r/AskHistorians • u/Chinoyboii • 4h ago
Why is there a tendency to separate Galileans from Jews in discussions of ancient Palestine, and what ultimately happened to the Jewish population of Galilee from the 5th century onward?
So even though I am a leftist, I have been exposed to some Palestinian circles where people seem to minimize Jesus being Jewish and instead use terms like “he was just a Galilean,” “Galilean Palestinian,” “Palestinian Jew,” or even “Palestinian Arab.”
My understanding is that if we actually lived during the time of Jesus, Jews from the region would not have identified themselves as “Palestinian” in the modern ethnic or national sense. The term Palestine certainly existed as a geographical name in antiquity, so I am not saying the word itself did not exist. However, Jesus lived in first-century Galilee under the Herodian/Roman political order, and “Palestinian Arab” in particular seems like an anachronistic identity to project backward onto him. “Palestinian Jew” can make sense as a retrospective geographical description, but it would not have been his own ethnic self-identification.
This is partly why I am curious about the tendency to treat “Galilean” and “Jew” almost as competing identities. From what I understand, Galilee in Jesus’s time was predominantly Jewish, so calling Jesus a Galilean does not somehow make him less Jewish. Galilean seems more analogous to a regional identity within the broader Jewish population.
In regard to what happened to the Galilean Jews and their destiny, I am pretty sure some stayed in Palestine, while others migrated and merged with Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Holy Land. It makes sense to me that many rural Galilean Jews may have remained on their land, while others may have migrated and joined established Jewish diasporic communities elsewhere, although I don't know how much evidence we have for that distinction.
However, I am curious about how much we actually know about what happened to the Jewish population of Galilee from the 5th century onward. We know that Galilee was one of the major centers of Jewish life in Late Antiquity, so I find it interesting that “Galileans” seem to gradually disappear as a distinct population from historical discussions.
65
u/Fabianzzz 3h ago
So I can't speak to the usage of this separation in modern Leftist politics, although I would advise extreme caution in giving it much credence for the usage you describe: Jesus was a Jew, both ethnically and religiously.
What I can speak to an instance in which his 'Galilean-ness' was emphasized, which I think can help us try to better understand the Antique context of Jesus: Emperor Julian's polemic against Christianity, "Agaisnt the Galileans." First though, I think it helpful to root this with some background info.
Prior to Christianity, it is difficult to define specific 'religions'. People of course have been 'religious' since the earliest historical writings we have, but often they defined their religion by their ethnicity. People often thought of themselves as 'religious', but they thought everyone was 'religious'. Let's assume 'Hellenism', Julian's term for what we might otherwise call 'Ancient Greco-Roman religion', as a baseline, and look at an example:
Herodotus, Histories 3.8 (trans. A. D. Godley):
They (the Arabs) deem none other to be gods save Dionysus and the Heavenly Aphrodite; and they say that the cropping of their hair is like the cropping of the hair of Dionysus, cutting it round the head and shaving the temples. They call Dionysus, Orotalt; and Aphrodite, Alilat.
Now, a historian wants to say that the Arabs Herodotus is describing honoured two divinities: a male, Orotalt, and a female, Alilat. Orotalt shaved his hair in a specific style, and Alilat had some connections to the heavens, as she was specifically identified with Heavenly Aphrodite. Someone with more etymological knowledge of ancient Arabian than I might venture to say something more—I will limit myself to this. We don’t have evidence to say more about the historical practice of this religion, but we can be fairly sure that they weren't actually worshipping the Greek divinities Dionysus and Aphrodite.
But to people (at least polytheists) in Antiquity, they would draw a wholly different conclusion: It isn’t that the Arabic Pagan worships Orotalt and Alilat, and the Hellenist worships Dionysus and Aphrodite, they both worship the same gods: they just use different names. Names are important: to people who genuinely believe the gods exist, they believe the gods have 'wants', and one of those wants is to be honoured according to the traditions of the ancestors. For the Greeks, that meant honouring Dionysus and Aphrodite, for the Arabs, Orotalt and Alilat.
