2/10/11 Thursday Lecture

Hellenistic Jerusalem
- Jerusalem was influenced by the Greeks, just as they were influenced by Persians from before.
- Sources: Apocrypha (Catholic book), Josephus (Roman Historian)
- Jerusalem re-named as Palestine

1. Alexander the Great
1. Conquered the world at that time, including Palestine; 336-323 BCE
2. The power of the high priest increased, while the power of the king decreased
3. After Alexander, Ptolemies, and then the Seleucids ruled Palestine
4. Theme: the Greeks had self-glorifying names

1. Seleucids
1. Aggressively advocated Hellenism
2. They believed Hellenistic culture was superior to others
3. Wanted to turn Jerusalem into a Polis (highest and most natural Civil institution, as said by Aristotle and Pausanias), center of Greek life
4. Every aspect of Jewish life was effected by Hellenism (ex: tomb architecture, burial inscriptions, Sephhoris Mosaic, Bet She'an, Beth Alpha Mosaic having zodiacs in the synagogue, Septuagint LXX Greek copy of the bible)! --> Clashes with religion
5. Pattern: if there is resistance, the Greeks would simply replace the high priest with someone of their interest.  Therefore, conservative Jews did not trust the high priest Jason
6. To suppress Jewish resistance, Antiochus IV sacrificed a pig on the Temple Altar, outlawed Jewish religious practices like circumcision, and converted the Temple into a Temple of Zeus
7. Reaction to Hellenization
1. Welcomed it - abandon circumcision (Epispasm), "must be part of God's plan for the Greeks to conquer us"
2. Resisted it
3. --> Jewish infighting and revolt!

Hasmonean Jerusalem

1. Maccabean Revolt
1. Leader: Judas Maccabeaus ("The Hammer")
2. Used Guerilla tactics
3. Was successful and regained control of Jerusalem and the Temple from Seleucids
4. Hasmonean coins during the Hasmonean Dynasty --> Jews had control of their own coins and government, did not have any human images
5. Hasmonean kings were supposed to be temporary, but they did not relinquish power --> fail
6. Hasmonean kings became Hellenized, secular, and corrupt --> they were as oppressive towards others they were oppressed
7. "Solomon's" Pools (=Hasmonean), tie new building to the past to legitimate the the rule
8. Priest becomes sort of a dictator

Who were the pharisees?  Ptolemies or Seleucids?


------------------------------------------------
Thoughts to consider from the Professor

Christians have to argue two things: (1) Jesus is of the Davidic line (2) Jesus is the Son of God.  It's not possible to be both.... therefore it is crucial for Christians that Jesus was born of the "virgin" Mary.  This way, Jesus could be both.  Is the root of religion to simply prove and defend one's beliefs?


I always wondered why people of other faiths did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah when the genealogy is listed from Abraham to Jesus in Matthew 1.  I mean....how much more clear could it be?  But little did I know that the genealogy listed in Matthew and Luke are different..


Christians view King Cyrus as a messiah that enabled the return of Jews back to Jerusalem.  It was God's will, and it was He who moved Cyrus' heart.  If you examine this from a scholarly view though... King Cyrus basically "kicked out" the Jews similarly to how America might kick out its immigrants.  The Hebrew Bible simply depicts this event in a favorable light.  --> The bible is written from a specific point of view, is biased, and is in essence a historical document.  Is it futile to believe all the scientifically-ludicrous stories like Noah's Ark that are in the bible?  Are Christians being foolish to center their whole lives and actions around a biased historical unproven piece of literature?  I'm surprised that this class is having such a big impact on my doubts, curiosities, and interest in religion.


Where do you draw the line between believing and unbelieving when faith could range from cognitive dissonance to complete life-centered belief?  Most Christians these days are educated enough to practice cognitive dissonance.  We've all heard Darwin's Theory of Evolution.  But Sunday school doesn't teach you the discrepancies in the bible that I am learning in this class.  I believe that religion is summed up as thus: a scale ranging from abandoning beliefs, to cognitive dissonance or carrying two separate beliefs, and fully believing to the point of shunning all other explanations.  Every person is on a place on this scale, at varying levels and grades.  My question is, how is it possible in this day and age for someone to be on the extreme right of this scale?


How the Bible was written: Old myths and legends were told for a VERY long time, and every time it was told, it was told differently.  Assyrians had a story that was similar to Noah's Ark but with different characters and different reasons why the ark had to be built.  This story came to be Noah's Ark with the Jews.  Then when the Jews were exiled, they realized it was important to write down these stories as part of their culture.  Once it was written down.... it became important.  It became sacred.  And today...... a collection of books that were simply voted to be in the bible is cherished as...the source of life...the living word...the daily bread.


Supposedly there's another version of Noah's Ark elsewhere in the bible, with different numbers of animals and such.  Only one version, obviously the one we know with two of each animal, is the one that is emphasized.  These metaphors in the bible, such as Noah's Ark or The Creation, are hard to interpret.  I am perfectly comfortable believing that these things actually happened.  But that would be practicing cognitive dissonance, because there is no evidence that the Earth was ever flooded.  The history of Earth has been recorded to be 4.5 billion years old.  I always believed that was reconciled through the fact that God's perception of time is different from human perceptions.  But that in itself is rationalization!  


For now... I will hold onto two different perspectives, not mixing the two...