User:Slrubenstein/Jewish authorities
From Cohen, Shaye J.D. 1987 From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
[edit]Confusion and Uncertainty over Authority in the Second Temple Period
[edit]"As a province in an empire, the land of Israel (called Judea in Persian times, Coele Syria in Hellenistic times, Judea in early Roman times, and Palestine after the defeat of Bar Kokhba) was governed like any other province. It had its share of governors and administrators, tax collectors and generals, cities and villages. But the Jews of the country, who were a substantial part of the population, were a "nation" or "religious community" that was recognized by the state and was allowed to have its own institutions and jurisdictions. As a result, throughout the second temple and rabbinic periods, the Jews of the country were citizens of two parallel political systems. The first was the "civil" administration of the state, which was implemented on the local level by cities and villages, and on the provincial level by governors (for example, the procurators of the first century C.E.) or vassal kings (for example, Herod the Great and Herod Antipas). The second was the "national" or "religious" administration of the Jewish polity, which, for most of the second temple period, was implemented by the high priest. In some matters the two systems overlapped, creating a degree of confusion and uncertainty (see, for example, the Gospel accounts of the trial and execution of Jesus)." (104-105)
High Priests
[edit]"By the fourth century B.C.E. at the latest, the high priest was the uncontested head of the Jews, not merely the head of the temple. In Hellenistic times the office was filled by an appointee of the king. He was responsible for the collection of taxes. "Civil" and "religious" power were combined in one person .... With the Roman conquest in 63 B.C.E., civil power was vested in the Romans and their agents, and only religious authority was left to the high priests." (105)
"After its reconstruction in the Persian period the temple became not only the center of Jewish worship in Judea but also the center of society. The priests were not only the ministers in the temple but also the official leaders of the Jews. But the temple’s new status was offset by the sense that it was not as authentic as the one built by Solomon. The priest’s new status was offset by the sense that they were not sufficiently pious. The dissonance between social reality and religious perception gave the impetus to the rise of sectlike groups which affirmed the validity of the priests and the temple but which attempted to supplement or control them." (160)
Pharisees and Christians
[edit]"A sect is a small, organized group that separated itself from a larger religious body and asserts that it alone embodies the ideals of the larger group because it alone understands God’s will .... A sect must be small enough to be a distinctive part of a larger religious body. If a sect grows to the extent that it is a large body in its own right, it is no longer a sect but a "religion" or "church" in its own right .... In the period under review in this book two Jewish sects (or sect-like groups) outgrew their sectarian origins to become independent religions. Out of the Christian sect came Christianity, and out of the Pharisaic sect came rabbinic Judaism, also known simply as "Judaism."" (125-126)
The Unclear Degree of Pharisaic Authority
[edit]"The Pharisees, who in the time of Herod numbered six thousand, are the party of the masses, while the Sadducees are the party of the aristocracy. Thus according to Josephus the Pharisees had a great deal of power in Jewish society from the last part of the second century B.C.E. until the outbreak of the great revolt, while the Sadducees did not. It may be significant that these claims of Pharisaic power appear only in the Jewish Antiquities, which was completed in 93/94 C.E., and not the Jewish War, which was completed between ten and fifteen years earlier." (146)
"Another issue entirely, however, is the degree of success with which the ideology of democratization and sanctification penetrated the broad reaches of Jewish society. As usual, our sources are inadequate for an accurate portrayal of Judaism as actually lived by the Jews of antiquity. Some Jews undoubtedly did regard the ritual observances as burdensome. Of these some became apostates, others simply ignored some or all of the commandments, while others protested that the Torah did not really demand the literal observance of the ritual laws. Many Jews, perhaps the majority of the population, lacked the time and education to implement the noble ideals of the religious elite. They were more interested in ensuring good health and good harvests than in communion with God or constant meditation on the words of the Torah …. They respected the rabbis as “holy men” and miracle workers, but were not dedicated to the rabbis’ way of Torah" (78)
Sources are Inadequate for Understanding the Relationship Between Sectarianism and Authority
