Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFine, Steven
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-22T14:06:54Z
dc.date.available2020-07-22T14:06:54Z
dc.date.issued2001-05-10
dc.identifier.citationFine, Steven. (2002). Twenty-fourth Annual Rabbi Louis Feinberg Memorial Lecture in Judaic Studies. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, Department of Judaic Studies.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12202/5820
dc.descriptionPublished lecture.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe hypothetical late Second Temple period Judaean with whom we began this discussion would have been stymied if asked for his opinions regarding “art.” Even still, our Judaean would certainly have known what he found visually pleasing when he saw it. Much of the Greco-Roman visual heritage would have been known and perhaps appreciated by him. The glories of Jerusalem, the beauty of the Hasmonean tombs, and the fine craftsmanship of well-made household vessels might all have been within his experience. At the same time, our Judaean would have had definite limits regarding acceptable visual imagery. “Idolatrous” foreign iconography was forbidden, at least in principle. With the Hasmonean revolt the exclusion of idolatry became an active (and at times activist) feature of communal identity, though Hellenistic art per se was not problematic. The Hasmonean tombs, architectural structures that fully reflect the visual vocabulary of their time, are a fine example of Hasmonean participation in Hellenistic art. I would argue that the intensification of “anti-idolism” beginning with the Hasmoneans was a neoconservative attempt to restore an imagined situation that existed before the traumatizing rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Over the almost two centuries between the construction of the Hasmonian tombs and Josephus Flavius’ depiction of these monuments, the attitudes of many Jews toward Greco-Roman visual culture became increasingly more strident. This stringency may simultaneously reflect both greater integration into that culture and a desire by some to restrict connections with it through the construction of social boundaries. This transformation is well reflected in Josephus’ writings and in other latter Second Temple period sources. This process is exemplified in the construction and subsequent transformation of the Hasmonean royal tombs at Modi‘in. (From Conclusion)en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherCincinnati: University of Cincinnati, Department of Judaic Studies.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesAnnual Rabbi Louis Feinberg Memorial Lecture in Judaic Studies;24th
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/*
dc.subjectSecond Temple Period Judaeaen_US
dc.subjectJewish arten_US
dc.subjectJewish identityen_US
dc.subjectHasmonean Royal Tombsen_US
dc.subjectModi'inen_US
dc.titleArt and Identity in Latter Second Temple Period Judaea : The Hasmonean Royal Tombs at Modi‘in.en_US
dc.typePresentationen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States