also often involved in this way; love of boys is generally portrayed in Roman literature as a legitimate avenue of masculine sexual expression.  Nevertheless, the figure of the moralist who appears to be ‘masculine’, yet enjoys playing a ‘passive’ sexual role is considered despicable and immature.  ‘Will he put maturity off for ever so that he may give other men pleasure?’[16].

Femininity was assimilated to passivity as understood in the roles of women, slaves and children.  ‘Our ancestors did not want women to conduct any – not even private – business without a guardian; they wanted them to be under the authority of parents, brothers, or husbands (1^st Cent A.D.)[17].  Regrettably, Roman women’s history echoes Claudia’s epitaph, ‘Friends, I have not much to say’[18].  The literature dealing with the marriage relationship has been written by Roman men.  Finding out about women’s sexual relationship in marriage is, therefore, limited.

Nevertheless, Roman discourses about sexual behaviour do reveal that Roman women did not necessarily act according to either Roman gender ideology or the law, publicly or privately.  The alarm expressed by male writers of Roman women’s sexual and public behaviour does not match the prescriptive.  Such women threatened to undermine the Roman male’s social status, masculine ideology, and the Roman state.  Such a woman was Cleopatra.

Cleopatra, although a Macedonian, was the most famous woman in Roman history (1^st Cent BC).  She was mistress to both Caesar and Mark Antony.  Cleopatra represented to Rome the dangerous appeal of decadence and corruption and the ‘intangible force of feminine sexual power’[19].  Feminine sexual power was considered irresistible and had to be kept in check.  Cleopatra, according to Plutarch, was ‘bewitching’.  ‘The contact of her presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible; the attraction of her person, joining together with the charm of her conversation, and the character that attended all she said or did, was something bewitching’[20].  Women of Rome also showed attributes other than passivity.

Lucius Valerius, quoting from the Roman Origines[21] says that, rather than passive, Roman women, on many occasions, had taken matters into their own hands, for ‘the public good’[22].  Emily A. Hemelrijk points out, however, that sexual asymmetry appears to be subordinate, in this and other occasions where Roman women protested, to upper class feelings rather than actual freedom for women[23].

Nevertheless, a fine example of Roman women advocates was Amasia Sentia.  Amasia showed outstanding public initiative and a dominant spirit.  Amasia ‘bore a man’s spirit under the appearance of a woman’, ‘whom neither the condition of their nature nor the cloak of modesty could keep silent in the forum or the courts’[24].  A woman advocate, Hortensia, (42 B.C.), dared to plead the women’s case before the trumvirs, and won[25].  Mark Antony’s wife, Fulvia, maintained force of arms in Rome against Caesar, while ‘passive’ Antony ‘squandered time with Cleopatra’[26].  According to the descriptive, not all Roman women were sexually passive.

Female sexuality was always a potent danger for Roman moralists for the very reason it might disrupt status distinctions[27].  Annaeus Seneca, Stoic philosopher, politician and tutor to the young Nero, expresses the general concern regarding unchastity as, ‘the greatest evil of our time’ (AD 41/9)[28].  Rome’s prescriptive ideology concerning women maintained that a Roman matron’s ‘womanly glory’ was linked to her ‘domestic virtue’ and her chastity[29].  Numerous anecdotes and epitaphs about Roman women, albeit written by men, confirm this to be the Roman women’s hallmark of exemplarily behaviour, befitting her official position as lawful, wife, mother and citizen.  Not the least is Cornelia, mother of the Grachi[30].

Catharine Edwards claims that Roman women, along with wealth and pleasure, carried the brunt of the blame for the state’s general breakdown with the association of adultery and disorder[31].  In such a climate, considering their ideology on ‘masculinity’, the Roman male citizen’s wife as sexually subservient to him in the marriage bond was a given.  Marriage was used amongst Rome’s citizens as a means of forming political and economical alliances, not an easily recognisable vehicle for the satisfaction of personal desires[32].

The imperialist Augustus period (27 B.C. – A.D. 14) was a time of luxury and moral reform.  Augustus revived and imposed through law old Roman traditions of masculine privilege, authority and superiority.  However, during this time, there are many ambiguities concerning the Roman man’s dominant sexual image as found in Latin love elegy.  The elegist depicts a powerless, emotional, passive and feminised (objectified) Roman male lover[33].

Propertius, (70 – 19 B.C.), in the Monobiblos, writing to Tullus, depicts himself as helpless, the captive of the unconquerable Cynthia.  ‘First Cynthia made me, to my unhappiness, (miserum me) her prisoner … Then Amor forced down my eyes, that had shown a firm pride, and pressed my head beneath his feet’[34].  Another elegist, Ovid, (43 B.C.- A.D. 17) in the Amores, admits he is suffering from delusions about his enslavement, at least nominally, and Corinna’s verbal deceptions, ‘Why shouldn’t I myself be deluded by my own desires?[35].  Ellen Greene, contrary to this feminised male image, asserts that Ovid suggests a close alliance between male sexual dominance and the assertion of political control and aggression[36].

