Setting the Stage: The Effects of the Roman Conquest and the Loss of Sovereignty

Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and ater the Destruction of the Second Temple Edited by Daniel R. Schwartz and Zeev Weiss in collaboration with Ruth A. Clements LEIDEN • BOSTON 2012 © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV CONTENTS Preface ................................................................................................. Abbreviations ..................................................................................... List of Contributors ........................................................................... ix xi xv Introduction: Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? hree Stages of Modern Scholarship, and a Renewed Efort .... Daniel R. Schwartz 1 PART I SONS OF AARON AND DISCIPLES OF AARON: PRIESTS AND RABBIS BEFORE AND AFTER 70 “Found Written in the Book of Moses”: Priests in the Era of Torah ................................................................................... Martha Himmelfarb 23 he Other Side of Israelite Priesthood: A SociologicalAnthropological Perspective ........................................................ Gideon Aran 43 “A Kingdom of Priests”: Did the Pharisees Try to Live Like Priests? ............................................................................................. Hanan Birenboim 59 Sectarianism Before and Ater 70 CE ............................................ Jodi Magness Were Priests Communal Leaders in Late Antique Palestine? he Archaeological Evidence ...................................................... Zeev Weiss © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 69 91 vi contents PART II “THE PLACE” AND OTHER PLACES Place beyond Place: On Artifacts, Religious Technologies, and the Mediation of Sacred Place ............................................. Ori Schwarz 115 Priests and Priesthood in Philo: Could He Have Done without hem? ............................................................................................... Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer 127 Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple in Hellenistic Judaism ............................................................................................ Noah Hacham 155 Doing without the Temple: Paradigms in Judaic Literature of the Diaspora .............................................................................. Michael Tuval 181 PART III ART AND MAGIC he Rising Power of the Image: On Jewish Magic Art from the Second Temple Period to Late Antiquity ........................... Naama Vilozny 243 Jewish Exorcism Before and Ater the Destruction of the Second Temple .............................................................................. Gideon Bohak 277 he Emergence of a New Jewish Art in Late Antiquity ............. Lee I. Levine © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 301 contents vii PART IV SACRED TEXTS: EXEGESIS AND LITURGY Legal Midrash between Hillel and Rabbi Akiva: Did 70 CE Make a Diference? ........................................................................ Paul Mandel 343 Liturgy Before and Ater the Temple’s Destruction: Change or Continuity? ................................................................................ Esther G. Chazon 371 Liturgy, Poetry, and the Persistence of Sacriice .......................... Michael D. Swartz 393 PART V COMMUNAL DEFINITION—POMPEY, JESUS, OR TITUS: WHO MADE A DIFFERENCE? Setting the Stage: he Efects of the Roman Conquest and the Loss of Sovereignty ....................................................................... Nadav Sharon Temple and Identity in Early Christianity and in the Johannine Community: Relections on the “Parting of the Ways” ........................................................................................ Jörg Frey 415 447 Religious Reactions to 70: he Limitations of the Evidence ...... Martin Goodman 509 Epilogue: 70 CE Ater 135 CE—he Making of a Watershed? Ruth A. Clements 517 Index of Ancient Names and Toponyms ...................................... Index of Modern Authors ................................................................ 537 541 © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV PART V COMMUNAL DEFINITION—POMPEY, JESUS, OR TITUS: WHO MADE A DIFFERENCE? © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV SETTING THE STAGE: THE EFFECTS OF THE ROMAN CONQUEST AND THE LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY1 Nadav Sharon Our Scholion group’s work has centered on the common scholarly convention that ancient Judaism revolved around the Temple in Jerusalem until it was destroyed in 70 ce, and thereater became a religion with no geographical focus, or, perhaps, with several. One way or another, this thesis assumes that much of what we know about ancient Judaism can meaningfully be organized around the destruction of the Second Temple and understood as relecting its existence or destruction.2 A diferent scholarly view sees the evolution of rabbinic Judaism not so much, or not only, as a result of the Temple’s destruction, but rather as a response to the rise of Christianity. One might ask, however, how it was that this religion and its people, if in fact they were focused on the Temple to such an extent, were able to overcome the incredible catastrophe of its destruction so as to develop the concepts, attitudes, and institutions which enabled their survival in the new and completely changed reality. It is my aim in 1 his paper is an early product of my doctoral studies under the guidance of Prof. Daniel R. Schwartz, conducted while I was a fellow of the research group, “On Religions of Place and Religions of Community” (2006–2009), at the Scholion Interdisciplinary Research Center in Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. 2 For example, H. Graetz’s dividing line between the third and fourth volumes of his magnum opus (Geschichte der Juden) is the “Untergang des jüdischen Staates,” which, for him, happened with the destruction of the Temple. Note also his deinition of the second period of Jewish history as the Second Temple period, ending with the Destruction in 70, and the third period—the period of exile—as beginning thereafter; see his, “Die Konstruktion der jüdischen Geschichte,” Zeitschrit für die religiösen Interessen des Judenthums 3 (1846): 81–97, 121–32, 361–80 (repr. [as a book]: Berlin, 1936; citations refer to the reprint edition). For Graetz’s problematic deinition of the Second Temple period, see D.R. Schwartz, “Jews, Judaeans and the Epoch that Disappeared: On H. Graetz’s Changing View of the Second Temple Period,” Zion 70 (2005): 293–309 (in Hebrew), as well as his contribution to the present volume. For the view by which the state came to its end only with the destruction of the Temple, see below, at nn. 5–8. For more examples see G. Alon, “he Impact of the Great Defeat,” in idem, he Jews in heir Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 CE) (trans. and ed. G. Levi; Jerusalem, 1980), 1:41–55; A. Bertholet, Das Ende des jüdischen Staatswesens (Tübingen, 1910). For the rabbinic view of the destruction of the Second Temple as a watershed see the frequent idiom ‫( משחרב הבית‬e.g., t. Menaḥ ot 10:26 and t. Ta anit 2:3). © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 416 nadav sharon this paper not to argue with those views noted above, but rather to draw scholarly attention to a somewhat neglected series of events that I believe set the stage for that survival and for some of those post-70 developments. I am referring now to the events of 67–37 bce and their atermath. A Neglected Era Despite the enormous amount of scholarly work on the Second Temple Period it seems to me that