Society, the Sacred and Scripture in Ancient Judaism: A Sociology of Knowledge (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 3)

Studies in Christianity and Judaism / Etudes sur le christianisme et le judaïsme : 3

Studies in Christianity and Judaism t Etudes sur le christianisme et le judaïsme

Studies in Christianity and Judaism / Etudes sur le christianisme et le judaïsme presents publications that study Judaism and Christ ûJ Tliliiti ?t ‫ דו‬not h atI*iiiall ‫ ח‬an ofrnrf trilüaUi roarnall an LI1llL‫ו‬ 1‫ד‬U1 rl 1HU ‫״‬nWo l nf iî ld 1y lUgüliiüX GllUl L LU lClnor L?aloreta lLllllg ilüIiaw tha studies that offer original insight into some central aspect of the two religions or of one of them. Three groups of studies are envisaged: studies of doctrine, historical studies, and textual studies. Whereas there exist similar publications produced in Canada in a theological context, this Series reflects the specific nature and orientation of the departments of religious studies in Canadian centres of learning. In these departments Christianity and Judaism are studied from the perspective of the history of religions. Such a perspective is not necessarily aligned with one of the two traditions. It tries to transcend traditional antagonisms as well as confessional limitations. After several decades of work from such a perspective, Canadian scholars are now in a position to offer studies that put forward less conventional views of the two religions.

GENERAI. EDITOR:

Jean Ouellette

Université de Montréal

EDITORIAL BOARD: G.-H. Allard Université de Montréal P.-E. Dion University of Toronto L. Gaston Vancouver School of Theology J. N. Lightstone Concordia University A. Mendelson McMaster University W. H. Principe University of Toronto P. Richardson University of Toronto E. P. Sanders McMaster University F. Wisse McGill University G. Vallée McMaster University

STUDIES IN CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM Number 3

SOCIETY, THE SACRED, AND SCRIPTURE IN ANCIENT JUDAISM A SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE

Jack N. Lightstone

Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press 1988

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

© 1988 Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/ Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses 88 89 90 91 4 3 2 1

Order from: Wilfrid Laurier University Press Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5

For Dorothy, Jennifer, and Etan

This page intentionally left blank

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Preface Transliterations Chapter One: Introduction

ix xiii 1

Chapter Two : The ‫״‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses"

21

Chapter Three: Diaspora, Sources of the Sacred, and Torah as Holy Relic

45

Chapter Four: Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah and Scripture as Closed System

59

Chapter Five : Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and the Fragmentation of Scripture Notes

71 95

Selected Bibliography and Abbreviations

1 07

General Subject Index .

121

This page intentionally left blank

P R E F A C E

This work explores the relationship o f religion, social patterns, and the perception of the character of scripture in four distinct modes of Ancient Judaism: 1 ) the

‫י‬Restoration‫ ׳‬community of the

Diaspora down to the end of the fourth century

CE;

3 ) earliest

rabbinic Judaism of the second century CE in the Land of Israel; 4) Late Antique Talmudic Rabbinism, primarily through

the

sixth

century

CE.

This

work

in Babylonia, down

attempts,

first,

to

describe for each of the settings how scripture is perceived and, second, to explore why it is thus perceived — task

is

descriptive

explanation material,

and

the

second

that is, the first

broaches

the

issue

and, therefore, of theory. The presentation

including

the

modes and communities,

consideration

of

four

has been organized

discrete

of

of the

Judaic

to facilitate

the

theoretical agenda. The approach both to the descriptive and to theoretical aspects is heavily influenced not only by the methods of

literary

literature

and

form

criticism

of Ancient

now

Judaism,

but

used

in

also

by

the

study

of

the

the methods

and

perspectives of symbolic, cultural anthropology and the sociology of knowledge. About these matters, I shall say more below and in chapter 1 . At

this

juncture,

however,

I should

specify

what

this work

does not attempt to do. It does not attempt to be a comprehensive account either of Ancient Judaism or of biblical interpretation in Ancient Judaism. X have omi notably

6ntx rely

the Dead

coos 1 cl e jr 211 ion of

some

Sea Commmunity at Qumran. Nor

groups § mos t>

does

this

work

clearly fall within the field o f the history o f biblical exegesis because it lacks that area‫ ׳‬s persistent attention to the content of exegesis and to the history of that content.

To

the

extent

that this study concerns itself with biblical interpretation, it focusses primarily on the form in which exegesis occurs. There is a third sense

in which this study is limited

ix

in its scope. It

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

does

not

attempt

a comprehensive,

in-depth

analysis

of

the

religion of even those groups considered, or of the literature which

they

have

left

us,

or

of

their

origins,

to explore

the most

history,

and

development. What

follows attempts

fundamental,

coherent and general patterns which characterize the cultures of Ancient Judaic groups. It is my contention that these consistent patterns encode meaning statements

about

how

(as does language) and

the world

is,

about

the

thereby

location

make

of

the

group in that world, about the nature of the interaction within and among realms in that world. In other words, these patterns convey and constitute knowledge of the topography of the socially constructed world and of relationships and processes within that topography. Scripture, once adopted as such, ostensibly provided the immutable, official map of things ; what, therefore, happens to scripture, how it is reconstructed or differently

perceived,

in each of four distinct Judaic contexts in the Ancient

World,

provides valuable insight into, even an indicator of, the socioworld is * For those

interested

symbolic anthropology,

in the sociology

of knowledge

the work will provide relevant

and

evidence

from Ancient and Late Antique religion and literature. I would hope

as

well

that

the

study

contributes

to

the

attempt

to

demonstrate the value of these historical data for sociological and anthropological theorizing. For those involved in the history of religions and for scholars of Ancient Judaism in particular, I offer an attempt to show further the value of the sensibilities and

perspectives

historical

and

of

social

literary

anthropology

critical

as

methods

a complement in

the

study

religions and their literature. For the student of exegesis, scripture

I offer in

a different

the life of

way

of

seeing

the community which

the

reveres

to of

biblical place

of

it. So,

while not comprehensive, the work intends to be more than merely heuristic

or suggestive.

It explores

di f f erent

issues

to a

different end than is usually the case among scholars of Ancient Judaism or of biblical exegesis. x

Preface

This book emerged from my participation over the last four years

in

the Torah/Nomos

Canadian emerged

Society from

Group

Biblical

in

of chapter

Studies

of

the annual meetings

Studies.

papers delivered

earlier version proceedings

of

to

Three

chapters

the group;

chapter

3 were published

in Religion

between

of

4 and

in the

1984

the

directly an

group's

and

1986

and

appear in the present context with permission of the journal and its

publisher.

These

chapters

criticism

to

the

and a

(University

College, University of Toronto), who organized

to

Torah/Nomos

resulting

therefore,

thanks

the

much

discussion

special

by

owe

Professor

Group.

Peter

I

owe,

Richardson the

group's sessions and acted as editor for the publication of the proceedings. English Revised

translations of biblical

Standard

Version

Bible with Apocrypha; have

been

so

as published

passages in the

are

Oxford

from

the

Annotated

biblical passages cited in rabbinic texts

rendered,

however,

as

to

make

those

texts

intelligible. Unless otherwise indicated, translations of extrabiblical texts are my own. My colleagues at Concordia, Professors F. Bird, C. Davis, M. Despland,

H. Joseph,

D. Howes,

M. Miller,

S . McDonough,

M.

Oppenheim, I. Robinson, J. Rossner, and L. Teskey-Denton, and ‫»״‬y students and colleagues, N. Joseph, S. Fishbane and M. McBrea

‫״‬,

have all read and commented upon earlier drafts of the majority of chapters. I can imagine no better collégial context in which to work than they provide. For any faults in this study, only I am responsible. My doctoral student, Ruth Vale, worked

extensively

on

the

the preparation of the final manuscript and the bibliography. She deserves my special gratitude. L. Stevens kindly

proofread

the

manuscript. This project was brought to completion with the aid of funds from Concordia University ; its support is appreciated. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

xi

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture I dedicate this work to my family; they will know why this work, which emerged over the last several years, is integrally related to my life together with them. Jack N. Lightstone Concordia University Montreal, PQ, Canada Lag BaOmer, 5747 May 1987

xii

TRANSLITERATIONS

‫א נ נ ד ה ו ז ח ט י נך ל‬ l k y t h z w h d g b ‫׳‬

r

17 p

1 I 5 ‫ן‬I*5‫ ן‬Hb » ‫ו ם‬ ‫ נז‬D& ‫ ו‬P

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER

ONE

Introduction

This study, as noted in the preface, explores the relationship in Ancient Judaism of religion, ,

social patterns

and place,

and

perception‫ ׳‬of scripture. The work proceeds both comparatively

and

historically

distinct

Judaic

by

examining

settings :

(1)

these ,

the

relationships

Restoration‫׳‬

in

four

community

in

Judah during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE; (2) the GraecoRoman Diaspora

down to the end of

the

fourth

century

earliest rabbinic Judaism of the second century Israel;

(4) Late

Antique

Talmudic

Rabbinism,

CE;

(3)

in the Land of primarily

in

Babylonia, down through the sixth century CE. By following this approach this work intends both to describe and to explain these relationships in Ancient Judaism; that is, the task is not only to

lay

out

data

in some new

fashion,

but

also

to offer

some

theoretical account for their interrelationship. Many other works have broached questions about the place of scripture in Judaism.1 Wherein this study differs, and where it has its own contribution to make, is precisely

in the theoretical

and

methodological

perspectives adopted. The Problem The Jewish scriptures evolved out of,

and subsequently

assumed

their place within, diverse Judaic spheres in the Ancient world. All of these spheres left their mark, first, upon the editing and compilation of the documents ; second, upon their coming together in canonical collections ; and, third, upon their interpretation. The rabbinic Bible, for example, reflects one canon among others current in Yahwehistic circles. interpretation those

of

of

scripture

non-rabbinic

The rabbis' collection and their

differed

groups.

And

from, the

and

competed

biblical

with,

literature

inherited by the rabbis itself reflects the views and practices of several successive

(Deuteronomic) factions facing -‫נ‬

from contemporary Israelite protagonists. now are commonplace among most biblical 1

All these and rabbinic

opposition assertions scholars.

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

But

such

claims,

while generally

assented

to, have

engendered

little systematic exploration of how in particular these texts, collections and exegeses reflect these various and varied sociocultural Judaic contexts. Two main reasons account for this state of affairs. First, for many students of Ancient Judaism and of Early Christianity, the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament reflects the normative, selfevidently

appropriate

religion;

in

insignificant. many

(even

comparison, So,

scholars

too,

if

evolving)

other

in considering

proceed

as

literatures were normative

if

stream

versions

the

of

are

Israelite

deviant

post-biblical

rabbinic

or

exegesis,

and

patristic

in Judaic and Christian

circles,

interpretation as the reflection of an evolving, but essentially monolithic, edge off

normative

the need

religious

takes

world-view,

to view the materials

much

of

the

in a comparative and

sociological perspective. Thus these documents both are, and yet are not, felt to be culturally determined. The practical outcome is

that

socio-cultural

considerations

will

tend

to

come

into

play, if they do at all, in understanding the deviants, not the norm.

The

norm

generally

requires

no

explanation,

interpretation. Only the finer details remain

to be

only

explained.

That is why the history of biblical interpretation, for example, usually concentrates upon the examination of discrete exegetical traditions

and

their history. The larger

systems

of which

the

discrete pericope is a part do not require explanation; they are taken for granted as givens. The second reason little

development

for this hiatus

among

biblical

is that scholars

there has been of

requisite

theoretical and methodological perspectives. This second

factor

largely

be

stems

from

serious problem —

the

first.

Where

there

is

felt

to

no

for the normal is not problematic -- there is

no pressing need for tools. But there is, I believe, yet another factor at work. Mary Douglas has pointed to a cultural bias among modern scholars of religion, to

look

to ideas

themselves

largely

as

the

reduced

a bias which predisposes scholars

explanation to

ideas.

for That

religious is,

the

phenomena, history

of

Introduction

religions remains to a great extent the history of

theological

ideas. The relationship of ideas to socio-cultural factors, while admitted, receives less attention• The

purpose

of

this

book

is

two-fold.

The

first

is

to

attempt a shift in perspective, so that what has appeared normal, familiar,

and

self-evidently

appropriate

may

be

seen

as

unfamiliar and, therefore, needing an explanation. The second is to

propose

and

methodological

to

use

the

perspective

bare

bones

of

which provides

a

theoretical

such

Let me elaborate upon both tasks in turn and

an

and

explanation.

then preview

the

results. The Descriptive Task As

suggested,

scholars

of

Ancient

Judaism,

many

of

whom

have

‫ י‬grown up‫ ׳‬with the text they study, take quite for granted the most

general

and

characteristic

shapes

of

the

documents

they

examine. Their expertise comes to play upon the discrete, for the shape of the whole, as I have stated above, is experienced as a given and, hence, is not a question begging

for answers. Their

questions tend to be of a particular sort. What is the source of Mishnah tractate Eduyot 3:1? What is the relationship between the exegetical beraitot in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds and the parallel

texts

in the Halakic

Midrashim?

Exodus ‫ ׳‬Book of the Covenant have been culled

Which

laws

in

from Akkadian or

Hittite law? Few,

if

any,

however,

ask,

the

following

questions.

Why

should Halakic Midrash be the way it is ; what is the meaning of doing

things

this way?

So too with Mishnah

or

the

Babylonian

Talmud. Or, why have a closed canon; indeed, why have scripture at all? What perception of the nature of scripture (or simply, of things in general) is implicit

in the manner

in which

Midrash

treats scripture, or Talmud treats Mishnah? To ask this latter type of question considerably

shifts one's attention

to the

larger shapes of things, normally taken for granted or as givens. So to query is immediately to see that they are not givens at all. For implied in such queries is the view that this general way of doing things or of perceiving matters is one among many

3

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture contrived by humanity. So what is achieved by doing it this way, forcing things into this shape or pattern? Generally

speaking,

the first part of each of the chapters

describes

in this work

these large patterns and shapes. The second part asks: What is thereby

achieved

for

the

group

in

question?

That

is,

what

perceptional world is thereby created? Methodological and theoretical perspectives adopted in this study have both informed and follow from the problem as we have just

defined

structured

it.

First,

patterns

documents

under

of

study,

communicate meaning, Insofar

as

these

we

are

whole

concerned

systems

because

as

these

although usually

documents

are

the

with

the

exhibited

structured

larger in

at an implicit product

of,

the

patterns or

level. gained

prominence in, distinctive groups, these implicitly communicated meanings represent shared, socially maintained perceptions. The implicit

character

unarticulated

of

assumption

these

statements

(that

that this is the manner

is,

the

in which

one

does things) bolsters our claim that what is communicated is, for the group in question, self-evidently appropriate. That basic, repeated patterns can function

as means

of

communication within a particular socio-cultural context has been convincingly established by cultural anthropoloqists, qoinq back to E. Dürkheim. Where the practice of symbolic anthropology has come

under

fire,

it

is

due

to

the

propensity

of

some

practitioners to over-interpret, and thereby distort the evidence beyond

recognition.

(Whether

I have made unrecognizable

phenomenon analyzed in this study,

the

I leave to the judgement of

the reader.) What anthropologists maintain about structured patterns of behaviour

may

also

be

said

of

highly

behaviour, ® of which much of our evidence early rabbinic

formalized

literary

is the product.

literature with which we deal,

for example,

The is

characterized by rendering the vast variety of what is said in relatively few structured ways of saying things. Idiomatic modes of speech, or the formal traits of particular groups of tradents, have been assimilated to one of several variations of a limited number of rhetorical patterns. In other words, these structures

4

Introduction speak,

first, for the redactors of these compilations®

second,

for those for whom

these compilations

are

and,

normative

expressions. These pervasive rhetorical patterns convey meaning of

the

law-like,

elements

of

the

elements, and element.

albeit

implicit,

structure,

(2)

rules

the

because

governing

relations

(1)

among

the

those

(3) the range of permissible content of any one

Such

implicit

meanings

remain

distinct

from

the

particular content at any one instance of the structure. In the realm of narrative,

the stock plots of films about Whites and

Indians in the American West provide an apt example. The very fact that we come to recognize

their narrative

lines as stock

*‫* ע‬a 4‫־‬ A1 a1n i & fi^Q [JIULo XlUpXXftSQ l^liCLI»• WC a^A^UnlcUyt! 1n1|JXit«i.LXy o bvv UX ****I‫״‬F UÇÂQ•.nI1 1^ ‫ ו‬wit™* *1 ‫ ^ ד‬e

fkaf

st

/•»!»f 1

•î mrt 1 ‫ ו‬r-i f 1 w

s

(here about the relations between, and the moral worth of. Whites and Indians) that is distinct from the content of any one story.^ One experiences these law-like relations as the "way

things

really are," as part of one's knowledge of the world. This argument applies equally to stock Westerns and to the highly formalized early rabbinic documents. It is this attention to implicit patterns

characterizing

the evidence of Ancient

Judaism, especially its treatment of scripture, that governs our descriptive endeavour throughout this study. The Explanatory

Task

Our parcelling of the data, in particular the attention given to larger

patterns

theoretical thereby within

and

their

implicit

meanings,

serves

our

interests. This study seeks to explore how what is

communicated

appears

its socio-cultural

to

be

self-evidently

setting. Or, to put

appropriate

this

in

another

way, we seek to account for the cogency and plausibility of these shared perceptions for those who so perceive matters. It is our hypothesis

that

this

cogency

has

to

do

with

the

fit

or

homological relationships across the various structured patterns constituting study,

the socio-cultural

which we

shall presently

setting. The results of review,

will,

it

the

is hoped,

further vindicate our approach. But first I should like to spell out aspects of this theoreticsil perspective « C. Geertz

in his

treatment 5

of

religion

"as

a

cultural

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

system" proposes that religious knowledge

finds its rationality

in a mutually confirming relationship with other aspects of the cultural system. He states : In religious belief and practice a group's ethos is rendered intellectually reasonable by being shown to represent a way of life ideally adapted to the actual state of affairs the world-view

describes,

while

the world-view

is

rendered

emotionally convincing by being presented as an image of an actual

state

of

affairs

peculiarly

well

arranged

accommodate such a way of life. This confrontation

to and

mutual confirmation has two fundamental effects. On the one hand,

it

objectivizes

moral

and

aesthetic

preferences

by

depicting them as the imposed conditions of life implicit in a world with a particular

structure, as mere common sense

given the unalterable shape of reality. On the other hand, it supports these received beliefs about the world‫ ׳‬s body by invoking

deeply

experiential

felt moral and

evidence

for

their

aesthetic truth.

sentiments

Religious

as

symbols

formulate a basic congruence between a particular style of life and a specific

( if, most often, implicit) metaphysic,

and in so p doing sustain each with the borrowed authority of the other. Geertz enterprise.

here makes First,

four

theoretical

the beliefs

and

points germane

practices

of

to our

religion

are

integrally related to style of life, or ethos, on the one hand, and

to

world-view,

on

the

other.

Second,

relationships as one of "congruence." Third,

he

describes

these

these beliefs and

practices implicitly communicate a "metaphysic," or "world-view." Fourth, this congruence of religion, style of life and world-view correlates with strong collective sentiments of an aesthetic and moral nature. Fifth, the overall effect is to "sustain," that is, to render plausible, both world-view, on the one hand, and style of life, on the other. Such claims will hardly be controversial, as Geertz himself notes. But he admits as well that these relationships are "hardly investigated either, so that we have very little idea of how, in empirical terms, this particular miracle is accomplished." It is 6

Introduction

into

this

theoretical

and

empirical hiatus

that Mary

Douglas‫׳‬

cross-cultural work on classification systems may be seen to fit. Building upon Dürkheim,

Mauss, and Evans-Pritchard, q attempted to demonstrate that : *

she has

the logical patterning in which social relations are ordered affords a bias in the classification of nature, and that in this bias is to be found the confident evident hidden

truth. And and

here,

inaccessible

in

this

intuition of self-

intuition,

implicit

assumption

is on

the

most

which

all

other knowledge is çround6d « 11 is the 1111111131 te instrument of domination, emotion

that

protected

commits

from

inspection

the knower

to

the

by every

social

warm

system

in

which his knowledge is guaranteed. Only one who feels coolly towards

that

society

can

question

its

self-evident

propositions. Let me translate Douglas into an idiom more suitable to our own. The social map, or ordered pattern of social relationships, will

significantly

belief,

correspond

rituals,

and

to

the mapping

{especially )

rules

of and

the world taboos.

in The

structured patterns implicit in both the social and cosmological order will replicate one another. Of the two maps, Douglas views the social

structure

as the independent,

determining

variable,

with respect to which other mappings (or knowledge) of the world will vary and in terms of which these mappings will be felt to be self-evidently true. I would modify Douglas‫ ׳‬assertions in two ways, both in line with Geertz. First, one may extend her explanatory scheme beyond her specific interests in classification of nature to include all structured

patterning

of

the

including highly patterned

world

and

of

objects

in

it,

texts. That is, for the purposes of

this study, the focus will be less on classification of nature per se than on Douglas‫" ׳‬other knowledge." Second, while seeing her term, biasing -- the

,

shape' of other knowledge,

I do not

share her certainty that that bias is sufficient cause for those shared again

sentiments returning

which

to

render knowledge

Geertz,

it 7

is

in

the

self-evident. mutual

Rather,

mirroring

of

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

social and other patterns that this affectively based sense of certitude lies. Hence, the more patterned systems in the cultural setting which structurally mirror one another, the stronger will be

the

sense

system.

of

self-evidence

One may

generative

here

cause and

facts.1®

Along

primary

causal

with

guaranteeing

invoke function

Douglas,

factor

any

one

patterned

Dürkheim‫ ׳‬s distinction in the

I see

explanation

in the

determining

the

social

shape

between

of

social

structure

of

the

a

world

implicitly communicated in other systems of knowledge, but these other systems too each function to enhance the plausibility of one another and of the social system. Douglas ‫ ׳‬theoretical

and

methodological

approach

must

be

supplemented still further to serve the present context. Douglas talks

of

the

social

system

effecting

a bias

towards

certain

systems of knowledge, rather than determining outright its shape and

character.

She

implicitly

recognizes

that

this

bias

effectively limits the range of what is plausible, given what is historically

available

to

the

group

in

question.

To

cite

Dürkheim‫׳‬s dictum: "the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it...."^

This in no

way contradicts the claim that "the first origins of all social processes

of

any

importance

should

be

sought

in

the

internal

constitution of the social group." There is a history to social facts and any bias is exerted in one direction or another along a continuum of what is historically

available to the group under

study. The workings of those social knowledge

of

the world

can,

forces informing

therefore,

only

be

shared

studied

by

comparative-historical research; for we can only study movement along

a continuum

whose

ends

are

largely

predetermined

by

historical exigency. The comparison of historically close social groupings will, therefore, allow the control necessary to study the effects

of

the social

map on other

systems

of

knowledge.

Again Dürkheim has said (and here Weber too would agree) : since "social

phenomena

experimenter,

evidently

escape

the

control

of

the

the comparative method is the only one suited to

sociology.

8

Introduction

Let

me

translate

considerations attempted

these

theoretical

and

methodological

into the specific realm of the explanatory

in

this

study.

Understanding,

or

task

explaining,

the

knowledge and perceptions implicitly conveyed in the structured patterns of Late Antique Judaism and its texts entails viewing matters both synchronically and diachronically at the same time. On the one hand, we explore the congruence or homological

fit

between these perceptions and those implicit elsewhere in other structured

patterns

of

the same Judaic

community;

chief

among

these other patterns will be the social structure. That is, for each

Judaic

group

we

expect

a

congruence

between

various

mappings, the social map being a primary factor biasing others. But that biasing must be appreciated comparatively, as a position relative

to

others on

a

continuum

of

available

possibili ties

given by the historical-cultural context. So, for example, these shifts in Talmudic Rabbinism must be analyzed in relation to the state of affairs of Mishnaic Rabbinism. And both can be assessed only in light of the shared perceptions of the world implicitly conveyed

by

decision

to compare

Judaic

the

modes

scriptures

is

methodologically thereby

may

which

in this

no

aesthetic

demanded

we analyze

by our

the

they

study

have

four

inherited.

distinct

preference ; theoretical

relationship

of

Late

rather,

So it

perspective. the

the

Antique is Only

social map

to

other shared perceptions and mappings in Late Antique Judaism. The Study and Its Results Those documents ultimately

constituting

the Hebrew

most important among them, the Pentateuch ‫״‬Torah of Moses") provided available

to

communities

and in

part of what was both

authoritative

Late

Antique

for

Judaism.

rabbinic But

Bible,

and,

(understood to be the

in

historically

and

non-rabbinic

the

perceptional

worlds of these various Judaic groups, the biblical documents are also an object (among others) of perception, even if, at the same time, they influenced such shared perceptions of the world. How

verses

are interpreted, depends upon the various groups ‫׳‬ 1‫ו‬ structured patterns of perceiving th<5 world • Our td.sk in th6 9

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture chapters

which

follow

is

to

document

and

explain

this

relationship between the perceptional worlds of four groups and their perceptions in particular of scripture. Given authority dynamic

the

task

ahead,

one

might

construe

for these groups as problematic,

circular.

But

the

contrary

is

scripture‫ ׳‬s

making

the

the cultural

case.

The

meaning

implicit in the shape and character of these authoritative texts provides

a control,

in

comparison

with

significant variation. And, as already

which

one

suggested,

may

discern

one may best

elucidate diverse groups‫ ׳‬perceptions of scripture and the social mechanics

of

knowledge

which

inform

those

perceptions

by

comparing the evidence from discrete Judaic communities, for all of which (more or less the same) scripture is a formative element

patterns

of perceiving

the world

documents of the Jewish biblical patterns

in light

of

the

implicit

associated

with

(from the

fifth to the

the policies

of

the

principal

scriptures and analyzes

socio-cultural

context

which redacted and compiled those documents, Judean Community

in

Ezra

these

the

group

the Jerusalem

fourth

and

of

centuries

Nehemiah.

With

and BCE) this

perceptional world, chapters 3, 4, and 5, respectively, compare the

Judaic

first

universes

century

BCE

of

to

(1)

fourth

the

Graeco-Roman

century

Rabbinate (second century CE), and

CE),

Diaspora

(2)

the

(circa

Mishnaic

(3) the post-Mishnaic rabbis

who produced the Talmuds and the Early Midrashim (third to sixth centuries CE). In what remains of this chapter, we will preview the study‫׳‬s results. The (neo-)Deuteronomic and, later, the Deuteronomic-Priestly communities of Judea‫ ׳‬s early

Second Commonwealth represent

the

triumph of a distinct structured pattern of perceiving the world. This pattern they replicated in their social organization, cultic and purity laws, in the functioning and architectural design of their Temple-city

and,

substantive

of

traits

finally, the

in both

(successive)

the

formal and

scriptures

which

the they

deemed the ‫״‬Torah of Moses." In other words, the maps implicitly drawn

in all

reinforcing

these

spheres exhibit

consistent

and

shapes. Each map appears self-evidently

10

mutually

appropriate

Introduction in

light

of

the

others ;

each

functions

to

enhance

the

plausibility of the others. Of primary map.

M.

import in this cognitive universe

Smith

describe

aptly

Nehemiah‫׳‬s

chose

the

term

social to

"party.The

Deuteronomic-

Priestly community had its most immediate origins

in a group of

colonists

who,

Deuteronomic

is the

"segregationalists"

returning

from

Babylonian

Exile,

asserted

their

territorial hegemony over Jerusalem and environs. This they did, however, in the face of competing claims of indigenous

Israelite

1

groups, simply the people of the land. ® These colonists

defined

their social universe endogamously. 1 6 They were the offspring of endogamous

relationships,

themselves

engaged

in

as

borne

endogamous

out

by

genealogies,

marriages

(that

is,

and

among

themselves). By contrast, those outside their circle, the people of the land, they viewed as both the offspring and of e x o g a m y . 1 7

In sum,

impenetrable

social

encroachment ventures. which

That

drew

which

belonged

outside

must

and

they

must

this

of

that these

pollution

part indicated by and in part the result of the assimilation

of

the

in Judaic

no

social

there ;

Mixture

precisely

least

forbade

remain

there.

and

permitted

in

in

at

a closed

they

is

the Priestly

success,

which

kept

practitioners

themselves

which

inside

be

pollution, 1R characterized those outside. ° colony's

into

and beyond

created

This

about

boundary,

from without

existed

domains

they

circle to themselves. This

literary

sphere

by

the

circles,

"marriage"

interpolation

of

is

reflected

Priestly

law,

primarily Leviticus and the sacrificial calendar of Numbers, into the

‫״‬Torah

penultimate

of

Moses."

stage of

This

seems

to

the redaction

of

have

occurred

the Pentateuch

after the editing of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah 1 q Alexander.

On

the

social

plane

this

merger

during some and

of

a

slightly

less

strict

system

of

endogamy

than

time

before

entailed

adoption by the Priestly group and the then Deuteronomic

a

the

faction

had

been

propounded in Ezra, Nehemiah and Deuteronomy.20 This social map found itself reflected in the various other mappings

defining

the

ethos

and w o r l d - v i e w

of

the

Jerusalem

colony. YHWH alone was heavenly king. He was to be guarded 11

from

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture contamination by other deities, whose cults were not to be mixed with his own. To paraphrase Deuteronomy and other passages of the Pentateuch : Worship YHWH only. Do not worship

him where other ?1 (Of course, worship no other gods where

Gods are worshipped. YHWH the

is worshipped. ) materials

YHWH‫ ׳‬s

once

cult

and

Do not use

used

in

YHWH

the

may

be

in the

cult

worship

of

successfully

encroachment

from without ; no mixture

intermingling

or

encroachment

of

YHWH any of

other

gods.

segregated

is allowed.

into YHWH's

Thus

domain

from

Any

such

pollutes

the

cult and renders it ineffective. Then God will depart. The

spatial

organization

analogous

pattern.

Sanctuary,

bounded

YHWH

of

dwelt

the

in

a

deity‫ ׳‬s small

cult

inner

by a number of concentric

access was limited according to nationality,

evinced

space

domains gender,

in

an the

to which cast,

and

degree of purity. Any breach of these boundaries by the entry of persons

into

domains

forbidden

to them

resulted

in

pollution,

again with the aforementioned result. One need not here rehearse

the many purity

laws,

laws of

incest and the like, which also effect the separation of various categories of animals and people. Here too interminglings pollute and

result

protection

in and

YHWH‫ ׳‬s

departure

blessings.

So much

and

the

cessation

for pseudo-logical

of or

his moral

with different kinds of seeds, creating garments of both wool and linen,

harnessing together ox and ass, and moving boundary 22 markers. Whatever reasons the natives may have offered for these rules,

and

Philo

and

Josephus

may

preserve

some,

these

regulations and taboos are the analogue or homology of the cultic and social configurations. The plausibility of each was enhanced thereby

by

behaviour

the

which

others, was

producing

experienced

as

a

world

of

perceptions

and

satisfying

and

Priestly

code

emotionally

appropriate. Placed served

within

to enhance

a

Deuteronomic

the Deuteronomic

context, system,

the so

that

no

better

summary of the whole may be given than that of Lev. 20:22-26. You shall therefore keep all my statutes and ordinances, and do them; that the land where I am bringing you to dwell may 12

Introduction not vomit you out. And you shall not walk in the custom of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I have said to you : You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am

the

Lord

your

God,

who

have

separated

you

from

the

peoples. You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine. The reflect

scriptures of

the heirs of

these Jerusalem

as

concern

defining

well

this

for

colonists

boundaries

and

defending them against exit and entry. This is the case not only in terms of substance, to which we have extensively referred, but also regarding formal characteristics of scripture. Indeed, even to define a document as scripture, in the sense intended by the colonists, formally replicates that closed and bounded map of the world

discussed

above.

