Ancient Judaism

Ancient Judaism

1/14/97

Two Torahs: written and oral.  A two-fold revelation. Hillel: all systems of knowledge have premises which are assumed.  Hillel and Shammai maintain this basic postulate of rabbinic Judaism: the two-fold revelation.  A controversial matter. 

Fraade's hermaneutic: through history and text, look at the world though their eyes.  Basic to this is to understand their assumptions and premises, such as whether a two-fold revelation is believed. There are two approaches to the study of ancient Judaism.  First, Jewish History: the sequence of events, institutions, great events, personalities, external influences and internal change.  Hellonization of the Greaco-Roman world was the context.  Alexander the Great, for instance. The history 'from without'.

The other history: the history of Judaism: the development of Judaism from within to get a sense of what it would have been like to have been in that culture.  For instance, people want to see themselves living out a continuity and continuous unfolding and development.  This is not to say that outside circumstances did not cause Judaism to change.  So, how adapt while retaining continuity.  Continuity: transcendence of historical periods as well as giving a sense of tradition.  For instance, the written Torah goes back to at least 450 BCE, and yet the way it is read today is different than how it was read in ancient times: the text is constantly applied to new circumstances.  A sense of the eternal as well as the temporal.  The pharasees became the rabbis, though other groups such as the essenes did not endure.

Consider Passover:  Prayers in the Sader meal in which they are re-experiencing slavery, exodus, and on--thus linked to a succession of generations.  Transcendence of whatever else is going on in one's life.  The story is being re-lived, thus permitting such transcendence.  In contrast, historians see changes in the Sedar.  It went though various stages: sacrificial, to re-build the temple, Greek symposium banquet influence, as well as sometimes centralized (communal) and decentralized in others. 

So, the same event can be seen from within as of continuity and from history as ever-changing. 

Consider the Synagogue: Goes back to the third century, B.C.E.  All Jews had one.  A continuity.  On the other hand, it was fluid.  Word means 'a place of gathering'.  Adaptations to the Greaco-Roman culture.  Also, the destruction of the second temple in 70 C.E., due to internal as well as external conflict, influenced the syagogue.

1/16/97

The Biblical Context:

Historians of the Bible use redaction criticism to reconstruct the story of the Israelites behind the texts. Different stories of various social groups, for instance.  This can be used to understand why there are two creation accounts in Genesis.   In contrast, we will look at the Bible canonically: taking the Bible as a closed, unitary whole.  In this sense, its parts are co-determinist, so which part came first historically does not make sense in this hermeneutic.  Here, gaps, inconsistencies and different versions in the text are approached from the standpoint of how the text can be interpreted as a unity.  In this sense (interpretative), the Bible has an open-endedness. 

Covenant:

An agreement between two parties.  Similarity to 'treaty': between the overlord and his farmers.  The Biblical covenant has this inequality, offered unilaterally by Yahweh. Even so, both parties have obligations.  God promises: protection, a land for the nomadic tribes, progeny.  The people promise: fidelity (marriage metaphor used by prophets) to Yahweh.  The concept of monotheism: loyalty to one deity.  Also, behavioral commandments qua obligations.  Rites such as circumcision.  Further, social obligations. 

Can the covenant be abrogated?  Language on terminating the agreement is not present; it is a permanent covenant.  So the Hebrews tended to put off the fulfillment of Yahweh's promises, such as prosperity and peace.  Yahweh offers security, whereas the Hebrews are held accountable for their behavior.  Suffering of the Hebrews(lack of protection) has been believed by them to be due to their own fault in not fulfilling their end of the agreement.

Two aspects to the covenant: narrative, or historical, and commandment.  The covenant is rooted in history. So, a history to the covenent (e.g. a past exodus in giving rise to the Hebrews' obligation), a future (e.g. the end of days in which the promises will be fulfilled), and a present suspended between the past and future; between the historical revelations and the fulfillment.  To relive and retell the past is to have hope in the future fulfillment.  Living in the present is also to live according to the divine laws or commandments.  How they are to be interpreted is open-ended.  So, bebate and sectarian polemic is necessarily involved in the present.  Compliance to the laws has been voluntary before a sovereign legal system in a sovereign nation-state of Israel existed.

The record of the covenant contains narratives as well as rules, the telling and the ways.  These are interconnected.  They shape each other, as well as being from one source: the Lawgiver.   The future fulfillment of the narrative depends upon obeying the laws and the laws came out of the narratives.  A mutual dependence.

The first covenant was with Noah.  He was not an Israelite.  He is known as the father of all humanity because it is from his three sons that humanity survived the flood.  His son, Shem, was the line from which Abraham came.[1] The people who survived had particular obligations after the flood: diet (previously plants, but then meat without its blood.  The animal is part of God's creation and its life itself must not be consumed.  A general sense of human obligation or limitation.  Also, the taking of human blood is prohibited; direct accountability--a life for a life.   Sanctity of life because it is of God's creation.  Human life being in the image of God and thus not to be killed.  A transgenerational aspect to the agreement, even though only Noah and his sons got the benefit of being saved in the flood.

In turn, Yahweh promises no future flood to destroy all creation.  The rainbow is the sign to remind Yahweh of his obligation.  A perceptable sign.  A rainbow serves as a reminder to both parties--it shows an end to a rain. 

Then, Noah plants a vineyard and gets drunk.  His son Ham gives Noah a woman to fuck.  Noah fucks her and is thus counted as not so righteous. 

The tower of Babel.  A sense that the first covenant is not revoked, but that it isn't working.  Humans are still being violence and perverse. 

So, a second covenant.  Abraham.  His family will be only one tribe.  See Gen. 15 and 17.  Yahweh promises him the land from the river of Egypt to that of Euphrates. A divine promise to a stranger in the land yet to be fulfilled.  Abraham for his part must offer an animal sacrifice. Sacrifice: a giving up of something of value out of appreciation and offering the best of oneself.  Also, sacrifice is a sort of a shared meal in which the gap between the divine and human can be bridged.  Sharing represents a physical mark of the sealing of the agreement. 

Yahweh chose Abraham.  Yahweh commands circumcision. An obligation to do the sign.  A sign or marker which is physical.  Here too, the sign has to do with the promise--that Abraham's descendents would occupy the land.  Also, Yahweh claims to be the God in history--'I am the one who brought you out ofthe land Egypt'.  

The third covenant was given to the Israelites through Moses on mount Sinei after the Exodus.  Here, the covenant is given to the tribe, rather than to an individual.  An updating and celebrating of the then-current covenant.  Yahweh speaks to the nation through Moses qua mediator.  Yahweh promises that the nation will be of priests to the other nations; a special, holy nation among others in which miracles would be done.  Yahweh then gives as obligations the Ten Commandments.  Historical context: 'I brought you out of Egypt'.    Human obligations: ten commandments, especially to worship only Yahweh (a jealous god)--fidelity.  Also, a duty not to enter into treaty with nations of other Gods.  The physical sign being the observance of the Sabbath.

Much of the Torah is setting forth the particular laws coming out of this covenant.  No separation between civil and 'religious' laws.  How one treats one's neighbor is not unlike how one has worship obligations (not that they are the same: behavior to neighbor being worship). 

A fourth covenant outside of the Torah, with King David.  2 Sam. 7.  In the Torah there is no notion of a human king; Yahweh is sufficient as a king for that chosen nation, unlike others.  Yahweh promises to give the nation peace. Of David's son, Nathan the prophet promises a royal kingdom whose king will be a son to Yahweh.  A promise of an ever-lasting Davidic throne.  Not unconditional.  Observance of the laws is still the obligation.  The covenant, though to an individual, is now tied to the welfare of the people. 

So, a covenant to the nation to have its own land (third covenant) and to an individual (David) that his progeny shall be the kings.  Thus, the split into Judaea (Southern Kingdom) and Isreael (Northern Kingdom) was problematic theologically.

1/21/97

The Biblical Backdrop:

It is in the nature of 'covenant' that it be reinterpreted.  Everything that happens to the Hebrews is open to being interpreted.   Cognitive dissidence: difference between one's belief and reality of what one perceives.  For instance, the Hebrews lost their land even as Yahweh promised them the land.  How was this to be explained?  Reinterpretation: how the Hebrews were failing in their part of the covenant in their past and/or present practices and beliefs.  This constant need to interpret is also due to the fact that times change and their new conditions and artifacts need to be interpreted in terms of the covenantal obligations.  Compounding this activity, Hebrew groups have differed in their reinterpretations, leading to conflict.

Priest and Prophet:

Until the second temple was destroyed, animal sacrifice was a central aspect of Judaism.  Moses and Aaron.  Moses is the model prophet: the middle-man, or messinger, between God and the people.  A perceived gap between the divine and human realms: direct revelation from Moses as the human messinger of Yahweh's word.  As for ongoing revelation: the tent in which Moses and Aaron go throughout the forty years.  A portable shrine.  A tent of meeting as sanctuary: the place where the divine can dwell among humanity.  A presumed need for a continual divine presence coming into contact with the everyday impure realm of mankind.  A bringing together of two qualitatively different realms without either one losing itself to the other. Impurifying the divine or embodying the eternal. The priests served as a buffer or intermediaries.  They are human, and in dedicating themselves to service in the sanctuary they are holier than others.  The ideal is that Israel as a whole be a priest unto the other nations. 

Violation of a covenantal obligation is a threat to the fulfilment of the covenant.  Even accidents!  If the covenant is continually threatened by human behavior, then the covenant could be weakened.  So it is a communal concern that individuals not sin and that retributions be made.  Retributions for individual sins when they occur as well as continuously made due to the concern that the covenantal relationship is being constantly weakened.

Deut.21:1-9.  If a sinner can't be found (for a murder), the elders of the closest town must take a young cow which has never been put to work (the offering should be pure rather than having been put to another use: second-hand).  The elders took responsibility thus far.  Then, the priests (the Levite tribe which has no land): had the role of judges of disputes as well as performing the sacrificial rites, because the Levite tribe had been chosen to be the intermediaries to the ongoing divine presence among the Israelites.  The high priests are from Aaron; the other Levites become second-hand priests. The bloodshed: to expiate the guilt of the sin.  The priests profess their innocence and offer atonement--for the whole; with the terms of the covenant violated, there is a communal responsibility to atone for the blemish.  Someone has to take responsibility for the violation.  The need to give a tangible expression of riding oneself of guilt. The best fruits are to be given up (offer it back) as a gift to make up for the blemish. In the ancient Near East, the first-borns were offered back for continued fertility and bounty.  The Hebrews exempted human first-borns and offered their best animals instead. The covenantal balance could thus be restored and maintained as well as experienced. 

The book of Deuteronomy emphasizes one central shrine temple for the people.  Deuteronomy was written between the first and second temple periods; the first period was marked by some decentralization whereas the second had one central place of sacrificial worship.  As a consequence, the priesthood became more powerful and central in the second temple period.  Because it was a time of foreign occupation, these powers sought a centralization and found it in the priesthood.  So, there was no Hebrew Davidic monarchy in the second Temple period.  The institution of prophesy dwindled during that time as well.  Positive and negative consequences.  The priesthood could become a hellonized, authoritative, and corrupt.  The checks and balances were gone.  No longer were there tribal divisions or alternative sources of human authority. 

The prophet was initially a clarifier of divine intent.  For instance, Moses would go into the tent, for clarification.  Kings, too, were seen as having a divine spirit, being anointed so, as mediators.  The prophets were advisors or consultants sought for their profound knowlwedge.  They were ususally connected to local powers as advisors 

But as the prophetic circles strengthened and the monarchy was broken up by foreign occupation (Isreal conquered in 722; Judea in 589, BCE), a need arose to understand what was going on in relation to the covenantal scheme.  There arose a new institution of prophethood: not associated with official and established prophet circles connected to the courts.  The new 'uninstitutional' prophets were critical of the priests and the royal court.  Amos was the first of such anti-establishment scheme.  Amos cites the failure of King Jereboam of Isreal as responsible for not upholding the covenantal relation; it is the everyday behavior of society as a whole as well that results in the unraveling of the covenantal expectations.  Such  prophets as him brought suit against Israel for its violations and included the courts as well.  A prediction of threat rather than promise became salient.  Punishment was due on account of the covenantal relationship.  The special relationship of Israel to Yahweh in itself causes greater suffering for violations.   Presumed: there is a reason for everything.  There is a causality and it is the role of the prophet to reveal it to the people in terms of the historical circumstances of the time.  Presumed that it is the prophet who knows the divine plan of causality: that what of current conduct would result in God's protection and that what will result in punishment/suffering by God.  The Jews had assumed that God would always protect them.  To explain the foreign occupations as well as exiles, this assumption was being threatened, so an explanation for its qualification so as to maintain the belief that Israel could retain a special covenantal relationship. 