the period of 67–37 bce, and the dramatic change it brought upon Judea, have been somewhat neglected in modern historical study. he events of this period brought about the end of the eighty-year-old independent and sovereign Judean state, established by the Hasmoneans in the atermath of Antiochus Epiphanes’ religious decrees and the ensuing revolt. In fact, these events resulted in the almost complete annihilation of that prestigious priestly house. In 63 bce the independent Hasmonean state, with its large territorial gains, found itself suddenly under the domination of the expanding world empire, Rome, and downgraded to a small semiautonomous vassal state. Admittedly, at some points during its subsequent history, when it had its own kings, this state enjoyed independence to a greater degree—under Herod the Great and, ater a few decades, Agrippa I. However, these kings were none the less vassals, appointees of the Romans, and however one looks at them their kingdoms were very far from independent. (his is, of course, excluding the short-lived kingship of Mattathias Antigonus [40–37 bce], the last Hasmonean king, who was brought to power by the Parthians.) True, one might justiiably argue that objectively, in terms of independence, the situation ater 63 bce was probably not any worse than it had been prior to the Hasmonean revolt, and was perhaps even better when those Herodian kings were in power. However, when seen subjectively, through the eyes of Judeans who had just enjoyed eighty years of independence, the events of 63 bce were probably perceived as not much less than a complete loss of independence. his perception is exempliied in Josephus’s speech to the besieged in Jerusalem during the Great Revolt: “Whence did we begin (our) servitude? ( θ ʼ ἠ μ θ ί ;) Was it not from party strife among our forefathers, when the madness of Aristobulus and © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 417 Hyrcanus . . . brought Pompey against the city, and God subjected to the Romans those who were unworthy of liberty?” ( J.W. 5.395–396).3 his was also the Roman point of view, as is made clear by Cicero’s statement regarding Jerusalem, just four years ater Pompey’s conquest: “. . . how dear it (i.e., Jerusalem) was to the immortal gods is shown by the fact that it has been conquered, let out for taxes, made a slave” (Flacc. 28:69).4 It seems to me safe to assume that a change such as the loss of sovereignty must have had a tremendous impact on Judean religion and society. However, as already observed, historical study has relatively neglected this period, and has focused on the destruction of the Temple, not on the loss of independence, when relecting upon the evolution of ancient Judaism. Various studies have been written on Herod’s rule and on the irst century ce as background to the Great Revolt or to the rise of Christianity, but on the early Roman Period (63 bce–70 ce) in general, as the background to understanding postDestruction Judaism, very little has been done. his neglect comes hand in hand, whether as cause or result, with a situation wherein numerous scholarly studies express themselves as if the end of the Jewish state came only with the Destruction in 70 ce, as exempliied in the following quotations (my emphasis added in each): It is remarkable that the fall of the state, the conlagration that destroyed the Temple, did not at all make the same terrible impression on those who lived through it as did the death of the irst state. (Graetz, 1846)5 3 Translation by hackeray in LCL, substituting “we begin (our) servitude” for his “our servitude arise.” (All translations of Josephus in this paper are, unless otherwise noted, from Josephus [trans H.St.J. hackeray et al.; 10 vols. LCL; Cambridge, 1926–1965].) See also Josephus’s lament in Ant. 14.77. he Pesher Habakkuk scroll from Qumran might also be implying this view: ‫]והיתה הארץ[ בממשלת הכתיאים‬ (“[he land shall be] under the rule of the Kittim”; 1QpHab 2:13–14; trans. M. Wise, M. Abegg, and E. Cook, with N. Gordon, in he Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 2: Exegetical Texts [ed. D.W. Parry and E. Tov; Leiden, 2004], 81). However, as is oten the case, the words crucial for establishing this argument are missing from the scroll, and various other reconstructions have been suggested in place of the words ‫והיתה הארץ‬, which is the reconstruction of M. Abegg (ibid., 80). Nevertheless, the equation of the Kittim (i.e., Romans) with the Chaldeans (i.e., Babylonians) in this text (2:11–12), and in others, might also hint at this view. 4 GLA 1:198. Cf. Titus’s speech to the besieged in Jerusalem: “Ever since Pompey conquered you by force ( ἷ μᾶ ὰ ) you never ceased from revolution” (J.W. 6.329; translation mine—N.S.). 5 Graetz, Konstruktion, 48. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 418 nadav sharon Ater the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 ce the Jews were deprived of their political independence. (Zeitlin, 1945)6 he Destruction put a inal end to Jewish political independence. (Alon, 1954)7 he failure of the [Great—N.S.] revolt led to the destruction of the last independent Jewish state in Palestine until the establishment of Israel. (Goodman, 1987)8 here is no doubt that these scholars knew very well that the Roman occupation of Judea began in 63 bce, and that that is when the independent and sovereign Judean state actually came to its end; but still, this is the picture relected in various scholarly works.9 he reasons for this phenomenon (and for the neglect of the period of 67–37 bce in general) are not my subject here. However, it seems that in addition to the neglect of that period, this picture in turn has also made it seem all the more natural for scholars to emphasize the Destruction as the basis for understanding later Judaism and to overlooking the impact of the loss of independence and the beginning of Roman dominion of Judea. It is, therefore, my contention here that some conceptual and institutional developments which were crucial for the development of post-Destruction Judaism are to be understood more appropriately against the background of the loss of independence and the beginning of Roman rule in Judea.10 hese developments have usually either been 6 S. Zeitlin, “he Political Synedrion and the Religious Sanhedrin,” JQR 36 (1945): 126. 7 G. Alon, “he Talmudic Age,” in idem, he Jews in heir Land in the Talmudic Age, 1:5. For a similar formulation see ibid., 1:206. Note, however, that the reference at p. 5 to the “inal end,” which implies this is the conclusion of a process, sotens the formulation of the original Hebrew version, which speaks here of the loss of political independence upon the destruction of the Temple (G. Alon, Toledot HaYehudim be-Erets Yisra el bi-teḳufat ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud [Tel-Aviv, 1953–55], 1:4). 8 M. Goodman, he Ruling Class of Judaea: he Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome A.D. 66–70 (Cambridge, 1987), 4. See also S. Talmon, “Textual Criticism: he Ancient Versions,” in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (ed. A.D.H. Mayes; Oxford, 2000), 152. To these may be added numerous references to the Destruction as the end of the independent state in popular literature and media. 9 D.M. Goodblatt (“he Jews of Eretz-Israel in the Years 70–132,” in Judea and Rome: he Jewish Revolts [ed. U. Rappaport; Jerusalem, 1983], 155–84 [in Hebrew]) notes this scholarly view (p. 155) and points out the fact that from 63 bce Judea was a mere vassal state, and that it was annexed to Rome in 6 ce (p. 161). 