To

define

any

document,

Deuteronomy or the entire Pentateuch, as the

whether

(that is, the one

and only ) "Torah of Moses" and to identify Moses as the one and only source of Torah is to make of a document or a collection of documents entity.

an

J

immutable,

complete,

closed,

and

self-sufficient

It is, in other words, formally to define a scripture.

The very formal character of such a scripture, then, provides an analogy or homology of those correlative systems of cult, cosmos and society which encode the perceptional map of the colonists' world. To have a scripture in this sense, to perceive a document in these terms, is, therefore, a significant 111 s ozr y o f explicable

in

Deuteronomic

Isrs1611116 relation and

cultiuirG f 3n to other

innovation in the

înnovsitiion

structured

Deuteronoraic-Priestly

plsius 1bl6

patterns

communities

of

of

sind

these

Persian

Jerusalem. The success of the colonists' progeny and of their Judaic culture

and

scriptures was such as to redefine 13

"israel" by

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Hellenistic times. Vestiges of the religion of Ancient

Israel,

that is, of the "people of the land," survived both among the new "Israel" and among other Yahwehistic groups in the Ancient world. But by the beginning of the Christian era the heirs of Ezra and Nehemiah East,

were

the

the

principal

Levant,

and

Yahwehists

the

throughout

Mediterranean

the

basin,

Middle

and

were

recognized as such by others. Thus Philo could call Jerusalem the capital not only of Judea but of the whole world, as a result of its "colonies" in every major centre from Iran to Spain. 24 The culture, cult, and sacred colony

constituted

these

colonies.

the It

principal

is

in

literature

of the

authoritative

bag

relation

to

this

Jerusalem of

baggage

all that

comparative analysis elucidates the socio-cultural dynamics and correlative perceptions extant among these Judaic communities, in particular

their

perceptions

of

the

scriptures

inherited

from

their Jerusalemite ancestors. The configuration of the social map of Jews in the GraecoRoman Diaspora greatly differed from the concentric configuration of closed and bounded realms which characterized the Jerusalemite colony. This, ironically, is evident even in Philo‫ ׳‬s assertions about Jerusalem‫ ׳‬s centrality for all Diaspora Jews. He perceived the Jewish world as a number of separate entities, distinct yet related to one another, and possessing a common historical origin in Jerusalem. With this "home-city," as among themselves,

these

colonies maintained ongoing links and mediation. Jews in the Graeco-Roman

world

found

themselves

widely

dispersed across numerous locales and living within a larger nonJewish society with which they had to deal seriously. These Jews could

not

avail

themselves

of

the

social-concentric

model

implicit in the cultural artifacts of the Jerusalemites, whatever their

loyalties

to Jerusalem,

Temple, and

Torah.

For

them,

therefore, loci of the sacred remained diverse and diffuse, just 3-S the 1 it communities dotted their wox*ld• So D19.spo1r9. Ycihweh 1 s15 identified

a

host

of

places,

means,

and

persons

who

in

each

These Jews had as well to maintain ethnic solidarity across wide distances with their co-religionists, while at the same time 14

Introduction both traversing and having their Gentile valued

and

to have dealings with

Christian

intermediaries

in

neighbours.

the various

Thus

the world

they

arenas of

posited

their

of and

cultural

system -- all this in spite of the contrary map implicit in the Torah. Graeco-Roman

Jewry perceived

intermediaries

between heaven

tombs of dead

saints

the dead as

and earth

and martyrs. They

shaman-like,

itinerant 2 ft supernatural power.

Holy

Men

semi-divine

and worshipped sought

who

at

the

the services of

mediated

Ii fe-giving

Given this pattern of mediation, it should not surprise us that

these

Jews

welcomed

into

their

synagogues

and

courts

Gentiles and Christians who, while having no intention formally to convert

to Judaism,

participated

selectively

in the synagogue 71

practised

liturgy r

Judaic

ritual,

and were granted

the

services of Jewish Holy Men. Again

homological

relationships

obtain

socio-cultural spheres. Intermediaries

across

the

various

(that is, persons who

cross defined boundaries in order to effect the exchange of goods and services) appear throughout. Holy Men, the dead, and their tombs link

heaven the

and

occurs

in

social

world ; there

mediate across

earth.

Contact

synagogue. All Jews

Jew

provided

an

do

commerce

with

must

the distance

between

this

separating

and

non-Jew

analogy

to

the

non-Jews

and

the various

discrete

Jewish communities in the Graeco-Roman world. This is the social context of knowledge in which the Torah scroll and discrete elements excised from it effect other links between heaven and earth. The Torah scrolls, like the tombs of Jewish saints and martyrs, provide a conduit of divine,

sacred

power which renders the synagogue holy and its communal liturgy efficacious. Thus Torah scrolls and secondarily synagogues take their place among other loci of the sacred Graeco-Roman

topography,

as

do

the

Jewish

dotting

the Judaic

communities

of

the

demographic map of the Hellenistic world. The Torah scrolls are perceived

the many ? ft between heaven and earth. The

to be among

content

of

scripture

earthly

was

termini

similarly

of

conduits

perceived;

the

inapplicability outside of Jerusalem of the majority of Torah‫׳‬s 15

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture system of laws and taboos rendered the Torah a locus from which one selected sacred items. Scripture was a source of

individual

holy words, phrases, and n o m o i ^ which linked God and the Jews in ritual,

incantation,

individual

words,

and prayer. The Torah

phrases,

and

scrolls

injunctions

of

and

Torah

the

were,

therefore, divine relics. Finally, it should little surprise us that the Hellenistic Jewish

scriptures

included

apocalyptic

materials,

visions by

particularly

numerous

which

documents,

recount

favoured

among

heavenly

Holy

Men.

them

the

journeys

and

Such

view of the relationship between the realms of heaven and earth compatible with the mediating role played by the very scrolls and words of scripture, perceived as divine relics. The evidence from early rabbinism is equivocal in that the materials

implicitly

communicate

two distinct

and

incompatible

maps of the world. The first, that of Mishnah, closely replicates that of the Deuteronomic-Priestly

community in Jerusalem in the

fifth to fourth centuries BCE. The second,

in evidence

in the

earliest Midrashic compilations and in the Talmudim, remoulds the world of Mishnah and of the Pentateuch approximates

that

configuration

in such a way

characteristic

of

that it

the

Graeco-

Roman Diaspora. The

language,

forms,

formulary

patterns,

and

modes

of

analysis which obtain throughout Mishnah make of Mishnah a closed and

self-sufficient

realm,

distinctive

and

separate

from

that

which is outside itself. Mishnah‫׳‬s Hebrew and rhetorical patterns divorce it from the world of real speech by real people. ^ tractates are self-contained, subj ect

matter,

circumscribed, state, 31

which

and

ordered

deals

closed

essays. So too Mishnah‫ ׳‬s

with

realm,

Its

an

that

of

equally the

bounded,

ideal

Temple

earlier defined in the Pentateuch and believed by the

rabbis to have been realized under Ezra and Nehemiah. J. IIC5

t^XMotSvl

(implicit)

O.JILL

UOUlLlaCU

expression

in

C*X1CLX Cil‫־״‬

its

relation

KJL.

to

FIX oilllclll

X lllUo

scripture.

everywhere Mishnah is substantively dependent upon

XUXvIl^X

Almost

Pentateuchal

law, which it tries to read as a unitary and complete system. But 16

Introduction formally Mishnah‫׳‬s pericopae proceed almost without reference to scripture. Mishnah, then, would retain its closure, its nature to require nothing beyond

itself, even to the point

of

appearing

independent of scripture. Those same rabbinic circles for whom Mishnah speaks finalize the rabbinic canon of Hebrew scriptures and convey in that canon the same implicit message of keeping realms bounded and closed. The canon allows no other documents to enter its realm, and none may be removed. The rabbis restricted entry to documents written in Hebrew (excusing some Aramaic) and supposedly written no later than

the

time

of

Ezra

and

Nehemiah.

bounded by Creation and the gives rise to that which real"

is

realm,

contained

in

culminating

Indeed,

only

the

period

Restoration‫ ׳‬by Ezra and Nehemiah

is revelatory. That which

that

in the

,

sacred,

final,

is

self-sufficient

now perfect,

"really

historical

constitution

of

YHWH‫ ׳‬s Temple state in his Holy Land. So Mishnah and the early rabbis‫ ׳‬scriptural canon, both in form and substance, mirror and reinforce one another‫ ׳‬s map of the world. Finally, in the social configuration of earliest the maps implicit

in Mishnah and

in the scriptural

rabbinism canon

find

their ground and analogue. The immediate social context of early rabbinism

appears

limited

to

the

close

circle

of

master

and

disciples. Of the larger social enviroment, we know that the wars of 70 and of fabric

135 brought

of Judean

furnished insular

an

society.

island

structure,

of

about significant The

order

protected

circle in

a

of

sea

dissolution of the

master of

and

chaos.

from chaos without,

disciples

So

in

the

this

rabbis

defined in the realm of mind a Temple state that in their view had been realized in Jerusalem in the fifth century BCE. In form and substance, the products of their intellect, Mishnah and the Hebrew canon, reinforce what they accomplished socially. Sometime around or soon after 200 CE the rabbinic movement enters

a

Diaspora

world,

first

in

the

Galilee

and

later

in

Babylonia. Rabbis come to seek and define roles for themselves within inhabit

Diaspora the

communities.

variegated,

With

these

heterogeneous

other

social

Jews, world

rabbis of

Late

Antiquity. And in the end the rabbis define for themselves their

17

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture ‫נ• ך‬ own idiomatic way of being Late Antique Holy Men,

mediating in

themselves the powers of heaven. They claim for their elite the prowess to journey between the earthly and heavenly realms. Their Hekalot Rabbati preserve (perhaps stylized) accounts of the means of

gaining

entry

to

the

palaces,34

heavenly

of

acquiring

knowledge of its secrets, and controlling the power which accrues to

the

rabbi

therefrom.

On

this

earthly

plane,

then,

rabbis

became in themselves scattered discrete loci of the inbreaking of divine power into this realm -- this, not only by means of their asserted expertise

in the application

of YHWH‫ ׳‬s Torah to daily

life, but also by their claim to theurgic powers accruing flights

to heaven,

"whether

in or out

of

the body,

from

I do not

know. " As their social experience and location change, so too does the

character

of

their

(exoteric) literature,

the Talmuds

and

Midrash, 35 and the perception of the character of scripture and Mishnah

therein

Talmuds,

scripture and Mishnah,

encoded.

In the earliest

entirely

closed,

Midrashim

respectively,

self-sufficient,

and

and

no longer

self-contained

the

remain

worlds,

a

literary counterpart to the Temple state defined in each. Rather, Midrash and Talmud Talmud

see

discrete,

in

reach

biblical

disjointed,

significance literary

fragment scripture and Mishnah; Midrash

the

constructions.

into

and

and meaning

the spheres

and

mishnaic

corpora

non-contiguous

feeding

Talmud

units

the midrashic

and

Midrash,

of Mishnah

and

scripture

of

and

as we

and

numerous, holy

talmudic

shall

show,

and pull

out

indeed for insertion into quite another literary realm —‫ ׳‬just as rabbinic Holy Men do with God's divine power, and

just as the

Jewish communities colonized the larger social world. The social, sacred and literary

topographies,

then, all lend the weight of

plausibility to one another. So while Midrash and Talmud reflect decidedly

elitist

from

lay

the

assimi lates

rabbinic

community,

the

world

of

activity their that

18

differentiating

very

elitist

community

to

the

rabbis

endeavour their

own

also and

Introduction establishes

a perceptional

continuity

between

the

rabbinic

academy and the market and street. Our task in the end brings us full circle: to describe the familiar

so as

to make

it appear

strange,

problematic,

and

requiring explanation; in the end, so to explain matters as to make the now unfamiliar transparent. But in completing the circle one moves several rungs up the ladder in understanding

matters,

thus better grasping aspects of the cultural dynamics in general between

society

and

sacred

things.

scripture.

19

Among

these

things

is

This page intentionally left blank

C H A P T E R

T W O

The "Restoration" Community and the "Torah of Moses"

According to the chronicler‫ ׳‬s account party

of

reign

Babylonian

of

Cyrus

exiles

the

returned

in Ezra and Nehemiah, to

Jerusalem

Great of Persia

during

(sixth century BCE) to

the city and its Judean hinterland. 1 The editor

recolonize

arms

them with a royal decree establishing their right to restore Temple

cult in Jerusalem and,

territorial groups. with

claims

These

and

in

by implication,

the face of

a

the

those

the

supporting their

of

rival

Yahwehist

subsequent events the chronicler

associates

the names and policies of Zerubbabel,

Ezra, and Nehemiah ‫ף‬ as well as with a document, the "Torah of Moses. The historical veracity of the narrative‫ ׳‬s particulars

not

concern us ;

polemical

to be sure,

purposes

need

the account serves apologetic

throughout.

But

in the

several

and

centuries

following,

a distinct socio-cultural universe takes shape in the

Jerusalem

colony;

the

neo-Deuteronomic

chronicler

in

Ezra and Nehemiah and

understood

to

be the ‫״‬Torah of Moses",

world-view

the

emergent

of

the

Pentateuch,

reflect and shape

that

community‫׳‬s shared perception of reality. The community of returnees 350 BCE)

provides,

in Jerusalem

therefore,

the

(circa

earliest

500 BCE to

evidence

for

systematically examining the interrelationship in Ancient Judaism b6tw66n

social

perceptions ! >

experience,

cult, and

particularly,

these

on

sacred

data

the

one

writings,

elucidate

hand, on

and

the

the dynamic

shared

other. among

More social

configuration, holy text, and the exclusion of persons, viewed as ‫ך‬ heretical, unfit, or unclean, from the social unit. Scholarship on such intra-religious disputes generally fails to

take

Students

account of impinging modalities attribute

ideological properly this

or

unfit

to

such

theological in terms

of

of

anathematized beliefs, orthodox

social parties

in themselves beliefs

and

structure. definite viewed

as

doctrines ;

confines such doctrinal disputes to the theological realm. 4 21

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture But,

as

stated above,

remains

the possibility of what may

significantly

bound

by parameters set

be

by

thought

the

total,

shared, social reality.^ What

follows

examines

the dispute

(and the colonists‫ ׳‬heirs) and their social context

of

knowledge.

I hope

general theoretical perspective three related hypotheses. heterodox certain

and

types

of

heterodoxy

to

lend weight to our

heretics

mapping

occur.

less within

a

emerges

only

the when

Second,

heresy

or

substantive

body

of

context

of

a given

theological

than a locative term, locating persons at or beyond the

boundaries ot tn6 soc ial map. will

returnees

First, the tendency to identify

social

beliefs

the

by arguing in this chapter for

(or worse)

specifies

inappropriate doctrine

expel

between

protagonists within this

depend

on

And the use

of such labels

how such social orderings

and

again

boundaries

are

drawn. Just as one group‫ ׳‬s magician is another ‫ ׳‬s Holy Man, so too one

context‫ ׳‬s

heretic is another‫ ׳‬s mystic,

ascetic or

bishop.

Third, the scriptures of the returnees (or of their descendants) both formally and substantively

provide

group‫ ׳‬s

boundaries.

so

social orderings

understanding matters

evidence for

and

an

homology The

of

the

cogency

of

I indicate below with reference to the

the cultural universe of the returnees, viewed in

light of antecedent and other contemporary, competing Yahwehist systems. From Ancient Israelite to Deuteronomic Everyone

cannot

Deutronomist Israelites addition

be

fails

wrong

to

all

convince

in

as recalcitrant sinners. to YHWH;

Religion of

the

time:

painting

a

so

the

millenium

They worship other gods

they use images in the worship even of

of in the

God of Israel; they cavort with Holy Men, necromancers, diviners, healers (and sometimes prophets); they worship YHWH at any number of

High

Places;

surrounding

they

peoples;

intermarry freely

with

indigenous

clan leaders to their local altars.® This state of affairs the

tribal

and

they assimilate the (unclean) tombs of the

confederacy

the

Deuteronomist

sums

up

with

statement, "every man did what was right in his own eyes.'

22

under the

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses" Our

adage

about everyone not being always

wrong

suggests

that a millenium of Israelites would not have seen in this list of

abominations

did

not

know

perspective

anything

or as

did

sinful. Non-Deuteronomic

not

view

expressed

in

Deuteronomists' own admission

as

legitimate

the a

Hebrew wide

clans

the

either

Deuteronomic

Bible.

And

range of

by

beliefs

the and

practices flourished without incurring systematic suppression by any normative authority. However, that

the

"every

man

Deuteronomists narrative

themselves

of

society.

intertribal

no

relations.

defined. Adherence access

governed So

and

altars,

in

the

too

within

clan,

configured

activity,

civil appear

clan

and well

heaven

of

charismatic

by means of

the

(and later

of legal material imbedded

‫״‬Torah

of Moses" depends upon

of this non-Deuteronomic Israelite world.

addition

in

addition

to

YHWH,

to Israelites, sacrificing

society,

continued participation on

compliance with

marrying

at altars in

addition to the altar of the pan-tribal Tabernacle

still was predicated

lands,

of YHWH‫ ׳‬s heroes

majority

So while worship of other gods

Israelite

The the

tribal, and

obligations Israelite

with

the protection

tradition in

cultic

the

Deuteronomic-Priestly

persons

eyes. "

acts of YHWH via his

of mediation of

of his anointed kings). The the legal

own

throughout

family,

economic

the beneficent

intermediaries, clan

in his

evidence

to these norms provided the sine qua non of

domicile to

right

provide

doubt

authority,

continued

was

Joshua through II Kings of a carefully

Rules

religious

Deuteronomists distort matters in maintaining did what

(and,

later,

in the society

a host

of norms

and

taboos. Still and

there seems no pattern of

exclusion

of persons

whose doctrine was not

or groups

straight;

systematic

identification

whose theology was

askew,

indeed there appears virtually

no concern for straight (ortho) belief (doxos) and, hence, little ground

for identifying one whose views were

Non-compliance Locative

other

(hefceros).

with established law and taboo brought sanctions.

labels here are less in evidence than

23

punitive

action

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture and enforcement.

One was guilty (or unclean), not heretical. One

required expiation (or purification), lest the clan suffer divine wrath. Sinners have not fulfilled their obligations governing the relations between the clan and the deity, danger that covenant; to exorcism.

Wrong actions place the group's

risk; wrong of

thereby

placing

in

they must neither recant nor be subjected

theology

does

environment

not make the individual a

at

source

the demonic.

In contrast, Deuteronomy and later the Pentateuch close , 4 ‫ ־‬Ä1 1 *4• *•n raI1ui-uLv^U •fiSsvUl T 3 4tXL * aj^IUL *•v‫י‬J ‫ו‬UX 1. 1 a(• ‫ו‬ ‫!״‬/upcii •»/•‫׳‬v1®)•*‫»״‬x ^ii «pi»nilulell^ /«•»*‫י ו״!»״* *י‬iäl ri Äatrs nJ •• LiluUlv^ Iva!‫־!•*»י־‬aliU -Lta SJ-*L L! •‫״‬î jtai‫*״‬fr More important, the Deuteronomic Reformation associated with Ezra and

Nehemiah defines as outside of Israel all who do not

comply

with Deuteronomy‫ ׳‬s theological standards. Such miscreants seem no longer sinners affecting the environment and requiring expiation; the Deuteronomic reformers relocate non-Deuteronomists beyond the legitimate

social boundary.

reformers

immediately

within their very being.

Their theological misalignment

associate

with

an

anomalous

the

character

They only appear outwardly (and

claim)

to be Israel; their heretical stance attests to inner lacunae (or worse)

which

indicate

their

location outside

the

bounds

of

Israel. This

relationship between

mixed

theology and syncretistic

cultic activity, on the one hand, and

mixed

inner being, on the

other, is highlighted in Ezra 4 (with its allusions to II Kings 17) : Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returning the

God

of

heads of

exiles were building Israel,

they

a temple to the Lord,

approached

the fathers' houses and

Zerubbabel

said

and

to them,

build with you; for we worship your God as you do, have

been

Esarhaddon

sacrificing king

of

to

Assyria

him

ever

since

who

brought

us

the

the

"Let

us

and we days

here."

of But

Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the fathers' houses in Israel said to them,

‫״‬You have nothing to do with us in

building a house to our God ; but we alone will build to the Lord, has

the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of

commanded

us. "

Then 24

the

people

of

the

Persia land

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses" discouraged

the

to build,

people of Judah,

and made them

afraid

and hired counselors against them to frustrate

their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Pers ia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:1-5) What

the

editor

would have the reader

believe

of

these

adversaries, is found in II Kings 17 : And

the king

Cutha, Avva,

of Assyria Hamath,

cities of Samaria they

instead

of

the beginning

fear

the Lord;

people

of

from

Babylon,

and placed them in the

the people of

took possession of Samaria,

And at not

brought

Sepharvaim,

Israel;

and

and dwelt in its cities.

their dwelling there,

they did

therefore the Lord sent lions among

them, which killed some of them.... Then the king of Assyria commanded,

"Send there one

of the priests whom you carried away thence;

and let him go

and dwell there, and teach them the law of the god of the land. " So

one

from Samaria

of the priests whom they had carried away

came and dwelt in Bethel,

and taught them how

they should fear the Lord. But every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines of the high places which

Samaria had

made.... They also feared the Lord, and appointed from among themselves

all sorts of people

as

priests

of

the

high

plSLCGS . So they feared the Lord but also served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had

been carried

away.

To this day they do according to

the former manner. (II Kings 17: 24-34) In sum, local inhabitants identified by Ezra 4 first as nonIsraelite share

in

colonists these

importées to Samaria the

reconstruction

turn

them away,

adversaries

By contrast, bloodlines genealogies

(as in II Kings 17) of

the

Temple.

ostensibly for two

are said

The

request

to

Jerusalem

reasons.

First,

to be not of pure Israelite

stock.

Ezra 2 takes great pains to establish the unsullied of

the colonists.

We are provided with

for the colonists.

appropriate

Of some aspiring priests

the group the editor states :

25

among

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture These

sought

their registration among those enrolled

the genealogies, were excluded 2:62;

in

but they were not found there, and so they from

the priesthood

as unclean.

(Ezra

cf. Neh. 7:5ff; 10:28)

Second,

these

alleged

importées did not worship

exclusion of all other gods.

YHWH

to

the

But the narrative does not sit well

with the overall context of the passage. First, in several verses further on, these Samarian non-Israelites reappear as the "people of the land,"

a term used elsewhere by the chronicler with quite

another meaning, the

Judean

that is, the indigenous Israelite population of

territory in the midst of which the

colonists

have

set up shop. The

people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of

and made

him

king

leading priests unfaithful, nations ; he

had

and

following

and

the

people

all

they polluted

hallowed

Josiah

in his father‫ ׳‬s stead. . . . the the

were

All

abominations house

the

exceedingly of

the

of the Lord which

in Jerusalem. (II Chron. 36:1,14)

Second, Samarian non-Israelites of the bent portrayed in II Kings would

have

little interest in a

Jerusalem

Bethel, and Dan would claim their loyalty.

altar;

Shekem,

Indeed,

II Kings has

their Israelite priestly instructor take up residence in Finally, the

the

Bethel.

practices for which these "people of the land" win

colonists ‫׳‬

Jerusalem

or

rejection

coloni sts

characterize

throughout

the

as

well

narrative

backsliding of

Ezra

and

Nehemiah, as indeed they characterized an antecedent millenium of Israelites. After these things had been done, the officials approached me [Ezra]

and said,

and Levites of

the

and

and

of

their

the peoples hand

foremost."

of

abominations

....

For

peoples

they

have

their daughters to be wives for themselves

for their sons ;

with the

have not separated themselves from the

lands

taken some

"The people of Israel and the priests

the

(Ezra

so that the holy race has mixed itself

of the lands. officials 9:1-2;

And in this faithlessness and

see also

23ff )

26

chief

10:3,

men

has

10; Neh.

been

13:3ff,

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses" Even the colonists, then,

had difficulty seeing the necessity of

remaining either endogamous or monotheistic. Thus

Ezra and Nehemiah

abominations rather,

of

some

register

in

non-Israelite

the

end

importées

peeling away that polemical depiction,

indigenous

Israelite

inadvertently

religion.

In

fact,

not

to

the

Samaria;

we face the

old

Ezra

may

6:21

preserve an admission of the enemies'

Israelite

identity. It

[ the

passover-offering ]

Israel who who

was

eaten

had returned from exile,

had

joined

them

and

by

the

people

of

and also by every one

separated

himself

from

the

the God of Israel. Generally, "people

however,

Ezra and Nehemiah

characterize

of the land" not as sinful Israelites,

these

as in II

Chron.

36, but as non-Israelites altogether. The indigenous folk now are deemed to be not what they

appear

(and claim)

to

be,

namely,

Israel; they are excluded from commerce and celebration with

the

legitimate community on that account. The

Deuteronomic-Priestly

reformation,

achieved

fifth and fourth centuries BCE, draws another in Ancient Israel.

Ezra and Nehemiah

have

over

boundary

the

absent

their (true)

Israel

swear allegiance to a scripture, to the "Torah of Moses." At some point

within those

centuries, the Pentateuch assumes Q less) its final form and is deemed to be that Torah.

(more or The

insertion

of

several

materials

of

the

Priestly

virtually the whole Leviticus into

what

coherent

final

whole

Deuteronomic

represents (the

the

dominant)

tradition

and

is otherwise

a fairly

alliance

between

and

Priestly

( the

subordinate) interests. Now the cultic and theological boundaries reflected

in

the

Temple

cult

are

defined

by

a

Deuteronomic

world-view of, among other things, endogamy and monotheism. The

principal

boundary

Deuteronomic scripture, between

closed

by

the

acceptance

heaven and earth by various charismatic

Deuteronomy revelation

closes is

the gates of heaven,

denied —

of

a

however, appears to be ongoing mediation

indeed, 27

is denied

intermediaries.

insofar as

ongoing

retroactively

from

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Moses‫׳‬

on, 9 So prophecy,

death

authority,

a principal mode

of

Israelite

finds itself in Deuteronomy in an ambiguous position,

in the forefront of potential heresiarchs. Thus Deut. 12:32-13:6: Ever thing that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it. If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, "Let us go after other gods, " which serve

them, " you

you have not known,

shall

not

listen

to

the

"and

words

let us of

that

prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk a f ter

the

Lord

your

God

and

fear

him,

and

keep

his

commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall

be

put

to

death,

because

he

has

taught

rebellion

against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. This stunning reversal of the lines of the prophetic role, and of the

prophet‫׳‬s

view

authority,

remains a foil to a more

of prophecy preserved in

Deut.

18:15-22,

traditional

which

promotes

YHWH ‫ ׳‬s prophets over diviners and soothsayers. In contrast to the passage cited above, verse 22 states : When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord

has

not

spoken ;

the

prophet

has

spoken

it

presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him. Here the signs and wonders prove the legitimacy of the message.

In Deuteronomy

even the prophet‫ ׳‬s to

13 above,

such

signs were

prophet ‫ ׳‬s irrelevant ;

claim to divine revelation had to

measure up

the laws and ordinances of Torah. The

king

in

Deut.

17:14ff

relativization to Torah-law. 28

suffers

the

same

fate

of

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses" And

when

he

sits

on the throne of his kingdom,

write for himself in a book a copy this law

he shall

(htwrh hz ' t),

from that which is in charge of the Levitical priests; and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by keeping all the word

of this law and

these statutes,

and

doing them; that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren,

and

that

he

may

not

turn

aside

from

the

commandment, either to the right hand or to the left; that

he may

continue

long

in

his

kingdom,

he

so

and

his

children, in Israel. (Deut. 17:18-20) Deuteronomy makes the king into a scribal judge —

a far cry from

the charismatic monarch-judge, the image in which I and II Samuel cast

Saul

attested

and David.

that

because

Saul

may

of

their

effectively

Israel was one who of

heaven The

the

endogamy,

and

judge. with

seems

qualities

The

monarch

the prophet,

David of

is

to be and

Ancient

the boundary

uncleannesB, As

inviolate, and Pentateuch and

closed

effect

systems

of

in

spheres their

authority,

which

exclusive find

their

homological fit throughout other subsystems of the

Deuteronomic-Priestly taboos.

charismatic

and

straddled,

bounded, and

monotheism,

with

special rule

investiture

ecstasy. The assumption

and earth. same

Deuteronomy parallel

The legitimacy of Saul‫ ׳‬s

by his prophetic

cult,

world, and

notably

in

sundry

in other

systems

of

proscriptions

i ts

and

with what has already been discussed,

Ancient

Israel

and

with the

colonists ‫׳‬

the

contrast

adversaries

is

paramount throughout. The Exclusion of the Dead from the World of the Pentateuch For

the

presence,

Pentateuch,

the

dead

remained

excluded

from

both in heaven and in his earthly dwelling place,

Jerusalem Sanctuary.

Indeed,

God's the

the dead exuded forces detrimental

to the colonists' exclusivist deity and to his

d order. Thus

Num. 19:1 Iff: He

who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean

seven

days; he shall cleanse himself....

dead person,

Whoever touches a

the body of any man who has died, and does not 29

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

cleanse

himself,

defiles the tabernacle of

the

Lord, and

that person shall be cut off from Israel. (cf. Num. 19:20) As

a source of destructive power which excludes the

affected by it

both

from

God's

earthly

abode

and

living

from

community, how much more so must the dead themselves be

the

excluded

from communion with the deity and the living. (The Pentateuch had no dichotomy of body and

soul,

allowing

the

latter

escape the stigma of the former.) So necromancy and are banned, on pain of

d e a t h , ^

And

the

Psalms

fully

to

necromancers and

literature may be cited as reason for praising God

prophetic

while

alive,

since it is impossible to approach the deity after death. For Sheol cannot thank thee; death cannot praise thee; those who

go down to the pit

cannot hope for thy faithfulness « (Isa. 39 :18; cf. Ps. 6:5, 155 :14ff) The

Pentateuch,

colonists' talking

which

‫״‬Torah

about

uncleanness

eventually Moses,"

becomes

even

the

remains

has

burial rites.

the

sole

almost

exception

to

Jerusalem

reticent

the dead and matters pertaining to

being

Pentateuch

of

about

them,

corpse

this

silence.

The

no legislation concerning

mourning

and

This silence cannot be but deliberate, in that one

must suppose Ancient Israel to have had established practices this regard.

in

But what little we can know of these practices must

be inferred from fragmentary evidence in various narratives. In dead, who

all,

the only concern of Pentateuchal law is

who have gone beyond, therefore

straddle

that

the

yet whose bodies remain behind, and

or blur boundaries, are

recognized

as

abhorrent and dangerous. Later we shall see that such perceptions of

the

Diaspora.

dead

vastly

Whereas

differ

from

those

in

the

Graeco-Roman

for the Deuteronomic-Priestly system the dead

exude materials bent upon the destruction of the efficacy of Jerusalem

cult,

for Jews in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora the

was a locus of mediation between heaven and earth, as

mediators

—

a

Deuteronomic-Priestly distingushed

too

new

priesthood.

editors

of

But

the

30

tomb

with the dead views

the ‫״‬Torah of Moses"

from practices among Ancient

the

of may

Israelites,

the be who

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses"

viewed the dead differently and even accorded them certain cultic importance. The Dead in Ancient Israel : the Unity of Tomb, Altar and Clan For

Ancient

the dead, matter

Israel

the

proper

disposition of the "bones"

of

in particular the elitist dead, appears to have been a

of

considerable importance not only to the deceased but ‫ו‬1 also for the communal wellbeing. As L. Rothkrug has argued, the importance such

accorded proper gathering and burial of the bones

persons moves far beyond any concern for guarding the

of land

against the encroaching powers of uncleanness. Rather, the proper burial of the elitist dead, corporate

unity

instrumental example,

with

in

the

preserves

the hands

of

their

favour•

fathers,

of

by Saul Saul's

transgression,

of

for the

had been delivered

in recompense

against this

in

seems

XI Samuel 21 !

