Abstract
Scholarship on Joseph and Aseneth took a long detour during the mid 20th century. The early investigators into the provenance of this mysterious writing considered it Christian. Pierre Battifol in the 1880s contended it was Christian as did E.W. Brooks in 1918. The latter pointed to the similarities between the heavenly communion-like ritual described in this writing and the central actions of the Christian Eucharist.
“In the mid-twentieth century,” Nir observes, “a new consensus began to emerge—that Joseph and Aseneth is rather a Jewish work composed in the Hellenistic Diaspora, probably Egypt, sometime between 100
All that has dramatically changed. Recently, scholars such as Ross Shepard Kraemer (When Aseneth Met Joseph, 1998) and Rivka Nir have once again located this work within a Christian context. In fact, Nir sees her book as “a continuation” (16) of Kraemer's work. Her central thesis is that “Joseph and Aseneth is a Christian work, composed by Christians for Christian purposes” (4). To this might be added that the text was preserved only in Christian contexts and uses language—e.g. “son of God”—that would make no sense within a Jewish environment.
Clearly “Jose ph” in Joseph and Aseneth cannot be the Joseph of multi-color coat fame. This is not the story in Genesis nor is it a midrash or elaboration on this text. By observing the hermeneutic decoding practices of Syriac Christianity, Nir takes us a long way into deciphering the document. She notes, for instance, that Joseph is a “type” for Jesus and Aseneth a surrogate for the church.
The book is organized as follows. Chapter one discusses Aseneth's conversion. In this connection, she observes that Aseneth's movement from polytheism to monotheism does not correspond to any form of Jewish conversion. Chapter two examines Aseneth, first as “City of Refuge” and then the passage in which Aseneth is swarmed by bees, a symbol of virginity. Building upon Syriac typology, chapter three equates Joseph with Helios/Sol Invictus, a surrogate for Jesus, the Sun God. It is a Christological equivalence that testifies to the supreme stature of Jesus, using imagery derived from the author's cultural milieu.
Chapter four discusses the marriage of Aseneth and Joseph which Nir interprets as symbolizing the marriage between Christ and the Church. As she points out, “The marriage of Joseph and Aseneth is the climax of the story, from both the literary and theological point of view” (136). Chapter five examines Christian ethics in Joseph and Aseneth. She concludes that she has “tried to show that its vocabulary, ideas and concepts, its symbols and images and its entire structure are fully comprehensible when seen against the background of third- and fourth-century Christianity” (175).
Nir has produced an excellent book that represents an important contribution to the growing literature on Joseph and Aseneth. It is well argued and it advances our understanding of the text. In some places, however, the argument could be usefully extended.
For example, in chapter three, Nir extends Kraemer's analysis of Jose ph as Helios, noting the mosaics in synagogues such as Beth Alpha and Hamat Tiberias as well as references to Jesus as the sun in Syriac Christian writings. If Jesus is equated with Helios, then it might be useful to look at the other characters in Joseph and Aseneth to see how they fit in the same cultural milieu.
Nir might also question the claim that the mosaics at Beth Alpha, Hamat Tiberias, Sepphoris and other locations are housed in “synagogues.” Depicting an image of deity, especially a non-Jewish one at that, seems inconsistent with Judaism, however highly assimilated these communities might be. Might not these buildings be the meeting places of another religion for which the mix of Jewish and non-Jewish symbols would not be anathema?
Joseph and Aseneth is not a happy-ever-after tale. It ends with a mysterious section: an attempt to abduct Aseneth and kill her children before her husband's eyes. The plot is fortunately aborted. Nir sets aside this section as likely written by a different author and turns her attention to the theme of forgiveness and compassion that is reflected in the narrative. It might be useful to examine other ways in which this concluding section could be interpreted without resorting to the hypothesis of a second author.
Nir's book is clearly written, carefully referenced and well worth reading for an insight into this remarkable ancient tale. She has considerably advanced and enhanced the discussion.