10 Some scholarly studies do indeed see the early Roman period as a transitional time, wherein Judaism was already on its way to its post-Destruction developments © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 419 attributed to the atermath of the Destruction or been taken as longstanding Judean phenomena that existed throughout all or most of the Second Temple period. In contrast, I suggest that we consider the notion that the period of the loss of independence and the inception of Roman rule in Judea is when the seeds of these developments were sown, or was at least a major factor in shaping them. his paper ofers some preliminary steps in this direction. First, the case will be made that the early Roman period marked the irst fundamental separation between the state and religious authority in Judea. hen I will discuss some institutional innovations in this period. Finally, the possible impact of the developments of this period on the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple will be discussed, along with the possible efects that impact may have had on the development of another institution, namely, the synagogue. Religion and State Judean Jews of the post-Destruction era had to get used to the idea that the religious aspect of their lives had turned into a communal issue, divorced from the authority of the state. Political power was now, for the most part, fully in the hands of the foreign empire and had nothing to do with the religious authority. his situation is similar to that already faced by Diaspora Jews during Second Temple times. It has previously been recognized, however, that preliminary steps toward the separation of religion and state in Judea had already taken place while the Temple was still standing. Daniel Schwartz has shown that the Hasmonean conquest of Gentiles eventually led the Hasmoneans to add the royal title to their high-priestly title so as to enable them to “[call] upon the Gentile subjects to render obedience to them not as religious igures but rather only as temporal overlords.”11 However, this separation, which distinguished Hasmonean priestly and political authority, was still only nominal, since both spheres of power were still in the hands of the same person. It is true that during Alexandra’s reign (76–67 bce) the titles were split between (see L.L. Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh [London, 2000], 333–34). 11 D.R. Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen, 1992), 12. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 420 nadav sharon two individuals. However this separation was forced upon Alexandra because as a woman, she could not hold the high-priestly oice; it was not really a full separation since the high priest whom she appointed was her son, Hyrcanus II. Indeed, as soon as she died the two titles were once again united, irst in the person of Hyrcanus II (67/66 bce), then in the person of his younger brother, Aristobulus II (67/66–63 bce). It is with the Roman occupation of Judea that the distinction turned into a true separation of powers, since throughout virtually the entire early period of Roman rule in Judea, from its inception until the Destruction, the Romans or their agents exercised political authority, leaving religious authority in the hands of the high priest.12 he Romans tried various methods of governing Judea. At irst they reinstated Hyrcanus to the high priesthood, but without kingship and with almost completely diminished political power (63 bce; J.W. 1.153, 157). Later, Gabinius divided the country into ive districts, each with its own council (57 bce; J.W. 1.170: synodoi; Ant. 14.91: synedria), which exercised civic authority, leaving only the Temple to Hyrcanus’s charge. Ater the Parthian invasion and Antigonus’s assumption of the kingship (40 bce), and probably in response to this development, the Romans appointed Herod as King of Judea, just as they later did with Agrippa I (41–44 ce)—but these vassal kings could not, by deinition, be high priests. Finally, in the years 6–41 ce Judea came under direct Roman rule, and ater Agrippa’s short-lived kingship Judea became a Roman province.13 A major common denominator in all these “experiments”14 is the separation between political power and religious authority. 12 Ibid., 13. Of course, this might be seen as not really new, since it is similar to the pre-Hasmonean state of afairs. However, even without noting the diferences between these two eras, in the present context suice it to say that since we are asking what set the stage for the post-70 era, conceptions held prior to the founding of the sovereign Hasmonean state are hardly relevant. 13 For the diference between Judea’s status in 6–41 ce, when it was under direct Roman rule, probably not a province but rather subordinate to the province of Syria, and its full provincial status in 44 ce or later, see the irst part of H.M. Cotton, “Some Aspects of the Roman Administration of Judaea/Syria-Palaestina,” in Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1.–3. Jahrhundert (ed. W. Eck; Munich, 1999), 75–91. 14 On the Romans as “experimenting” with diferent political arrangements for Judea see A.I. Baumgarten, “How Experiments End,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (ed. L.I. Levine and D.R. Schwartz; Tübingen, 2009), 147–61. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 421 hus, notwithstanding the scholarly tendency mentioned above, the Judean state had in efect been lost, and only the religious sphere remained, embodied by the Temple.15 So too, any signiicance that the Temple might have held as the seat of a sovereign was in reality lost.16 his new situation which the Judeans suddenly found themselves facing is illustrated in Jesus’ saying: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17// Matt 22:21//Luke 20:25). his bespeaks a situation very similar to the reality of Jewish life in the Diaspora—on the one hand, subject to a foreign power that held all political authority; and on the other hand, needing to govern their own daily communal and religious life. In fact, the only real diference between the Judeans and their brethren of the Diaspora, in this respect, was their proximity to the Temple. In my view, it is this “semi-Diaspora” situation in Judea, and the adoption or invention of concepts and institutions which it this situation, that in some respects set the stage for the Temple-less life of postDestruction Judea—i.e., a virtually complete Diaspora reality within Judea itself. Political Institutions I. he Ethnarch One interesting method of governing Judea with which the Romans experimented might seem to bespeak a continued linkage of state and religion. I refer to the appointment of Hyrcanus II as ethnarch, during some part of his tenure (see Ant. 14.190–195). He held this title, which literally means “head of the ethnos/nation,” in addition to his title of high priest. hus, the highest Jewish religious authority also had, under Roman auspices, some oicial measure of political 15 As noted above, the kingships of Herod the Great and Agrippa I should not be counted against this, as they were only temporary. Moreover, the Herodians were perceived as usurpers and Roman vassals; Herod especially was seen, at least by some Judeans, as a foreigner or a “half-Jew” (Ant. 14.403). On Agrippa I, see Ant. 19.332; m. Sotah 7:8 with t. Sotah 7:16; and D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: he Last King of Judaea (Tübingen, 1990), 157–71. Furthermore, direct Roman rule was apparently preferred by some Judeans to being ruled by the Herodian house (J.W. 2.84–91; Ant. 17.304–314). 16 Which explains why it would become a major springboard for later revolts. See Schwartz, Jewish Background, 9–10. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 422 nadav sharon authority. However, this was not a return to the early Hasmonean unity of state and religion, in which the high priest ruled the state. Rather, it is more closely akin to the late Hasmonean situation, wherein the two titles, king and high priest—now ethnarch and high priest—show that the political and the religious powers are diferentiated, despite the fact that they are held by the same person. his is demonstrated by the case of another Second Temple period persona known to have held the title of ethnarch—Archelaus, son of Herod (J.W. 2.93; Ant. 17.317), who was not high priest. Nevertheless, the fact that Hyrcanus held both titles is, to some extent, a temporary step away from the separation of state and religion. However, another implication of the title of ethnarch should be noticed: hose rulers who are named ethnarchs are demonstratively denied the royal title.17 his is most explicit in the case of Archelaus, who came to Rome in order to obtain Augustus’s approval of his kingship; instead, the latter “appointed Archelaus not king indeed but ethnarch . . .” (Ant. 17.317). What is the diference between kings and ethnarchs? Kings, by deinition, rule territories.18 his seems to have been obvious in antiquity. Ethnarchs, on the other hand, as is evident from the word itself, rule people.19 he non-territorial aspect of the ethnarch’s rule is evident from the fact that we ind an ethnarch over the Jewish community in Egypt (Ant. 14.117—Strabo, quoted by Josephus; 19.283—a Claudian edict;20 see also Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.13).21 Hence, although the innovation of the ethnarch is to some degree a step back in terms of the separation of 17 Despite this, it seems that at least some Judeans still referred to the ethnarchs popularly as kings (Hyrcanus—J.W. 1:202–203, 209, 212; Ant. 14:157, 168; Archelaus— Ant. 18.93; Life 5; Matt 2:22). 18 See, for example, the irst deinition of “king” in Webster’s hird New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (Springield, Mass., 1976), 1244. 19 D.R. Schwartz, “Herodians and Ioudaioi in Flavian Rome,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (ed. J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives; Oxford, 2005), 68; and see the literature mentioned there. 20 his ethnarch seems to be identical with the genarch mentioned by Philo, Flacc. 74. 21 Note that Hyrcanus “is recognized as ‘ethnarch of the Jews’ (e.g., Ant. 14.191— N.S.) and not of Judea, while Archelaus is later called by Augustus ‘ethnarch of half the territory that had been subject to Herod . . .’ ” (M. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World: he Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius [Tübingen, 1998], 49. See also ibid., 49–50, with further references.) However, while the evidence for Hyrcanus’s ethnarchy is found in oicial documents quoted by Josephus, that for Archelaus is in the narrative only. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 423 state and religion, relecting “experimentation,” it is an innovation that its a Diaspora setting, or a state-less setting, and its implementation set the stage in Judea for post-Destruction existence.22 II. Synedria I have already mentioned how Gabinius reformed Judea’s administration by dividing the country into ive districts, each governed by its own council (J.W. 1.170: synodoi; Ant. 14.91: synedria). Due to the enormous amount of research on this subject, and on the relation of the synedria to “the Sanhedrin,” I will merely outline here the main views. he majority of publications about the Sanhedrin, especially those of earlier eras, but also in more recent research, have seen this institution as existing throughout all or most of the Second Temple period.23 hus, Josephus’s claim that Alexandra entrusted the administration of the kingdom to the Pharisees (J.W. 1.110–112; Ant. 13.405, 408–409) is understood, in some studies, as if she gave over to them the control of the Sanhedrin.24 hese scholars argue that the diferent terms we ind in our sources (gerousia, synedrion, boulē) all refer to the same single institution, which may have had a diferent name at diferent times.25 Some of them view the Sanhedrin as a leading national institution,26 while others view it more as an advisory council to the ruler—the king 22 For more on the title ethnarch see my, “he Title Ethnarch in Second Temple Period Judea,” JSJ 41 (2010): 472–93. 23 For example: E. Schürer, he History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BCE–135 CE) (ed. G. Vermes et al.; 3 vols.; rev. English ed.; Edinburgh, 1973– 1986), 2:200–206; V.A. Tcherikover, “Was Jerusalem a Polis?” IEJ 14 (1964): 67–78. S. Zeitlin (“he Political Synedrion,” 120–26) sees the origin of the post-Destruction Sanhedrin in the coalescence of a Bet Din (supposedly established at the accession of Simon in 143 bce), which dealt with religious issues, with the synedrion, which was supposedly an ad hoc gathering of Herod’s friends convened to deal with issues of the state. 24 So, for example, Schürer, History, 2:204; F.M. Abel, “Le siège de Jérusalem par Pompée,” RB 54 (1947): 244. Cf. K. Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting (Leiden, 2004), 93–94. 25 G. Alon, “he Original Sanhedrin: Retrospect,” in idem, he Jews in heir Land in the Talmudic Age, 1:189; Stern, GLA 2:376; Tcherikover, “Was Jerusalem a Polis?” 70–73. L.L. Grabbe (“Sanhedrin, Sanhedriyyot, or Mere Invention?” JSJ 39 [2008]: 1–19) also claims that all these terms refer to the same institution; he suggests that the variation is not a consequence of change over time, but rather of diferent sources using diferent terms. See also Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 145–46. 26 So Schürer, History, 2:200–206; Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord, 93. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 424 nadav sharon or high priest, as the case may be.27 Other scholars, on the contrary, doubt the credibility of the evidence about the Sanhedrin and view this body as no more than an occasional gathering of advisors convened by rulers on an ad hoc basis.28 Scrutinizing in depth all of the relevant data is far beyond the scope of this paper, although I hope to do that in the future. I would like, however, to note here some important aspects of the evidence: 1. Synedrion in the Pre-Roman Period: he term synedrion appears several times in the Septuagint translation of the books of the Hebrew Bible. Oten it seems to be a relatively close rendering of the Hebrew original, drawing on one or another of this Greek term’s standard meanings (e.g., “court” in Prov 22:10, rendering ‫“ ;דין‬council” or “place of meeting” in Jer 15:17, rendering ‫)סוד‬.29 Apart from its occurrences in the Septuagint the term synedrion is scarcely found prior to the Roman era. In texts of the Second Temple period it is found in Ben Sira, which is likewise a translation from the Hebrew; there it either renders a verbal form of ‫( סוד‬42:12) or takes the similar meaning of “to be/sit among/together” (11:9; 23:14) (as in LXX Ps 25:4, for example). In my view, the character of Ben Sira, the fact that it is a translation (probably made outside of Judea), and the contexts and rarity of the term’s appearance speak against viewing it as evidence for an actual institution in Judea.30 he term does not appear in a historical text such as 1 Maccabees, and it occurs only once in 27 Grabbe, “Sanhedrin, Sanhedriyyot.” D.M. Goodblatt, he Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (Tübingen, 1994), 108–13. 29 See ibid., 108. For ‫ סוד‬as meaning “council” in the Bible see F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1907), 691. For this usage in Qumran see, inter alia, 1QHa 12:25; 4Q181 1 ii 1; and especially the idiom sod hayaḥad, which refers to the sect itself (e.g., 1QS 6:19; 4QSe [4Q259] 3:17–18). 