The prophets claimed that the sacrificial system is evil in the absence of justice.  The corruption of the priesthood not only nullifies the value of the sacrifices, but makes them evil.  The sacrifices being made in contradiction to that which is in their hearts.  Hypocrisy. The practice became solely mechanized. Performing sacrifice with a bad heart is worse than not doing sacrifice with a bad heart unless a genuine sense of atonement.  The prophets engaged in a romanticizing of the wilderness without sacrifice as a time of punishment and intimacy with God.  That the Hebrews survived being in the wilderness without sacrifices being performed meant that another period in the wilderness, rather than more sacrifice, would be necessary for them to have their covenantal relation restored.  The exile was viewed as being necessary for Isreal to have a new heart--a tramatic experience needed for the transformation necessary. 

1/23/97

On Prophesy:

Amos is the first historically of the classic 'critical' prophets, but there were prophets qua advisor and mediator, respectively, before him such as Elijah and Moses.  Classical prophet: interpreting events so as to conform to the covenantal relationship understanding.  A negative critique and prediction of suffering as punishment by Yahweh, and a promise of renewal--that the Hebrews will once again live in their own land.  Whereas the negative predictions were confirmed by history, their positive promises were not.  An exception: Jeremiah's promise that the temple would be rebuilt came true.  So the promises of redemption were transformed into the messianic hope, especially in the second temple period.  Sects such as the Essenes and the Jesus movement thus used the prophets to claim that the redemptive promise was being fulfilled in their own time. 

The Relation of Prophesy to Canon:

The canon includes the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.  The prophets don't quote the Torah (they don't seem to have a canon) but hint of it, even as they don't treat it as authoritative.  But by Ezra (450 BCE), there was a scroll of the Torah.  Ironic that it was at that time that the last of the classical prophets lived.  Why did the canonization of the text lead to the end of the classical prophets?  In the second-temple period, a conflict existed between interpreting the text and the prophet's direct visions and messages from Yahweh.  The text won out over the charismatic prophets.  Once there was a canonized (authoritative) text, it became the means of discerning God's message by which to interpret current events.

The Torah was canon by 450 BCE.  The Prophets by 200 BCE.  And the Writings by 70 BCE.  Daniel, going into the Writings, was the last book to make it into the canon (165 BCE). 

Amos:

The Davidic kingdom had been divided into Israel and Judah.  Amos left Judah to prophesy in Bethal at approximately 750 BCE.  

Amos 7:7-17.  A plumb-line was a tool used to see if a wall is vertical.  A weight at the end of a string.  Yahweh is seeing him that Isreal does measure up to its covenantal relationship obligations--specifically moral and religious.  In the Prophets generally, an alteration between warnings and promises; otherwise, the force of the warnings would lose their force.  For instance, the promise made by Amos comes at 9:14-15, though after Yahweh has used the punishment as a sieve.  The punishment is not undercut.  And his message to Amaziah and Jeroboam earlier does include the promise. 

Fraade: taking a cananical point of view, the promise of Amos has to be taken as part of his message, rather than being added in later. 

Fraade: Amos v. Amaziah and Jeroboam involved an institutional question--of whether there is a higher authority than the temple system and the court.   Amaziah accuses Amos of being a seer conspiring against the king.  A seer was a figure who claimed to have visions as a profession. Implication: that he is a functionary---a hired prophet.  Amos claimed that he is not a prophet by profession; that Yahweh sent him, charging him to deliver this message.  Amaziah used the king's authority to chastize Amos qua conspirator. The king and priest were hereditary offices whereas prophets did not transmit their position to their sons.  A contrast here.  The prophets were figures living simply as shepards.  Amos too.  Yahweh took him.  The monarchy had become established as representing the nation, so the priest appealed to the king rather than his own legitimacy as a functionary of the temple.  Guyer: prophet vs. king, rather than prophet v. priest.

1/28/97

Ben Sira and Daniel are apocrypha books.  Ben Sira, as the Book of Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), is not in the Hebrew canon.  He was a priest at 200 BCE.  The Book of Daniel was written in the Babylonian exile.  Daniel is part of the Hebrew Bible.  How do these two figures differ in their respective wisdoms?  Macabees is also part of the apocrypha.

The Return from exile in 538 BCE.  Not all the Israelites had been exiled in 586.  The priestly elite were exiled.  The return, of redemption and restoration seemed to be at hand.  Jeremiah 25:11-14: the exile from Babylon is part of the divine plan (punishing Isreal), Cyrus acting as an agent thereof.  Jeremiah predicted a seventy-year exile.  Although the exile did not last seventy years, it was seventy years until the second temple was built (and the covenant thus restored--but there was no Davidic Monarch!--a need for continued reinterpretation of Jeremiah's prediction).  Cyrus was described God's annointed king, having been instrumental in the divine plan.  Later, in the Mecabeeian revolt, it was not clear whether foreign conquers were divinely annointed instruments or threats to the covenantal relationship(e.g. forced assimilation). 

Cyrus viewed his own acts differently.  He intended his act of allowing the peoples to return to please the Babylonian god, Mardic; the gods of the peoples being below Mardic.  Fraade: world history can be interpreted as placing oneself and one's people as central--affirming one's importance; that one is not simply being caught up in world history.  Cyrus, as well as the Jews, did this.  Also, Cyrus believed that his empire would be more stable if the local populations had their own leadership, laws, and temples--this would leave Cyrus to only the most critical areas in the empire.  Local self-rule was the norm of imperiums then.  In 165 BC, the Macabees revolted; a Greek emperor sought to get in the way with local Jewish temple practices. 

Many Jews stayed in Babylon.  In fact, a Babylonian Talmud was written by them.  So, a minority were exiled and a minority of that minority chose to return to Judah.  Those who were exiled and returned to Jerusalem had an elite understanding of having gone through repentence and redemption.  A conflict between them (seeing themselves as divinely charged to restore Jerusalem) and those who had remained in Jerusalem.  The exiled and returned 'elite' saw themselves as the remnant of Israel.   The remnant saw themselves as relatively observant--for instance, in not inter-marrying unlike those Hebrews who had stayed in Jerusalem.  This led to a schizm between religious and secular Judaism.

464: a second wave of returnees.  Ezra was a scribe and priest, not a prophet. So, he did not receive divine revelation.  Ezra 7:11-26--King Artaxerxes charged Ezra to lead his people using his learned expertise in the laws of Yahweh, back to Jerusalem.  Fraade: this decree afforded the priestly scribe recognition.  The king gave a tax exemption for anyone working in the Temple.  He charged Ezra to appoint judges.  The people were to follow the laws of Yahweh and of the king.  The king gave animals to Ezra for sacrifice.  Artaxerxes I did not consider such worship to contradict the worship of Marac.  Ezra was commanded to strenghten not only the temple system, but the Israelite religious law as well.  Such law was seen by Artaxerxes as consistent with his own laws.   Two sets of legal codes could conflict, but here the king is enforcing the unity of both; the imperial law backing the local religious law.  Ezra was given the authority to teach Israelite law.  It was not in the Persian emperor's interest to have legal conflicts within a people or between a people and the Persian Imperium.  Especially for Palestine.  It is at a central strategic point in trade and military strategy.  Between Europe, Asia, and Africa.  

Archeological evidence from a military outpost of Israel included the Passover Papyrus: a letter from the high priest in Jerusalem to this Jewish outpost, telling them how to observe Passover.  The priest invokes the authority of the Persian emperor. 

On Ezra: The Torah scroll had to become a public document, taught to the Hebrew people.  There was a ceremony in which Ezra held up the Torah scroll--so that all could see it.  The reading of the law was accompanied by teaching: he made it's meaning clear.  A re-enactment of Moses revealing the Torah; Ezra as a second Moses--for both, coming out of an exile.  With Ezra, the text had then become a focus of the Hebrew religion.  Translations into the venacular as well as a class of expert scribes were needed.  It is not an accident that it was at that time that classical prophesy ended.  Interpretation of a text, rather direct revelation, was then the means of knowing the divine will. 

So, there are internal Hebrew reasons for these developments as well as a confluence of Hebrew and Imperial interests.  It was then that a local Jewish council of elders, from the Greek city council, was established.  It was to become the sanhedran. 

The exile was viewed as a scieve; that a purified remnant would remain.  Why then did that remnant teach the Torah to the Hebrews who had remained (thus, outside of the remnant)?

Not only did classical prophesy end with the return, so too did the pre-exilic Davidic monarchy.  The priestly scribes were alone the authority.  The text was then public--this change in itself has its problems.  A public text is opened up to varying interpretations. Who would descide between them?

The temple was being re-established, however. But there was still foreign rule and no Davidic king, so restoration of the covenant could be seen as not having been completed with the second return from the exile in Babylon.  When Alexander the Great conquered in 331 BCE, this view became salient.  There was also a view that the covenantal relationship was almost restored fully--leading to a Messianic (soon in coming) hope to the fulfulment.

Alexander the Great had a vast empire.  This brought in Hellonistic influence.  After Alexander, his empire was split into Mesopotemia, the Syrian area, and Egypt.  Palestine was between them.  Unlike the Persian empire, the Greek empire allowed for more commerce, and thus intermingling of populations.  A foreign culture could then reach Palestine.  The matter of assimilation and Judean identity arose.  Hellonism involved a cultural imerialism in which Greek culture and religion were viewed as superior to others.  Greek learning was salient.  A mixing of the cultures, even though Imperial rule/local autonomy geo-political structure was that of the Persian empire.  But there was the pressure of Hellonistic culture.  This led to the Macebeeian revolt.  There were different opinions within Israel on whether the culture should be assimilated, providing for less than a fully united front in the revolt.

1/30/97

After Alexander the Great died, the empire was divided into three sectors.  Ptolemic rule was over Palestine in the third century.  Palestine was a colony of sorts.  The aristocracy, such as the Hebrew priests, had economic and cultural manifestations. The Zeno papyri manuscript (260/1).  Ecclesiastes was written in this period, thus modelled after Greek literature.  Earliest evidence for synagogue in the diaspora is from this period.  The Septuagint (ca. 280-250 BCE) came into use then as well.  So, hellonization had an impact.  For example, aside from the wisdom/philosophy literature being developed, apocolyptic literature was developed as well.  It was thought to come from the time of the destruction of the second temple.  Apocolyptic: 'revealing, uncovering, that which had been hidden (Gk).  Part of that which had been hidden is God's hidden plan for history.  So, a revelation through visions, dreams, and heavenly visitations, to an individual.  How is this different than prophesy?  Ezekiel claimed to see the future.  The classical prophets intended their message for all of Israel to hear.  Apocolyptic literature was intended only for an elite, pious, exclusive group.  Implied: all of Israel is no longer worthy of the revelation.  But this difference may have been a phenomenon of history--pre and post- return from of exile.  But the apoclolyptic genre, unlike prophesy, contained an immanent destruction, followed by the fulfullment of the promise (of Yahweh).  The prophets did not give a scheme on the promise part.  A theme in apocolyptic literature: those are in and out of power within Israel are to be turned around.  Prophesy was on the relation of Israel to other nations.  In contrast, the wisdom literature was oriented to 'this-worldly' matters, accessable through contemplation--a heavy Greek influence.  The operative presumption here is that the proper way of living is to be acquired rather than given by divine agency.

The Syrian Seleucids took over the Ptolemaic rule at 198 BCE.  Antiochus III of Syria.  Antiochus IV was the first to break the pattern of local autonomy.  Why?  To bring the empire into conformity in its Greek religion.  To gain internal unity against the Roman threat. 

In the Maccabian revolt in 160 BCE, internal conflict existed within the Hebrew priesthood on the matter of who would control the temple and how much the temple would be hellonized.  Antiochus IV could not tolerate strife on his southern plank.  He chose the priests who sought to advance Hellonization and do away with the Hebrew practices which were viewed in and out as backward.  The Hebrews opposed to these priests as well as Antiochus IV sought a revolt.  But still other Hebrews thought Antiochus IV was a divine agent as Cyrus was.  These people used passive resistence.  What is the overall Hebrew stance toward foreign rule?  What is going on--what does it mean, and what should be done in response?  This was the underlying geo-political and theological question through much of the history of Isreal.  Daniel was written during this time.  Ben Sura too.

The Macabees were not of the high priest clan.  But after defeating the Syrians, they claimed the monarchy and high priesthood.   This did not go  unquestioned by Hebrews.  Also, the Macabeeian decision to fight beyond religious liberty to political sovereignty was questioned by some Hebrews.

Ben Sira and Daniel are apocrypha books.  Ben Sira, as the Book of Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), is not in the Hebrew canon.  He was a priest at 200 BCE.  The Book of Daniel was written in the Babylonian exile.  Daniel is part of the Hebrew Bible.  How do these two figures differ in their respective wisdoms?  Macabees is also part of the apocrypha.