These sons of Saul

of the Gibeonites

Because

in their family tombs,

a narrative regarding the execution

unjustly carried out clan.

bones

maintaining[ YHWH's

of the excarnate remains. into

that is,

for a campaign

protected so

Canaanite

David‫ ׳‬s

advisors,

thought, "there was a famine in the days of David for three years" (II Sam. 21:1). We turn to the conclusion of the narrative : And

he

[ David ]

gave

them

into

the

hands

of

the

Gibeonites, and they hanged them on the mountain before the Lord, and the seven put

to death

of them perished together.

in the

beginning of the

first

They were

days of harvest,

at

the

barley harvest.

Then Rizpah the daughter of Ai‫׳‬ah took sackcloth,

and

spread it for herself on the rock, from the beginning of the harvest until rain fell upon them from the heavens; did day,

and she

not allow the birds of the air to come upon them by or the beasts of the field by night. When David was

told what Rizpah the daughter of Ai‫׳‬ah, Saul, had done, David went the bones of gil'ead,

who

Beth-shan,

his had

and

son Jonathan stolen

where the

them

concubine

of and

from the men of Ja‫׳‬besh-

from

Philistines had

31

the

took the bones of Saul the public

square

hanged them,

of

on the

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture day the Philistines killed Saul from

there

the bones of

Jonathan; hanged.

on Gilboa;

Saul and

and they gathered the

And

Jonathan

they

buried

bones

the bones

in the land of Benjamin

and

he brought

the bones of

of

his

son

of those who were Saul

in Zela,

and

his

son

in the tomb of

Kish his father; and they did all that the king commanded. And after that God heeded supplication for the land. Only

at first glance might the settling of the

be seen as propitiating the deity.

blood-guilt

Three distinct events in fact

are candidates for the means of atonement "for the land":

first,

the execution, when the sons of Saul were hung "before the Lord"; second,

the exposure of the corpses, while the flesh decomposed ;

third, both

the gathering of the bones of Saul and those of his sons, from

Ja‫ ׳‬besh-gil‫ ׳‬ead

and

from

the mountain top,

to the

family tomb in Zela. As regards

the second event,

the practice

appears remarkable,

Pentateuch‫ ׳‬s

perception

Of

the exposure if viewed

of the remains,

in

light

of corpses as polluting the

greater interest is the third

propitiatory

of

the

land

(see

event,

the

gathering of all bones, including the previously interred remains of Saul and Jonathan,

to the family tomb.

complete

of

restoration

corporate

welfare

the

deity‫ ׳‬s

Only this effects the

favour.

In short,

of the living depended in some

the

significant

manner upon the corporate unity of the bones of the elitist dead in

the ancestral tomb. Other

sources

indicate that the requisite corporate

includes not only the recent and the long dead tomb,

but also the living,

unity

in the ancestral,

the ancestral land,

and upon it not

only the ancestral tomb but also the clan altar. Much evidence in the literature of Ancient Israel attests to tühe fear, even

importance of "resting with one's fathers" and to a especially among the aristocracy, elsewhere

in

the

Holy Land.

general

of burial elsewhere

So Jacob

is

portrayed

as

charging his progeny: I am

to be gathered

to my people;

bury me with my fathers

in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the 32

Hittite,

in

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses" the cave

that is in the field of Machpelah to the

Mamre, in the land of Canaan,

east

of

which Abraham bought with the

field from Ephron the Hittite to possess

as a burial place.

(Gen. 49:29ff) Similarly, to

Joseph requests

Canaan.

from

Genesis

persons the

that his bones be carried from Egypt

The redactor of the penultimate

biblical

appropriately acted upon Joseph's request.

bones of Joseph with him" upon leaving

according

narrative

through II Kings takes pains to show that

to

Josh.

24:32,

various

Moses

"took

Egypt (Exod. 13:19);

Joseph‫ ׳‬s bones were duly buried

by

Joshua at Shechem. The

tradition

in

Joshua

24

especially

highlights

the

integral relationship between the bones of the deceased, those of the ancestors, and the familial territory (nahalah) as

the

only

efficacious site for the family tomb. The

bones

Portion of sons if

of Joseph which the people of Israel

brought

ground (bhlqt hÈdb) which Jacob bought from the

of Hamor

the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces

silver; it became an inheritance of the descendants of

Joseph. There

seems no indication here,

or in the Gen 33:19,

that

the

portion of ground was purchased expressly as a burial site. Quite the

contrary,

in Genesis,

might

have a place

altar

and

Jacob

acquired the land

to pitch his tent,

called it

so that he

and there he "erected an

El-Elohe-Israel"

(Gen. 33:20).

In having

Joseph buried on his familial portion of land, then, the narrator portrays constitutes

a

state

of

affairs

in

which

the

ancestral

the location where the living (in their

tents)

plot and

the tribal deity (at the family altar) and the dead ancestors (in the

clan

tomb)

form

an integral whole

that is

important

to

the general welfare. When the familial clan gives way to the more expansive

tribal

confederacy,

Shechem

confederacies ‫ ׳‬principal cultic sites. narrative

of Gen.

becomes

one

of

It seems likely that

the the

39:19 functioned to legitimate that locale as

appropriate for efficacious sacrificial ritual and communion with the deity. That the "portion {nhlh) of the descendents of Joseph"

33

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture served

as the location for their ancestors' bones appears not to

detract from its cultic efficacy.

This assimilation of tombs and

altars is not unique to the case of Joseph. an account

of

a

similar

instance.

Gen.

35:8 preserves

Taking together, then, the

stories of Genesis and Joshua along with the narrative gathering of Saul's bones, of

the

ancestral

about the

one may hypothesize that the presence

bones at Shechem may even have

enhanced

the

efficacy of the altar. A

corollary

remains and

of this

seems to be

that

the exhumation

(particularly the aristocrats' J from their family

their

intermingling

has

serious

negative

of

tombs

repercussions.

Indeed this is a sign of God's wrath, according to Jer. 8:1-8. At

that

Judah,

time, the

says

bones

the Lord,

of

its

inhabitants

of Jerusalem

tombs . . .

and

the

princes, shall

bones and

of the

be brought

the

kings

of

of

the

bones out

of

their

they shall not be gathered or buried ; they

shall be as dung on the surface of the ground. Since

the entombed dead and the living form,

salutory corporate order,

on their

then so too the dead,

land,

a

the living, and

the land share the punishment meted out by the deity. With such notions in view, Jerusalemite

priests

to

the exile of the aristocrats and

Babylonia would have

exiles with a serious problem; their

dead.

contributed

Their to,

burial

presented

these

they must dispose of the bones of in

Babylonia

highlighted,

God‫׳‬s punishment of the exiles.

So

even

redemption

would have included repatriation of both the living and the dead. Ezekiel (37:1-10)

37,

following

upon

the

"vision

reflects such a conception.

oracle quotes the metaphorical vision, 12) furnishes a

description

of

the

For,

of at

the

verse

and thereafter promised

bones11

dry

11,

the

(at verse

redemption —

no

metaphor at all. Behold

they say,

‫״‬Our bones are dried up,

and our hope

is lost; we are cleanly cut off." Therefore prophesy,

and

say to them. Thus says the Lord God: Behold I will open your graves, and raise you from your graves, 0 my people; and I will bring you home into the land of

Israel.

And you shall

know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise

34

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses" you from your graves, 0 my people. And I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land.... Temple vs Tomb: Homogeneous Nation vs Heterogeneous The

Pentateuch

in its present

formulation

the

literary sphere, the successful

Clans

represents,

marriage

in the

of Deuteronomic as well a

and Priestly circles. The "Torah of Moses" constitutes

systematic attempt to disassociate the tombs of the dead from the cult

of

exile

YHWH.

Those cultic sites, which before

rivalled

loyalty

of

Jerusalem

and after

the "people of the Land"

local clan altars unity

the Babylonian

still

claimed

seem to have evolved

situated on distinguished families‫׳‬

Here the living and the dead formed, salutory

which

with

YHWH.

competition

to

Jerusalem,

attempting

Jerusalem,

was

to

such

co-opt

portions.

at the family altar,

Shechem,

the a

most

their

prestigious

locale.

to itself

the from

Deuteronomic

all

worship

and

loyalty, effected a radical social and cultic re-orientation. The nation

supplanted

altar,

and,

the

finally,

tribal custom,

clan,

the Sanctuary replaced

the

the Torah displaced, among others,

and regional tradition and authority,

clan local

as well as

pan-tribal prophetic and charismatic leaders. The price was

paid

in part by the dead; the Deuteronomic priests excluded tombs from the

circle of sacred order centred upon the central

altar.

The

‫״‬Torah

of Moses" thereby renders unclean, as well,

old sites of

local

cultic

furthermore,

activity.

Excluding

the

dead,

diminished a focus of clan unity and cohesion,

thus contributing

to the formation of a homogeneous community and national cult. Not surprisingly, therefore, Deuteronomic-Priestly Jerusalem has no (Israelite) burial site associated with it. And, supporting

our hypothesis,

recent

archaeological

further

work

uncovered pre-Israelite tombs beneath the Temple Mount. On however,

the

need

for

some

has the

Deuteronomic

side,

ancient

legitimation

of the cultic site was eventually satisfied by

association,

sometime in the Second Commonwealth, with the Mount

its

Moriah of the "binding of Isaac" (Genesis 18). Now, not a burial, but a miraculous delivery central

cultic

altar.

from death, The unclean 35

serves to legitimate a clan

dead

were

left

to

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

pollute other competing to

a

sites and to redirect loyalty from clan

pure, homogeneous nation. The

mapping

of an ordered world about

the

central altar

occurred not only via the delineation of spatial boundaries (with the

dead

beyond

all

boundaries ) but

socio-genealogical Israelites

distinctions

also

of the Jerusalemite colony.

and maintenance

of

with

among

the

reference

to

pure

(living)

For the very

creation

a Temple-centred universe was

effected

by

the drawing of concentric, socially defined circles, each closed and guarded from incursion from without. the centre, upon the only

The Holy of Holies,

might be only entered by the High Priest, Day

of Atonement.

by clean

The Sanctuary

could be

priests of the clan of Sadoq.

of Israel, the site of the bronze altar,

at

and only entered

Within the Court only clean,

male

Isr3,611t.6s ( and ministering priests) were permitted to circulate. (Indeed,

even this court may have been subdivided,

so that male

Xsraelities and pr 16sts might not freel y mingle.) Beyond was the Court of (clean, Israelite) the Court

of

Women.

the Gentiles.

Finally,

outermost

stood

In this court all may mingle,

as

in the non-Israelite world. That is, the Court of Gentiles was the

precise analogue of the

Israelite

universe

boundaries in genealogical

the

chaotic

world

concentric

outside

the sacred

domains.

Breached

architectonic ordering

type

would

boundary-crossing, dangerous,

of

dissolve

or boundary

sacred

straddling

similar to other aspects

according

to pure

cosmos.

Mixture,

were perceived

as

(discussed earlier) of the

colonists ‫ ׳‬perceptional world. The Pentateuch, understood to be the "Torah of Moses," out which

this Temple-universe in terms of its desert the Jerusalem

colonists‫ ׳‬Temple

Tabernacle,

was conceived

permanent and now perfect realization. The idealized beyond

configuration

description

of

the outermost boundaries of the Temple the

first the priests and

encampment encircling the levites,

of

to be the

in Numbers of the desert community extends the concentric map humanity

maps

to

of the

Tabernacle

and beyond them the remainder of

clean Israel. The Pentateuch excludes the unclean entirely from the camp. 36

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses"

With respect to all this, of course,

the ancient Israelites

and in the fifth century BCE "the people of the Land" will have been

found

wanting,

with

their many

High

Places,

uncleanness,

intermarriages, and priests of tainted blood. Social Configuration Even this the

cursory

and Shared look

at

Perception

the data

for

Ancient

Israel

Jerusalem community of the early Second Commonwealth

and

points

to a theoretical framework for explaining both parties' religious world-views

and the

"people

the

of

‫״‬Restoration" community‫ ׳‬s perception of the

Land"

as

radically

and

dangerously

"other"

12

(heteros).

I

have argued

that the ordered

world

of

shared

perceptions retains its air of self-evidence from the homological fit

with

the

social

order.

configuration

remains

appropriateness

to

social

and

plausible

due

permeability

and of

And

mapping of boundaries.

those

this

to

boundaries

its

among

social peculiar

other

But the

will vary

from

variation usually correlates

socio-cultural patterns (which,

the

things." 13

a vision of the "nature of

perceptual ordering involves,

classification society.

And, reciprocally,

That

things,

nature

and

society

with

to

specific

with respect to Ancient

Israel,

we will presently explore). Heresy-hunting, from an

open

drawing

and

throughout

to a

or its like, closed

maintenance

emerges when a culture moves

configuration. Closure (that is, the of

hard

boundaries)

all classificatory systems of the culture

social, cultic, theological, etc. Persons at mix

is to be kept separate,

affective

or

of classification.

relationship across substructures produces a basis for the plausibility of both shared

and social organization.

Persons,

group,

classification,

will have attributed to

a mixture at the levels of other realms homological

percolate

who resist that change

any one of these cultural subsystems of what

will

therefore,

who them This

highly

perceptions

who explicitly or

implicitly challenge any of the inviolate boundaries will be met, not with reasoned debate, -- revulsion.

As

but with an equally affective response

A.K. Cohen has noted in comparison with

37

other

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture forms

of

deviance

we

reserve

a

"special

abhorrence ... for

heretics.1,1 4 Deuteronomic-Priestly

religion

and

culture

maintains

(to be discussed at length later).*'® We have dealt with many, but not all,

areas of its classificatory subsystems.

the realms of theology and cult, to

In addition to

already addressed, the concern

avoid mixture of distinct taxa is in evidence throughout

Deuteronomic

and

Pentateuchal

world.

Similar

inform the classification of animal species as clean or prohibitions concerning mixed seeds, or

intermingling

family

land,

the

preoccupations unclean,

mixtures in cloth, blurring the

harnessing

together

of

1 fi

different animals, and the like. The tribal confederacy, well

to

the

other side of

mediation across boundaries. former

°

even the Israelite monarchy, stands the cultural

continuum,

The latter, then,

requiring

would supply the

with ideal candidates for heresy in persons who in

nature

challenge

universe.

the

affective

basis

of

the

their

Deuteronomic

A comparison of these two configurations of Israelite

universe shows these dynamics in the Israelite context. Let us first survey what may be said of the character of the "Restoration-Reformation" community.

The rather small

group

of

colonists return, not to a depopulated Jerusalem and Judah, but to a

territory

whose

indigenous

from pre-exilic

times

Israelite

population remained 1‫ד‬ upon its ancestral lands. The claim of

the colonists and of their immediate heirs to control Judah, that of the social

"people of the Land"

organization,

indeed

community of colonists, The

and institutions which unbroken

traditions

the

required

"people of the Land" no

required

basis in

organization

comparison, the content of the colonists' remained

weak ;

forms

of

social

The

of

the

legitimation.

retained social

their

of social

definition

elaboration and

doubt

found

very

not

buttressing.

structures

long-standing,

and identity. identity

By

structure

interaction

and

responsibility could be but relatively ill-defined. Such a social unit,

lacking

social life,

a

rich body of ancient norms configuring

their

and having to defend their claim as a community 38

to

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses" their

territory,

their

social identity by closely drawing the boundaries of their

social

could

universe.

attention.

but initially defend these

Boundary

maintenance

became

claims

the

focus

and of

Hence, whatever will have threatened that surrounding

border struck at the basis for social solidarity. The social experience and requisites of the colonists, then, seem particularly well served by their perceptional universe; the latter, earth,

they

keep realms separate -- those

of

heaven

in and

Jew and Gentile, living and dead, male and female, bodily

excretions and the person,

Priestly-Levitical castes and laymen,

tomb and altar.

purity

bodily

Torah and

rules exerted the social

and

control required to shore up and insulate these inviolate

realms. Heretics cross realms in such a social universe. The opposite

problematic of

that

for

Ancient

facing

the

Israel

appears

colonists

of

quite

the

the

Deuteronomic

Reformation. In Ancient Israel the mediation across social units, not

their maintenance,

proved the

more urgent

issue.

Ancient

clan allegiances based on common blood and, no doubt, generations of traditional shared norms, loosely retain

related hold

had to be transcended if a group of

nomadic clans were successfully to

of an extended

agrarian

established social boundaries,

territory.

settle Unity

and

across

not the definition and defence of

the JLâtitü62rf const1tut6d fcho ssilxsnti problcrn > Persons who mediated across against

these

boundaries proved invaluable in holding

encroachment or uprisings by the

the

displaced,

Land

indigenous

inhabitants. Here again a single, positive

pervaded throughout. frontier

uniform taxonomic configuration —

the

attititude to boundary-crossers and alliance-makers of

Mediators, persons who straddle

clans and tribes,

may unite and

the social

co-ordinate those

groups against threat. So too charismatic religious virtuosi, who in

themselves

mediate across

the

link heaven and earth,

heavenly

not

and earthly domains,

tribal divisions and clans,

only but

serve

also

a complement to

to

function

traditional

clan leadership and cultic ministry. Persons

who so function in the universe of Ancient

Israel,

then, do so not from the periphery per se. Rather, they operate 39

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture in the

interstices

wonder, therefore, outside normal abnormal infancy

of

that

social definitions,

pedigree.

Nazirite

from birth;

his clan

and

a clan.

for

itinerant,

lives in exile from

pan-tribal

that is,

leadership.

In

without ties to any

and without the concomitant social location within

the

metaphysical however,

Samson

parents and lives as a

sullied pedigree,

tribe before assuming

All these of

almost from

but in the Tabernacle.

he thus belongs to YHWH, not to any clan.

his

general, prophets are piece of land

Little

indeed, even as persons of

otherwise infertile

Gideon, because of

domains.

Samuel‫ ׳‬s birth is miraculous;

he lives within no clan,

too springs from

domain

classificatory

such mediators tend to be presented as

figures social

space

circulate

tissue,

between

heaven

as and

precisely these persons would

heretic-hunting,

in the

just

intercellular

they

do

earth.

in

the

Elsewhere,

provide ideal candidates

sorcerer burning,

and the like. In the

taxonomic context of Ancient Israel they are saviours. This perceptional universe valuing mediation across domains 18 retains its plausibility, as I have already argued, due to the replication other

of

the taxonomies in the social sphere in

domains,

including the cultic and theological.

dead and the living meet at the altars of the clans, boundary of death.

And finally,

for some,

numerous Thus

the

across

the

the boundary between

YHWH and other gods, or between the latter‫ ׳‬s cultic sites and the worship

of

YHWH,

may

be breached.

For

as

the

Deuteronomic

historian's Elijah asks of Israel (I Kings 18:21): ‫״‬How long will you

go limping with two different opinions?

follow him;

but

if Baal,

follow

the people of is not abandoning

YHWH,

Fence-sitting,

the

the

however, across

Israelite ‫ ׳‬s

precisely

what

seems

socially

constituting a danger, and

taxonomic

context.

but

fence-sitting.

taxonomic

constructed

required.

straddling the fence serve

If the Lord is God,

him." What the editor accuses

And

systems

universe

anomalous

of

remained persons

an integrating function, rather than

as indeed they would One

context‫ ׳‬s Holy

heresiarch or magician.

40

in

another Man

social

is another‫ ׳‬s

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses" As

regards Ancient Israel's straddlers of heaven and earth,

first Deuteronomy and then the Pentateuch as a whole severs those ongoing

living

links

across the

borders of

the

earthly

and

heavenly realms, doing away with persons who by their very nature may

mediate

insulating The

across

that boundary.

Torah

assumes

a

position

(not mediating) those two (now inviolate) boundaries.

exclusion

of

persons

from

Israel,

and

from

the

protection and salvation of YHWH, involves therefore an appeal to Such

is

the

effect of the substance of Torah as

used

by

the

colonists. in the final instance, however, we may turn not to the substantive, that

already much discussed, but to the formal traits of

scripture,

in order more fully to grasp the character

role of scripture for the Jerusalem community. the

community‫ ׳‬s

group‫ ׳‬s

general

the most

perception

We inquire relation

pattern of shared perceptions of

general

formal

traits

community ‫ ׳‬s imaginative relationship

of scripture in of

the

artifact,

"Torah

and about

to

the

reality.

For

Moses,"

the

of

also bear a homological

to other systems comprising the community‫ ׳‬s map of

the world. Conclusions: Scripture and Society in the Jerusalem Community Instrumental in the process of ‫״‬Restoration,"

as

portrayed in

the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, is the authority of the ‫״‬Torah of Moses,

soon to be identified with

community, (1) it

the ‫״‬Torah" constituted

contained

-- divinely

oracles

authorized

and

laws

norms ;

the Pentateuch.

For the

a canon in several senses : representing

(2) the

‫״‬Torah

YHWH‫׳‬s of Moses"

will was

conceived as whole, complete in itself, and closed. The death of Moses, for the Jerusalem community, effected

closure of

the

period of YHWH‫ ׳‬s revelation of his will to Israel. The closure of the Pentateuchal canon, the Torah, reflects the same. We need not overly involve ourselves in questions

regarding

the growth and editing of either Deuteronomy or the Pentateuch. I note only the close ties between the use of ‫״‬Torah" in the second sense

as

a closed system

perceptional

world

we

have

and the Deuteronomic "party," whose examined.

Deuteronomy

refers

itself, or the laws therein contained, as "this Torah"; "you 41

to may

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

not

add

to

perceives then,

‫ ג‬t, or

itself

from

as closed,

‫ ד‬/‫ן‬ it." £U

That

perfect,

and

is, whole.

Deuteronomy A

boundary,

encompasses the Torah, permitting neither entry nor ,

This use of as :

take

‫׳‬Torah" differs significantly

from

"this is the torah in the case of one who

observe]

his

commandments,

(twrwtyw)." as a

his

ordinances

exit.

such passages ..."; or, " [ to

and

his

teachings

This usage bears none of the valence of the ‫״‬Torah"

singular,

definite,

materials. Significantly,

whole,

the

and

latter

closed

conception,

body

of

found

in

Deuteronomy, appears as well in the account of Josiah‫ ׳‬s {Deuteronomic) reformation 21 and, finally, throughout the 22

narrative of Ezra and Nehemiah. The complete identification "Torah of

Moses,"

contiguous Joshua,

severing

antecedents,

serves

many

of the Pentateuch Joshua

from

its

with

cannot be dated with certainty.

contradictory

the

literarily

claims equally well.

The The

presence of virtually all legal materials in our Pentateuch and their excision from chronicler

other writings

imply

that

the

of

the

editing

of

Deuteronomist and the

Jerusalemite

Pentateuch was informed by the ‫״‬Torah-of-Moses"

perspective.

Taken together, the various and varied data suggest that, Deuteronomy functioned as the ‫״‬Torah. longer

version

assumed

the

1,23

title.

Later, one Finally,

first,

or another with

the

Deuteronomic-Priestly alliance, priestly editors integrated their documents and the

"Torah.1124

the

Jerusalemite

community‫ ׳‬s

The

result,

all consonant

construction

of reality,

with cannot

be later than the conquests of

Alexander, nor earlier than the 2R editing of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. 3 Torah

formally

perceived

as

a

whole,

complete,

self-

sufficient, and bounded system, and defined in terras of a bounded time

(from

homology comprise remains access world

Creation

to

to the social, the

world

Moses ‫׳‬

death),

provides

a

theological, and cultic maps

of the Jerusalem

colonists.

defined as a series of concentric circles across the respective boundaries. is comprised of circles of cas tes§

Sacred with

The legitimate

precise which space limited social

maintained by endogamy

The ,‫׳‬Restoration" Community and the ‫״‬Torah of Moses"

and pure bloodlines. from

God inhabits the cultic

centre,

protected

anything having contact with foreign deities and bounded by

purity

rules.

The closed,

circumscribed

appears as one more homologous and being

reinforced

by,

‫״‬Torah of

shared perception,

these

other shared,

Moses"

reinforcing, imaginative

constructions of reality. The

social-political world of the Jerusalem colonists could

survive

intact for a short time only.

External impingement

and

internal growth no doubt quickly conspired to open the boundaries of

this circumscribed world so closely tied to a

The

maintenance

requisite shifts

of

plausible

shared

degree of self-evidence,

central altar.

reality,

with

would in our view occur

and transformations in the various and varied aspects

the Israelite world — perception several

a

of

of

Torah.

these

in cult,

theology,

re-configurâtions

43

of

of

sociology, and in the

In what remains of this book we

reality.

a via

Israelite

and

turn

to

Judaic

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER

THREE

Diaspora, Sources of the Sacred, and Torah as Holy Relic

The

social

and

cultic

literary paradigm, one

hand,

its

geographical

structures,

of

which

Torah

was

the

On

the

became victims of their own success.

the Jerusalemite community had considerably and

moral

boundaries

expanded

by the height

of

the

Hasmonean Era; the tight concentric model of the ordered (sacred) world, under

with

its relatively impermeable outer

increasing

stress

century BCE, Torah a

utopian

air.

and

In contrast

The socio-cultural

Notwithstanding

these

other

hand,

‫״‬Israel." All

canonical

Yahwehistic

of

Philo

and

early

communities, retained YHWH

for

their

Christian

moreover,

its

alone

principal

the

status of

had

‫״‬Torah

‫״‬Torah

and

of

most

Moses"

Deuteronomic-Priestly

Roman —

through of

these

(officially)

characteristics ;

was worthy of devotion and Jerusalem remained

to

of

Torah

and Qumran, For

of

on

all

the Hellenistic

circles.

of

assumed,

for virtually

Pentateuch

unique cultic locus of the sacred. proximity

fifth

taken on

the

periods provide apologies for themselves in terms from Samaritans

the

Torah ‫ ׳‬s paradigm of

developments,

groups

came

conditions of the Israelite

boundaries

Moses" by the end of the third century BCE the

to

in the first century BCE will have

world had far overrun the world.

strain.

boundaries,

the

Thus Philo, living beyond any

that concentric configuration of divine

order

earth, writes (in Legatio 281 ff. , LCL edition): As for the holy city [Jerusalem], to say.

I must say what befits me

While she, as I have said, is my native city she is

also the mother city not of one country Judaea

but

of the others in virtue of the colonies sent out

of most

at diverse

times to the neighbouring lands ... they all ... have Jewish inhabitants.

So if my own city is granted a share

of

your

[Gaius‫ ]׳‬goodwill the benefit extends not to one city but to

45

on

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture myriads of others situated in every region of the

inhabited

world .... What Philo describes in geo-political terms, a Near East and Mediterranean wholly the

world

dotted

with

Jewish

communities,

appears

consistent with the evidence for the Yahwehistic cult

Diaspora

‫״‬Torah

of

and with a new perception of,

Moses,"

now

under tood

in

part

and role as

a

for,

of the

repository

of

discrete holy lexon and nomoi and in part as a relic. As has been done for the

Jerusalem colony,

Diaspora cult,

let me draw the contours of the

so as to compare the latter with both the

geo-

demographic map

of the Jewish Diaspora and the perception and 1 Torah therein.

role of Jews

in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora,

themselves minority

widely

across

numerous

seriously to deal.

found -- a

These Jews could not avail themselves of

bounded world of concentric domains which identified

disastrous Jewry,

encroachment of "others" from without.

loci

communities persons

of

the sacred remained diverse

For

and

just

as

these Jews must

maintain

meaningful

neighbours.

that

boundary

is,

socio-cultural

ethnic

realms,

in

The on

and just as they must

Thus they value mediation and

crossing and

as

solidarity

dealings with their more proximate Gentile

Christian

the

means, and

who in each locale might mediate the power of heaven —

had

Diaspora

diffuse.

in question identified a host of places,

across their widely dispersed communities, have

noted, ‫ר‬ locales

within a larger non-Jewish society with which they

Torah‫׳‬s

earth

dispersed

as Philo

boundary-crossers

cult and cosmology,

and

mediators, in

various

as much

as

in

social and economic relations. All this notwithstanding, Diaspora Jews

profess

Torah,

which

loyalty

and

they come,

venerate however,

the

Deuteronomic-Priestly

to perceive differently than

their Jerusalemite forebears. Holy Men and Tombs as Conduits Between Heaven and Earth Among

Early

Christians

and Gentiles,

Jews and other

Antique Yahwehists were known as adept magicians. be

sure,

intended

is pejorative and locative, to

locate

legitimate society.

that

is,

these Jews and others beyond

Late

The term, to "magician" the

pale

is of

But these data also point to a corresponding 46

Diaspora, the Sacred, and Torah as Relic

(and

licit) figure within Late Antique Yahwehistic communities, ‫ך‬ Judaic Holy or Divine Man. Indeed, such Holy Men appear to

the be

the

only

Judaic

religious

virtuosi

in

the

Graeco-Roman

Diaspora known to Early Christian literature. Acts

8:9ff

Samaria. success heal

introduces

the

figure

of

Simon

(Magus)

of

The story recounts Philip's successful mission there, a based on his capacity to exorcise unclean spirits and to

the paralyzed and lame.

But Simon did much the same

thing

before Philip‫ ׳‬s arrival. Just as Philip‫ ׳‬s talents won recognition of

Jesus

as

a divine being,

himself divine status.

so Simon's

exploits

earned

for

Only in Acts, and in subseguent Christian

sources, does Simon remain a magician. Acts

19:11ffs depicts similar competition between Paul

and

other itinerant, Jewish Holy Men, the sons of the "chief priest," Sceva.

The

Jewish exorcists travel from place to place offering

their services. fringes

of

But this seems not at all to locate them on Judaic

society;

their

elevated

the

pedigree

is

instructive. Even as late as Chrysostom‫׳‬s Antioch (360s CE), theurgists (including

such Jewish

serve the Jewish community and service such non-Jews Gentile Christians) who seek them out in the local

synagogue. 4 The

non-rabbinic Jewish evidence for Judaism in the Graeco-

Roman Diaspora confirms this view of matters and fleshes it Sefer

HaRazim

contains

charms (in Late Antique

Hebrew)

out. which

complement the narrative in Acts. The following is typical: stand before the grave

and recount the names

of the fifth camp [in the first heaven].

of the angels

And have

in your

possession oil and honey mixed together in a new glass bowl. And

say

the following:

[Hermes]

who

I adjure you [0]

Spirit Kriphoros

dwells among the tombs above the bones of the

dead, that you might accept from me this offering and [that] you might do my bidding and bring me x the son of y who died Such

texts

has

5

in Hebrew find numerous parallels

47

among

the

Greek

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Magical Papyri,

many of which are undoubtedly of Diaspora Jewish

provenance.^ It

is

mistaken,

theurgists intimated

as by

mere Acts,

as

is

so

often

technicians of

done,

sacred

to

view

power.

these

As

already

and as borne out by Sefer HaRazim

and

the

Greek Magical Papyri, these figures were intimate with the divine realm.

They claimed to journey through the heavens, there having

attained

their theurgic prowess and knowledge,

and

borne out by their intimacy and heavenly travels, humans. through

With the

otherwise ends the

respect to Sefer HaRazim,

to

be,

as

more than mere a

tour

seven heavens provides the basic framework of

what

probably remained a fluid

for example,

text-tradition.

That

tour

with a vision of the deity on his throne-chariot carried by heavenly

beasts and surrounded by angelic

choruses

—

all

reminiscent of Ezekiel 1, Isaiah 6, and the Hekalot literature. The charms evince a range of types of such intimacy the Holy re fleeted

Man

and

the divine.

in

the

result

mentioned. Another companionship

of,

of

One such

is reflected

level

heavenly

to

or deity. In one charm,

beseeches

good

an

the

being

for example,

"become

between

intimacy

journeys

a divine

archangel,

to

such

in the claim

or union with, Gabriel

of

the

advocate

as

is

just

permanent --

angel,

theurgist for

me,

administrator and help, all the days of my life" so that, among other things, the angel might spirits.1,7 In another text, Eighth Book of Moses, " permanent union.

