Abstract
This study explores the fluidity of beliefs and practices depicted distinctively Israelite in the Book of Tobit and Jubilees. The comparison between Tobit’s and Noah’s characters demonstrates that their exemplarity is depicted similarly by using the two-way metaphor, but the beliefs that these characters propagate are very different. Drawing on the social identity approach, this article shows that the authors of the Book of Tobit and Jubilees compare different groups that affect which beliefs and practices characterize the ideal way of life: Different features are presented as exemplary when ethnic groups are compared to one another as opposed to when different tribes/families are compared. Similarly, the exemplary characteristics are different when common ancestry is defining for Israelite identity in comparison to when covenantal obedience is defining. The comparative context does not change only between the Book of Tobit and Jubilees but also within each book. The shift in the comparative context offers one explanation for the literary seams in the Book of Tobit.
Introduction 1
In recent decades, a vivid scholarly discussion on Jewish identity has taken place concerning the ethnic, cultural, and religious aspects of identity and the beliefs and practices that enhanced it. 2 How should scholars deal with the diversity of Jewish beliefs and practices depicted in the ancient sources? S. Moore criticizes researchers for presenting Judean identity as an exhaustive list of traits, such as common ancestry, monotheism, circumcision, purity, Sabbath observance, and so on, and for concluding that ignorance of any of these traits would mean being less Judean. Instead, by drawing from sociological and anthropological studies on ethnicity, Moore claims that different behavior and beliefs were seen as boundary markers by Judeans and their contemporaries in different times and places. 3
This study continues to explore the fluidity of beliefs and practices depicted as distinctively Jewish by presenting a case study of two roughly contemporary Jewish texts, the Book of Tobit and Jubilees. 4 Both narratives bring forth different characters that crystallize what kind of behavior is expected from a Jew. There are notable similarities in the way two of these characters, Tobit and Noah, are presented: Both Tobit and Noah teach about a proper way of life by using the two-way metaphor (Tob 4:3–19 and Jub. 7:20–34), and both characters are depicted as living what they preach. 5 However, the beliefs and practices Tobit and Noah promote are different. According to Tobit, one should bury the dead, give alms, and practices endogamy, while Noah advices to refrain from eating blood and from killing, for example. Why is the ideal behavior depicted so differently?
I argue that the application of the social identity approach provides concepts to examine the fluid portrayals of Jewish beliefs and practices. 6 I will show that the authors of the Book of Tobit and Jubilees compare different groups that affect which beliefs and practices characterize the ideal way of life. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that the comparative context does not change only between the Book of Tobit and Jubilees but also within each book. In the Book of Tobit, the difference in the comparative context offers one possible explanation for the literary seams discussed in previous research.
Social identity is dynamic
This study builds upon the fundamental observation of the social identity approach, namely, that social identity is dynamic. 7 Ancient Jews belonged to several groups—such as family, tribe, ethnicity, and profession—and therefore, they held several social identities. In live social situations, one’s social identity and its relevant features are determined by one’s comparative context: In one situation, one may have identified as a member of the tribe of Naphtali and in another situation, as an Israelite. The comparative context determines which level of categories is the most relevant. For example, if one is categorized as a member of the tribe of Naphtali, the difference between individual tribesmen is perceived to be less than the difference between the tribe of Naphtali and the tribe of Reuben. On the other hand, if one is categorized as an Israelite, the difference between the tribe of Naphtali and the tribe of Reuben is perceived to be less than difference between Israelites and non-Israelites. Therefore, the tribe of Naphtali and the tribe of Reuben are perceived as different in one context but similar in another. 8
Due to the different comparative contexts, the beliefs, attitudes, values, feelings, and behavior that characterized an Israelite, for example, were not fixed but they created a “fuzzy set” of features that the ingroup shared and which simultaneously distinguished the ingroup from the other group(s). These context-dependent features are called prototypes 9 and group members who embody these features are considered prototypical. Yet, not all features and ingroup members are considered equally prototypical: ”In general terms, the more a group member differs from outgroup members and the less he or she differs from other ingroup members (that is, the more this person exemplifies what ingroup members share and what they do not share with the outgroup), the more that individual will be perceived as prototypical of the group.” 10 In ancient texts, exemplary characters like Tobit and Noah function like prototypical ingroups members in live social situations. 11