Ben Sira: his name was Jesus.  Present-oriented moral wisdom.  Maxims.  The proper way of life.  A sense that he has wisdom on many different topics.  Wisdom by experience rather than a divine revealing.  Daniel, in contrast, got his information from divine revelation.  Jesus of Ben Sira was comfortable in life; a man of the world.  His writing was done sometime between 200 and 190, BCE.  He drew on the proverbial type of wisdom, though some differences from Proverbs.  There is no hope of anything after life. So, live for the present, for life is fleeting.  This in contrast to the revelation of Daniel. Whereas Daniel gives the perspective of someone who has been suffering, whereas Ben Sira has a figure of comfort.  Ben Sira is not part of the Hebrew Bible.

Ben Sira (Sirach): 38:1-39.  Advise.  Jesus is not claiming divine authority.  His message: that sickness is due to sin, but prayer or sacrifice alone is not sufficient for healing; it is permissible to bring in a physician.  The origins of medical doctors and pharmasists came from Greece.  But going to a physician alone without prayer and or sacrifice is not sufficient.  Sickness is both spiritual and medical.  First pray and do not sin, and call the doctor.  The medicines as well as the physicians are created by God, so they are agents of God.  Wisdom like this could not have been found two-hundred years prior.  On the workers: they are not of leisure so are unable to have the wisdom.  Influence of Plato: everyone has his place. v. 25-34.  On death, v. 23: no after life.  When the dead is at rest, let the remembrance cease. 

39:1--a praise on the wise man.  The scholar, sage, and scribe.  People like himself (Ben Sira).  Study divine scripture, the prophesies, and the writings. A three-fold study: law, prophesy, and wisdom. Fraade: a general (Hellonized) tone.  Not just studying the writings, but seeking to uncover their meaning.  Unlike the prophets, the source of wisdom here are in texts and travel.  Greek model: the sage learns by observing nature and the world, to observe virtues and natural laws.  Also, he claims prayer fills him with divine knowledge, to which he studies.  In contrast, Amos was just a shepard who was a mouth-piece for God's word. Ben Sira was filled with the spirit of intelligence (another sort of divine revelation) through prayer.

Daniel.  Unlike Ben Sira who admired the priesthood, Daniel did not.  Prayer was not a source of his revelation; rather, dreams, visions, and angelic visitation.  Gabrial helped him interpret the events.  The interpretations are oriented to geo-political conquest.  He predicted that the remnants of the Hellonistic empire will fall and a savior figure would come with a restoration of Israel soveriegnty after the fourth beast is conquered.  The fulfillment was to occur only after a period of suffering.  An overthrow of nations would be followed by a semi-divine figure who would bring in the fulfilment of the covenant--this being the end of history.  Daniel, written in the Macebeeian revolt, sees 'light at the end of the tunnel'--that Isreal would be sovereign as a result and the temple rebuilt.  A model of fortitude in the place of trial.

Daniel is of the dramatic, so his work is a narrative; Ben Sira is of maxims, and is of verse.  So, their literary styles match their message genre.

2/4/97

Late Second Temple Judaism:

From the Maccabean revolt to 70 CE.  The old model was the orthodox core and outside books.  Dead Sea Scrolls seem to attest to more variety in Judaism then tnan we had thought.  Josephus refers to four philosophies: revolutionary zealots(Sicarii),  Pharasees, Saducees, and Essenes.  He sought to portray the variety in Judaism in terms of philosophy. Specific groupings of writings. Authored writings by Ben Sira and Josephus which show a variety of Hebrew philosophies.  Philo wrote a philosophy (in Alexandria).  Josephus--a rich priest.  How typical were these individuals? 

A second group of writings: Pseudopographic.  Attributed to a biblical hero.  Daniel and Enoch, for instance.  Not clear how large a group these writings represent.

A third group of writings were sectarian.  Laws, documents.  Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. 

Fourth, second or third hand reports with references to various Hebrew groups. 

The relation of the Maccabean revolt and the varieties of Judaism.  Although the revolt held back further Hellonization, it set the scene for intra-Hebrew conflicts.  The revolt was by  a coalition.  The Maccabeans were joined by the Pietists(Hasidaeans), for instance.  Still another group separated themselves from the society so they wouldn't have to follow the emperor's edicts.  By offering themselves, they would be judged favourably.  Matiphus and his followers chose to fight the Syrians.  They were joined by the Hasidaeans who unlike the group that fought passively, fought not only the Syrians but those Hebrews who had gone astray (Hellonized).

The Maccabees wanted a Hebrew sovereign king and high priests, so they fought against the Syrian-appointed high Priest Alcimus.  Mac. 7: 12-16--the Hasidaeans, in contrast, accepted Alcimus.  The Maccabeans saw the Hasmoneans had compromised themselves by accepting foreign rule.  Fraade: the ambiguity of the role of foreign rule in the divine plan.  Stance on this implied passive resistance or fighting.  To 150 BCE, there was internal Hebrew conflict.  The Qumran (dead sea scrolls) settlement was established at that time.  Alternative responses to foreign rule.  The Romans conquered in 65 BCE. 

Philo of Alexandria. 25 BCE-50 CE. Alexandria was a centre for Greek philosophical knowledge.  Philo attempted a translation of Hebrew teachings in terms of Greek philosophy.  He used Greek terminology.  Certain Greek virtues were included in his writings.  He had a method of commentary using allegory: using one person, term, or event to represent something else on a different level of abstraction.  Philo took the biblical characters and events as having historical as well as philosophical meanings.  For instance, unleavened bread represents a dimuation of greed.  Philo adopted a Platonic view of the soul being entrapped in the material body.  The purpose of religion being a journey of a soul to an earthly body and gradually leaves the body and returns to its etherial origin.  Moses as the ideal stage.  The Essenes qua contemplative, pure, life, as the purest form of life.  Philo was also active in the Jewish community.  In 38 CE, he led a group to complain to the emperor in Rome about discrimination against them.  They were not fully equal as citizens of the Roman empire.  Philo sought to maintain full Roman citizenship while maintaining Hebrew religious practices.  Philo was well-read in Greek Philosophy.  Like Josephus, he made second or third hand illusions to eastern religions.  Fraade: Hellonization included bringing in Eastern philosophies.  Philo and Josephus show illusions to Indian religions. Guyer: Jainism influence here?

Apocalypse: to discover, disclose, uncover to the view of the seer and his immediate community--to a subgroup (unlike the prophets who spoke to all of Israel).  There were pietistic Hebrew groups alienated from the Temple being out of power as against the High priests of Jeruselem.   Spurned and even exiled, these groups sought to maintain the covenantal relationship.  They did so by coming up with their own writing of a pseudeographic mode of a special, elite estotaric mode.  For instance, Enoch was said to have received revelation not hitherfore known.  Visions transferred orally from father to son.  These groups felt themselves to be living just prior to a great cataclism that would vindicate the righteous.  So they looked back to Genesis to get a model for what they understood would be happening in their time.  Noah and the flood, for instance.  Models for steadfastness and a sign that the end would come soon and would remove the unrighteous powerful and vindicate themselves.  A basic dualism here between good and evil, represented by angelic forces controlling good and bad people.  Dead Sea Scrolls.  Despair led to a 'black and white' viewpoint.  Pessimistic on human agency, unlike the view of the zealots against Rome.  Pietism and separatism was valued by such sects as the human role in maintaining the covenantal relationship until the final angelic battle.  Does God act in history through a cosmic battle or through humans?  An understanding of living in the end-time (urzeit), rather than the beginning of time (endzeit).  The Fall in the beginning of time was taken as a model for what would happen in the latter-day destruction. 

The Christian Scriptures come from the first or second century, CE.  They refer to groups in the the second temple groups.  But this writing was written after the Temple had been destroyed and Paul had sought non-Jewish converts.

The pharisees gave rise to the Rabbinic group.  Paul was a former pharisee.  Jesus was critical of them.  The Christian scripture depicts them as hypocrites and as an important group.  Josephus depicted them as much admired by the Hebrews.  A caring group.   Rabbinic writings refer back to the pharisees, emphasizing purity regulations.  The Jesus movement, as one of many emerging Jewish groups, sought legitimacy.  The pharisees were the Hebrew authority at the time.  The pharisees were prepared to accommodate foreign rule.  Not fighting Rome, yet critical of them.  They sought to follow purity regulations as a pietistic group, yet they sought also to 'stay in the game' to gain influence by accommodating Alcimus as well as the Romans; greater influence in the Temple as well as vis a vis the Romans.

2/6/97

Late Second Temple Judaism:

Dead Sea Scrolls.  Discovered in 1948.  Not available until the 1990's.  Was Quaram apocolyptic?  The sense of an ongoing revealing, or uncovering, of that which had remained hidden, from the teacher of righteousness.  The seekers, as well as group-study, were used to seek out the meaning of the teachings.  Revelation, hidden from the rest of Israel, was gradually being uncovered in this process. 

For instance, 1 Enoch, fragments of the Jubilees, and other writings were psyeutographically held by the Dead Sea sect. 

From 168 BCE-68 CE, the Qumran sect existed.  Virtually, the entire second temple period. 

It is not clear that the Essenes were in the Qumran sect.

The Qumran sect peoples saw themselves living in the end of days.  Historically?  Eschatologically?  They saw themselves as witnesses to it.  They denied the legitimacy of the temple's priesthood; this is not to say that priesthood itself was not a  role in Qumran.  The sect saw itself as a priestly community, atoning.  The temple is not the divinely ordained place thereof. 

A battle between the angelic forces of light and darkness.  The sect saw itself as children of light.  They saw their struggle against Rome as a manifestation of the real cosmic battle.  People assigned to one of the cosmic sides already at birth.

The second temple:

Due to its centrality and importance, it was the center of controversy.  By late second temple times, pilgrimages.  Sacraficial worship and the priesthood, as built up by Herod, were by no means held to be obsolete, in spite of the quarrels between Hebrew groups over the priesthood. 

In ancient times, people worshipped in the court-yards around the temple.  The temple was regarded as where Yahweh resided, so only priests, as pure, could enter the temple--and into the holy of holies only on the Day of Atonement.  The sacrifices were done in the court-yard closest to the temple building.  The Qumran community saw itself as the temple--that where Yahweh was present. 

A reason for the revolt in 70, sacrifices were offered in the temple to the Roman emperor.  Was it that the Romans actually offered the sacriices or ordered them?  Not clear how close non-Hebrews could get to the temple. 

There was another mountain in Israel where Samarians held that Yahweh should be worshipped.  The Bible does not mention Jerusalem as the place of worship.  That is a matter of tradition.  The Samarians had a priestly sacrificial system apart from a temple.  So too did the Qumran sect have a priesthood system, though without a temple building or animal sacrifice.  The Qumran people saw themselves living in the exilic 'wilderness' state, close to Yahweh--thus they say themselves as being the temple.

The first scrolls discovered were released within a few years.  Eight scrolls, one 'disappeared'.  The Damascus scroll of Qumran was found in the late nineteenth century in Cairo.  Cave four was discovered in 1952 when the area was under Jordan control.  An international team of scholars (non-Hebrew) held them.  Six hundred of the eight hundred scrolls were thus slowly let out.  Presumption: that the Vatican saw something in them that would contradict Christianity as it had been thought to have been formed.  But nothing was found in the scrolls of such a matter.  Rather, the findings have lead to a rethinking of the context of early Christianity and the nature of second-temple Judaism.  Of the latter, some material useful in reconstructing the rabbinic sect's rise.

As in the Temple in Jerusalem, the Qumran sect used water for purification rituals. 

The scrolls: three types.  Biblical: the manuscripts are 1000 years older than those previously still extant.  Very little difference.  Copying was thus maintained.  But, two scrolls of Isaiah at Qumran that are not identical.  Suggestive that there was more than one version.  Second, psytophographic books fould elsewhere as well, though at Qumran in its Aramiac original.  1 Enoch, for instance.  Third, sectarian scrolls for internal study in Qumran. 

The Temple scroll at Qumran is a critique of the Jerusalem's temple.  It sets out purity rites.

The sect of Qumran was, according to Pliny, destroyed by the Romans in 68 CE.  According to Josephus, the people came out with smiles, rather than weapons, viewing the battle as of the cosmic battle. 

Bathes found at Qumran: purification cleansing.  Big enough for one person to dunk in.  A system of water-works. 

A strong 'communal' aspect to the sect.  Eating and study were done 'communally'. The grave-site has not been dug up due to the on-going Hebrew belief in bodily resurrection. 

2/11/97

Late Second Temple Judaism:

The relation of the Essenes to the Qumran people is ambiguious.  Josephus describes the Essenes as not compromising their way of life when attacked by the Romans.  Josephus claims they were martyred.  Implication: they gave up their lives rather than fight or compromise their ways.  Like the Macabees two hundred year earlier, they would not compromise and risked their lives.  The Essenes believed that they would be vindicated for staying true to their beliefs.  Not clear if a bodily resurrection or a spiritual renewal was expected. 