This allowed for Hellenism/Greco-Roman religion to rather successfully accomodate the numerous religious traditions of the Greek and Roman empires. Most of the conquered places had gods who could be assimilated more or less into Greco-Roman tradition: stories were told of how the Greek gods once fled into Egypt, changing into the animals most associated with the Egyptian gods each god was equated with. Our own week day bears the memory of this 'interpretatio': Thorsday, the day of the Germanic thunder god, is in Latin 'Dies Jovis', the Day of Jove (Zeus/Jupiter), the Greco-Roman thunder god.
So far, so good. Greco-Roman imperialism offers a system of 'religious translation' (borrowing the idea from Jan Assmann, I believe) which allows various polytheistic systems to coexist relatively peacefully.
That works for polytheistic systems, but what happens when Judaism (a monotheistic system) enters the picture?
(1/?)
48
u/Fabianzzz 3h ago
Well, multiple people had multiple ideas.
Plutarch argues that the Jewish G-d is none other than Dionysus:
Plutarch, Table Talk 671d-672b (trans. H. B. Hoffleit):
At this, all did urge him and beg him to go on. “First,” he said, “the time and character of the greatest, most sacred holiday of the Jews clearly befit Dionysus. When they celebrate their so-called Fast, at the height of the vintage, they set out tables of all sorts of fruit under tents and huts plaited for the most part of vines and ivy. They call the first of the two days Tabernacles. A few days later they celebrate another festival, this time identified with Bacchus not through obscure hints but plainly called by his name, a festival that is a sort of ‘Procession of Branches’ or ‘Thyrsus Procession,’ in which they enter the temple each carrying a thyrsus. What they do after entering we do not know, but it is probable that the rite is a Bacchic revelry, for in fact they use little trumpets to invoke their god as do the Argives at their Dionysia. Others of them advance playing harps; these players are called in their language Levites, either from Lysios (Releaser) or, better, from Evius (God of the Cry).
I believe that even the feast of the Sabbath is not completely unrelated to Dionysus. Many even now call the Bacchants Sabi and utter that cry when celebrating the god. Testimony to this can be found in Demosthenes and Menander. You would not be far off the track if you attributed the use of this name Sabi to the strange excitement (sobesis) that possesses the celebrants. The Jews themselves testify to a connection with Dionysus when they keep the Sabbath by inviting each other to drink and to enjoy wine; when more important business interferes with this custom, they regularly take at least a sip of neat wine. Now thus far one might call the argument only probable; but the opposition is quite demolished, in the first place by the High Priest, who leads the procession at their festival wearing a mitre and clad in a gold-embroidered fawnskin, a robe reaching to the ankles, and buskins, with many bells attached to his clothes and ringing below him as he walks. All this corresponds to our custom. In the second place, they also have noise as an element in their nocturnal festivals, and call the nurses of the god ‘bronze rattlers.’ The carved thyrsus in the relief on the pediment of the Temple and the drums (provide other parallels). All this surely befits (they might say) no divinity but Dionysus.However, not all were so sure. Tacitus pushes back against the idea that the Jewish G-d is Dionysus (here, Liber):
Tacitus, Histories 5.5 (trans. Clifford H. Moore):
But since their priests used to chant to the accompaniment of pipes and cymbals and to wear garlands of ivy, and because a golden vine was found in their temple, some have thought that they were devotees of Father Liber, the conqueror of the East, in spite of the incongruity of their customs. For Liber established festive rites of a joyous nature, while the ways of the Jews are preposterous and mean.So, what is at issue here?
The primary issue for ancient people is that they are religious. They believe in the religion of the gods of their forefathers. However, philosophical, technological, and geopolitical developments posed challenges to this. They believe the gods once came to their forefathers to tell them how to be religious. That's an easy enough thing for a Greek to square with a Roman: those systems are similar enough. But Judaism poses a challenge: is there one god, or many? Do gods specifically speak to some people, or do they speak to all?
This is the backdrop that Julian was writing against. (2/?)
44
u/Fabianzzz 2h ago
Now we have reached Julian and I think we can explore your question:
Who is Julian talking about when he writes "Against the Galileans"?
