TEXTUAL JUDAISM: THE PRIESTLY AND SCRIBAL CURRENT
It is natural that people often assume that Judaism in the Second Temple period was more or less like contemporary Judaism, in which people meet weekly or even more frequently in synagogues to pray, worship, and hear the Bible read. The written scripture and its reading and study are assumed to be the focus of Judaism at all times. There is no question that the written law, especially the Pentateuch (Torah), has been very important to Judaism at least from Ptolemaic times. For example, it seems likely that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek about the middle of the third century BCE for the benefit of the Alexandrian and other Diaspora communities whose first language was Greek.
Yet the Judaism of pre-70 times was formally structured in a quite different way from the Judaism of later times. The main religious institution was the Jerusalem temple, and temple worship went back many centuries in Jewish and Israelite history. The temple was not the same as a synagogue. The main activity in the temple was blood sacrifice. There were required sacrifices on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis and also at the major religious festivals. If an individual committed a trespass of the law, a sacrifice was required. If one wanted to thank God for blessings, particular sacrifices could be given. Thus, Jewish men were expected to come up on a regular basis to worship at the temple and participate in the cult; the sources suggest that many and perhaps even most male Jews in Palestine came up one or more times a year to the temple.
The emphasis on blood sacrifice should not be misconstrued, as abhorrent as the practice may seem to some. It was not ‘empty ritual’ as so often portrayed in prejudiced Christian (usually Protestant) propaganda. On the contrary, the sacrificial ritual was suffused with deep religious symbolism. This symbolism was taken up into later Judaism, after the cessation of the temple cult, and into Christianity. The central Christian metaphor is, after all, the sacrifice of Christ – which has little meaning if the Israelite sacrificial system is not taken into account. Temple worship was also often a social and family occasion, because the bulk of most sacrificial animals went to the offerer, with only certain portions being burned on the altar or going to the priest. The rest of the meat was consumed by the one offering the sacrifice, along with the family and friends.
Also, there was more to the temple as an institution than just the sacrificial cult, important as that was. The priests were the custodians of the law (see section 2.2 below) and were responsible for teaching it to the people. How they did this is not clear in our extant sources. There may have been public readings of the law. It is possible that there were public expositions. The temple also served as a place of prayer. Singing and other liturgical recitations were also a part of the temple service, though it is not clear how they fitted in with the sacrificial ritual. All in all, the temple was a worship centre for Palestinian Jews with many different opportunities for the individual to participate.
What of synagogues? They are not attested until the third century BCE and then first in the Diaspora in Egypt and Asia Minor. That is, they seem to have developed in areas where Jews did not have access to the temple. Prior to their growth, Jews seem to have conducted prayers and worship in the home (cf. Tobit 2:1–2; 3:10–16; Daniel 6:10). Most Jews in Palestine were not so far away from the temple that they could not go to it on a regular basis for worship. For this reason, there seems to have been no pressing need for any other place of worship. Thus, the synagogue does not seem to have been introduced into Palestine until quite late, perhaps in the first century BCE. Few synagogues are attested in pre-70 sources, and few if any pre-70 remains have been found by archaeologists. The synagogue seems to have become important to Palestinian Jews only at a late time, perhaps in the last decades while the Second Temple stood.
Nevertheless, it is clear that many Jews had access to the Torah in one form or another. Writings from many different quarters show a knowledge of the law and an intense interest in understanding and interpreting it. The same applies to the prophetic writings and other books in our present Hebrew Bible or Old Testament. When and how the present canon became finalized is still not known, despite a number of studies on the subject. Some Jewish groups seem to have accepted a different set of books as authoritative compared to other groups. For example, 1 Enoch seems to have been part of the canon of some groups (cf. Jude 14; the Testament of Levi 14:1; the Ethiopic church). But most Jews seem to have accepted the Torah and most of the prophetic books by the first century ce. Therefore, the written Word and its interpretation were very important to Judaism even while the temple stood. Many different groups appealed to the Word and thus made up the current we can designate as ‘textual Judaism’.
The priesthood in general, and the high priest in particular, dominated the Jewish state during the Second Temple period. As might be expected, the priests were in charge of the temple and the operation of the cult. They were also responsible for the governance of Judaea as a political entity in the larger Near Eastern empire – first the Persian, then the Ptolemaic, followed by the Seleucid. They headed the independent Hasmonean Jewish state, when the rule became that of priest-kings. Under the Romans, the priests had to relinquish much of their political power to the Herodians under Herod the Great, his son Archelaus, Agrippa I, and even to some extent with regard to Agrippa II. Yet they maintained control of the temple and were still the most important figures of the religious establishment.
What is not often realized is the extent to which the priests – the altar priests and the Levites – were also the transmitters of the written scriptures, the cultivators of wisdom, the interpreters of the religious tradition, and even the authors and editors of the written Word. The importance of the priests has often been overlooked and the study of their activities neglected in favour of apocalyptic groups, sects such as the Pharisees, and revolutionaries. Yet priests could be members of all these groups, as well as dynamic contributors to all aspects of Jewish religious life.
