OGS Statement of Interest UPDATED

PLEASE READ THIS ONE...I HAVE MADE SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SINCE MY PREVIOUS POST

2009-2010 OGS – Statement of Interest – Nathalie LaCoste

The focus of my MA research will be on the methods of acquiring wisdom which developed in Jewish and Christian wisdom literature from the Second Temple period.

The preparation I received in my B.A. degree will enable me to pursue original research at the M.A. level which I began September 2008. My preparation includes the study of ancient languages (Hebrew and Greek), historical studies, biblical interpretation and methodology. I am also learning Biblical Aramaic. I have worked with several professors at the University of Toronto whose research interests are closely aligned with my own, Hindy Najman in the field of Second Temple Judaism, Sarianna Metso in the Dead Sea Scrolls and John Kloppenborg in Early Christian writings.

My investigation will explore two aspects of the acquisition of wisdom in the Second Temple period. The first aspect will investigate the transmission and reception of wisdom. The acquisition of wisdom was made possible through ancient prophetic figures invoked in Second Temple texts. For example, Solomon was invoked as the author of a text called the Wisdom of Solomon even though in reality the text was written centuries after his death. It is through the invocation of ancient figures that the wisdom of old is made accessible to later generations through inspired texts which are interpreted and re-presented to the community. The second aspect of my study will explore the pathway to wisdom through Hellenistic philosophy. As Pierre Hadot wrote “Philosophy was a method of spiritual progress which demanded a radical conversion and transformation of the individual’s way of being” (Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life, 265). Hellenistic philosophical traditions taught the idea of moral and intellectual perfection as the method of acquiring wisdom. Philo of Alexandra was the first to apply the philosophical ideas about wisdom to the reading and interpretation of the Torah. He was radically innovative in his approach to Jewish authoritative texts in his allegorical interpretation of the Torah as a method of incorporating Hellenistic philosophical ideals.

The field of Hellenistic Judaism has historically focused on the study of wisdom literature as a literary genre. I intend to take a different approach by using textual analysis and comparison to analyze the different methods in which wisdom can be acquired. My approach will build upon the work done by Hindy Najman and Pierre Hadot. I will combine Hindy Najman’s understanding of discourse analysis and the contruction of dialogue between texts with Pierre Hadot’s ideas of Greek philosophy as a method of gaining divine wisdom. My approach will contribute a new perspective to the field of Hellenistic Judaism by focusing on the Hellenistic philosophical tradition and the ways in which it is incorporated into the acquisition of wisdom. My primary texts for transmission and reception are 4Ezra, Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon and 4Q Sapiential. The writings of Philo of Alexandria, Marcus Aurelius and Seneca will be my primary texts for the acquisition of Hellenistic wisdom.

There are several broad implications for this project. The first is that my research will illuminate texts which have historically not been connected to the study of Hellenistic Jewish sources. My project also sheds light upon several early connections between the early Jewish and Christian communities. Finally, my research contributes to the contemporary inter-religious debate between the Jewish and Christian traditions, rather than being . They are often viewed as “intimately separate” though they are born out of the same textual origin. By creating a conversation that crosses the traditional linguistic divide, I will seek to construct a dialogue between these texts.

2009-2010 OGS Statement of Interest

2009-2010 OGS – Statement of Interest – Nathalie LaCoste

For my 2 year M.A. research project I am investigating the acquisition of wisdom in early Jewish and Christian literature from the Second Temple period. The achievement of wisdom became an important method of identity-formation during the period of convergence between Jewish beliefs and Hellenistic philosophy. In particluar there arose the concept of the exemplar, ideal figures who had acquired divine wisdom. I am pursusing this research at the M.A. level to better understand how the underlying ideals of an exemplar became highly influential in both Jewish and Christian life and have continue to influence contemporary beliefs.