"drive away all evil and

also preserved

YHWH

is

"For you are I,

the object

and I

impure

in ‫״‬The Secret or of total and

am you. Whatever I say

»

must happen. boundaries

between

heaven

and earth,

just as

they

in

their

earthly travels they link community to community. They are sacred persons in between,

as aptly represented in yet another charm in

"The Secret or Eighth Book of Moses."® The invocation of Helios :

Speak towards the east,

"I am he

who stands between the two cherubim, in between two natures, heaven and earth,

sun and moon,

48

light and

darkness, night

Diaspora, the Sacred, and Torah as Relic and

day,

Not in

all who mediated between the divine and earthly

Late

blood.

rivers and oceans; appear to me archangel of god

Antique Jewish

Judaism still walked the earth

dead

in

realms

flesh

and

new trajectory, upward to 10 heaven, rather than downward to Sheol. w By the second century CE, and probably among Israel

order

as

early as the first century BCE,

had been

communication living,

had assumed a

and exchange

between heaven

consequently, lavished to

maintain

in order

to

attention

and

their

biblical and rabbinic rabbinic

services.

This

the

attendance

tombs,

The

dead in upon

the

flies in the face of

norms. For one familiar with Numbers 19,

views

regarding

corpse-uneleanness,

exhortations of the author of Tobit must hardly provenance.

earth.

upon

the latter‫ ׳‬s privileged status in heaven and

invoke

dead, even cultic activity at their and with

the dead

enlisted among those maintained lines of

This first century BCE document

the

appear of Jewish

of the Hellenistic

Diaspora exhorts one to: Pour out thy bread and thy wine on the tombs of the just, and give not to sinners. (Tobit 4:17) Whether elite

the

dead

author

of Tobit enjoined venerating only the

or the common dead as

Antique evidence, however, elite and common

dead,

well

remains

unclear.

supports the veneration

Late

of both

the

with the former being more efficacious,

while the latter, perhaps, being more familiar. Among auspices century

the

of BCE

major

Herod is

the

traditional site As Josephus

building

the

of

describes

Great

projects in

large-scale

the

Land

mausoleum

the Patriarchs‫ ׳‬tomb, matters,

initiated

Holy

in

replicates Herod‫ ׳‬s Temple in Jerusalem.

the

Hebron

the first

at

the

the Cave of Mahpela.

the mausoleum 11

under

of

architecturally

The one

is a scaled

down version of the other. In the mausoleum, the six raised tombs occupy the centre, occupied in the Jerusalem counterpart by the Sanctuary. The analogy will pilgrims who visited at the altar,

not have

Jerusalem

been

and Hebron.

heaven and earth met. Prayer 49

lost on the many At these tombs,

as

at the Tomb of the

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Patriarchs remained

commonplace,

and after the destruction 12 importance. Rabbinization of

of Jerusalem took on increased the

area

did

Nearby activity, Rachel

not

the

halt

the phenomenon.

Tomb of Rachel was the site for similar

would have special sympathy.

could be counted Indeed

cultic

especially for barren women, with whom the once barren

the

Her intercession in

upon. Again rabbinization here changed nothing.

thoroughly rabbinic Jewish

population

Palestine

added to such earlier pilgrmage sites

tombs

David,

of

Maimonides,

heaven

to

of

Rabbi

name

Antique veneration

of the

Simeon bar Yohai and

just a few,

so entrenched

of the elite dead

in

this

Medieval (alleged)

the was

tomb

of

the

Late

Diasporized

Holy

Land. Some that

dead

is,

by

achieved elite status via their mode martyrdom.

relates

the martyrdom

all

vivid detail

the

sons

that

Synagogue of

familiar

they will martyrs

Antioch.^ ^

the At

all

later Jewish and

gloriously

among

with a century

(that

some

in

be

were

third

the

death,

Christian

the ordeal, the woman reminds one of her

Christian sainthood, sources of

of

Maccabees 7 (first century BCE )

of "the women and her seven sons" with

martyrologies. During These Jewish

11

the

requisite attest

reunited

earliest cult.

period,

But

the

Martyrs

for

existing in

Antiochene

community had identified some local tombs as the

heaven.

Christian

to an already

is, these) Maccabean

earlier

in

candidates

Syrian Jewish

resting places

of these martyrs' remains. Subsequently, these were exhumed and removed to new tombs under the floor of a synagogue.

By

the

third century the same synagogue boasted not only relics of the Maccabean Martyrs, but also dust from the Tablets of the Covenant and

sundry

other reliquary artifacts.

The assimilation of

the

tombs to the synagogue, with its sacradotal functions, provides a blatant statement of the mediatory power of the dead and of their tombs. The importation of other relics is probative. The common dead too served to link the living with and,

to

that end,

Late Antique, mollify such

heaven

enjoyed the ministerings of the living.

rabbinic

document

Maseket

Semakot

appears

The to

practices.^ ^ These include piping wine and oil to 50

the

dead and

via

what Seaakot brands as heathen practices.

ongoing communion with the deceased at their tombs

earlier from Tobit The length

The passage cited

similarly represents these matters.

artifactual and archaeological evidence,

discussed at 1 1i complements the literary evidence. The tomb

elsewhere,

functioned

as

thereafter,

a

as

portal we

have

to heaven,

first

seen,

prayers

for

for

the

of

deceased,

the

living.

Parallelling therefore, the new conception among Jews in GraecoRoman times that the dead ascend to heaven, rather than descend to the nether world, is the development of new modes of burial and

a remarkably consistent vocabulary of funerary art. Again

medieval family

what

Late Antique Rabbinism attempted

Rabbinism evinces. were

intercede

commonplace.

to

suppress,

Regular visits to the tombs of There one beseeched the

in heaven on behalf of his or

her

deceased

descendants.

the to Such

practices survive even in modern times. Gentile Participation Relative in

to

the Graeco-Roman

attitude rites. of,

in the Diaspora Cult of YHWH

the attitudes among the Diaspora

took

to Gentile participation,

Jerusalem a

colonists, Jews

surprisingly

often with Jews,

benign

in

Judaic

Large-scale Gentile attraction to, and selective practice

various

Jewish rituals angers Latin authors as early as the

1 fi beginning

of

the

Empire

For

example

Gentiles

observe the Sabbath by refraining from work and lighting

partially Sabbath

lamps. In none of these data is imminent conversion to Judaism an issue. Later, Jewish

Gentile Christians,

rites.

Such

qua Christians,

participate in

Judaizing plagued the church for some

four

centuries,

long after so-called Jewish-Christianity ceased-‫ ו‬to 7 be an issue for the emergent orthodox church and its bishops . Much Gentiles

of this selective participation in the Jewish cult and by Gentile-Christians took place with Jews

their institutionalized settings.

and

by in

There is no evidence that Jews

countenanced this co-participation only because they viewed these non-Jews as potential converts, just as there is no evidence that these have

Gentiles contemplated conversion. welcomed this co-participation. 51

Indeed, Jews appear

to

Thus Gentiles and Gentile-

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

Christians attended communal prayer in the synagogues on Sabbaths 1 fi

and festivals. party

They used Jewish courts, even when Jews were not

to the litigation,

1nside

and

outside

socio-cultic relatively

and

the

boundaries permeable

frequented Jewish Holy Men

synagogue of

and

the

required meaningful

Jewish

allowed

considerable mediation across its and Holy Men mediated

for,

Xn

and

even

—

both

all,

community

frontiers

heaven and

links

setting *

the appear

welcomed,

just as the dead

earth and just as the Jews

among their

communities

and

across

the mixed territories of the Gentiles with whom they lived and with whom they had seriously to deal. Torah as a Relic in the Graeco-Roman As with

the analysis

relationships Jews

obtain

and Judaism.

defined

Synagogue

in the preceding

chapter,

homological

across the various materials

Intermediaries,

that is,

of

Diaspora

persons who

cross

boundaries in order to effect the exchange of goods

services, appear throughout. Tombs link heaven Men dispense

heavenly benefits,

and

and earth. Holy

because they straddle humanity

and divinity.

The dead,

garb of flesh,

assume semi-divine status. So, too, on the social

level,

Jews

Gentiles

must

have

find themselves

configuration, replicated basic

social

cultural

having dispensed commerce welcome in

situation

context

with

with their

earthly

non-Jews,

in the synagogue.

various spheres and driven by

of

Diaspora

of knowledge

Jewry,

and

This same

provides

the the

in which Torah becomes another

link between heaven and earth. From the first century CE on, we possess clear attestation to

the synagogue as a place of community prayer and locus of

other forms of milieu,

divine mediation.^ Indeed,

in the

Alexandrian

as represented by Philo,

proseuche,

one finds not synagogue but a 21 22 a place of prayer, a temple. Mishnaic law assumes

that communal prayer as liturgical acts necessarily

or exclusively

Paul's mission in Macedonia,

and the reading of the Law and the Prophets occurs

in

Syria, Asia

polemical

the

so.

synagogue,

although

And the portrayal Minor

and apologetic 52

and as

Cyprus,

not

in Acts of Greece and

that depiction may be,

Diaspora, the Sacred, and Torah as Relic attests

to

a

readings

from

the

exposition

of

synagogue liturgy Law

the

and

into which was

the Prophets,

lecture.

Finally.

integrated

followed

Chrysostom

in

by

an

the

late

show

the

fourth century CE, attests to the same. 23 In

all,

synagogue

the data from the Late Antique Diaspora

to

be an emerging locus of sacred power analogous

to

the Temple. But, of course, no synagogue could view itself as the centre of that type of concentrically ordered world at the centre of which stood the Temple, Holies.

No

its courts,

Sanctuary, and

Holy

such a model of the world via the systematic ordering of of

people in their respective domains. 24 What

mediation

of

synagogue could claim such exclusivity nor represent

of

model,

the sacred does communal prayer in

the

classes then,

of

synagogue

{even with, perhaps, priestly officiants) reflect? Communal

prayer

group incantation —

might legitimately be viewed as a type the repetition of established

of

word-formulae

and rites, which may be replicated anywhere and simultaneously in any

number

of (appropriate) locations,

propitious passage,

moments,

for example,

at the new moon,

provided they occur

at

near

sunrise, after zenith 21‫ר‬ and the like. To such a shamanistic

cult the hereditary priesthood is equally well suited. Such rites are

better

carried

out by appropriate persons of

a

different

order of humanity. Viewing finds

the synagogue liturgy as an

incantation-like

rite

further support in the extensive participation of Gentiles

and Gentile-Christians in the Jewish cult of the Diaspora. the

Temple system could never tolerate such blurring

boundaries,

because

maintenance

of

of

While ethnic

that system in part was constituted by

such boundaries,

theurgic rites

are

the

typically

indifferent to such ethnic distinctions. It is commonplace, at

special locations.

as noted, for shamanistic rites to occur Late Antique synagogues seem to have been

increasingly viewed as holy places,

where heaven and earth meet.

A.T.

Kraabel finds a tendency from the end of the first century 2 fi CE on to build more elaborate niches in synagogues, perhaps scrolls.

for receiving

or

housing

Torah

This development includes not 53

(and

Prophetic)

only synagogues first

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture constructed after the modification no

such

of

first century,

older buildings

architectural feature.

but

where These

also

extends to

previously niches,

the was

there

whether for the

scrolls or not, often assume the character of a portal. And B. 27 Goldman in his study of the portal motif in ancient Jewish art

and

architecture

portal constitutes

presses home

the observation

a common feature of synagogue

that

the

architecture,

mosaics, and frescoes, as well as of funerary art. One Roman

finds the portal symbol commonly used by other

cults

—

that of Isis and Osiris,

major difference. portal,

Graeco-

for example -- with

In these latter usages,

a

the god stands in the

indicating that we face the gate to the deity‫ ׳‬s realm.

Given this widespread

pagan

significance of the portal,

we may

safely postulate a similar meaning of the device among Jews,

who

could

too

not so readily

depict YHWH.

the portal marked the location,

In the

Jewish instance

whether tomb or synagogue,

as a

link between heaven and earth, a sacred place at which rites most effectively be performed.

may

Indeed, in the Jewish sphere, the

framing of these portals by depictions of such cultic objects incense

shovels,

candelabra,

shofar

and palm

branches

as

lends

weight to this view of matters. Synagogues seem to have required the importation into premises sacred.

of

holy

objects in order

to qualify as loci

their of

We have mentioned the Syrian Antioch‫׳‬s Synagogue of

Maccabean Martyrs,

in which tombs render the building holy.

entirely satisfied with holy bones, acquired,

in

addition,

various

the the Not

the leaders of the synagogue and sundry relics

which

were

thought to enhance the place's holiness. It

appears that the scrolls of scripture were perceived

by

Graeco-Roman Jews to be just such a holy relic, whose presence in the

synagogue rendered the latter a locus sanctus.

God,

the Torah,

not only was canonical and

also

shared

the

understands

in

power

of the

deity‫׳‬s

the character of the scrolls,

The word

authoritative, word.

If

one

of but so

then the taboos which

apply to its preparation and handling (but not to codices of

the

text for study) make eminent sense. Both the scroll and the codex contain

the same text ;

only the scroll functions as a relic 54

in

Diaspora, the Sacred, and Torah as Relic the formal synagogue liturgy — the

congregation,

procession,

is

and,

is paraded, like a relic, through

venerated,

when

like

a

too old to use,

relic,

during

is buried,

that

like a dead

saint. Our

view

of

the

scroll's

importance

finds

explicit

corroboration in the late fourth century in Chrysostom's Homilies Against

the Jews. Chrysostom

Gentile-Christians

out

could

not

keep

of the synagogues.

many

of

his

They were attracted

by

the awesome oaths administered in the synagogue during 2Q juridical proceedings ; by the services of Jewish Holy Men,

who

in

the

synagogue

exorcised demons and provided TO and a m u l e t s ; a n d by the scrolls of the Law and

incantations

the Prophets, making the synagogue a holy place. In the following exhortation, Chrysostom summarizes both his -‫ נ‬1 own views and those of his Judaizing parishioners . But since there are some who considered the synagogue to be a holy place, Why did

you

we must ask a few things of them as

reverence

disdained it,

this place

when

you

despised it and avoided it?

,

well.

should

have

The Law and the

books of the prophets can be found there,‫ ׳‬you say. What

of

it? You

the

say,

‫ י‬Is

it not the case that the books make

pldtc6 hoiy?‫ ז‬Certainly not < hated

the

prophets books

synagogue

and

This 1 s the reason X especially avoided it,

but did not believe in them,

but did not accept their

that they

had

the

that they read these

testimony

[concerning

the

coming of Jesus Christ]. Torah as Nomos To render Torah as the Law is to us so commonplace as to have the ring of self-evident

truth.

But so to perceive

the Torah

bespeaks a perceptual world removed from the Jerusalem community in which and for which the Pentateuch was edited. The Law has been bequeathed to Western culture first by Graeco-Roman Jewry in the Diaspora and, thereafter, by Christianity. The term implies that the part, see, Judaism

even —

nomoi, was taken for the whole. And as we shall

a part

of

that

Torah

by necessity perhaps.

law satisfied

the life of Torah in the Late Antique Diaspora. 32 55

the

Diaspora

Let us review the evidence for

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

The practice of male circumcision is widely attested. So too is refraining from eating pork.

That the Sabbath, festivals, and

the

reading of the Holy Books should occupy important places

the

mundane

mediation

of

the

sacred

may not

in

be surprising.

Festival and Sabbath observance involved the lighting of lamps to usher

in

the

refrained

holy day.

Jews and

many

philo-Judaic

the synagogue.

Graeco-Romam

Diaspora appears to have recalled a distant,

and after

non-existent Temple-cult.

retained

in

the

in

Other aspects which emerge from the data are more

surprising, however. The synagogue liturgy in the

role

Gentiles

from work and participated in the communal liturgy

synagogue

Priests may have rites.

Levites

carried

70 CE, a a special

out

their

traditional function as singers and instrumentalists. One

final

mention:

aspect

of

mundane

Judaic

practice

deserves

fasting. While within Israelite tradition fasting has a

longstanding history, it appears to be a principal characteristic of

the

writers

Diaspora alike,

cult.

Jews

often

Sabbaths, Mondays, and addition,

Jewish

For

fast.

Thursdays

charms

Greek,

Latin,

Ancient as

and

Christian

authors

regular

from the Graeco-Roman

fast

identify days.

Diaspora

In

often

require fasting as a purification rite. (Later rabbinic materials too

give

evidence

of

regular

propitiatory

fasting

among

pietists.) Taken in the larger context of the pattern of Diaspora Jewry,

fasting may be seen as loosening

of

the bonds

to

this

world in order to contact the upper realms. At

first

glance nothing of the Graeco-Roman law

of

Torah

seems out of phase either with antecedent Judaic practice or with evidence

from

the

contemporary

Judean

community.

But

the

structure of the life of Torah in the Diaspora plays its part decentralizing

the

locus of sacredness and denationalizing

The praxis of Torah as a rite

remains

Temple.

That

single,

unique

oriented.

The

in

distinct

decentralized,

denationalized,

from the cult of Torah in

cult produces, not loci of

sacred

the

it.

ethnic Herodian

power,

but

order with respect to which the entire world ‫״‬Torah of Moses" in its entirety functions

a is

as

a

paradigm of that Jerusalemite, Israel-centric universe. For Jewry in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora,

the life of Torah defined no 56

such

Diaspora, the Sacred, and Torah as Relic

comprehensive system of cosmic order. Rather, the Torah served as an

authoritative

rulings

(nomoi)

source-book

from which

one

selected

for feasts and taboos appropriating

divine

an

ethnic

past, mediating the power of their deity in numerous locales of a variegated Graeco-Roman, world and reinforcing therein a religioethnic

identity.

divine,

laws,

From the realm

of Torah

came

to serve in this earthly realm —

relics

of the

along with Holy

Men and dead saints and martyrs. The Scriptures of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora The

dominant

perceptions

pattern,

of

with

its

implicitly

conveyed

the religion and culture of Graeco-Roman

Jewry,

finds its homology in the character of their scripture. Consensus regarding

the

Alexandrian)

origins canon

characteristics what

emerged

and

development of a Diaspora •‫ני נ‬ broken down, but a number

has

of the Diaspora scriptures set them as

the

rabbinic

(Hebrew)

Bible

(or of

apart

and

from

from

the

Pentateuchal canon, which they inherited. First,

whether

or

not the Hagiographa

remained

open

or

closed, it contained books known to be authored by contemporary or

near

contemporary

Jews,

in

languages

other

than

Hebrew

(namely, in the main Greek), and in locales outside of the Holy Land. 3 4

These

scripture

characteristics

markedly

meaning,

with

alone

at odds,

the

at

bespeak the

Deuteronomic-Priestly

from the Jerusalem colony.

a

perception

level

of

of

implicit

scriptures inherited

For the latter,

that which is sacred

was bounded, homogeneous, closed, and exclusive, not ongoing decentralized

as implied

in those

traits

of

and

the Diaspora

Hagiographa just enumerated. Second,

a number of these books depict heavenly visions and

journeys to heaven,

albeit of ancient figures. 35

These accounts

fill

apocalyptic documents

circulated

the

numerous

scripture

among the Diaspora Jews.

are based upon Hebrew originals — survival Greek

which

undoubtedly some were —

in significant numbers is due to their

versions

among

Graeco-Roman

Christians. 57

as

Whether or not various works

Jews

and,

popularity later,

their in early

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture M. Stone has argued that chief among the literary traditions underlying

this

genre.In

the ‫״‬Book of the Watchers,"

the

apocalyptic literature

a

heavenly-journey Enoch,

protagonist is taken on a tour of the unearthly realms.

goal

is

not,

as

in

Apocalyptic

eschatological knowledge. of

is

preserved in the

Rather,

the workings of the universe —

politics, returns

warfare, to

and the like.

earth.

literature,

to

The

acquire

the heavenly traveller learns the determinants of

weather,

With this secret knowledge he

Here we have a counterpart to the

Holy

Man

tradition and institution discussed earlier. Even

these

general

traits of the

Diaspora's

scriptures,

canonical questions aside, mark it as significantly different in expected it

ways —

inherited.

decentralizes

from

For

in

the Deuteronomic-Priestly Torah

this

Diaspora

its own

manner

the

scripture links

which

reopens

and

heaven

and

earth. Ironically, even the revelation of Torah is reopened.

The

story of the translation of the Pentateuch the

author

of Aristeas,

(original)

story

Jews possessed a new

into Greek, used by

this point. 7*‫ ־‬The point of

makes

is that

in

the seventy

translators.

the Septuagint provided the true, divinely (And Christians

no doubt

Hence,

revealed meaning of

borrowed

this

apologetic

claim from Diaspora Jews.) Much later Talmudic Rabbinism make similar claims for the Torah;

the

the Septuagint the Alexandrian

or renewed revelation. The translation was

miraculous; YHWH had inspired the Torah.

between

—

would

its authorized Aramaic translation of

these rabbis

do

so,

moreover,

still

welded

in

another

Diaspora

socio-cultural context. Earliest Jerusalemite

Rabbinism, paradigm,

found

to

a

Temple-based,

much of the above

abhorrent.

cavort with Gentiles and Greeks, to frequent Holy Men, tombs

links to heaven,

scripture harped imagined and

and

back it

Nehemiah.

all brought uncleanness.

their other main literary to

an

to have existed as a result of the efforts of

Ezra

these rabbis have

world

their

Mishnah, they

should

Temple-centred

too

the

as

Why

idealized

So

legacy,

To

to see in

done

so

in

the

aftermath of the destruction in 70 CE of the Jerusalem Temple? To this and to their socio-cultural universe we now turn. 58

CHAPT ER

FOUR

Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah, and Scripture as Closed System

Students of

of

Ancient Judaism

the

relationship

early rabbinic literature and the Hebrew Scriptures as one of

of exegesis and source. to

commonly define

interpret,

particularly This

Ancient and Late Antique Judaism

elaborate

upon, and

the legal portions of the

alleged

teleological

requirement explanations

provides of

supplement Torah, the

{i) the

the

Bible,

Pentateuch.

generally

writings

needed

the

accepted

of

the

early

rabbis, (ii) the supposed oral tradition which those writings are said to have preserved, and (iii) the emergence of the halakah.1 Most for

contemporary introductions to Mishnah (circa 200

example,

harp upon the problem

faced

CE),

by the ‫״‬Restoration1'

community (sixth to fifth centuries BCE) in using the ‫״‬Torah of Moses" as founded

the constituent

legal

constitution

of

the

newly

Second Commonwealth. Faced with exigencies of everyday

1 1 4 4* e!kf CfiI KtS a ncll Mian Uo‫״‬F ‫ ״‬Vidi /1*ÜT**»» sinri !**Vi <3*‫־י־‬1‫׳‬1‫־‬,‫ד‬Utio lldLLL wl‫־‬v **‫׳‬ f11‫״‬j lllc JL 4LIlc 6a t4‫ ״‬JrÄiJca2oc<0£‫ג‬1‫חי‬1‫»״‬1 lllLJJL j ‫זז‬CLI IU Iri lC?Ok0
and

extrapolate

next breath

from

Torah-law.

Scholars

often

cite

in

their

Hillel'S and Rabbi Ishmael‫ ׳‬s exegetical principles}

the latter are viewed as the systematization and canonization of the

exegetical

Judaism

rules

sprang

Judaism

which

normative

In sum,

Pharisaic-rabbinie

the history of Ancient

is viewed as co-extensive with the history of biblical

exegesis, and the that

by

from Torah.

emergent

analysis

religion

and

explanation

may

be

of any

exhausted

by

part

of

probing

the

‫ל‬ history So maintain

of

biblical exegesis.

pervasive that

are

midrash

these is

an

assumptions older

that

literary

many form

scholars than

the

raishnaic. Mishnah,

on this view, amounts to midrash without the

biblical citations ;

mishnaic pericopae are truncated versions of ‫ג־‬

antecedent midrashim. absence

of

This theory is maintained not only in

any relevant evidence but also in spite of the 59

the fact

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture that

all extant raidrashic documents have been dated 4 Scholars

later

than

of early Christianity have both accepted this view

of matters and contributed to its perpetuation. They are inclined to view the conflict

between Early Christianity

and

Ancient

Judaism largely in terms of competing exegeses. Thus comparative study of Judaic and Christian exegesis much

about the

scholars cues

from

regard

course

have taken

their

clearly

following a the

theoretical writers,

are apologetic

number

and

whose

and

Jews may

Prophets" but

"they

to

methodological views

polemical.

of earlier writers,

parishioners that the and

explain c of these groups‫ ׳‬disengagement. Such

early Christian

is believed

in

this

Chrysostom,

tells his

Judaizing

possess the "scrolls of the Law do not

understand

them."®

Jews,

therefore, have been dispossessed of the Torah and its covenant. Indeed,

God has now blinded them to the meaning of scripture,

because their fathers failed to see that Jesus was the Messiah foretold in scripture. Scholarship may have jettisoned the antiJudaism of these centrality

of

followed suit ;

polemics, but it still accepts exegetical

issues.

Jewish

they show inordinate interest

the

supposed

scholars

have

in Jewish exegeses

of those biblical texts commonly adduced as proof texts in early Christian writings. One

cannot adequately analyze and explain Ancient

exegesis of discrete biblical texts. exegesis

For the history of biblical

generally fails to take account of the larger

contexts,

literary,

Judaism,

cultic, and social,

systemic

of which such discrete

exegeses are a part. Taken out of these contexts and read as part of

a

vertical chain of interpretation

of

such-and-such

verse

hardly explains anything. By way of an alternative, complementary approach, lines claims

we

adopted by

continue along the theoretical and throughout this work.

disassembling the structures in wholes, and,

which

reconstructing

the

exploring

relationships among those systems of

the

patterned

methodological

We read ancient

60

Judaism‫ ׳‬s

they

wherever

appear, possible,

meaning

Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah, and Scripture theological,

social,

cosmological,

etc.

-- which ‫ן‬

together

constitute the homological context of veracity. Early

rabbinism

structured really

wholes

are."

a

The

encodes

in

coherent

the

various

perception

saliency and

and

of "the

plausibility

of

discrete way

things

these

shared

perceptions of reality lie in encountering here and there, in one sphere

after

another,

a series of homologous

and,

therefore,

mutually reinforcing structures of meaning. Principal among these patterns

of

Knowledge

meanings is

communicated rabbinism,

remains

socially

structured

grounded.

social

Shared

experience.

perceptions,

as

explicitly and implicitly in the documents of early acquire

a special self-evident character because

of

the relationship to social reality. Modes of social organization in early rabbinism maintain an air of legitimacy

in light Q of the It is

shared perceptions encoded in other rabbinic structures.

within this theoretical perspective that we analyze the nature, perception,

and

role

of

Torah

and

of

scripture

in

early

Rabbinism. Early Rabbinism and the Scriptural Canon Among is

the

main

produced by early rabbis Q the rabbinic canon of scripture itself. Sometime during the of

the

course

structured

second century and the begining

rabbinism decided which

did not.

declared a

wholes

of

which documents belonged among Not less important,

the

third,

scripture

the rabbis appear

to

and have

the Hagiographa a closed canon and with it the canon as

whole.

That these activities occured at

a

Council of Jamnia

rests upon little concrete evidence; of the final outcome of some unspecifiable process during the first several centuries there is little doubt and much significance. The formal of

meaning attributable to the rabbinic canon lies in

its

and substantive traits and in the contrast with the state

affairs

among

non-rabbinic

Jews

{and

Christians),

who

inherited much the same biblical tradition as did the rabbis. The early rabbis idiomatically shaped their canon by comparison. Even the rather gross traits of the collection bear this out. First closed

and

system,

foremost,

the

rabbinic biblical

canon

is

a

no longer open-ended. One may easily discern the 61

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

formal criteria for inclusion.

Thus, second, the rabbis included

only those documents that dated, of

in their view,

Ezra and Nehemiah and earlier.

later both

times

from the period

Documents from Hasraonean

circulated among non-rabbinic

in Palestinian and in the Diaspora.

Jewish

and

collections,

They were widely

read

for edification and cited as support and legitimation. The Qumran community

possessed texts imitative of biblical style,

pseudepigraphically authority.

The

attributed

group,

moreover,

to

some

explicitly

teachings and rules revelatory status.

but

ancient

not

biblical

claimed

for

its

They are "revealed to the

sons of Zadok, the priests" and have authority collateral to that ‫ ך‬A

of

the

‫״‬Torah

of Moses.'

One may conclude that

the

group ‫ ׳‬s

documents enjoyed among the community an authority equal to that of Joshua, if not to that of the Pentateuch.^ The rabbis' formal chronological criterion excludes all such documents

from scripture.

The Mishnah (Avodah

Zarah

10:1-2),

furthermore,

proscribes even the reading of such "books outside"

(the canon),

but,

interestingly, does not forbid the reading of

non-Jewish literature, like Homer (hamiras). Third, some

the rabbinic canon remains a Hebrew collection (with

interdispersed

Aramaic). Elsewhere Jews venerated not only

documents originally authored

in Greek,

like II Maccabees,

but

time of the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates, 12 assured Greekspeaking Jews that in the Septuagint they possessed God‫׳‬s second revelation of his Torah, this time in Greek. Evidence

indicates

that an annual festival celebrated the event. The rabbis viewed the translation,

the event,

and

the

associated

festival

as

calamities. This marks

it

shape and character of the rabbis ‫ ׳‬canon of scriptures as a reflection of some

state of affairs.

ideal

That which is canonical,

national, that is,

territorial authentic,

authoritative, and revelatory of the meaning of being Israel, confined to a time when the people first acquired and dwelt the

home

territory,

national language.

around the national shrine and

spoke

is upon the

With Israel finally loyal to the Deuteronomic 62

Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah, and Scripture

ideal and

and the single cultic site,

the ‫״‬Restoration" under

Ezra

Nehemiah represented the climax and fulfilment of God's will

for Israel.

Here,

for the rabbis, sacred history ends. All that

is thereafter authentic merely perpetuates and appropriates state of affairs — YHWH‫׳‬s

plan

was

that

the perfect Yahwehistic theocratic world. For wholly

revealed

as Torah

to

Moses,

wholly

achieved in history with the return from exile in the sixth and fifth centuries particularly

BCE. Hence, the relative paucity of

apocalyptic, materials

As the religio-cultural and

fully

achieved

by

messianic,

in the rabbinic

scriptures.

system based upon the "Torah of Moses Ezra

and

Nehemiah

is

closed,

that

is,

needing and referring to nothing beyond or outside of itself, so the canon is closed to documents believed written outside of and subsequent to that historical era. In sum,

the shape and character of the rabbinic canon bears

a homological relationship with the shape and character of sacred space on earth, with

the ‫״‬Restored Jerusalem" of the

sacred time,

begins

returnees,

from Creation to ‫״‬Restoration."

with the ‫״‬Torah of Moses" and ends with

and

So scripture

its

realization

under Ezra and Nehemiah. Mishnah and Scripture The biblical canon as shaped by rabbinism of the first several centuries of the Christian Era finds its homology the

first

and

founding document

of

That should hardly be surprising, and

closing

of of

early

in Mishnah,

rabbinic Judaism.

since the process

the canon of Hebrew

Scriptures

of defining

and

the editing

the Mishnah took place contemporaneously and at the

same

rabbinic

circles.

As

with

consider some of the general traits of Mishnah. turn

to

we

may

Subsequently, we

the relationship between the substance of

scripture.^

the hands

scripture,

Mishnah

and

3

Mishnah,

edited in Palestine circa 200 CE and dttribut6d to

without parallel in antecedent Jewish literature. observed,

Mishnah

is

in

Hebrew,

imitative

of biblical Hebrew.

but

a

As Neusner has

Hebrew

in

no

way

The language of Mishnah is highly 63

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture formulaic, elliptic, and truncated. wide

range

of issues,

While Mishnah talks about

it does so in surprisingly few types

literary formulations.

