Recent orders

The Evolution of Medieval Church Structure

The Evolution of Medieval Church Structure

Adam Miller

HP-218

2/26/02

Medieval Churches in Europe

Many have seen the beautiful churches of medieval Europe; in fact most many of these churches are still in use today. The architecture of these buildings can usually be characterized by their function and meaning along with the time period in which they were built. Early Roman churches seem relatively simple, while those that were built during Gothic times are magnificent and intricate. Though the church’s constructions seem vastly different, churches built in gothic times are quite similar to earlier churches. Through simple alterations in design, early Christian basilicas and tombs evolved to be glorious gothic cathedrals.

Christian needs during the years soon after the edict of Milan were quite simple and well defined. A building was needed in which the people could worship that also symbolized the elegance of heaven. It had to be large enough to accommodate the Christians community along with symbolizing both the house and tomb of the Lord. The Christians consciously turned away from the styles associated with pagan temples. They found the basilica to well suit their needs. Basilicas were originally buildings suited for public gatherings. They were long, rectangular, and were built with wooden roofs. At one end of the basilica was the apse, or rounded end where the emperor or other important person or object could sit. The Christians adapted the apse to accommodate their altar. Often, the buildings were built with a clearstory in order to allow light to shine in. The longitudinal structure of these buildings proved to be superb for the Christian congregations, since the Christian church ceremonies are processional. This longitudinal structure also emphasized the altar at the end of the building. Krauthiemer states that it was certain that the church would develop in the basilica due to its sole purpose as a meeting hall. At this time period in history, the Christian basilica was one of several types of basilicas including the funeral basilica and the Imperial audience hall. By 300 A.D. the oblong plan, longitudinal axis, timber roof, and vaulting were seen regularly throughout Christian architecture (Krautheimer, 21). The church of St. Paul is an early example of a Christian basilica. Though it has been heavily remodeled, drawings give us a good idea of how the church appeared after it was completed.

Christian religion not only focused on worshiping the Lord, but also worshiping saints and martyrs. Christians traveled to visit tombs or even relics of famous martyrs and saints. This required a building with a central focus on the tomb or relic to showcase these important items. The longitudinal nature of basilicas did not give this central focus. As a result, central planned churches called martyrias were created. Eventually the functionality of both martyrias and basilicas was combined to form one building.

When St. Lawrence was martyred in 258, he was buried in a cemetery. In the fourth century, the community built an underground martyrium and funeral basilica at the site of his grave. This new building, called a mausoleum, was well suited for the celebration of mass and the visitation of relics. The building combined the longitudinal nature of a basilica, while also directing the focus toward the altar and tomb of St. Lawrence. Mausoleums were milestones in Christian architecture. They were the first buildings to double as basilicas and tombs.

Mausoleums were usually square, polygonal, or circular in design, along with featuring a dome that symbolized heaven. The design aspects of mausoleums are seen throughout medieval times. Stokstad says, San Lorenzo Fuori le Mura, the funeral basilica containing St. Lawrence’s tomb, contained the first ambulatory, or passage around the altar, in order to display relics. The side aisles of the building were connected to the ambulatory in order to permit passage around the church without disturbing church services while also protecting the altar. A stairway led down to the crypt where St. Lawrence’s tomb was displayed (Stokstad, 27).

One of the most important developments in medieval church architecture came from the mausoleum intended for the emperor Constantine. Stokstad states that his tomb was at first surrounded by empty tombs symbolizing the 12 apostles, and then in 356 A.D. the apostle’s relics were actually transferred to the church. This symbolized Constantine to be Christ’s thirteenth apostle. This was found to be too great of an honor for Constantine, and his tomb was moved to an adjoining circular mausoleum (Stokstad, 29). The remaining tomb of the apostles, the Apostoleion, was in the shape of the Greek cross with the altar at the intersection of the crossing. This shape was found to be so important that is was often repeated in future churches. The design of the Apostoleion became a vastly important shadow of future church design.