My investigation will explore two aspects of the acquisition of wisdom in the Second Temple period. The first aspect will investigate the transmission of the Torah through prophetic discourse. Through divinely appointed prophets, the wisdom of the Torah was passed down successive generations and became central to the reception of wisdom. The most recognized prophets (Moses, Ezra and Baruch) became exemplary figures as their lives came to symbolize a unique prophetic connection with the divine. Various names were attributed to these esteemed men, ‘ish elohim, the sage and the scribe, as they represented the critical role of divine wisdom within Jewish society. The second aspect of my study will explore the pathway to wisdom through Hellenistic philosophy. As Pierre Hadot wrote “Philosophy was a method of spiritual progress which demanded a radical conversion and transformation of the individual’s way of being” (Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life, 265). It was believed philosophy was a necessary discipline in understanding virtue and reason. Philosophers taught their students the idea of moral perfection which became central to Hellenistic philosophy and the school of Stoicism. The one who attained moral and intellectual perfection, became an exemplar within society known as the ‘sage’.

I am taking a different approach than what has traditionaly been used in the study of Second Temple wisdom literature by building upon the writings of Hindy Najman and Pierre Hadot. I will combine Hindy Najman’s understanding of discourse analysis and the contruction of dialogue between texts with Pierre Hadot’s ideas of Greek Philosophy and the ways in which one becomes an exemplar through Hellenistic philosophy. I will argue that the exemplar serves as a means through which new meaning and understanding can be derived, a way of invoking the past to conceive of a new future.

My research is focused on a critical analysis of literature from the Second Temple period. My primary texts for the transmission of Torah are 4Ezra, Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon and 4Q Sapiential. The writings of Philo of Alexandria, Marcus Aurelius and Seneca will be my primary texts for the acquisition of Hellenistic wisdom. By creating a conversation that crosses the traditional linguistic divide, I will construct a dialogue between these texts.

I have undergone extensive research and course work in ancient civilizations, religion, jewish studies and anthropology as well as having worked as a research and editorial assistant. I have also studied Hebrew for three years and am currently working on Greek and Aramaic. I believe that my background studies have eqipped me for my research in wisdom traditions of the Second temple period and will enable me to critically analyze and contribute to the field of early Jewish and Christian thought.

Religion and Religious Studies: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

The Problem with Classification
Each of the readings this week contributed to the discussion of categorization and raised several significant problems with the way we understand the term “religion” and “world religions”. In van Voorst’s article Eastern Scripture among the World’s Religions, he makes an attempt to define scripture by listing several similarities and differences between different Asian traditions. He is not interested in a single blanket term rather he understands the need for a multivalent definition, if one is needed at all. He understands that the way we approach scripture, specifically eastern scripture is heavily influenced by our predecessors. His brief history mentioned at the beginning of his chapter (van Voorst, 2) surveys the past 150 years of scholarly study of “world religions”. He explains that it is was this period that was highly influential in shaping the way we read Asian scriptures today. It was this period that defined the way we talk about and classify different “religions” of the world. In Masuzawa’s book she expands further upon how history has influenced modern discussions on religion by using the example of classifications in religion textbooks, which always seem to contain the “great” religions of the world (Masuzawa, 2). She argues that these sorts of classifications are often a reflection of our distinction of East versus West. This is but one way to classify. Another way in which this classification manifests is in the discussion of “theirs” and “ours” (Smith, 276). The ways in which we categorize religions, I think, stem from our understanding of the term “religion”.

The Problem with “Religion”
The problem with religion and especially world religions is one of terminology. Jonathan Smith points out that religion is a term that is “a category imposed from the outside on some aspect of native culture” (Smith, 269). The accuracy of the term “religion” and the legacy it (almost unknowingly) brings has a long history. Smith argues that after the 16th century we can begin to see the development of the term “religion” being used to shape contemporary thinking. However there are certain ideas (such as “us” versus “them”) have been around much longer. The discussion that we touched upon last week in class about the classification of “primitive” or “natural” was a development which stemmed from the 19th century anthropological approach whereby religions were sought to fit into a sort of ethnic stage of development (Smith, 277).

At the end of Smith’s article he writes: “Religion is not a native term; it is a term created by scholars for their intellectual purposes and therefore is theirs to define” (Smith, 281). While I agree that there is a problem with our classification systems of religions and that they are filled with biases and assumptions, is it really only up to intellectuals to define? I don’t think that such pervasive word could ever be left simply for scholars and academics to define. The term is loaded with meaning and history that cannot be reduced to a single definition nor left in the hands of a few intellectuals to define.