The priests were first and foremost cult functionaries. They had the responsibility to carry out the sacrificial system which lay at the heart of Israelite religion. This is their main function as indicated in the book of Leviticus which gives detailed information on the sacrificial cult and the functioning of the priesthood. They continued to have this important task until the temple was finally destroyed in 70 ce. To make sure that they could devote themselves to their cultic duties, they had been assigned the tithes of agricultural produce, other offerings such as first fruits, and a portion of each sacrifice offered (except for the whole burnt offering).
Yet once the cult was centralized in Jerusalem there were more priests available for service at the altar than were needed most of the time. According to later sources, the priests were eventually divided into 24 courses, each one serving two weeks during the year plus all being available at major festival times. Even before this division, however, the priests would have been the one portion of the Israelite population (apart from the few very wealthy) who had the leisure necessary to pursue intellectual activities to any great extent. This is a very important fact to be aware of. The average Israelite worked from dawn to dusk to make a bare living, much as peasants still do the world over. The reduction in workload created by mechanization is a recent phenomenon. The average Israelite or Jew of antiquity did not normally have opportunities for education or ready access to books and literature. The educated lay person seldom existed.
This needs to be recognized. The image of the priest as merely a cultic official with no interests or duties outside this is widespread but mistaken. (Indeed, there is a strong anti-clerical bias in some religious circles and even in scholarship itself.) Thus, theological innovation, the cultivation of wisdom, the development of ethical thought, and the careful attention to daily religious duties are all often ascribed to non-priests. Modern writers frequently talk of deuteronomists, sages, prophets, apocalypticists, Pharisees, and scribes, carelessly overlooking the fact that priests might well be any of these. Being a priest on duty at the altar did not prevent one from systematizing traditional wisdom, engaging in cosmic and even apocalyptic speculation, reflecting on the theological significance of the religious rites and traditions, or developing ideas about the right way to live in relationship to God and other human beings. On the contrary, it was likely to be the priests who had the education, the leisure, the intellectual stimulus, and the interest to do such things.
The priesthood was far broader than just the ‘sons of Aaron’, however; it included the ‘lower clergy’ known by the name of Levites. These had the care of the fabric of the buildings, security, cleaning, provisioning, and other support for the priests who actually presided at the altar. While some of these activities may have been menial, others implied a considerable degree of responsibility. In addition, some of the Levites seem to have carried out the many scribal activities necessary for the maintenance and smooth operation of the temple.
The late books of the Old Testament, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, show a number of offices among the Levites and other clergy. Within Ezra and Nehemiah the division between the priests and Levites is assumed. The genealogies in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 break down the various cultic personnel into Levites, singers, gatekeepers, temple servants, and priests (Ezra 2:36–63; Nehemiah 7:39–60,72). The priestly oracle of the Urim and Thummim had apparently ceased to exist (Ezra 2:63). The books of 1 and 2 Chronicles give one of the most complete descriptions of the organization of the priesthood, especially 1 Chronicles 23–26. They picture David as having brought the priesthood into order in preparation for Solomon to build the temple, but other passages such as 2 Chronicles 5 and 7 also refer to celebrations in the temple. Of particular interest are the references to singing and music which have little place in the Pentateuch or the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua – 2 Kings). The books of Chronicles are also associated with prophecy, suggesting a connection between the Levites and cult prophecy (1 Chronicles 25; 2 Chronicles 20:14–17).
The books of Chronicles emphasize the judging and teaching functions of the priests. It is stated in 2 Chronicles 15:3 that, during the reign of Asa, Israel had gone many days without the true God and without a priest to teach (mōreh) and without teaching (tôrāh). According to 2 Chronicles 19:5–11, Jehoshaphat appointed Levites and priests among the judges in Judah. The high priest Amariah was to be in overall charge of judgements relating to God, with the Levite officers to assist (2 Chronicles 19:11; cf. 1 Chronicles 23:4). Levites also filled the office of scribe (2 Chronicles 34:13; cf. 1 Chronicles 26:29). Although these passages are supposedly describing the priesthood under the Israelite monarchy, it has long been argued that the situation actually being sketched is that of the Second Temple period. If so, this may provide a picture of the temple organization in the late Persian or the early Greek period.
The temple singers come up again some centuries later, in the decade before the destruction of the Second Temple. At this time, the temple singers appealed to king Agrippa II to wear special white linen garments which had evidently been hitherto reserved for the priesthood (Antiquities 20.9.6 §§216–18). Although Agrippa was king of the old tetrarchy of Philip (Trachonitis, Batanaea, Gaulanitis) and not Judaea (which was now a Roman province with a Roman governor), he nevertheless had certain privileges with regard to the Jerusalem temple. He ruled in favour of the singers, and they were able to wear the coveted garments for the few years remaining of the temple’s existence.
In the Second Temple period, there is evidence that the priests were the ones who interpreted and provided authoritative rulings about the law. According to Haggai, the prophet was sent to the priests to obtain a legal interpretation (2:10–13). Some centuries later Josephus tells how the temple manager stopped the sacrifices for the Roman emperor. As a result the priests were called upon to decide the religious issue in the light of legal interpretations of the Torah (War 2.17.2–4 §§409–17; Against Apion 2.21–22 §§184–88; Life 39 §§196–98). Although there may have been legal experts who were laymen, the priesthood was still accepted as the custodians and interpreters of the law.
