Often when we think of Judaism, with think of this ancient monolithic system that has never changed much. Many assume that the Judaism of today is the same as the Judaism of ancient Rabbis, which is the same Judaism as is presented in the New Testament and, likewise, the Old. Nothing could be further from the truth! Just as there have been many branches and divisions within Christianity, there have been many types of Judaism. An understanding of this fact will help us to comprehend why the religion of Jesus seems so incompatible with that of his contemporaries and also, to some degree, so different from the Old Testament as well. How could Jesus’ followers–primarily Jews–so readily accept his ”new” brand of religion? Also, for Latter-day Saints–if the same Gospel has been on the Earth since the beginning, why does the Old Testament sometimes seem like such a different gospel? Why are the structure and ordinances that we know sometimes hard to find in its many pages? I turn to the work of Dr. Gabriele Boccaccini, professor of New Testament and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Michigan, to give us some possible insight into these questions.
Boccaccini is an expert on what happened to the religion of the Jews after the Babylonian exile and in the centuries that led up to the beginning of Christianity. He has written several books, including Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 BCE-200 CE (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Partings of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), and Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). It is from the last of these three works that I will draw most of my material.
Rabbinic Judaism really developed and became the mainstream form of Judaism after Jerusalem’s Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Roots of Rabbinic Judaism is an attempt by Boccaccini to trace the Rabbinic movement back to its roots in the Second Temple period (the period that commences right after the Jews’ return from Babylon). Boccaccini starts from the premise that Rabbinic Judaism was not always the normative or mainstream expression of Judaism that it claims to be. Traditionally, the rabbis portrayed their movement as a monolithic entity that extends unaltered back to the Mosaic covenant at Sinai. Modern insight into the diversity of the Second Temple Period has revealed that this traditional history is a reconstruction and that Rabbinic Judaism is likely descended from a combination of “Judaisms” that competed with each other in post-exilic Judah. Rather than being a continuation of the religion of ancient Israel, the system of the Rabbis was “a bold reform movement” that represented the views of only some Jews. [1]
Boccaccini draws his conclusions from a close analysis of the available texts, ranging from Ezekiel to Daniel along with the “extra-biblical” literature of the Second Temple period, including the Enochic writings and the Dead Sea Scrolls. His analysis identifies multiple “Judaisms” that developed concurrently in the Second Temple Period. According to Boccaccini, there “is no Judaism but, in today’s world as well as in the past, only Judaisms–a set of parallel systems in competition.” [2]
The Second Temple
- Zadokite Judaism — “After the Babylonian exile and the end of the Davidic monarchy, the leadership of the Jewish people was provided by the Zadokites.” [3] The Zadokites were the Aaronic high priests of the new temple built after the exile (the Temple of Zarubbabel or Second Temple), and considered themselves to be descendents of Zadok, the priest of David and Solomon (2 Sam 8:17; 1 Kgs 1:32–46)–supposedly the most worthy line of the sons of Aaron. This distinction seems to have developed during the period of the exile, as expressed in Ezek 44:10-16. In the void created by the Babylonian captivity, the Zadokites siezed the opportunity to elevate their social, political, and religious status:
Taking advantage of discontent and dissatisfaction among the exiles, the house of Zadok took a step that would have monumental consequences for the future of Judaism. They made clear that they were no longer available to recognize the Davidic king’s right to exclusive leadership, in particular his right to appoint the chief priest–an office they now claimed for themselves as a divine right. [4]
Before long, the Davidic kings disappeared from history, and the religious functions associated with the kings (that requires a separate post!) were absorbed by the priests; the Zadokite Aaronic priests were left alone as the supreme and unchallenged religous authority in Jewish society. [5] The Zadokites now set the agenda, which entailed, according to Boccaccini, “a new temple in Jerusalem under a new priesthood.” [6] The Zadokites created a complex social hierarchy within Jewish society, based on grades of holiness. Each class was subject, in turn, to specific laws of purity that they were required to observe. Disobedience brought unbalance to the system, which threatened the stability of the whole cosmos. All of creation depended on the Aaronic high priest to perform atonement, else they would face certain destruction. All were dependent on them for salvation.
