Second Temple Judaism

« Rendez à César ce qui est à César et à Dieu ce qui est à Dieu » : cette phrase bien connue des Évangiles s’éclaire d’un jour nouveau à mesure que se poursuivent les enquêtes historiques portant sur la fiscalité en Judée du tournant de notre ère.
Cette première synthèse complète sur la fiscalité de Judée invite à se demander si cette matière froide et technique ne serait pas, au contraire, une matière brûlante, « éveilleur de révoltes », à la fois un reflet et un condensé des complexités économiques, politiques, sociales voire théologiques ?
Quels sont les impôts prélevés ? Quels sont les moyens de paiement ? Est-il vrai que le temple de Jérusalem n’acceptait que les shekels de Tyr ? Pourquoi l’impôt romain dérangeait-il les contemporains de Jésus ? Quelle est la place des relations financières dans l’histoire politique de la Judée ? Ces questions, parmi tant d’autres, reçoivent ici une réponse à la fois à jour des découvertes les plus récentes et accessible au public spécialiste autant que curieux.

While many Christians claim to be Dispensationalists, the entirety of the dispensational theology, as opposed to the covenant theology, rises or falls on one major issue: Israel and the Church. Dispensationalism has ramifications that reach outside of theology and reach into the foreign policy of the United States whereas relations between Israel and America are concerned. Most evangelicals, embracing a dispensational theology, hold that U.S.  foreign policy with Israel should be set on the basis of dispensational theology. To accept dispensational theology, it has to be shown that God deals with Israel and the Church, the Jew and the Christian, in ways that are different. Yet, by studying the history of Judaism and Christianity it becomes apparent that God has not—and it will be shown in this paper that He has no plans in the future— dealt differently with these two groups. Dispensationalism is not a key to Bible prophecy as God does not treat the Jew and the Christian differently.

תקופת המלוכה והכהונה בארץ ישראל לעולם משמשת או נקודת שיא בתולדות העם היהודי ובמימוש הייעוד שלו או נקודת זינוק בדרך להשגתו מחדש. תקופה זו לא שינתה ממעמדה למרות השינויים התרבותיים העמוקים שעברו על ישראל לאורך שנות הגולה ולמרות השינויים ביחס לגולה. גם השינויים בעצם ההגדרה של הזהות היהודית, שינוי יעדיה והתמורות שחלו בנקודת המבט ההיסטוריוסופיה של המחשבה היהודית, גם אלו לא ערערו את מעמדה. אמנם השחג התכנים שיוחסו לעבד הארץ־ישדאלי בהתאם לנקודת ההשקפה, ברם צורת ההתייחסות העקרוני לא שונתה; כל בחינה מחודשת של הקיום הבראשיתי בארץ ישראל באה לשמש גיבוי ואסמכת
להגדרה חדשה של הזהות היהודית ולתפיסה היסטוריוסופיה חדשה. ׳לגיטימציה מהפכנית׳ היא אכן המטווה רבת־הרבדים ורבת־המשמעויות שברקע מיקוד הזיכרון היהודי בתקופות בית ראשון ובית שני עוצמתו של המיקוד ההיסטורי בארץ ישראל וההתמדה בו נעוצים בשני גורמים. הראשון נובע מהקיים והעומד, הוא הגרעין הבלתי משתנה של המהות היהודית, שההתייחסות ההיסטורית והתודעה ההיסטורית אימננטיות לה; והשני נובע הן מן המאפיינים של מהפכת התרבות שהתחוללה בציבוריות היהודית החל מראשית תקופת האמנציפציה בשלהי המאה השמונה־עשרה, והן מן הגורמים לה.

Over the past fifty years, archaeological excavations in Israel have unearthed about half a dozen ancient synagogues that were in use at different points in time between the first century BCE through the outbreak of the Bar-Kochba rebellion early in the second century of the Common Era.  In close proximity to each of these synagogues, a mikveh (ritual bath) has been discovered.  In contrast, no mikvaot have been discovered adjacent to any of the dozens of later synagogues that have been excavated and studied, with only one or two possible exceptions. 
At this point it is impossible to determine exactly when mikvaot ceased to be built in connection with synagogues, as the archaeological record reports very little about synagogues of the late second - early third century CE.  From an archaeological perspective, it is clear that at least from the second half of the third century, synagogues began to be built without regard for proximity to mikvaot.
Talmudic sources make no mention of a requirement to build mikvaot adjacent to synagogues. To date, no satisfactory explanation has been given for the evident connection between the synagogue and the mikveh in the early period, and the disappearance of such a connection in later periods of synagogue history. The objective of this paper is to present and explore a possible interpretation of this puzzling phenomenon.
  During the Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, a rabbinical enactment was in effect requiring mikveh ablutions prior to engagement in Torah study and prayer for individuals who had experienced seminal emission. Careful study of the Talmudic sources reveals that this enactment was nullified early in the Amoraic Period, sometime during the second quarter of the third century CE.
It would appear that the mikvaot built adjacent to the earlier synagogues were intended for this precise function, serving visitors to the synagogue who required ritual ablutions prior to Torah study and prayer.  Once the rabbinical enactment regarding these ablutions was nullified, there was no longer need for such mikvaot, and hence the absence of mikvaot in proximity to the later synagogues.