30 he term also appears once in Susanna (28), whose date, place, and language of composition are disputed (see G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction [2d ed.; Minneapolis, 2005], 24 and 347–48 n. 28; idem, “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period [ed. M.E. Stone; Assen, 1984], 38). It likewise appears once in the Psalms of Solomon (4:1), which is also a translation from the Hebrew; and in any case, at least some of its psalms were composed ater the Roman occupation (see below, n. 84). Moreover, this verse, “Why are you, profane man, sitting in the synedrion of the holy?” (trans. mine—N.S.), appears to be using biblical language, such as appears in Jer 15:17, for example (‫;)לא ישבתי בסוד משחקים‬ Ps 89:8 (‫ ;)בסוד קדשים‬or Ps 111:1 (‫)בסוד ישרים‬. 28 © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 425 2 Maccabees (14:5)—referring not to a Judean institution, but to a synedrion of the Gentile king, Demetrius.31 In Josephus the term appears only twice, in contexts prior to the Roman occupation. One occurrence is in the rewrite of the Letter of Aristeas, in Ant. 12.103. his part of the sentence is a fairly close rendering of Aristeas 301, which also has the term synedrion. In this narrative, the term refers to a meeting of the elders who came to Alexandria to translate the Bible and has nothing to do with a Judean institution. he second time the term appears is in Ant. 13.364, where it refers to a meeting of the city council of Gaza. 2. Synedrion in the Roman Period: In Josephus’s historical narrative a synedrion in Judea irst appears in the narration concerning the above-mentioned reforms of Gabinius (Ant. 14.91).32 However, in the parallel narrative in the Jewish War, the term synodoi, and not synedria, appears (J.W. 1.170). hese terms are similar, and one can imagine that one or the other derives from scribal error or creativity. Nevertheless, I think we can discern that synedria is the correct term for the institutions Gabinius established.33 Although both terms share the meaning, “a meeting,” synedrion also has the meaning of “council,”34 whereas deinitions of the term synodos seem to imply one-time gatherings or meetings, usually not an institution that is both formal and permanent.35 Indeed, this sense of one-time meetings or general gatherings its the way Josephus himself regularly uses the term synodos (e.g., J.W. 1.585; Ant. 4.290; 8.133); this sense does not, however, seem to it the intent of Gabinius’s administrative reforms. he term synedria, meaning councils—a meaning that is also clear from the fact that 31 See also J. Efron, “he Great Sanhedrin in Vision and Reality,” in idem, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden, 1987), 310. 32 Gabinius’s reforms resemble the Roman partition of Macedonia into four regions, each governed by its own council, approximately a century earlier (Livy, History, 45.29.5–9). See A. Schalit, Roman Administration in Palestine (Jerusalem, 1937), 32–37 (in Hebrew); Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 110; Efron, “Great Sanhedrin,” 310. 33 As Reinach suggests in connection with the War passage. See note a on J.W. 1.170 in the LCL. 34 LSJ, s.v. , 1704. 35 LSJ, s.v. , 1720. It also takes the meaning of association, which oten served religious purposes. See further A.D. Nock, “he Gild of Zeus Hypsistos,” in idem, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Z. Stewart; 2 vols.; Oxford, 1972), 1:430–32. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 426 nadav sharon Polybius and others used this term to refer to the Roman Senate36— on the other hand, its the context of the reforms perfectly.37 3. Gerousia: he term gerousia appears a few times in the Septuagint (e.g., Exod 3:16; Num 22:4; Josh 23:2). However, as David Goodblatt has shown, this term does not have to be understood as referring to a formal council, and might be no more than an equivalent of gerontes, i.e., ‫זקנים‬, elders.38 Moreover, even if Goodblatt’s suggestion is not accepted, occurrences of this term in Greek translations of the biblical books should not be taken as evidence for historical reality in Second Temple Judea, for they may relect the diasporan Sitz im Leben of the translators.39 he term also appears oten in Josephus’s rewriting of the Bible, including contexts where the term does not appear in the Septuagint.40 However, ater his treatment of the biblical period the term appears only rarely; such occurrences as there are, in his writings and elsewhere, are generally limited to a very short period of time, 200–143 bce.41 Even regarding that period, however, the term appears in Josephus’s writings only in two documents that he cites. Of these, the irst (Ant. 12.138–144) is a bill of rights given by Antiochus III to the Jews, which, even if authentic,42 might at most be a relection 36 H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (Toronto, 1974), 123–24. 37 Livy (History, 45.32.2) uses synedros to refer to the members of the regional councils set up by the Romans in Macedonia (see n. 32 above). 38 Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 92–99. 39 For the existence of (non-Jewish) gerousia in Egypt from Ptolemaic times, at least in Alexandria, see M.A.H. El-Abbadi, “he Gerousia in Roman Egypt,” JEA 50 (1964): 164. 40 Goodblatt (Monarchic Principle, 94–97) sees in Josephus’s usage of this term further support for his suggestion that gerousia is merely a translation of “elders,” which need not entail a formalized council. On this point, however, I do not accept his view. he numerous occurrences of gerousia in Josephus’s retelling of the Bible that are not paralleled in the Septuagint, and especially Ant. 5.135, where gerousia seems to be the manifestation of the type of government which Josephus terms “aristocracy”— that is, rule by a council—imply that Josephus saw the gerousia as a formal council. In my M.A. thesis (“Kingship, Aristocracy, and Domitian: he Evolution of Flavius Josephus’s hought on Kingship and Rule” [he Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006, in Hebrew]) I suggested that Josephus was promoting a speciic pro-aristocracy (i.e., pro-gerousia) agenda in the Antiquities. 41 Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 89–90, 98. 42 On the question of the letter’s authenticity, see Appendix D in the LCL Josephus, vol. 7. M. Stern (“he Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple,” in idem, Studies in Jewish History: he Second Temple Period [ed. M. Amit, I.M. Gafni, and M.D. Herr; Jerusalem, 1991], 372–73 [in Hebrew]) accepted it as authentic. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 427 of Greek perceptions and not of actual Judean institutions;43 and the second (Ant. 13.166–170) is merely Josephus’s version of a letter of Jonathan to the Spartans found in 1 Maccabees 12, which in turn has its own problems. Namely, although the letter is said to have been sent by Jonathan, the gerousia, the priests, and the rest of the Judeans to the Spartans (1 Macc 12:6), since the reply of the Spartans (14:20) mentions only “elders” (presbyteroi) and no gerousia, it is very possible—as Goodblatt noted—that at 12:6 gerousia is only a product of translation and the Hebrew original really had no more than zeqenim, “elders.”44 Apart from Josephus and 1 Maccabees the term also appears in three passages in 2 Maccabees (1:10; 4:44; 11:27).45 hat is not much, and of those three passages the irst and the last are of limited value: for 1:10 comes in a letter added to the book and might, therefore, be based on the other two;46 and 11:27 is in a letter sent by Antiochus (IV or V), which might, again, be no more than a relection of Greek perceptions.47 Hence, altogether there are good reasons for Goodblatt’s skepticism as to the existence of a formal council termed gerousia.48 However, even if we do not accept this skepticism, we are still let with evidence for the existence of the gerousia only during a short period of time; it disappears from our sources more than eighty years before the synedrion irst appears.49 4. Boulē: he term boulē is also sometimes viewed as another term for the synedrion. Again, I do not take into account the few instances 43 Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 85–86. Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 97–98. A similar phenomenon is found in 3 Maccabees, where the sole occurrence of gerousia, in 1:8, seems to be equivalent to geraioi in 1:23 (see ibid., p. 94 n. 39). A good illustration of this occurs in another work that mentions the gerousia—the book of Judith, which is also a translation from the Hebrew. he term appears there in three verses (4:8; 11:14; 15:8) and is usually taken to refer to a council. However, according to Y. Grintz (Sefer Yehudit [ Jerusalem, 1986], 105 [in Hebrew]) the Syriac version reads ‫ = סביא‬elders. Accordingly he translates “‫ ”זקנים‬in all three places, but in his notes he writes that it refers to a national council, the Sanhedrin. he problem is also illustrated in the King James Version, which has “ancients” at 4:8 and 15:8, but “senate” at 11:14. 45 On 11:27 see Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 17–18. 46 Ibid., 89–90. 47 Ibid., 98. 48 Ibid., 83–99. 49 See also Goodman, he Ruling Class, 113–14, who nevertheless speaks of the variety of names this council had ater the Roman occupation, including gerousia; for which, however, he cites only Acts 5:21. On that text, which is the only occurrence of this term in the New Testament, and on Philo’s usage of gerousia, see Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 90–91. 44 © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 428 nadav sharon where boulē appears in the Septuagint, for in those cases too it seems to be a relatively close rendering of the Hebrew original (most oten ‫ ;עצה‬e.g., Judg 20:7) usually conveying the meaning of “counsel, plan.” Among books of the Hellenistic period, the term appears only in 1 Maccabees. Even there it appears only once with reference to a council (14:22)—and that council is in Sparta; in a similar fashion, bouleuterion is used of the Roman Senate (8:15, 19; 12:3). In the New Testament the term bouleutēs appears in parallel accounts in reference to one Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43//Luke 23:50), who is, accordingly, oten viewed as a member of the Sanhedrin.50 However, this seems to be rooted more in our common perceptions of the Sanhedrin, and the tendency to ind it everywhere, than in the actual evidence.51 he verse in Mark is ambiguous and could equally mean that Joseph was a member of the city council of Arimathea;52 even if the reference is not speciically to the council of Arimathea it should probably be understood, as we shall soon see, to mean that he was a member of the Jerusalem city council and not of a national council/ Sanhedrin. In Josephus the term boulē (and its derivatives), with the meaning of council, appears in several places in reference to various foreign cities (e.g., J.W. 7.107; Ant. 14.190), always denoting city councils and not national councils, except for references to the Roman Senate (e.g., J.W. 1.284; Ant. 13.164). hus, we also ind a boulē at the time of the Great Revolt, as the city council of Tiberias (e.g., J.W. 2.639; Life 64). For this reason it seems that when boulē does refer to a Judean council (J.W. 2.331, 336, 405; 5.144, 532; 6.354), it is a city council of Jerusalem that is intended, not any national institution.53 50 Schürer, History, 2:206; C.S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City, N.Y., 1986), 657; J. Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53 (Dallas, 1993), 1163. 51 Cf. Efron, “Great Sanhedrin,” 325. 52 A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Minneapolis, 2007), 777; and see n. 55 where she proposes that Luke’s understanding is an inference from Mark. Also note that in Matthew and John he is not said to be a bouleutēs or anything similar. he location of Arimathea is uncertain (Nolland, Luke, 1164). 53 Contra Grabbe, “Sanhedrin, Sanhedriyyot,” 17, and Tcherikover, “Was Jerusalem a Polis?” 67–70. Cf. Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 17–18. One further possible ἄ ῶ ὶ ᾶ reference to a boulē is found in Pss. Sol. 8:20: ἀ ὸ ἐ ῇ, which R.B. Wright (he Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text [London, 2007], 119 and n. 148) translates: “He killed of their leaders and each wise man in the council.” One should, however, note both that this text, too, is a © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 429 Two more factors about the appearance of boulē as council in Josephus should be noted. First, all references to a boulē in Jerusalem or Judea are found in the War. None is found in Antiquities or Life.54 In fact, the irst reference to the Jerusalem boulē in War is chronologically later than the end of the narrative of Antiquities. here is one exception to this rule—in Ant. 20.11. However, this sole reference appears in a formal letter sent to the Judeans by Claudius, and it seems to be a standard opening formula for such letters, as is clear by its similarity to the openings of letters to other cities (e.g., Ant. 14.190; 16.172);55 therefore it should not be viewed as evidence for the institution’s actual existence.56 Second, all of these references to a Jerusalem or Judean boulē are from the time of the Great Revolt or immediately prior to it. hey are later, both in the narrative and chronologically, than the latest references to a Judean synedrion (J.W. 1.620—Herod’s days; Ant. 20.216–217—Agrippa II’s days).57 Hence, I do not think synedrion, boulē, and gerousia should be associated with one another. he temporal gap between the evidence for gerousia and that for synedrion,58 and the scanty and chronologically translation from Hebrew, and that although the context makes it likely that the phrase indeed refers to a council, this is far from certain. In fact the phrase ὸ ἐ ῇ, which I have not found in any other text, occurs once more in these Psalms (17:37), and there it is impossible to understand it as referring to a council. Wright translates there: “wise in intelligent counsel” (p. 197), and indeed others have ofered the same translation for 8:20 (Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord, 57; M. Stein, “Psalms of Solomon,” in Hasfarim Haḥizonim [ed. A. Kahana; Tel-Aviv, 1956], 1:448 [in Hebrew]); and even Wright himself, for his translation in OTP 2:659. Moreover, even if this phrase is nevertheless taken to be a reference to a council, the context, which repeatedly mentions Jerusalem, makes it clear that it should not be seen as anything more than a city council. 54 Not to mention Against Apion, which employs none of the various terms we are discussing. 55 See also imperial letters to various cities in F.F. Abbott and A.C. Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), nos. 30, 36, 54, 68, etc. 56 Tcherikover (“Was Jerusalem a Polis?” 75) views this as merely a case of the usage of Greek terminology for traditional Jewish institutions, in accordance with his view that the various terms all refer to a single traditional Jewish institution in existence throughout the Second Temple period (see above at n. 25). 57 here are two seeming exceptions: 1) J.W. 4.213, where, however, the verbal form need not imply any institution at all; and 2) Life 62—concerning which see the doubts expressed by D.R. Schwartz, Flavius Josephus, Vita: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary (Jerusalem, 2007), 78 n. 103 (in Hebrew). Elsewhere in the Life Josephus refers to a body he terms “to koinon,” but see Schwartz, ibid., 79 n. 107. 