- Enochic Judaism — As the Zadokites rose in power after their return from exile, other returnees, as well as the large population who had remained in the land during the Exile, were required to conform to the new order. There were many whose “religious practices were not significantly altered” since more ancient times, and who did not want to participate in this new system. They soon found themselves “outcast as ‘foreigners’ from the cultic community of Jerusalem.” [7] These “outcasts” included the Samaritans and others, including what scholars see as a “priestly opposition” group. This priestly opposition is known primarily through their writings, which include, characteristically, the Enochic literature, Aramaic Levi, and much of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. For Boccaccini, from these came the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. Although we have no specific name for them, Boccaccini calls their movement “Enochic Judaism” due to its preferred use of the ancient priestly/prophetic hero Enoch in some of its literature. Many of their writings are seen as polemics against the Zadokite hegemony. This group had a very mystical/apocalyptic view and believed in the role of divine intercessory figures between man and God. An important part of their belief was that through temple rites, mortals could be deified. Much of their literature details how humans were able to ascend into the highest heaven and stand before God’s throne, where they were anointed, clothed, and transformed into celestial beings. They believed that the Zadokite priesthood was apostate and traced their own priesthood to a purer, pre-Aaronite source–that of Adam, Enoch, and Melchizedek. Boccaccini recognizes the antiquity of their traditions, explaining that they may imply “a very ancient, preexilic origin for the Enochic movement.” [8] Although he does not fully agree, he refers to Margaret Barker’s theory that Enochic Judaism is “a survival form of the religion of the First Temple, which the Zadokites replaced and tried in vain to eradicate.” [9] Although Enochic Judaism was quite influential and perhaps represented the most ancient traditions, it was largely suppressed by the ruling class and its writings were not included in the later Jewish canons of Scripture.
-
Sapiential Judaism — The last group (and there were likely many others) that Boccaccini refers to is a form of Judaism that he sees as developing in the monarchic period, prior to and independent of Zadokite Judaism. While other groups were suppressed, this movement was allowed to grow and flourish during the period of Zadokite rule. This movement was not instigated by priests, but by lay persons who collected wise sayings. They produced what we know as the Wisdom literature of Israel, which Boccaccini sees as including the biblical books of Proverbs, Job, Jonah, and Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes). This group believed in the universal truth of wise sayings and gathered wisdom from various cultures and sources. The writings of Sapiential Judaism don’t necessarily agree with the theology of Zadokites or with Enochic Judaism. The conquest of the region by Alexander the Great caused a disturbance for the supremacy of the Zadokites. The resulting political changes caused the Zadokites to have to share authority with economically and politically powerful non-Zadokite families, which caused an interjection of sapiential thought into the literature and theological expressions of the Zadokites. While the Enochic movement continued to develop their own alternative theology, the sapiential literature gained influence by joining with the priestly camp.
The political authority of the Zadokites was brought to an end by the Maccabean revolt. Some lost faith that either the Zadokite or the Enochic explanations could explain the tragedies that had befallen God’s chosen people. This opened the path for a new way to be established-a new theology that combined ideas from both parties. For Boccaccini, this new development is apparent in the book of Daniel. It is from this new trajectory that several new movements, including the Pharisees, spring. Boccaccini sees the Rabbinical movement as descending from this branch.
From all this, I think one of the most important points is this: many Jews saw the Zadokite movement and temple as “not simply the restoration of the old sanctuary but a new one with new rules and a new priesthood.” [10] Boccaccini goes so far as to express the opinion (held by other scholars, as well) that the “creation of the Aaronite priesthood was a postexilic phenomenon.” [11] In explaining this, he includes the idea that the Zadokites wrote their own history of Israel (Chronicles) and tweaked with the other sacred writings in a way that would show their supremacy over any alternative claim. This is significant in light of the Enochic belief that there was a more ancient priesthood order that was linked to the Patriarchs and the figure of Melchizedek. This helps us understand the possible reasons why there is so much that we deem to be ancient that we just can’t find in much of the Old Testament–but that often turns up in extra-canonical writings like the pseudepigrapha. Much more needs to be said on this topic, which I must save for later!