The Qumran sect included the belief that there would be a final battle between the cosmic forces of light and darkness.

The Pharasees and the Jesus Movement:

Only second and third-hand reports.  No direct writings extant on the Pharasees.  Paul was a pharasee.  So, difficult to reconstruct the Pharesees.  Three contradictory second-hand sources: Josephus, Rabbinic writings, and the Jesus Movement writings.  They all suggest the influence of the Pharasees.  Biases of the sources: Josephus, writing in 80-90 CE in Rome, who had surrendered and came under Roman patronage to write on the Jewish war.  He wrote in Greek, with access to Roman and Jewish sources.  It is apologetic to himself--that he is not apostate.  He compares himself to Jeremiah who had survived a war.   He does not blame the Romans for demolishing the Temple.  He bolsters the pharasees, because they had agreed to be the local Hebrew authority for the Romans.  Middle-of-the-road philosophy. Eventually, the Romans recognized the Rabbinic scribe authorities. 

The Christian gospels, written after the destruction of the Temple, when Christianity turned toward non-Jews for converts.  A conflict between two Jewish groups turned to one between Jews and non-Jews. 

Lastly, Rabbinic writings contrast the Pharasees with the Sadusees, the latter being allied with the priests.  The rabbis took the place of the priests' authority.  Newness was not a positive value; tradition and continuity was important.  So the Rabbis established a continuity between themselves and the Pharasees.

Differences: Josephus describes the Pharasees as simple-living people whereas the Jesus Movement refers to them as hypocrites.  'Pharasee' root: 'separate'.  That they separated themselves from the impure?  Or, that they had separated themselves from impurity? 

Josephus traces the pharasees back to 150 BCE.  About the time when the Essenes arose.  By the first century, they had the support of the masses.  Pharsees included priests, but not hereditary.  Not clear if the Sanhedran was pharasees.  Josephus describes them in a leadership position.  The pharasees became a relatively exclusive group, on the basis of purity on the basis of the law.  Strict.  Experts in the laws, including the traditions of the Fathers.  The Jesus sect criticized the Pharasees for following such human traditions at the expense of the Commandments.  Josephus claims that the Pharasees had observances not written in the Law of Moses.  The Saducees thus disallowed them as obligatory.  Did the Pharasees have an oral Torah as well as a written one?  A conflict over how revelation continues or whether it continues.  Salient and conflictual especially if the two streams contradictory.  Whereas the Pharasees claim divine backing, unlike the Qumran sect they did not claim direct revelation.

Josephus: the Saducees do not believe in the immortality of the soul whereas the Pharisees did.  Eternal life of the soul or bodily resurrection?  Greaco-roman thought: immortality of the soul.  Hints of the soul going from one body to another (metapsychosis?).  Josephus wanted to present the pharasees as like the Stoics.  So, it is not clear that the Pharasees believed in the resurrection of the body.  But, Daniel mentions the rising of the bones.

The Jesus Movement:

Jesus and his immediate followers were Jewish.  Difficult to recover the Jewish Jesus.  Much of the sources on them come after the separation of their movement from Judaism, so Judaism set as an antagonist.  Also, Jesus does not fit with any of the Jewish groups.  Jesus has been portrayed as a rabbi, an Essene-like aesthetic, an apocopliptic prophet, a political revolutionary, a voice of the lower class against the priests, and as a charismatic magician figure.  Many of his characteristics--miracles and teaching, were common in the time.  Not clear if he was in a hellonized context. 

To what extent did Jesus and his followers view him as eschatological.  Did Jesus see himself as a messianic (annointed one--over whom oil had been poured as a sign of being transformed into one having a divine spirit resting on that person, but Kings and priests were not annointed in the second temple period).  Is. 52-3: suffering servant--did he see himself as him.  To what extent did he see himself as a critic of the Jewish institutions whereas the Jesus Movement claimed that he sought to destroy it.  The gospels reflect a non-Jewish hellonized perspective.  Immortality of the soul, dying and rising gods. 

Josephus, in his testimony, may have written about Jesus.  But Christians may have redacted it in.  Jesus, a wise man (if indeed one can call him a man) who did miracles (as the messiah is said to have rose three days after death).  He taught many, was wise, did wonderous things, did sometning that was inciteful.

Was there something in his teachings or feats or death that made him different than others. 

Manarchic and priestly annointed ones.  Which was Jesus? 

Qumran Sect:

Pesher (dream-interpretation--to decode). At Qumran, it refers to prophetic writings.  The sect held that they fulfilled the writings so they used pesher.  For instance, Habakkuk 2: 1-2 was interpreted as that a teacher of righteousness would come in the last generation.  Habakkuk does not have the knowledge of when the end of time will come.  The teacher of righteousness will have revealed the meaning of the prophetic writings, so superior to the prophets.  The Qumran sect lived righteously to be ready, seeing themselves as priviledged to have the esoteric writings.

2/13/97

Late Second Temple Judaism:

The varieties of approaches to scripture in this period.  They start with the same scriptures, but in their interpretations they bring to bear different influences such as Hellonization in Philo.  Their self-understanding came through their interpretation.  Their interpretations were also used to justify themselves.  The Qumran sect, for instance, used apocolyptic interpretation to justify their own separateness, claiming that it is they who are preserving the old.  Also, study of scripture was viewed by many of the sects as a form of worship, substituting for temple sacrifice.   Comfort and self-assurance, especially if suffering (e.g. exclusion) could be gained from self-legitimation.

Different literary forms were used by the different sects in interpreting scripture.  Influence of their self-understandings and agendas/legitimation interests. 

The Dead-Sea Scrolls:

The Pesher claims to be the fuller understanding of the revelation given to Habakkuk. What is to come is to exceed what the prophets had expected.  For instance, Jeremiah's prediction of the restoration of the covenant in seventy years was not totally fulfilled in that time, even with the second temple being built.  A need to explain this.  That the time of redemption may exceed that thought by the prophets because of the mystery of Yahweh.  Further, some, such as the Qumran sect, still considered themselves in exile in the first century BCE--thus they referred to themselves as still in Damascus.  Messianic second-coming came to be used by some sects such as Qumran--to readjust their expectations to the reality--that the covenant had not yet been fulfilled.  The Pesher on Habakkuk urges the sect to be patient--it may seem to be prolonged, but it is on time in God's time.  The Qumran sect, the men of truth, is that in which the law is kept to, undountedly. 

Apocolyptic Hebrew literature taught of four ages, then the end.  This is the fourth age.  'Four' represents a sense of completeness or wholeness.  Four directions.  Seven is so as well: a full week. 

Habakkuk commentary (cont): ii 4a/b.  A stark dualism between the good and evil people.  'The soul is puffed up': conceit.  Their guilt will be doubled.  'The righteous person will live by his faith': faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.  'House of Judah' refers to the Qumran sect--God will deliver its people because of their suffering, living in exile. Suffering takes on a positive note.  The Teacher of Righteousness was probably a historical figure. 

ii.5-8: The last priests of Jerusalem were wicked.  The Romans would come and destroy them.  Fraade: little did the Qumran people know that the Romans would destroy them as well.  Once the priests assumed earthly power, they became corrupt.  Taking power for oneself is to foresake the law for self-gain.  The wicked priest would be punished because of his iniquities against the Teacher of Righteousness. Guyer: like the pharasees as against Jesus?

Enoch is a figure in Genesis.  He lived 365 years, walking with God. He was taken up rather than died. He is the seventh generation of Adam.  Whole numbers.  Apocolyptic groups lived by a solar calander whereas Jerusalem was on a lunar calander.  Enoch lived just prior to the flood.  The books of Enoch, used at Qumran and elsewhere, claim to contain esoteric knowledge from him. 

Book one: 6-11: 'sons of man': humans.  'sons of God': divine angelic figures(Greek translation). Story of several angels coming down unto human women.   The angels taught evil.  The mixing of divine and human causeed evil (the giants).  Enslavement of these angels in a realm.  Greek mythology: of Pandora's box.  Tracing the origins of evil as the mixing of divine and human.  Not only personified by giants, but by the giving of divine knowledge to humans.  Cultural primitivism:  that there was a golden time when heaven was heaven and earth was earth.  A lost paradise, ruptured not by the Fall of Adam, but gradually over generations due to the fallen angels. 

So Enoch gives a vision of the origins of evil as well as how it will be destroyed.  Enoch lived just prior to the flood; thus also the apocalyptic sects saw themselves as just prior to the end.  That there was still evil in the world meant that the final vindication of the righteous and the destruction of evil would necessarily be in the future.  Thus, an origin of evil, then the evil was held in check for the covenantal relationship, but then 'the bottom falls out' followed by the destruction of evil and the vindication of those who remained righteous. 

Scripture is here being fleshed out in the esoteric knowledge qua  a secondary revelation rather than commentary.   In contrast, the Qumran sect used commentary.

Philo: On the Burning Bush. 30 CE. Again, an elaboration and fulling out of a biblical story.  Added by Philo: a form of the fairest beauty in the fire. Divine in appearance. Of Yahweh--or an angel or herald.  The bush, the weakly kind, had thorns and yet fed on the fire.  Retold scripture with more detail, rather than commentary.  In Greek philosophy: a visible God would have been repulsive.  So, 'as if' a divine figure seen.  Though he wants to convey that there was something beautiful seen. 

Then, Philo gives an allegorical commentary on the bush: of the victims of unjust suffering.  The angel: of the hope for them.  The fire saying: your weakness is actually your strength.  Those who seek to destroy you will actually save you.  The fire is consumed, allowing the bush to grow, rather than consuming the fire.  A transcendent level of meaning about sufferers and their oppressors.  Isreal's condition as unjustly suffering at his time.  The Jews of Alexandria were being persecuted by local Egyptions. 

Philo was platonic.  But his work was in the form of a commentary on the Hebrew Bible.  A leading figure among the Hebrews in Alexandria.  But some folks see him as a Greek philosopher.  Fraade: one can be a fully-practicing, learning Hebrew and still use Greek philosophical ideas, images, metaphors and language.  As a philosopher, he was a rationalist.  For instance, he reinterpreted the burning bush miracle as metaphorical rather than a revelation of Yahweh. Rationalizing it.  And yet his passage on the journey of the soul ascending to the heavens blinded by light--by the logos (divine illumination) has a salient mystical aspect--mystical union with God.  Plato had mystical writings as well.  So don't assume that Philo's rationalism is necessarily from Greek philosophy and his mysticism from his Hebraism. 

It may be that Philo did not know Hebrew.  He used the Septuigent.  Hebrews in Alexandria believed that the Greek translation was a divinely revealed or inspired translation. 

We have little knowledge of where Philo fit it.  Was he an idiosyncratic writer or was his synthetic writings for a larger movement which sought such synthesis.

2/18/97

The Destruction of the Temple (70 CE):

The variety of possible causes and responses.  Like the Macebeeian revolt, the revolt in 70 seems to have been hopeless, so why did the Hebrews do it?  Key: Roman precursors.  Rule by local autonomy had been slighted.

In covenental terms, it would have been something which Israel did.  The rabbinic view.  Israel being punished for their mis-deeds.  Namely, the internal splits--gratuitous hate.  Internal dissinegration from within.  Who controls the temple was a flash-point for such conflicts.  Power-struggles.  A society that is at war with itself. 

Josephus places blame on the zealot groups.  Out for personal gain and self-righteousness, blind to the suicidal nature of the revolt.  Josephus wrote twenty years after the revolt.  He wrote under Roman patronage and he supported the pharisees as local rulers ameniable to the Romans, so he blamed the zealots.  The Hebrews did not like him. He had surrendered to the Romans rather than committing suicide(as he said would be honourable if the alternative was slavehood to the Romans).  He and his troops under him had agreed to mutual suicide.  He was left, but stayed alive and surrendered to the Romans. He claimed divine inspiration.  He prophasized that Vespasian would be emperor.  This prophesy fulfilled in 69 CE, Vespasian patronizes Josephus' work.

Other explanations for the destruction of the Temple.  The internal decay may have been caused by a loss in confidence in the priesthood.  Both the Romans and Hebrew populace depended upon such local rule.  Pharasees questions the Hasbean dynasty.  Also, the Macabeeians suffered internal strife. The high priesthood had become a political office.  Finally, when Rome conquered in 63 BCE, they ended this squabbling in establishing Herod.  Being half Hebrew, he was hated by such groups as the Pharasses and Essenes.  So the Dead Sea Scrolls show contempt not only of the Romans but of other Hebrew groups.

Lastly, Daniel prophesied a messianic apolyptic age following the fall of the Syrians (the fourth leg).  A messiah had not arrived, so hanging over these events was an expectation of a restoration.  As it did not occur, tensions rose as to why.

