I gave some guidelines about this paper. One of them was that you
should demonstrate some knowledge of the complexity of Judaism. Here
is
how not to do so:
Then, behold, the
veil of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the
earth
quaked...(Matt 27:51)
This veil separated people (only priests were allowed in the
tabernacle
chamber) from the Holy of Holies (only the High Priest was allowed
to
enter, and only on the Day of Atonement), so they would not die.
Here,
we see a great difference between early Christianity and Judaism:
the
belief that God is a personal God; that he is accessible to the
believer at any time.
I do not
dispute that the first Christians believed in a personal God who
is
accessible at all times. But where is the evidence that this was
not a
Jewish belief? No Jewish sources are quoted. Many scholars
believe that
the reason the Pharisees were so insistent on observing the law
was to
remind people that God is present in everyday life. The High
Priest may
have liked to promote the idea that only the High Priest, in the
Holy
of Holies, is truly in touch with God. Certainly many Jews may
have
been in awe of the High Priest, that remote, unwordly figure who
they
might have glimpsed from a distance, dressed in pure robes. The
reason
that the Pharisees encouraged everyone to maintain their purity,
with
ritual washing, was to make it clear that the whole nation is a
priestly nation, and that everyone is always in the presence of
God.
The underlying assumption is that all Jews shared the same
concept of
God, and that this concept was the opposite of the Christian
one.
Here is another example:
Judaism
and
Christianity parted ways over the course of several centuries
and while
Judaism hs remained relatively the same, today's Christianity
has
evolved much since the actual times of Christ.
It is
true that
we have not had much opportunity to study the history of
Judaism up
until the present day, so I cannot blame students for lack
of knowledge
on this subject. However, if you haven't studied a subject,
don't try
to guess. A glance at the text-book would reveal that
Judaism did
undergo many changes - for example, the development of
Kabbalah. Once
again, the assumption is that what is true of Christianity -
that is
has changed over time - is not true of Judaism. Judaism is
treated only
as the opposite of Christianity, not as a religion to be
studied in its
own right.
But now, an example of good work:
John
Lundquist,
author of The Temple of Jerusalem:
Past,
Present and Future, states that "...the
destruction had a
paralyzing impact upon Judaism, it knocked the very center
and
foundation of Judaism out from under it." (Lundquist 131)
... The
destruction of something so valuable brought loyal Jews
together and
allowed Christians to drift in the opposite direction.
Whether the even
truly "paralyzed" the Jewish community or not, one can see
how the
destruction of the temple lifted the religion to a new
level as it
prompted extensive religious writing. For one, the Jews
composed the
Mishnah, an invaluable set of texts to Judaism that sprang
from this
era, not completed until a century later. In contrast to
the supposed
"paralyzed" community, Jacob Neusner describes the time of
the writing
of the Mishnah as a "remarkable age of reconstruction and
creativity in
the history of Judaism" (Neusner, 99)
Lundquist,
John.
The Temple of Jerusalem: Past, Present and Future.
Westport:
Praeger Publishing, 2008.
Neusner,
Jacob.
Neusner
on Judaism. Burlington:
Ashgate Publishing, 2005.
Here
we have an
attempt to understand the impact of the destruction of the
Temple on
the history of Judaism itself. Also, we have a good
example of how to
use secondary sources. Lundquist is not simply reporting
facts, he is
offering a judgement: that Judaism was in a state of
paralysis.
He is an expert, and so we should take his judgement
seriously.
However, taking his judgement seriously does not mean
reporting it
without comment, as if it were a straightforward fact. We
have a rival
judgement from another expert, no less than Rabbi Jacob
Neusner
(perhaps the world's greatest expert on this period of
Jewish history),
and Neusner's judgement is based on evidence, that is
quoted. This is a
good example of how to report on a debate between experts.
Back to REL 1300 home.