References
1] Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, xiii
2] Roots, 14
3] Roots, 43
4] Roots, 48
5] Roots, 56
6] Roots, 53
7] Roots, 82
8] Roots, 93
9] Roots, 93-94.
10] Roots, 61
11] Roots, 63
7 Comments
David , does boccaccini mention the importance of rabbi akiva or akiba in the development of rabbinical judaism?
This is fascinating research David! Things are starting to become clearer. We’re not getting the whole story from the Old Testament alone.
We LDS are sometimes aggravated when others use the term “Mormon” as a collective term for the Church headquartered in Salt Lake, the Community of Christ, the Fundamentalist-LDS, the Strangites, etc. etc. The distinctions are so clear in our minds that we fail to understand why they would be blurred in others.
Yet, we “Mormons” are far too comfortable flinging around the term “Judaism,” as if distinctions within that branch of religions were irrelevant. If we wish to appreciate the importance of making distinctions within Judaism(s), then we need only examine ourselves.
Is Cathy Larsen, Mrs. Larsen? As is David wife?
Kathy–Boccaccini doesn’t really go into R. Akiva much at all. He doesn’t have a topical index and I couldn’t find or remember any reference to him. He is really just covering the “roots”–the more ancient sources of rabbinic thought, and not discussing Rabbinic Judaism itself much. He is looking at the period between the writing of Ezekiel and (supposed date of) the writing of Daniel. Although he talks a bit about mishnah and halakah, he doesn’t reach the point of discussing the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, when Akiva would have been alive.
Bryce–yes, there was a whole lot going on in the OT that was obscured by the hands who were involved in passing on the ancient texts. These people often had an agenda that included the suppression of ideas that were not supportive to their cause. And it was not just the postexilic priests, but also the Deuteronomists before them. There are certain theologies that were played down, negated, or totally excluded.
S. Faux–good comment. I totally agree. We have a tendency to do this. Look at Islam–it has many “denominations,” but who recognizes that? We hear of Sunni and Shia, but that’s about it. Just as the Restoration movement and Christianity have divisions, so do Islam and Judaism and about any other religion, both modern and ancient. Lumping them together does them an injustice and creates misconceptions for us.
David–Actually, Kathy and I are not related. I consider her a great friend, but no, we are not married.
Is Elior Jewish? Sounds to me that he’s in denial that there was more than one strand of Judaism. Lets not forget that Josephus must also be included in his conspiracy of “inventing” the Essenes. As Boccaccini points out, they never called themselves essenes. Most believe that reference to “the poor” was a reference to this group. Boccaccini’s (G.B.)research seems much more convincing to me personally and I think that Elior is trying to grab a few headlines and gain some publicity. G.B. addresses other scholars arguments for, and as far as the DS Scrolls, sees them as uprooted Zadokites (at least in part) that were converted by the Teacher of Righteousness.
Rob,
I do believe Elior is Jewish. She does speak Hebrew and teaches at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (I know that doesn’t necessarily make her Jewish, but the chances are pretty good).
So it looks like you are familiar with G. Boccaccini’s work. I, too, have found his arguments to be some of the most convincing. He just has it all worked out, and, like you said, is able to address these other theories and show how they just don’t add up so well. G.B. is of the Italian school of thought on the reconstruction of the history of this period, and although a lot of scholars don’t agree, I think they’ve got really good ideas. Many scholars want to make the Qumran secessionists a product of the problems the Greeks were causing with the Jerusalem priesthood, but I think there’s evidence that the community had been there longer and that the real problems arose with the construction of the Second Temple soon after the return from exile. And, like you said, they wouldn’t have called themselves Essenes. Any group that Josephus (and Philo and others) would have known as Essenes were a later offshoot of this same ideology.
Thanks for the insightful comments!
David