Whatever its activities outside the strict boundaries of the cult during the monarchy, the priesthood took on an important new role during the post-exilic period. Despite evidence of hopes among many Jews, the Davidic dynasty had not been restored. Some have suggested that Zerubbabel had pretentions to the throne and was subsequently removed from office by the Persians, but the arguments for this are not particularly strong. Yet however much some Jews may have longed for a return to kingly rule, it was not to be at this time. Judah was a Persian province with a Persian governor, even if that governor was himself Jewish at least some of the time.
Whether or not there was a provincial governor during the Persian and Greek periods, various sources show the importance of the high priest in the internal Jewish government. In some cases, the high priest may have been the official governor; at other times, the ruling power looked to the high priest as the main representative of the Jewish people. Whether officially or unofficially the high priest appears to have been the de facto head of the native administration. There are also indications that others of the priesthood assisted him in this task. An early description of the rule by priests is found in the account of Hecateus of Abdera, writing towards the beginning of Greek rule (c.300 BCE). His writing is quoted by the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (40.3.1–7):
[4] . . . He [Moses] picked out the men of most refinement and with the greatest ability to head the entire nation, and appointed them priests; and he ordained that they should occupy themselves with the temple and the honours and sacrifices offered to their God. [5] These same men he appointed to be judges in all major disputes, and entrusted to them the guardianship of the laws and customs. For this reason the Jews never have a king, and authority over the people is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man the high priest, and believe that he acts as a messenger to them of god’s commandments. [6] It is he, we are told, who in their assemblies and other gatherings announces what is ordained, and the Jews are so docile in such matters that straightway they fall to the ground and do reverence to the high priest when he expounds the commandments to them . . . [7] He [Moses] led out military expeditions against the neighbouring tribes, and after annexing much land apportioned it out, assigning equal allotments to private citizens and greater ones to the priests, in order that they, by virtue of receiving more ample revenues, might be undistracted and apply themselves continually to the worship of God.
The place of the high priest in the structure of government is made apparent in the semi-legendary account of the Tobiads under Ptolemaic rule during the third century BCE. As already described (1.1.3), the high priest Onias II was responsible for paying the tribute due to the Ptolemaic rulers. Half a century later Simon II, who was high priest at the time that the Seleucids took Palestine, had not only cultic but also civic obligations (Ben Sira 50:1–5):
The leader of his brothers and the pride of his people was the high priest, Simon son of Onias, who in his life repaired the house, and in his time fortified the temple. He laid the foundations for the high double walls, the high retaining walls for the temple enclosure. In his days a water cistern was dug, a reservoir like the sea in circumference. He considered how to save his people from ruin, and fortified the city against siege. How glorious he was, surrounded by the people, as he came out of the house of the curtain.
The importance of the high priest has already been well indicated by the events of the ‘Hellenistic reform’ (see section 1.1.4) and the Maccabaean revolt (1.1.5). The Maccabaean successes only increased the importance of the high priest, and the Hasmonaeans became priest-kings. The zenith of high priestly power was thus reached during the period of Hasmonaean rule. When the Hasmonaean kingdom was ended by the Romans, the position of the high priest as nominal head of the Jews continued, though his position had reverted to something similar to that under previous overlords. Once Herod had become king, he took away any independent authority of the high priest, though the latter was still the chief cultic official. Herod appointed and deposed the high priest at will. After his death, when Judaea became a Roman province, the prestige of the office began to revive to some extent; however, the Romans retained the right to appoint and depose the high priest. When Agrippa I became king, he took over the rights of his grandfather Herod the Great. Then, at the end of his short reign, these rights with regard to the priesthood eventually passed to his son Agrippa II even though the latter was not king of Judaea.
2.4 The Wise and the Intellectual Tradition
The wisdom books take up a significant section of the Old Testament: Proverbs, Job, and Qohelet (Ecclesiastes), plus the deutero-canonical books of Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon. At one time, the wisdom literature was neglected and downplayed in theological study. In recent years, however, a great deal of scholarly interest has centred on these books and a more balanced view generally prevails. Although one can still occasionally read statements to the effect that the wisdom books represent ‘an alien body’ in the Old Testament, more frequent are those that place wisdom at the centre of Old Testament theology. At the very least, the importance of wisdom for Old Testament literature and theology is now widely recognized.
The most frequent word associated with wisdom in the Hebrew Bible is ḥokmāh. This word has a wide meaning, much as the English word ‘wise’ does, and can include the connotation of intellect, learning by study, practical wisdom, common sense, or other variations on the theme. Yet it is most frequently associated with the intellectual type of wisdom associated with study and formal education. Similarly, while ‘the wise man/woman’ can be anyone with a variety of attributes of knowledge or mental skills, the term is most often applied to those who bear the intellectual tradition. Those who can read and write, who have engaged in study, and who know literature are the wise par excellence.
