The End of Sacrifice: Religious Transformations in Late Antiquity. By Guy G. Stroumsa

Abstract

trans. By Emanuel, Susan . Pp. xviii, 136 , Chicago/London , The University of Chicago Press , 2009 , £22.50/$32.00. This book consists of expanded versions of four lectures given at the Collège de France in 2004 together with a paper on the transformation of the self in Late Antiquity. Strousma subscribes to a variant of Gilbert Murray and E. R. Dodds' thesis of a ‘failure of nerve’ based on increasing insecurity as ethnic and cultural identities collapsed as Hellenistic society moved into the Empire, and people looked to religion, redefined from a sacrificial quid pro quo reinforcing the civic collectivity to the search for a personal ‘salvation’ understood as union with the ‘One’, to take its place and fill the vacuum. In general, it was a step down, not a step up, but the fall of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE is an under-appreciated catalyst that made Rabbinic Judaism the laboratory for this revolutionary transformation in society as a whole. The Jews were forced to give up sacrifices and to reconfigure their religion, based now on study, prayer, fasting and charity; they functioned as forerunner and precedent for the change that Christianity would bring about when it became the official religion of the Empire, and animal sacrifices were interdicted to all religions in the late fourth century. Strouma dismisses René Girard's thesis of the ‘triangle of desire’, but the data he presents reinforces a view of Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity as mirror images of one another, both persecuted minorities, both subscribing to ‘bloodless sacrifices’, and rivals disputing the correct interpretation of the Jewish scriptures, with the ‘prize’ consisting in seizing the title of ‘true Israel’. Strousma underplays the extent (which Yuval among others has demonstrated) to which early Rabbinic Judaism, and the Mishnah in particular, developed not autonomously but with an eye constantly on developments in Christian theology and practice. The larger thesis, almost unspoken, is that Jewish exclusivism and monotheism prompted a love/hate reaction by Hellenistic society. Their exclusivism together with their rebelliousness made them unacceptable to the civic religion of the Romans; but then Hellenistic Jews themselves were exasperated and embarrassed by these traits, evidenced by the appearance of Greek first names, the occasional apostasy, and the planting of Hellenistic ‘diaspora’ synagogues even within Palestine before the fall of the Temple. Strousma acknowledges that pagan religion and Stoic-Platonic philosophy were functioning with an implicit monotheism that showed an openness and appreciation for this feature. All of society was pushing in this direction. In fact, one could claim that, after having ‘lost’ the war of independence in 70 CE, Judaism ‘conquered’ the Roman Empire ‘without firing a shot’ through the acceptance of its non-exclusive, non-legalistic offspring and variant, Christianity. This is a more adequate account for this transformation than a ‘failure of nerve’; this way, each side got what it wanted. Strousma fails to express exactly what constituted the difference of Christianity (and to a lesser extent, Judaism) from pagan religion. He speaks of ‘truth’ (in contrast to ‘myth’), but it is more precisely its insistence on historical-theological truth (as opposed to ‘philosophical’ truth) in claims about its founder that distinguished Christianity from the ‘myths’ of the pagan religions. Indeed, it was this disturbing insistence on the penetration of the divine into the physico-historical world in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus that for the first time made society conscious by contrast of its ‘myths’as myths, with connotations of anthropomorphism and poetic fancy that punctured their serene security with suggestions of inferiority and inadequacy. The first natural response was outrage. Christian witness through martyrdom (or ascesis in monasticism) was a not inappropriate response to this claim from the human side. Strousma frustrates the reader by doing less than full justice to data he himself presents.