In addition to these particular groupings within Judaism (or forms of Judaism), we have to make room for other expressions of Judaism, most notably those found in the pseudepigrapha. For a grasp of first-century Palestinian Judaism there is an immediate problem here. All four of Josephus' 'sects' we know were operative in the land of Israel during the period with which we are principally concerned. But with the Apocrypha several of the items come from the diaspora, and the scope and datings of much of the Pseudepigrapha are so unclear that we are often uncertain as to which of the writings are of relevance to us.92 At the
88. R. A. Horsley, 'The Zealots: Their Origin, Relationship and Importance in the Jewish Revolt', NovT 28 (1986) 159-92.
89. See also Ap. 1.162; in Philo, Migr. 62; Som. 1.124; 2.274; Abr. 22, 33, 60; Mos. 1.160-61; 2.55, 161, 256, etc. In the LXX Pentateuch it is God who is described as a 'zealot' (Exod. 20.5; 34.14; Deut. 4.24; 5.9; 6.15).
91. See also D. R. Schwartz, 'On Christian Study of the Zealots', Studies 128-46; L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 wis.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 499-500; D. Rhoads, 'Zealots', ABD 6.1043-54.
92. The texts of the documents to be mentioned are most readily accessible in the OT
same time, however, many of the documents fall into groupings or reveal trends which must have been present within the land of Israel during the first century CE, so that a broad picture (which is all we need at this point) can be sketched.
(1) Most striking is the sequence of apocalyptic writings, particularly the Enoch corpus, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and, we may add, the Apocalypse of John (Revelation).93 These all grew out of the overmastering conviction that events on earth are determined by what happens in heaven, with the consequent desire to know more of these heavenly secrets. Prominent in them are angelic beings, both interpreter angels, but also glorious angels, the sight of whom is to assure the seer that he is close to the presence of the one God, but whose very glory can both enhance and threaten the exclusive majesty of the one God.94 To be noted here also is the overlap between apocalyptic and mysticism.9 This is a Judaism focused in the immediacy of spiritual (revelatory) experience, but in consequence also vulnerable to 'flights of fancy'.
(2) A testamentary literature also developed in this period (a patriarchal figure giving his last will and testament). Though only the precursors of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Testament of Moses fall for consideration within the period of our concern, the fact that the format was so widespread both in Israel and in diaspora Judaism is a further reminder that the interrelated-ness between the two must have been considerable. The overlap with apocalyptic literature is substantial (warning us not to operate with too strict categories), but the most distinctive feature of the testaments is the desire to promote righteous living. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs the superiority of Levi over Ju-dah (particularly T. Jud. 21.2-4; 25.1) indicates a Judaism where Temple and priest are still the central defining feature.96
Apocrypha and OTP. See further Introductions in OTP; Stone, ed., Jewish Writings; Kraft and Nickelsburg, Early Judaism; Schürer, History vol. 3.
93. In addition to those cited in n. 92, see also J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984,21998).
94. See particularly C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982); L. T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT 2.70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995).
95. See particularly I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic andMerkavah Mysticism (Leiden: Brill, 1980); see further below, vol. 3.
96. For a review of the ongoing debate, particularly regarding the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see J. J. Collins, 'Testaments', in Stone, ed., Jewish Writings 325-55; also 'The Testamentary Literature in Recent Scholarship', in Kraft and Nickelsburg, Early Judaism 268-85. The Testament ofMoses is usually dated between 4 BCE and 30 CE (e.g., J. F. Priest, ABD 4.920-22) and so may be closer in origin to the period of Jesus' mission than any other extent writing of Second Temple Judaism. The Testament ofJob, which cannot be dated more precisely than the first century BCE or CE, was composed in Greek.
(3) The difficulty of drawing lines between literary evidence from within the land of Israel and that from the diaspora is well illustrated by the wisdom literature. It is striking nonetheless that the only two which can be said to have originated in Hebrew (ben Sira and Baruch) both make a point of focusing universal divine wisdom explicitly in the Torah (Sir. 24.23; Bar. 4.1). Of the stories of Jewish heroes and heroines which must have fed popular piety wherever they were read, we might note how consistently they were portrayed as prospering precisely because of their loyalty to the food laws and refusal to eat the food of Gentiles.97
Of other relevant pseudepigrapha there are two which deserve special mention. The first is Jubilees, a reworking of Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus, and clearly designed to promote more rigorous obedience to the stipulations of the Torah. It probably comes from the early Maccabean-Hasmonean period, and is now generally regarded as a precursor of the Essenes. The second is the Psalms of Solomon: written in the aftermath of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem (63 BCE), it wrestles with the consequent problem of theodicy — how to square recent events with God's choice of Israel.
A major problem for us with all these documents is the question of how representative and influential they were. Although we know, for example, that portions of the Enoch corpus were evidently prized at Qumran and can see in CD 16.2-4 an allusion to Jubilees, we cannot deduce from this that they speak for significant groupings within first-century Judaism. After all, an apocalypse could have been the work of a single person and not speak for any party. At the opposite extreme it would be equally unwise to list them all as expressive of disparate Judaisms without any overlap or commonality. Just as it would be inadmissible as a procedure to identify each document with a single community, as though no sub-group could happily express the richness of its own communal self-perception through several different writings.98 In particular, the breadth of the appeal of wisdom and heroic literature surely prevents us from seeing it as representative of disparate Judaisms. Frustrating though our lack of information may be here, then, we must be content to let these writings illuminate facets of Second Temple Judaism without imposing a systematised coherence or grand schema of our own.
97. Dan. 1.3-16; 10.3; Tob. 1.10-13; Jdt. 12.2, 6-9, 19; Add. Esth. 14.17; 1 Macc. 1.6263; Jos. Asen. 7.1; 8.5.
98. We have already observed this as a fallacy to which several NT scholars commit themselves, e.g., in hypothesizing a distinctive (and distinctively) Q community (see above §§7,4b and 8.6d).
Was this article helpful?