EARLY JUDAISM AND ITS MODERN INTERPRETERS
edited by Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg
Fortress Press / Scholars Press 1986
[Introduction (pp. 1-30), scanned and proofed by Laura
Ng and RAK, March 2006;
this electronic version is made available with the consent of the Society of Biblical Literature (copyright holder) and George W. E. Nickelsburg (primary author), for non-commercial internet use. Any other uses require the express permission of the SBL and the authors.
]
INTRODUCTION:
THE MODERN STUDY OF
EARLY JUDAISM
George W. E. Nickelsburg, with Robert A. Kraft
The fact that a volume such as this is included in the
SBL Centennial Series on The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters itself sheds
light on modern scholarly approaches to biblical literature. From the perspective of classical Judaism or
of the Protestant Christian tradition, this volume does not deal with
"biblical" writings at all. It
is, instead, a miscellany of what remains from Jewish sources not covered in
the other two volumes -- chronologically, from rougly the close of volume 1 (Hebrew
Bible, "OT") to roughly the close of volume 3 ("NT"). It is true that some of the ancient writings
discussed in this volume are included in the Roman Catholic and Eastern
Orthodox Christian Bibles ("the apocrypha" in Protestant terminology),
but that is not the primary reason why such a volume is appropriate to this
series. Rather, it is because modern
study of the biblical literature has insisted on examining the broad context of
history and society within which the biblical materials appeared that the
subject matter of this volume takes on such interest, both in relationship to
the other volumes of the trilogy and as an area of study in and of itself.
Scholars have referred to this ragged-edged period by
many names. From the perspective of the
Judaism that developed into classical orthodoxy and is the historical parent
of modern varieties of Judaism, this volume deals with
"postbiblical," "prerabbinic" Judaism, "between the
Bible and the Mishna," or perhaps better (if also less flexible with
respect to the biblical canon), "Second Temple Judaism" -- from the
rebuilding of the temple in the late sixth century B.C.E. through the two
revolts against Rome in 70 and 135 C.E. From a Protestant Christian perspective, this has
often been dubbed "intertestamental Judaism," although it clearly
extends through the NT period. German
Protestant scholarship even invented the term "late Judaism" to cover
this material, apparently with a view to distinguishing between the "early"
form of the Judahite religious impetus as found in Ezra and his colleagues,
after the demise of "the religion of Israel" and its institutions,
and the "later" developments that occurred in the Greco-Roman period
-- with clear interest in shedding light on earliest Christianity. [[002]] But if the classical Judaism that emerged out
of its Pharisaic-rabbinic roots and survived into the modern period is entitled
to the unadorned and commonly accepted designation "Judaism," what
preceded it must be described as "early" in terms of historical
sequence. Thus, although "early
Judaism" is not a particularly precise term, especially with reference to
its beginning point and to its biblical-canonical connections, the term is used
here somewhat by default for its simplicity and relative comprehensiveness. By "early Judaism" we intend to
refer to the phenomena collectively designated "Judaism" in the
period bounded approximately by Alexander the Great (330 B.C.E.) on the one end
and the Roman Emperor Hadrian (138 C.E.) on the other.
The
chronological limits are not unambiguous since, by the very nature of the
assignment, they must be correlated with the religious concept of biblical
canon. Although some of the latest
writings in the Jewish Bible apparently come from the period of "early
Judaism" as defined here, they are covered in volume 1 and have no special
place in this volume. The vagueness of
the designation "early Judaism" contrasts sharply with the
concreteness of "rabbinic Judaism," which is widely used to refer to
the relatively homogeneous Judaism forged by the Pharisees-rabbis subsequent to
our period. Whereas rabbinic Judaism is
dominated by an identifiable perspective that holds together many otherwise
diverse elements, early Judaism appears to encompass almost unlimited diversity
and variety -- indeed, it might be more appropriate to speak of early
Judaisms. Nor should it be surprising
that the materials covered in this volume do not neatly cohere but resist
organization into a unified package.
They have not, as a unit, been preserved through the ages by any single
self-interested community (unlike Jewish and Christian scriptures or rabbinic
Jewish literature). Indeed, the
majority of early Jewish writings were preserved by Christians, but not all by
the same Christian groups or in the same languages. A few were preserved also, in one form or
another, by rabbinic Judaism. Others
were not transmitted by any surviving community but were recovered from their
graves quite accidentally after their users had vanished. Given this state of affairs, it is not
surprising that the remains of early Judaism should be both exciting and
frustrating to scholarly researchers, constituting a veritable museum of data
that cry out to be analyzed, classified, and, to whatever degree is still
possible, understood.
THE MODERN STUDY OF EARLY JUDAISM
The
intensive modern study of these materials began in the early and middle
nineteenth century with the publication of first editions and annotated
translations of a number of apocalypses.
This wave of scholarship crested between 1880 and 1928 with the
appearance of various editions, translations, and synthesizing handbooks
associated with such names as [[003]] R. H.
Charles (APOT), Emil Kautzsch (APAT), Emil Schürer, Wilhelm
Bousset and Hugo Gressmann, George Foot Moore, and Paul Riessler. An International Journal of the
Apocrypha (at first called Deuterocanonica) was even published from
1905 to 1917. Although a few significant
new works appeared during the Depression and the Second World War, sustained
progress in this area of scholarship did not resume until the late 1940s, when
it reemerged with new vigor. This
explosion of interest in the history and literatures of early Judaism is one of
the most remarkable developments in biblical studies in the past forty years,
for it has involved the rebirth and rapid growth of an entire subdiscipline.
