prospectus and other work

[theyellowhobbit]

I finished my Hellerstein paper last night. I finished my primates paper this afternoon. Then I visted Ben and told him about my work woes. He said that the prospectus was due some time today, and that he was purposefully vague, so I could submit it online by midnight. We also talked about what my prospectus should include, which ended up being a lot of good ideas, most of which I've forgotten. So I e-mailed Ben a frantic e-mail:

Hey Ben,

As I started to write my prospectus my mind froze, and now I'm struggling to remember all the points we covered today when I came to your office hours. [Would it be a Rachel paper if I didn't have something go wrong? Have I ever handed anything in on time?] Right now it talks about the geographic locations in which they were found, the text and the problems it poses, and the context in which the miqva'ot were found. Which of course gives me around half a page. and I'm sure I know more than a half a page, but it's just not coming to me. Maybe I subconsciously think that it's summer already.

And already I started talking about the historical record, when really I know you want a simple pre-question paper that presents the archaeological record. Which easily could be more than 10 pages anyways since I'm sure there are tons of graphics and I'm looking at a lot of different excavation reports. But at the same time, it's kind of hard to stretch that out into a prospectus.

So I'm not even asking for any more ideas, just a restating of the ideas we already came up with. I shouldn't be having this much difficulty with it, but for some reason I am. Maybe it's the problem of separating the thesis from the 10-page paper, since I tend to get ahead of myself. [who wants to tediously examine archaeological reports when you can look at different cultural influences and speculate on what the reports actually mean?]

If I have until midnight that still leaves me 4.25 hours in which I can do something else until my mind starts working again [assuming it will]. I'll turn in something tonight, hopefully a reasonably good prospectus that does everything it is supposed to do.

Thanks,
~Rachel


this is what I have so far.


I am going to explore the archaeology of miqva’ot (ritual baths) in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods in Israel. Miqva’ot do not appear until about the first century BC. They have been found in Gezer, Jericho, Gamla, Jerusalem, Qumran, and Masada as well as in rural contexts. Some of these miqva’ot can be dated by the earliest and latest pottery found. Qumran is more of an enigma, being an isolated settlement, and is dated by the recorded earthquakes rather than the pottery, which remains the same throughout the site’s occupation (150 BCE – 170 CE).
The textual evidence, here meaning the Torah, mentions the idea of ritual bathing to rid oneself of impurity as a requirement of Jewish Law in the book of Leviticus. I date Leviticus at 1250 BCE, but even the documentary hypothesis can date it to as early as Hezekiah in the 5th century BCE, so working with that assumption, there is still a significant period of time where these laws were in place and there were no miqva’ot.
The context in which the miqva’ot were found may be very informative as to the nature of their usage. Miqva’ot were found in cities, in the countryside, in tombs, and in personal houses. I will look at all the different excavation reports that mention miqva’ot and compare the dimensions and other physical attributes (such as architectural style), location, date, and type of place in which it was found. This should give an idea as to what the archaeological record is that we can work with. I suspect that the chronology of the different miqva’ot will show an evolution in usage (ie personal miqva’ot vs. communal ones). I will then examine how well this matches up with the historical record that we have, which includes the works of Josephus, and accounts from the mishnah and the gemara.


Help!!

Comments

View from afar (part 1)

[groovin-reuven.livejournal.com]

I think you really have to step back, and view this all from afar. The resulting picture is beautiful, and everything fits together much better in context.

During the era of the kings, there were no "Jews", just Israelites. The exact distinction will become clear, but in short it was a confederation of tribes worshiping a common diety. Dieties were tied to the land in the minds of the people of the ancient world, but the Israelite prophets were painting this diety in another context- that of time instead of space. It was not that you had to teach dwellers of the land the religious practices (i.e. II kings 17; I hesitate to call this a religion yet), but that you had to remember God in the context of that he did.

This paradigm shift is what began the transformation from a religious practice to a religion. God could be worshiped anywhere. Together with the Deutronomic influances in the latter era of the kings that pushed the religious practices from something vaguely resembling monolatry to monotheism, this left the Jews (Proto-Jews?) in the position of having a single God to worship during the Babylonian exile. Exactly what the form of workship was is unclear.

King Cyrus of Persia allows peoples displaced earlier to return to their native lands and rebuild their places of worship. During the early second temple period, the 5 books of moses were redacted into their final form. Ignoring any issues of whether D or P is dated first, the Jews now have a cannonical text. They didn't know this text, as is apparent from Nehemiah 8. Yet they begin to practice based on it simple interpretation during the early second temple period; Almost all the practice is in relation to the temple. At the same time, a Jewish community continues to flourish under the later persian kings (Purim story).