Scholars have commonly located the source of Paul’s analogy for the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:39–49 in the enumerated creatures of Genesis 1. Some interpreters have suggested Sir 43:1–10 lies behind the reference to the variegated glory of the celestial bodies mentioned in 1 Cor 15:41. Paul seems to list each of the respective terrestrial creatures and their bodies in a hierarchical order, as he does with the celestial bodies, relating the resurrection body to the later. Rather than the eschatological egalitarianism presumed in some attempts to appropriate Pauline eschatology for theological purposes, this text suggests that Paul envisioned the imminent resurrection of the dead would result in a kind of celestial hierarchicalism, a point often overlooked by interpreters. In this paper, I will argue for an alternative source for the celestial hierarchicalism apparent in the formulation of Paul’s resurrection mythos in 1 Cor 15:41, namely, an apocalyptic reception of Exodus tradition rooted in the hierarchical ascent of the cosmic mountain in Exodus 24 and its later reception. As is the case for other apocalypticists before, contemporary with, and after Paul, this paper will provide further evidence that Paul's own particular construal of Jewish eschatological mythoi, while recognizable, would place him squarely alongside other Jewish contemporaries who operate at the fringes of their own tradition in the wider ancient Mediterranean religious landscape.

The following paper explores the formulation of universal commandments for non-Jews within the book of Jubilees and compares it with rabbinic traditions that also deal with Gentiles and law observance. The discussion concerning commandments incumbent upon all of humanity in Jubilees betrays a remarkable preoccupation in promoting the observance of particular laws (e.g., Sabbath and circumcision) for Jews alone—universal law becomes a means for highlighting Israel’s special covenantal status. The bitter opposition expressed in Jubilees against Gentiles is best understood as a polemical response to events redefining Jewish-Gentile relations during the second century BCE.

"This book is the first-ever monograph on the family of royal converts from Adiabene including the broader perspective of the cultural and political environment of Hellenistic and Parthian Adiabene. It collects, arranges and discusses all available sources on the topic.
The study consists of three parts. Part 1 (chapters 1-5) is devoted to the longest ancient account on the Adiabene royalty from all ancient literature – Josephus, Ant. 20:17-96 (“the Adiabene Narrative”). It examines the Adiabene narrative as Josephus’ conscious literary product with all its rhetorical features and ideological agendas.
Part 2 (chapters 6-7) deals with other sources about the family of royal converts from Adiabene. Chapter 6 is devoted to Rabbinic traditions about Queen Helena and King Munbaz. Chapter 7 discusses all Jewish and non-Jewish literary sources which refer to the resting place of Queen Helena and to the palaces of the Adiabene royalty in Jerusalem, what is more, it also provides an updated discussion of relevant archaeological sites in Jerusalem (Le Tombeau des Rois and the Givati Parking Lot).
Part 3 (chapters 8-13) presents the material and political environment of Adiabene from the third century BCE to the third century CE. It discusses all available kinds of sources: geographical and ethnographical texts (chapter 8), archaeological sites (chapter 9), epigraphic and numismatic material (chapter 10), as well as onomastic evidence (chapter 11). Furthermore, chapter 12 provides a basic chronology of the Adiabene royalty in the Hellenistic and Parthian periods, and chapter 13 presents the political environment of Adiabene and Judea in the context of the international relations between Rome and Parthia."
P.S.
So far reviewed by K. Atkinson, Biblica 96 (2015) 635-638; D.M. Jacobson, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147 (2015) 169-170; E. Kettenhofen, Anabasis. Studia Classica et Orientalia 6 (2015) 297-307; E. Lipiński, Polish Journal of Biblical Research 14 (2015) 201-207;  D.M. Downing, Journal of American Oriental Studies 137 (2017) 428-430; E. Nodet, Revue Biblique 122-124 (2015) 634-635; K. Berthelot, Syria 94 (2017) 415-416; J.-S. Caillou, L’Antiquité Classique 86 (2017) 517-519.