Where Do I Fit Into the discussion of “Religion”?
“Surely, our thorough lack of interest in [nineteenth century Europeans] logic is ultimately to the detriment of our own historical understanding”

This sentence really struck me. Masuzawa really hit the point when she wrote about how most people today would scoff at the ways in which the thinkers of the nineteenth century understood the world and the religions of the world. I agree that to scoff and dismiss their approach would ultimately be to our detriment. If we think that we are beyond reproach and that our methods are “objective” all the while using the nineteenth century thinkers as our point of comparison we will not so much as learn from them rather we will distinguish ourselves as superior in our knowledge and not learn from our past. I think that it is very important to look at the past and the ways in which religions were studies because it can help us find where some of our biases and preconceived assumptions are and where they have stemmed from. By disengaging ourselves from the past we are essentially cutting ourselves off from a part of the history that has shaped our fields of study and thus limit the understanding we can gain through its study.

My studies will be taking me into the field of Biblical interpretation and the history of the Bible in the Second Temple period. I have learned that my field has been strongly influenced by criticism, specifically the historical-critical method. This has been a dominant trend in biblical studies that emerged in the 19th century. I think that by knowing the main methodologies that have characterized my field I can better get a sense for where my research fits in and how I can use different approaches to access my information. Moreover, the best way for me to fit into the discussion about “religion” is to acknowledge the past and seek to understand how these have had an affect on my assumptions that I bring to my studies.

What is Methodology?

Is there a single answer to this question? The three readings we had this week each came with their own methodologies about a topic of study. I am not really sure what is the best way to define methodology but I am assuming that it is the method or the procedure by which the author gains perspective and through which the proposed thesis can be investigated. There are several different types of methodologies which were discussed in the articles.

A New Method
In Bynum’s Introduction to Holy Feast she writes that she will be studying material that has been studied before but she will present it in a new way (5). She mentions upfront that often scholars incorporate their modern biases into the reading of texts and as a result they do not see the texts in the correct context. She claims to be utilizing a historical method whereby she will analyze her texts within the context in which they were written. Within this historical model she narrows her approach further to a particular period of time without looking at the broader implications of the historical development of food and food-related metaphors. Religion plays an important role in her method. Her methodology is very concerned with the religious context in which these ideas about food and food metaphors in the 13th and 14th centuries. She is not simply looking at society but she is looking at food as it is portrayed and understood within a religious framework (4). She acknowledges several modern biases about food and the ways in which it is perceived. She is using the context to guide her research and is aware of modern biases surrounding the issues of food.

Re-vamping an Old Method
Huntington highlights the pervasiveness of the text-critical model, which has dominated the discussion of Asian religions in the West. This model has been dominant mainly because of its commonalities with the scientific method. After he describes this method he explains the underlying concepts behind them. Huntington claims to take a new methodological approach to the study of Buddhist literature. He acknowledges the biases that have dominated the field but does not dismiss the work that has been done previously. An interesting statement that he makes is that “what we learn in our encounter with these texts is in every way a function of the tools we bring to our study” (9). This has caused me to think about how methodology shapes the way we approach ancient (and perhaps even modern) texts. He believes that before we begin looking at an ancient text we need to understand and acknowledge the biases we bring to that text (11). How do our conceptions of a text reflect our understanding of that text? This introduction was very interesting because he did not just abandon the text-critical model rather his solution to the problem of methodology is to incorporate the principles of text-critical scholarship while rejecting the notion of objectivity that had historically gone hand in hand (12-13). The ideas about how we approach texts is something that I would be interested in exploring further in subsequent meetings.

No New Method
Bynum’s In Praise of Fragments does not claim to be introducing a new method rather she is using a new voice, which she calls the comic mode. This is different from the other readings in that Bynum does not make a claim about new conceptions and methodologies. Although she does acknowledge the methods and concepts of the people she has used in her book, she nonetheless claims not to have adopted them into her own conclusions (15). A question I was asking myself throughout this reading was if methodology was a mandatory part of one’s research. Is it inevitable to use methodology or is it possible to dismiss this and simply build upon the work of one’s predecessor. I am not entirely sure how to formulate this question, however I want to understand more about methodology and its importance for the study of religion. I want to know where methodology and knowledge of the material come together and affect one another.

I hope that this has raised some questions. I have many as I wrestle with my understanding of the material in relation to my studies and the ways in which I write about the ancient world.