It has not often been considered who might be those who carried on this intellectual tradition, partly because it has too frequently been assumed that formal education was widespread in Israel. Although the subject is currently under debate, there is little evidence for widespread literacy – much less for universal schooling. Recent studies have suggested that Jerusalem did not become a major centre in which an educated scribal class was needed until relatively late – in the late eighth century BCE. Only the very few had the resources and leisure for education; the vast majority of the population were peasant farmers or agricultural workers of some sort. Those able to devote time to literature were, first, the priests and Levites, and secondly, the aristocracy. This situation does not seem to have changed through the next several centuries, though we do find evidence of lay movements which attempted to master sufficient knowledge to engage in legal discussion and biblical interpretation.
The term ‘scribe’ (grammateus in the Greek sources) has a wide meaning, similar to our word ‘secretary’. It can mean the lowly scribe in a warehouse who keeps simple records and perhaps needs little more education than to be able to read and write and do certain sums; or it can refer to a high official in the government (like the ‘secretary of state’ in many national governments). Scribes would have functioned at various levels in Jewish society, from private (wealthy) households and businesses to civil administration to the temple itself.
Evidence for the temple scribes is found in the decree of Antiochus III quoted in Josephus (Antiquities 12.3.3–4 §§138–46). At the time of the conquest of Palestine by the Seleucids, Jews were apparently to be found on both sides of the conflict, some being pro-Seleucid and some pro-Ptolemaic. The pro-Seleucid group got the upper hand and opened the gates of Jerusalem to Antiochus’ soldiers. As result of their support, Antiochus issued a decree permitting the free exercise of their religion and also granting certain temporary exemptions from taxation to help repair the damage done by fighting in Jerusalem:
King Antiochus to Ptolemy, greeting. Inasmuch as the Jews, from the very moment when we entered their country, showed their eagerness to serve us and, when we came to their city, gave us a splendid reception and met us with their senate and furnished an abundance of provisions to our soldiers and elephants, and also helped us to expel the Egyptian garrison in the citadel, we have seen fit on our part to requite them for these acts and to restore their city which has been destroyed by the hazards of war, and to repeople it by bringing back to it those who have been dispersed abroad . . . And it is my will that these things be made over to them as I have ordered, and that the work on the temple be completed, including the porticos and any other part that it may be necessary to build . . . And all the members of the nation shall have a form of government in accordance with the laws of their country, and the senate, the priests, the scribes of the temple and the temple-singers shall be relieved from the poll-tax and the crown-tax and the salt-tax which they pay. And, in order that the city may the more quickly be inhabited, I grant both to the present inhabitants and to those who may return before the month of Hyperberetaios exemption from taxes for three years.
Probably the most famous passage about scribes is found in Ben Sira, writing in the early second century (Ben Sira 38:24–39:11, New English Bible):
A scholar’s wisdom comes of ample leisure; if a man is to be wise he must be relieved of other tasks. How can a man become wise who guides the plough . . . and talks only about cattle? . . . How different it is with the man who devotes himself to studying the law of the Most High, who investigates all the wisdom of the past, and spends his time studying the prophecies! He preserves the sayings of famous men and penetrates the intricacies of parables. He investigates the hidden meaning of proverbs and knows his way among riddles. The great avail themselves of his services, and he is seen in the presence of rulers. He travels in foreign countries and learns at first hand the good or evil of man’s lot. He makes a point of rising early to pray . . . If it is the will of the great Lord, he will be filled with a spirit of intelligence; then he will pour forth wise sayings of his own and give thanks to the Lord in prayer. He will have sound advice and knowledge to offer, and his thoughts will dwell on the mysteries he has studied. He will disclose what he has learnt from his own education, and will take pride in the law of the Lord’s covenant. Many will praise his intelligence; it will never sink into oblivion. The memory of him will not die but will live on from generation to generation; the nations will talk of his wisdom, and his praises will be sung in the assembly. If he lives long, he will leave a name in a thousand, and if he goes to his rest, his reputation is secure.
Ben Sira makes a certain connection between being a scribe and knowing the law of God. This may be an idealized picture, representing Ben Sira’s own perspective, but there seems be some truth to it. The question is, does this apply to all scribes, to some scribes, or perhaps just to the scribes associated with the temple? Ben Sira himself does not limit it to temple scribes; on the other hand, good arguments have been made to the effect that if Ben Sira was not himself a priest, he had close links with the priesthood. He associates the law with the priesthood, but it is likely that some priests had greater training and insight than others. Thus, it is not clear that Ben Sira was claiming the study of the law for every scribe at every level of society.
One of the complications of trying to understand scribes is the picture of the NT. It seems to make being a scribe into a religious office. There is little evidence in other sources that there was such a thing. However, it may be that those who were scribes by profession had special training in traditional laws as well. Indeed, it has recently been argued that the scribes of the NT are actually the Levites, trained in the law. If so, this could explain the apparent official teaching function of the scribes and also why the priests are so often absent from the Gospel tradition (i.e. they are represented by the ‘scribes’).