The major evolution of church design really begins in the fourth century with the building of two churches, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the shrine of St. Peter. These two churches were the first to combine the functionalities of both basilicas and martyria. The martyrium, which was centrally planned, had major practical design flaws as a church. The chief concern was that martyria could not hold as many people as a basilica. Also, the central plan of martyria took the focus away from the altar during church services. Basilicas also had major flaws that did not allow them to function as a martyrium, mainly that they were not centrally planned. Stokstad says that both the church of the Holy Sepulchre and the shrine of St. Peter housed relics of Saints, yet both also contained basilicas in order to hold church service. Old St. Peter’s was built with the shrine of St. Peter directly in front of the apse, while the church of the Holy Sepulchre contained two separate buildings, a basilica and tomb (Stokstad, 31-33). St. Peter’s was constructed in a T-shape rather than the traditional cross that is seen throughout Europe today due to its unprecedented nature. Though both churches solved the problem of combining basilicas and martyrias in different ways, the idea lasted throughout the ages.

Another important alteration to church design was the addition of the transept. St. Peters basilica was the first church to be built with a transept. The four side aisles of the church ran along side the nave and ended at the transept. This allowed pilgrims to walk through the church, while still giving room to the clergy. This proved to be an enormously important feature of the church.

Another important combination of the basilica and martyrium is St. John’s

Church. Stokstad points out that at the site where John the Evangelist died, a martyrium with a vaulted canopy was built. Within 100 years, large numbers of people began visiting the church. The small size of the martyrium did not allow it to support such large numbers of people. As a result, a church in the shape of a cross was built with the intersection of the nave and transept at the martyrium. At the end of the church, a narthex was created and one of the arms of the cross was enlarged to be a five aisled basilica (Stokstad, 44). Here again the basilica and martyrium are imaginatively combined to form one functional building.

The design of ancient baptisteries is also an alteration of the plan of Christian tombs. The central plan of the building was ideal for baptisms and viewing, while the building was also easily vaulted in order to symbolize heaven. Architects altered the circular design of the tombs by creating eight sided buildings. This was symbolic of the eighth day of creation when the world began. The addition of domes to the eight sided building also created pendentives, or spherical triangular shapes which are used extensively throughout the history of the Christian church.

When Emperor Justinian set out to create one of the most unique buildings in Christian history, he also set a precedent in architectural conceptualization. Justinian’s church, Hagia Sophia, combined the functionality of basilicas and martyria in a way that was unheard of in its day. This is not however, the only attempt to do this. In the past, this effect was achieved simply by building a basilica and a martyrium in union. Justinian’s architects, a mathematician and a physicist, created Hagia Sophia as one single building that functioned as a symbol to Byzantine religion, along with being able to accommodate the needs of the Byzantine church. Eastern churches were often built in a central planned style while Western religion preferred the basilican form. The main focus of Hagia Sophia was its dome. The dome, as in earlier churches, symbolized heaven. Stokstad mentions that to lighten the dome, it was created with brick and mortar rather than concrete. This allowed the dome to be set on a series of pendentives, similar to the pendentives of baptisteries. Along the base of the dome were several windows allowing light to shine on the church below also giving the dome a heavenly appearance. At the east and west ends of the nave two half domes projected outward. The narthex of the church was on the west side while the apse was at the east side. These two half-domes on the ends of the church as well as the side aisles of the church gave it a longitudinal appearance similar to the basilica, while at the same time the dome created a central focus in the church (Stokstad, 55). Justinian’s architects succeeded in creating the first Christian church that combined the functionality of both basilicas and martyrias.

The Church of St. Peter’s continued to play an important role in church design during Carolingian times. Builders in the Carolingian times often turned to the design of St. Peter’s for inspiration in their own church design. Even the famous St. Gall plan, the plan for the ideal monastery, contained a basilica similar to St. Peter’s. The church was a basilica with transept, and semicircular apse, just as we have seen earlier. The Abbey Church of Fulda, also similar to the basilica, was first built as a rectangular building meant to contain the relics of St. Boniface. Years later, the church was redesigned to appear as St. Peters Basilica did. A transept was added as well as atrium and a west end apse. Another church of Carolingian times that repeated the basilica theme was St. Riquier at Centula. This church was known for its verticality, yet it was basically a church with a basilica like form. Instead of one, it had two transepts, along with an ambulatory and wooden roof.