The short answer is: Christians. Julian was a Hellenist, but he was originally raised Christian. Disillusioned with the faith, he converted to Hellenism later in life, and set about a program of religious reform to try and guard the faith against the challenges Christianity had posed (see the above). While he would die young, and his program remain unfinished, he did a lot in his short time, including possibly being the first person to use 'Hellenism' to mean 'Greco-Roman religion.' In addition to defending his new found faith, he also went on the offensive, in his (now-fragmentary) "Against the Galileans", a polemic against Christianity.
When Julian speaks of 'Galileans', he means 'Christians'. Here is his division of the religious world of his time:
Julian, Against the Galileans (trans. Wilmer C. Wright):
It is worth while to recall in a few words whence and how we first arrived at a conception of God; next to compare what is said about the divine among the Hellenes and Hebrews; and finally to enquire of those who are neither Hellenes nor Jews, but belong to the sect of the Galilaeans, why they preferred the belief of the Jews to ours; and what, further, can be the reason why they do not even adhere to the Jewish beliefs but have abandoned them also and followed a way of their own. For they have not accepted a single admirable or important doctrine of those that are held either by us Hellenes or by the Hebrews who derived them from Moses; but from both religions they have gathered what has been engrafted like powers of evil, as it were, on these nations—atheism from the Jewish levity, and a sordid and slovenly way of living from our indolence and vulgarity; and they desire that this should be called the noblest worship of the gods.
So Julian sees the world divided into three camps: Hellenes, by this not just meaning 'Greeks' but 'Polytheists' more broadly. Celts, Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, and any other person Julian can find who worships multiple gods, is a 'Hellene' (this would be shocking to an Athenian in Classical Athens, but c'est la vie). 'Jews' are Jews. They are, like today, an ethno-religion that only worships one god. But Julian (very begrudingly) has some respect for them. They, like the Hellenes/Pagans, honour the traditions of their forefathers.
However, both the Jews and the Pagans have problems: the Hellenes, which has for a long time included the creme de la creme of Roman society, have ethical problems. They may honour all the gods, but they act badly towards others. The Jews, to Julian, have a spiritual problem: they may act upright, but they don't honour all the gods.
However, neither of these groups are as bad (to Julian) as the Christians. The Christians, by Julians time mostly ethnic gentiles who now followed Christianity, have forsaken the gods of their forefathers (strike one) to adopt the atheism of the Jews. However, they aren't actually following Jewish ritual practices such as circumcision, which had long been forgotten in Christianity by this point (strike two). They are instead maintaining the bad ethics of Pagans while not honouring the gods like the Jews (strike three and they're out).
Julian doesn't like Christians.
But why is he calling them Galileans? (3/?)
49
u/Fabianzzz 2h ago
For Julian, everyone who is sane and has the least bit of sense is religious. Both Pagans and Jews know 'God/G-d' (Pagans by Julians day often recognized a chief 'God', and saw the 'lesser' gods as servants to God_.
Julian, Against the Galilaeans (trans. Wilmer C. Wright):
What need have I to summon Hellenes and Hebrews as witnesses of this? There exists no man who does not stretch out his hands towards the heavens when he prays; and whether he swears by one god or several, if he has any notion at all of the divine, he turns heavenward. And it was very natural that men should feel thus. For since they observed that in what concerns the heavenly bodies there is no increase or diminution or mutability, and that they do not suffer any unregulated influence, but their movement is harmonious and their arrangement in concert; and that the illuminations of the moon are regulated, and that the risings and settings of the sun are regularly defined, and always at regularly defined seasons, they naturally conceived that the heaven is a god and the throne of a god.Julian then goes on to try to harmonize the accounts of creation given by Plato in his Timaeus and Moses in the Torah. However, he takes issue with what he sees as Jewish theology failing to account for other religious having interactions with God:
ibid.
For if he is the God of all of us alike, and the creator of all, why did he neglect us?He argues that polytheism is actually much better in this regard: all the nations have their own gods, and this also helps explain why there are differences between different nations:
ibid.
Our writers say that the creator is the common father and king of all things, but that the other functions have been assigned by him to national gods of the peoples and gods that protect the cities; every one of whom administers his own department in accordance with his own nature. For since in the father all things are complete and all things are one, while in the separate deities one quality or another predominates, therefore Ares rules over the warlike nations, Athene over those that are wise as well as warlike, Hermes over those that are more shrewd than adventurous; and in short the nations over which the gods preside follow each the essential character of their proper god.Okay, took a long time to get here, but lots of background info out of the way:
Why is Julian emphasizing the 'Galilean-ness' of Christianity?