This chapter examines some of the assumptions that are typically employed when dealing with the development of the Hebrew Bible. The first part of the chapter is a critique of the very term "Jewish Bible." It points out some of the problems with the term and make a plaidoyer against being politically correct. The second part focuses on what it means to explain the "development" of the Hebrew Bible and suggests that diachronic analysis alone cannot fully explain its formation. In this author's view, proper understanding of the development of the Bible requires drawing upon intellectual and literary models more commonly associated with the period of the “reception of scripture” than with conventional composition history.

In the book we argue that 2 Cor 10, although presenting strong characteristics of polemical discourse, actually sets in motion a self-praise speech with a pedagogical, not defensive purpose. The chapter in question serves as a programmatic introduction to the Pauline boasting developed in chapters 11–13. Applying rhetorical analysis, we show that 2 Cor 10 contains an exordium (10,1-6) and a propositio for the entire speech (10,7-8); we further identify by this analysis the criteria crucial for legitimate apostolic boasting (10,12-18). The main problem of 2 Cor 10–13 expressed in the propositio (10,7-8) regards Paul’s claim to be a true servant of Christ and to have the right to boast about it. This problem is strictly connected with the accusations of the opponents which point at his weakness and ineffectiveness in dealing with the community’s problems.

Thus, 2 Cor 10 sets the stage for all of 2 Cor 10–13. This chapter is the key to a proper understanding of the rhetorical stasis of the entire speech elucidated from the Pauline inventio and dispositio. Paul’s use of the periautologia, metaphor, and irony reveals the strong position of the Apostle in Corinth but also points out the fatal infatuation the Corinthians have with newcomers. The causa of Paul ultimately revolves around the status qualitatis: he proves he is strong enough to be the leader in Corinth and paradoxically demonstrates that weakness should belong to the identity of apostle.  Such a reading of the rhetorical stasis introduces two problematic issues begun in 2 Cor 10 and continued in Cor 11–13: the relationship between power and weakness and the legitimacy of Pauline boasting. Paul’s approach to weakness in 2 Cor 10–13 challenges the standards on which the evaluation of true apostleship is made. Contemporaneously, he also recognizes infirmity as an integral part of his apostolic identity. Christ himself is the only model that enables Paul to subvert worldly standards of judgment and claim weakness as an integral part of his apostolic mission (13,3-4). Subsequently, 2 Cor 10 is crucial to understanding the legitimacy of Paul’s boast developed throughout all of 2 Cor 10 – 13. The thesis (10,7-8) and its argumentation (10,12-18) elaborate the exterior criteria of such boast including a divine call (status qualitatis) and apostolic praxis (performance), as well as the supreme rule saying that all credit for apostolic achievements should be given to the Lord (i.e. boasting en kyriô 10,17). Paul successfully responds to the first two imperatives of boasting. Problems, however, arise when he comes to the last criterion, namely, boasting in the Lord (en kyriô). The ego-centric boast based additionally on the comparison mentioned for the first time in 10,12 is the one that Paul fears and abhors and calls foolish, but he is forced, nevertheless, to undertake it for the sake of his spiritual children. The tool that ultimately enables him to transform self-aggrandizing speech into speech that is focused on Christ is his paradoxical boasting of weakness. It is being prepared in the pivotal section 11,30-33 (the entirety of 11,1-29 should be read as boasting of the apostolic achievements) and reaches its climax in 12,9-10. The careful crafting of the discourse based on Christological principles and meant for the edification of the community (10,8; 12,19; 13,10) ultimately speaks against qualifying it as a parody of the opponents’ boasting.

Michael Segal, “Interpreting History in Qumran Texts,” in M. Kister, M. Segal, and R. Clements (eds.), The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (STDJ 127; Leiden: Brill, 2018), 212–244.