An important step in the creation of Gothic architecture came with the Romanesque period. The Romanesque period is famous for it’s use of large stone structure, particularly the arch. The famous church of S. Vicente was built very much in this style. The builders of S. Vicente were of the first to build using these large stone structures. The wide use of stone as a building material naturally led to the alteration of church design. Building with stone required constant attention to the strength of the building in areas that were prone to weakness. Curved overhead structures were unsurprisingly used extensively since this form is one of the strongest geometric shapes. S. Vicente, while closely resembling the crossed basilica with a dome at the crossing of the transept and nave, began to introduce key elements that would be carried on through the gothic age. Stokstad says that side aisles were groin vaulted, while the nave contained barrel vaults. The nave was divided into bays, and at the sides of each bay were arches leading to the side aisles. Also, the architects who designed the church built the arches with supporting bands, a technique that is seen throughout gothic times (Stokstad, 175). The interior of the church, as a result of its stone construction using vaults and archways, appeared complex compared to earlier basilicas. This effect became magnified as the verticality of churches increases in the gothic age.

The Cathedral of Speyer was another major step forward in the evolution of church structure. The Cathedral of Speyer was one of the largest churches built in its time. Its massive towers and large stone structures are characteristic of the Romanesque period. Even though the cathedral is a massive structure with striking towers, its skeletal structure is that of the basilica. The church had a nave, crossing transepts, and was quite longitudinal in structure. Alterations in design lead the eye to perceive a magnificent and complex church, yet it was built in a manor comparable to that of the basilica. The church was even built with a wooden roof as earlier churches were. On each transept two massive towers were built, as well as a large central tower on the east end of the church. Built underneath the sanctuary and transept was a large crypt. Composed mostly of piers and groin vaults to support the weight of the church above, it has a complex and divided appearance.

Gothic architecture develops from an increased understanding in architectural technology along with a desire to create ostentatious cathedrals. The sheer verticality of gothic Cathedrals was made possible by utilizing pointed arches, which are stronger than round arches, along with flying buttresses and ribbed vaults. The use of these architectural tools led to a natural change in appearance to churches. While still maintaining elements of the longitudinal basilica, gothic cathedrals were quite often complex divided structures. A keystone in the evolution of church structure came in the form of the Abbey Church of St. Denis. This church, like most others, still contains the traditional nave, transept, and apse. Simson states that the church is certainly one of the first gothic edifices built (Simson, 99). This church helped to bring about magnificence in church architecture. Abbot Suger, the builder of the church, firmly believed in the use of flamboyant design. The nave, which Suger believed “had been hallowed by the miraculous consecration that Christ in his own person had bestowed upon its walls”, was lengthened and adorned with murals (Simson, 101). Suger also made use of beautiful stained-glass windows, which adorned the entire church. The choir of the church was also built in a magnificent fashion. The builders of the church had created the gothic chevet, a choir composed of several vaults. The church is an excellent demonstration on how church architecture is altered in order to fit the beliefs of the builder. Though the basic function and design of the church did not change drastically, Suger’s beliefs and opinions were omnipresent in the church architecture. The Abbey Church of St. Denis was a significant bridge between the churches of the past and the churches of the future. Not only were Suger’s building techniques imitated in such places as Notre Dame and Senlis, but also Suger himself had adapted aspects of Norman architecture in his design (Simson, 102).

Perhaps one of the most famous and influential Gothic churches ever built is Chartres Cathedral in France. This cathedral is very similar to early basilicas, due to its longitudinal plan, however its most famous aspect is its verticality. Chartres Cathedral can be thought of as a stone basilica that has been stretched vertically. Williams says that the clerestory has been greatly heightened to allow the inlet of light through several stain glass windows (Williams, 96). This church also demonstrates the process of reusing architectural concepts in new churches, which aids the evolutionary process. Design ideas from earlier churches are often copied in altered forms in newly built churches. Williams states that the rose in the north transept façade at Laon is the prototype for the oculi of the Chartes Clearstory (Williams, 96). The result of the Chartres master’s vertical design is the use of flying buttresses, and quadripartite vaults. The buttresses help to support the extremely high vault while the vaults help the cathedral boast its vertical nature.