Perhaps more has been written on the Pharisees than any other ancient Jewish group. There are two reasons for this: first, they have often been seen by Jewish scholars as forerunners of Rabbinic Judaism; second, their frequent mention in the NT has made them a byword in many Christian writings. Neither approach is helpful because both represent a rather biased point of view. Our task is to attempt to disentangle the Pharisees from the various sources. What soon becomes clear is how difficult the task is and how little we know for certain about them.
The Pharisees are most familiar from the pages of the Gospels. Here they appear as opponents of Jesus and are criticized as excessively concerned about legal technicalities and picayune points of the ritual law (Matthew 23:23–28; Luke 11:37–44); they are especially labelled as hypocrites who want to be admired by others but who do not take on the burden of the law which they bind on their fellow Jews (Matthew 23:4). Much of the time they, along with the other groups, are simply a foil for Jesus – a chance for him to score points at their expense and give clever replies to leading questions. Thus, we cannot necessarily assume that every confrontation with Jesus really tells us anything about the ancient Pharisees.
Yet despite its bias, the contribution of the NT is significant in two major ways: (1) it has the only writings by someone who claimed to be a Pharisee: the apostle Paul; (2) the areas indicated by the Gospels to be of interest to the Pharisees are eating, tithing, festivals, agricultural regulations, purity, and marriage – areas which coincide with the interests indicated in the early rabbinic traditions (see section 2.6.2). When we put all the passages together, the following characteristics emerge from the NT writings:
1They have ‘traditions from the fathers/elders’ which are not part of the written law (Mark 7:5; Matthew 15:2; Galatians 1:14).
2They are especially concerned with the legal minutiae of obedience, including tithing, eating of food, Sabbath observance, and the like (cf. Matthew 12:1–14; 23).
3Some passages have them also being concerned about how to recognize the Messiah (Mark 12:35–37) and about Roman authority (Mark 12:13–17).
We would expect Jewish literature to give us the most information about the Pharisees. Appeal has often been made to rabbinic literature. Indeed, many treatments of the Pharisees have simply taken rabbinic literature as literature of the Pharisees. We have essentially three problems: (a) only a few passages refer to the perushim, a word usually taken to be the Hebrew origin of the term ‘Pharisees’ which comes from Greek literature; (b) we have no evidence that most of the rabbis before 70 ce were Pharisees or that the bulk of rabbinic literature was written by Pharisees; (c) much of the literature is centuries after 70 ce and is unlikely to have been written by Pharisees even if the latter continued to exist after 70.
On the other hand, two figures labelled as Pharisees in non-rabbinic sources seem to fit well with the other ‘sages’ mentioned in the Mishnah and the other early rabbinic literature (Gamaliel/Gamliel I and his son Simon/ Simeon). Also the main themes of the Mishnah are ritual purity, eating, festivals, agricultural regulations, and laws relating to the exchange of women (betrothal, marriage, divorce). These are also the themes found in the early traditions about the pre-70 sages. Furthermore, they tend to have a good deal in common with the brief references in the Gospels. Scholars have felt instinctively that there must be a connection between the Pharisees and the rabbinic literature. Proving it is another matter – instinct can be very subjective and very misleading.
Even if the Pharisaic movement was taken up wholesale into rabbinic Judaism, this does not mean that rabbinic Judaism necessarily represents its outlook, emphases, and content – all of which could have been extensively altered in the transition to rabbinic Judaism. There is no question that the Mishnah, Tosefta, and other early rabbinic literature are post-70 and picture a situation in which there is no longer a functioning temple. Some of their contents may represent the pre-70 situation; on the other hand, since a good deal of these writings is plainly from a later time, trying to sort out the earlier from the later is not an easy task.
The value of Josephus has already been discussed in 1.2.2. As one who reached maturity before 70, he of all sources should have knowledge of the Jewish groups extant at the time. Furthermore, he claims to have made a trial of the various sects (Life 2§§10–12):
At about the age of sixteen I determined to gain personal experience of the several sects into which our nation is divided. These, as I have frequently mentioned, are three in number – the first that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes. I thought that, after a thorough investigation, I should be in a position to select the best. So I submitted myself to hard training and laborious exercises and passed through the three courses . . . Being now in my nineteenth year I began to govern my life by the rules of the Pharisees, a sect having points of resemblance to that which the Greeks call the Stoic school.
This passage has in the past usually been taken to mean that Josephus embraced the Pharisees at this time in his life. A recent book has questioned this. I find it difficult to read the passage any other way than that Josephus claims that he became a Pharisee at this time, but it also seems clear that the rest of Josephus’ writings show no evidence that he had become a Pharisee in early life. It would have been easy to make such a claim in Rome in late life when there were few around to contradict him, if he found it useful.
