Five Misconceptions (There Are More!) about Ancient Judaism

By Dr. Isaac Oliver

​

      This fall, I was invited to teach a course called “Intertestamental Literature” at a Christian seminary (Catholic Theological Union). I thought that I would begin the first class by critically discussing not only the terminology used to describe ancient Judaism, but also some of the common misconceptions that have conditioned the understanding of ancient Jewish history. 1

​

First Misconception: The “Intertestamental” Period Was the “Dark Ages” of Judaism

The term “intertestament” alludes to the two testaments of the Christian Bible(s): the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Protestant canon, the Old Testament ends with the book of Malachi, which contains a prophecy about the coming of Elijah (3:23-24). 2 The New Testament then picks up with the Gospels, which relate the ministry of John the Baptizer to the prophecy in Malachi as well as to the coming of Jesus. All ancient Jewish literature that was written in the period between the two Old and New Testaments could then be classified as “intertestamental.”
      From a historical point of view, however, the term “intertestamental” is problematic. First, it creates an anachronistic chasm (the “intertestamental period”), suggesting that there was a biblical “Middle Ages” of sorts in which nothing significant happened in Jewish or sacred history between the time Malachi was written and the coming of Jesus. The Catholic and Christian Orthodox Bibles reduce this gap and convey a greater sense of continuity between both testaments thanks to the inclusion of what is called by Catholics the “deuterocanonical books” (commonly known as the “apocrypha,” a term that has a certain kind of Protestant pedigree). A significant proportion of the deuterocanonical writings were produced during the first three centuries BCE and pertain to events that are not recorded in the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible) or the New Testament such as the Maccabean Revolt (167-164 BCE). Still, the term “intertestamental” distorts Jewish history and self-perception. 3 A number of texts and traditions from the Old Testament/Tanakh were written at around the same time as the deuterocanonical/apocryphal writings, including the Book of Daniel, which biblical critics date to the time of the Maccabean Revolt. Hence the preference among many scholars to use alternative terms such as “Early Judaism” or “Second Temple Judaism.” These formulations convey more accurately the historical continuity between canonical literature and other ancient Jewish documents. They also avoid imposing subsequent (confessional) configurations that
might impede a more accurate understanding of the ancient past.

      The terms “Second Temple Judaism” and “early Judaism” are widely used in academic circles despite their shortcomings. 4 As the nomenclature indicates, “Second Temple Judaism” refers to the Second Temple of Jerusalem, which was purportedly rebuilt around 520-515 BCE, following Cyrus’s decree allowing Jews deported by the Babylonians to return to their homeland. The Second Temple stood in Jerusalem for several centuries until it was burned by the Romans in 70 CE during the First Roman-Judean War (c. 66-74 CE). Nevertheless, many Jews persisted in their aspiration for its restoration. Indeed, a revolt broke out in 132 CE, known the Bar Kokhba Revolt or the Second Roman Judean-Roman War, during which Jews in Judea tried to liberate themselves from Roman occupation in hope, among other things, of rebuilding the temple.

      The rebellion proved futile. The Romans defeated the Jews, and Hadrian, the Roman emperor at the time, enacted a decree that forbade Jews from residing in Jerusalem. Henceforth, there were no further armed conflicts between Rome and Jerusalem. Jews ceased using force in their attempts to gain freedom from Roman rule, although the hope for the restoration of the kingdom of Israel and the temple persisted in Jewish hearts, as evidenced, for instance, in the blessings of the rabbinic prayer known as the Amidah, which ask God to restore Jerusalem, the Davidic kingdom, and the temple service. And so, it is around the time of Bar Kokhba that many scholars date the end of the Second Temple period. 5
      Incidentally, the formation of the rabbinic movement began a few decades before the Second Roman-Jew War. Over the following centuries, this movement would continue to consolidate, eventually becoming the form of Judaism adhered to by the majority of Jews. Consequently, the Second Temple period is of fundamental importance for the study of Christian origins and
classical rabbinic Judaism. 6 But it significant for many reasons in its own right, not least because many of the texts of the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Old Testament or the Tanakh) were either written or reached their final composition during this period.
      As previously noted, some employ the terms early Judaism and even ancient Judaism in lieu of or in addition to Second Temple Judaism. 7 It is true that Second Temple Judaism is a scholarly construct, spanning a period of over six hundred years. This is why some scholars prefer to divide ancient Jewish history into distinct eras: the Persian period (539-333 BCE), the Hellenistic period (333-63 BCE), and the Roman period (63 BCE-136 CE). This kind of periodization highlights the dominant cultural and political realities that shaped Jewish life and society in antiquity.
      Nevertheless, some specialists contend that there are sufficient grounds for bracketing Judaism between the construction and destruction of the Second Temple period, despite this lengthy periodization. In addition to the temple cult, a growing sense of common ancestry, history, and scriptural tradition emerged during the Second Temple period that contributed to the formation
of a collective national identity for Jews living in Judea and the Diaspora. 8