Church design in the middle ages was truly an evolutionary process. Early Christians began using basilicas as churches in order to fulfill their religious requirements. As time progressed, and new basilicas were built, functionalities of both basilicas and tombs were integrated into one building. Eventually, building techniques changed and made possible the towering churches of gothic architecture we know today. While the Christian religion did not make severe changes in its theology, building structure was influenced by the constant alteration of existing building forms as well as increasing demand for magnificence in style. It is quite obvious that even the most magnificent gothic churches were created in the shadow of the simplest Roman basilicas.

SOURCES CITED

Krautheimer, R. (1965). Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Simson, O. (1956). The Gothic Cathedral, New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers.

Stokstad, M. (1986). Medieval Art. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wilson, C. (1990). The Gothic Cathedral, New York, NY: Thames and Hudson Inc.

The Evolution Of Jewish Memory And Identity During The Babylonian Exile And Beyond

The Evolution Of Jewish Memory And Identity During The Babylonian Exile And Beyond

The legacy of Jewish history is replete with many instances of the contentions between history and memory, and change and continuity.  Since ancient times, the Tribe of Israel has experienced enslavement, decimation and Diaspora, yet has preserved its cohesiveness and traditions while making necessary accommodations to ensure their survival through the generations.  Under such circumstances of adversity, destruction and destitution, no other society in recorded history has remained as united and successful as the Jews.   Much of this tenacity as both a nation and a religious society has been the direct result of a strong sense of collective identity and memory.  Within the Torah, Judaism’s core manifesto of belief, the commandment to remember and safeguard the Jewish heritage appears no less than one hundred sixty nine times, decisively establishing it as one of Judaism’s fundamental tenets.  As such, the Jewish paradigm revolves around remembrance of God’s active role in the lives of their ancestors, using it as the impetus for a constellation of cultural traditions, religious rituals and commemorative rites.  This celebration of memory, both individual and collective, serves a pivotal role in the dynamic evolution and preservation of identity and is exemplified within the context of the Babylonian Exile as a defining experience in Jewish history.  Quite simply, the emphasis on remembrance ingrained within the Jewish mindset was a seminal factor in their survival through the Babylonian Exile and into modern diasporic history.

The complete and sudden devastation of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple by the Babylonians in 586 BCE began the period of exile and concomitantly resulted in a variety of novel religious and social challenges which the Jewish people were unprepared to navigate.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn1″[1] Subsequent to a conflux of circumstances surrounding Israel’s unsuccessful militant engagement with the Babylonians, the forces of Nebuchadnezzar decisively annihilated the physical institutions of the Jewish religion and forcibly dispersed its supporters throughout the Babylonian dominion.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn2″[2] For the Israelites, this traumatic condition of recreating a life in a foreign nation with conflicting beliefs and values engendered a mass crisis of religious and cultural identity.  “The severance of the Jewish people from their home caused a break in the historical continuity of national life, brought to an end those practices which were associated with the Temple” and challenged the widely held religious belief that the Jews were God’s chosen people.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn3″[3] Furthermore, religious laws pertinent to the Temple and land of Israel, as physically manifested symbols of faith, were at once no longer relevant or applicable to their contemporary existence in Babylonia.  The confluence of these circumstances presented a palpable and significant complication for Jewish survival and ultimately threatened to extinguish the flame of Jewish heritage.

The challenges confronted in exile served as the immediate catalyst for spiritual renewal and the development of new social paradigms and compensatory mechanisms by which Jews strived to transcend their oppression and retain the core of their devotion to God and each other.  Modifications of religious practice to this effect succeeded in redefining Israel as a nation “within the contexts of its nature as a sociopolitical and religious entity,”HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn4″[4] concretizing its ability and determination to retain a sense of people hood despite the traumatizing experience of exile.  This transformation in the nature of Judaism appeared in two primary stages encompassing (1) the discovery of religious truth, and (2) the outward organization/canonization of religious life.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn5″[5] With respect to such new theological philosophy born out of the exile, Jews came to acknowledge the “great truth that religion is inward in character,”HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn6″[6] requiring no tangible maintenance (i.e. physical structures or institutions) as a personal statement of belief and dedication to a unified ideal.  This realization set in motion a shift towards a renovated social paradigm in which community and respecting the presence of God therein became central to Jewish practice and religious relevance to one’s daily life.  As such, the emphasis on social cohesion promoted the collective ideal that the Jewish community as a whole faced a common present and should similarly envision a common future.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn7″[7] While this new-found appreciation of individual responsibility and communal bonding was critical to immediate Jewish survival in Babylonia, the need for religious codification and an enduring schema of how Judaism was to be perpetuated in future generations became apparent.  In response to this need, educated scribes in Babylonia transcribed the predominantly oral tradition of Judaism and proliferated copies to Jewish communities in exile to disseminate knowledge and keep the faith alive.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn8″[8] As a direct result of these actions, the Code of Holiness was canonized within the Torah as an enduring reminder of people’s responsibility to God, and the Babylonian Talmud, one of most crucial opuses of religious work, was compiled to accomplish the same goal.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn9″[9] These remarkable accomplishments of a people in exile, having suffered through such turbulent social changes, reflect enduring shifts in perspective by which both personal and collective experiences became ingrained within the Jewish realm of memory and identity.