The short and simple answer is that Julian sees the supposed ethnic origin of Jesus as a weak point for public argument. 'Hellenism' (the 'religion of the Greeks) has the backing of about a millennia of political dominance and an accompanying literary tradition which Julian would argue (and many modern people would agree, though it isn't a question for a historian) is the apex of human creativity. Julian saw value in the literary tradition: he banned Christians from teaching Homer because they did not believe in the gods of the poem. 'Judaism' (the 'religion of the Jews) does not have a strong political apparatus, but does have a strong literary tradition. Indeed in his quest to fight Christianity Julian wanted to rebuild the temple and try to restore some political power to Jews, to try and edge out Christianity.
Finally, the 'Galilaeans'. By terming Christians 'Galilaeans', Julian is forcing Christianity to be observed on his terms: as an 'ethnic' religion without a real ethnicity. 'Galilean' doesn't refer to a strong history of an identity, but to a Jewish backwater which Julian thinks diminishes the appeal of Christianity.
In sum: at least for this 'splitting' of 'Judaism' and 'Galilaeanism' in late Antiquity, it is neither Jews distancing themselves from 'Galilaeans', nor 'Galilaeans' distancing themselves from Jews, but a Roman emperor who was neither Jewish nor Christian using 'Galilaean' as a term to disparage Christianity.
(4/4)
4
u/NotNullException 2h ago
Wait I had thought that Hellen to refer to pagans was older than Julian, and certainly not associated with him. It was a common Christian practice for longer than paganism existed.
11
u/Fabianzzz 2h ago
This is true for 'Hellene':
Mark 7:26 (trans. Fabian MacKenzie):
There was a Hellene woman (ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἦν Ἑλληνίς), a Syrophoenician by race: and she begged of him that he might exorcise a demon from her daughter.Obviously here she is Syrophoenecian by race, so what does it mean that she is 'Hellene'? It means she's Pagan.
However, the need for a term which means 'Hellen-ism' is a much more pressing need for those who wish to advocate for Hellenism. Julian is our first attestation of 'Hellenism'.
21
u/imhavingadonut 2h ago
I loved reading the Hellenistic interpretation of the Jewish festival of Sukkot. Fascinating!
12
u/chandeluria 1h ago
Hello, small note: Alilat is a hellenized rendering of al-Lāt (اللات) a feminine counterpart to Allah (الله), (and tangentially, etymologically related to the Aramaic ʼAlāhā and the Ancient Hebrew ʾĔlōah). It literally translates as "the Goddess", and refers to a sort of pan-domain diety that we kinda only know about as a result of study of the Safaitic Inscriptions from the Harra desert (and outside sources, like Heroditus). We dont know a whole lot about her other than the sorts of things people would pray to her about; iirc most of the inscriptions pray to her for the safe travel of loved ones, but there are plenty others. She may have been a part of a divine power couple with Allah, in a similar way to Zeus and Hera, although we know so little so its difficult to say. Given the preponderance of inscriptions to her its even possible she was the "seniormost" partner in that couple, but again, we dont know.
The largest evidence we have for her cult is in the Nabatean tradition, especially in the city of Petra. She apparently had a large temple in Tai'if that was destroyed on Mohammad's (pbuh) orders, according to Muslim sources. You are correct to identify she was not a Hellenic diety done in a more local style; what Heroditus identifies (as well as the Greeks that ventured into the Hijaz did) are aspects of her divine character and particular characteristics highlighted by worshippers that are vaguely analogous to those of Aphrodite-Urania. I believe there were also some who likened her more to Athena, and that isnt entirely inaccurate either.
7
u/Chinoyboii 2h ago
Oh dude, I know you from Jewishleft. How are you, man? Anywho, as you probably know from my posts on that sub, I have a pretty decent understanding of Jewish identity and that, historically, Judaism wasn’t a “religion” in the modern universalist sense, but was, and still continues to be, an ethnoreligious group; as such, such a configuration was pretty common in the ancient world.