Scholarly activity relating to these materials
is now widely evident. The books of the
apocrypha are regularly included in major editions of almost all English
translations of the Bible (e.g., JB, NAB, RSV, and NEB). New translations and collections of the
pseudepigrapha are appearing not only in English (OTP, ed. Charlesworth; AOT, ed. Sparks) but also in a number of other
languages, including German (JSHRZ, ed. Kümmel), French, Dutch, Danish, and Japanese (Chariesworth, 1981:26-29,
239). New introductory treatments of
this literature are also available to scholar and student, clergy and laity
(see below). Monograph series such as
AGJU, ALGHJ, SBLSCS, SJLA, SPB, STDJ, SUNT, and SVTP, and new periodicals like
RevQ and JSJ have been created to handle the avalanche of studies in the area
(see also the appropriate volumes of ANRW).
Several
factors have contributed to this rise of interest in early Judaism and its
literatures. Most important has been the
discovery of new data, and the Qumran scrolls understandably have attracted the
most attention. Because the Dead Sea
documents provided manuscript evidence from the three centuries surrounding the
turn of the era and stemmed from a relatively little known sector of Judaism
that seemed to show impressive similarities to early Christianity, they quickly
refocused attention on the Jewish religion and culture of the period. Although the Coptic texts from Nag Hammadi
had less immediate relationship to the study of early Judaism, their discovery
and publication reinforced the message that scholars were receiving from the
Qumran scrolls: Judaism at the turn of the era was a variegated and complex
phenomenon, and a close study of it promises rich rewards to the
historian. Alongside these two groups of
texts were other newly discovered nonliterary texts that shed light on early
Judaism.
The new
textual evidence, moreover, has continued to be supplemented by material evidence
from archaeological excavations in Syro-Palestine and elsewhere (see Michael
Stone's delightfully written and illustrated survey article in the 1973 Scientific
American). The appearance of new
data was accompanied by the popularization of new methods of research, which
promised new conclusions even from the sources that had long been known. As each new approach was applied to the
canonical scriptures (e.g., form criticism, new methods of literary analysis
[see [[004]] Knight and Tucker: xvi]), it would
in turn be applied to the deuterocanonical and other Jewish literatures. Most recently, analytic methods derived from
the social sciences are being applied to the written and material remains of
early Judaism.
Extrinsic
factors also contributed to the emergence of the study of early Judaism as a
field in its own right. In the English
speaking world, the rise of departments of religious studies in private and
state universities has catalyzed new interest in early Judaism, and the study
of pre- and non-rabbinic materials has flourished especially in these
departments and in university affiliated divinity schools, where the
constraints of canon are not a primary determiner of scholarly priorities. At the same time, the rapid growth and program
innovation in scholarly societies such as SBL and SNTS gave new opportunities
for organizing sections on such developing areas of research and for exchanging
and testing ideas (see Knight and Tucker: xv; Saunders: 58-61).
Another
extrinsic factor that has helped to create new interest in the study of early
Judaism and has influenced the shape of the field is the historical fact of the
Holocaust. Reflection on this modern
tragedy has led many NT scholars to question early Christian portrayals of
Judaism, as well as typically Protestant interpretations of the texts and the
anti-Jewish presuppositions that sometimes underlie both the texts and their
interpretation. As a result, there is
emerging a new, more empathic view of early Judaism based primarily on Jewish
texts.
New Texts, Editions, and Translations
The publication of new texts and editions has been a
significant factor in the progress of the study of early Judaism. The caves of the Judean Desert (see chap. 5)
have yielded texts hitherto unknown to us.
In addition, scholars have identified among the scrolls fragments of
some texts in their original languages of Hebrew and Aramaic, texts previously
known only in translations once or twice removed from the originals, for
example, 1 Enoch, the Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs, the book of Jubilees, and Tobit. Study of these newly discovered Semitic
fragments is proving important for research on ancient texts in a variety of
ways. For the first time, there are
controlled criteria for judging the faithfulness and accuracy of primary and
secondary versions. The situation varies
from book to book. Aramaic fragments of
a Levi apocryphon indicate that the compositional history of the Greek Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs included the compression and redaction of Semitic
sources. Hebrew fragments of Jubilees
seem to indicate that the secondary Ethiopic translation is a relatively
faithful representation of the original Semitic. The Aramaic fragments of the Enoch literature
bear witness to a more complex picture of the translation and literary
development of that corpus. [[005]]
In addition
to shedding light on the issue of the faithfulness of the translations,
comparison of the Semitic fragments with the translations will also reveal
techniques and principles of translation (on 1 Enoch, see Barr). Finally,
with reference to 1Enoch and the Testaments, the appearance of
the new texts has been directly or indirectly responsible for the publication
of new critical editions of the versions (see the following works cited in the
appendix: de Jonge, 1964, 1978; Milik; Knibb).
In addition
to the Qumran materials, many new editions of early Jewish texts, both biblical
(chap. 9) and nonbiblical (chap. 6) have been published in recent years (see
the appendix). We have already noted
above the growing number of new translations that are appearing, some of which
are based on textual research that has not yet been published as such. Equally impressive and potentially of great
significance are the many and sometimes voluminous editions of nonliterary
texts (chap. 6) and the valuable collection of non-Jewish texts with
translations (a new Reinach) edited by Menahem Stern (see also chap. 4).