Even if some 80-90

percent

â• tt x* x bu t €rCl s tditrCin^nt'S bear âttrxbut 1 on s to of

the second century

CE,

of Mishnah‫ ׳‬s

r 3• t}13 înxc

"they" all speak

a of

âutliox xt>16s

in the same voice,

same vocabulary, same formularies, etc. There, in fact, is little or nothing speech-like about their "sayings." That is to say, the editors of Mishnah

have imposed the same linguistic patterns and

structures throughout some

reason

the

important,

example, any attempt to even

distinctive

utterly

document.

fails.

individuality see

oral In

So while names are is not.

traditions,

as

then,

from

the

in well

for

sources or

the

Mishnah

internally uniform and self-consistent as and separate

Thus,

in Mishnah antecedent

language,

for

Synoptics, is

as

at

once

distinctive

language-world outside and antecedent to

itself. The

substance

Leaving

aside

of

Mishnah leaves

tractate

Avot,

much

each

of

the

same

Mishnah‫ ׳‬s

effect.

sixty-two

tractates provides a complete treatment of its generative subject and problem, as Neusner has demonstrated. That is, each coherent and unitary essay which

introduces

the subject and issues initially defined. may

allow

for

commentary

Talmuds -- virtually imagine

adding

"chapters"

consideration in yet another

tractate.

the manner in which the subject is like

remarkable consistency.

the

to

any

tractate

â tractate

The same

may

relevance

the not

without

not be said

But across

developed and

a

develops

none appears open-ended. One could

additional

analyzed,

While

is

fully

and interpretation -- witness

reopening and redefining its problem.

problems

and

tractates,

the

types

of intention,

So in this substantive sense,

especially its constituent tractates, seems a closed

of show

Mishnah, document,

that is, self-consistent and complete in itself. As some

equally with

mishnaic language and Mishnah‫ ׳‬s modes of analysis are in

sense closed realms, the

closed

system.

world of the

so its subject matter deals Mishnah concerns itself

Temple cult 64

and

almost

Temple state,

with

an

wholly earlier

Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah, and Scripture defined

by the Pentateuch and supposedly realized under Ezra and

Nehemiah.

Of the six major divisions {"Orders") of Mishnah,

fifth deals with sacrifices, second

with

festivals as celebrated in the Temple

synagogue), Temple civil

the first with Priestly

the

and

criminal

matters,

but

The

assumes

a

judicial system centred in Temple institutions. Temple issues.

Yet

such

paramount.

as

So

in many other

Sotah

and

tractates

Nedarim,

fourth

treats and

The

the

third,

ostensibly

not

of the Order

Temple

of

concerns

are

outside

a

all of the document is consistent with a Temple

and most of it exclusively so.

statement

the

while some of Mishnah is intelligible

Temple context, setting,

(rarely

legislative

Order of Women, considers divorce and marriage, Women,

the

sixth with matters of purity affecting home and

with purification via the cult.

and

the

dues,

may

be

said

of the rabbinic

Significantly, the same canon

of

scriptures.

Indeed, precisely the homologous relationship between the rabbi's Bible

and their Mishnah is our major point,

to which

we

shall

return below. The

self-contained,

underlies

the

everywhere

initially

is

self-consistent curious

substantively

fact

character of that

dependent

Mishnah

while upon

Mishnah scripture,

particularly upon the legal materials of the Pentateuch, hardly

cites

Mishnah

or otherwise acknowledges its dependence upon

biblical texts.

the

Mishnah Horayot 2: 5 is exemplary in this regard;

in addition it reflects Mishnah‫׳‬s Temple centricity. A.1. They

[the members

of the court] are not

the offering specified in Lev. cause

liable

[for

4 : 1 2 ~ 2 3 !‫ י‬x f thfiy unwittingly

transgression of the law]

testify as a witness; see Lev. 5:1], 3. and concerning uttering [a rash oath; see Lev. 5:4], 4.

and

concerning

the uncleanness of the Temple and its

holy things [Lev. 5 : 2-3 ] . B. ‫״‬And the same [exemption] applies to the nasi as to them," the words of R. Yose the Galilean. C. R. Aqiva says, ‫״‬The nasi is liable for them all, D. "except for the hearing of a public adjuration; 65

applies

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture E.1.

"for the king

does not judge, and

they do

not judge

him; 2, him

"he

does not testify, and they do not testify against

[E. 2

missing

in Kaufmann, Lowe and Parma C mss. ]. "

(trans, J. Lightstone, Yose the Galilean [Leiden: E,J. Brill, 1979] p. 81.) The point of departure Horayot

is

Lev.

transgressions

4:1-26.

unwittingly

for an understanding 14

Here

committed

scripture by

the

High

of

Mishnah

deals

with

Priest

(Lev.

4:1-12), the people as a whole (Lev. 4:13-21 ) and the nasi "prince"; however,

Lev.

4:22-26).

differs

responsibility

Mishnah‫ ׳‬s

slightly.

Verses

of a High Priest

conception 1 -12

and

and nasi

(the

of

Leviticus

4,

22-26

concern

the

who have

unwittingly

caused the people to sin by means of official proclamations on their

part.

Verses

13-21

are

interpreted

as

specifying

the

obligations of a court in similar instances. Both the High Priest and the court must bring a bullock as a sin offering; the nasi's sin-offering is a he-goat. Hence, Leviticus 4

leaves room for a

distinction between the High Priest and court, on the one side, and

the nasi,

on

the other.

Accordingly,

Mishnah

Horayot

rules that the court and High Priest are liable only respective proclamations bring about "a transgression if it is done wantonly

the

unwittingly the penalty is The Mishnah mention

penalty a

if their for

is extirpation

sin-offering"

which

and

in

2:3.

if

(trans. H. Danby,

[Oxford, 1933 ], p 464; cf. Mishnah Horayot 2:7);

is made of the nasi

2:3

I turn now

no

to Mishnah

Horayot 2:5, the text cited above. The three transgressions enumerated in A above, according to Lev. 5:1-13,

incur not a standard sin offering,

offering" (,wlh wywrd).

but an "indexed

In the latter case the sacrifice

varies

according to the financial resources of the individual. Those who can afford to do so must brinç a female lamb or cjoat ( X»ev «

5*6)*

The poor may provide less costly offerings such as doves or meal. A, then, rules that the court is not responsible in the specified cases, offering.

because The

these guilty

transgressions

incur

party is not liable for a

66

only

a

varying

standard

sin-

Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah, and Scripture offering,

which

is

the criterion of Mishnah Horayot

2:3

(see

commentaries to Mishnah of Maimonides, Bertinoro, and Albeck). What

of the nasi,

silent?

concerning whom Mishnah Horayot

It is not clear

from Leviticus

2:3

is

that he entirely shares

the status of a court or High Priest. On the one hand, he is liable

for

a

sin-offering

for

unwittingly

leading

the

people

astray (Lev. 4:24). On the other hand, the nasi does not bring a bullock, as do the High Priest and the court. His offering is a he-goat, which is more on the plane of what a wealthy commoner would offer for an indexed offering. The view attributed to Yose at B totally identifies the nasi with the court; that attributed to

Aqiva

cases

at C-E does not. For the latter, the nasi is liable in

in

which

‫״‬Hearing

the

a commoner is subject to

voice

of

a

adjuration" is an

varying

offering.

exception

on

quite

independent grounds (i.e., E). On the whole, therefore, Mishnah Horayot 2:5 concerns itself with sorting out the exegetical problems arising from Lev. 4:1-26 when

viewed in light of Lev.

entirely

and

generate

5:1-6.

Exegetical issues underlie

the mishnaic

passage.

Yet

nowhere

in

Mishnah Horayot 2:5 is reference to Leviticus 4 to be found. Like Horayot 2:5, £ ! £L1,

«‫״״‬.j-«.

JI

rirtn

order

and

much of Mishnah, indeed almost all of the —. je

much or

jl‫״‬L«ä

the

j __ JL1•.

sixth,

-»‫«ורד‬.-

systematically

.,3 ,‫ •״ו‬- -... ‫ ד‬...... ‫״‬,., •‫״־‬

develops

Pentateuchal law. Other tractates, like the body of Ohalot, bring to

scripture

proceed The

their own

idiomatic

generative

conception,

and

to develop matters of the former in light of the latter.

remainder of Mishnah sees in scripture at the very

least

a

corpus of un impeachable facts. In light of this state of affairs, so

assiduously

to avoid citing

or acknowledging scripture

only be deliberate and significant.

Since in language and

of analysis Mishnah exhibits a closed, I

attribute

the

can modes

self-contained character,

lack of references to scripture to

the

same.

Namely,

here too Mishnah would retain its closure, its nature to

require

reference

to

nothing

outside

of

itself,

even

to

scripture. Structure and the Social Construction of Reality So what substantively, namely,

the feigned

or even theologically,

independence of Mishnah 67

poses a problem, from

scripture,

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

viewed in larger structural terms appears readily

intelligible.

This is especially so when one considers that those same circles responsible

for Mishnah

fixed

the canon

of Hebrew

Scriptures.

Both fixed and closed wholes, Mishnah and scripture, structurally mirror

each

other;

each

lends

weight

and

credibility

to

the

perceptions of a world implicitly and explicitly conveyed by the other. The

world thereby constructed in shared perceptions of

early rabbis is represented imaginatively by an idealized system.

Sacred

order

is organized about the central

concentric circles of holiness. complete and whole. at

least

if

sacred world. is

of

Within that world are repeated

eternal

fully

in

in

What is outside is anathema, chaos, unclean, timeless,

the

guarded by purity rules. Herein God‫ ׳‬s plan for realized;

it requires

more, no future messianic conveyed

altar

Within that divine circle all is

it is allowed to penetrate the boundaries

patterns of cult, Israel

the

Temple

the

two

and 1 ‫וי‬

fulfilmenl

great

literary

anticipates That

is the

endeavours

of

nothing message earliest

rabbinism, Mishnah and the rabbis‫ ׳‬biblical canon. As I have consistently attempted to show, shared perceptions of

reality,

word,

whether

ritual,

and

communicated explicitly or literature,

retain

their

implicitly

in

saliency

and

verisimilitude because of the relationship to social experience. Social institutions are thereby made to "feel" particularly

well

suited to "the way things really are" in the world. The

early

rabbis in so imagining

the contours of sacred

scriptural canon and

Mishnah

space mirror

their social institutions

in and

experience of the 2nd century CE. The evidence for earliest rabbinism allows little to be said of

their

number

social

of

traditional authority. appears

environment.

claims.^ ®

But one may confidently

They would

have had

no

norms for defining rabbinic roles, The

immediate

social

context

of

make

established, institutions, or early

rabbinism

limited to the close circle of master and disciples.

the larger social environment, especially

135

fabric

Judean

of

brought

we know

that the wars of 70

about significant

society,

a

Of and

dissolution

of

the

sparking migration of much 68

of

the

Earliest Rabbinic Circles, Mishnah, and Scripture

Jewish

populace.

provided

The circle of master and disciples

an island of order in this sea of chaos.

insular structure,

fifth century BCE had effected the documents

maintenance insulated

of

have this

the early rabbis adumbrated in the

mind a Temple state that, in their view, both

will

Here in

domains

about

that

universe the

colony

rested

Temple

of

the colonists of the

in the earthly

reflecting

an ordered

realm

Jerusalem.

For

and Mishnah,

the

upon

and

a

upon

taxonomy

of

neutraliz ing

resulting anomalies, ambiguities, and impingments from without, similar to the perception that the rabbinic circles must achieve with respect to the chaos about them. Boundary-crossers would have proven to be a danger to this emergent rabbinic organization, which lacked longstanding and

institutions

that

established

for

them

a

clear

norms social

identity and role. Thus they forbade intercourse with surrounding culture,

while

perceptional their

they

created

universe both

scriptural

canon.

their

in Mishnah

Jews

outside

bounded and

in

their

and the

homologous contours

circle,

who

of

spoke

Greek, who venerated books written in or translated into Greek, who

apologized

for

Israelite

tradition

with

reference

to

Hellenistic thought, who assimilated foreign divine beings to a Yahwehistic Gentiles

divine

were

all

realm, deemed

or

who

either

had minim

extensive

commerce

( sectarians),

with

apikorsim

(lit., Epicureans), or hisonim (those "outside" ) . 1‫ל‬

As

I

have

Graeco-Roman rabbinic from

argued earlier in this essay,

Diaspora

shared little or none of

concerns insofar as their

that of the rabbis.

social problematic

Diaspora communities had

intercommunal contacts and solidarity, local social modalities,

Jewry these to

in

the

earliest differed maintain

transcending longstanding

and retain as well meaningful concourse

with the Gentile world. Thus boundary-crossers were valued across social,

cultic and theological realms.

Itinerant Holy Men,

the

Torah scrolls (understood as a relic of YHWH's word), dead saints and

martyrs,

boundary

and

their

tombs

of heaven and earth,

effected

commerce

across

the

just as did Diaspora Jewry across

social boundaries.

69

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture After circa 200 CE, 1 ® rabbis entered

both in Palestine

their Diaspora;

and

Babylonia,

they came to define

and

assume

roles for themselves in the Jewish communities. With these Jews rabbis too lived in the variegated, heterogeneous social world of Late Antiquity. As their social experience changes, so too does the character of their literature, the Talmuds and Midrashim, and 19 the meaning encoded therein. The closure of scriptural canon and

Mishnah

compilations. world,

on

gives

way

Rabbis,

the

one

to

open-endedness

after

hand,

200

and

CE,

then,

reflect

in

later

enter

different

rabbinic

a new

social

patterns

thought, on the other. To these hypotheses we now turn in next chapter.

70

of the

CHAPTER

FIVE

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and the Fragmentation of Scripture

Mishnah,

via

its

self-sufficiency;

literary

and

formal

traits,

feigns

complete

the redactors of Mishnah maintain this air of

systemic closure,

just

as

they

defined

a

closed

and

complete

canon of scripture and defined in both their biblical canon and Mishnah a bounded, closed and independent sacred realm about an ideal Temple.

Mishnah‫ ׳‬s apparent independence of scripture, in

spite of its substantive dependence upon the Pentateuch, does not seem

to be a paradox ; it is not

a case of

"doublethink, " to

borrow an Orwellian phrase. Rather, Mishnah thereby constitutes a structural

homology

( 1 ) of

the

scriptural

canon,

(2)

of

the

idealized Temple system about which Mishnah and Torah talk, and (3) of the social organization and social location of earliest rabbinic circles. The

Palestinian

and

particularly the aggadic

Babylonian

Talmuds

and

Midrash,

(homiletical) Midrashim,

radically 1

depart from these

traits of Mishnah. They do so in language,

literary traits, and substantive agenda. 2 The rabbis who produced these post-mishnaic

documents also inhabited

a social

quite different from the world of Mishnah‫׳‬s tradents. Talmudic rabbis entered the world of the Diaspora, themselves

to

its

structures,

perceptions

of

the

world

transformed

accordingly,

and,

3

universe In short,

accommodated

their

shared

finally,

produced

literature in accord with, and which rendered plausible,

these

basic, realigned perceptions of the nature of things. I base this view of post-Mishnaic rabbinic literature upon some

general

traits

basic

to

both

the

Talmuds

Midrash, traits which markedly distinguish

and

(aggadic)

these documents

from

Mishnah. First, where Mishnah revived and reconstructed what it believed to be the Hebrew language of the perfect Temple state, the Talmuds and Midrashim business principally

conduct

in Aramaic, 71

their ongoing

redactional

the lingua franca of the Near

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

East,

and

liberally

mix

Hebrew

and

where Mishnah‫ ׳‬s language

is bounded,

and

—

truncated

throughout

poetic than prosaic — itself

rather

notwithstanding

passages.

circumscribed, in

this

sense

Second,

formalized it

is

more

post-Mishnaic rabbinic literature permits

more its

indeed

Aramaic

discursive own

highly

and

narrative

formalized

and

prose,

structured

character. Third, Mishnah asserts formally its dependence on no other

documents;

Talmud

and

Midrash

proceed

as

if

they

were

merely commentaries on Mishnah and scripture respectively. As

regards

matters

of

substance,

Mishnah

defined

its

universe as a closed system, that of the Temple; both Midrash and the

Talmuds

accept

no such restricted agenda,^

despite

their

formal status as commentaries upon scripture and Mishnah. Mishnah seeks to define and develop whole systems, scripture,

especially

and indeed views

Pentateuchal law,

the Talmuds and Midrash often concentrate on the single verse,

word,

Talmuds‫׳‬

or

issue,

and

the

as effecting the same; thought,

then proceed to some other.**

The

and Midrash‫ ׳‬s scriptures (mishnaic and biblical) are

a

repository of such singular holy words, phrases, and the like,

a

repository into any corner of which one may delve at any time for sustenance. What

follows will expand upon a number of these points

further explore the meaning and significance of them, together.

and

when taken

The argument proceeds via the analysis of a number of

representative texts. Midrash and the Fragmentation of Scripture Sifra debe Rav, Masekta deNedavah Pereq II : 10-13 provides an apt point of entry to our discussion of Midrash. Disputes about the date

of

final

compilât ion

and

redaction

of

Sifra

notwithstanding,® many passages of Sifra closely follow Mishnah, 7 often citing lengthy portions of the mishnaic text. On the other hand,

many

Talmudic

parallels to Sifra-pericopae depend upon o So materials in Sifra stand close to q Mishnah and, among other materials, like Tosefta, form a bridge their sifraic

versions.

between Mishnah and the Talmuds. Indeed, like Tosefta, which also cites

and

depends

upon

Mishnah, 72

Sifra

uses

Hebrew,

a

marked

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture difference between the larger

body

Sifra

(and other

of early

"tannaitic" Midrashim) and

non-legal

rabbinic

Midrash,

which

primarily uses Aramaic. This proximity to Mishnah makes Sifra‫ ׳‬s pronounced departure from Mishnah in other respects all the more significant. 1n We turn, then, to Sifra Nedavah, Pereq 11:10-13. 11:10 A. ‫״‬From the tent of meeting" (m'hl mw'd; Lev. 1:1) -B. [at

[thus] teaching [that] the voice [of God] would halt

the boundaries of the tent],

and it would

not

sortie

outside the tent. C.

One

may [be inclined to think] that the reason

[it

did not extend beyond] was that the voice was weak (nmwk). D.1.

Scripture

voice" (Num. 7:89) 2.

says

(tlmwd lwmr),

‫״‬And he heard

the

—

That [is],

scripture does not say,

"voice,"

but

rather, "the voice," E. which is explained in the Hagiographa. F. And how is "the voice" explained in the Hagiographa? G. ‫״‬The voice of the Lord is powerful, "the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. ‫״‬The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars of Lebanon. ‫״‬The voice of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire." (Ps. 29:4-5,7) H.

If

so, why is it said,

‫״‬From the tent of meeting?"

(Lev. 1:1) I.

[Scripture intends] to teach that the voice

halted,

and did not sortie outside the tent. J. of

[And] in like manner you say,

‫״‬And the sound (wqwl)

the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the

court, [like

the

voice of God Almighty when

he

outer

speaks]."

(Ezek. 10:5) K.

One

may [be inclin6d to think J that the reason [the

sound of the Cherubim‫ ׳‬s wings halted at the outer court] was that the sound ‫״‬was weak •

9 3

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture L.

Scripture says, ‫״‬Like the voice of God Almighty when

he speaks." (Ezek. 10:5; Weiss adds bsyny) M.

If so,

why is it said, ‫״‬As far as the outer court?"

(Ezek. 10:5) N.

[Scripture

rather,

when

it

teaches

not that the sound

reached

as far

was

as the outer

weak;]

court,

it

halted. A. ‫״‬From the tent of meeting" (Lev. 1:1) B.

One

may

[be

inclined to think]

—

that

[the

voice

emerged] from the entire Sanctuary. C.

Scripture

says,

"[And I shall speak with you] from

above the mercy seat." (Ex. 25:22) D. ‫״‬If ‫ י‬from above the mercy seat,‫ ׳‬one may [be inclined to think,]

1

from above the mercy seat‫ ׳‬in its entirety.

E. "Scripture says,

,

From

between

the

two

cherubim‫׳‬

Exod. 25 : 22)," the words of R. Aqiva. F.

Said R.

Simeon b. Azai, ‫״‬I do not take exception to

the words of the master, but supplement his words. G.1. ‫״‬The Divine Glory (hkbwd), about which it ,

is said,

Do I not fill the heaven and the earth?‫( ׳‬Jer. 23:24)

—

2. "see how beloved [by God] is Israel, such that this expansive Divine

Glory

is made to

be so

confined

as

to

appear to speak ‫ י‬from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim‫׳‬." (Exod. 25:22) H.1.

R.

Dosah says,

‫״‬Lo, it says (hry hw' 'wmr), , For

man shall not see me and live‫( ׳‬Ex. 34:20); 2.

"during

their lives they do not see

[the

Divine

Glory]; (Weiss adds:'bl) they do see [it] at the time (Weiss missing }>' t) of their death. 3. who

go

"and thus it says, down

,

Before him shall bow down all

to the dust, and he who cannot

keep

himself

alive‫׳‬." (Ps. 22: 29 ) I.1. in Weiss), 2,

R. ,

Aqiva says, "Lo, it says (hry hw' 'wmr missing

For man may not see me and live‫( ׳‬Ex. 34:20)

—

"even the beasts who carry (Weiss adds, the Throne

of Glory) do not see the Divine Glory." 74

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture J.

Said R.

Simeon b. Azai, "I do not take exception to

the words of the master, but supplement his words. K.1. " , For man may not see me and live‫( ׳‬Exod. 34:20) 2. "even

the ministering angels,

—

who live eternally,

do not see the Divine Glory," 11:13 A. "Saying" (Lev. 1:1) B.

—

Say to them things [hitherto]

hidden,

[since]

for

your sakes it was told to me. C.

For thus we have found,

that for all of the thirty-

eight years during which Israel wandered [in the wilderness, God] did not speak to Moses, D. had

,

as it is said (

mr),

"So when all the men of

perished and were dead from among the people,

war

the Lord

said to me." (Deut. 2:16-17) E. Another interpretation (dbr 'hr) -F. "Saying" (Lev. 1:1)

—

G. Go and speak with them and report [their response] to me. H. [And] whence (Weiss adds, w) [do we learn] that Moses would go out [of the tent of meeting] and speak with them? I.

As it is said,

‫״‬And he would come out, and tell the

people that which he was commanded." (Exod. 34:34) J. [And] whence (Weiss adds, w) [do we learn] that Moses would report [the people's response] before the Might[y One] (hgbwrh)? K.

Scripture says, "And Moses reported the words of the

people to the Lord." (Exod. 19:8) L.

Eleazar b.

Ahbai (Weiss and Vat.

31 : ‫י‬hbwwy) says,

"One may [understand scripture to mean that God] would speak with him for his own needs [only]. ,

M. ‫״‬Scripture says,

saying‫( ׳‬Lev. 1:1) --

N. "[meaning,] say to Israel. 0, [only] bSbyl

"[And] He would not speak with him for his own needs (1' hyh mdbr yt'l

hyh

mdbr

x

ymw mdbr hyh ,

mw wl'

ymw lswrk

hyh mdbr

( We iL ss here r6p6âbs X X • 13 ^ E‫־־‬K ) 9 3

%

,

mw

‫י‬ lsrk

We 15S » ,

smw) . "

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture The whole of 11:10-13 ostensibly treats two word-units of Lev.

1:1. 11:10-12 deal with a commonplace, r

hl mwyd

technical term, prefix,

m

(from).

conveyed

in

assumed.

Indeed,

(Tent of Meeting), and its prepositional

That the context is God speaking

the immediately

preceding words of

the

to

next scriptural term,

1'mr

Moses,

Lev.

1:1,

Pereq 11:1-10 takes as its point of

wydbr yhwh ‫י‬lyw ("and the Lord spoke to him"). consider

only

the pentateuchal

is

departure

11:13 moves on to

("saying"),

again

a

commonplace in the Pentateuch. Scholars peculiarity Midrash‫ ׳‬s verses

rabbinic scriptural

onslaught.

in

Midrash

of in

the

and

Lev.

Midrash generally here

invoke

language in

explain

1:1,

Pentateuch,

order

perhaps

to

more than most

lends itself to such

concomitant method of scholarly

a

resist

this theoretical and methodological approach. to

be

questions,

sure.

chief

However, such explanations

among them:

particular manner?

the other

theory

analysis.

place,

some

I

of here

It has its

beg

too

many

Why is scripture treated in

this

This I see as anterior to queries

concerning

what linguistic quirk of scripture phrase might have evoked the substance of a midrashic passage. In other words, at issue are ( 1 ) the

cultural

literary endeavour,

meaning

and

significance

of

this

form

of

(2) the perceptions of the nature of things

which are encoded in this literary form, and (3) the relationship these

covertly

communicated

cultural system of which

perceptions

have

to the

they are a part. Consider,

larger

then,

the

more general literary and formal traits of the midrashic passage. First,

scripture

is broken down into its smallest units of

any

semantic significance.

are

one

or two words,

Introducing each midrashic

indeed

sometimes only a

larger scriptural context may or may not be assumed, may

The

and may

or

not be relevant to the substance of the midrashic treatment.

So one faces an dippâi^cnt• pâirâciox • of

pericope

particle.

scripture,

the

pericope,

pericopae

principal

of

the

The‫ ״‬Xc11‫״‬cj[©r S6m3nti> 1 o stx*uotxxx‫׳‬os

ordering of words in a verse, in

chapters,

provide

midrashic compilation,

the which

verses

in

a

organizational moves

to

one

scriptural unit after another and often names its larger subunits after those of scripture.

But these larger semantic structures,

76

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture which

give scripture its idiomatic meaning,

are,

as

it

were,

veiled by the midrashic literary form.

The latter allows us only

peeks

context.

at individual word-units out of

in another way, the midrashic meaning

by

deconstructing

To

passage eclipses the

biblical

put

things

scripture‫ ׳‬s own

text ‫ ׳‬s

meaningful

syntactic structures. instead, it presents disconnected semantic units,

which

out

of

context

may

now

mean

much

more

than

scripture permits. So

Mishnah concerns itself with the substance of scripture,

but formally ignores scripture. ignores

The midrashic passage before

scripture‫ ׳‬s substance in significant ways,

commences always from a scriptural point of then,

appears

secondary to,

departure.

and a derivative of, and significance.

by

Midrash remains relatively

scripture,

scripture‫ ׳‬s contextual meaning, new and multiple meaning

But,

on the one hand,

Midrash,

scripture

without independent meaning fragmenting

us

but formally —

in reality, free

of

and may impute

to each biblical word, on the other;

thus Midrash‫ ׳‬s manner of citing scripture at the opening of each pericope. Scriptural word-units, other than from Lev. 1:1, also appear throughout are

our passage.

These supplementary citations generally

comprised of full phrases or clauses,

introductory

citation.

unlike

the

primary,

They may be culled from anywhere

within

the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. In most cases, the appearance within

these

supplementary

verses

of

the

primary

word-unit

accounts for their selection in the pericope at hand. Neither

the primary citation nor the

supplementary

appear within a discursive essay or comment. the

midrashists locate these biblical texts at precise junctures

within not

verses

Quite the contrary;

a

only

formulaic

larger highly formalized literary structure highly

formalized

language.

Again,

but the

also

largely

midrashic

passage

appears in this regard both like and unlike Mishnah. evinces highly formalized and formulaic language.

—

indeed

comprised before

of us

Mishnah too

This Midrash‫ ׳‬s

forms and formularies differ significantly from Mishnah‫ ׳‬s. Much of the text before us is cast in the following or variations of it. 9 3

pattern

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture 1. primary scripture; 2. teaches x: 3. one may reason y; 4. scripture says + secondary scripture; 5. teaches not y; 6. If so, why is it said + primary scripture? 7. to teach x. This

simple

pattern

may

be

used

to

build

somewhat

larger

structures. For example, elements 3 through 7, or simply elements 4+5,

may be repeated.

raise

In the former expansion, the pericope may

in turn for consideration y,z,a,b,c,

etc.

In the latter,

the construction may adduce a series of secondary biblical dealing

with

y.

texts

More complex still is the assimilation of

the

above pattern and its variations to Mishnah's dispute form (i.e., rabbi

x

elements

says

... ; rabbi

3 through

y says

7 or

4-5 may

. . . ) ; multiple each

bear

versions

attributions

different rabbinic masters. Usually no substantive

to

disagreement

is present, a requisite of a ‫ י‬true ‫( ׳‬mishnaic) dispute. In all, one may

account

introduction

to

for virtually

the entirety

Sifra Nedavah

(Pereq

of

the

homiletical

1 -2, Parashah

I-II) with

these variations upon the basic pattern charted earlier. Two other, less complex formal structures also appear in the 1, primary scripture ; 2. interpretation (with or without secondary scripture). One may schematize the second as follows: 1. primary scripture; 2. means x; 3. whence do we learn y; 4. secondary scripture. A

variation

through

of the latter pattern repeats items

y.n.

3-4,

for

y.1

Again each version of 3-4 may bear an attribution,

giving the appearance of a dispute of a collection of sayings. All not only

three

structured patterns and their variations

throughout Sifra but in other

Tannaitic Midrashim. and

homiletic

Editors,

passages

moreover,

in these 78

same

Halakic

or

appear

(so-called)

have cast both halakic forms.

So

one

cannot

of

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture facilely the

account

substance

of

for their use or significance by appealing the Midrash.

And

certainly

substance of any one midrashic passage,

the

halakic or

tp

particular homiletical,

neither determines nor is determined by the forms in question. In 11 sum, the forms have a meaning and significance of their own. First word

and foremost,

of scripture,

replete

with

remains

one

items

3

the patterns imply that each and every

quite apart from its context,

revelatory

meaning.

This,

is in

among

other

purpose of the rhetorical inquiries

itself things,

commencing

of both the first and final structures

charted

at

above.

Namely,

this verse teaches x and not y, because some other verse

teaches

y;

therefore, this verse must have

its

own

idiomatic

oracular function, namely to teach x. Second, reason

or,

there

is a certain lack of

to put matters

processes

of

reason

as

differently, a

mode

of

confidence in the

in unaided

self-sufficient 1 2

scriptural

exegesis.

Especially problematic is the situation in which exegesis quite reasonably limits itself to the context of the primary scripture. Again items 3 and following in the first and final patterns are especially

indicative

in this respect. One may

(mistakenly)

reason y, if one reasoned without reference to (some secondary) scripture. particular reason

Self-contained verse,

proves

scriptural necessary

moves

off

problematic

verse

remains

reason, in when

even when

illegitimate the

context

the locus of

sparked

by a

directions.

Thus

of

thought,

the

primary

barring

the

freedom to jump associatively out of context to some

other scripture containing the primary word-unit in question. The meaning of the divine oracle is elucidated only when the tight structures of both discursive reason and the syntax of scripture are breached. particular neither

to the homiletical introduction to Sifra

nor

to only that document. As intimated, the same or similar patterns pervade the legal sections of Sifra as well as other compilations of the Halakic (Tannaitic) Midrashim. There too like significance and meaning accrues to the structured patterns. Without entering into a comprehensive

study of the Halakic 9 3

Midrashim

and

their

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture complement of forms, I offer as

further suggestive evidence two

passages, one from the legal section of Sifra, Masekta deNedavah, the

second

from

another

compilation

entirely,

Mekilta

deRabbi

Ishmael, Masekta dePisha. A. ‫״‬From the herd" (Lev. 1:1) B.

[intending]

to

exclude

—

[an

animal]

which

has

been worshipped. C.

And, lo, is it not reasonable [by reason

argument a. female

fortiori ] ? Just as money earned by a

prostitute,

whose

apparel

is

an

male or

permitted

offering], is [nevertheless itself] unfit the altar,

of [as

an

[to remain] upon

[then in the case of an animal] which has been

worshipped, whose accoutrements are unfit [as an offering], is it not reasonable that they declare

[ the animal ] unfit

[to remain] upon the altar? D.