"Abstract

Calendars in the Book of Esther: Purim, Festivals, Cosmology

This paper suggests that Esther added an extra month and a day to the king’s
calendar to thwart the date chosen by Haman for the annihilation of the Jews. The result was that the Jews in the provinces were preparing and celebrating Passover when the Jews of Sushan, who had the benefit of additional time, were fighting then feasting. Esther’s
intervention is related to Babylonian apotropaic calendar manipulation and the text indicates how a 354-day lunar calendar and a 360-day calendar might work. The analysis includes dates for Shavuot followed by different groups in Second Temple Judaism, one of which is reflected in a 364-day calendar scheme that is also attested at Qumran.
"

This article argues that in Ben Sira 50 the high priest is a representative office, not a person. That office sums up and binds together in worshipful unity (at-one-ment), through liturgical and civil duties, multiple identities: those of Adam, Israel, Lady Wisdom, God the Creator and the whole cosmos. The high priest is a multiple personality order. Chapter 50 is the literary and theological climax of the work. And the text is a vital witness to the shape of Israel's Temple theology in the Hellenistic and Persian periods, and to the way the Pentateuch was read and interpreted.

This collection of essays originates from the 2014 Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity conference hosted by the Centre for the Social-Scientific Study of the Bible at St Mary's University, Twickenham. Featuring an international collection of senior and junior scholars, it represents the cutting edge of scholarship on portrayals of evil in the Second Temple period and the earliest centuries of Christianity. The individual essays consider the significance of “evil” as it relates to a diverse set of topics, including Qumran and its texts, images of disability in 2 Maccabees, dissociations of Jesus from evil in early Christian manuscripts, the “apocalyptic Paul,” Jesus' exorcisms, Gospel cosmologies, the epistle of James, 4 Ezra, the Ascension of Isaiah, Marcion, John Chrysostom, and the Acts of the Martyrs. Contents Christopher A. Rollston: An Ur-History of the New Testament Devil: The Celestial שׂטן (śāṭān) in Zechariah and Job – Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer: Evil at Qumran – Benjamin Wold: Demonizing Sin? The Evil Inclination in 4QInstruction – Louise J. Lawrence: Evil and the Body of Antiochus IV Epiphanes: Disability, Disgust and Tropes of Monstrosity in 2 Maccabees 9:1–12 – Tommy Wasserman: Variants of Evil: The Disassociation of Jesus from Evil in the Text of the New Testament – James G. Crossley: Jesus, Healings and Mark 2:1–12: Forgiveness, a Release, or Bound Again to the Great Satan? – Christopher W. Skinner: Overcoming Satan, Overcoming the World: Exploring the Cosmologies of Mark and John – Jonathan A. Draper: Darkness as Non-Being and the Origin of Evil in John's Gospel – Loren T. Stuckenbruck: How Much Evil Does the Christ Event Solve? Jesus and Paul in Relation to Jewish “Apocalyptic” Thought – James P. Davies: Evil's Aetiology and False Dichotomies in Jewish Apocalyptic and Paul – Chris Tilling: Paul, Evil, and Justification Debates – Steve Walton: Evil in Ephesus: Acts 19:8–40 – Lloyd K. Pietersen: Artemis, Demons, Mammon and Satan: The Construal of Evil in First Timothy – Susanne Luther: The Evil of the Tongue: Evil and the Ethics of Speech in the Letter of James – Nicholas J. Ellis: A Theology of Evil in the Epistle of James: Cosmic Trials and the Dramatis Personae of Evil – Robbie Griggs: Apocalyptic Experience in the Theodicy of 4 Ezra – Jonathan Knight: The Portrayal of Evil in the Ascension of Isaiah – Chris Keith: “The Scriptures are Divine Charms”: Evil, Books, and Textuality in Early Christianity – Dieter T. Roth: Evil in Marcion's Conception of the Old Testament God – Paul Middleton: Overcoming the Devil in the Acts of the Martyrs

This Survey Chart was created for Dr. Andreas Köstenberger and the biblical backgrounds Ph.D. seminar at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary for Second Temple Jewish and Greco-Roman literature. This chart surveys the key literature, historical timeline, and information surrounding the Second Temple period as well as offers a select bibliography for each section for further research. This 234 page survey chart is divided into nine major sections: Second Temple History, Greek OT (LXX), OT Apocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus, Targums and Rabbinical Literature, NT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and Greco-Roman literature.

García García, E. M. (2017). “Roitman, Adolfo D., Del Tabernáculo al Templo. Sobre el espacio sagrado en el judaísmo antiguo. Estella, Editorial Verbo Divino, 2016, 326 pp. ISBN: 978-84-9073-243-4.” ’Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones, 22: 553-555. ISSN: 1135-4712.