In any case, Josephus is an important source on the Pharisees. Yet he actually gives us very little information on them in the two main passages where he describes them (War 2.8.14 §§162–63, 166; Antiquities 18.1.2–4 §§11–15, 17):
[T]he Pharisees, who are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws, and hold the position of the leading sect, attribute everything to Fate and to God; they hold that to act rightly or otherwise rests, indeed, for the most part with men, but that in each action Fate co-operates. Every soul, they maintain, is imperishable, but the soul of the good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment . . . The Pharisees are affectionate to each other and cultivate harmonious relations with the community. (War 2.8.14 §§162–63, 166)
Yet there are other passages where Josephus talks of Pharisaic actions and individuals designated as Pharisees: War 1.5.2–3 §§110–14; 1.29.2 §571; 2.17.2–3 §§410–11; Antiquities 13.10.5–7 §§288–99; 13.15.5–16.6 §§398–432; 15.1.1 §§3–4; 15.10.4 §370; 17.2.4–3.1 §§41–47; Life 38 §§190–91. These give us some further information, all of which can be summarized:
1One consistent theme is that they had a reputation for interpretation of the traditional laws not found in the books of Moses. Unfortunately, Josephus does not go on to tell us what were these laws and traditions unique to the Pharisees.
2In a number of episodes, they appear as a group seeking political power. Only once is there evidence that they were actually able to enforce their own particular laws (whatever these were) on the people and even the priests in the temple, and this was under Alexandra Salome (76–67 BCE) when they became de facto rulers of state, if Josephus is to be believed. It is important to be aware of what Josephus’ own account indicates, because in one passage (Antiquities 18.1.2–4 §§11–15, 17) he implies that their traditions were always enforced on the priests and even the Jewish rulers. This statement is not borne out by his own data except during Alexandra’s reign. He gives no indication that they controlled either the religious or political establishment on a regular basis. On the contrary, in various passages he makes it clear that the priests control worship and the teaching of the law.
3They believe in the soul and its reward and punishment after death, and they believe in both fate and free will. Neither of these topics is likely to have been too important to them, so this information only serves to demonstrate how little Josephus actually tells us about them. Huge questions about their beliefs, aims, lifestyle, and history remain undiscussed by him, much to our frustration.
I have devoted more space to the Pharisees than to any other group within this book, yet I have hardly scratched the surface of the historical and methodological problems in trying to understand them and reconstruct the historical picture. What I hope is clear is that (a) a great deal of emotional baggage has got carried along with the debate so that issues of religious belief and identity important to the researchers have become entangled with the historical question, and (b) the subject purely as a historical problem is fraught with difficulties. It is extremely important to realize how little we know about this group which has been so central to many discussions and reconstructions of Jewish religion at this time. The following tentative points can be put forward with a good deal of caution:
1The Pharisees claimed to have traditions from the fathers which were not written in the Hebrew Bible. There is no evidence that they claimed this was ‘oral law’ (though the rabbis did later develop such a view); it may well have been passed down in written form. Nor is there evidence that they had the concept of a ‘dual torah’ – two laws given on Sinai, one written down and one passed down orally (the doctrine of the Dual Torah became central to rabbinic Judaism).
2The best estimate about the content of these traditions is that they represented an attempt by a group trying to reproduce the temple cult in their own home. That is, the laws seemed to turn primarily on eating ordinary food in a state of cultic purity (normally required in the temple but not necessarily in the home) and thus involved questions of ritual purity, eating, tithing (since only properly tithed food could be eaten), the Sabbath, and festivals. Some laws also involved the ‘exchange of women’: betrothal, marriage, and divorce. These all suggest a ‘table fellowship’ sect. This fits with a lay movement attempting to imitate the priests, but it could equally apply to a priestly group trying to extend the temple regulations outside the temple to their own homes.
3There is little evidence that this group dominated either religious or civil life through most of their history. What we can deduce about their laws does not suggest they were in charge of the temple (few of the regulations affect the temple cult as such) or society (there are few civil laws). On the other hand, there is an indication that they were often trying to gain political influence but not succeeding. The one major exception is under Alexandra Salome when for a period of almost a decade they do seem to have controlled the state. If so, during that brief period they no doubt were able to enforce their views (whatever these were) to some extent on the temple cult.
The Sadducees have been everyone’s whipping boy. No Jewish group today claims to be heirs of the Sadducees. (There are a number of interesting parallels between them and the Qaraites, a mediaeval ‘back-to-the-Bible’ movement which arose in reaction to rabbinic Judaism. Whether there was any organic connection is very debatable.) There is also the possible connection between the priesthood and the Sadducees, and the Protestant prejudice against priests gets transferred to the Sadducees.
As with the Pharisees, our information about the Sadducees is very skimpy, indeed more so. There are a few passing statements in the NT (generally hostile), as well as a few brief references in Josephus (also not usually complimentary), and in a few rabbinic passages a group called the Ṣadduqîm are found in debate with the Pěrušîm (Pharisees? – see section 2.6.2). The Perushim are also found in debate with a group called the Boethusians (Baitôsîm), who have also often been identified or associated with the Sadducees. At best, the information is very meagre, and most of the sources are hostile. This means that any historical reconstruction must be considered very uncertain. Putting together the information yields the following brief characteristics of the Sadducees, but these are even more uncertain than with the Pharisees:
1They accept only written scripture, rejecting the ‘traditions of the fathers’. This does not mean, of course, that they may not have their own traditional interpretation of the biblical text. People have always had trouble distinguishing between what the text actually says and their interpretation of it.