Introductions, Commentaries, Series, and
Bibliographies
Although the
time is not yet ripe for massive new syntheses of the history of early Judaism,
new introductions and handbooks provide entrée into the texts and the state
of the field. Geza Vermes, Fergus
Millar, and Matthew Black are editing in three volumes an extensively revised
form of Emil Schürer's classic study (the "new-Schürer"). A different approach has been taken in the
new Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum (CRINT). Its two-volume first section, The Jewish
People in the First Century (1974), documents the history and
institutions of Judaism, and its three-volume second section, The Literature
of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud (1984-),
will provide critical introductions. As
a cooperative effort by Jewish and Christian scholars, this work emphasizes
matters of interest to students of both traditions, taking care to
clarify aspects of early Judaism that have often been misinterpreted by
scholars governed by a Christian agenda.
Albert-Marie Denis has focused on the Greek pseudepigrapha in his useful
French introduction (1970). In English,
G. W. E. Nickelsburg's introduction to major works of the apocrypha,
pseudepigrapha, and Qumran scrolls (1981) is directed primarily to students,
and John J. Collins has written an introduction to the literature of the
Hellenistic Diaspora (1983).
In our
enthusiasm for incorporating recent discoveries and new understandings of
previously known materials into the broader picture of early Judaism, we should
also note that much solid synthetic work has been done in the recent past by a
variety of scholars. Many of the most
influential and useful general treatments published in the past four decades
are discussed below in chapters 1 and 2: for example, those by Elias Bickerman,
David S. [[006]] Russell, Bo Reicke, Joachim
Jeremias, Abraham Schalit, Martin Hengel, Michael Avi-Yonah, and Donald Gowan. To that impressive group, we add reference to
the compact and informative survey by Robert H. Pfeiffer, the foundational
works of Ralph Marcus, and the handbook by W. Foerster.
Commentaries
on early Jewish literature are also beginning to appear with some
regularity. A number of commentaries on
the major Qumran scrolls were published in the 1950s and 1960s in several
languages (chap. 5). The Anchor Bible
(AB) promises a full complement on the apocrypha. Commentaries on the pseudepigrapha are being published
in the series Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha (SVTP), and several
volumes on the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and scrolls are announced for the
series Hermeneia.
The prolific
scholarly activity in this field is attested also by the creation of new
monograph series and periodicals noted earlier in this essay. A number of special bibliographical
publications have arisen to monitor these developments, in addition to the
standard bibliographical periodicals Elenchus bibliographicus biblicus, Old
Testament Abstracts (which also covers the apocrypha), and New Testament
Abstracts (which documents other material on Judaism relevant to the NT and
early Christianity). For convenience,
special bibliographical tools are listed together in the appendix.
New Approaches, Methodological Self-consciousness
In recent
decades, students of the biblical and related materials have become especially
self-conscious about the approaches they use in the literary, archaeological,
and historical aspects of their discipline (Kraft, 1976; Kraabel; Smith,
1983). It no longer suffices to assert
what is meant by a passage or what happened in antiquity without attending
closely to the tools and methods used to arrive at such conclusions. This methodological awareness has been
accompanied by a radical revolution in the formal "methods" adopted
by such scholars.
New
approaches to literary analysis have led the way. In the decades following the publication of
the editions of the rypha and pseudepigapha by Kautzsch (1900) and Charles
(1913), form criticism began to overshadow source criticism as the scholar's primary
tool for the analysis of texts. This
method, along with new approaches to the history of tradition, has left
indelible marks on the analysis of all texts.
This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the study of rabbinic
materials (chap. 17). The severe
problems involved in using rabbinic literature as a window through which to
view Judaism at the turn of the era are magnified by the newer approaches. As a result, the position of the apocrypha,
pseudepigrapha, and the Qumran scrolls as the primary literary witnesses to this
period has become all the more central. [[007]]
Within a
decade after the publication of the first Qumran scrolls, students of biblical
and related materials began to employ redaction criticism, which shifted the
focus from the study of particular traditions contained in a text to an
analysis of the whole text in its preserved, edited form. The methodological situation has continued to
change. Redaction criticism has been
overshadowed more recently by types of literary criticism drawn from
nonhistorical disciplines, which interpret whole texts apart from the question
of their sources and literary seams and without a central concern for their
"theology." Thus, in a relatively short period of time, the literary
interests of some scholars have turned from dissecting texts to discover their
sources to the study of texts as coherent, independent wholes. An early example of such an approach is Earl
Breech's article on Ezra (1973). His
holistic analysis was especially significant because he was attacking the
time-honored source criticism that had traditionally dominated the study of the
early Jewish apocalypses.
That the
ancient documents need to be treated as literary wholes, at least in their
preserved edited forms, is becoming axiomatic among scholars, although the
methods for determining what constitutes the appropriate entity vary with the
documents and their interpreters (see Kraft, 1976). Strictly speaking, one could start with the
actual manuscripts that have been preserved and ask how their actual users
viewed the texts they contain. For many
early Jewish texts, this approach might shed considerable light on the
Christian perspectives of those who perserved the texts. When text-critical analysis has used the
actual manuscripts to recreate the earliest recoverable form of a text, the
scholar can investigate that "whole" as well and can attempt to
determine the broader situation in which it functioned. By various other means, even earlier
recensions and ancestors of a given text may be uncovered, each of which
deserves to be viewed as a whole in its own world. In the hands of some interpreters, then,
"holistic" analysis may not differ essentially from old-style source
criticism, depending on the developmental stage identified as the
"whole." Indeed, emphasis on the literary unity of the ancient texts
has not precluded an interest in the smaller units within the texts or in
literary aspects of those units. The
older method of form criticism continues to be a useful tool and, together with
a more recent emphasis on rhetorical analysis, can be highly suggestive for
exploring an author's purpose and an author's literary and cultural heritage.
A
combination of form analysis and the more recent approaches has proved especially
fruitful in the study of the apocalypses.