Hebrew groups around Herod benefited from the continuation of Roman rule, whereas others did not benefit.  For instance, the Sadducees and the Essenes, respectively.  One response was to separate into the wilderness.  Not all of the Essenes went off to the wilderness.  The Qumran sect was one that had chosen to separate into the wilderness to live out a pure and pious life waiting for the end of time.  The pharasees were in the middle.  In and out of favor. Prepared to appease Rome and accomodate it, getting what they could and staying off a revolt.  Realistic stance: that a revolt would be suicidal.   But Josephus had an interest in portraying the pharisees as aminiable to the Romans. The zealots opposed Roman rule because it was a violation of the covenantal agreement.   In 6 CE, the zealot movement began as an objection to the census of King Agrippa I of Syrain district.  The Roman emperors were viewed by Romans as gods; Roman polity as a form of worship too.  Acceptance of Roman rule would then involve not only political compromise, but religious compromise as well. 

What caused the revolt? A series of rulers hostile to Hebrew practices led up to the Roman order that Temple sacrifice be to the emperor (66 CE).  Daniel's fourth beast was reinterpreted as the fourth leg to fall before the Messianic time of fulfillment.  When the Roman porcurator, Florrus was defeated by the Hebrews.  The various Hebrew groups rallied behind the zealots.  But by 68 when the Romans sacked Jerusalem, the various Hebrew groups split from the zealots.  Sicarii (the remaining zealot group) fled to Masada in 68.

2/21/97

From the Temple to the Rabbinic Sect: Sectarianism

The priests may have had some staying power after 70 CE because they had other power-bases than their role in the Temple. 

According to Rabbi Nathan: ch. 4:  a commentary on the mishnah.  Simeon the Righteous, a high priest under Bensurrah (200BCE): everything rests not just on the Torah but on the Temple worship(sacrificial), and on acts of loving-kindness.  But are all three necessary?  Why this order?  A hierarchy?  After the temple was destroyed, presumably the world has lost one of its foundations and cannot stand.  Tables on three legs were common then. Implication: if one is removed, the table would fall.  All three are essential.  The destruction of the temple would thus cause the world to fall.  The commentary goes element by element. 

On the Torah: knowledge of the will of Yahweh rather than offering burnt offerings.  Such knowledge over  sacrifice of burnt offerings.  Therefore, expounding on scripture accounts by a sage accounts as if he were offering a burnt offering.  This is not stated in the Bible.  A logical proof.  The intended audience: rabbinic sages?  Or intended homologically? There was no Rabbi Nathan; rather, a compilation of teachings by different sages/rabbis.  The logic:

I desire mercy and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.  Burnt offerings is one type of sacrifice--the kind that is entirely consumed; none is left to eat.  If it is true for burnt offerings and burnt offerings is the highest form of sacrifice, then the knowledge of God is superior to sacrifice.  Assp: knowledge of God is assumed to be through Torah.  But direct revelation.  Study of Torah to know the will of God and understand God.  This fills in the gap's assumption.   So when there is no temple, when you study Torah, it is counted as sacrificial worship(which is required by the Torah).  So, a make-shift altar is not necessary.  This argument is to get around the Torah mandating sacrificial worship.   When you speak, in study or worship, it was considered like an offering.  Also, study of the temple was thought to be engaging in the practice itself. 

Guyer: if it is not assumed that 'rather than' means the same as 'superior to' as well as 'equal to', then the conclusion of the argument from Hos. 6:6 would be: Study of the Torah should be done instead of sacrificial worship.  But Hosea's historical context of hypocrisy was his rationale for mandating against sacrifice; that is, he is not proscribing sacrifice per se but hypocritical sacrifice.  That Leviticus mandates sacrifice would not be contradicted.  The commontary of Rabbi Nathan as logical--would not stand.  Study of Torah is not to take the place of sacrifice (or, count as sacrifice).

On the story of the sage interrupting his study (worship) to attend to the mourners and bride:  God's act of loving-kindness even interrupts His own agenda. 

On the Temple worship: It maintains the world.  Rain is dependent upon it.  Drought was seen as failure of Temple worship.   So, Temple worship is important.  Does this contradict the argument on Torah study?  Guyer: No.  That study counts as Temple worship and the latter is important means that study is important.

The Rabbinic movement had to confront the loss of the Temple--something was missing.  At the same time, their alternative was to be argued (without trashing that which had been lost.

The Rabbinic movement was made up of middle and lower class people.  To be a rabbi was not a profession (salaried). 

On acts of loving-kindness: they, rather than temple worship, are mandated.  Argument goes: such acts count for temple worship.

2/25/97

A Second Failed Revolt (135 CE) and the Consolidation of Rabbinic Judaism:

The revolt of 70 CE resulted in worship without a sacrificial cult, the decline of authority of the priesthood, the disappearance of several varieties of Judaism, a growing split between Judaism and Christianity, an intensification of Roman rule and taxation, and a need to interpret events (4 Ezra and 2 Baruch) and for reconstruction (new unified institutions).  The destruction of the second temple became paradigmatic for Hebrews.  A fast day. It becomes a Hebrew experience type that includes other calamities.  Even so, most Hebrew holidays are celebratory. 

Even after the destruction of the Temple, some Hebrew groups continued with the sacrificial system of worship.  It was not a cut.  The Samarians, for instance, continue a priestly line and sacrifice, on their temple mount--even though their temple was destroyed.  So too, the Hebrews sacrified on their temple mount after 70. 

As the sacrificial system declined, the matter of atonement became problematic.  Also, Jesus' followers saw the destruction to be divine punishment.  Also, many of them left in 68.  An increasing Gentile orientation to the Jesus Movement and greater separation from the other Hebrews. 

Rome punished the local population by higher taxes and increased control of the area.  The zealots' view was repudiated by the Hebrews.  Josephus blameed them for the revolt as being suicidal rather than a messianic ushering-in militarily. 

Whereas in the Hellonistic period there was much proselatizing by the Hebrews, there was a turning inward after the revolt.  The loss of a center.  The temple and the Sanhedran, as well as the chance of a monarchy, were lost.  The rabbinic movement sought to fill the gap, though without a geographical center.  Reinterpretation of scripture to explain the current events and condition.  Some Hebrew sects, interpreted the events as the Romans being agents of God to punish Israel and usher in the end of time.  Apocolyptic.  Further, Rabbinic sages of authority was not mentioned in the scripture.  We have no rabbinic sources from that time that would help us to understand how the group emerged and gained power, as well as what they taught, although we do have stories about leading rabbis.  The tannaim period (70-220).  The tannaim tunnel; knowledge of the preceding and following periods.  Though we do know that rabbi Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai established a sect at Yavneh to re-establish Hebrew practice.  Story that he argued against the zealots, was taken out of Jerusalem in a coffin to join his students.  The Romans gave him his wish for a place to settle with his followers--at Yavneh (Jamnia).  Emphasis was on collecting the earlier teachings so they would not be lost (mostly the teachings of Hillel).  Most of the festivals had centered around the temple, so they sought new ways of continuing them.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai may have given Yavneh the status that Jerusalem had had.  Or, he may have given this status to any town having more than 120 males (thus a court).  He claimed that what had been done in the temple could be done outside if they remembered the temple.  Passover, for instance.  The sader developed after the temple.  It had been a festival wherein sacrifice was silent. 

Rabban Gamaliel II succeeded Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as Patrirch (Nasi), claiming Hillel and the monarchs as his ancestors.  A high priest figure who consolidated rabbinic Judaism.  But the master-disciple circle, rather than a central figure, was paramount in the Rabbinic sect.  A difference between the Patriarch and some of the rabbinic sages on how to set the calander.  Gamliel II became abusive toward the sages and was removed from his authority.  Other internal divisions.  Mysticism, for instance.  R. Akiva vs. R. Ishmael.  Merkavah mysticism.  Competing master/disciple circles. 

Revolts in diaspora under Trajan in 115-117.  But they must have known that it would be suicidal.

Causes of the revolt of 135 CE.  Simeon Bar Kokhba claimed that frustrated hopes for a rebuilt temple, a Roman ban on circumcision, and the building of a pagan temple in Jerusalem.  But these charges can't be verified.  Bar Kokhba (son of the star--because 'star' had a messianic meaning--Num. 24:17: 'A star shall rise from Jacob, a scepter shall come forth from Israel').  Expectations thus centered on the messianic military leader, Bar Kokhba.

A series of caves between Qumran and Yavnah on Ben Kokhba left by his students in the Judean area.  One of the consequences of the revolt was a shift of the rabbinic movement from Judea to Galalee.  Some evidence found at Ben Kokhba's caves of incense being used in synagogues. 

Consequences of the Bar Kokhba revolt:  Although it ended in destruction, there was no temple to be destroyed.  Recall that Jeramiah said that seventy years time would bring a restoration of the first temple.  135 is 65 years after the destruction of the second temple.  Messianic hopes behind the revolt perhaps.

Unlike the revolt in 70, it was more dispersed.  Hebrews were prohibited from living in Jerusalem; A pagan temple was built on the mount.  These edicts were short-lived, however.  Local autonomy within the empire was restored.  An outward recognition of the rabbanic leader by Rome.  A series of rabbinic leaders: Bet Shearim, Sepphoris, Tiberias.  Judah the Patrirch (170-220), the 'editor' of the Mishnah, was the most noted.  Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel II attempted to reconstruct rabbinic Judaism in Usha (135-165).

2/27/97

The rabbinic sages had to work through going from being out of power in the late second temple period to solidifying of the patriarch.  An inner struggle within the sect between the patriarch and the local sage/disciple circles.  This struggle existed before the revolt of 135 as well as after. 

Gamliel II, patriach beginning at 70 CE.  On the other hand, Josua ben Hananiah and Eleazar ben Azana, two respected sages, claimed autonomy from Gabmliel II.  Gamliel II went overboard in enforcing his authority and was thus removed.  Eleazar ben Azana replaced him for a time.  Then, Gamliel was returned and Eleazar became the second authority.

The Babylonian Talmud:

From the Iran/Iraq area.  The Jerusalem Talmud was written in Palestine.  The rabbinic sages were in two groups.  the tannaim (70-220) taught orally.  From then on, the amoraim had the Mishnah and developed written commentaries on it (200-400/500).  Whereas the tannaim were in Judah, the amoraim were in Galilee and Babylonia. 

The Babylonian Talmud--indication of loyalty of students to their own teacher.  Rabbinic teaching: halakhah--'the way'--legal teachings; aggadah(or haggadah)--to tell (narrative, e.g. ethical, homolitical). 

Deut.  Every seven years, the priests are to read the Torah to the assembled people. Why is 'assemble' worthy of commentary?  Something redundant in the verse.  What do the extra words tell us that we don't already know.  There can't be duplication in sacred scripture.  Revelation--every word must have some significance.  The Torah goes on to specify three types of people in the assembly.  Why?  Why 'the men, the women, and the little ones'?  The men are there to learn, the women to hear--but why the children? In order to grant reward to those who bring their parents.  Although the children have no obligation, the parents have the obligation to explain to the children the meaning of the Torah.  The parents accrue credit to themselves.  The family generational transmition of the faith due to the loss of the central institutions such as the temple.  Medieval interpretations stressed the role of women, so they would not stay home to watch their children. 

Allegiance to particular teachers, but that the teachings of another sage could be used by the students of another is to say that there is a unity as well, rather than just competing sages. 

Deut: 26:17-8: Thou hast avouched(declared) the Lord this day and the Lord has avouched thee this day.  Broken up and explained by two other verses (Deut 6: 4 and 1 Chron. 17:21. Both: 'this day', and 'the Lord has declared'.  Mirror images--the Lord has declared and Isreal has declared.  Issue: in what way are the Lord and Israel communicate to each other?  A mutual affirmation.  What is its nature.  Both make the other the unique precious of their love.  Each make the other a unique (one) object of their love.  Verses sought where God claims Isreal is one, and where Israel declares that God is one (Hear of Isreal, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Deut 6:4).  'And who is like unto Thy people Israel, a nation one in the earth' 1 Chron. 17:21.  Like marriage vows.  Each affirms the oneness (uniqueness) of the other.  Just as God is one, Israel is one--all the people.  So when God sees Israel, he sees one.  So all of Israel is to be assembled for the reading of Torah because Isreal is one to God.  In its historical context, the claim that God is one was unusual.

'And why are the words of the Torah likened to a goad' (goad: prodding stick). Just as the goad to the a female calf keeps it on track--that it might wander off--to death.  So, to keep it alive. The words of the wise (sages) is taken like the words of the Torah.  The sages are not just philosophers.  There is a revelatory nature to interpreting the Torah. The Torah is a way of directing people from the path of death to that of life.  One might think that like a stick, the words are the Torah are impermanent and moveable, but they are like nails.  The words of the Torah are immovable and yet grow (by rabbinic interepretation).  But a nail can only be hit so much, so the metaphor turns to a plant (well planted). The words of Torah grow. Implied: they grow by the re-interpretation by the sages.  Fraade: this shows the limits of a given metaphor. 