Just like some ingroup members are more prototypical than others, so are some group beliefs as well. Social identity is defined by group beliefs that play a central role in group formation and maintenance. The centrality of some group beliefs is not a given but often maintained externally. 12 This article views the authors of the Book of Tobit and Jubilees as epistemic authorities who seek to affect the way people see their own ingroup by presenting certain features central for one’s social identity. The authors utilize well-known strategies: They create exemplary characters, make use of stories from the group’s past, 13 and change which groups and features to compare. 14
Tobit’s and Noah’s exemplarity
In both the Book of Tobit and Jubilees, Tobit’s and Noah’s exemplarity is depicted similarly in terms of the two ways. Tobit and Noah teach what is expected from an ingroup member by using the two-way metaphor (Tob 4:3–19 and Jub. 7:20–34). The centrality of these features for the ingroup identity is strengthened by depicting Tobit and Noah as living what they preach. Tobit’s and Noah’s exemplarity is apparent already from the short characterization at the beginning of each narrative (Tob 1 and Jub. 5). 15 In Tobit 1:3, Tobit introduces himself as the one who lives according to his own teaching by stating that “I, Tobit, walked in the ways of truth and in righteous acts all the days of my life.” 16 This language is reminiscent of his own teaching regarding the two ways when Tobit instructs his son to “do righteousness” and not to “walk in the ways of injustice” (Tob 4:5), 17 as for those who “keep to the truth,” there “will be successes” (εὐοδίαι ἔσονται) in their deeds (Tob 4:6). The noun εὐοδία refers to a good journey. 18 In Jubilees 5:19, Noah is introduced as one whose “mind was righteous in all his ways” in contrast to those who “corrupted their ways and their plan(s)” and who finally vanished with the flood (cf. also Jub. 5:2, 10, 13). 19 After the flood, Noah discovers that his sons falter from the right path. At the beginning of his two-way teaching, Noah states that his sons do not “walk in righteousness” 20 and have begun to conduct themselves “in the way of destruction” (Jub. 7:26). 21
Beliefs propagated by Tobit
When narratives about Tobit are compared to his two-way teaching (Tob 4:3–19), one sees that Tobit exemplifies to a great extent what he teaches: Tobit buries the dead, practices endogamy, gives alms, pays wages, and asks guidance from God. 22 In many cases, these practices do not mark only—or even primarily—Israelite identity but belonging to a smaller social unit: they distinguish Tobit’s own tribe and family from others.
Let me begin with the theme of endogamy since it most clearly demonstrates the importance of tribal and familial relations for social identity in the Book of Tobit. 23 Tobit prefers marriage between relatives and between members of the same tribe. This view can be detected most clearly from how Tobit defines a foreign woman as someone who is not from one’s father’s tribe (ϕυλή, Tob 4:12). 24 Furthermore, Tobit encourages his son to marry an even closer relative: Tobit advises his son to avoid fornication by marrying a woman “from among the descendants of your ancestors” (ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος τῶν πατέρων σου Tob 4:12). While this phrase can refer to both close relatives and fellow Israelites, the exhortation to follow the example of the patriarchs Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who married close relatives, suggests that it refers to close relatives. 25 Also, Tobit exemplifies his own teaching by marrying a woman who is “one of our own family” (ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος τῆς πατριᾶς ἡμῶν Tob 1:9). 26 In promoting marriage between relatives, the Book of Tobit differs from most Second Temple period Jewish compositions that propagate marriage within the Jewish nation, often for the fear of idolatry. 27 Why, then, is marrying within the family and tribe of such importance? Marriage creates close social ties, especially through finances. 28 Tobit 6:12–13 demonstrates an interest in keeping Sarah’s inheritance in the family: Tobit’s son Tobias has the right to inherit Sarah’s father since Sarah is an only child. 29
Finances meet kinship relations also when discussing the payment of wages. Tobit teaches that one should pay wages at once (Tob 4:14), and later in the story, he decides to pay Raphael generously for assisting Tobias on his way to Rages (Tob 12:1–5). In these instances, serving God (Tob 4:14) and doing well (Tob 12:1–5) appear important characteristics for a workman. However, when we turn our gaze to the moment Tobit hires Raphael, we notice that trustworthiness depends on knowing one’s family and tribe. It is not enough that Raphael is supposed to be an Israelite and knows the way to Rages, but Tobit also wants to learn about Raphael’s family and tribe to make sure he is trustworthy (Tob 5:3–8). Raphael questions Tobit’s inquiry, but Tobit insists, wanting to learn what his name is and who his father is. Tobit is pleased to hear that Raphael is from a good family and that they appear to be related (Tob 5:13–14), but Tobit and Raphael’s degree of kinship remains unclear. 30 Because Raphael is in fact an angel, Tobit and Raphael cannot truly be related. Nonetheless, the negotiation between Tobit and Raphael demonstrates interest in close kinship relations.