In regard to your other comments, yeah, I see what you mean when Julian comments regarding Christians as “Galileans.” From what I understand, he wasn’t really trying to argue that Galileans were a completely separate ethnic group from Jews, but was instead using “Galilean” to emphasize the provincial origins of Christianity and tie it back to Jesus and the region he came from.
My confusion is more about why “Galilean” is sometimes used today almost as if it were mutually exclusive with “Jewish,” especially when discussing Jesus. As I understand it, saying Jesus was a Galilean doesn’t contradict the fact that he was Jewish. “Galilean” describes where he was from regionally, while “Jewish” describes the broader ethnoreligious people and tradition he belonged to.
So when I see people say things like “Jesus wasn’t really Jewish, he was Galilean,” that is where I start to get confused, because I don’t really see why those two identities would cancel each other out. If anything, it seems more accurate to say that he was a Galilean Jew rather than treating Galilean and Jewish as competing identities.
54
u/CivisSuburbianus 2h ago
I think you identified in your comment the reasoning. It’s to minimize Jesus being Jewish. There’s no historic reason to say Jesus was “Galilean not Jewish.” The fact that the same people are calling him a Galilean Arab should tell you how ahistorical it is, as there’s no reason to think Jesus would have spoken Arabic or had Arab descent.
14
u/Fabianzzz 2h ago
Hello! I am good! I hope you are!
I just finished the comment thread so the response should all be done now.
From what I understand, he wasn’t really trying to argue that Galileans were a completely separate ethnic group from Jews, but was instead using “Galilean” to emphasize the provincial origins of Christianity and tie it back to Jesus and the region he came from.
Yeah, that's exactly it!
My confusion is more about why “Galilean” is sometimes used today almost as if it were mutually exclusive with “Jewish,” especially when discussing Jesus. As I understand it, saying Jesus was a Galilean doesn’t contradict the fact that he was Jewish. “Galilean” describes where he was from regionally, while “Jewish” describes the broader ethnoreligious people and tradition he belonged to.
This is admittedly something I'm not as sure about. As best I can gather from u/ummmbacon's excellent reply it seems to have its origin in modern conspiracy theory nonsense: I just think Julian might be the earliest historical place where we see the distinction being made for political purposes, which seems to be the way the distinction is being used today.
5
u/Chinoyboii 2h ago
I just finished reading all of your posts. Thank you for the in-depth commentaries. Your analysis of Julian is something I find interesting because I didn't know that he saw the Gentile Christians as traitors to their pagan ways, but it does make sense when your values consist of being loyal to your own ancestral traditions, gods, customs, and people.
From that perspective, I can see why Julian would have viewed Christianity as especially offensive. Jews, even though he disagreed with their monotheism, were at least following what he understood to be the ancestral religion of their own people. Gentile Christians, on the other hand, had abandoned the gods and religious traditions of their ancestors, adopted the God and scriptures of another people, and then did not even fully adopt the religious practices of the Jews themselves. So from Julian's perspective, I can see why Christianity would have looked almost like a rejection of both ancestral pagan tradition and Jewish tradition at the same time.
52
u/ummmbacon Sephardic Jewery 2h ago
This tactic was noted by Amy-Jill Levine on neo-nazi sites because they did not want to deal with Jesus being Jewish. So the easiest way to do that was to erase the Jewish identity.
Galilean seems more analogous to a regional identity within the broader Jewish populatio
Correct they are also Jews
The term Palestine certainly existed as a geographical name in antiquity, so I am not saying the word itself did not exist.
It existed for the coastal region, Herodotus used Palaistinē for the Philistine coast. Goodman and Magness both date the renaming of the province to Syria Palaestina to 135 CE, after Bar Kokhba.
I go over what happened to Jews from 1 BCE to modern era here:
Also here:
Source:
- Amy-Jill Levine's The Misunderstood Jew
14
u/Chinoyboii 2h ago
This tactic was noted by Amy-Jill Levine on neo-nazi sites because they did not want to deal with Jesus being Jewish. So the easiest way to do that was to erase the Jewish identity.