Catullus, (84 – 54 B.C.), the only elegist who does not write under Augustus, also sees himself as enslaved to his emotions.  He writes of his servitude to the Lady, the ‘mistress’, domina (a female owner of slaves).  Powerless, due to the sexual wantonness of the imagined inexhaustible erotic impulses of the wonton dominant female, Lesbia, the elegist jealously pleads, ‘let her live and flourish with her adulterers, whom three hundred she holds in her embrace … breaking the strength of them all’[37].

In the light of the elegist’s writings, as a form of escapism, Rome’s male citizens seems to have enjoyed fantasizing about his being sexually powerless and dominated by a woman.  During the time of Augustus’ moral reforms, the Roman male may have grown tired of the demands the patriarchal state made on him; his having to rigidly maintain his ‘masculine’ image for the sake of his social status may have had a destabilising effect on his ‘masculinity’.

In keeping with Canterella’s statement, it may be that the Roman male, (in perfect agreement with his political ethics) was that of an aggressive dominator’.  However, there remains an ambiguity due to sexual relationships in Roman moral social discourse.  Such discourse, constructed socially as relationships of domination and subordination, of superiority and inferiority, and domination with penetration being intrinsically bound up in the Roman male’s masculine image of potency, does not disclose what is taking place behind the rhetoric, the descriptive as opposed to the prescriptive.

[1] ANCH 314, Unit Booklet: Unit Information, Assignments & Notes, Citizen and Society in Ancient Rome, School of Classics, History & Religion, Topic 8, Sexuality, University of New England, Armidale, 2003, p. 91.

[2] ibid, p. 91.

[3] Walter Stevenson, The Rise of Eunuchs in Greco Roman Antiquity, in Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol 5, 1994 – 95, Chicago, p. 498.

[4]Peter Garnsey, Social Status and legal Privilege in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1970, p. 1.

[5]Amy Richlin, The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and aggression in Roman humour, New Haven, 1983, p. 1.

[6]Catherine Edwards, The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome, Cambridge, 1993, p. 130.

[6] ibid, 1993, p 68.

[7] ibid, pp 499, 504-6.

[8]‘although there are no words in Latin for ‘sexuality’, ‘homosexuality’, or ‘heterosexuality’, ANCH 314, op. cit., p. 92.

[9] Richlin, op. cit. 1983, p. ix. 

[10] Justinian Institutes, 1, 6^th Cent. AD, in Mary, R..Lefkowitz & Maureen.B. Fant, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome, A source book in translation, Marylands, 1982, p. 194.

[11] The Elder Seneca, Contraversae 4pr.10. in ANCH 314, op. cit. p 94.

[12] Richlin, loc. cit..

[13] Edwards, op. cit., p 72.

[14] Richlin, op. cit. p x.

[15] Michel Foucault in ANCH 314, op. cit. p. 91.

[16] Seneca, Epistulae 122.7-8 in Edwards, op. cit. p. 69.

[17] Livy, History of Rome, 34. 1-8 in Lefkowitz &. Fant, op. cit., p 177.

[18] M. I. Finley, Sexuality and Gender in the Classical World: Readings and sources, Laura K. McClure, (ed), Oxford, 2002, p. 148.

[19] Josine Blok,, Sexual Asymmetry: Studies in ancient society, Josine Blok & Peter Mason  (eds), Amsterdam, 1987, p. 36.

[20] Plutarch on Cleopatra, Egypt, Ist. Cent. B.C. in Lefkowitz & Fant, op. cit.,1982, pp 150-151.

[21] ibid, p. 177.

[22] ibid, p. 178-180.

[23] Emily A. Hemelrijk, Sexual Asymmetry: Studies in ancient society, op. cit. p. 232.

[24] Hortensia’s speech. Rome, 42 B.C. in Lefkowitz & Fant, op. cit. p. 207.

[25] Hortensia, loc. cit.

[26] Plutarch, loc. cit.

[27] Edwards, op. cit. p. 53.

[28] Seneca, On Consolation, to his mother, Corsica, A.D. 41/9 in Lefkowitz & Fant, op. cit., p. 140.

[29] Cicero on Clodia. Rome, 56 B.C. (Pro Caelio 13-16. ²² Tr. R. Y. Hathorn, in Lefkowitz & Fant, op. cit. p. 147.

[30] Valarius Maximus, Memeorable Deeds and Sayings 4.4pr., 1^st Cent A.D. Tr. M.B.F. in. Lefkowitz & Fant, op. cit., p. 138.

[31] Edwards, op. cit., pp 43 & 92.

[32] ANCH 314, op. cit., p. 92.

[33] Ellen Greene, The Erotics of Domination: Male desire and the mistress in Latin love poetry, 1998, p. xiii.

[34] Propertius, Monobiblos, Elegy 1.1, Greene, op. cit. pp 38-39.

[35] Ovid, lines 53-56, Greene, op. cit., p. 99.

[36] Greene, op. cit., p. xvi. 

[37] Catullus, Poem 11, Greene op. cit., p. 26.

END