Fast forward to later in the second temple period. The practice of Judiasm is typically around the temple. The Seleucid Greeks sack Jerusalem, and the Priesthood becomes a symbol, baught for money, of whether the Temple is pro or anti Hellinist. The Hasmonian family of Priests gain independance for a short period of time, but themselves become corrupt, and the Romans take over. Herod refrubishes the Temple, which is still the central institution of the religion.

During this time we begin to see a rift, small at times, developing between the Prists, and the Sages/Scribes. The former were rich and frequently Hellenist, the latter were typically poor and more traditional. To make a long story short, these distinctions became what in the latter portions of the second temple were known as the Sadducees and Pharisees(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees, etc).

It is with this background that we can begin to see the development of the system that we know as Halacha. This was the era of Midrash. What perhaps began with interpraters translating the read text became interpretation of the text. Midrash consists of mant literary forms, but the short of it- It was an innovataive way of extrapolating new meanings from subtlties in the biblical text. (It took Dr. Stern's class to convince me of Midrash as a literary form- And every time I read agadata in the talmud, it makes so much more sense why they quote verses in certain places, etc). These extracted tidbits led to the development of the halachot of Mikvah. Presumably the original Mikvaot were utilitarian, to serve the minimal requirements of bathing in a practical way before visiting the temple. The actual drasha I don't have the sources offhand, but from just a few words, an entire book of Mishna was derived. The pharaisee group put much weight on personal purity outside the temple, and were doresh complex rules and requirements how to bathe and the requirements for the said bath.

View from afar (part 2)

[groovin-reuven.livejournal.com]

By the end of the second temple period, the Rabbis began to close the door on the technique of Midrash, restricting midrashim to things learned from previous generations. (Don't remember the citation here, sorry. This whole essay is written without the aid of most of the sources, give me a break ok? :-) )

The destruction of the second temple was a watershed moment, as the Rabbis had to recast the celebration of holidays that had been entirely temple focused to be able to be celebrated without a temple. While the celebratrion of Judiasm outside the context of the temple was nothing new for the Pharisees-turned-Rabbis, this required innovation. Hence we have the famous changes instituted by Rab Yochanan ben Zakkai when he set up the Yeshiva in Yavna. A lot of stories in the Talmud, and alot of the Hagadda, needs to be seen through the eyes of his deciples and their disputes with the deciples of Raban Gamliel. (There are still some sides that I need to iron out on this whole issue- I don't have my chart of the schools of taanim with me)

It is in this context that we can also see the development of the Passover seder. The seder was originally a Greco-Roman style meal centered around the Passover lamb. The form and detail of the meal changed with the destruction of the temple Baruch Bosker's The Origins of the Sederdescribes the development of this type of festive meal in the light of the destruction of the temple, through the principle of "transference". In transference, "a group perceives reality through its own system of beliefs, and adjusts to new situations on the basis of this world view. ... If they lose the institution that has provided meaning and direction to their piety but still want to maintain their values, they have to work out a substitute for the original institution". The followers of Raban Gamliel pushed for study of the Halachot of the Pesach, while the followers of Rav Yochanan Ben Zakki pushed to tell the story of the Exodus. Thus if you see Raban Gamliel's three things as the three answers to the original Ma Nishtana, and the part of the elders retelling the story as an unrelated thread, the narrative makes a lot more sense. The Ma Nishtana deals with Halacha, and the Midrash inbetween deals with the story. The Tosefta (I believe) has a parallel account of the sages staying up all night, only it involves Raban Gamliel, and they are studying the Halachot of Pesach. Rav Yehuda HaNasi, who had connections to both schools, created the synthesis that became the Mishna in Arvei Pesachim, that became out Hagaddah. (Recommended: Stern's class on the Hagaddah)

It is only in this wider view that you can truely appreciate the development of "Halacha" as we know it during the mid-to-late second temple period. Only if you view halacha as not a developing process, but as a single cohesive gift-from-god as some do, you have problems with "a significant period of time where these laws were in place and there were no miqva’ot". A more nuanced view yields no such problems. Phrases like "halacha li'moshe mi'sini" are idioms- that particular one means something that is an older tradition- Proofs of this can be found in traditional sources (ask my dad).

(Aplogies for all the typos and errors/omissions in the above. This is way too long to be posting on a blog; most of my sources aren't available to me, and it is 1am. I think being a Jewish Studies major actually greatly increased my appreciation for the Jewish religion; gotta clear that up before everybody decides that I'm a heretic. :-) Oh yea, I went to Gush, so you all think that already. )

Re: View from afar (part 2)

[sen-ichi-rei.livejournal.com]

you wanna write my thesis for me?

though a lot of this is tangental.

i wonder if i can paraphrase you and use this for my prospectus...

Re: View from afar (part 2)

[sen-ichi-rei.livejournal.com]

and yes, you are a heretic...then again, so am I!