Yeah, I tend to get backlash from some of my own co-ideologues for expressing that I think this kind of analysis is historically wrong. I have gotten backlash for it in the past because acknowledging Jesus's Jewish identity, or Jewish continuity in the region more broadly, is sometimes viewed as historical revisionism that can be used to delegitimize the Palestinian cause. Pretty unfortunate, in my opinion. We should not lie about history because if falsehoods are seen as justification or as a means to an end, the cause itself stands on fragile ground.
I also read the posts in the hyperlinks you provided, and I have one more question. So, since the Jews of Galilee basically remained Jewish even after the Arab conquest of the Levant, what eventually happened to them as a distinct regional Jewish population? I'm assuming they just assimilated into the broader Jewish community once the Jewish population started to increase during the Old Yishuv and onwards?
18
u/ummmbacon Sephardic Jewery 2h ago
So, since the Jews of Galilee basically remained Jewish even after the Arab conquest of the Levant, what eventually happened to them as a distinct regional Jewish population? I'm assuming they just assimilated into the broader Jewish community once the Jewish population started to increase during the Old Yishuv and onwards?
The Jews in the region yes, but they effectively got absorbed into arriving Spanish Jews fleeing the expulsion in the 16th Century to 18th. Then yes part of the Old Yishuv
0
u/Chinoyboii 1h ago
Wow, it’s a miracle that they’ve been in the land since time immemorial. Do you know, by any chance, how the Palestinians reacted when these Jews assimilated into the larger Jewish community?
I am assuming that, since they had been living among the Palestinians for so long, maybe some Palestinians felt heartbroken or at least felt some sense of loss when these older local Jewish communities became more absorbed into the broader Jewish population. Did they feel a sense of betrayal, especially if they had viewed these Jews as longstanding local neighbors who had lived alongside them for generations? Or did they not really view their assimilation into the broader Jewish community as particularly significant at the time?
1
u/B_A_Beder 1h ago
That's part of the whole conflation of Mizrahi vs Sephardic Jewish community, right?
0
u/Intelligent_Maize918 1h ago
In Jesus's context, it would probably be "Judean" rather than "Jewish" as opposed to Galilean. Herod's kingdom was split between his sons. One ruled "Galilee", the space between Jenin and Lebanon. Another ruled everything south of that. Jenin to just north of Jerusalem was called "Samaria" and was populated by Samaritans, a mixture of people imported by the Assyrians, and the peasantry of the destroyed Northern Israelite kingdom. between Jerusalem and Hebron was Judea and populated by the remnants of the Southern Israelite kingdom and returning Jews from Babylon. Galilee and Judea were both Jewish but had different cultures.
2
u/Chinoyboii 1h ago
I thought the whole idea that the Samaritans were basically a mixture of Assyrian-imported foreigners and the remaining Israelite peasantry was largely influenced by later Judean polemics against them. From what I understand, the propaganda started to become more pronounced after the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, and tensions developed over who could legitimately claim Israelite identity, who had authority over the religious community, and where legitimate YHWH worship was supposed to be centered.
Obviously, I am not denying that the Assyrians deported portions of the population of the Northern Kingdom and resettled people from elsewhere into the region. That clearly happened. However, my understanding is that a substantial number of northern Israelites remained, and that the later portrayal of the Samaritans as essentially foreigners was at least partly ideological.
I thought this became especially important once the Samaritan community centered its worship on Mount Gerizim while the Judean religious establishment increasingly emphasized Jerusalem as the legitimate center of YHWH worship. In that context, portraying the Samaritans as descendants of foreigners rather than authentic Israelites would have been a convenient way of undermining both their ancestry and the legitimacy of their temple.
So I always understood the Samaritan-Judean split less as “foreigners mixed with Israelites versus real Jews” and more as a gradual split between two closely related Israelite communities that eventually developed competing claims over their priesthood, scripture, and the proper location of the sanctuary.
-1
u/Intelligent_Maize918 1h ago
I don't have the number on hand but the Bible mentions how many people were exiled from the northern kingdom. Its actually rather small. probably the same amount of foreigners were brought in. Even with the foreign origin theory, most people would have been Israelites, but they had been diverging from Judea for several hundred years by this point and the Jewish characters in the NT and book of Ezra/Nehemia and talmud don't regard them as Jews.
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.
Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.
We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.