Focus on the literary genre apocalypse has produced awareness of aspects
of the contents of these works long ignored and raises significant questions
regarding the human context in which the documents developed. The study of genre also helps to clarify the
development of the popular testamentary form and raises interesting questions
about evident hybrid forms, like the Testament [[008]]
of Moses, which is at once "biblical paraphrase,"
testament, and apocalypse (chap. 11a). Holistic literary analysis works from
these insights to facilitate a better understanding of complex works like 2
Baruch (Sayler) and helps to explain how a text such as the Testament of
Moses could have been composed initially during the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes and yet testify to conditions under Herod the Great (chap. 11b).
Appropriately, though surprisingly "late in the game,"
scholars are also beginning to study the early Jewish narrative texts in a
similar manner, although firm conclusions about the genres of these texts may
still be a long way in the future (chap. 12).
Although students of early Jewish literature have been using approaches
that are at home in structuralist analysis and the "new criticism,"
in general the historical-critical training of these scholars has deterred them
from a "purely" literary analysis of texts that would ignore their
historical settings.
Another recent interdisciplinary influence on biblical
studies has been the use of methods and models drawn from the social sciences,
notably from sociology and social anthropology.
These concerns are not new to the study of early Judaism. Social history has long been an aspect of the
historiography of this period (chap. 1), and the form-critical concern with
Sitz im Leben (setting in life) is fundamentally sociological. Nonetheless, a new interest in these matters
is widely evident, especially in the self-conscious use of extradisciplinary
methods and models. Concern with social
analysis appears in some of the recent work on apocalypticism (on the study of
Palestinian apocalyptic, see Nickelsburg, 1983). One section of the 1979 International
Colloquium on Apocalypticism was entitled "The Sociology of Apocalypticism
and the 'Sitz im Leben' of Apocalypses" (Hellholm: 641-768). Concern about the roots of anti-Judaism and
anti-Semitism has stimulated investigation of Christian and non-Christian
attitudes toward the Jews in antiquity (chap. 4). The roles of women in early Jewish society
have also begun to attract more attention, although much less so than in the
scholarship on the canonical scriptures (for a bibliographical treatment, see
Kraemer).
The use of approaches developed largely in other
disciplines presents its own set of problems.
One must be cautious about taking over models developed from empirically
repeatable data and employing them in the study of an ancient time and culture
for which such data is not available.
Nonetheless, the careful use of these methods and models as heuristic
tools can provide a whole new dimension to a discipline often dominated by
theological or even philological interests.
Methodological and technological innovations have
revolutionized the science of "biblical archaeology" (Dever). The material remains of Mediterranean and
Near Eastern antiquity have significance that extends far beyond their
relationship to the study of biblical texts and events, and as the archaeologists
have moved beyond a preoccupation with "biblical [[009]]
archaeology" they have begun to ask radically different questions of the
materials they uncover. The
archaeological results must ultimately be coordinated with the findings of
scholars who focus more on textual data and with the insights drawn from
interests in social history, but the time does not yet seem ripe for this grand
synthesis.
A final
example of major methodological refinement and advancement is in the area of
Hebrew and Aramaic paleography. The
discovery of voluminous manuscript remains in the caves of the Judean Desert,
in archaeologicaily controllable contexts, has provided important new data to help
fill extensive gaps in the paleographical sequences. This in turn helps to create new controls for
editing, dating, and interpreting ancient texts and thus indirectly supplies
new data for reconstructions of the history of the period.
THE CHANGING PORTRAIT OF EARLY JUDAISM
The discovery
and publication of new data and the intensive study of old and new materials,
partly on the basis of new approaches, are contributing to a drastically
revised picture of early Judaism. The
fullness of that picture, with all its details and hues, is not yet in clear
focus. Research on the various parts has
not yet advanced sufficiently to encourage preparation of a comprehensive
synthetic social, political, or religious history of early Judaism. Nonetheless, some aspects of the old
syntheses remain valid and new research is producing fresh details from which a
new picture, or a more representative collage, will ultimately emerge (see
Stone; Kraft, 1975, 1976; Smith).
What Constitutes Evidence?
The
developing new picture of early Judaism rests on a different perception of what
data can legitimately be used as evidence for its history. New materials provide evidence that is, as a
whole, richer and more variegated than what previously was available. Some older data are no longer considered to
be valid evidence for the period, or at least their validity is seriously
questioned.
The new evidence includes, first of all, a mass of
literary texts, nonliterary materials, and inscriptions (chaps. 5-8). Second, archaeological finds have been
especially rich in the recent decades (chap. 7). The number of excavations yielding evidence
for Judaism of the Greco-Roman period is in itself noteworthy. In addition to those treated in chapter 7 are
the excavations at such Hellenistic sites as Beth Zur, Gibeah, and Araq el-Emir,
Nabatean sites in Tannur and Petra, Samaritan sites at Shechem and Mount
Gerizim, and other significant sites such as Qumran, the caves of the Judean
Desert, and the Wadi ed-Daliyeh (see chaps. 5-6). The list [[010]] could
be extended. The more sensational
aspects of archaeological discovery should not overshadow the important
subdiscipline of numismatics (chap. 8).
Large numbers of new coins have been found, and there have been
significant changes in the interpretation of the evidence.
The information drawn from nonliterary texts,
inscriptions, and archaeological projects promises to enrich and balance our
picture of early Judaism. We are much
more in touch with the realia of Jewish life in Palestine and the Diaspora and
with the domestic, social, economic, and legal factors of that life. From material remains we can see more clearly
where Jews lived and traded and met to worship.