2They are said not to believe in the resurrection or angels. This is a bit of a puzzle since both are found in some books of the OT. It may be that their canon did not have all the books of the present Hebrew Bible (canonization seems to have been a long process); on the other hand, they may have rejected some traditional interpretations which involved an elaborate angelology (such as we find in 1 Enoch) or detailed speculations about the eschaton.
3The names of both the Sadducees and Boethusians suggest a connection with the priesthood. Although the exact origin of the name Sadducees is never discussed in ancient sources, it has often been connected with Zadok, the high priest under David. The family of Zadok is given prominence in the book of Ezekiel, and after that the priests often emphasized their identification as descendents of Zadok (‘sons of Zadok’). The priests in the Qumran texts are also referred to as ‘sons of Zadok’. The origin of the name Boethusians is also uncertain, but it has long been connected with Boethus. This was the name of a priestly family which supplied a number of the high priests in the first centuries BCE and CE. This also suggests some sort of priestly connection, as with the Sadducees. The book of Acts also associates the Sadducees with the high priest (4:1; 5:17).
4Josephus tells us that ‘there are but few men to whom this doctrine has been made known, but these are men of the highest standing’ (Antiquities 18.1.4 §17). Only two Sadducees are named elsewhere in his writings, but one of these is a high priest and the other is a Hasmonaean priest-king. This might suggest that the Sadducees were mainly from the upper socio-economic classes. Other sources do not claim this as such, but the high priestly family was certainly of this stratum. On the other hand, we cannot assume that all Sadducees were either wealthy or associated with the priesthood.
Much of what I have given so far is not particularly controversial. In recent years, however, a major new thesis has been developed about the Sadducees. This identifies them with the Qumran community. The main points of this argument are the following: (a) the ‘sons of Zadok’ are important in the Qumran documents (see section 2.8 below), and (b) the ritual practices in the Qumran documents correspond with those espoused by the ‘Sadducees’ in rabbinic literature. This is a matter which deserves debate, especially in the light of how uncertain our knowledge is, but it would be fair to say that scholarship has not yet responded with enthusiasm to this suggestion.
Another group credited with a great emphasis on interpreting scripture was the Essenes. These have also been widely associated with Qumran since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In spite of the attempt to make the Qumran group Sadducees (see section 2.7 above), the Essene identification is still probably the prevalent theory among scholars. No other group is better described in the early sources than the Essenes. Of the four main ‘philosophies’ discussed by Josephus, the Essenes take up by far the most space (War 2.8.2–13 §§120–61; Antiquities 18.1.5 §§18–22). There is also a lengthy description in Philo (Quod omnis 75–87; Hypothetica, as quoted in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 8). Yet perhaps the most interesting account which makes a close correlation between the area of Qumran and the Essenes is from the Roman writer Pliny the Elder (Natural History 5.73):
On the west side of the Dead Sea, but out of range of the noxious exhalations of the coast, is the solitary tribe of the Essenes, which is remarkable beyond all the other tribes in the whole world, as it has no women and has renounced all sexual desire, has no money, and has only palm-trees for company . . . Lying below the Essenes was formerly the town of Engedi . . . Next comes Masada . . .
The description by Pliny is one of the reasons that the Qumran community has been identified with the Essenes since shortly after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are also many points in common between the Essenes as described by Philo and Josephus and the practices described in such Qumran documents as the Community Rule and the Damascus Document. Not everyone agrees that the Qumranites were Essenes, but this is a widespread view. On the other hand, archaeology indicates that no more than 200 individuals lived at Qumran at its largest, whereas both Philo and Josephus gives the Essene numbers as about 4000. If Qumran was Essene, it was not the totality of the Essene movement. Was it a headquarters or monastery or elite settlement of the Essenes? Was it a breakaway group of Essenes who had left the main community? Was it only a related group? Only some possibilities can be ruled out in the present state of study.
One factor which makes the Essenes and the Qumran group of interest is the fact that both focused on study of the written word and its interpretation. The priests were given preeminence in the Qumran community as, for example, in the Messianic Rule which lists the duties of the members of the Community (lQSa):
[1:13] At the age of thirty years he may approach to participate in lawsuits and judgements, and may take his place among the chiefs of the Thousands of Israel . . . the Judges and the officers of their tribes, in all their families [under the authority] of the sons of [Aar]on the Priests . . . [1:22] The sons of Levi shall hold office, each in his place, under the authority of the sons of Aaron. They shall cause all the congregation to go and come, each man in his rank . . . under the authority of the sons of Zadok the Priests . . .
The Damascus Covenant gives the priests the first rank in the community (CD 3:21–4:12). This is made even more explicit in the Community Rule where the priests are leaders of the Congregation. They give the blessings, they lead in the rituals, they go first in processions, and have precedence in the assemblies. They are also the guardians of the law and givers of counsel:
[1QS 5:8–9] He [the new member] shall undertake by a binding oath to return with all his heart and soul to every commandment of the Law of Moses in accordance with all that has been revealed of it to the sons of Zadok, the Priests, Keepers of the Covenant and Seekers of His will . . .