In the midst of debating Torah coming to disagreements, how can one learn anything?  The debating is confusing.  Ecclesiastes: All of them are given from one Shepard.  One God gave them.  One leader uttered them...(e.g. Moses).  So the words of the Torah came from one source, so their unity transcends their divergent interpretations.  The differences came from one God.  So, it is not the case that one of two conflicting opinions is pure.  So, rather than being confused by the multiplicity, open up your ear to take in all of the words.  Then with your heart and mind, understand both sides of the argument.  Ultimately, all of it is revelatory because it comes from one source even though at the end of the day the rabbis vote on which interpretation to accept.  Rab. Joshua thus claims to his students that R. Eleazar has not been abandoned(orphaned) by God.  Implication: God is the source of the words of both sages.  Also, that Torah and its teaching has come to replace the temple sacrifical system. God is still present.  So R. Joshua's students should not be afraid to tell him about the teachings of R. Eleazar.

If the vote does not mean that the interpretation not chosen is not revelatory, would an apostosy be possible out of a disagreement.  Fraade:  implicit cultural limits serve the function of boundaries.

3/4/97

Rise and Decline of Palestinian Rabbinate and Patriarchate (200-400 CE):

After the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 CE, a messianic event by military means was quelshed.  Also, a pagan temple on the mount quelled any hope of a third temple being built.  A period of reconstruction.  Many of the Hebrews went north to Galalee.  Some Roman emperors came to have improved relations with the rabbinic patriarchs.  Judah the Patriarch, for instance.  He is 'the Rabbi'. 170-220 CE.  He provided coherence to the rabbinic movement, even as there were some independent master/disciple circles.  He edited the Mishnah--not tied to biblical exegesis.  At Bet Shearim, he and his family were buried. Greek inscriptions.  A hellonistic influence on the rabbinic movement. 

Of the patriarchs, an implicit claim of Davidic monarchic rulership, kept up by the line of Rabbis.  The Amoraim sages (225-425) followed the Tannaim sages.  The Mishnah was between these periods.  The Amoraim period included the talmuds.  Why?  Competing interpretation of the Hebrew Bible between the Hebrews and the Christians.  Origen, for instance, interpreted Song of Songs as the relationship of Jesus to his church.  The rabbis interpreted it as Hehweh's love for Israel.  As Christianity developed and became more gentilic, it came to be seen as external by the rabbis.  Also, that the Hebrews did not like the prospect of being ruled by Christians (intolerance feared, plus the Christian claim that Judaism had been superceeded); they preferred being ruled by pagans. 

Diarchy: two rulers--Davidic and priestly.  From the belief in the expectation of the return of two messiahs. 

With the Christianization of the empire with Constantine (308-337), the rabbinic movement in Palestine declined; that in Babylon strengthened.  Also in this period, the rise of the synagogue.  Rabbis were not in the synagogues. 

The Jews in Babylonia:

In 225 CE, the Misnah was brought to Babylon by Rav and Samuel. Many of the rabbis and their followers moved to Babylon when the Roman Empire became Christianized (a competing monotheism).   What institutions kept the Jews there intact such that the Babylonian Talmud was compiled between 600-700 CE.  This text claimed that the exile had not ended.  From 140 BCE until 640 CE when the Muslims took over, a time of unmitigated local autonomy.  Also, not the influence of the divinization of the Roman emperors and the Christianization of that empire. A more continious development of the rabbinic movement. In Babylonia, religious pluralism tolerated.  This may explain why many Jews did not return to Jerusalem under Cyrus I.  The Parthians ruled from 140 BCE-226 CE, folloowed by the Sasanians until 640 CE.  The pact with Shappur I (250 CE) formalized the rights of the Jews.

The Exilarchate became a rabbinic figure.  There were two systems of Jewish schools. 

Babylonia and Palestine, compared.

The messianic and apocalyptic movement centered on the temple in Jerusalem was not in Babylon. The suffering and tulmalt in Palestine may have caused development (the Mishnah and the Jerusalem Talmud) of the religion.  Hellonization felt much more in Palestine than in Babylonia.  The latter was buffered. 

3/25/97

Rabbinic Torah and Rabbinic Sage:

'Talmud' refers to the Jerusalem and Babylon Talmuds; the word itself means 'study'.  So, there had been a change from worship in ritual to the activity of study.  The study of Talmud was given a central place in the Rabbinic cult.  What permitted this change?  Destruction of the Temple?  Too simplistic.  The rabbis were not the only cultus interested in study.  Qumran sect, for instance.  Jesus sect: biblical reading and interpretation was salient.  Also, the rabbis did not bring a claim of authority from the bible.  The sage is not a leadership figure in it.  So, more than the temple's destruction caused the change.  Consider the unique nature of the rabbis' study.  They study the bible through the eyes of the rabbis(i.e. through the Talmud), rather than directly.  The number of rabbis was a small portion of the population.  Two-hundred during the time of the change.  So their influence spead slowly.  Remarkable that so few such newcomers could effect such a change and end up at the lead.

'Torah' was one of the three pillers/legs of Judaism by 200 C.E.  It means 'teaching' as well as a particular teaching (e.g. of a particular cluster of laws).  Gk word 'nomos' for it, which meant 'the Law'.  Fraade: a more accurate word would be 'teaching'. 

Several Torahs.  In Deut., which emphasizes instruction and teaching, the word 'Torah' went to a more general body of teaching, and on to refer to a larger corpus of writing.  The rabbis' 'Torah' referred to the accumulative and continuing revelations through their own time.  Their own teaching.  An expansion of the referants of Torah.  The oral Torah was transmitted as well as taught by the rabbinic sage. 

How differentiate post-canonical Torahic revelation?  A retelling of the biblical story, filling in gaps, consolidating, reconciling contradictions, re-organizing.  Expansions and revisions of the written canonical Torah.  Second Temple time: belief in a common body of revealed 'plain', or historical' meaning of the Torah as well as metaphoric meaning.  Also, apocolyptic, esoteric (secret) revelation, referred to as the second Torah.  The seven books revealed to Moses on the Mount for secret dissemination only.   Consider Qumran sect--the secret teachings of the Teacher of Righteousness.  The new testament.  Also, the Pharisees considered themselves to have the traditions of the fathers as a second level of revelation.  Jesus followers believed in a new revelation, distinguished from the old Torah. The new testament.  Patristic Christian theologians used this hermeneutic. 

All of these uses of a second revelation go back to the belief that Moses received a written and oral revelation.  The above sects saw themselves as the latest link.  But the oral revelation was intended for all of Israel.  Fraade: a dialectic of elitism and egalitarianism in ancient Judaism.   Beliefs that anyone could understand the revelation as well as become a rabbi (egalitarian), and the rabbis are the intermediaries, embodying the Torah as the latest link in the chain of revelation/tradition.  The priests had had the intermediary role in transmitting and interpreting the Torah.  The rabbis exclude them from the links.

Illustrations of rabbinic interpretation of the Torah.  Ex. 20:15: "And all the people saw the thunders and the lightnings'.  Heb. 'thunder' also means 'voice'.  Why plural? The voice of the Torah is heard differently by each person, because of his or her ability, or strength.  R. Judah: this goes to the excellence of the Hebrews.  Ps. 29:4 and Deut. 32:10 used to interpret Ex. 20:15.  Unlike human speech, divine speech is not interpreted in the same way by every hearer.  Also, that the people were interpreting at the time of revelation is excellent.  Rabbinic study is just so.  See Deut. 32:10.

a fortiori  argument: from more to less or vice versa.  A type of rabbinic argument.

Rabbinic principles of Torah.  The presuppositions behind rabbinic interpretation.  Omnisignificance: every detail of revelation has meaning and cannot be a repetition or duplication.  See Ps. 62:12.  One scriptural passage issues as several meanings, but one meaning does not issue from several scriptural passages.  Else, verses would be redundant.  Everything has some meaning to be discovered.  Inexhaustibility: because there are always new meanings to a given verse, something new can always be revealed in the verse.  So in studying, turn a verse over and over again.  All truth is in the Torah. See Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 88b.   And Deut. 32:47. There is nothing empty in the bible.  Even geneologies.  If it seems empty, it is our failure to dig deep enough.   Intertextuality: the passages are interconnected, so one can be used to interpret another.  Even though it is in a different book written chronologically much later.  Rabbinic artistry is in using verses to interpret others. Palestinian Talmud Megillah 4:1 (74d): 'Even that which an advanced disciple will one day teach before his master was already revealed to Moses from Sinai.  So the rabbis claimed that their mishnah was part of the revelation laid down at Sinai.  Assuption: a writing can be eternal and temperal concurrently.  Continual revelation: what began at Sinai continues through study of the Torah; that Sinai can be experienced even in the future, because part of what has been revealed has not yet been revealed.  Sinai as a one-time event and rabbinic study as continual.  Torah and Reason: The Torah is a divine text in its origins but as given to humans it must be interpreted by human means of reason (so, not in visions, dreams).  Reason has its purpose in interpreting revelation.  Rules of anology and logic.  Guyer: not intuition.  The study of Torah itself (talmud torah) is an act of worship, so not just a means to an end.  Study as a religious act in itself. 

3/27/97

Rabbinic Principles of Torah (cont):

Talmud torah: the Talmud is part of the Torah.  Continuing revelation given at Sinai.

Torah and Israel: Because Israel is in possession of the Torah, it is the chosen nation of its deity.

Sifre Deuteronomy 33:  on Deut. 6:6.

What does it mean to love God?  Through study.  Internalizing the words of God through meditation, repetition, and study.  So, it is through His words that one can enter into a mystical union with God.  Like the experience in the temple.  This is to love God with your heart (includes emotions and intellect). 

Sifre Deuteronomy 49:

The sage-disciple relation is the closest to a relationship to God.

Babylonian Talmud 59b:

R. Joshua: Reason is a way of continuing the Torah. Eleizer: God himself continues to reveal.  R. Joshua: The Torah is not in heaven.  That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai, we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice (R. Jeremiah, cited by R. Joshua). See Deut. 30:27. 'It is not in heaven': you don't need to go there for continuing revelation, nor is another Moses needed.  So, one need not look to miracles. God's will is not expressed in nature or miracles, but in the Torah alone. Eleizer has God perform miracles--in so doing, he was in effect saying that he did not have to argue based on the text.  Direct divine revelation rather than solely through His word.  The rabbis thus kicked Eleizer out of their circle.  They did so because they did not want strife to multiply in Israel.

In this narrative, God is portrayed as a party to an argument. "My children have defeated me."  God as a rabbi and a parent, celebrates the coming of age of his disciples/sons (because they had realized that His revelation had already been given at Sinai).  God is placed here in the rabbinic framework of sage-disciple relations.  

The narrative could also be of the rise of the rabbinic movement: who speaks for God.  R. Eleizer represents the old school.  He may have been from priestly descent. The rabbis thought he was a threat to their control; they dropped him from their circle because they feared strife in Israel would result.  Why did God punish Israel for the rabbis' decision to remove R. Eleizer?  Why would God kill R. Gamaliel?  That God thought they removed him for their own benefit (e.g. power): it is that they did it for Israel rather than themselves.  But to make this point does the writer of this narrative permit God to be seen as not onmiscient and onipotent. 

That God had set down is total revelation at Sinai: is this Deism?

The rabbis presume that reason is the way to experience God.

Fraade:  Gamaliel (II)  came down so hard on dissenting rabbis that he overstepped his bounds and was thrown out.  The text takes Eleizer's miracles as valid.  Is this a hint of suspicion--what if it was self-interest that had been motivating the removal.  Moreover, a conflict between two mutually exculsive forms of revelation: apocalyptic vision (e.g. miracles done by individuals) and collective decision.  If different Hebrew groups were allowed to have their own interpretations, there might be a return to the strife of the first Temple period.  In organizing Isrealite life, the rabbis' form of revelation has priority; not that individual prayer was no longer efficacious.

4/1/97

Midrash:

Midrash is a exegetical commentary of the Torah; the Mishnah is free of scripture, being the first text on rabbinic law by topic.  The Talmuds are commentaries on the Mishnah.  Midrash divides into halakhah (law) and aggadah (non-legal).  The aggadah divides in turn into tannatic and amorai.  Midrash: to search for, or to investigate; seeking God's presence/will through study of the scripture text. Ben Sura and the Qumran sect refer to 'midrash' as seeking the presence of God to studying, respectively.  Seeking meaning through text is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, but one book seems to take for granted earlier books.  For instance, a chapter in Deut. may be a commentary on a verse in Exodus. Also, apocolyptic texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls are commentaries on Torah. Ben Sura, Philo, Josephus, too.  Philo ignored the prophets whereas Qumran focused on the prophets.  That sect focused fulfilment of prophesy whereas Philo focused on teachings. But a formal commentary was not done in such texts or in the Torah itself. 