Or

[might

one

not

reason

to]

the

opposite

[conclusion]? Just as [in the case of] money earned by male or female prostitutes, which

[it] is forbidden

[to leave]

upon the altar, their apparel is [nonetheless] permitted [as an offering], [then in the case of an animal] which has been worshipped,

which

[beforehand]

is

permitted,

is

it

not

reasonable that its accoutrements [as well] be permitted? E.

[ You

cannot

argue

so

as]

you

[ will ] have

abrogated "you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, or take it for yourselves." (Deut. 77:25) F.

[But] I [on the contrary] apply that

Deut. 7:25],

"you shall not covet

[verse at

the silver or the gold

that is on them, or take it for yourselves, " to that which is not alive, but in the case of that which is alive [as in our case],

since

[beforehand] it is permitted,

let

its

accoutrements be permitted [as well]. G.1. (Lev. 1:2)

[Therefore]

scripture

to

that

says,

‫״‬From

the

herd"

— 2.

exclude

which

has

been

worshipped.

(Sifra, Nedavah, Parshata 2:9) The passage,

typical of much of Sifra, evinces an elaboration of

the first formal structure charted earlier: 80

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture

PERICOPE SECTIONS

PATTERN 1 ) primary scripture 2) teaches x

B

3) one may reason x

C

4) or one might reason not x

D

5) secondary scripture

E

6) required to teaches y

P

7) primary scripture

G. 1

8) teaches x

G.2

Items 5-6 here seem at first glance secondary, unnecessary reference to some 3+4

since 3-4 renders

secondary scripture.

The force of

is that the primary scripture establishes clearly that about

which at

reason can remain equivocal only.

The secondary scripture

5 is a second attempt to demonstrate the superfluity

of

the

primary scriptural reference. But this too fails, as 6 indicates ; in the end,

one must fall back upon the first biblical citation,

for no other verse, more

complex

and certainly not reason, will suffice. This

pattern may be less tight and elegant

than

those

seen earlier, but the overall effect and meaning are similar. Our

final

example,

(Mekilta

deRabbi

resembles

Sifra

structured

pattern

throughout patterns therein

taken

from

Nedavah, of Bo

and

document

dePisha,

Parshata

2:9.

Bo

8),

entirely closely

Furthermore,

the

8 appears

at numerous junctures 11 Ishmael. That is to say, the

the Mekilta deRabbi

discussed are more

another

Ishmael, Masekta

the perception

generally

of matters

characteristic

of

communicated

some

phase

or

entire family of documents, the Halakic or Tannaitic Midrashim. Mekilta

Pisha,

Bo

8 takes as its point of

departure

the

injunction at Ex. 12:15 against eating leaven on the Passover. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; ( 'k bywm

hr'Hwn)

you

shall

put

away

on the first day

leaven

out

of

your

houses. (Exod. 12:15) The Mekiltan passage considers the phrase, "on the first day." A. ‫י״‬On the first day,‫ ׳‬etc.

—

B. " [ this means ] beginning with the eve of the holy day. 81

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

C. ‫״‬Do you say [the verse means] beginning with the eve of the holy day,

or might it not be [scripture's intent

that leaven be removed] on the holy day itself? D. "Scripture says,

‫ י‬You shall not offer the blood

of my sacrifice with leaven‫( ׳‬Exod. 34:25). E. "[That is to say,] do not slaughter the passover [offering on the eve of the festival], while leaven still exists," the words of R. Ishmael. F.

R. Jonathan

says,

‫״‬One

does

not

require

[ the

exegesis based on Exod. 34:25]. G. ‫״‬Lo,

it is already

stated

[at Ex.

12:16],

,

No

work shall be done on those days.‫׳‬ H. "And burning [the method of destroying leaven] is a type of work. I.1. ‫״‬Therefore, when

(mh) scripture says,

,

On the

first day,‫׳‬ 2. " [ its intent is, ] beginning with the eve of the holy day." J. R. Yose the Galilean says, " v 0n the first day you shall put away leaven from out of your houses.‫׳‬ K. "[This means] beginning with the eve of the holy day. L.

‫״‬Do you say thus [ Oxford and Munich mss. : from

the eve of the holy day], or rn 1 çj t it no t 06

[ s or 1pt
intent that leaven be removed] on the holy day itself? M. ‫״‬Scripture says,

,

But ('k) on the [first] day.‫׳‬

N. "[the extra partitive informs us that scripture] differentiates

[between

Ishmael, ed. Horovitz,

two

days]."

p. 27, line

(Mekilta

deRabbi

13-p. 28, line 6; cf.

Mekilta deRabbi Simeon on Exod. 12:15; b. Pes. 5a.) The passage falls into three major sub-units, J-N,

each bearing attributions to rabbinic masters.

clearly Sifra.

A-E, F-I, and A-E and J-N

evince a pattern similar to what we have already seen in F-I too follows the same structure but reverses the order

of items, as the chart below shows.

82

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture A-E

PATTERN

J-N

[attribution] 1. primary scripture 2. means x 3. ... or might mean y 4. secondary scripture f

5. proves not y and/or supports x [attribution]

E‫׳‬

The Mekiltan structure resembles that of the Sifra pericopae both in form and in meaning. Again the overall significance

is

that self-contained reason, even when starting from a scriptural point of departure, leads to error. Only when the exegete, freed from the immediate context, considers the oracular importance of other verses elsewhere, and, as it were, removes these secondary verses

too

from

their

immediate

syntactic

and

literary

surroundings, may one fully mine scripture‫ ׳‬s divine teachings. The Talmuds ‫ י‬Fragmentation of Mishnah To reiterate

our

perceptions air

theoretical

perspective,

of plausibility due to the homological

the

various

environment. renders

patterns

of shared

of the world and of the objects therein retain their structured This

fit

subsystems across

of

relationship the

the set of

across

general

cultural

structured

patterns

each peculiarly appropriate and affectively

satisfying.

These patterns are socially transmitted and socially held; and in socially

based.

structured

Those

shared

perceptions

in the literary traits of gemara or Talmud. fundamental

taxonomic

descriptions of both

Rabbah) and the Talmuds, is

to

scripture,

problematic, from

implicit

in

the

patterns of Midrash find such affective corroborât ion

J.

Indeed,

based

Midrash

upon

(Leviticus

Neusner coined the dictum, ‫״‬Midrash

as Talmud is to Mishnah. 1,14 To be

sure,

our

theoretical

Neusner‫ ׳‬s

framework and analytic agenda differs 15 taxonomic one. But his analogy proves as

appropriate for our endeavour as for his. Again, a representative text of the Babylonian Talmud b.

Arakin

2a,

provides

an

(edited circa the sixth century), apt 83

point

of

departure

for

our

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture discussion. The talmudic text cites and glosses word-units from the following Mishnah passage (Arakin 1:1). 1 . All make evaluation

[the vow

to give

[of some other] and are

to

the Temple] the

[subjects of such vows

of] evaluation made [by others]. 2.

[All] make the vow

[to give to the Temple the

worth of others] and are [subjects of such]

vows made [by

others]. 3. [This includes] priests, levites,

Israelites,

women and slaves. 4. Hermaphrodites and androgynous persons make a vow [to give someone's worth] and are [subjects of such a] vow made [by others], 5.

and

make

[ vows

to

give ] the

evaluation

[ of

others ], but are not [subjects of such vows of ] evaluation made [by others], 6. for evaluated

[ in Leviticus

27 ] only

are

an

outright male and an outright female. 7. A deaf person, a mentally incompetent person and a minor are

[subjects of a] vow made

their worth] and are

[by others

to give

[subjects of a vow made by others to

give their] evaluation, 8. but they do not vow [another‫ ׳‬s worth], and they do not [vow another‫ ׳‬s] evaluation, 9. for they have no understanding [of what they do]. 10. One less than one month of age [is a subject of] a vow [to give his or her worth], but is not [a subject of a vow to give his or her] evaluation. I refrain from comprehensively analyzing

the Mishnah text,

since it is at issue only insofar as our talmudic passage treats Mishnah

Ar akin

1:1.

Suffice

it

to

say

only

that

it

concerns

voluntary donations of money to the Temple by pledging amounts equal to someone‫ ׳‬s value standard

list

( 'rk) or worth. Leviticus

of monetary

values

for various

provides a

categories

of

persons. A vow which does not make reference to using this table of evaluations incurs a donation equal to the market value of the person in question, were he or she sold on the block. The latter

84

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture obviously permits a degree of differentiation

much beyond

that

facilitate

the

allowed for in the Leviticus list. We

turn

to

our

talmudic

passage.

To

subsequent analysis, I have represented citations of Mishnah in uppercase letters, Aramaic in italics, and Hebrew sections other than Mishnah in roman typeface. A. ALL MAKE THE EVALUATION, B. [is stated] to include whom? C. The nearly-pubescent, who is nearly an adult. D.

[All are subjects of such a vow of] EVALUATION

MADE [by others], E. [is stated] to include whom? F. The disfigured and one afflicted with boils. G. One might suppose I would say. H.

"A vow

... according

to

the evaluation"

(Lev.

27:2), is written. I. Anyone who has a market-value is a subject of a vow to give his or her evaluation; anyone who has no marketvalue

is

not

a

subject

of

a

vow

to

give

his

or

her

evaluation. J.

[Therefore

ALL ]

informs

us

[otherwise

with

respect to the disfigured and one afflicted with boils]. K.

"Persons"

(Lev.

27 : 2)

[ is

scripture ‫ ׳‬s

way

of

informing us of the same.] L. ALL which applies [as well in Mishnah] to VOW, M. [is stated] to include what? A VOW MADE [by others]. a subject of] A VOW MADE. P. [And] to include whom? Q. If to include A HERMAPHRODITE AND AN ANDROGYNOUS PERSON, [Mishnah] explicitly instructs [us] about them, R. INCOMPETENT

If

to

PERSON

include AND

A

A

DEAF

MINOR,

instructs [us] about them.

9 3

PERSON, [Mishnah]

A

MENTALLY explicitly

S. If to include

ONE LESS THAN ONE MONTH OF AGE,

[Mishnah] explicitly instructs [us] about them. T, If to include AN IDOLATOR,

[Mishnah]

explicitly

instructs [us] about them. U, Certainly

[the

intent

is]

to include

ONE

LESS

THAN ONE MONTH OF AGE. V.

[And Mishnah] so instructs

[us] and

thereafter

interprets [matters explicitly for us]. A ‫י‬. ALL

LAY-ON

HANDS

[upon

a sacrificial

animal]

(Mishnah Menahot 9:8), Bf.

[is stated] to include whom?

C‫ ׳‬. One who inherits [the animal from the person who originally dedicated it to the altar], D‫׳‬. and this is not in accord with Rabbi Judah. E‫ ׳‬. ALL EFFECT THE SUBSTITUTION

[of one animal for

another already dedicated], F‫׳‬. [is stated] to include whom? G‫׳‬. One who inherits [the animal already dedicated], H‫׳‬. and this is not in accord with Rabbi Judah, I‫׳‬.

as

it

is

taught

[in

an

extra-Mishnaic

tradition]: J' .

One

who

inheri t s

lays on

hands ; one

who

inherits effects the substitution. K‫׳‬. Rabbi Judah says, ‫״‬One who inherits does not lay on

hands ;

one

who

inherits

does

not

effect

the

substitution." L‫׳‬. What is the reason for Rabbi Judah [holding his view]? (b. Arakin 2a) One need not engage in an elaborate analysis of the talmudic text

in order

word-units Midrash.

to highlight

from Mishnah The text

are

cites

its

similarity

cited

in

to Midrash.

a manner

in midrashic-like

First,

reminiscent

fashion

not

of

only

Mishnah, but also extra-mishnaic Hebrew sources (i.e., beraitot), which in the editors' view have a status nearly that

of

Mishnah.

The

citations

quotations of scripture,

of

Mishnah,

equivalent

like

to

Midrash's

may assume knowledge of the

larger

mishnaic pericope, but, formally, focus upon single words apart 86

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture from the larger syntactical structure from which they come. Here the

primary

passive

citations

participle,

of or

Mishnah simply

are

the

kl

plus

the

participle

active

with

kl

or

left

understood. Secondary citations are a little more lengthy, such as "a deaf person, a mentally Extra-mishnaic

incompetent person and a minor."

Hebrew sources

(i.e., beraitot)

length. Finally, the talmudic

are cited at

passage quotes scripture

in a

manner similar both to its citations of Mishnah and to Midrash‫ ׳‬s use of biblical texts. So,

in

its manner of citation,

scripture

similarly,

and

treatment

of scripture.

word-units of Mishnah, sees

in

Talmud treats Mishnah

a fashion parallel

to

and

Midrash's

The talmudic text focusses upon

single

formally apart from their context; Talmud

those units as fraught with implicit meanings in excess

those

explicitly stated in

communications excised

are

word-units

most

Mishnah.

Moreover,

these

fully disclosed when one

in light

of

similar

terms

of

implicit

views drawn,

these indeed

withdrawn, from other mishnaic pericopae or beraitot. The this

structured patterns of the talmudic

view

several

of matters,

patterns,

all

as is the case with of

which

find

passage Midrash.

their

reinforce Here

counterparts

Midrash, are in evidence: PATTERN

SECTIONS OF TALMUDIC TEXT

1. word-unit

A

2. means/includes x

B-C

1 . word-unit

D

M-N

2. means/includes x

E-F

3. I might suppose/reason y

G-I

4. [Mishnah, therefore,]

J (‫־‬K)

informs us [word-unit] 1 . word—uni t

0

2. means/includes?

P

3. if x, [Mishnah]

Q, R,S,T

explicitly so states.

9 3

A‫׳‬-C C‫(׳‬D‫)׳‬ E‫ ׳‬-G G‫(׳‬H‫)׳‬

too in

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture (Item 3 repeats n times for xl through xn,) 4. Certainly means/includes y. The formal characteristics as

well

U (-V)

of our talmudic pericope

the structured patterns of discourse in early

Midrashim. formally,

Along

with

at least,

the consideration of

small

recall rabbinic

word-units,

excised from their context, these talmudic

patterns further impute to these words-units implicit meaning not explicitly communicated by the grammar and syntax of the mishnaic text.

In the second pattern especially, one finds the rhetorical

inquiry have

into

whether reasoning from what is already

excised word-unit.

Overall,

the similarity to Midrash in

particular talmudic patterns is striking; covertly of

known

established with certainty that implicitly conveyed by

sacred text —

now,

rather than scripture, as in Midrash. Talmud adds

significance

in Talmud,

the

Mishnah,

Little wonder, then,

that

cites extensively from the corpus of Halakic Midrash as

the these

so too, therefore, the

communicated perception of the nature and

the primary,

may

well its own midrashic-like inquiries about

and

scriptural

proof-texts for cji ven räbbinic injunctions and teachings• For the Talmud's perception of the text, whether scripture or Mishnah, is entirely compatible with that of early Midrash. One final literary characteristic of Talmud, it

to

much

Midrash,

also

likening

and

Aramaic.

is its admixture of Hebrew

Mishnah, as we have seen, uses only its idiomatic Hebrew, guarded from

linguistic impingement from without,

produced

a

collection

Hebrew

biblical

books in other languages.

Midrash

allow

Hebrew,

prayer,

and Aramaic,

the

and

canon excluding By

mishnaic from

contrast,

sacred language of

its

rabbis sacred

Talmud

and

revelation

and

the language not only of the everyday

but

also of the nations, to interpenetrate one another.1 ® This model of linguistic interdispersal

is in evidence

in the

Palestinian

Talmud of Late Antique Galilee and environs and carries over to the talmudic enterprise of the Babylonian academies, as well as into early medieval legal and exegetical documents of Babylonian and

Palestinian

provenance.

In

language,

as

in

the

formal

patterns of Midrash and Talmud, things of one provenance engage 88

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture in a creative commerce with particles of another, more sacred and meaningful universe —

Talmud with excised snippets of Mishnah,

Midrash with word-units of scripture, Aramaic with Hebrew. It is as though rays of some special realm permeate another, bringing new forces to the latter‫׳‬s processes. Our

treatment

of Talmud cannot claim to be

Patterns

other

than

Talmuds,

to be sure.

those

analyzed are

in

comprehensive.

evidence

in

the

Still, what has been claimed for b. Arakin 1‫ד‬

2a can be generalized to much of the talmudic corpus. The Social Location of the Talmudic Rabbi In

Talmud

and

Midrash,

then,

a

basic

and

consistent

set

of

covertly expressed perceptions of reality persists. These depart radically from meanings implicit in Mishnah‫ ׳‬s patterns and in the shape of the rabbinic biblical canon. In Mishnah and scripture, these earlier rabbis provide homologies of the pattern of social relationships which emerged in the aftermath of 70 and 135. So too

the

social

configuration

in

which

these

later

talmudic/midrashic rabbis now find themselves reinforces and is reinforced by the structured endeavours —

patterns of their own

literary

all at an implicit level. Again, the overall effect

would have been to provide a plausible, that is, a coherent and emotionally

satisfying, body of knowledge of how things

really

are. Their social world, far removed in structure from that of their mishnaic

forebears,

is akin to that of the non-rabbinic,

Graeco-Roman Diaspora (as discussed in Chapter 3). Towards

the

end

of

the

second

and

during

the

third

centuries, both in Palestine and in Babylonia, rabbis emerge from their insular circles of master and disciples to take up roles as quasi-bureaucrats and

Holy Men in

the semi-autonomous1

fi

Jewish

communities under Roman and Persian rule, respectively.

Their

new world was typically Diaspora in structure. Jews had seriously to intermingle and do commerce with non-Jews. A Judaic universe requiring

socially

homogeneous

insularity

and

protection

from

encroachment from without was an impossibility. Their situation required

as well

traversing

non-Jewish

ambiguous space) in order to effect with

neighbouring

and

more

distant 9 3

territory

commerce and Jewish

(a mixed ethnic

and

links

communities.

So

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

boundary

crossing, whether to do business with

maintain

ties with other

non-Jews

1

c 11 a. r 3l cfe e x x z e cl the

Jews,

or

to

situation

which these talmudic rabbis found themselves. access

to

the

remaining

within

homogeneous these

sacred could not be imagined as a

unique,

dependent

Temple-state-like,

island in a sea of amorphous chaos.

upon

ethnically

The sacred

for

typically Diaspora Jews had its loci on earth at the

many

sites and in the diverse persons where conduits from heaven above broke

into

this

earthly

benevolent

and

where,

numerous loci,

was

at

crossed,

realm.

That

is,

lifegiving power of heaven

benefit could

from

be

the

had

only

the boundary between heaven and earth

just as was the case across the boundaries of

the

social world. Hence, sacred space on earth lacked homogeneity and contiguity, just as social space did; the map of the sacred, to put matters differently, had the same topographical features as the social map of Jewry. Rabbis accommodated the

social

regulated

and

sacred

to this topography

spheres. As masters

therefore

increasingly

facilitated

offered

the

of

both

of God‫ ׳‬s law,

they

Jewish ‫ד‬9 communities, and, to some extent, between Jew and Gentile. J And they

and

themselves

themselves

commerce

as Holy

among

Men

of

typical

Diaspora ilk, claiming to be the sole effective mediators of the power of heaven on earth. In a manner akin to Graeco-Roman Jewish Holy Men,

rabbis dispensed

amulets,

potions,

incantations,

and

the like. They were expert at demon avoidance, especially while "on the road" in the heterogeneous and ambiguous territory of the 20 Rabbis interpreted dreams and, furthermore, claimed

Gentile. the

power

to

effect

the

outcome

of

events

via

their

very

interpretation. The more renowned among the rabbinate were said to

be

able

to

wield

divine

power

without

resorting

incantations or amulets. Such rabbis are reminiscent

of

to the

uppermost echelon of divine men of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora. Finally,

some

rabbis

claimed the esoteric knowledge

privilege

necessary to traverse the boundary between heaven

earth

to

and

journey

through

the

celestial

spheres

to

and and God‫ ׳‬s

palatial abode. There they attained the vision of Ezekiel, 90

the

in

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture

21 merkabah.

In this, too, rabbis resemble other Graeco-Roman Holy

Men. Indeed, as

in the case of the Graeco-Roman Holy

heavenly journeys by rabbis on

earth

former,

go

on the one hand, visions

integral

relationship

overlooked)

and the exercise of theurgic

hand in hand;

heavenly

bolster

opening

Man,

the latter are

and,

to

powers

£ ru x t s

on the other,

claims

such

of

claims about such

theurgic

prowess.

This

is stunningly exhibited in 2the (usually 2 of Hekalot Rabbati (1:1-2:2). So much so

that the text warrants being cited in full. Said

Rabbi

Ishmael:

What

distinguished

the

songs

which were sung by one who sought to look upon the vision of the Chariot, [who desired] to ‫׳‬descend‫[ ׳‬i.e., to enter the heavenly

palaces]

in peace

and

‫׳‬ascend‫׳‬

[i.e.,

leave

the

heavenly palaces] in peace? Greater than all (lit., than all of them) is he [who knows the song which serves] to provide

[him] entry and to

bring him within the inner chambers of the heavenly palace and to [allow] him to stand before the Throne of Glory and to know all which will comes to pass in the world: whom they [the heavenly powers] will lay low, whom they will exalt, whom they will heal, whom they will make mighty, whom they will impoverish, whom they will make wealthy, whom they will cause to die, whom they will resurrect, from whom they will take

away

an

inheritance ; to

whom

they

will

give

an

inheritance, to whom they will bequeath Torah, to whom they will 91V6 wisdom. Gr ©ci t ©r tlhtctiTi ciJLJL x s h©

[for h6 J p6r oc1‫ ׳‬v6s sXl fcl*1€5

deeds of humanity, and knows and recognizes them. If a man committed adultery, he knows and recognizes it ; [if a man ] is suspected of being greedy, he knows and recognizes it. Greater

than all

is he

[ for

he] recognizes

all

manner of sorcery. Greater than all is he for [should] anyone raise his hand against him and strike him, they [will] clothe him [the offender] in leprosy, and crown him in boils. 9 3

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Greater than all is he for [should] anyone slander him, they will take and dispense with him by means of skin plagues and lesions and wounds from which exude wet pus. Greater than all is he for he is distinguished among all

humanity,

and

all

manner

of

men

are

awed

by

his

qualities. And he is honoured above the heavenly beings and the

beings

stumbles suffer]

of

[ this ] lower

realm.

And

all

[i.e., who seek his downfall,

over

will

whom

he

themselves

great downfalls and lesser evils by the agency of

heaven. And all who seek to injure him, the heavenly court will [in turn] injure. Greater than all is he for before him all creatures are as silver before the smith. [He knows] which silver is unfit, and which silver x s pur6» And so too he sees a family [and knows] how many are proselytes, how many are mutilated, how many are eunuchs, how many were conceived in menstrual impurity, how many are slaves, how many are uncircumcised. Greater

than

all

is

he

for

[ should]

anyone

look

defiantly at him, they would be blinded by the light of his eyeballs. Greater than all is he for [should] anyone deprecate [him], there would not be left of him either root or branch, and so too no inheritor. Greater stories

to

than

his

all

is

detriment,

he

for

they

[should]

would

anyone

bring

tell

upon

him

destruction and confusion and would have no mercy on him. To

those

rabbis

who

ascend to the

heavenly palace accrues,

inner

chambers

of

God's

therefore, supernatural power on earth.

One cannot but be struck by the similarity of this rabbinic

text

to the opening chapter of Sefer HaRazim, which likewise links the visions

of

the Graeco-Roman Holy Nan to the

latter‫ ׳‬s

theurgic

ability. The rabbi, it seems, has become such a Judaic shaman. Rabbis claimed all these powers by virtue of their knowledge of Torah. 23 and,

The study of (the rabbinic) Torah made them God-like

therefore,

heaven's

partners

with God and his angels

benefits and chastisements.

the authority of tradition

scribal authority

92

in

In this manner was

wielding melded

if you will

and

Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash, and Scripture the

power

emergent

of the shamanistic Holy Man. dissonance

between

They

themselves

bridged

and

too

their

the

mishnaic

rabbinic forebears. The

rabbinic

implicitly

documents,

convey

Midrash

and

a similar perception

Talmud, of

of

this

reality

in

era

their

treatment of their most sacred documents, scripture and Mishnah. The

latter do

not

remain

closed,

self-sufficient,

and

self-

contained worlds, a literary counterpart to the Temple. Rather, Midrash and Talmud fragment scripture and Mishnah; the former see in these

latter

documents

numerous,

discrete,

disjointed,

and

non-contiguous units of the holy, significance and meaning that feed their midrashic and talmudic literary constructions. Talmud and Midrash

reach

into

Mishnah and

pull

out morsels for use outside

the sacred

spheres of

scripture

and

the context of

their original spheres, indeed for insertion into quite another literary realm —

just as rabbinic Holy Men do with God's divine

power, and just as the Jewish communities dot the larger social world. In sum, not only does the sacred topography on earth and social topography in the earthly realm replicate the same basic pattern, but they also both find their complement in the literary topography

of Talmud

Mishnah and

and

Midrash

insofar

scripture. The structure,

as

the

then, of

latter

all

treat

three

maps

lend the weight of plausibility to one another, establishing the cultural

and

social context

of shared knowledge

about

how

the

world really is for post-mishnaic rabbinic communities. But literary endeavours such as those in midrash and reflect

a decidedly elitist sphere.

unaided

reason cut loose from scripture and Mishnah,

Midrash skills

require

of the student

population.

setting

divorced

precursors. marketplace level. seen,

Despite their critique

highly

developed

of

Talmud and intellectual

which set apart these rabbis and their students from

general

other.

Talmud

So

Yet

addition,

from the street, rabbis

and court,

Talmud they

In

and

inhabited on one hand,

these

documents

namely, two

the academy or

spheres,

and the

the

reflect

the

academy,

a its

Diaspora on

the

Midrash reflect the latter at its most overt

at the level of implicit communication, replicate

as we

the basic patterns of the world

93

of

have Late

94

N O T E S

Chapter One 1. See, e.g., J. Neusner, Torah: From Scroll to Symbol in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985); J. Neusner, Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983); see especially L. Haas, "Bibliography on Midrash,11 in J. Neusner, Midrash in Context, 197-207. I shall not even venture into bibliography concerning medieval and later biblical exegesis in Judaism. 2. See J. Lightstone, ‫״‬The Formation of the Biblical Canon in Late Antique Judaism," Studies in Religion 8 (1979), 135-42, and works noted therein. 3. See M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York : Columbia University Press, 1971); see also H. L. Ginzberg, Deuteronomy and the Israelean Tradition (New York: Ktav, 1984); M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford : Clarendon, 1 972); N. K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible -- a Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985); J. A. Sanders, From Sacred Story to Sacrcd Text (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 175-91. 4. Chänc[6,

M. Douglas, ‫״‬The Effects of Modernization on Religious Dâ B<3&1 US 101 (1982), 1-19.

5. I have argued this point more fully in J. Lightstone, ‫״‬Form as Meaning in the Halakic Midrash," Semeia 27 (1983). 6. See J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part XXI, Formulation and Redaction (Leiden: Brill, 1 977); W.S. Green ‫״‬What‫ ׳‬s in a Name? The Question of Rabbinic , Biography‫׳‬," in W.S. Green, ed., Approaches to the Study of Ancient Judaism, I (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978). 7. The example is borrowed from J. D. Interval (Niles, Illinois : Argus, 1 975).

Crossan,

The

Dark

8. C. Geertz, ‫״‬Religion as Cultural System," in M. Banton, ed., Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion (London : Tavistock, 1966), 3-4. 9. M. Douglas, Implicit Meanings (London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), 207; see M. Douglas,"In the Nature of Things," and "Self-Evidence," also in Implicit Meanings. 95

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

10. E. Dürkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (New York: Free Press, 1964), 108ff. 11. E. Dürkheim, Rules, 110, 12. E. Dürkheim, Rules, 125. 13. See note 9 above; see also M. Douglas, (London: Royal Anthropological Society, 1978).

Cultural Bias

14. M. Smith, "Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period," in W.D. Davies, L. Finkelstein, eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism, I, Introduction; The Persian Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 219-78; see above note 3. 15. Ezra 4:1-5 16. Ezra 2:62, 13 :3ff., 23ff.

9:1-2,

10:3-4;

Nehemiah

7:5ff.,

10:28ff.,

1 7. See note 16 above. 18. See note 16 above. 19. H. H. Rowley, The Growth of the Old Testament (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963); M. Smith, ‫״‬Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period," in W.D. Davies, L. Finkelstein, eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism, I, introduction ; The Persian Period, 219-78; see above note 3. 20. M. Smith, ‫״‬Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period," in W.D. Davies, L. Finkelstein, eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism, I, Introduction; The Persian Period, 269ff. 21 . Deut. 4 :16ff., 25ff., 5:6ff., 6:4-15, 12:1 "1 4! f 29-31 f 1 3 :1 3-19, 1 7 • 2 , 20 • 1 6** 1 8•

7:1-7,

25-26,

22. Deut. 19:14, 22:5, 9-11 . 23. See J. A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971 ), and From Sacred Story to Sacred Text. 24. Philo, Legatio, 281 ff., Wolfson, ed., LCL. 25. J. Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred: Mediation of the Divine Among Jews in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), chapters 2-3. 26. See note 25 above. 27. J. Lightstone. Commerce of the Sacred, chapters 4,6. 28. J. Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, chapters 5,6.

96

Notes: Chapter Two 29. J. Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, chapter 4. 30. J. Neusner, Purities, XXI, Formulation and Redaction. 31 . J. Neusner, Judaism, The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 198 3) ; J. Neusner, "Religion and Society : The Case of Ancient Judaism,11 in J. Neusner, Take Judaism, For Example (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 7- 28. 32. See note 31 above. 33. J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vols. 45 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969-70). 34. See G. G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and the Talmudic Tradition (New York : Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965); I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic in Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980); P. Schaefer, Hekalot Rabbati: Introduetion and Synoptic Text (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982) . 35. See J. Neusner, Midrash in Context; J. Lightstone, "Form as Meaning in the Halakic Midrash."