[1QS 6:3–6] Wherever there are ten men of the Council of the Community there shall not lack a Priest among them. And they shall all sit before him according to their rank and shall be asked their counsel in all things in that order. And when the table has been prepared for eating, and the new wine for drinking, the Priest shall be the first to stretch out his hand to bless the first-fruits of the bread and new wine.
Josephus mentions their study only in passing, but Philo emphasizes how they studied the Law and interpreted it – ‘allegorically’, as he puts it in Quod omnis 80–82:
But the ethical part they study very industriously, taking for trainers the laws of their fathers, which could not possibly have been conceived by the human soul without divine inspiration. In these they are instructed at all other times, but particularly on the seventh days . . . For most of their philosophical study takes the form of allegory, and in this they emulate the tradition of the past.
A variety of groups and professions within Judaism were concerned with the text of the law. People have to some extent been aware of the place of scribes and have also focused on the different sects such as the Pharisees and Sadducees. What is often overlooked is the important place occupied by the priests in Jewish society, Jewish religion, and scriptural interpretation. Through much of the Second Temple period the priests headed the administrative structures of the community, even holding the office of king during the period of Hasmonaean rule. They were also the ones with the education and the leisure for intellectual pursuits in a way not open to the average son of Israel.
Even in the sectarian Essene community, it is the ‘sons of Zadok’ who have the primary duty of leadership, counsel, and interpretation of the law. None of these things was limited to priests, but they had the advantage. As for the practice of religion, the centre of pre-70 Judaism was the temple. Again, this is too frequently forgotten in discussions of Judaism of the time. There was more to religion than just the temple, but the temple cult was the bedrock of worship for those in Palestine and the prime symbol of Judaism to those in the Diaspora.
The three main sectarian groups all had a keen interest in the law and its interpretation, though we know much less about each of them with any certainty than is sometimes realized. The Pharisees supplemented the written law with ‘traditions of the elders’. Indications in the NT and rabbinic literature suggest that these traditions primarily concerned eating, agricultural laws, festival celebrations, purity, and what anthropologists call the ‘exchange of women’. The Pharisees are presented as a group often seeking power in religion and government, but the only time they seem to have succeeded in gaining control is for about a decade under Alexandra Salome (76–67 BCE). Otherwise, whatever their general influence, they did not control the temple (which was under priestly authority) nor did they dominate the civil government (though some individual Pharisees may have had important positions at times). Whether they were a lay movement as is so often asserted remains to be seen; one could argue that it was a priestly movement (it certainly included priests).
The Sadducees and Boethusians are known only from a very little information, and the extant sources are mainly hostile to them (as have been modern scholars, by and large). But one of the strongest inferences from the sources is that they had some connection with the priesthood. Again, the written law was central to their worldview, though they no doubt had their own tradition of interpretation. Some of the more influential men of Jewish society were said to be Sadducees, including apparently at least one Hasmonaean king and one high priest.
We have the fullest description of the Essenes, but there are still many questions, especially with regard to their relationship to the Qumran community. The consensus is still that the Qumran group was Essene, despite some strong criticisms in recent years. The Essenes had a reputation for pious living, an ascetic lifestyle, and the ability to predict the future. Similarly, the Qumran texts show a group with a great deal of interest in biblical interpretation and prophecy, and the many examples of pesharim and other examples of textual exegesis attest the pivotal role of the text in their version of Judaism.
The major sects and groups of early Judaism are discussed in Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period, ch. 9 (see also the earlier discussion in Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, ch. 8). A general discussion of the scribes, sages, and priests in the society of ancient Israel is given in:
Grabbe, Lester L. Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, in the press).
For a general discussion of the book of Leviticus and the sacrificial system portrayed in the OT, see:
Grabbe, Lester L. Leviticus (Society for Old Testament Study, Old Testament Guides; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993)
On the question of synagogues, probably the best overall treatment is:
Binder, Donald D. Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (SBL Dissertation Series 169; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999).
On the priestly governance of Judah, especially by the high priest, see the recent study:
Goodblatt, David. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 38; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), though this needs correction with regard to the ‘Sanhedrin’; see the following study:
Grabbe, Lester L. ‘Sanhedrin, Sanhedriyyot, or Mere Invention?’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 39 (2008), 1–19.
VanderKam, James C. 2004 From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum).
On the wise and the wisdom tradition, see Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, ch. 6, and the literature cited there. Basic studies include:
Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (Louisville: John Knox; London: SCM, 1982).
Whybray, R. N. The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (BZAW 135; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 1974)
On education in Israel, see the discussion in Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, 6.4.3 (pp. 190–96), and the literature cited there. Of special importance is the following study:
Jamieson-Drake, David W. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archeological Approach (JSOTSup 109; Social World of Biblical Antiquity 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991).
An important study on the various sects is:
Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988).
The classic work on the Pharisees remains:
Neusner, Jacob. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973).
For a history of the Qaraites, see:
Nemoy, Leon, et al. ‘Karaites’, Encyclopaedia Judaica (New York: Macmillan, 1971) vol. 10, pp. 761–85.
On the scribes, in addition to Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (pp. 488-91), see especially:
Schams, Christine. Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 291; Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).