The Jewish community thrives by remembrance which “plays a central role in the formation and maintenance of group identity by shaping common myths and teleology, which are interpretive tools to assign meaning to events past, present and future.”HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn10″[10] The collective memory continuously preserved throughout thousands of years of Jewish history not only retells the story of the past, but also influences a unified perception of the present and endures as a source of inspiration for religious conviction fostered by constant adaptation.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn11″[11] The nature of memory as an instrument of social cohesion relies on its ability to “ceaselessly reinvent tradition, [and] link the history of its ancestors to the undifferentiated time of [its] heroes, origins and myths.”HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn12″[12] The Baal Shem Tov, the founder of the Hasidic movement, said “forgetting is exile; remembrance is redemption.”HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn13″[13] Within the context of the post-exilic Jewish collective subconscious, this statement encapsulates the motivation to preserve the continuity of Jewish heritage and move beyond the threat of estrangement there from.  As such, for an event so fundamental to the formation of Jewish identity and memory, it was only fitting for the Babylonian exile to be incorporated into Israel’s canon and adapted to immortalize its message to future generations.  In the Jewish prism, the fall of Babylonia and the subsequent opportunity to return to Jerusalem with the hope of rebuilding the Temple was a divine intervention on their behalf.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn14″[14] The lasting memory of the Babylonian exile and redemption ultimately transmits a deepened religious appreciation for God’s active role in the world and their responsibility to honor the commandments.

Despite the currently uncontested conception of the exile as a catalyst for spiritual renewal and hope, the adaptation of this memory was controversial. This occurred as a result of the contention between history and memory, and determining what sentiment would be most culturally expedient to communicate to future generations.  The memory of exile lingered within the Jewish collective psyche; however its memory was plagued by the uncertainty of whether to remember the event with harbored resentment towards the Babylonians as persecutors or with gratitude to God for their growth as a unified nation and deliverance.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn15″[15] Ultimately, the Jews embraced the latter perspective and concretized the archetypical cycle of exile and return as the recurring motif of the Jewish experience on both national and individual levels respectively.  In doing so, however, important factual details of the exile were excluded in favor of a more appealing historical narrative and the clear conveyance of the cultural meaning derived from the experience.  For example, the lack of acknowledgement of the role of human agency in the survival of the Jews through the exile supports this claim.  More specifically, Jewish memory emphasizes the role of God in sustaining the Jewish people through hardship and intervening to effect the downfall of the persecuting nation while marginalizing the contributions of human determination to strengthen Judaism and the fortuitous Persian invasion which the Babylonians were unprepared to neutralize.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn16″[16] In addition, it is widely doubted whether the Jewish tradition would have survived in exile much beyond the point of Persian intervention, even given the modifications to Judaism that were made in response to the subjugation and dispersal of Judea.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn17″[17] With these examples in mind, it is not difficult to understand the contention between historical facticity and memory.  In the words of Ehud ben Zvi:

History…tends to separate the past from the present and focus on the unique, unrepeatable character of the past and focus on the past or past event, whereas memory tends to construe a past that is presently alive in the community, to fuse past and present, and to shape the past in terms of a basic metanarrative/myth that is constantly reused to interpret and provide significance to a recounted pastHYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn18″[18]