The Book of Tobit also encourages people to give alms to their kindred, even if not exclusively. Almsgiving is valued highly in the Book of Tobit: it is a way to remember the Lord (cf. e.g. Tob 4:5–11). 31 Also, a significant portion of Tobit’s two-way teaching deals with almsgiving (Tob 4:7–11, 16–17, cf. also 14:8–9), and Tobit’s own almsgiving is frequently brought up (Tob 1:3, 16–17; 2:2–3; 14:2). In Tobit 1:3, the juxtaposition between brothers (ἀδελφός) and people (ἔθνος) indicates that both Israelites and a smaller social unit are referred to as recipients of alms (for brothers, cf. also Tob 1:16–17). But due to the ambiguity of the word brother, the degree of kinship to which the term refers remains uncertain. 32
Burying the dead demonstrates the importance of familial relations in two ways. First, burying the dead is the duty of the closest relatives. 33 In his teaching, Tobit instructs his son Tobias to bury him after his death, and burying Tobias’s mother beside him is a way of honoring her (Tob 4:3–4). When his parents die, Tobias follows Tobit’s instructions (Tob 14:11–12). 34 Second, Tobit’s eagerness to bury fellow Israelites finally enables endogamous marriage between Sarah and Tobias. Tobit continues to bury fellow Israelites despite the danger of the death penalty (Tob 1:16–20; 2:1–8). 35 According to the angel Raphael, this was counted in Tobit’s favor, and Raphael therefore healed Sarah and enabled the marriage between Tobias and Sarah (Tob 12:12–15). Raphael’s help was secured also through Sarah’s prayer (Tob 12:12). In fact, prayer is yet another aspect of Tobit’s exemplarity: like Sarah, Tobit prayed to God, and God sent his angel to heal him (Tob 3:2–6, 11–15, 16–17). Tobit’s prayer is in line with his own teaching about blessing God and asking for his guidance (Tob 4:19). Prayer enables one to remain on the right track. 36
Thus far, I have demonstrated how Tobit lives true to his own teachings and how tribe and/or family members are often depicted as the ingroup. By supporting one another, one’s next of kin may thrive. 37 The importance of family and tribe for social identity becomes apparent from the very beginning of the Book as Tobit is introduced according to his ancestral lineage and tribe (Tob 1:1). However, parts of chapters 1 and 13–14 paint a different picture of Tobit. 38 First of all, Tobit is surprisingly interested in halakhic matters in chapter 1, but not so much in the rest of the book. Before the Assyrian exile, Tobit regularly made pilgrimages to Jerusalem (Tob 1:6–8), and in exile, he refused to eat pagan food (Tob 1:10–11). Furthermore, all the tribes of Israel are in focus, and Tobit’s own tribe is given a negative review. The tribe of Naphtali was guilty of deserting the house of David and Jerusalem by sacrificing to a calf in Dan during the reign of king Jeroboam (Tob 1:4–6). Similarly, chapters 13–14 take interest in Jerusalem and its temple, as well as in Israel and in the relationship between Israel and other nations. 39 While the lack of interest in the cult in the middle part of the book could be explained by the diaspora context, 40 it is noteworthy that there is no interest in halakhic matters that could be observed in the diaspora, such as observing the Sabbath and circumcision. 41 One explanation for the diverse image of Tobit and the propagated beliefs is a shift in the comparative context: In many part of chapters 1 and 13–14, the comparison takes place between Israelites and non-Israelites. But Israel is not determined principally by ancestry but by covenant and its obligations, and therefore, sacrifices and the observance of food regulations make a difference between Israelites and non-Israelites. 42 In the middle part of the book, the author promotes behavior that distinguishes tribes and families from others. Subsequently, Tobit is presented as an exemplary head of a household that is interested in supporting next of kin. The two different comparative contexts at least partially explain why scholars have given various answers to the kind of identity or the kind of Judaism that the Book of Tobit promotes. 43 Besides clarifying the kind of identities the book promotes, the shifting comparative context offers one explanation for some of the thematic differences between the bookends (Tob 1 and 13–14) and the middle part of the book. J. Collins, for example, suggests that at least parts of chapters 1 and 13–14 are likely to be secondary additions because the core story told in the middle part of the book works well on its own. 44 Yet, others have maintained that the Book of Tobit creates a meaningful whole. 45 From a social identity perspective, there is a genuine difference between the bookends and the middle part. However, the shift in the comparative context does not explain, for example, the sudden move from third-person narration to first-person narration (Tob 1:3–3:6), even if they partly coincide. 46 Thus, the social identity perspective should be supplemented with other theoretical and methodical viewpoints when assessing the integrity of the Book of Tobit.