      Caution, however, is of order, lest one succumbs to the temptation of generalizing and essentializing ancient Judaism. The Second Temple period witnessed several significant historical processes of major importance for Jewish history, including the return from Babylonian exile, the emergence of the Jewish diaspora, the reconstruction of the temple of Jerusalem, the rise of Hellenism, the Roman conquest of Judea, and the destruction of the Second Temple, to name just a few significant developments.
      Furthermore, the term “Judaism” itself is problematic as a designator for this period. Not only does the word “Judaism” rarely appear in the ancient Jewish sources. It can become an abstraction that misleadingly implies that Judaism in antiquity only represented the religion of the Jews, that is, their confessional beliefs and practices, much like the term Christianity refers to
the religious beliefs and practices of Christians. In reality, Judaism in antiquity encompassed all aspects of Jewish life, including not only religious observance but also cultural norms, etiquette, dress, speech, language, dietary practices (not only kosher laws but also Jewish cuisine), music, and other Jewish doings. In sum, Judaism in antiquity constituted a broader category than the
modern concept of religion (which is typically separated from the political and public spheres). The term “Jewishness” is a better term that captures the full range of Jewish identity, religious, cultural, and ethnic. 9

​

Second Misconception: Ancient Judaism Was Spiritually in Decline

Previous scholarship, especially in Germanic circles, customarily referred to the Judaism that preceded and coincided with the rise of Christianity as “late Judaism” (German: Spätjudentum). This term insinuates that Judaism, as a meaningful religious expression, was spiritually in decline, destined to meet its end and make way for a new and better installment of religion: Christianity.

      However, as scholar of Second Temple Judaism Loren Stuckenbruck rightly observes, “to speak of ‘late Judaism’ as a period linked to a degenerative form of religiosity around the turn of the Common Era is neither the result of historical inquiry nor does it reflect a fair attempt to understand Jewish traditions on their own terms.” 10 Moreover, the bulk of the biblical texts of the Old Testament/Tanakh, from which the New Testament authors drew inspiration, were formulated during the Second Temple period. It would therefore be nonsensical to view this period as one marked by spiritual decline, unless we are to judge early Christianity in the same
way.

​

Third Misconception: Ancient Judaism Was Legalistic

​

I have occasionally heard preachers and laypeople say that the major sin of the Israelites during the First Temple period was idolatry, whereas the cardinal sin of Second Temple Jews was “legalism.” A non-Jewish concept, legalism in Christian circles can refer to the misguided belief and self-righteous posture that asserts observing the niceties of the Law represent the best way of pleasing God or even obtaining salvation.
      The belief that Jews during the Second Temple period (and beyond) agonized about their future salvation because they feared that they did not properly observe the details of the Law, adding commandment upon commandment and thereby rendering the observance of the Law burdensome is foreign to Judaism—past and present. Biblical, Second Temple, and classical rabbinic sources welcome Torah observance, associating it with blessings such as joy, wisdom, and life. Never do we hear in the Jewish sources from the Second Temple period of Jews fearing eternal damnation because they worried that their good works might be outweighed by their transgressions against the Law. In this regard, 4 Ezra is a lonely voice in the wilderness, initially complaining that the observance of the Torah is difficult for most to keep, given that the human heart is evil. Nevertheless, the author of this work ultimately affirms God’s justice, albeit with the acknowledgement that only a select few will be able to properly observe the Law. In any case, Jews in antiquity believed in a merciful God, affirming that divine mercy would outweigh divine justice and that their election was graciously bestowed upon them rather than being earned through some kind of merit system based on works. 11

 

Fourth Misconception: The Rabbis Are the Spiritual Successors of the Pharisees

​

Because of the bad press that they have received in the New Testament Gospels, the Pharisees have become a caricature in Christian thought, consistently associated with the legalistic, self-righteous attitude that was just discussed. For a long time, many assumed that the Pharisees were the spiritual or religious forebears of the rabbis who regrouped after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE at a town called Yavneh in Judea. The pharisaic-rabbinic hyphenation has been severely critiqued in recent times, and it now seems best to avoid conceptualizing classical rabbinic Judaism in relation to the Pharisees.

