Jewish Collective Memory in Late Antiquity “Orthodox” Accounts

I 216 Annetre Yoshiko Reed literature, however, cautions us against dismissing its message as relevant only for a certain locale. The example of the Homilies might also serve to remind us — as modern too heavily on retrospectively Jewish Collective Memory in Late Antiquity historians — of the dangers of depending “orthodox” accounts. Eusebius makes efforts to extricate Judaism from Jewish Art Christian history, but his own use of sources hints at the enduring place of Issues in the Interpretation of both Judaism and “Jewish Christianity” in that history. Moreover, even in his own time, Eusebius’ vision of the apostolic past appears to have been LEE I. LEVINE contested. In the Homilies, we may hear the answers of voices now forgot ten, who resisted the efforts of those who sought to inscribe, in apostolic history, the decline of the Jews, the irrelevance of “Jewish Christianity,” Jewish art underwent a major revolution in Late Antiquity. For some 1500 and the parting of the church from its connections to a living Judaism. years, Jews had a fairly limited artistic repertoire, consisting primarily of a selection of motifs drawn from surrounding cultures. Only on rare occa sions, for instance under the Hasmoneans, was a unique policy introduced that diametrically opposed the regnant practice. Before Late Antiquity, specifically Jewish depictions or symbols were virtually nonexistent. The menorah, for example, which was to become the most ubiquitous Jewish symbol, made its first appearance only in late Second Temple Jerusalem, and even then only in four known instances.1 Since these early examples were all found in priestly contexts, it seems that the menorah, at times together with the Showbread Table, may have been intended at this juncture as depictions of Temple appurtenances with no particular symbolic dimension. Only in Late Antiquity (fourth—seventh centuries C.E.) did its symbolic dimension emerge on a massive scale in Roman and Christian contexts, as well as among Jews.2 The dramatic, heretofore unimagined, appearance of Jewish art in Late Antiquity was quite a different phenomenon from that described by R. R. R. Smith with regard to Greco-Roman art generally: After the visual revolution of the fifth century BC, changing styles were part of a single broad visual language that lasted through late antiquity, in which new ex pressive forms were constantly being added without any of the old ones being thrown away—whether metaphorically or literally (my emphasis). The cities and These include the coinage of the last Hasmonean king, Antigonus; the walls of Ja son’s tomb in Jerusalem’s Rehavia neighborhood; a plastered wall in the excavations of the Upper City in today’s Jewish Quarter; and a sundial from the Temple Mount excava tions. Current excavations in Beit Loya, in the vicinity of Maresha in the Judean Shephe lah (2006, directed by Oren Gutfeld), have yielded a menorah incised on the wall of a cave containing an olive press from the late Second Temple period (personal communica tion). 2 SeeLee I. Levine, “The History and Significance of the Menorah in Antiquity,” in From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity (ed. L. I. Levine and Z. Weiss; Ann Axbon Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000). 131—53. 218 Lee 1. Levine Jewish Collective Memory in Late Antiquity 219 sanctuaries of antiquity became like huge open-air museums with a prodigal mil ry’s stage toward the end of the fourth century C.E.; neither the names of lennium-long acquisition policy.3 sages nor the existence of Talmudic academies are known after Ca. 380. Unlike this linear model, which accreted additional layers of expression The Patriarchate disappeared in the early fifth century and was only, a over time, Jewish society and culture throughout antiquity was in a state of memory after Ca. 425. We have no clear idea of who, if anyone, replaced flux, with dramatic changes affecting every aspect of society, including its these earlier constellations. It would seem that, despite the fragmentary art. The transition from the Biblical to Second Temple periods, the encoun literary evidence at hand, circles of paytanim, meturgemanim, Hekhalot ter with Hellenism, the creation of a sovereign state under the Hasmo mystics, priestly groups, and undoubtedly others (rabbis, too?) played neans, the emergence of a far-flung Diaspora, incorporation into the some sort of role alongside the traditional synagogue and urban leadership Roman Empire, and the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C.E. all had that functioned as the primary leaders on the local level, as they had befo a powerful — and often unsettling — impact on Jewish society. rehand. As wifl be argued below, Late Antiquity was far from being merely an The Jews responded to the new Byzantine-Christian historical setting in appendage to the previous Roman era,4 but rather constituted a unique and a variety of ways: largely, though not totally, ignoring the new reality distirict period in ancient Jewish history.5 The status of this