The Book of Jubilees paints Noah as the first physician and apothecary, who received knowledge of natural medicine from the angels of God so that he could save his offspring from the ailments being inflicted upon them by evil spirits. This article examines this aspect of the Noah tradition in the book of Jubilees and attempts to identify its origins. The study considers the potential textual and ideological impetuses behind this tradition, and proposes that attributing the beginning of medical knowledge to Noah may have served to create a licit category of medicine for the author of Jubilees’ intended audience.

I argue, pace Thiessen, that the boundaries of restored Israel in Ezra 1–6 are porous: the texts that establish the community’s exclusivism do so only provisionally, in place of a working temple cult. This is shown especially in Ezra 2:61–63, where priests who cannot find written proof of their ancestry must wait for Urim and Thummim. Thus, during the Passover in Ezra 6:19–21, the cult (rather than written documents) ultimately establishes boundaries, permitting the inclusion of outsiders.

The several sectarian texts from among the DSS that contain references to גרים pose significant problems for the historian. How should we translate the term-"permanent resident alien," as in Scripture, or "Gentile proselyte," as in rabbinic literature? Why do some texts, such as the Damascus Rule and 4QLots, treat the גר positively, while others, such as 4QFlorilegium, are entirely hostile? In view of the sect's general rejection of outsiders, especially Gentiles, in texts such as the War Rule and 4QMMT, how can the positive references to גרים be explained? Widely varying solutions have been proposed, all of which assume that the term designates a real social group within the sect. This essay tentatively proposes an alternative thesis: while גר seems to designate Gentile converts in sectarian texts, the category is a legal fiction created on the basis of Scripture-it seems highly unlikely that Gentiles ever joined the sect. Positive portraits of גרים in sectarian texts come from interest in crafting halakah for the pre-eschatological age that reflects scriptural law as faithfully as possible. Since throughout Scripture the גר is portrayed as participating in Israelite assemblies, cultic worship, and juridical
activity, and since numerous laws protect them from abuse and guarantee their access to material support when in need, the laws of D and other texts provide for similar inclusion. The Covenanters also thought of the גר's inclusion as temporary: eschatologically oriented texts show anticipation that the land, people, and cult of Israel would be purged entirely of Gentiles, including "good" גרים. This purge of Gentiles would at last fulfill God's command to Moses, to rid the land of idolatrous peoples. My proposal describes a consistent, if complex, attitude toward גרים in all sectarian texts that treat them. It also highlights the complexity of the Covenanters' halakah: some laws were intended to be followed in the present but not in restored Israel; others could not be followed at all in the present but would be at the restoration; still others could be followed partially now, but only fully with restoration. A few laws could neither be followed in the present nor in restored Israel, but had to be included in sectarian halakah due to the recurrence of their themes throughout Scripture. In this last category are laws that treat גרים.

In Romans 5:12–21, Paul seems to have realized that his own interpretation of Genesis 3 – of Adam’s death for disobedience and, perhaps especially, of Adam’s affect on subsequent humans – was not a universally accepted interpretation. He anticipates a view “out there,” either among his readers or those around them, which assumes or argues that Adam’s action in Eden did not end in death and/or did not affect or could not have affected subsequent humans, at least not in quite the extremity that Paul suggests. How can “death” actually be for “all” even when subsequent people did not transgress like Adam? Is everyone’s death because of Adam’s choice? Did Adam himself even die for his disobedience? Arresting ideas and intriguing ambiguities occur within Romans 5:12–21. This chapter focuses on a very particular question: When Paul introduces Adam and Genesis 3, why does he interrupt himself in verse 12? He seems to realize that people may disagree with him about Adam. We do not need to speculate about this. He is right. This becomes much more clear and concrete (and consequently so too does Paul’s own view) when we listen carefully to another Jewish interpreter of Adam in Genesis 3: Philo of Alexandria.

Jusqu’à la destruction du temple de Jérusalem en 70 par les troupes de Titus, le judaïsme est la religion nationale d’un peuple, les habitants de la Judée. C’est aussi la religion d’importantes communautés judéennes établies, souvent depuis plusieurs siècles, dans différentes cités du monde méditerranéen et proche-oriental. Cette religion qui n’admet qu’un dieu unique est alors tout entière organisée autour des sacrifices accomplis par ses prêtres au sein du temple, également unique, de Jérusalem.

Dit betreft een kort artikel over de vernietiging van de tempel in Jeruzalem tijdens de Joodse opstand tegen Rome, 66-70 n.C. Eerder dit jaar verschenen in, Geschiedenis Magazine 55.3 (2020), 34-37. Zie verder https://geschiedenismagazine.nl/joodse-opstand-66-70-n-chr