Chapter Two 1 . Ezra 1 ; see S. E. McEvenue, ‫״‬The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to Nehemiah," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981), 353-364. 2. Ezra 3:2, 6:18, 7:6, Neh. 8:1 , 13:1. It should be noted from the outset that the tradition-history and redaction-history of Deuteronomy or of the Pentateuch is not, for the most part, germane to the argument which follows in this chapter -- just as an account of the historical development of the biblical canon is not the concern of the book. Integral to the analysis are several claims of modest proportions and which, I believe, enjoy general scholarly assent, disputes on other matters notwithstanding. The community under analysis, which I have called the ‫״‬Jerusalem colonists," develops its idiomatic social and cultural patterns over several centuries, from the latter part of the sixth to the latter half of the fourth century BCE. It is toward the end of this process that the Chronicler provides in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah an account of its founding. And by the latter part of these several centuries the Pentateuch has with the ‫״‬Torah of Moses." Without begging questions of precisely what social or literary evolution underlies the resulting structures, one may legitimately analyze, in accordance with this work's agenda, the relationships which obtain between those final structures — as they are attested to in the works of the chronicler and the redactors of the Pentateuch. For whatever the 97

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture accuracy of the chronicler's account of the founding and early development of this community, his account will reflect the SOCIO—CUX1‫־‬ural norms of that community toward the latter part of the fourth century BCE. This is not to say, of at the chronicler‫ ׳‬s sources do not px‫©״‬s ©rv© 3-s w © H d-ccounts of d.n ©arli©!* s tat© of stf fa1x‫״‬s in this community. Only that teasing that out of the literature need not generally concern us, given our agenda. For example, reasonable warrant exists for the claim that towards the beginning of this process Deuteronomy was viewed as the Torah. (Some arguments to this effect are referred to in this chapter; see especially J. A. Sanders, From Sacred Story to Sacred Text (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1987.) By whatever redactional processes, the final product, the Pentateuch (understood to be the Torah) had to do with a marriage between these latter Deuteronomists and the group for whom the priestly editors spoke (see above, chapter 1 , note 3). No more than these modest claims (and, indeed, not even these) are required for our purposes; this community and their Torah (ultimately the Pentateuch) provide the starting point for the rest of this study and the point of reference for further comparative analysis in the chapters which follow. 3. M. Douglas, Natural Symbols, 2nd ed. (London : Barrie and Jenkins, 1973); M. Douglas, "In the Nature of Things," and "SelfEvidence," in M. Douglas, Implicit Meanings (London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975). 4. M. Douglas, "The Effects of Modernization on Change," Daedalus, Winter, 1982,

Religious

5. M. Douglas, ‫״‬Self-Evidence." 6. J. Lightstone, ‫״‬The Dead in Late Antique Judaism," in R. Lemieux and R. Richard, eds., Survivre...La religion et la mort (Montreal: Bellarmin, 1985), 51-58. 7. Jud. 2"1 • 9 ^ 13*9•

17:6,

21 :25 ; contrast »f x tili D©ut • ô » 1 ô f

8. The religious policy as reported in Ezra-Nehemiah closely resembles that of our book of Deuteronomy, on the one hand, and remains quite ignorant, on the other, of some major cultic events idiomatic to the Priestly tradition. See H. L. Ginzberg, The Israeli an Heritage of Judaism (New York: JTS, 1982) . See also M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Poli tics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York : Columbia, 1971). See Nehemiah 7 ; absent, for example, is any knowledge of the atonement-purification festival on the 1Oth day of the 7th month, as prescribed in Leviticus 16 and Num. 29:7ff. See also M. Weinfeld and J. A. Sanders (chapter 1, note 3). 9. See J. 1972).

Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress,

98

Notes : Chapter Three 10. Deut. 18:11 11. L. Rothkrug, ‫״‬The Odour of Sanctity and Origins of Christian Relic Worship," Historical 8 (1981), 95-142.

the Hebrew Reflections

12. See above, chapter 1 ; see also J. Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred, 1-16, 161-64; see also M. Douglas, "SelfEvidence." 13. See also C.

Geertz, ‫״‬Religion as a Cultural System."

1 4. A. K. Cohen, Deviance and Control Prentice-Hall, 1966), p. 32.

(Englewood,

N.J.:

15. Chapter 5, below. 16. See above, chapter 1, note 22. 17. The latter parts of Jeremiah, II Kings and II Chronicles all assume that the greater part of the Judean population remained in the land after 586 BCE. 18. Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, chapters 1 and 8. 19. See above, note 2. 20. Deut. 1:5, 4:8,44, 17:1 1 , 18,19, 29:20,28, 30:10, 31:9,11,12,21,26, 32:46.

27:3,8,27, 28:58,61 ,

21. II Kings 22:8,11 . 22.

above, note 2 .

23. See J. A. Sanders, 177-91 .

From

Sacred Story

24. See N. K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible — Introduction, 478ff., 95-108.

to Sacred

Text,

A Socio-Literary

25. See above notes 24, 23, 8, chapter 1, note 3.

Chapter Three The

1. I have drawn these contours in detail in my Commerce of Sacred. 2.

See also Acts 2:5-13.

3.

J. Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, chapter 2.

99

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture 4. John Chrysostom‫׳‬s "First" and ‫״‬Eighth Homily," ‫״‬Against the Jews" in Patrologia Graeca. 5. M. Margolioth, 1966), 1:176-82.

ed,

Sefer HaRazim (Jerusalem:

entitled Yediot,

6. See E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period, vol. 2 (New York: Pantheon-Bollingen, 1956), 174-200. See also M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978). 7. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 2, 174-79. 8. K. Preisendenz and A. Henricks, eds. Papyri Magicae Graecae, 2nd ed. (Stuttgard: 1 973-4), XII.795 ; see also XIV.784ff.; translation in M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, 1 02. 9. Papyri Magicae Graecae XII.335. translation in M. McBrearty, The Eighth Book of Moses, M.A. Thesis, Concordia University, 1986; subsequently translated in H. D. Betz, ed. The Greek Magical papyri in Translation, vol. I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986). 10. See A. F. Segal, ‫״‬Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism," in Temporini and Hasse, eds. Aufsteig und Niedergang der roemischen Welt (Berlin: deGruyter, 1977). 11 . Josephus, Wars VI, 18f; Antiquities XV,180f; see also Josephus, Wars IV, 532, and M. Middot. The architectural similarity of the Herodian temple and mausoleum at Hebron was shown by M. Avi-Yonah on the basis of archaeological finds cum available literary evidence; see M. Avi-Yonah, Sefer Yerushalayim, I (Jerusalem, 1956). See also S. Safrai and M. Stern, ‫״‬The Temple," Encyclopedia Judaica 15 (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971), 957ff. 12. See J. Braslavi, ‫״‬The Cave of Mahpela," Encyclopedia Judaica 11 :670ff.; 0. Avisar, ed. Sefer Hevron (Jerusalem, 1970); M. Hakohen, Me'arafc HaMahpela: BeMiqrah UbeMasoret (Jerusalem, 1965). 13. E. Bickerman, ‫״‬Les Maccabees de Malalas," in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II (Leiden: Brill,, 1980). 14. D. Zlotnick, ed., Maseket University Press, 1966), chapter 8.

Semahot

(New Haven : Yale

15. Semahot 12:13; Matt. 27:56ff; Mark 16:46; Luke 24:53f.; John 19:38f.; E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vols. 1,6,12,2:3-99; M. Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth (Rome : Pontifical Institute, 1971); B. Goldman, The Sacred Portal (Detroit: Wayne State, 1966). 16. See J. Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, 92-93.

100

Notes : Chapter Three 17. Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, 125-140. 18. Ibid.; see also A.T. Kraabel, "The Disappearance of God-fearers," Numen (1982).

the

19. Ibid. 20. Throughout the New Testament (e.g. the Gospels and Acts) and patristic literature, (e.g. John Chrysostom, ‫״‬First Homily, Against the Jews," Patrologia Graeca 48.846f. 21 . In inscriptions cited by V. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, vol 3 (Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1964); Philo, Legatio 1 32, and Contra Flaccum 48-53. 22. E.g. M. Megilah 3-4 and correlative Tos. Megilah. 23. Jews. "

In both the "First" and

‫״‬Eighth

Homily,

Against

the

24. The separation of the sexes, even if it could be established for the ancient synagogues, surely would not suffice in itself. 25. On the relationship between magic and prayer, see M. Smith, Jesus the Magj.c13nr 1 30-31 ; see also M. McBrearty, The Eighth Book of Moses. 26. A.T. Kraabel. ‫״‬The Diaspora Synagogue," in Temporini and Hasse, eds. Aufsteig und Niedergang der roemischen Welt, vol. 2/21, 502. 27. B. Goldman, The Sacred Portal. 28. Ibid, 70-99.

69-100; E. R.Goodenough,

Jewish

Symbols,

vol. 2,

29. Chrysostom, ‫״‬First Homily, Against the Jews," in Patrologia Graeca 48:847f. trans. in W. Meeks and R. Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978) 90-91. 30. Chrysostom, ‫״‬Eighth Homily, Against the Patrologia Graeca 48.935ff.; Meeks and Wilken, Christians, 94-95.

Jews," in Jews and

31 . Chrysostom, ‫״‬First Homily," 48.850, in Meeks and Wilken, Jews and Christians, 94-95. 32. What follows summarizes my chapter 4; see also Ibid., 134.

Commerce

of

the

Sacred,

33. See J. Lightstone, ‫״‬The Formation of the Biblical Canon in Late Antique Judaism," Studies in Religion 8 (1979), 135-42. 101

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

,, 34. See J.J. Collins, Testaments," and M.E. Stone, ‫״‬Apocalyptic Literature," in M.E. Stone, eds. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section Two (Philadelphia: Fortress; Assen : Van Gorcum, 1984); see also J.J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: 1983).

35. See above note 34. 36. M.E. Stone, Scriptures, Sects and Visions (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). 37. M. Hadas, Columbia, 1981 ).

ed.

Aristeas

to

Philocrates

(New

York :

Chapter Four 1 . See J.Z. Lauterbach, "Midrash and Mishnah," Jewish Quarterly Review (1915), reprinted in J.Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1951); H. Albeck, Mavo LeMishnah (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1959), 41 ff. 2. See J.Z. Lauterbach, "Sanhédrin," Jewish Enclyclopedia, vol. 11 (New York: Ktav, 1901 ), 41-44; J. Klausner, Hi s toriah shel Bayit Sheni, 5 vols. (Jerusalem: Ahiasat Press, 1951), see especially vol. 2 :35-40 ; G. Allon, Mehqarim BeToldot Yisrael, vol. 2 (Tel Aviv: Haqibuz Hameuhad, 1958), 155-56; S . Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judean State, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Philadelphia: JPS, 1968), 24-25; M. Stern, ‫״‬Yemai HaBayit HaSheni," in H.H. Ben Sasson, ed., Toi dot Am Yisrael Bimei Qedem (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969), 184; G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1 (New York: Schocken, 1971, reprint of the 1930 edition); M. Stern, ‫״‬The Period of the Second Temple," in H.H. Ben Sasson, ed., A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge: Harvard, 1976), 235f., 282f.; E. Schuerer, The History of the Jewish people in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1979), 184-487; S. Safrai and M. Stern, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Assen, 1974-76); I. Gafni, ‫״‬The Historical Background," in M. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings in the Second Temple Peri od (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 17-32. 3. See note 1. 4. See J. Lightstone, ‫״‬Form Midrash," Semeia 27 (1983), 23ff. 5. See G. Brill, 1961 ).

Vermes,

as Meaning in

Scripture and Tradition

102

the

Halakic

(Leiden: E.J.

Notes : Chapter Three

6. John Chrysostom, ‫״‬First Homily, Against the Jews," in W. Meeks and R. Wilken, trans. and eds., Jews and Christians in Antioch. 7. J. Lightstone, ‫״‬Torah is nomos -- except when it is not : Prolegomena to the study of the Law in late Antique Judaism," Studies in Religion 13 (1984), 29. 8. M. Douglas, ‫״‬In the Nature of Things" and "SelfEvidence," in M. Douglas, Implicit Meanings; C. Ctô€51Tt Z m "Religion as a Cultural System," in M. Banton, Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion. 9. For an account and critique of scholarship on the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures, see J. Lightstone, ‫״‬The Formation of the Biblical Canon in Late Antique Judaism: Prolegomena to a General Reassessment," Studies in Religion 8 (1979), 135-42. 1 0 . 1QS5 : 7-1 0, J. Licht, ed., Meg Hat Mosad Bialik, 1965), 131 . 11.

See

12. M. 1973).

J.

Neusner,

Midrash

in

HaSerahim

(Jerusalem:

Context, 6.

Hadas, ed., Aristeas to Philocrates

(New York: Ktav,

13. With respect to the substance and literary traits of Mishnah, as well as Mishnah‫ ׳‬s substantive dependence upon scripture, see J. Neusner, Judaism: the Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981); J. Neusner, Midrash in Context, 12-28 ; J. Neusner, ‫״‬Religion and Society : the Case of Ancient Judaism," in J. Neusner, ed., Take Judaism, for Example (Chicago: Univsersity of Chicago Press, 1983), 7-28; see also W. S. Green, ‫״‬What's in a Name? -- the Problem of Rabbinic Biography, " in W. S. Green, ed., Approaches to the Study of Ancient Judaism, vol. 1 (Missoula, Montana : Scholars Press, 1978), 77-96. 14. The analysis of the next several paragraphs closely follows my Yose the Galilean (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), 82f. ; the reader is referred to those pages for a complete literary and form analysis of the pericope. 15. See J. Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, chapters 7 — 8. See also J. Neusner, Midrash in Context, 120; Neusner, however, does not note or consider the significance of the structural homology obtaining between scriptural canon and Mishnah. He is forced, therefore, to account for the relationship between the documents solely in theological terms, rather than in social anthropological terms as well. 16. See J. Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, chapters 7-8.

103

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture 17. J. Lightstone, "Torah is nomos", J. Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred. 18. See J. Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, chapters 7-8. 19. J. Neusner, Midrash in Context.

Chapter Five 1. See E. Kutcher, "Aramaic," and ‫״‬Hebrew Language, Mishnaic," Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971), 3:27074 and 16:1590-1607. 2. S. Lieberman, Talmuda shel Kesarin, suppl. to Tarbiz II (Jerusalem, 1931) and %Al HaYerushalmi (Jerusalem, 1929); J. Neusner, Judaism and Society: the Evidence of the Yerushalmi (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1983); J. Neusner, Midrash in Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); J. Neusner, Torah: From Scroll to Symbol in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); see B.M. Bokser, "An Annotated Guide to the Study of the Palestinian Talmud," D. Goodblatt, ‫״‬The Babylonian Talmud," and L. Haas, ‫״‬Bibliography on Midrash,11 all in J. Neusner, ed., The Study of Ancient Judaism, 2 vols. (New York: Ktav, 1981). 3. On Babylonian rabbinism in Late Antiquity, Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, 5 vols. E.J. Brill, 1966-70) .

see J. (Leiden:

4. As is evident from what scholars have culled from the documents by way of (sometimes only allegedly accurate) data concerning the history, theology, sociology, medical practices, theurgic practices, politics, and the like of Babylonian Jewry and, to a lesser extent of post-mishnaic Palestinian Jewry; see note 3 above; see, e.g., S. Safrai, ‫״‬The Era of the Mishnah and Talmud (70-640)," in H.H. Ben-Sasson, ed., A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge: Harvard, 1976) . 5. As we shall show below, in the remainder of this chapter. 6. See, e.g., M. D. Herr, ‫״‬Midrashei Halakhah," Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971), 11:1521-23. 7. See J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, VII, Sifra Nega,im (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975); J. Lightstone, Yose the Galilean : Traditions in Mishnah-Tosefta (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979) , 85-109, 1 26-30; see also E.Z. Melamed. Ha Yahas shebein Midrashei Halakah LaMishnah VelaTosefta (Jerusalem, 1967). 8. See, e.g., J. Lightstone, Yose the Galilean, 95-97. See D. Goodblatt ‫״‬The Babylonian Talmud," 148-51.

104

Notes : Chapter Three 9. The relationship of the Tosefta, i.e., the edited compilation, its individual pericopae and the beraitot of the Talmuds is a much debated issue. I am convinced, at the very least, the beraitot depend upon parallel texts in the Tosefta, whatever may be the date of Tosefta‫׳‬s compilation. See J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, XXI, The Redaction and Formulation of the Mishnah and Tosefta (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), 247-97; see D. Goodblatt, ‫״‬The Babylonian Talmud," 148-51 ; see J. Neusner, The Tosefta, Its Structure and Its Sources (Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1986). 10. The translation, my own, is based upon Codex Vatican Assemani 66 published in facsimile with an introduction by L. Finkelstein (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1956). I have noted significant variants in Codex Vatican 31, facsimile edition (Jerusalem: Makor, 1972) and in the printed edition by I.H. Weiss, ed.,(reprinted New York: Om Press, 1946) . Translations in this chapter of Mishnah and of the Babylonian Talmud, again my own, re based upon H. Albeck (ed.), Shi shah Sidrei Mishnah (Tel Aviv: Bialik and Dvir, 1952) and the standard Romm edition of the Talmud (Vilna, 1888). 11. For a more fully developed argument on this point, see J. Lightstone, ‫״‬Form as Meaning in the Halakic Midrash," Semeia 27 (1983), 23-35. 12. J. Lightstone, "Form as Meaning," 33-35; Neusner, Purities : Sifra Negayim, introduction. 1 3.

J.

Lightstone,

14. See J.

Neusner,

see also J.

‫״‬Form as Meaning," 31 , note 1 7. Midrash in Context, introduction.

15. Neusner categorizes passages by distinguishing their function with respect to the text "commented" upon — e.g., commentary, supplement, etc.; this functional taxonomy differs considerably from the analysis of formal-structural patterns and does not provide a basis for examining the implicit meanings encoded in the latter. 16. The significance of this fact is in no way diminished by standard theories which distinguish the constituent sources of the Babylonian Talmud by, among other criteria, reference to language; see D. Goodblatt, ‫״‬The Babylonian Talmud," 1 60-63. 17. To be sure, a detailed and differentiated account the Talmud‫ ׳‬s structured patterns awaits and will allow us differentiate in turn more nuanced meanings. 18.

See J.

Neusner,

Jews in Babylonia, vols. 4-5.

19.

See J.

Neusner,

Jews in Babylonia, vols. 4-5.

20. On demons as inhabiting ambiguous

ambiguous beings and hybrid space, see J. Z. Smith, 105

of to

monsters "Towards

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Interpreting Demonic Powers in Hellenistic and Roman Antiquity," Hass and Temporini, eds., Aufstieg und Niedergang der roemisehen Welt, II 16.1 (Berlin: deGruyter, 1978), 425-439. 21. G.G. Scholen, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and the Talmudic Tradition, 2nd ed. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965). 22. The translation, my own, is based upon the text in A.J. Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot I, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Ktav Wasepher, 1968), 67-69. I am well aware of the problems pertaining to the dating of the text and to the nature of the textual tradition of Hekalot Rabbati, as spelled out by P. Schaefer (see above chapter 1, note 34). That some Hekalot texts were extant from Talmudic times is certain, making, for our limited purposes, the most general ethos of the surviving texts instructive. 23. See J. Press, 1972).

Neusner, There We Sat Down

106

(New York: Abingdon

SELECTED A N D

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

ANRW — Aufstieg und Niedergang der roemischen Welt. BAR — Biblical Archaeological Review, EJ — Encyclopaedia Judaica. IEJ — Israel Exploration Journal. JAAR — Journal of the American Academy of Religion. JJS — Journal of Jewish Studies. JSJ — Journal for the Study of Judaism in Persian Hellenistic Times. LCL — Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press). SR — Studies in Religion.

and

Albeck, H. Mavo Le Mishnah (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1959). Albeck, 1952).

H.

Shi shah Sidrei Mishnah (Tel Aviv:

Bialik Dvir,

Alon, G. Jews and Judaism in the Classical World (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977). Alon, G. Mehqari m Haqibuz HaMeuhad, 1958). Aune,

D.E.

BeToldot

‫״‬Magic

in

Yisrael, vol. 2.

Early

Christianity,"

(Tel

Aviv :

ANRW

II

Avery-Peck, A.J. "Mishnah's System of Sanctification," in K.H. Richards, ed. Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 1-8. Avisar, 0. ed. Sefer Hevron (Jerusalem, 1970). Avi-Yonah, Bialik, 1970).

M.

Bimei

Romah U-Bizantiym (Jerusalem:

Avi-Yonah, M. Hellenism and Interrelationships from Alexander (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978). Avi-Yonah, Magnes, 1956.

M.

Sefer

the East: Contacts and to the Roman Conquest

Yerushalayim,

vol.

1

(Jerusalem:

Avi-Yonah, M. "The Temple," EJ 15 :959ff. (Jerusalem: 1972) . 107

Mosad

Keter,

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

Barrett, C.K. ‫״‬Jews and Judaizers in the Epistles o f Ignatius," in R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs, eds. Jews, Greeks, and Christians : Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1976). Bartlett, J.R. Jews in the Helenistic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

World,

Part

I

Basser, H.W. ‫״‬Rabbinic Attempts to Democratize Salvation and Revelation," SR 12 (1983), 32-43. Baumgarten, A.I. ‫״‬The Torah Judaism," SR 14 (1985), 17-24.

as

a

Public

Document

in

Bickerman, E. ‫״‬Les Maccabees de Malalas," Studies in Jewish and Christian History, II (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980). vols.

Bickerman, (Leiden:

E. Studies in Jewish and Christian E.J. Brill, 1980).

History.

2

Bloch, J. ‫״‬Outside Books," Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume (New York, 1953). Reprinted in S.D.Leiman, Canon and Massorah of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Ktav, 1974). Bokser, B.M. "An Annotated Guide to the Study Palestinian Talmud," in J. Neusner, ed., The Study of Judaism. 2 vols. (New York: Ktav, 1981). Bokser, B.M. ‫״‬The Century 3 (1983), 1-68.

Study

of the Ancient

of Judaism 70-200 C.E.,"

Second

Borgen, P. "The Early Church and the Hellenistic Synagogue : Christian Uses of Jewish Conversion Practices," Studia Theologica 37 (1983), 55-78. Braslavi, J. ‫״‬The (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972).

Cave

of

Mahpelah,"

EJ

Brooten, B.J. Women Leaders in Ancient Synagogues CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Brown, P. Cult Chicago Press, 1981).

of

the

Saints

(Chicago:

11 :670ff. (Chico,

University

of

Brown, P. Society and the Holy 1‫ מ‬La te An ti qui t y ( London : Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch, 1971). Chadwick, 1967).

H.

The

Early Church

(London:

Penguin-Pelican,

Childs, B.S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).

108

Bibliography

1 f "*<‫\״׳‬l‫״‬i jam§ Af & 1I\Tt Haïp 4 skt‫״‬t:»n/nP »^‫״‬X ‫׳י‬CSWUf "Pi1 w*l Kf.T * D1*a UUJlcll UtS VA a/1L CS ai/u UUh/LI^C/J/L 7\!™/™‫נוד‬ Hilly vJm /'‫*״‬/* i!‫י‬ iüÄM•r/‫״‬w‫״‬rlullL-luc Hall, 1966).

Cohen, S.J.D. "Conversion to Judaism in Perspective," Conservative Judaism 36 (1983), 31-45.

Historical

Cohen, S.J.D. ‫״‬Yavneh Revisited: Pharisees, Rabbis and the End of Jewish Sectarianism," in K.H. Richards, ed. Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 45-62. Collins, J.J. Between Athens and Jerusalemt Jewish Identity In The Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, 1983). Collins, J.J. ,‫׳‬Testaments," in Stone, M.E., ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Compendia Kerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Section Two (Philadelphia: Fortress; and Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984) Corrington, G.P. ‫״‬Power and the Man of Power in the Context of Hellenistic popular Belief," in K.H. Richards, ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), 257-62. Corrington, G.P. ,"Salvation, Celibacy, and Power : Divine Women in Late Antiquity," in K.H. Richards, ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1985 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 321-26. Crossan, J.D. The Dark Interval Cumont, F. Dover, 1956).

(Niles, 111.: Argus, 1975).

Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (New York:

Davies, W.D. Fortress, 1984).

Jewish

Davies, SPCK, 1955).

Paul and Rabbinic Judaism.

W.D.

and

Pauline

Studies

(Philadelphia:

2nd ed.

(London:

Davies, W.D. and L. Finkelstein, eds. The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. I, Introduction; the Persian Period (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984). Douglas, M. Society, 1978).

Cultural

Bias

(London:

Royal

Anthropological

Douglas, M. "The Effects of Modernization Change," Daedelus 101 (1982), 1-19. Douglas, Paul, 1975).

M. Implicit Meanings (London :

Douglas, M. Jenkins, 1973).

Religious

Routledge and Kegan

Natural Symbols. 2nd ed. (London:

109

on

Barrie and

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

Douglas, Paul, 1966).

M. Purity and Danger (London:

Dürkheim, E. Free Press, 1964).

Rules

Routledge and Kegan

of the Sociological Method (New

York:

Feldman, L.H. Josephus (New York: Garland, 1 986). Fennelly, J.M. "The Jerusalem Community and Kashrut Shatnes, 1 in K.H. Richards, ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1983 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 273-88. Finkelstein, L. Codex Vatican Assemani 66, Facsimile Edition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1956 ) . Frey, J.B. Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions (Rome : Pontifical Institute, 1936; repr. New York: Ktav, 1975). Gafni, I. ‫״‬The Historical Background," in M. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings In the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1984), 17-32. Geertz, C. "Religion As a Cultural System," in M. Banton, ed. Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion (London : Tavistock, 1966). Ginzberg, JTS, 1982).

L.

The Israelean Heritage of Judaism

(New York:

Ginzberg, L. "Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue towards the Apocalyptic-Eschatological Writings," JBL (1922). Reprinted in S.D. Leiman, ed., Canon and Massorah of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Ktav, 1974). Goldenberg, R. "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the time of Constantine the Great," ANRW II 19.1:414-47 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979 ) .

Goodblatt, D. ‫״‬The Babylonian Talmud," in J. Neusner, ed., The Study of Ancient Judaism. 2 vols. (New York: Ktav, 1981). Goodenough, E. R. University Press, 1935).

By

Light,

Light

( New

Haven :

Yale

Goodenough, E.R. Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman 13 vols. (New York: Pantheon-Bollingen, 1956-1968).

Period.

Goodenough, E.R. Religious Tradition and Myth (New Yale University Press, 1937).

Haven:

Gottwald, N. K. The Hebrew Bible -- a Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1985). 110

Bibliography

Gottwald, 1979).

N.

K.

The

Tribes of Yah weh (New York:

Green, H.A. The Economic and Social Origins of (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985).

Orbis,

Gnosticism

Green, H.A. ‫״‬Jewish Identification and Assimilation : Continuities and Discontinuities, " in K.H. Richards, ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1985 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). Green, W.S. ed. Law and Literature. Semeia 27 (1983). Green, W.S. ‫״‬Palestinian Holy Men," ANEW II 19.2:619-47. Green, W.S. ‫״‬Reading the Writing of Rabbinism: Toward an Interpretation of Rabbinic XjITÖLTSTTUITG ! " JAAR 5 1 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 1 9 1 - 0 6 . Green, W.S. ‫״‬Storytelling and Holy Man: The Case of Ancient Judaism," in J. Neusner, ed., Take Judaism, for Example (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983) 29-44. Green, W.S. ed. Studies in Judaism and Its Greco-Roman Context. Approches to Ancient Judaism. Vol. V (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). Green, W.S. ‫״‬What‫׳‬s In A Name? The Question of Rabbinic Biography, " in W.S. Green, ed., Approaches to the Study of Ancient Judaism. Vol. I (Missoula, Montana : Scholars Press, 1978). Gruenwald, I. E.J.Brill, 1978).

Apocalyptic

Gruenwald, I. E.J. Brill, 1980).

Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism

Gutmann, Press, 1981 ).

Joseph.

in Rabbinic Li terature (Leiden :

Ancient Synagogues (Chico,

CA:

(Leiden: Scholars

Gutmann, Joseph. The Dura Europos Synagogue: A ReEvaluation (Missoula, Montana: University of Montana, 1973). Gutmann, Joshua. HaSifrut HaYehudit-Helenistit. (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1963).

2

vols.

Haas, L. ‫״‬Bibliography in Context: Exegesis in Fortress Press, 1983). Also Ancient Judaism. 2 vols. (New

on Midrash," in J. Neusner, Midrash Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: in J, Neusner, ed., The Study of York: Ktav, 1981).

Hadas, M., ed. Aristeas University Press, 1981).

to Philocrates

111

(New York: Columbia

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Hadas, M. Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion York: Columbia University Press, 1959).

(New

HaKohen, Aviv, 1965).

(Tel

M.

Me 'arat

HaMahpelah BeMeqorot

U-Mesorot

Hanson, J.S. "Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Early Christianity, " ANRW II 23.2: 1395-1427. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980). Heinemann, 1980).

J.

Prayer

Hengel, M. Jews, Fortress Press, 1980).

in the Talmud (Berlin:

Greeks

and

Barbarians

de

Gruyter,

(Philadelphia:

Hengel, M. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 Hengel, (Philadelpia:

M. property and Riches Fortress Press, 1974).

in the

Early

Church

Herr, M.D. "Midrashei Halakah" EJ 11 (1971), 1521-23. Hoenig, S.B. ‫״‬The Ancient City-Square : The Forerunner of the Synagogue," ANRW II 19.1 : 448-76 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979). Janowitz, N. ‫״‬Translating Cult : The Letter of Aristeas and Hellenistic Judaism," in K.H. Richards, ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1983 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 347-57. Kee, H.C. Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven : Yale University Press, 1983). Klausner, J. Historiah Shel Bayit Sheni. 5 vols. (Jerusalem: Ahiaset Press, 1 951). Kloner, A. ‫״‬A Tomb of the Second Temple Period at Hill, Jerusalem," IEJ 30 (1980), 99-108.

French

Koester, H. "History, Culture and Religion of the Hellenistic Age," in J.L. White, ed., Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 986). Kraabel, A.T. ‫״‬The Diaspora Synagogue: Epigraphic Evidence," ANRW II 19.1: 477-510. Kraabel, (1982).

Archaeological and

A.T. ‫״‬The Disappearance of the God-Fearers," Numen

Kraabel, A.T. ‫״‬Jews in Imperial Rome: More Archaeological Evidence from an Oxford Collection," JJS 30 (1979), 41-58.

112

Bibliography Kraabel, A.T. "The Roman Diaspora; Assumptions," JJS 33 (1984), 445-64.

Six

Questionable

Kraabel, A.T. ‫״‬Traditional Christian Evidence for Diaspora Judaism: The Book of Acts, " in K. H. Richards, ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 644-51. Krause, 1977).

M., ed.

Gnosis and Gnosticism (Leiden: E.J. Brill,

Kutcher, E. ‫״‬Aramaic," EJ 3 (1971 ), 270-74. Kutcher, E. ‫״‬Hebrew

Language, Mishnaic," EJ 16 (1971) 1590-

1607. Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati :

Hebrew Union College, 1951).

Levi, Y. ,Olamot Nifgashim: HaYahadut Be,Olam HaYevani-Roma'i 1969). Levine, 1974). Licht, 1965).

L.

Mehaqarim *Al Ma ,amadah shel (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik,

Caesarea Under Roman Rule (Leiden:

J. ed., Megilat HaSerahim (Jerusalem:

Lieberman, S.

,

Al HaYerushalmi

E.J. Brill, Mosad Bialik,

(Jerusalem, 1929) .

Lieberman, S. "Some Aspects of Afterlife in Early Rabbinic Literature," H.A. Wolfson Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1965) . Lieberman, S. ‫״‬Talmuda Shel Kesarin," supplement to Tarbiz. II (Jerusalem, 1931). Lietzmann, H. The Era of the Church Fathers: A History of The Early Church. Vol. 5 (London: Lutterworth, 1951) . Lightstone, J. Commerce of The Sacred: Mediation of Divine Among Jews in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora (Chico, Scholars Press, 1984).

the CA :

Lightstone, J. "The Dead in Late Antique Judaism," in R. Lemieux and R. Richard, eds., Survivre...La religion et la mort (Montreal: Bellarmin, 1984), 51-58. Lightstone, J. ‫״‬Form as Meaning Semeia 27 (1983), 23-36.

in the Halakic

Midrash,"

Lightstone, J. ‫״‬The Formation of the Biblical Canon in in Late Antique Judaism," SR 8 (1979), 1 35-42.

113

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Lightstone, J. "Scripture Judaism," SR 15 (1986), 317-26.

and

Mishnah in Early

Rabbinic

Lightstone, J. ‫״‬Talmudic Rabbinism, Midrash and the Fragmentation of Scripture," in K.H. Richards, ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 614-30. Lightstone, J. "Torah is Nomos—Except When it Is Not: Prolegomena to the Study of the Law in Late Antique Judaism," SR 13 (1984), 29-37. Lightstone, J. ‫״‬When Speech is No Speech: The Problem of Early Rabbinic Rhetoric as Discourse," Semeia 34 (1985), 53-58. Mack, B. "Under the Shadow of Moses: Authorship and Authority in Hellenistic Judaism," in K.H. Richards, ed. Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 299-18. Malina, B.J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981) . Malina, B.J. "The Social World Implied in the Letters of the Christian Bishop-Martyr (Named Ignatius of Antioch)," in P.J. Achtemeier, ed. Society of Biblical Literature 1978 Seminar Papers. Vol. II (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978), 71 119. Margolioth, M. ed. Sefer HaRazim (Jerusalem: McBrearty, M. The Eighth Book Concordia University, Montreal, 1986).

of

Moses

McCready, W.O. "A Second Torah at Qumran?"