And new models of social description and analysis may enable scholars to
extract further valuable information from these data. Although much remains to be done, it is a
mark of the growth of the field that some of the evidence is already finding
its way into the handbooks, e.g., the new Schürer, the volumes of CRINT,
and especially Martin Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism.
Other aspects of the previously accepted data have
become less significant for historical reconstruction or have come under
suspicion. As indicated above, the
rabbinic texts are of much less use as testimonies to the life and religious
orientation of the early period.
Moreover, some of the classical texts of the pseudepigrapha have come
under suspicion. No longer can it be
assumed that any given passage in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
offers certain evidence of Jewish thought in Hellenistic or Roman times
(chap. 11b). The Parables of Enoch (1
Enoch 37-71) also have come under suspicion, if not with regard to their
Jewish origin, at least with regard to their traditional dating in the Herodian
period (see chap. 5; Suter). In
addition, we have learned to be very suspicious of tendentious statements about
the Jews, notably the Pharisees, whether in the NT or in Jewish sources such as
Josephus (see chap. 13).
A New Point of View
A central constitutive factor in the new scholarship
on early Judaism has been a radical change in the point of view of the scholars
themselves. During the century between
the early 1800s and the Second World War, the study of these texts was largely
in the hands of Christian scholars. It
was rare to find a person who did not approach the texts with Christian
presuppositions and prejudices.
Consequently, a portrayal of Judaism emerged that was characterized by
stereotypes that appeared in NT polemics, were developed further in patristic
interpretations, and came to fruition in Reformation law/gospel theology. The details of this anti-Jewish
interpretation of Judaism have been convincingly documented by G. F. Moore
(1921), Charlotte Klein, and E. P. Sanders (33-59). According to this view, postexilic Judaism as
a whole was a sterile mutant of the earlier, vital prophetic religion. The rabbis were legalistic nitpickers
concerned [[011]] with the form rather than the essence of religion. The Pharisees were self-righteous
hypocrites. Christianity, on the other
hand, was the true blossoming of the faith of Israel, based on events that were
the fulfillment of ancient prophecy.
Thus, Judaism in the Greco-Roman period could be called Spätjudentum ("late Judaism");
with the rise of Christianity, Judaism that did not accept the messianic status
of Jesus had come to a dead end with respect to religious significance.
Since the
end of World War II the situation has changed drastically. Hitler's Holocaust provides a grim reminder
of the social and political anti-Judaism that is, in part, a function of the
theological anti-Judaism already evidenced in the NT literature. Partly as a consequence of this reminder,
Gentile interpreters of early Judaism have worked more empathically and
inductively from the Jewish sources, attempting to be conscious of the anti-Jewish
hermeneutic in their intellectual heritage.
The result has been the beginning of a more balanced and historically
responsible interpretation of early Judaism.
Moreover, in another change from the prewar situation, Jewish scholars
have shown new interest in the nonrabbinic literary sources of postbiblical
Judaism. Their scholarly activity has
tended to concentrate on the history of the period (e.g., Bickerman, Lieberman,
Marcus) or on the Qumran scrolls, but they have made important contributions
also to the literary and historical interpretation of the apocrypha and
pseudepigrapha. The prewar study of
early Judaism was marked not only by Christian stereotypes and schematizations
but also by a variety of other oversimplifications, many of which were
functions of the philosophical (primarily Hegelian) presuppositions that
governed much of nineteenth-century continental historiography and
theology. A fresh study of the sources
has revealed that culturally, socially, and theologically, early Judaism was a
complex and variegated phenomenon. In
the sections that follow, aspects of this variety and complexity will be
outlined.
Judaism and Its Environment
One of the most damaging
oversimplifications of earlier scholarship has been the dichotomy drawn between
"Palestinian" and "Hellenistic" Judaism (chap. 2). According to this scheme, Palestinian Judaism
was free of the "pagan" (often philosophical) influences that had
transformed Greek Diaspora Judaism for the worse. One of the foundations of this division was
linguistic: Palestinian Judaism spoke and wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew;
Hellenistic Judaism in Greek. Closer
investigation of the older data (e.g., Lieberman), combined with new
information and approaches, has called for a reorientation of attitudes. It is now clear that even as an independent
Maccabean/Hasmonean kingdom, Jewish Palestine is best viewed as part of the
larger "hellenized" world, whether its representatives were speaking
and writing in Greek or in a Semitic dialect (Aramaic or Hebrew). That [[012]] there were different Jewish responses to that world is also clear, but
they are not defined primarily along linguistic or geographical lines. To state the issue more generally, the
relation of Jews and Judaism to the Hellenistic environment was similar to that
of other identifiable "subcultures" (e.g., in Egypt or Syria) and is
treated most satisfactorily by accepting Hellenism as the norm against which to
judge similarities and differences, rather than by positing some
"pure" form of (Palestinian) Judaism as the norm. Hellenization, whether in Palestine or in the
Diaspora, was a complex and variegated phenomenon that involved the
syncretistic use of Greek myth, philosophy, literary forms, historiography,
iconography, ideals of kingship, and the like.
The Languages of the Jews
Continued study of the
languages of the Jews has been an important feature of the field in the past
few decades. Although we have not been
able to include a separate article on the subject in this volume, a few summary
comments are appropriate here, in addition to the observations in chap. 7. The
new manuscript discoveries and fresh nonliterary and inscriptional materials
provide a wealth of new data of great value to philologians, linguistic
historians, and exegetes. A survey of
the linguistic data from Palestine is provided by Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1970; see
also H. B. Rosen), who cites Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin evidence.
The Qumran texts offer fresh
data on the history of the Hebrew language.