On the shift in the means sought for continuing revelation.  Deut. 17: 7-8--temple priests could interpret law from the Torah.  Priests were thought to be uniquely inspired.  In time, a shift from direct charismatic revelation to study of scripture for continuing revelation. 

Hillel's seven hermeneutical rules on scripture.  Rules of logic--of analogy, predicated on rules of logic derivative of methods used elsewhere in the Greco-Roman world.  Examples: gezerah shavah: if two verses contain shared language, one may be used to elucidate the other.  Assp: each word has divine significance.  So contexts can be used to understand the meaning of a given word. Second, qal vehomer: 'if... for x, how much more so y', y being greater or more complete than x. This is the argument of afortiori. 

For example, if circumcision which effects only one part of the body is may be done on the Sabbath, so much more could the body of the whole be touched (saving someone's life).  Fraade: it appeals to a basic human logic that so much more for the stronger than the weaker, but there is a difference between the two which could obstruct the analogy. No human logic rule is perfect and thus the basis for certainty.  So predicating rabbinic law on laws/presumptions of human reason has left the law open to challenge. So the rabbis have claimed that the rules of human logic have been divinely revealed. This is not to say that rabbis did not differ on their interpretation of the rules (laws of human reason).  R. Ishmael, for instance, de-emphasized the salience of details (individual words) whereas R. Akiba stressed details.

On the weakness of afortiori: For instance, circumcision is doing damage to one part of the body whereas saving a life restores the body.  The analogy: from a lesser part of the body, so much more so for the whole body.  Another analogy on the sabbath vs. life-saving: the sabbath is kadesh (holy/sacred) only if a person is alive, so much more so for the person and his offspring and descendents.  The sabbath exists for the benefit of a person, not the person for the sabbath. This saying was attributed to Jesus.  This midrash does not conclude which proof the rabbis relied upon to conclude that saving a life may be done on the sabbath.    Macabee, pp. 172ff.  The seven rules of Hillel's logic is recited every morning in liturgy. 

Rabbi Ishmael's thirteen is another set of hermeneutical rules.

The halakkah (legal part of the Midrash) focus: on behavior.  Aggadah focus: to flesh out gaps in the biblical narrative.  Fraade: On halakkah, to what extent are the laws independent of scripture as opposed to being in it(reconnecting a practice to its source).  Another distinction: On aggadah, expositional and homoletical.  Structure of midrash verse by verse of scripture, or from a verse include others that flesh out the topic of the first verse.  For instance, the first verse of a weekly liturgical reading could function of the starting place, other verses coming in as they pertain to the topic.

Example of homological midrash: Deut. 1: 8 used on the topic of Ex. 20:2.  Question and answer, back and forth, is the style of midrash.  'out of the house of bondage': hebr, house of servants.  So were the Hebrews slaves of slaves?  Or slaves of God, Yahweh's servants?  If the former, they were slaves and slaves and so might have been thrown out of Egypt.  A different notion of redemption comes out of this.  Deut. 1:8 is used because it contains the topic of house of bondage.  Not that this is the only relevant verse.  This verse, 'house of bondange' means slaves of the king (so he would not have let them go voluntarily).  A third interpretation out of midrash here: the verse can be read figuratively rather than of redemption from physical conditions: 'house of slaves'--of idol worshipers.  A spiritual redemption out of idol worship.  Midrash does not choose between the latter two interpretations; both can be valid.

4/3/97

Mishnah:

From the Mishnah came the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds.  Root of 'mishnah': oral teaching, denoting repetition (memorization and recitation).  Passing on the art and contents of memorization.  A Torah that is transmitted orally.  Two Torahs thought to have been given to Moses at Sinai.  Around 200 C.E., Judah the patriarch wrote the Mishnah.  The word 'mishnah' thus became identified with a specific corpus.  The area of law in the Mishnah is of ordinary activities such as eating--that through such laws one's life could be ordered.  The sacred in ordinary activities. For instance, the sanctification of the table. Guyer: Roman Christian sect's eucharist. Desire to structure the world around oneself.  The historical events (e.g. foreign rule), in contrast, was viewed as less in the Hebrews' control, so it was seen as left up to the divine will--as revealed in the written Torah.

The written Torah has specifications on a given topic, such as the sabbath, scatter throughout it.  Different circumstances to the relevant verses.  So Philo sought to put together verses by topic.  For instance, he wrote on the ten commandments, specifying on their virtues, using allegorical interpretation.  Organizing the Torah laws under the ten commandments.  For instance, under 'thou shalt not steal' comes laws of property relations. He presumed that the ten commandments were a natural organization for the laws. Josephus, as well as the Qumran sect, reorganized Torah verses according to topic.

Judah the patriarch did the most extensive job of reorganizing written Torah laws under topics and integrating to this the oral Torah specifications--c.a. 220 C.E.  Earlier mishnah's were ascribed to other rabbis, such as Akiba in 125 C.E.  Because rabbinic cult was decentralized, various rabbis wrote mishnahs.  So R. Judah sifted through various mishnahs to come up with his own.  So he had to leave mishnah material out of his categories--these materials continued to circulate orally(Barayta) or in other compilations(Tosefta).  The Talmud writers consulted these as well as the Torah and the Mishnah.  So more attention came to be on the Talmuds than the Mishnah. Fraade: reorganizing the written Torah (which was given by Yahweh in its original form) implies that it is difficult to learn it as it was given.  The method of the mishnah: apply the logic of sorting.  It is a common human activity.  Humans want order and structure around them. 

The Mishnah have six orders.  Seeds--on the land (agriculture relevant to Israel).  Seasons--festivals, holydays, sabbath.  Women--marriage, divorce, and other types of vows.  Damages--Torts and the court system.  Holy Things--on the sacrificial cult of the Temple.  Purities.  Sixty three tractates, 523 chapters, in a single mishayot. 

The Mishnah's logic is oriented to items which tend to fall through the crack.  It starts with the exceptions, that disrupt the order, and attempts to put them in the order, equilibrium, and structure.  Fitting everything into neat peg-holes.  This is not to say that everything was useful at the time--sacrificial cult specifications, for instance. So why so much attention to this topic while there tractates on the synagogue, kosher diet, and circumcision are not in the Mishnah?  In the eighteenth century, Moses Momannese argued that the sacrificial cult was primitive and that the Hebrews had progressed beyond it in the rabbinic cult.  Guyer: same logic as Lessing used to argue that Judaism was less evolved that Christianity.  Fraade: the study of the law became a form of worship, so studying the laws of purity or sacrifice is itself a way of making the temple present.  Also, a desire to keep the hope for a restored temple going.  So the study of the law is not merely a pragmatic means by which to sanctify ordinaries of life, but was a way to keep a hope alive.

The Midresh (interpretation of Torah verses, taking away lessons for living), and the Mishnah (creating a system of organization between different areas of ordinary life) represent two different human logics as applied to divine discourse.  The Mishnah is more concise than is the Midresh.

Example of Mishnah regulations on the sabbath:

The Torah contains few. Mishnah topic discourse jumps right into the varying assumptions. Mishnah Shabbat 1:1-- transferring something from private to public domains is to cross a boundary and is therefore prohibited.  Ex. 16:29--the people should not go out of their houses to collect manna on the seventh day.  But the Mishnah does not give this biblical background; rather, it begins with thirty-nine categories of work.  Fraade: how did the rabbis get these thirty-nine categories? From the Midrash.  M. shabbat 1:1 is on one of the thirty-nine categories:  crossing a boundary between private and public domains.  A houseowner and a poor person. If the poor person reaches inside a window, he is culpable.  Fraade: moreover, charity, as it involves an exchange of money, is forbidden on the sabbath.  When one person both extends his hand but does not take, it is fine.  The other party could put something in his hand.

Fraade: the concern behind the Mishnah and Midrash is to provide order or structure to one's life.  The concern for kindness or compassion was not their concern, and thus could be superceded in the conclusions which they reach.

Taking as an assumption that the world is out of order(e.g. the larger historic world was unstable for the Hebrews through most of their history), some small disorder in one's life would be threatening.

4/8/97

Talmud:

The Babylonian Talmud is the central work of study in Rabbinic Judaism.  'talmud' means 'study'.  Like the Midrash, a dialectical style.  Mishnah is to Talmud as Torah is to Midrash.  The Talmuds comprise Mishnah and Gemarah(commentary on Mishnah--in Hebrew and Aramiac). The Talmud is a mult-layered, or 'hyper' text.  An interweaving of different pages/sources (cross-references).  A variety of sources, weaved into a web (massethet).  Rather than reaching a concensus, it leaves matters open.

What of the Mishnah warrants commentary?  The Mishnah is not structured around Torah.   Also, the Barayta and Tosefta were not included in the Mishnah.  A creative source of exegesis.  So, a web-like structure including both the written and oral Torah.  Third, more specificity was needed on the laws of the Mishnah, and the difference in context in Babylon and Palestine warrented specific applications.  So, new conditions.  More of Hebrew life was sought to be covered. 

The study of Talmud is not a merely a means to an end in religious application, but is in itself worship.  'Debate for the sake of heaven'.  That there is a spiritual, mystical and redemptive aspect of human intellect on divine matters which goes beyond 'useful knowledge'.  So an interest in seeking the nature of the reasoning of a minority view; argument not to 'win', but to explore human reasonings.  The method of study: partnership--with another person, living out the dynamic of debate.

The Talmuds are multi-generational.

Talmudic sugya:  a literary unit of an argument having an opening a end even though the argument is often left to stand. 

Rav Ashi (352-427) began the redaction.  Last of the Amoraim period, Rabina II bar Huna (d. 499).  Persecutions of 438-84 hastened comilation.  The Babylonian Talmud was completed in 499, a century before the Palestine Talmud.  Differences in content: the former has few tractates on agriculture whereas the latter has many.  The Babylonian Talmud is three-times as large as the Palestinian Talmud. To what extent they shared sources is open to debate.  The Babylonian Talmud became the authoritative text.  The Palestinian Talmud is more enlightening in matters of history, but less so in matters of law even though it is a text on laws. 

The Midrashic commentary on scripture is seen as sacred, whereas the Mishnah and Gamerah are seen as human texts.  So the Talmuds do not have a holy quality.

Tractate(massekhet) Berakhot (Blessings).  The first tractate of Seeds.  Blessings tend to rotate around meals.  Thanksgiving for food.  The notion of prayer as a free-form of religious worship is absent from the bible.  Deut. 8:10, however, says that after the first harvest in the promised land, give blessing.  A one time thing?  Slim scriptural support.  Mishnah: before meal, bless the wine and bread (begin with a drink of wine).  Blessing after the meal are thanksgiving blessings.  Ritually marking off the sacred time of the meal.  Meals as a sacred or sacrificial ritual.  The Sabbath meal, for instance.  The Mishah: two boundarys--the beginning and ending of the meal and of the sabbath.  Two sets of boundary-setting.  The Talmud considers conflicts between them. 

Introduction of Talmud,  p. 88-9.  M. 8.1.A. Structure: begins with a brief contrast of points-of-view.  Also, a subject heading: sabbath meals.  Does one bless the wine first, or the wine?  At the beginning of sabbath, kiddish ceremony: sanctification of the day of the sabbath and a blessing of the wine(blessing God as its source).  Hand-washing: a ritual act of purification--for eating bread.  Does the wine come before it or after.  'Mixing the cup': people stored wine concentrated.  So, dilute it with water.  These questions were left unresolved in the Mishnah. Was it that the solution was obvious: the way it was being done?  Or, different practices extant?  Also, the different rationales are not fleshed out in it. 

The Gamerah begins here (p. 247) with citing the Tosefta (the Barayta is broader).  The Tosefta tells us to follow the house of Hillel: bless the wine first, then the day.  The Tosefta provides the rationales: 

Shammai house: the day is necessary for wine.  Were it not for the sabbath, the wine would not be blessed for sanctification.  And the day has already been sanctified while the wine is not yet touched.  The candles have been lit before the meal.  There is a defacto sanctification of the sabbath.  To what extent is a ritual itself efficatious, or does it give expression of something independent of it.  God sanctifies the day, but in some way the ritual is seen as having a role.  Here: a logic of priority of the two elements involves.

Hillel:  The wine causes the sanctification to be said.  Kiddesh can't be said without the wine.  Wine is  a symbol of life.  Also, there needs to be an act in a ritual.  The sipping of the wine--a means of sanctifying the meal.  Second, blessing of the wine is perpetual whereas the day is not.  Rabbinic principle: that which is perpetual takes precedence.  Regularity, ongoing takes precedence. 