Yediot, 1966). (M.A.

Thesis,

SR 14 (1985), 5-

16. McEvenue, S. E. The Narrative Style of the Priestly (Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1971).

Writer

McEvenue, S. E. "The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to Nehemiah," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981 ), 353-64. Meeks, W.A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven : Yale Univeraoty Press, 1983). M66ks! W.A. and R.L. Wilken. Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978). Melamed, E.Z. HaYahas Shebein Midrashei Halakah VelaTosefta (Jerusalem, 1967).

114

LaMishnah

Bibliography Meyers, C.L. The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult (Missoula, Monatana: Scholars Press, 1976). Meyers, E.M., A.T. Kraabel, and J . F . Strange, Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shema (Durham: Duke University, 1976). Meyers, E.M. and J.F. Strange. Archaeology, the Rabbi s and Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981). Meyers, E.M. "The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism," ANRW II 19.1 686-702. Meyers, E.M. Jewish Ossuaries : Pontifical Institute, 1971).

Reburial and Rebirth (Rome :

Moore, G.F. "The Definition of the Jewish Canon and the Repudiation of Christian Scriptures," C.A. Briggs Testimonial : Essays in Modern Theology (New York, 1911); reprinted in S.D. Leiman, ed. Canon and Massorah of the Hebrew Bible (New York : Ktav, 1974). Moore, G.F. Judaism in the First Centuries of The Christian Era (New York: Schocken, 1971 ; reprint of 1930 edition). Mor, M. Bibliography of Works on Jewish History in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, 1976-1980 (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Centre and the Historical Society of Israel, 1982). Neusner, J., ed., Christianity, Judaism and other Roman Cults. 4 vols. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975).

Graeco-

Neusner, J. Continuity and Change : Judaism in Contention with Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). Neusner, J. Formative Judaism : Religious, Historical, and Literary Studies {Oh xcof CA: Scholars Press, 1982 ) . Neusner, J. A History of the Jews (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966-1970).

in Babylonia.

5 vols.

Neusner, J. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities: Part VII, Sifra Nega'im (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975). Neusner, J. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities: Part XXI, Redaction and Formulation of Mishnah and Tosefta (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977) . Neusner, J. The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism E.J. Brill, 1973) . Neusner, J. Judaism in the Beginning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).

115

of

(Leiden:

Christianity

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Neusner, J. Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah University of Chicago Press, 1983).

(Chicago:

Neusner, J. Judaism in Society: The Evidence of Yerushalmi (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983).

the

Neusner, J. Major Trends in Formative Judaism: Society and Symbol in Political Crisis (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984). Neusner, J. Major Trends in Formative Judaism: Second Series : Texts, Contents and Contexts (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984). Neusner, J, Major Trends in Formative Judaism: Third Series : The Three Stages in the Formation of Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). Neusner, J. Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Judaism (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1 983). Neusner, J . The Oral Torah: The Sacred Books of (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986).

Formative Judaism

Neusner, J . ‫״‬Religion and Society : The Case of Ancient Judaism," in J . Neusner, ed., Take Judaism, for Example (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 7-28. Neusner, J. ‫״‬The Symbolism of the Ancient Synagogue : Interpreting the Evidence of the Synagogue," in J. Neusner, Method and Meaning in Ancient Judaism. Third Series (Chico, CA : Scholars Press, 1981). Neusner, 1972).

J. There We Sat Down (Philadelphia: Abingdon Press,

Neusner, J. Torah: From Scroll to Symbol Judaism (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1985 ).

in

Formative

Neusner, J. The Tosefta : Its Sources and Structure (Atlanta : Scholars Press, 1986). Nickelsburg, G.W.E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Nickelsburg, G.W.E. and R.A. Kraft, eds., Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Nickelsburg, G.W.E. and M.E. Stone. Faith and Piety in Early Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Nock, A.D. Conversion (Oxford:

Clarendon, 1933).

Nock, A.D. "Paul and the Magus, " in Z. Stewart, ed., A.D. Nock : Essays on Religion in the Ancient World. 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard, 1972).

116

Bibliography

Brill

Oppenheimer, 1979) .

Pagels, 1982).

A,

The

Galilean Am

Ha'Aretz

E. The Gnostic Gospels (New York:

(Leiden:

E.J.

Penguin-Pelican,

Pagels, E. The Gnostic Jesus and Early Christian Politics (Tempe : Arizona State University Press, 1981). Pitigliani, L. ‫״‬A Rare Rome," BAR 6 (1980), 32-43.

Look at the Jewish

Preisendanz, K. and A. Henricks, Magicae. 2nd ed. (Stuttgard, 1973-1974).

eds.,

Rajak, T. Josephus, the Historian (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1984).

Catacombs Papyri

and

of

Graecae

his

Society

Remus, H. "Magic or Miracle? Some Second Century Instances," Second Century 2 (1982), 127-56. Remus, H. Second Century 1983).

Pagan-Christian Conflict over Miracle in the (Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation,

Richardson, Macmillan, 1970).

C.C.

Early

Christian

Fathers

Rivkin, E. A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisees' the Kingdom Wi thin (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978). Robinson, J,, E.J. Brill, 1977).

ed.

The

Nag

Hammadi

(New

York:

Search

Library

for

(Leiden :

Rothkrug, L. ‫״‬The Odour of Sanctity, and the Hebrew Origins of Christian Relic Veneration," Hi s tori cal Reflections 8 (1981), 95-142. Rowley, H.H. The Growth of the Old Testament Harper Torchbooks, 1963).

(New

York:

Safrai, S. ‫״‬The Era of the Mishnah and Talmud 70-640 C.E.," in H.H. Ben Sasson, ed., A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976). Safrai, S. and M. Stern, eds. A History of the Jewish People in the First Century. Compendium Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testarnenturn. 2 vols. (Philadelphia : Fortress Press ; and Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974-1980). Safrai, S. and M. Stern. "The Temple," EJ 15:957ff.

117

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Saldarini, A.J. ‫״‬Varieties of Rabbinic Response to the Destruction of the Temple," in K.H. Richards, ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Sanders, E.P. Paul, the Law, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978). Sanders, 1977).

E.P.

Paul

the

Jewish

People

and Palestinian Judaism (London :

Sanders, J. A. From Sacred (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). Sanders, J.A. Press, 1972) .

and

Torah

and

Story

Canon

Schaefer, P. Hekalot Rabbati: Text (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982).

to

Sacred

SCM, Text

(Philadelphia:

Fortress

Introduction and

Synoptic

Scholem, G.G. Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and the Talmudic Tradition (New York: JTS, 1965). Scholem, G.G. Schocken, 1941).

Major

Trends in Jewish Mysticism

(New York:

Schuerer, E. Revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1975-1986). Segal,

A.F.

‫״‬Covenant in Rabbinic Writings," SR 14 (1985),

Segal, A.F. ‫״‬Heavenly Assent in Hellenistic Judaism," ANRW 23 : 2 (Berlin : de Gruyter, 1981). Segal, A.F. ‫״‬Hellenistic Magic : Some Questions of Definition," in R. Van Den Broek and J. Vermaseren, Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religion (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981). Segal, A.F. Rebecca's Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986). Segal, A.F. ‫״‬Torah and Discussion," SR 13 {1 984), 19-27.

Nomos

in

Recent

Scholarly

Segal, P. The Foundations of Judaism from Biblical Origins to the 6th Century A.D. (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980). Smallwood, E.M. E.J. Brill, 1 981 ) . Smith, 80 (1967).

M.

The

Jews

under

Roman

Rule

(Leiden:

"Goodenough‫׳‬s Jewish Symbols in Retrospect," JBL

118

Bibliography Smith, Row, 1978).

M.

Jesus

the Magician {San Francisco:

Harper and

Smith, M. ‫״‬The Jewish Elements in the Greek Magical Papyri," in K. H. Richards, ed., The Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 455-62. Smith, M. ‫״‬Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period," in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, eds., Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. I. Introduction: the Persian Period (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1984). Smith, M. Palestiniian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971) . Smith, M. ‫״‬Terminological Boobytraps and Real Problems in Second Temple Judeo-Christian Studies, " in P. Slater and D. Wiebe, eds., Traditions in Contact and Change. Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions. Editions SR/3 (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1983) 295-306. Smith, J . Z. Imagining Chicago Press, 1982).

Religion

(Chicago : University

Smith, J.Z. ‫״‬Map Is Not Territory," in J.Z. Not Terri tory (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978) .

of

Smith, Map Is

Smith, J.Z. ‫״‬The Temple and the Magician," in J. 2. Smith, Map Is Not Terri tory (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978). H6X Xcn istic and Ro ma n An t, xcrui t y § de Gruyter, 1978).

AWRfV X X 1 6 « 1 • 425 — 39

Stambaugh, J.E. ‫״‬The Functions of Roman Temples," ANRW 16.1: 610-54 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978).

( Beirl in « II

Stern, M. Greek and La tin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1978). Stern, M., ed. HaYehudim VeYahadut HaHelenisti (Jerusalem: Hammad, 1964).

Be'Einei

Ha,Olam

Stern, M. ‫״‬Yemai HaBayit HaSheni," in H.H. Ben Sasson, ed., Toi dot Am Yisreal Bimei Qedem (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969). Stevenson, SPCK, 1973).

J.

Creeds,

Councils and Con troversi es (London :

Stone, M.E. ‫״‬Apocalyptic Literature" in M.E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Section Two (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; and Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984). 119

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture

Stone, M.E. Scripture, Fortress Press, 1980).

Sects

and Visions

(Philadelphia:

Strange, J.F. ‫״‬Archaeology and Religion of Judaism Palestine," ANRW II 19.1 :646-85 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1 979).

in

Tcherikover, v . and A. Fuks. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957-1964). Tcherikover, V. HaYehudim BeMisrayim BeTequfah HeHelenistitRomit Le'Or HaPapyrologiyah (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1945). Tcherikover, Neuman, 1964). York:

V.

HaYehudim Be,Olam

HaYevani-Romi

(Tel Aviv:

Tcherikover, v . Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New Atheneum, 1970).

Toynbee, J.M.C. Death and Burial in the Roman World (Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1971). Urbach, E.R. The Sages : (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1976). Vermes, 1961).

G.

Scripture

and

Their

Tradition

Beliefs

and

(Leiden:

Concepts

E.J.

Brill,

Vermes, G. and J. Neusner, eds. Essays in Honour of Yigal Yadin (Oxford : Oxford Centre for Post-Graduate Hebrew Studies, 1983). Also appeared as JJS 33 (1982). Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).

and

the

Deuteronomic

School

Weiss, I.H., ed. Sifra. Codex Vatican 31. Facsimile Edition (New York: Om Press, 1946). repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972. Wertheimer, A.J. Batei Midrashot. (Jerusalem: Ktav Wasepher, 1968). Wilken, R • L. John Chrysostom and University of California Press, 1983).

2nd the

ed. Jews

2

vols.

( Berkeley :

Wolfson, H.A. Philo. 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947). Zeitlin, S. The Rise and Fall of the Judean State. 2nd ed. 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968) . Zeitline, I . M . Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Polity Press, 1984). Zlotnick, D., ed. The Tractate University Press, 1966).

120

Mourning

(New Haven:

Yale

GENERAL

SUBJECT

Abominations, 23, 26, 27 Academy, 19, 88, 93 Acts, 23, 47, 48, 52 Aggadah, 71 Agrarian, 39 Albeck, H., 67 Alexander, 11, 42 Alexandria, 52, 57, 58 Alliance-makers, 27, 39, 42 Altar, 22, 23, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43, 49, 68,

80,

INDEX

Beliefs, 6, 7, 21, 22, 23 Benjamin, 24, 32 B6rs11t«ot> f 3 87 , 86 Bertinoro, 67 Beth-shan, 31 Bethel, 25, 26 Bias, cultural, 2, 7, 8, 9 Bible, 1, 2, 9, 10, 16, 18 23, 33, 49, 57, 59, 60, 61 62, 63, 65, 68, 71, 72, 77 78, 81, 87, 88, 89 Bishops, 22, 51 Blood, 37, 39, 49, 82 Blood-guilt, 32 Bloodlines, 25, 43 Blurring boundaries, 30, 38 53 Bones, 3, 31, 32, 33, 34, 47 54 Boundaries, 11, 12, 1 3, 15 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45 46, 48, 52, 53, 68, 69, 73 89, 90 Burial, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 35, 51, 55

86

Ambiguous, 28, 69, 89, 90 Amulets, 55, 90 Ancestors, 14, 32, 33, 34, 38 Androgyny, 84, 85 Angels, 47, 48, 75, 92 Anointed, 23 Anomalous, 24, 40, 69 Anti-Judaism, 60 Antioch, 47, 50, 54 Apikorsim, 69 Apocalyptic, 16, 57, 58, 63 Apologetics, 21, 45, 52, 58, 60, 69 Aqiva, 65, 67, 74 Arakin, 83, 84, 86, 89 Aramaic, 17, 58, 62, 71, 72, 73, 85, 88, 89 Architectonic order, 36 Architecture, 10, 49, 54 of, 58, 62 34 Art, 51, 54 Artifacts, 14, 41, 50, 51 Ascent to heaven, 51, 91, 92 Assyria, 24, 25 Atonement, 32, 36 Authority, 6, 10, 23, 28, 29 35, 41 , 62, 68, 92 Avodah Zarah, 62 Avot, 64

Camp, Israelite, 36, 47 Canaan, 33 Canaanite, 31 Candelabra, 54 1 , 3, 16, 17, 41, Canon, 54, 57, 58, 59, 61 , 62, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 77, 89 Castes, 39, 42 Categorization, 1 2, 84 Chaos, overcoming of, 17, 69, 90 Chariot, vision of the, 91 Charismatic authority, 23, 29‫ ן‬33/ 39 Charms, 47, 48, 56 Cherubim, 48, 73, 74

Baal, 40 Babylon, 25 Babylonia, 1, 17, 34, 70, 89

121

45 63 88

68 27

‫ן‬

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Christians, 2, 14, 15, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63 Chronicler, 21, 26, 42 Chrysostom, John, 47, 53, 55,

Deuteronomic-Priestly party, 10, 11, 13, 16, 23, 27, 29, 30, 35, 38, 42, 45, 46, 57, 58 Deuteronomy, 11, 12, 13, 24, 27, 28, 29, 32, 41, 42, 75, 80 Deviance, 2, 38 Diaspora, 1, 10, 14, 16, 17, 30, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 69, 70, 71, 89, 90, 93, 94 Doctirxn^ f 21 f 22 f 23 Dosah ben Harkinas, 74 Douglas, M,, 2, 7, 8 Dürkheim, E,, 4, 7, 8

60 Circumcision, 56 Clans, Israelite, 22, 23, 24, 31 , 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40 Classes, 53 Classification, 7, 37, 38, 40 Clean, 13, 29, 30, 36, 38 Cohen, A.K., 37 Colonists, Jerusalem, 11, 13, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 39, 41 , 42, 43, 46, 51 , c ‫׳‬T CO 0 1, by Commonwealth, Second, 10, 35, 37, 59 Confederacy, Israelite, 22, 33, 38 Configuration, social, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 36, 37, 38, 39, 45, 52, 89 Converts, 15, 51 Corpse-uncleanness, 30, 32, 49 Cosmology, 7, 13, 36, 46, 61 Council of Jamnia, 61 Courts, 15, 52, 53 Covenant, 3, 24, 50, 60 Cult, Temple, 10, 12, 13, 14, 21 , 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31 , 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 60, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69 Cutheans, 25 Cyrus, 21, 24, 25 Dan, 26 Danby, H., 66 Darius, 25 David, 29, 31, 50 Dead, 15, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 57, 69, 74, 75 Deconstructing, 77 Demons, 24, 55, 90 Deuteronomic party, 1, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 27, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 62

Ecstasy, 29 Eleazar ben Azariah, 75 Elijah, 40 Elitist, 18, 31, 32, 49, 93 Endogamy, 11, 27, 29, 42 Enoch, 58 Epicureans, 69 Eschatology, 58 Esoteric, 90 Ethnicity, 14, 46, 53, 56, 89, 90 Evans-Pritchard, E.E,, 7 Exegesis, 2, 3, 59, 60, 79, 82, 83, 88 Exile, 11, 21, 24, 27, 34, 40, 63 Exorcism, 24, 47, 55 Expiation, 24 Ezra, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 24, 25, 26, 27, 41, 42, 62, 63, 65 Family, 23, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 51, 81, 92 Fasting, 56 Festivals, 52, 56, 57, 62, 82 Formalization, 4, 5, 10, 16, 17, 27, 33, 34, 35, 59, 61, 62, 64, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 80, 88 Frescoes# 54 Funerary, 51, 54

32, 41, 55,

11, 35,

Gabriel, 48 Gaius, 45 122

50,

57, 67, 35,

21, 58, 34, 65, 13, 55, 76,

Index Galilee, 17, 88 Geertz, C., 6, 7, 8 Genealogies, 11, 25, 26, 36 Gentile-Christians, 51 , 53, 55 Gentiles, 15, 36, 39, 46, 47, 51 , 52, 53, 56, 58, 69, 90 Gibeonites, 31 Gideon, 40 Goldman, B., 54 Graeco-Roman, 1, 10, 14, 15, 16, 30, 46, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 69, 89, 90, 91, 92 Graves, 34, 35 Greek, 47, 48, 56, 57, 58, 62, 69

Intermarriage, 22, 37 Intermediaries, 15, 23, 27, 52 Intertribal relations, 23 Itinerant Holy Men, 15, 40, 47, 69

Hagiographa, 57, 61 , 73 Halakah, 3, 59, 78, 79, 81, 88 Hasmoneans, 45, 62 Healers, 22, 47, 91 Hebron, 49 Hekalot literature, 18, 48, 91 Helios, 48 Hellenistic, 14, 15, 1 6, 45, 49, 69 Heretics, 21, 22, 24, 28, 37, 38, 39, 40 Hermes, 47 Herod, 49, 56 Heterogeneity, ethnic, 17, 35, 70, 90 Hillel, 59 Homer, 62 Homogeneity, ethnic, 35, 36, 57, 89, 90 Homologies, structural 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 22, 29, 37, 41 , 42, 43, 52, 57, 61, 63, 65, 69, 71, 83 Idealized Temple-state, 16, 36, 38, 40, 58, 62, 63, 68, 71 Implicit meaning, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 37, 57, 61, 68, 83, 87, 88, 89, 93 Incantations, 16, 53, 55, 90 Incense, 54 Incest, 12 Indigenous Israelites, 11, 22, 26, 27, 38, 39 Inheritance, 33, 57, 58, 91 , 92

Ja‫׳‬besh-gi1‫׳‬ead, 31, 32 Jacob, 32, 33 Jamnia, Council of, 61 Jehoahaz, 26 Jerusalem, 10, 11 , 1 3, 1 4, 1 5 , 16, 17, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 63, 69 Jeshua, 24 Jesus, 47, 55, 60 Jewish-Christianity, 51 Jonathan, 31, 32, 82 Joseph, 33, 34 Josephus, 12, 49 Josiah, 26, 42 Judah, 1, 24, 25, 34, 38, 63, 86 Judaizing, 51, 55, 60 King, 11 , 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 66 Kish, 32 Kraabel, A.T., 53 Kriphoros (Hermes), 47

29,

Land, People of the, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 49, 50, 57 Law, 3, 10, 11, 12, 16, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 41, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 60, 65, 67, 72, 90 Laws, 3, 10, 12, 16, 28, 41 , 57 Legitimation, 35, 38, 62 Levant, 14 Levites, 26, 29, 36, 56, 84 Liturgy, 15, 52, 53, 55, 56 Loci of sacred power, 14, 15, 16, 18, 30, 31, 45, 46, 52, 54, 56, 79, 90 Maccabees, 50, 54, 62 Magicians, 22, 40, 46, 47, 48 Mahpela, Cave of, 33, 49 Maimonides, 50, 67 Martyrologies, 50

123

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Non-rabbinic 61, 62, 89

Martyrs, 15, 50, 54, 57, 69 Masters, rabbinic, 17, 68, 69, 78, 82, 89, 90 Mausoleum, 49 Mauss, M., 7 Meaning, 3, 4, 5, 10, 18, 26, 54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 70, 72, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 83, 88, 93 Mediation, 14, 15, 23, 27, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 49, 52, 53, 56, 57, 90 Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael, 80, 81, 82, 83 Merkabah mysticism, 91 Messiah, 60, 63, 68 Midrash, 3, 10, 16, 18, 59, 60, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93 Miracle, 7 Miracle, 7, 35, 40, 58 Mishnah, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 52, , 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93 Monarchy, 29, 38 Monotheism, 27, 29 Moriah, 35 Mosaics, 54 Moses, 9, 10, 11, 13, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 41 , 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 56, 59, 62, 63, 75, 76 Mourning, 30 Mystic, 22

Jews, 1, 9,

47

Oaths, 55, 65 Offering, 47, 65, 66, 67, 80 Officiants, sacrificial, 53 Oracles, 34, 41, 79, 83 Orthodoxy, 21, 51 Osiris, 54 Palestine, 3, 50, 62, 63, 70 71, 88, 89 Pan-tribal links, 23, 35, 40 Passover, 27, 81, 82 Passover-offering, 27 Paul, 47, 52 Pedigree, 40, 47 Pentateuch, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35 36, 38, 41, 42, 45, 55, 57 58, 59, 62, 65, 67, 71, 72 76 Perception, 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21 , 30 32, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43 46, 55, 57, 61, 68, 69, 71 76, 81, 83, 88, 89, 93 Persia, 13, 21, 24, 25, 89 Pharisaic-rabbinic, 59 Philip, 47 Philistines, 31, 32 Philo, 12, 14, 45, 46, 52 Pilgrimage, 49, 50 Plausibility, 5, 8, 11 , 12 18, 37, 40, 61, 83, 93 Polemics, 21, 27, 52, 60 Pollution, 11, 12, 26, 27, 32 36 Poor, 66 Pork, 56 Portal, 51, 54 Portions, inherited, 13, 25 33, 35, 47, 52, 58, 59, 60 62, 72 Post-Mishnaic Rabbinism, 10 71, 72, 81, 93 Potions, 90 Prayer, 16, 49, 51, 52, 53, 8 Priests, 25, 26, 29, 30, 34 35, 36, 37, 39, 47, 52, 53 56, 62, 66, 65, 67, 84 Proof-texts, 88 Prophets, 22, 28, 29, 34, 35 40, 52, 53, 55, 60 Propitiation, 32, 56

Narrative, 5, 21, 23, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 42, 47, 72 Necromancy, 22, 30 Nehemiah, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 21 , 24, 26, 27, 41, 42, 58, 62, 63, 65 Neo-Deuteronomic parties, 21 Neusner, J., 63, 64, 83 Niches, Torah, 53, 54 Nomadic, 39 Nomos, 16, 46, 55, 57 Non-Deuteronomic parties, 23, 24 Non-Israelites, 25, 26, 27, 36 Non-Jews, 14, 15, 46, 47, 51, 52, 62, 89

124

Proselytes, 92 Proseuche, 52 Prostitutes, 80 Psalms, 30 Purity, 10, 12, 24, 56, 65, 68

39,

Scripture, 1, 2, 3, 5 , 9, 13, 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 41, 54, 57, 58 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93 Scrolls, Torah, 15, 16, 54, 55, 60, 69 Sectarians, 69 Septuagint, 58, 62 Shaman, 15, 53, 92, 93 Shechem, 26, 33, 34, 35 Sheol, 30, 49 Shofar, 54 Shovels, 54 Shrine, 62 Shrines, 25, 62 Sin-offering, 66, 67 Sinners, 22, 13, 24, 27, 66 Slaves, 84, 92 Soothsayers, 28 Sorcery, 40, 91 Soul, 28, 30 Spain, 14 Cnal I C apexx, ‫כ‬ Spirits, 35, 47, 48 Synagogue, 15, 47, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 65 Syncretism, 24 Synoptic Gospels, 64 Syrian, 50, 54

43,

Qumran, 45, 62 Rabbinism, 1, 9, 16, 17, 58, 61, 63, 68, 71, 81 Rabbinization, 50 Rabbis, 1, 10, 16, 17, 18, 50, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71, 78, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 Rachel, 50 Rav, 72 Reformation, Deuteronomic, 27, 39, 42 Relics, 16, 45, 46, 50, 54, 55, 57 69 Restoration, 1, 17, 21, 37, 41, 59, 63 Revelation, 17, 27, 28, c Q c70‫׳ף‬ QQ 5a, Di, /y, od Rhetorical patterns, 4, 5, ‫ »•׳‬q aq I y , OO Rites, 30, 51, 53, 54, 56 Ritual, 7, 15, 16, 30, 33, 53, 54, 56, 68 Roman, 45, 47, 54, 85, 89 Rothkrug, L,, 31 Sabbath, 51, 52, 56 Sacred, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 29, 35, 36, 42, 46, 48, 53, 54, 56, 57, 68, 71, 88, 90, 93 Sacrifice, 11, 23, 24, 33, 66, 82, 86 Sadoq, 36 Saints, 15, 50, 55, 57, 69 Samaria, 25, 26, 27, 47 Samaritan, 42, 45 Samson, 40 Samuel, 29, 31, 40 Sanctuary, Temple, 12, 23, 35, 36, 49, 53, 74 Saul, 29, 31, 32, 34 Sceva, 47 Scribes, 29, 59, 92

51, 38, 68, 89,

24, 52, 32, 41, 16,

51,

10 27 61 69 76 83 53

49

53

Tabernacle, 23, 30, 36, 40 Table, 84 Tablets, 50 Taboos, 7, 12, 16, 23, 29, 54 57 Talmud, 3, 9, 10, 16, 18, 58 64, 70, 71, 72, 83, 84, 85 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93 Tannaitic, 73, 78, 79, 81 Taxonomy, 38, 39, 40, 69, 83 Temple, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21 24, 25, 27, 35, 36, 49, 52 53, 56, 58, 64, 65, 68, 69 71, 72, 84, 93 Theocracy, 63 Theology, 3, 21, 22, 23, 24 27, 37, 38, 40, 42, 61, 69 Theurgy, 18, 47, 48, 53, 91 92 Tobit, 49, 51

18, 45, 63, 65,

29,

125

Society, the Sacred, and Scripture Tombs, 15, 22 , 30, 31 , 33, 35, 39, 46, 47, 49, 50, 58, 69 Torah, 9, 10, 11 , 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 27, 28, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 71, 91, 92 Torah-law, 28 , 59 Tosefta, 72 Tribes, Israelite , 22, 23, 35, 38, 39, 40 Uncircumcised , 92 Unclean, 13, 21, 22, 24, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 47, 58, 65, 68 Utopian, 45

34 51 15 30 45 57 69

33

26 38

Visions, 16, 57, 91 , 92 Vow, 84, 85 Weber, M., 8 Wine, 49, 50 Wives, 26 Women, 36, 50 , 65, 84 World-view, 2 , 6, 11, 21, 37 Wor hip 12, 15, 22, 23, 26 27 35, 40, 80

27 24

Yahwehists, 14, 21 , 22, 45 46, 47, 63, 69 YHWH, 11 , 12, 14, 17, 22, 23 26, 28, 31, 35, 40, 41, 45 48, 51, 54, 58, 63, 69, 76 Zerubbabel, 21, 24

126

SR SUPPLEMENTS Nate: Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,10, and 15 i n tills series are out of print. 2. Martin Heidegger's Philosophy of Religion

John R. W i l l i a m s 1977 / x + 190 pp. 6. Beyond Mysticism James R. H o m e 1978 / vi + 158 p p .

9. Developments in Buddhist Thought Canadian to Buddhist Studies Edited by Roy C. Amore

Contributions

1979 / iv + 198 p p .

11. Political Theology in the Canadian Edited by Benjamin G. Smillie

Context

1982 / xii + 260 p p .

12. Truth and Compassion: Essays on Judaism and Religion in Memory of Rabbi Dr. Solomon Frank Edited by Howard Joseph, Jack N. Lightstone, and Michael D. Oppenheim 1983 / vi + 217 p p .

13. Craving and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Bruce Matthews

Soteriology

1983 / xiv + 138 p p .

14. The Moral Mystic James R. Home 1983 .‫ ׳‬x + 134 p p .

16. Studies in the Book of Job Edited by Walter E. Aufrecht 1985 / xii - 76 pp.

17. Christ and Modernity: Christian Self-Understanding David J. Hawkin 1985 / x

in a Technological Age

101•‫י‬p p .

18. Young Man Shinran: A Reappraisal Takamiehi 'lakahatake

of Shinran's

Life

1907 / xvi + 228 p p .

19. Modernity and Religion Edited by William Nicholls 1987 / vi h 191 p p .

20. The Social Uplifters: Presbyterian Progressives and the •Socio/ Cr(tsp&i in £r0n0c?c1f 2 S 75‫״‬îfW 5 Brian J. Fraser Spring 1988 / 280 pp. estimated

EDITIONS SR Note: No. 3 in this series is out of print. 1. La langue de Ya'udi: description et classement de l'ancien parler de Zencircli dans le cadre des langues semitiques du nord-ouest Paul-Eugène Dion. OP. 1974 / viii - 511 p. 2. The Conception of Punishment in Early Indian Literature Terence P. Day 1982 ,‫ ׳‬iv - 328 p p .

4. Le messianisme de Louis Biel Gilles Martel 1984 / xviii + 483 p. 5. Mythologies and Philosophies of Salvation in the Theistic Traditions of India Klaus K. Klostermaier 1984 / xvi + 552 p p .

6. Averroes' Doctrine of Immortality: A Matter of Controversy Ovev N. Mohammed 1984"/ vi + 202 pp. 7. L'étude des religions dans les écoles: l'expérience américaine, anglaise et canadienne Fernand Ouellet 1985 / xvi I tfßßp.

8. Of God and Maxim Guns: Presbyterianism in Nigeria, Geoffrey Johnston 1988 / iv + 322 pp. 9. A Victorian Missionary and Canadian Indian Policy: Cultural Synthesis vs Cultural Replacement David A. Nock Spring 1988 / 200 pp. estimated 10. Prometheus Rebound: The Irony of Atheism Joseph C. McLelland Fall 1988 / 360 pp. estimated

1846-1966

STUDIES IN CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM / ETUDES SUR LE CHRISTIANISME ET LE JUDAÏSME 1. A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics: Irenaeus, Gérard Vallée

Hippolytus, and

Epiphanius

1981 ! xii + 114 pp.

2. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity Vol. 1, Paul and the Gospels 1986 / x +232 ‫־‬ pp. Vol. 2, Separation and Polemic Edited by Stephen G. Wilson 1986 / xii + 185 pp.

3. Society, the Sacred, and Scripture in Ancient Judaism: A Sociology of Knowledge Jack N. Lightstone 1988 / xiv + 126 p p .

THE STUDY OF RELIGION IN CANADA / SCIENCES RELIGIEUSES AU CANADA 1. Religious Studies in Alberta: A State-of-the-Art Review Ronald W. Neufeldt 1983 / xiv + 145 pp.

2. Les sciences religieuses au Québec, Louis Rousseau et Michel Despland Printemps 1988 t 146 p. estimé

1972-1984

COMPARATIVE ETHICS SERIES / COLLECTION D'ETHIQUE COMPAREE 1. Muslim Ethics and Modernity: A Comparative Study of the Ethical Thought of Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Mawlana Mawdudi Sheila McDonough 1984 / x + 130 p p .

2. Methodist Education in Peru: Social Gospel, Politics, and Ideological and Economic Penetration, 1888-1930 Rosa del Carmen Bruno-Jofré 1988 / xiv + 223 pp.

Available from / en vente chez :

Wilfrid Laurier University Press Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

N2L 3C5

Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/ Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press

American