Not only do they supply a missing link between the Hebrew of the late
biblical books and the language of the Mishna; they also show irrefutably that
Hebrew was alive and functional in Palestine around the turn of the era, at
least in some literate circles. Of equal
significance are the Aramaic texts from Qumran and the other caves of the
Judean Desert. Joseph A. Fitzmyer and
Daniel J. Harrington (1978) have gathered these and other nonliterary and
inscriptional materials, together with translations, into a sizable manual of
Palestinian Aramaic texts from the last two centuries B.C.E. and the first two centuries C.E. Some of the implications of the new data for the
history of the Aramaic language have been developed by E. Y. Kutscher, Fitzmyer
(1971), and Jonas C. Greenfield (on Hebrew and Aramaic see also Naveh and
Greenfield), and a comprehensive Aramaic lexicon project involving Fitzmyer, D.
R. Hillers, and S. A. Kaufman has recently been announced (1985). These materials provide a broader base for
the continued study of two large bodies of early Jewish literature: Greek
Jewish texts that were supposedly composed in Aramaic, including the sayings of
Jesus and similar early Semitic-Christian traditions, and the language of the
major Targums, the antiquity and provenance of which are now being vigorously
debated.
The use of Greek even among
Jews in Palestine is well attested by the discoveries in the Judean Desert
(chaps. 5-6), although it is less clear [[013]] whether such Jews were
predominantly multilingual and also knew Aramaic and/or Hebrew, or whether
Greek was the primary or only language of large numbers of Jews in
Palestine. Similarly, little work has
been done on the question of the use of Semitic in non-Palestinian Hellenistic
areas (e.g., Alexandria, Antioch) and less still on the possible Jewish use of
other non-Semitic languages such as Latin and Coptic (see chap. 7 for evidence
from Jewish inscriptions).
Who
Is a Jew? Parties, Sects, and Social Structure
The
division of early Judaism into parties and sects is a traditional topic in all
of the older histories of the period (chap. 2).
The customary schematization follows the description of Josephus, who
claims that there were four Palestinian groups: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes,
and the "Fourth Philosophy." He also mentions Samaritans as
vacillating about their connections to Judaism.
Other ancient sources refer as well to other "Jewish" groups
(Therapeutae, Nazoreans, Hemerobaptists, Menistae, Genistae, etc.; see Simon),
and some modern scholarship has created "Hellenistic Jews" as a group
represented especially by Philo. The
extent to which the named groups may have been influential outside of Palestine
has not yet received extensive discussion.
What do such groups have in common? What makes them "Jewish" -- or in the
case of Samaritans, ambivalently Jewish?
Whether ancient authors such as Josephus ever thought of these questions
in just such terms is doubtful. Probably
then, as now, a major consideration was how a person or group identified
itself, a factor alluded to by Josephus in his treatment of the
Samaritans. When Josephus casts doubt on
the Jewishness of Herod the Great or of Philo's nephew Tiberius Alexander, how
should we treat that information? When
Paul refers vociferously to his Jewish credentials, should we listen? When a "magical" text claims to be
by and for "Hebrews," what conclusions are to be drawn? How widely should the modern scholar's net be
spread in attempting to bring together appropriate evidence for early Judaism
in all of its multiplicity? The problems
and pitfalls of these definitional issues continue to haunt the study of early
Judaism and call for detailed discussion at the general as well as the specific
level. An excellent example of the
importance is issue is the relative difference it makes whether Paul is to be
treated as a first century (Pharisaic!) "Jewish" representative or
not. Few students of early Judaism have
faced such issues squarely (see further Kraft, 1975:188-99).
At the
level of Josephus's four Jewish sects, progress is being made. The discovery of the Qumran scrolls (chap. 5)
and recent work on the rabbinic texts have helped in challenging the rigid
manner in which this schematization has often been applied (chap. 2). If the scrolls derived from an Essene
community, as most scholars hold, they attest that the Essenes [[014]] were not a monolithic sect or religious
movement. (If they are not from Essenes, Josephus's list is itself flawed.)
These writings show theological development over a period of time and reveal
not only similarities to Josephus's descriptions of Essenes but also
significant differences. Comparison of
the scrolls with various pseudepigrapha results in the same ambiguity. Although there are close parallels between
some of the scrolls and certain of the pseudepigrapha, none of the latter is
indisputably a product of the community that wrote any one of the sectarian
documents unique to the Qumran caves (excluding the Damascus Document). With regard to the Pharisees, prolific modern
discussion leaves unanswered many questions about this group, their history
and practice, and the validity of the sources that refer to them (chap.
2). Thus, for two of Josephus's four groups,
the situation seems far more complex than earlier scholarship recognized, and
the evidence suggests that other groups, or significant variations of those
mentioned, also existed.
Similarly
complicated is discussion of the Hasidim mentioned in 1 and 2 Maccabees. At least since Otto Plöger (7-9, 17,
23-24), it has been common to describe the Hasidim as the apocalyptic bearers
of the prophetic tradition, and many commentators on the scrolls have posited
close ties between the Essene authors of the scrolls and the Hasidim. However, more recent studies have argued that
we actually know very little about a specific "Hasidim" party, its
history, its beliefs, and its relationship to the Pharisees and the Essenes of
Qumran (Nickelsburg, 1983:647-48)
In short,
the discovery of the scrolls has forced us to revise drastically our religious
and social map of early Judaism in Palestine.
That there were more than four Jewish religious groups in Palestine is
neither a new nor a surprising observation. From the scrolls we now know relatively more
about the Essenes, or a certain Essene subgroup or sister group. About the others and the interrelationships
among all of them we know much less than we once thought.