Now, a shift to the Gamerah (switch from Hebrew to Aramaic): the HIllel school has two reasons('another matter') whereas the Shammai has only one.  An apparent addition to Hillel.  Reason for the addition is key because the Shammai was given two arguments.

4/10/97

Rabbinic discourse had a transformational effect from the temple cultus.  So to study the Torah is to experience the mystery and power of Yahweh that were felt in the religious experience in the temple.  What is it in the give and take that evokes a religious experience?  A ritual-like give and take.  Application of reason and logic to religious texts is not a contradiction in the rabbinic cultus. 

The rabbinic orality seems to contradict the general assumption that in cultural history literacy replaces orality in a linear manner.  The performance of the oral interchange in study is oral.  A sense that the written and oral stand side by side.  Emphasis is in the performance, so orality remains salient.  So merely reading the Talmud, for instance, loses much of the religiousity in the practice of the rabbinic cultus. 

The Qumran sect did not have a distinction between the written and oral culture. 

The tosefta is a more expansive commentary than is the Mishnah because the tosefta includes reasons and conclusions.  The tosefta is a source of the Gemara of the Talmud.

On the blessing of the wine and day/sabbath (cont).  An echo/voice from heaven tells that the House of Hillel is to be followed in this matter and that both stances are in line with the Torah.  How reconcile these two statement?  The House of Hillel is favored in this matter because it represented the opposing view fairly whereas the House of Shammai did not represent the stance of Hillel with respect.  So how one argues with respect to an opposing view is important in the give and take of debate.  Debating humbly giving due respect to the other stance.  Guyer: an attitude of respect for an opposing opinion attests to the goal of understanding rather than persuasion.  The process of understanding is itself valued in the rabbinic cultus as being a religious experience.  Persuasion as a goal can eclipse the process of understanding.

This is not to say that conclusions were absent from rabbinic debate.  The divine voice or charismatic feat is not the norm in rabbinic discourse.  If the matter pertains to a practice which uniformity is necessary for social cohesion (e.g. same date for a holiday), a choice should be made even though both stances are of God's word.

'It is obvious' is redundant language; nothing in rabbinic discourse is redundant, so 'it is obvious' is an objection to the divine-voice decision.  The tradition (before the divine voice) had told us to follow Hillel.  Reply: if that tradition was before the divine voice, then it was necessary to be stated.  If the tradition was after the echo, the tradition would be redundant.  But if one agrees with r. Joshua that divine voices don't matter, then the tradition stance after the echo would not be redundant.  So the arguments and conclusion of the tradition are not redundant in either case.

The end of the sabbath has a blessing of day and wine: the Havdalah ceremony--separating the day of sabbath from the next day.  If the house of Shammai stance is holding to a general principle that the blessing of the day should preceed that of the wine, it would hold that the blessing of the day should come first in the Havdalah.  But a barayta of the Tanna teaches that the blessing of the day should follow blessing of the wine.  This would seem to negate there being a general principle from the view of Shammai.  But we don't know that this teaching was that of Shammai?  It is an anonymous barayta.  Another barayta (attributed to r. Judah) teaches that the houses disagreed only on the order of the blessing of light and spices. Both Houses taught that the blessing of food preceeds the Havdalah (day). Food, light, spices, Havdalah is attributed to Shammai.  So the anonymous barayta is of shammai.  As it and r. Judah's account of the Shammai position puts food blessing before light, then Shammai's teaching of the day before the wine does not stand up; otherwise the House would have contradicted itself.  But r. Judah's view of the disagreement is only one opinion.  R. Meir's opinion differs: Mishnah 8:5.  Shammai: Light, food, spices Havdalah; Hillel: light, spices, food, Havdalah.  But r. Meir's view of Shammai is not the same as that of the anyonymous barayta.  So the House of Shammai is that of r. Judah's interpretation.  So the day after the wine, so the day is not more important.  Fraade: a working through of the different argument--building up an argument step by step is a kind of playfulness in working through the arguments--itself valued as argument is.  How do we know what we think we know?  There is always another side to an opinion.  The House of Hillel is at least consistent.  Why is Shammai inconsistent?  A rationale to explain this, even though it is not to be followed: their reasoning could have been that they were eager for the sabbath (bless the day first) and not want it to end (bless the day last)--the sabbath is generally compared to a visitor in Judaism.

4/15/97

The Temple and Synagogue:

How is it that rabbinic study came to take the place of the Temple sacrificial cult?  Two functions of the Temple: individual and collectivist atonement of sins and worship.  It was a tangible presence, whereas acts of loving-kindness are not.  But with the Temple, all the eggs were in one basket.  The centrality of the Temple was dominant in the Torah.  An assumption that human sins would need retribution.  As a site of worship, the Temple was where the divine was believed to be presence.  So the Temple was the central locale in festivals.  So when destroyed, the Temple left a void in the religion of the Hebrews.

Theodotus inscription at a synagogue before the Temple's destruction(50 or 60, C.E.): the leadership was hereditary.  In Gk, synagogws (Hebr. bet kenesset)--a meeting or gathering place.  A place to study, preach and read the Torah.  Nothing explicit about prayer.  A place where visiting Hebrews could stay--especially in Jerusalem.  A decentralized locus where Hebrews could gather.  

Fraade: the rabbinic claim that study and acts of loving-kindness count for sacrifice probably came some time after the destruction to legitimate the rabbinic cult after the fact.  But Amos and Hosea: the heart must be sincere in repentence.  Also, Israel needs to return to the laws.  Teshuvah: to turn or return oneself around.  A transformative connotation of rabbinic teaching is not in the Torah.  Return to the commandments came to connote spiritual connotation. A new emphasis on repentance as the first stage in the process of atonement(a wiping clean the slate).  The individual process is seen as part of the collectivist repentance. 

The person is two creations; an inclination to do good (yetzer hatov) and to do evil(yetzer hara).  Gen. 2:7--two 'y's in yetzer, so two creations in man, as per rabbinic interpretation.  Divine intent, rather than from eating the apple.  Necessary evil as that which can be channelled for human development.  Such inclination is not external to man.   So human evil is not due to a demon, but due to human rebellion.  The sin of Adam and Eve is merely the first of a series.  The Torah is the restraint to the evil inclination so to restore to man the condition of immortality in Eden.  The duality enables the struggle for human development.

Just as humans have two inclinations, so Yahweh has two attributes: judgment and mercy.  A projection of God being torn as well.  A parental conflict: holding the child accountable and being sympathetic to a child's appeal.  Human appeal and behavior can affect which attribute Yahweh chooses.

Mishnah 8-9 in the Talmud: stages and agents of atonement are sacrifice, repentance, day of atonement, and death.   Of sacrifice: sin and guilt(inadvertant transgression) offerings.  Here, alternatives to sacrifice are given.  For instance, it is only at the end of one's life that it can be known whether a person has turned around in intention and behavior.   Of atonement, the violation of a 'thou shalt not' is viewed as being a more serious violation than of a 'thou shalt'.  Repentance itself is not sufficient if one continues in misdeeds.  Not a mechanistic sense of atonement.  The intention is salient in the power of an act of repentance.  So, an attempt to use ritual (Day of Atonement) to substitute for Temple sacrifice, with boundaries to the efficacy for the former as it has enhanced efficacy in the religion. There is no need for a priest intermediary. The cleansing comes directly from God.  The ritual of bath was associated with atonement in the Temple period.  After the Temple, rabbis do not sprinkle water. Lastly, a tension between public and private atonement: the human-divine relation is not wiped clean if the human-human relationship is not repaired.  This is certainly the case for those in the covenantal relationship with Yahweh, as both parties are subject to the same means by which to redress injury.  Other people could enter into other relationships with the divine, other covenants.  So difficult to apply the Mishnah to others not of the Torah.  Christianity, for instance, has a different scheme of repentance (e.g. through Jesus). 

After Mishnah 8-9, the Gumarah goes on in matters of atonement.  Four kinds of sins, with their respective means of atonement.  Repentance for breach of a prohibition commandment delays punishment to the Day of Atonement when the sin can be wiped clean.  With regard to positive commandments, repentence has effect at its time. 

Whereas the Mishnah is legalistic, the MIdrash tends to be moralistic and homiletical. 

Just as the animal sacrificed should be unblemished, so to must be one's heart as a sign of full repentance.  Repentance can be done by oneself anywhere.  This was stressed because of the belief that Yahweh had abandoned Israel in destroying the Temple.  Also, if the people were really down in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple, reassurance may be needed that they can repent.

4/24/97

Conclusion: History and Redemption:

The covenantal relationship comes out of historical events.  The Torah tells of a chronological sacred history.  From universal beginnings to national redemption.  Sin, exile, return pattern.  Historical events needed some explanation as workings out of the covenantal plan.  The prophets interpreted significant historical events as necessary steps on the path of closer covenantal relation.  So not a return to a prior state or a restoration of practices.  Much of the prophetic predictions remained unfulfilled.  A dilemma with history: history seems to throw up obstacles to the fulfillment of the covenants.

Second temple historiography:  Ben Sira creates a chronicle chain of ancestors from Adam.  A linear continuity, through which his own time is linked to past times.  A sense that his own time is an extention of biblical time.  So he focuses on this life.  No after-life.  No post-historical realm.  Josephus, also a priest, retells biblical history, extending it to his own time.  Jewish Antiquity.  Priests as the biblically favoured leadership.  So he opposed the rise of the monarchy.  He hopes for a restoration of priestly leadership.  The second destruction of the temple is a herold to it.  Similarities between Josephus and Jeremiah.  The Qumran sect saw its own leaders as a continuation of the biblical leaders.  Most of Israel is no longer able to meet covenantal claims. Divine revelation and fulfillment as limited to Qumran.  Such revelation and the sect are the fulfillment of the promises, so an immanent end of time, a radical rupture would happen in the final fulfillment.  The covenant can't be corrected within history. A giving up on Ben Sira's hope for redemption in history. The apocalyptic texts give the biblical paradigms and the hope for fulfillment in the sect, so the middle time is skipped over.  Philo lived in Alexandria. Overcoming the gap between biblical promises and the historical context of his time, he turns to allegory.  The life of the soul, freed from the body.  Influence of Plotinus.  Through allegorical interpretation, one can perfect one's soul so to be reconciled and returned to its source.  Mystical.  Mideaval Judaism picked up on this mystical approach.

Rabbinic literature.  No interest in the writing of history.  So no continuous narratives.  Rather, commentary.  So the rabbis did not see their time as an extension of biblical time.  Direct revelation and prophesy was held to be over.  Rather, the chain of commentary/interpretation was held to give the continuity.  The Torah in its study and practice provides continuity with the past.  The Mishnahs talk in an extended present.  Sanctification of the present in time. Emphasis on making ordinary actions holy. No apocalyptic immanent world to come.  The world to come is in the distance; a future reality not continuous with history.  The 'time between' beginnings and the end is emphasized.  So no hope for the temple to be immediately rebuilt.  After 70 and 135, a shift to pursuing redemption on the inner plane of history (practices and piety), rather than external historical change.  Living within heavenly rule even when living under foreign rule.  The heavenly rule experienced now is a taste of the world to come.  So sanctification of space gave rise to that of time.  Festivals.  A decentralization of sacred space from the temple to the synagogues and households.  The passover sadar is rabbinic: a reliving of the experience of being a slave and being freed.  A paradigm for hope for redemption into the eschatological future.  Memory of the past, living in the present, and hope in the future.  Rabbinic literature fosters this.  The written Torah is that which is unchanged, a living text read every week.  In contrast, the oral Torah is always changing.  So interpretation is salient.  Midrash.  Active engagement.  The question and answer as an ongoing activity beginning at Sinai.  A chewing-over.  Many levels of meaning.  Application of human wisdom and logic.  The Mishnah, in contrast, is not commentary; rather, on-going present: 'This is what one does'.  The rabbinic attempt to apply biblical law to all areas of daily life.  Application of reason making the ordinary holy.  Blessing, intention, piety.  A human role in constructing a divine realm on earth.  The Talmud is a cross-generational timeless dialogue on religious texts.  A web of times and traditions.  A relevancy of dialogues after their times, having a certain transcendence. 

Torah Revelation:

A Midrashic text on Deut. 32:46).  Moses' farwell address.  The verse is broken up.  A fortiori argument used: from major to minor.  If so for the temple which has a certain permenance to it, so much so for the Torah which is less permenent.  Little to root specific practices in the Torah.  Fragile connection.  Therefore, so much more should one concentrate on the Torah, because it may be lost.  Then, the second half of the verse.  As Moses told the people to have their children keep to Torah (transmission of the Torah is essential to its being of value), so much more is transmission important to an ordinary man.

What is it about the rabbinic texts that enabled them to endure?  Other groups in second temple Judaism did not last.  Ironically, the oral Torah cult survived whereas the temple and apocalyptic cults did not.

---

[1]Thus the term 'semite'.