Beliefs propagated by Noah
In Jubilees, Noah embodies to great extent the features that define the ingroup in his two-way teaching, but his exemplary behavior differs drastically from Tobit’s: Noah refrains from eating blood and from killing, he handles blood correctly, harvests and consumes the yield of his vineyard appropriately, divides the land between his descendants, blesses God, and provides protection against demons. 47 The Noah cycle depicts two comparative contexts: On the one hand, those who keep God’s commandments are compared to those who do not keep them and on the other hand, Israel is compared to other nations. Subsequently, Noah’s role is twofold. In the first comparative context, Noah is the only one who keeps God’s commandments, while his sons stray from the right path. 48 In the second comparative context, Noah confirms that Shem and his descendants have a privileged position among the nations. Thus, in one comparative context, (most of) Israel’s ancestors belong to the outgroup but in the other comparative context, they belong to the ingroup. The Noah cycle illustrates two larger narratives that permeate Jubilees: Israel repeatedly breaks the covenant with God (e.g. Jub. 1:5–14) but God also chose Israel among all nations already at creation (Jub. 2:19–33). 49 After the flood, God continues to execute his judgments upon all who transgress (Jub 5:13–16) but only Israel can repent and be forgiven (Jub. 5:17–19). 50 Thus, the other nations do not seem to have a change in being members of the ingroup even if all of Noah’s sons seemingly enter into a covenant with God (cf. below). But, because all sons entered willingly into the covenant they and their descendants can be held responsible for their transgressions. 51
In Noah’s two-way teaching (Jub. 7:20–34), the comparison takes place between Noah and his descendants. Noah weaves together three teachings on blood that mark the right path: the prohibition to kill, refraining from blood consumption, and handling blood correctly. In the first section of his teaching (Jub. 7:21–26a), Noah encourages his sons to guard their souls from fornication, impurity, and from the injustice that caused the flood. In Jubilees, the injustice—mentioned also in Genesis 6:11 and 13 as the cause of the flood—is specified as bloodshed: when the Watchers took human wives, they caused a snowball effect that led to bloodshed. 52 The following section (Jub. 7:26b–33) continues with the theme of bloodshed, expressing Noah’s concern that after his death, his sons would shed man’s blood and therefore be destroyed too. Next, Noah repeats the warning but adds a reference to eating blood, claiming that all who commit these two offenses will be destroyed from the face of the earth like the flood generation (Jub. 7:28). Jubilees 7:29 repeats the two offenses and elaborates the horrible punishments—violent death, descent to Sheol, and termination of lineage—that face the offenders. 53 Jubilees 7:30 introduces the third teaching relating to blood: Noah dictates that no blood should splatter on his sons when slaughtering an animal. Leviticus 6:27 orders that the blood of a sin offering must be washed from a garment it has stained, but Jubilees makes the commandment more general and stricter, prohibiting blood stains of any type of slaughter. 54 Noah is nowhere depicted as performing a non-cultic slaughter, but he executes cultic slaughters with success (Jub. 6:1–4; 7:3–5). In the final part of his teaching, Noah instructs his children on the produce of fruit trees they will plant. The instruction seems to concern all of Noah’s descendants in all their future cities (Jub. 7:35) albeit the altar of the Lord is also referred to (Jub. 7:36). Noah teaches not to pick fruits until the fourth year and to offer part of the yield as first fruits. In Jubilees 7:1–6, Noah himself is depicted retaining from eating the produce of his vineyard during the first years. 55