Clearly, the “metanarrative” alluded to above refers to the paradigm of cyclical exile and return within the Jewish tradition. For all intents and purposes, this emphasis on memory as a living and dynamic construct which aids in the preservation of identity is reason enough to render pure facticity tangential to its purpose.  The primary impact of the Babylonian exile was religious; therefore, the event’s historicity is peripheral, and the memory thereof (i.e. the perceived sequence of events and their significance within the course of history) takes precedence.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn19″[19] In perspective, this type of counterfactual memory offers a way for a group, such as the Jews, to envision an alternate or aggrandized past leading to the formation of how the world exists in the present.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn20″[20] In the process of sacrificing pure historicity, memory acquires a new dimension of depth and significance altogether as a medium for transmitting heritage and tradition by transcending the realm of temporal continuities.  For the Jews, the events of the Babylonian exile were immortalized within Israel’s collective subconscious and etherealized as the metanarrative of exile and return; the hallmark of Jewish authenticity.  As the new paradigm of Jewish history, the collective memory developed as a result of the Babylonian exile continued the trend of increasing Jewish unity and preserved the Jewish people.

In consideration of the adaptive role of Jewish memory in response to the condition of exile, it is fitting to apply this understanding to the vicissitudes of modern Jewish diaspora in America.  Within the contemporary Jewish paradigm, the state of diaspora is collectively conceived as exile; an estrangement of the people of Israel from their “home of Jewish living, learning and doing.”HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn21″[21] Such perception, while influenced in part by the historical metanarrative described above, is primarily resultant from a confluence of several observations.  First and foremost, the condition of living outside the land of Israel creates the same discontinuity of Jewish cultural life as exile.  This, in addition to secular environmental influences, has created significant rifts in Jewish cohesion which can be categorized as both internal and external.  Within the American Jewish community itself, individuals remain divided ideologically by conventional denominationalism, the value of Zionism and the role of Jewish education, as well as by seeking acceptance within the context of American multiculturalism.  All of this is exemplified by the operative mindset articulated by the American Jewish Congress:

We cannot make our life as totally Jewish as Palestine’s Jews do, we must strive to make it as thoroughly Jewish within the framework of the American democracy as will [outwardly] express our historical awareness and will to survive.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn22″[22]

Ultimately, this philosophy has increased apathy about the importance of Israel and the attenuation of Judaism’s essential tenets in the hope of seeking harmony with other cultures in America.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn23″[23] Compounding these internal challenges to Jewish national solidarity are external forces of intermarriage and espousal of other secular social conventions which result in widespread acculturation and loss of Jewish identity.  In turn, Jews begin to abrogate their sense of responsibility to the community and “disregard Jewishness as a heritage and rather a set of [secular] contemporary values.”HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn24″[24] All of these factors, both internal and external, contribute to a general crisis of identity, threatening to dissolve the Jewish people unless necessary adaptations are made to preserve the continuity of their heritage, which is thoroughly characteristic of the exilic experience.

As has been established by the historical precedent of the Babylonian exile, such adaptive modifications to faith often use the collective subconscious as a medium for effective and enduring paradigmatic change.  While the Babylonian exile gave the Jews of the 6th century BCE the hope of return to the physical land of Israel, modern American diaspora has developed the hope of return to ideological unity to not only survive, but to thrive by exploring new avenues for spiritual growth within the freedom of American democracy.  Recently, this has initiated increasing momentum in the shift towards post-denominationalism and modern conceptions of Messiah as well as the preconditions for its coming.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn25″[25] For the Jews, the advent of the Messianic Age universally signifies the end of the exilic cycle and suffering.  As such, the methods by which Jews seek to expedite its arrival, while varying greatly, all revolve around the notion of a connection between the salvation of Israel and their adherence to the laws of Torah.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn26″[26] That is, when Jewish communities in exile and diaspora throughout the world become thoroughly unified in working towards a common ideal through observance of Torah and fulfillment of God’s mission, the Messiah will arrive to redeem the world.  In this way, Jews have altered their collective memory and consciousness to address the needs of the community experiencing modern American diaspora, rejuvenating the metanarrative of exile and return within a contemporary context.  Fundamentally, it is memory that serves as the catalyst for Jews to work towards unity because of the importance placed on continuing the historical chronicle.