      First, we know precious little about the Pharisees. Josephus refers to the existence of Pharisees in relation to the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-104 BCE). It is therefore reasonable to assume that they existed by this time (Antiquities 13:203-206, 288-298). Yet no writing penned by a Pharisee has survived history, save for the controversial figure of Paul who claims that that he was a Pharisee before joining the Jesus movement. Unfortunately, Paul shares precious little about his Pharisaic background.
      Rarely, do the sages of classical rabbinic Judaism refer to the Pharisees. In certain instances, some rabbinic texts express identification with the Pharisees. However, these self-identifications stem from much later sources and appear to be self-projections onto a movement that had ceased to exist for some time. If anything, earliest Christianity was more deeply impressed by the Pharisees than classical rabbinic Judaism. Paul, as previously stated, was a Pharisee. The author of Acts not only alleges that many Pharisees belonged to the first church founded in Jerusalem (see Acts 15), but also emphasizes the belief in the resurrection that both the Pharisees and Jesus’ followers shared. The canonical Gospels document several controversies between Jesus and the
Pharisees (who, nevertheless, were not involved in Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion). Friction, as some sociologists argue, suggests social proximity.

​

Fifth Misconception: Jewish Diversity Vanished after 70

It is common to come across statements claiming that Christianity and rabbinic Judaism were the sole survivors following the destruction of the Second Temple. The Sadducees, who were closely associated with the high priesthood, went out of business after the collapse of their headquarters, the temple of Jerusalem. The Essenes for whatever fanciful reasons disappeared (massacred at
Qumran, unable to reproduce due to their alleged celibate status, etc.). The Pharisees morphed into rabbis. And Jesus’ followers founded Christianity. So the narrative goes. Pre-70 Judaism was diverse, post-70 Judaism was not.
      Scholars of early Judaism increasingly emphasize the diversity of Judaism that persisted after the destruction of the Second Temple (which may not have been such a watershed moment, at least in its immediate aftermath) even as many Jews continued to share much in common. The rabbinic sages of the Talmud did not become the leaders of Jewish society overnight.

      Archeological and synagogal evidence suggests otherwise. Additionally, some of the Targumim (Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures) and the Merkavah Mysticism and Hekhalot texts indicate that priestly circles persisted and even flourished in synagogue settings well after 70. Finally, Christianity itself was diverse during the first centuries CE, and, depending on the time and location, not clearly distinguishable from Judaism, further attesting to the enduring diversity of Judaism after the Second Temple period.

​

​

References:

1 This pedagogical essay takes inspiration from Amy-Jill Levine’s article, “Bearing False Witness: Common Errors Made about Early Judaism,” in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2 nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 759-63.
2 The final work in most editions of the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible) is Chronicles. This work ends with a reference to the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile to their homeland (2 Chr 36:23). This particular canonical ordering suggests that it was intended to convey consolation to the Jewish people and hope for the restoration of Israel (see Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 14b).
3 The call here is not to ban the term “intertestamental” altogether which may (or may not be) meaningful from a confessional perspective, but rather to draw attention to its provenance, connotations, and limitations. Indeed, the term still persists in some scholarly communities though this is extremely rare. One example is the “Groupe de Recherches Intertestamentaire” (Unité de recherche 4378) at the University of Strasbourg (http://ed.theologie.unistra.fr/unites-de-recherche/ur-4378).

4 For a critical and insightful discussion of these terms, see Gabriele Boccaccini, Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought300 B.C.E to 200 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 21-25. Boccaccini proposes the term “Middle Judaism,” forthe period covering 300 BCE to 200 CE. Strangely, this proposal never gained wide usage despite its advantages.

5 See Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “What is Second Temple Judaism?” in T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second TempleJudaism, 2 vols. (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 1:1-19.

6 Classical rabbinic Judaism formed sometime after 70 until c. 600 CE. During this period, the foundational texts ofrabbinic Judaism were produced, including the Mishnah, the Babylonian Talmud, and rabbinic commentaries on theHebrew Scriptures (Midrashim).

7 See John Collin and Daniel C. Harlow, eds., The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,2010).

8 E. P. Sanders in his seminal book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), coined the term“common Judaism” to describe the shared beliefs and practices of Jews from the Second Temple and Tannaiticperiods (the Tannaim were rabbinic sages from the first two centuries CE). Jacob Neusner, on the other hand, spokeof “Judaisms” in the plural to underscore the diversity of the Second Temple period, which in its later stages wasmarked by various factions or “sects” (Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.). See Jacob Neusner, Judaism WhenChristianity Began: A Survey of Belief and Practices (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 1-14. The extentof the diversity of ancient Judaism remains a topic of ongoing debate in academic circles.

9 See Daniel Boyarin, Judaism: The Genealogy of a Modern Notion, Key Words in Jewish Studies (New Jersey:Rutgers University Press, 2018).

10 Stuckenbruck, “What Is Second Temple Judaism?” 3.

11 Sanders formulated the concept of “covenantal nomism” to express this notion that he ascribed to “commonJudaism.” Regarding covenantal nomism, Sanders states: “(1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The lawimplies both (3) God’s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedienceand punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenanceor re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience,atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 422).