By the time the readers reach Jubilees 7, they have already learned from Jubilees 6 that the prohibition to consume blood is in fact a covenantal obligation. 56 God makes a covenant with Noah after the flood and ordains the prohibition to eat blood. Noah and his sons are portrayed as active agents in making a covenant with God as they swear an oath not to consume any blood (Jub. 6:7–8, 10). However, the readers soon learn that Noah’s sons will indeed consume blood and break the covenant (Jub. 6:18; cf. also Jub. 9:15; 10:1–2). Thus, chapter 6 portrays all of Noah’s sons falling out of the ingroup as in Noah’s two-way teaching. 57 However, chapter 6 shows also interest in Israel because Noah’s covenant is portrayed more Israelite in Jubilees than in Genesis. 58 Noah’s and Moses’s covenants are juxtaposed in many ways: 59 God makes a covenant with Noah on the third month, which is the same month when God makes a covenant with Moses (Jub. 6:4, 10–14). Noah’s and Moses’s covenants also entail similar content: Moses should also detain from eating blood, and he should command the children of Israel to do the same. A motivation related to the cult is added: eating blood is prohibited on the basis of its use in the cult (cf. Lev 17:10–12). 60 Just like Noah’s sons, Israelites will eventually eat blood (Jub. 6:38). Furthermore, Noah establishes the feast of weeks/first fruits to celebrate the covenant annually. This practice is to be continued by Moses and the children of Israel (Jub. 6:17–22; 7:1–6). Noah’s Mosaic role intertwines with a priestly role. 61 After the flood, Noah offers a sin offering to which God responds by making a covenant with him (Jub. 6:1–4). 62 According to Jubilees 6:2, the earth itself required expiation. 63 Such a claim may result from a holistic reading of scriptures: the violence and corruption of the pre-flood generation (Gen 6:11–13; Jub. 5:3) were sins that polluted the land (Lev 18:26–28; Num 35:33–34). 64
Jubilees 6 intertwines eating blood with another sin, namely, disturbing the calendar (Jub. 6:38). After Jubilees dates the flood and the Festival of Weeks according to the 364 day calendar (Jub. 6:17–31), the Angel of the Presence teaches Moses concerning the 364-day calendar (Jub. 6:32–38). The comparative context is similar to those passages that depict Noah as the only one who keeps God’s commandments while his sons will fail to follow them after his death. The Angel of the Presence instructs Moses to command the children of Israel to observe the 364-day calendar, but he also reveals that Israelites will not follow the calendar after Moses’s death. People will make a mistake in observing the moon which will distort different seasons and festivals. The angel states explicitly that “all the Israelites” (Jub. 6:34) and “everyone” (Jub 6:37) will fail to observe the right calendar after Moses’s death. 65 The only difference is that Israelites are also compared to Gentiles, even if in passing: The Angel of the Presence reveals the correct calendar to Moses ”lest they forget the covenantal festivals and walk in the festivals of the nations, after their error and after their ignorance” (Jub. 6:35). Yet, the criticism is directed mainly against (all) Israelites who fail to keep God’s commandment. 66
The scholarly consensus is that Jubilees is a unified composition. 67 M. Segal challenges this consensus view by arguing that a redactor complied Jubilees from existing literary sources while also adding some new passages. According to Segal, only the redactional layer discusses practices that differentiate a Jew from another. In the Noah cycle, Segal identifies Jubilees 6:32–38 (on 364-day calendar) and Jubilees 7:35–37 (on fourth-year fruits) depicting inner-Jewish halachic debates. 68 Above, I have demonstrated that these two passages depict Noah or Moses keeping the covenantal obligations while Noah’s sons or Israelites fail to keep them. In this respect, Jubilees 6:32–38 and Jubilees 7:35–37 recall many other passages in the Noah cycle. Thus, it seems unlikely that these two passages belong to a redactional layer based on the comparative context they depict.