A
discussion of the sects and groups of early Judaism must mention also the
Samaritans (chap. 3). Although it is
debated whether they should be considered an offshoot of Judaism, they also
were heirs of the Israelite religious tradition in Greco-Roman Palestine. Here again, archaeological excavation and
renewed study of the literary and inscriptional materials have led scholars to
revise old theories and to move toward some new consensuses.
Many
question marks remain in the recent discussions of social structures in early
Judaism (chap. 1). The role of women at
various times and places is beginning to receive close attention, but research
is primarily at the data-gathering stage; and it is difficult to anticipate
what adjustments to the existing conventional (male) wisdom -- or to treatments of
Jewish women in the context of early Christianity (e.g., Fiorenza) -- will be
necessitated (see Brooten; Kraemer). Another topic about which earlier studies
Jewish Literature
Literary texts are the major
source for our knowledge of early Judaism.
The appearance of new texts, editions, and tools has generated new
discussions of this literature. These
discussions are characterized by two major factors. The texts are being interpreted not simply as
containers of ideas but as literature with generic shape and purpose. Where possible, the attempt is being made to
place this literature in its historical context. In both instances, however, much uncertainty
and ambiguity remain.
An interest in form and
genre has been central to the discussion.
This is partly due to the use of new literary-critical tools, but it is
also related to the nature of the new evidence.
First, new genres have been uncovered such as the Qumran commentaries (pĕšārîm) on scripture (chap. 10),
which prompt new questions about diversity in early Jewish interpretations of
scripture. Second, we have new parallels
to known genres. The Genesis Apocryphon and the fragments of
the Enochic Book of the Giants not
only shed new light on the history of specific traditions but may also provide
new evidence of a literary genre that interprets scripture by paraphrasing it
(see also Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum). But there is a danger here. Scholars must avoid begging the question
concerning whether such paraphrases are consciously based on materials
considered scriptural at that time, or whether these sources may independently
attest the same traditions that became embodied also in the biblical
texts. Finally, the expanded corpus
includes evolved examples of literary forms found in the Bible. In content, structure, and prosody, if not in
genre, the Qumran Hymns and
noncanonical psalms look very different from their canonical counterparts (see
chap. 16).
Tentativeness tends to
characterize most scholarship on early Judaism with regard to the precise
background and origins of particular writings contained in the apocrypha and
pseudepigrapha, largely because of methodological caution or as a result of
uncertainty about the religious map of early Judaism (see above and
Nickelsburg, 1973:7). For example, works
once identified confidently with the Pharisees are no longer so labeled, and
even Essene affinities are treated relatively cautiously. Also with regard to more general issues
concerning the social setting and function of these writings, firm conclusions
appear less frequently in the literature, except perhaps with reference to the
antagonists envisioned in a particular [[016]] writing. Such questions are not deemed invalid, but
the answers are seen as more difficult.
Religion and Religious Thought
New
perspectives on the culture, social structure, and literature of early Judaism
have led to a new understanding of some early Jewish religious expressions and
their conceptual frameworks (e.g., Qumran and Pauline apocalypticism). Essential to the discussion has been the
recognition that theological conceptions are not disembodied entities, but
that they arise, develop, and change in response to constantly changing historical
circumstances. It is crucial that the
study of early Jewish religious thought acknowledges historical change and
complexity and admits the uncertainty and ambiguity that result from the gaps
in our knowledge of that history.
The
Bible and Scriptural Interpretation
It is not
particularly useful to speak of a Jewish Bible in this period without asking:
Whose Bible? The question touches on a
number of issues. (1) Textual: As the biblical scrolls from Qumran indicate,
the Hebrew text of the biblical books was in flux at this time. (2) The
language of the Bible: Some Greek speaking Jews ascribed authority to the Greek
translations) of the Semitic texts, and here, too, there were a variety of
textual traditions (chap. 9). Concerning
the use, function, and authority of Aramaic targums in this period we are, at
present, ill informed. (3) Canonical consciousness: At what point and under
what circumstances did Jews in our period come to consider certain writings to
have special authority, beyond that of other writings? Did those who perpetuated the apocalyptic
materials have the same attitude to the authority of fixed biblical texts as
did Philo? (4) Extent of the canon: Which writings were accorded what authority
by whom and when? Did Jews in the Greek
Diaspora have different canonical lists from what was common in Palestine (on
these problems, see Sundberg)? Although
we cannot discuss these issues in detail here, their importance for a satisfactory
understanding of early Judaism is crucial.
The heart of the Jewish Bible was
the Torah, the five books of Moses.
Classical Judaism's concern with the law (tôrâ) contained in
Moses' Torah, its interpretation and observance, has often led Christian theologians
and historians of Judaism to describe early Judaism as legalistic. Recent studies by Christian scholars have
contradicted this view. K. Baltzer
showed that already in the scriptures tôrâ was associated with the
recitation of the exodus event. E. P.
Sanders has also stressed the covenantal context of tôrâ, even if
he has inappropriately universalized the pattern of "covenantal nomism"
(see below). Earlier studies drew their
evidence from rabbinic texts whose concern was primarily to expound the content
of tôrâ in a given [[017]] situation. The texts of the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha,
and Qumran scrolls provide narrative, liturgical, and exhortative contexts that
help to reveal the motivation and dynamics for tôrâ observance in various early Jewish settings.
Early Jewish biblical interpretation
is a broad topic worthy of numerous volumes yet to be written. Here we will mention only four issues.
1. Jews in our period used a variety of genres to transmit and
interpret their scriptures. They
translated scriptures more or less faithfully into Greek and Aramaic, and
perhaps other languages. They produced pĕšārîm and other types of
commentary, in which portions of scripture are explicitly quoted and then
interpreted. They collected specific
scriptural texts and organized them as "testimonies" to elucidate
particular interests. They paraphrased
scripture or expanded it for specific purposes (e.g., Philo on Moses).
2. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether every apparent parallel to
scriptural material in early Judaism should be interpreted as a self-conscious
use of scripture in the senses listed above.
Apart from formulaic references to scripture, when is it legitimate to
identify a text as an intentional interpretation of scripture? Was the book of Daniel considered canonical
when the interpolations and additions preserved in the Greek versions were
inserted? Are the earliest narrative
strata in 1 Enoch 6-11 simply
interpretations and expansions of a biblical text (Gen 6:1-4), or do they reflect
very early traditions that have been abbreviated in Genesis? How do the sapiential materials in the Wisdom
of Joshua ben Sira relate to those in Proverbs, and was Proverbs accepted by
ben Sira and his predecessors as scripture?
It would be unfortunate if, in our desire to know more about biblical
interpretation, we neglected the possiblity that some of our sources may
preserve pre- or nonscriptural formulations of certain scriptural traditions.
3. Variety of interpretation of the same scriptural passages is
especially apparent in the interpretation of Torah. As the Qumran scrolls demonstrate in a number
of ways, Essenic legal interpretations varied from later rabbinic, just as in
rabbinic literature, Pharisaic interpretations sometimes vary from Sadducean
or even among themselves. Pseudepigrapha
such as Jubilees and 1 Enoch indicate further variety in
early Jewish interpretations of Torah.
Interpretations of the nonlegal parts of scripture also varied. An important aspect of research in this field
has been to trace the historical events and conditions that gave rise to this
manifold interpretation of scripture.
4. In some instances an interpretation of scripture is offered as
one interesting possibility, whereas elsewhere an interpretation may be
presented as authoritative. The laws in Jubilees are said to be the authoritative
exposition of laws recorded in scripture.
The Testament of Moses finds
the revealed fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28-32 in the events of the author's [[018]]
own time. The Qumran pĕšārîm espouse a
similar viewpoint. This assertion of
revealed authority relates to the topic of our next section.
Apocalypticism
The most
prolific and intensive area in the renewed study of early Judaism has been the
reexamination of the phenomenon of apocalypticism (chap. 14). Both in its debt to new sources and its use
of new methods, this activity often represents a microcosm of the field as a
whole.
Social scientific
models have called attention to the socio-historical contexts that gave rise to
apocalyptic movements. Literary-critical
methods have suggested and facilitated the analysis of the genre apocalypse,
and have provided tools for the holistic study of the extensive and complex
major apocalypses. Scholars are less
concerned with compiling lists of theological themes in a given document and
more interested in the literary indicators of emphasis, setting, and purpose. These indicators have shown many of the texts
to be more complex than earlier scholarship had recognized. Apocalypticism, far from being preoccupied
with eschatology, was encyclopedic in its interests and represented a fusion of
elements that were at home also in prophetic and sapiential contexts. Paleographic analysis of the Qumran Enoch fragments and literary considerations point to the third century B.C.E. and
earlier for the composition of substantial parts of 1 Enoch. Judaism at this
time was a broader and more diverse religious phenomenon than the contents of
the Hebrew canon and the rabbinic writings have suggested (Stone, 1978).
Central to
the apocalyptic phenomenon is a claim of revelation, whether of the future or
of the heavenly world or both. This
imbues the apocalyptic literature with an authority parallel to that of
scripture. The Enochic corpus, for
example, appears to be modeled, in part, on the book of Deuteronomy, but it
claims more ancient origin. The appeal
to revelation plays an important role in some of the scriptural interpretation
referred to in the previous section.
The teachings about the solar calendar contained in the Enoch corpus
were revealed by an angel during a celestial journey. The author of Jubilees cites the heavenly
tablets as the source of his halakah.
The Qumran group believed that its interpretations of the Torah and its
teacher's understanding of prophecy were revealed by God. In such instances, differences in
interpretation and disputes about law are raised to the level of absolute truth
and falsehood and have as their consequences salvation and damnation. We see at work here one of the essential
characteristics by which sectarian division can be identified.
Eschatology
Eschatology
has always been recognized as an
important component in early Jewish religious
thought, though its importance has been [[019]]
emphasized more by Christian than by Jewish scholars. Contemporary study, fed primarily by the
discovery of new texts, has stressed the wide diversity in Jewish eschatology.
Messianism is a prime example. As the Qumran texts show, all Jews did not
hold to the same expectation regarding a Messiah. Indeed, the term does not permeate the Jewish
eschatological literature. Some Jews
awaited a Davidic ruler, but for others a future anointed priest was
central. Other expectations included an
eschatological prophet, and a heavenly deliverer identified with Michael or
Melchizedek or seen as a combination of the Danielic son of man, the anointed one,
and the servant of Lord described in Second Isaiah. For still other Jews, God would be the
eschatological deliverer.
Diversity also characterized Jewish speculations about
the afterlife (Nickelsburg, 1972; Cavallin).
The popular scholarly distinction between the Hebraic belief in a
resurrection of the body and the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul is
not substantiated by careful analvsis of the primary sources. Early Jewish texts testify to a variety of
beliefs including resurrection of the body, immortality of the soul,
resurrection of the spirit, assumption to heaven immediately after death, and
participation in the blessings of eternal life here and now.
Sanctuaries and Priesthood
It is an explicit teaching in much of the Hebrew scriptures that there is only one true temple, in Jerusalem. Critical and questioning attitudes about that Temple are, however, widely evident in the NT, in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ "cleansing"