[edit]"If the individuals of the pre-70 period are bare names for the Mishnah, the "house of Hillel" and the "house of Shammai" are substantial entities that are cited frequently … The two houses are cited numerous times in the Mishnah, always in tandem, and always in debate. The major focal points of the debates between the houses were the laws of purity, Sabbath, festivals, and table fellowship .... Most scholars view the two houses as wings or factions of the Pharisees, because the profile of their interests is consistent with what is known elsewhere of the Pharisees specifically and of Jewish sects generally. But the very identity of these sects is a serious problem, for how can the Pharisees disagree among themselves on the same issues over which sects disagree? If the Pharisees reject the purity rules of the Sadducees, how can the house of Hillel reject the purity rules of the house of Shammai without engendering further sectarian division …. Although each of the houses advanced its own marriage and purity laws, nevertheless, the Mishnah insists, they lived together as one big happy family. How were the houses able to accomplish this? Why did the disputes between the Pharisees and the Sadducees create social barriers while those between the houses did not? What was the relationship between the houses and the Pharisees? None of these questions is addressed, much less answered, by the Mishnah. Rather than repeat the oft-repeated assertion that the Pharisees consisted of two schools or wings, one progressive and liberal (the house of Hillel) and the other conservative or strict (the house of Shammai), I prefer to admit ignorance. We know neither the social reality that the houses represent nor the relationship of the houses to the Pharisees." (157-158)
Conflicting Sources Concerning Sanhedrin
[edit]"One of the most elusive institutions of the second temple period is the sanhedrin (A Hebrew word from the Greek, meaning literally "a sitting together," that is, "session" or "assembly"). According to the Gospels ad Acts the Sanhedrin was a supreme court chaired by the high priest and composed of members drawn from various groups (Sadducees, Pharisees, priests). According to rabbinic tradition, the sanhedrin was a legislative as well as judicial body, which was chaired by a pair of rabbinic sages and was composed entirely of members of the rabbinic elite. Josephus’ incidental references to the sanhadrin show it to have been not a permanent body but an ad hoc committee assembled by the high priest whenever he needed advice on difficult cases. (Josephus knows a permanent council in Jerusalem that he calls by its proper Greek name boule.) Scholars have been trying for centuries to sort out these conflicting testimonies about the body, which is said to have played such an important role in the life and death of Jesus .... All sources agree, however, that the Romans allowed the Jewish community a good deal of autonomy in matters of internal jurisdiction." (107-108)
Synagogues: Heterogeneous Institutions
[edit]"In those parts of the land of Israel that had substantial numbers of gentiles (the city of Caesarea, for example), the local synagogue probably played the same role in communal organization that it did in the diaspora. But in the Jewish areas its role would have been very different. Tiberias was a Jewish city, and Josephus implies that the prayer-house was a municipal building. Rabbinic legislation about the synagogue also assumes it to be a municipal structure. In Jerusalem, by contrast, there is no indication of a municipal synagogue. Here the synagogues were private affairs, just like clubs or associations .... In sum, the synagogue was an amalgamation of a prayer-house, which apparently originated in the diaspora in early Hellenistic times; a study house or school, which apparently originated in Israel also in early Hellenistic times; and a meeting-house which also served the different needs of the diaspora and Palestinian Jewry. By the first century C.E. these diverse elements had not yet united to form a single type. In fact, even by the end of late antiquity the synagogue did not attain a single definition. The sources from the third to the seventh centuries C.E. present radically different portraits of the synagogue" (113-114)
"Two important historical conclusions follow from this reconstruction. First, many scholars and textbooks use the word "synagogue" as if the word described a single, consistent and well-defined phenomenon. But in reality there were many different kinds of synagogues, during both the second temple and rabbinic periods, with varying functions, architecture, religious rituals, and social settings .... Second, since the synagogue grew from diverse and complex origins, it is most unlikely that any single group or office controlled all the synagogues of antiquity. The synagogue was not a Pharisaic invention and there is no reason to assume that all pre-70 synagogues, even in the land of Israel, were under Pharisaic control." (114-115)
Rabbis
[edit]"As a rule, however, the rabbis of the second century did not need a special place for the instruction of their disciples, because the disciples would always be with the master. They would live, eat, sleep, and travel with him .... The master was sometimes addressed as "father," because he was the father to his disciples .... These small communities of devoted disciples gathered around a reserved master have many analogies, of course, to the earliest community of the followers of Jesus. One of Jesus’ major activities, as remarked above, was to teach, and the apostles were his beloved disciples. Jesus was not only a teacher, however; he was also a prophet and a healer, and the traditions about him clearly derive in part from the biblical record about Elijah and his disciple Elisha." (121-122)