Stories about covering one’s shame, dividing the land, blessing God, and protecting against evil spirits depict increasing division between Israel and other nations. The narrative about Noah dividing the land between his descendants (Jub. 8:11–30) demonstrates how God shows favor to Shem. The author assures twice that Shem’s lot belongs to him and to his descendant for eternity (Jub. 8:12, 17). The superiority of Shem’s territory is also emphasized. Noah rejoices in Shem’s lot, and why should he not: Shem’s territory has great living conditions, and the Lord resides there (Jub. 8:19, 21). Shem’s right to his territory enjoys divine authorization: Noah’s children attempted to divide the land “in a bad way among themselves” (Jub. 8:8–10), but Noah’s division is authorized by writing and prophetic speech. 69 The division of the land among Noah’s grandchildren establishes eternal boundaries (Jub. 9:1–15). Noah makes his descendants swear an oath to curse anyone who occupies territory that does not belong to him. Later in the story (Jub. 10:27–34), Canaan is cursed for settling in Lebanon which is part of the territory promised to Shem’s son Arpachshad, a forefather of the Israelites. 70 For the first time, Canaan is cursed because his father Ham saw Noah naked and in the same breath, Shem is blessed (Jub. 7:7–13). Already in the flood narrative, the land has a significant role in demarcating the ingroup from the outgroup: Only Noah and his family have the right to live on the surface of the earth, unlike the rest of humankind, and in his teaching, Noah uses the same reward and punishment in motivating his sons to act righteously (cf. above).
The demarcation between Israel and other nations becomes obvious in relation to demons. Jubilees 10:1–14 narrates how Noah mediates to Shem knowledge about medicine that prevents demons from misleading Noah’s descendants. Even though the following stories do not show interest in Noah’s medical remedies, they demonstrate how demons indeed affect Israelites and Gentiles differently: the Gentiles are ruled over and led astray by evil spirits, but the Israelites are ruled over by God. Therefore, Israelites can resist demonic seduction through moral struggle (Jub. 15:31–32; 17:15–18:19; 19:28–29). 71 Like Tobit, Noah receives divine help through his prayer. Noah has advised his sons to bless God, and when Noah himself does so (Jub. 7:20; 10:3–6), God hears his prayer and sends angels to bind most of the demons and to teach Noah about medicine. In his two-way teaching, Noah had already expressed his worry for his sons who are led by demons: the demons have already caused strife between his sons, and Noah fears that in the future, they will also shed human blood (Jub. 7:26–27). Through his prayer, Noah enables his descendants to stay on the right path.
Unlike Tobit, Noah appears frequently in the Second Temple period Jewish literature. 72 With regard to identity construction, Noah is like Abraham who “represented possible social identities in the past from which contending groups could select a particular version to suit their own immediate needs.” 73 Above, I have demonstrated how the authors of the Jubilees contest the common past by portraying Noah in two distinct comparative contexts. The audience should evaluate their group memberships in terms of both their faithfulness to the covenant and their special standing among the nations. A careful analysis of the different comparative contexts gives a more nuanced image of how the author uses Noah’s character for identity construction. Further studies on how Noah’s figure is utilized in other texts for identity construction—and, in comparison to Jubilees—still await.
Conclusion
This article set out to explain the diversity of beliefs and practices depicted as distinctively Israelite/Jewish in the Second Temple period sources by focusing on exemplary figures. The application of the social identity approach provides a necessary theoretical framework to analyze the fluid portrayals of Jewish beliefs and practices. This study has underscored the need to contextualize different descriptions: The above analysis of just two exemplary figures demonstrates how a shift in the comparative context changes features that are supposed to define the group. Two types of shifts were found. First, a change in the level of category, from ethnicity to tribe/family. Second, a category can be redefined so that being an Israelite is about covenantal obedience and not only about common ancestry. Thus, taking care of one’s next of kin is presented as exemplary behavior in one context, but covenantal obedience is considered exemplary in another. The comparative context does not change only from the Book of Tobit to Jubilees but also within each book. In the Book of Tobit, the shifting comparative context offers one explanation for the literary seams discovered in previous research. Regarding social identity, there is no direct step from ancient narratives to ancient social and historical reality. The social identity approach inspires scholars to analyze texts as attempts to affect the social identities of their audiences by presenting certain features as exemplary. Thus, the purpose of a text must be part of the study when mapping out social identities depicted in the Second Temple period sources.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed the receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research was funded by the Finnish Cultural Foundation.
