Fellowship, Pharisees and the common people in early Rabbinic tradition

2005 ◽  
Vol 34 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 339-356
Author(s):  
Tracy Ames

This paper explores the phenomenon of non-priestly purity within the ancient Jewish purity system and examines passages in Tannaitic literature that refer to p'rushim (Pharisees), haverim and ne'e-manim, all of whom have been associated with practising non-priestly purity laws during the Second Temple period. The 'am ha-aretz, people accused of non-compliance with ritual purity, are also a focus of the paper. An analysis of the terms p'rushim, haverim, ne'emanim and 'am ha-aretz reveals that variant meanings have been attached to these categories in different passages of rabbinic literature and that the terms are fluid and resist classification. The findings of this paper challenge some of the prevailing theories that attempt to explain the phenomenon of non-priestly purity in ancient Israel.

This chapter describes the surprising motif found in early medieval rabbinic traditions that appears in some manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud and concerns the sacrifice of 'the souls of the righteous' upon the heavenly altar. It compares the motif, background, and transmission of medieval rabbinic traditions with other traditions concerning the 'souls of the righteous' in rabbinic literature and with precedents in texts of the Second Temple period. The chapter outlines early Enochic traditions, apocalyptic texts of the Second Temple period, and early Christian cultural traditions and beliefs. It indicates the nexus between Christian and Byzantine Jewish traditions, which became manifest in the development of motifs and textual sources during the first centuries of the Common Era and later expressed in medieval Ashkenazi texts. It also provides evidence on cultural transmission between Byzantine works, traditions of the East, and the cultural milieu of medieval Ashkenaz.


2020 ◽  
pp. 0142064X2096266
Author(s):  
Philip La G. Du Toit

In the prevalent interpretations of Israel’s salvation or restoration in Luke–Acts, Israel is understood as referring to descendants of ancient Israel who live in the present or beyond. In light of the predominant usage of the term ‘Israel’ in the second temple period, the prevalent interpretation of Israel’s salvation in Luke–Acts is reconsidered. This is done by mainly revisiting the realized language around Israel’s salvation in the Lukan corpus as well as the Old Testament context behind the language used. This re-evaluation also involves the way in which Israel’s forgiveness is presented, the involvement of the patriarchs in salvation, as well as the connection between Israel’s hope and their resurrection.


2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-134
Author(s):  
Joshua Kulp

Emerging methods in the study of rabbinic literature now enable greater precision in dating the individual components of the Passover seder and haggadah. These approaches, both textual and socio-historical, have led to a near consensus among scholars that the Passover seder as described in rabbinic literature did not yet exist during the Second Temple period. Hence, cautious scholars no longer seek to find direct parallels between the last supper as described in the Gospels and the rabbinic seder. Rather, scholarly attention has focused on varying attempts of Jewish parties, notably rabbis and Christians, to provide religious meaning and sanctity to the Passover celebration after the death of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple. Three main forces stimulated the rabbis to develop innovative seder ritual and to generate new, relevant exegeses to the biblical Passover texts: (1) the twin calamities of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the Bar-Kokhba revolt; (2) competition with emerging Christian groups; (3) assimilation of Greco-Roman customs and manners. These forces were, of course, significant contributors to the rise of a much larger array of rabbinic institutions, ideas and texts. Thus surveying scholarship on the seder reviews scholarship on the emergence of rabbinic Judaism.


2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarit Kattan Gribetz

The precise historical moment when Deut 6 (Shema Israel) was transformed into a prayer ritual is uncertain and a matter of scholarly debate. It is generally assumed that by the time of the Mishnah’s redaction (ca. 200 C. E.), the recitation of the Shema was already a standardized ritual because the Mishnah refers to it as a well-known practice. Indeed, the Mishnah takes for granted that its audience is so familiar with the prayer that it does not define it at all, but rather delves immediately into detailed discussions of its timing and exceptions that might arise in everyday life. Other sources from the Second Temple period, however, challenge the idea of the antiquity and ubiquity of such a standard prayer ritual composed of biblical verses from Deuteronomy and Numbers. This paper examines a number of key texts from the Second Temple period that seemingly refer to the recitation of the Shema prayer and that have been used by scholars to reconstruct the origins of this liturgical ritual. Through a close reading of four of these sources (the Letter of Aristeas, Philo, the Community Rule, and Josephus), I argue that they might not refer to the practice of the Shema recitation that we know from later rabbinic literature. Rather, they provide us with a lens into the diversity of ways that Deut 6:6–7 – “take to heart these instructions… impress them on your children… recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up” – was understood and fulfilled in the Second Temple period. The Letter of Aristeas describes an act of meditating on God’s works of creation; the Community Rule prescribes daily recitation of laws; Philo emphasizes the instruction of justice; and Josephus frames the obligation as a commandment to commemorate the deliverance out of Egypt twice daily. The particular framing of the Shema ritual that we come to know in the Mishnah might have appropriated and extended the practice of reciting the Shema in the temple (some evidence suggests that the Shema was recited in the temple), but this was only one of the ways in which Deut 6:7 was enacted and fulfilled in the pre-destruction period.


2013 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerda De Villiers

‘The pen is mightier than the sword’: Literacy and scribes in Israel during the Second Temple period. This article is divided in two parts. Part one examines scribal education and scribes in the ancient Near East and Israel. Although no real evidence exists for scribal schools and education in Israel, it is argued that some form of institutionalised training must have taken place in order to produce literary texts of such a high quality as are found in the Hebrew Bible. Comparative material from Mesopotamia serves to trace the education of scribes in general. Part two focuses on the Second Temple period in ancient Israel. Ezra the scribe emerges as a typical scribe from that era. Post-exilic Israel was grappling with its identity, and sought guidance from ַ [as was written in the Torah]. However, it appears that there were different interpretations of the written Law during this period. Scribes of the Ezra circle advocated a radical policy of exclusivity on the basis of what was written in the Law; others who wrote the texts of Trito-Isaiah and Ruth pleaded for a more inclusive attitude towards foreigners. The conclusion is that the battle was fought not with the sword, but with the pen, therefore: ‘The pen is mightier than the sword.’


Zutot ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5
Author(s):  
Israel Netanel Rubin

Abstract This short note points to a Talmudic source that supports modern research that locates the prophet Joel in the Second Temple period, contrary to the common orthodox tradition that Joel prophesied in the First Temple period.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-44
Author(s):  
Menahem Kister

Abstract The present article deals with a strand of ancient Jewish theological notions (in rabbinic literature, Fourth Ezra, and elsewhere) and Pauline ones. In these Jewish passages—sharing similar religious sensitivities and using similar terminology—human works stand vis-à-vis God’s mercy and his benevolence (צדקה). In some passages these categories turn out to be in tension in view of human sinfulness, since no human being can comply with the rigid standards of observing God’s commandments, resulting in the emphasis of divine mercy. Paul’s view, according to which “works (of the law)” and “grace” are mutually exclusive, is a radical intensification of this tension. Paul’s distinct ideas display the inherent dynamics of contemporary Jewish notions and reveal the inner tension within Jewish thought of the late Second Temple period, a tension that continued in Jewish writings (including rabbinic literature) after the Second Temple’s destruction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document