period is simi (rabbinic literature); escaping this reality (Hekhalot mystics); passivity, lar to that which Roman historians now accord Late Antique society gener memory, and resignation while nurturing hopes for the future (piyyut); ally, i.e., not as a period of decline as Edward Gibbon had claimed, but as conversion; physical attacks on Christians and Christian symbols (Theodo one of economic expansion as well as cultural and religious creativity as sian Code l6.8.l8; mocking Christian beliefs and narratives (Toledot Peter Brown contends.6 Besides developments that affected all of Byzan Yeshu); continued acceptance (encouragement?) of Judaizers and their tine society, the main factor that makes this era most challenging for the integration in one form or another into the Jewish community structure Jews is the emergence of Christianity, whose triumph created an entirely (the Aphrodisias inscriptions); imminent messianic expectations (Book of new political, social, and religious reality for the Jews throughout the Zerubbabet); an enhanced prominence of Jewish institutions (i.e., the length and breadth of the Roman Empire. They were now faced not only Patriarchate through the first quarter of the fifth century and the synagogue with an inimical ecclesiastical leadership, ranging from leading church during this entire period); and, finally, adopting and adapting regnant figures down to local bishops and monks, but. also with the increasingly cultural and religious models as well as modes of expression and behavior hostile legislation of the imperial government.7 of the surrounding Byzantine-Christian world (e.g., epigraphy, asceticism, Parallel to the radically new external circumstances, i.e., the transition magic). from a tolerant pagan context to a zealous monotheistic one, Jewish society Second to none in this last-noted category of cultural activity is the also witnessed far-reaching internal changes. Existent political and reli emergence, as noted, of a vibrant Jewish artistic expression, recognized gious leadership groups, such as the rabbis, may have retreated from histo over the last century owing to the discovery of scores of Late Antique synagogues and cemeteries with their wide range of artistic remains. to On the one hand, this art was heavily indebted to regnant modes of expression R.R.R. Smith, “The Use of Images: Visual History and Ancient History,” in Classics in Late Antiquity generally, yet, on the other, it reflects unique symbols in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome (ed. T. P. Wiseman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 96—97. referred to in Jewish historiography as the Mishnaic and Talmudic era. single exception, and an historically problematic one at that, is Mar Zutra, who See Lee I. Levine. Visual Judaism: History, Art, and Identity in Late Antiquity (New supposedly came from Babylonia to Palestine in the early sixth century and assumed Haven: Yale University Press, in preparation). some sort of authority. Our only source for this is the ninth-century Babylonian work, Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (3 vols.; Seder ‘Olam Zuta, which is of dubious historical value. New York: Heritage, 1946), originally published in 1776—82; Peter Brown, The World of Amnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit: Wayne State Uni Late Antiquity: From Marcus Aurelius to Muhammad (London: Thames & Hudson, versity Press, 1987), 236—37, no. 36. ° 197 1). See, e.g., Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (13 Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and Synagogue (Cleveland: World Pub vols.; New York: Pantheon, 1953—68); Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeo lishing Company. 1961). 151ff.; Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations logy in the Land of Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1988); eadem, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeo between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire AD 135—425 (London: Littman logy in the Diaspora (Leiden: Brill, 1998); eadem, The Menorah, the Ancient Seven- Library by Oxford University Press, 1996), 135—233. Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form, and Significance (Leiden: Brill, 2001). Lee!. Levine Jewish Collective Memory in Late Antiquity 220 . 221 and its own particular set of forms and patterns. The enormous amount of scholarly and popular interest in this subject has generated a number of questions, including the following: Why was there such a proliferation of Jewish art at this particular time? Why were certain biblical scenes and motifs chosen (and not others), and what do they signify? Why was there now a manifestation of Jewish symbols on a universal scale? What does all this tell us about the nature of Jewish social, cultural, and religious life toward the close of antiquity? Recognizing the visual dimension in Jewish life is just one component of a general reassessment of Jewish society in Late Antiquity, one that argues against the older conception that this was an era of decline and retreat.

Load more