Examining the history of their journeys in exile, it becomes apparent that Jews used the experiences of deprivation and destitution as the building blocks of a new dimension of tradition and collective consciousness which has empowered them to thrive through generations of adversity.  The essential message to be gained from the Babylonian exile and American diaspora is the importance of hope for survival within the cultural framework and memory of the Jewish people.  On the most basic level, hope fortifies the human motivation to preserve community, faith and heritage.  The Jewish paradigm reinforced this by rendering despair a sin, and hope evolved to become the defining characteristic of Jewish existence and the struggle through exile to redemption.  The perpetual anticipation of unity in Israel maintained a fundamental difference in the perspectives of Jews and non-Jews, which ultimately made them a nation, notwithstanding their historic lack of independent sovereignty.HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn27″[27] All of these factors which became incorporated into the ever-evolving Jewish psyche ultimately preserved the unity of tradition, facilitating their survival through millennia of exile and oppression, and emphasizing the value of collective memory as a mechanism for enduring identity.  In the words of Jacob Neusner:

“Exile encapsulates what Jews are, and return, what they can become.”HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftn28″[28]

References

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref1″[1] Nancy E. Berg, Exile from Exile: Israeli Writers from Iraq (n.p.: SUNY Press, 1996), 10.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref2″[2] Solomon Grayzel, A History of the Jews, from the Babylonian Exile to the Present, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1968), 14.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref3″[3] Berg, Exile from Exile: Israeli, 9.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref4″[4] Jacob Neusner, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Exile and Return in the History of Judaism (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 32.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref5″[5] George A. Barton, “Influence of the Babylonian Exile on the Religion of Israel,” The Biblical World 37, no. 6 (June 1911): 371.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref6″[6] Ibid, 371.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref7″[7] Grayzel, A History of the Jews, 17.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref8″[8] Ibid, 37.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref9″[9] Barton, “Influence of the Babylonian,” 373.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref10″[10] Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Voice and Role of a Counterfactual Memory in the Construction of Exile and Return,” in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts, by Christoph Levin and Ehud Ben Zvi (n.p.: de Gruyter, 2010), 188.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref11″[11] Noa Gedi and Yigal Elam, “Collective Memory — What Is It?,” History and Memory 8, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1996): 31.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref12″[12] Pierre Nora, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire,”Representations, Spring 1989, 8.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref13″[13] Wilfred van de Poll, “The Exile of God: The Galut in Jewish Construction,” in From Babylon to Eternity: The Exile Remembered and Constructed in Text and Tradition, by Bob Becking (London: Equinox, 2009), 57.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref14″[14] Grayzel, A History of the Jews, 20.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref15″[15] Barton, “Influence of the Babylonian,” 372.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref16″[16] Ben Zvi, “The Voice and Role,” in The Concept of Exile.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref17″[17] Ibid.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref18″[18] Ibid.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref19″[19] Anne-Mareike Wetter, “Balancing the Scales: Construction of the Exile as Countertradition in the Bible,” in From Babylon to Eternity: The Exile Remembered and Constructed in Text and Tradition, by Bob Becking (London: Equinox, 2009), 39.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref20″[20] Ben Zvi, “The Voice and Role,” in The Concept of Exile.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref21″[21] Israel Knox, “Is America Exile or Home? We Must Begin to Build for Permanence,” in Jews and Diaspora Nationalism: Writings on Jewish Peoplehood in Europe and the United States, by Simon Rabinovitch (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2012), 254.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref22″[22] Ibid, 250

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref23″[23] Simon Rabinovitch, “Diaspora, Nation, and Messiah,” introduction to Jews and Diaspora Nationalism: Writings on Jewish Peoplehood in Europe and the United States (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2012), 24.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref24″[24] Knox, “Is America Exile or Home?,” in Jews and Diaspora Nationalism,208.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref25″[25] Rabinovitch, “Diaspora, Nation, and Messiah,” introduction to Jews and Diaspora Nationalism, 26.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref26″[26] Neusner, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Exile and Return, 150.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref27″[27] Rabinovitch, “Diaspora, Nation, and Messiah,” introduction to Jews and Diaspora Nationalism, 24.

HYPERLINK “../../Brandon/Dropbox/Exile and Memory.docx” l “_ftnref28″[28] Neusner, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Exile and Return, 224.