58 Cf. S.B. Hoenig, he Great Sanhedrin: A Study of the Origin, Development, Composition and Functions of the Bet Din Hagadol during the Second Jewish Commonwealth © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 430 nadav sharon isolated evidence for a boulē, in addition to the fact that it seems to denote a council that is municipal, not national,59 speak against viewing these terms as synonymous. Moreover, if they are to be viewed as synonyms, the abrupt changes in terminology need to be explained. herefore, whether the other two institutions existed or not does not have a bearing on the issue of the synedrion. According to the evidence just noted this institution existed during the early period of the Roman occupation of Judea (57 bce–ca. 66 ce).60 But did this institution actually exist? Despite numerous ambiguities as to the history and nature of the synedrion in Judea, a number of factors point to the existence of such a body: 1. here is no good reason to doubt that Gabinius established synedria in Judea, especially given the precedent set in Macedonia. hese must have been real and permanent institutions. And since this is the irst unambiguous mention of any synedrion in Judea, and from here on it appears oten, it seems that the body continued to exist throughout the period, despite various changes in its nature and authority.61 (Philadelphia, 1953), 11; who, however, claims that the Sanhedrin was established in the interim (23), in the days of Simon (25–26). For the suggestion that the ḥever is the link between the gerousia and the synedrion see Tcherikover, “Was Jerusalem a Polis?” 72; but for the uncertainty of this term’s meaning, see Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 99–103. 59 J. Efron (“Great Sanhedrin,” 316) also notes that there is no connection between the Talmud’s Sanhedrin and its concept of boulē. 60 E.J. Bickerman (“he Sanhedrin,” Zion 3 [1938]: 356–59 [in Hebrew]) suggested that since the early gerousia was not dependent on them, the Hasmoneans replaced it by a synedrion, imitating the practice of Hellenistic kings. However, the only evidence he adduces for a synedrion in the Hasmonean period, prior to the Roman conquest, is a citation from Megillat Ta anit for the 28th day of Tevet, which Bickerman takes as a reference to the days of Alexander Jannaeus and his wife Alexandra. In fact, their names and the reference to the Sanhedrin are found, not in the text itself, but rather in a later scholium. he nature of the event mentioned in the scroll is not at all clear, nor the time at which it occurred, nor what the scholiast really knew. See further V. Noam, Megillat Ta anit: Versions, Interpretation, History with a Critical Edition (Jerusalem, 2003), 107–109, 277–79 (in Hebrew). 61 Contra Goodblatt (Monarchic Principle, 108–13), who, as already noted above, denies the existence of such an institution and interprets most occurrences of this term in Josephus as referring to “an ad hoc assembly of friends and advisers convened by an oicial to assist in policy decisions or in trying a case” (p. 109); he downplays the importance of the remaining occurrences that seem to refer to an actual permanent council. Goodblatt, however, does not deal with the fact that all occurrences of the term synedrion concern a period subsequent to Gabinius’s reforms, which Goodblatt admits established permanent councils (p. 110). If this term refers to an ad hoc assembly as Goodblatt claims, why is it applied only at this period? Had the © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 431 2. In his descriptions of Gabinius’s reform Josephus (or his source) declares quite roundly that: he Jews welcomed their release from the rule of an individual and were from that time forward governed by an aristocracy. (J.W. 1.170) And so the people were removed from monarchic rule and lived under an aristocracy. (Ant. 14.91) I ind it hard to believe that Josephus (or his source) would make such pronouncements if these synedria had disappeared completely only two years later when Gabinius again reorganized the government in Judea (J.W. 1.178; Ant. 14.103), or even ten years later when Caesar settled the afairs in Judea (J.W. 1.199–200; Ant. 14.143).62 It is rather more likely that the synedrion continued to exist,63 although it need not be assumed that it remained static and unchanging. Among the oten-changing government and power centers in early Roman Judea it is most natural to assume that the synedrion went through many changes as well. hus, the regional councils were probably abolished during either of the above-mentioned reorganizations, that of Gabinius or that of Caesar, but one general council seems to have remained. Its powers must have been diminished when there was a powerful king such as Herod, and were probably strengthened when there was no king. Likewise, we can assume that at times it functioned on a more ad hoc basis and at others it was more permanent. In any case, it seems that at least through most of the period, the synedrion was neither independent nor fully authoritative and was rather subordinate to the king or high priest.64 Hasmoneans and other oicials never previously convened “friends and advisers” for consultation? 62 See E. Bammel, “he Organization of Palestine by Gabinius,” JJS 12 (1961): 159– 62, and E.M. Smallwood, he Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden, 1981), 31–36. 63 Contra Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 110–11. Note also that Josephus deines the constitution of Judea following Archelaus’s rule (6 ce) as an aristocracy (Ant. 20.151); as noted above (n. 40) aristocracy in Josephus means rule by council/s. For this meaning see also D.R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community,” SCI 7 (1983/84): 32–34. 64 As L. Grabbe (“Sanhedrin, Sanhedriyyot,” 3) correctly points out, even Goodblatt’s view of monarchic rule would not deny the actual existence of a council, only that it was a leading, national institution. See also S.J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (2d ed.; Louisville, Ky., 2006), 103; Goodman, he Ruling Class, 114–15. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 432 nadav sharon 3. In addition to the evidence from Josephus, the synedrion is oten mentioned in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 5:22; Mark 13:9; Luke 22:66; John 11:47) and Acts (e.g., 4:15), and the Sanhedrin is frequently discussed in rabbinic literature. Doubtless we cannot fully rely on these sources (nor for that matter, on Josephus) to discern the exact nature, authority, and makeup of this institution. However it seems to be more than mere coincidence that both types of sources use the same term we ind in Josephus. Ater all, the Gospels could have used a diferent Greek term (boulē, gerousia),65 and it is hard to believe that the rabbis would have utilized such a Greek term if the institution had not previously existed.66 hus, to summarize this section, just as we saw with the oice of ethnarch, here, too, we see an innovation of the Roman era. And this innovation can similarly be understood as conforming to an essentially diasporan situation. Like the oice of ethnarch, there is nothing essentially territorial about a council. hus, there were councils among the Jewish Diaspora communities in Egypt (although, admittedly, they were not called synedria, but gerousia).67 It seems natural that in the post-Destruction reality Judeans would have taken this subordinate, pre-Destruction institution as a model and tried to transform it into a leading institution, and this seems to be what the rabbis tried to do.68 65 As mentioned already the term gerousia does appear once (Acts 5:21); but see above, n. 49. We do encounter the term presbyterion in the New Testament in two places (Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5), both from the same diasporan author. Furthermore, regarding Luke 22:66, note that the presbyterion seems to be only one component of the synedrion, and in fact the parallel narratives (Matt 27:1; Mark 15:1) speak of presbyteroi, i.e., elders, not a presbyterion. Cf. Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 121–22. 66 Goodblatt (Monarchic Principle, 126–28) denies this explanation for this rabbinic borrowing of the Greek term, but does not decisively resolve the question. 67 See J.W. 7.412; Philo, Flacc. 74. For the organization of the Jewish community in Alexandria as a politeuma see A. Kasher, “he Jewish Politeuma in Alexandria: A Model of Communal Organization in the Hellenistic-Roman Diaspora,” in Center and Diaspora: he Land of Israel and the Diaspora in the Second Temple, Mishna, and Talmud Periods (ed. I.M. Gafni; Jerusalem, 2004), 57–91 (in Hebrew); for its gerousia see p. 75. For a suggestion that the Jewish community of Rome was similarly organized, and likewise had a governing council, see M. Williams, “he Structure of the Jewish Community in Rome,” in Jews in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. M. Goodman; Oxford, 1998), 215–28, esp. 221–27. 68 Cf. Schürer, History, 1:525–26; 2:209. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 433 The Centrality of the Temple A common perception of Second Temple Judaism is that the Temple in Jerusalem was central to almost the entire Jewish people, both Judeans and Diaspora Jews.69 According to this view only the Dead Sea Sect and other marginal groups rejected the contemporary Temple on the grounds of theological and/or halakhic disputes; yet they still expected the future building of the “real” Temple (which would of course accord with their views), and in the interim formed some sort of substitute for the Temple. Some groups or individuals may have had disputes with the Temple authorities but did not completely reject the institution. Other views contend that Diaspora Jews, due to their distance from the Temple, had formed their own local substitutes for the Temple—synagogues and prayer. Accordingly, although they did not fully oppose or reject the Jerusalem Temple, nevertheless it was not immediately central in their lives.70 Yet, it seems that both views agree that the Temple was central to all Judeans, and that only ater the Destruction did they adjust their lives to the new Temple-less situation. However, I would like to suggest that already the earliest period of Roman rule in Judea had signiicantly qualiied the centrality of and all-encompassing reverence for the Temple. First, let us observe a number of phenomena: 1. With the de facto loss of the state in 63 bce the Temple in efect lost any signiicance it may have had as the seat of a sovereign.71 2. Within a span of just thirty years the Temple came under serious threat numerous times. he Temple was placed under siege four or ive times: according to Ant. 14.5, in the initial battle between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus in 67/66 bce, Hyrcanus captured some of his enemies in the Temple, and the narrative seems to imply that subsequently Hyrcanus was besieged there by his brother;72 in 65 bce, Hyrcanus and Antipater together with Aretas besieged Aristobulus (Ant. 14.19–28); 69 See, for example, the papers in this volume by J. Leonhardt-Balzer (on Philo) and by M. Goodman (on Judaism in general), along with Goodman’s “he Temple in First Century CE Judaism,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. J. Day; London, 2005), 459–68. 70 See, for example, M. Tuval’s contribution to this volume. 71 See Schwartz, Jewish Background, 9–10. 72 J.W. 1.121, however, reports only that Hyrcanus took Aristobulus’s wife and children as hostages in the Antonia citadel, and does not mention the Temple. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 434 nadav sharon in 63 bce Pompey besieged the supporters of Aristobulus who were entrenched on the Temple mount ( J.W. 1.143–153; Ant. 14.58–72); a generation later, Herod’s army besieged some of its enemies in the Temple in 40 bce ( J.W. 1.251, 253; Ant. 14.335, 339) and Herod and the Roman general Sossius did the same to Antigonus in 37 bce ( J.W. 1.347–352, and cf. 354; Ant. 14.470–480, and cf. 482–483). Two of these sieges ended with the Temple being taken violently (by Pompey, and by Herod and Sossius). What is more, if Josephus’s account is to be believed, during Pompey’s conquest the Temple was overrun and the priests were massacred even as they were performing the Temple rites ( J.W. 1.148; Ant. 14.65–68). To these sieges we may add, moreover, the rebellion of Aristobulus’s son Alexander in 57 bce, who, it seems, took Jerusalem and even tried to rebuild the wall destroyed by Pompey ( J.W. 1.160; Ant. 14.82–83). In the atermath of this rebellion Gabinius had to reinstate Hyrcanus in the Temple, which implies that the Temple, too, had been taken ( J.W. 1.169; Ant. 14.90). Furthermore, the Temple was robbed by Crassus in 54–53 bce ( J.W. 1.179; Ant. 14.105–109). hese events could well have undermined notions about the special sanctity adhering to the Temple, a process further intensiied by the fact that Hasmonean high priests played unsavory roles in some of them.73 3. Martin Goodman has already claimed that the prestige of the high priests was greatly diminished ater Herod came to power in 37 bce, since from this point he nominated the high priests, and in efect, they were his puppets.74 Herod not only nominated the high priests but also deposed them freely—and unlawfully, since the high priesthood had traditionally been a lifetime appointment (Ant. 15.39–41).75 73 In this context the thrice-repeated narrative of the Babylonian Talmud (Soṭah 49b//B. Qam. 82b//Menaḥ. 64b) of Hyrcanus’s siege of Aristobulus may be of signiicance. In that narrative Hyrcanus’s party violated its oath and instead of the sacriicial animals they had promised to send up to the besieged in the Temple, they sent a swine. he swine, which is not mentioned in Josephus’s narrative, apparently symbolizes the Roman Empire (e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 118b; ‘Abot R. Nat. version A, 34). As a result of this evil deed the Land of Israel was alicted by an earthquake. Compare the somewhat similar story (which is, however, seemingly related to Titus’s siege in 70 ce) in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ta’anit 68c//Ber. 7b), according to which the swine’s touching of the Temple Mount’s wall is explicitly connected to the Temple’s destruction. 74 Goodman, he Ruling Class, 111–12. For the disapproval, by at least some of the Judeans, of Herod’s choice of a high-priest and the claim that the appointee was unworthy see J.W. 2.7; Ant. 17.207. See also Ant. 20.247–250. 75 See G. Alon, “Par〜irtin,” in idem, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem, 1977), 48–88, esp. 59–61; Goodman, he Ruling Class, 112. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 435 It seems, however, that the reduction in the prestige of the high priests was not only a result of Herod’s practices, but had already begun from the onset of Roman intervention in Judea, long before Herod’s reign. From the outset high priests depended on the recognition of the Romans.76 hus, at the height of the civil war between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, in 65 bce, the latter retained the position due to Scaurus’s intervention in Judea ( J.W. 1.128; Ant. 14.30); later, in 63 bce, Hyrcanus was reinstated to the prestigious position thanks to the decision of Pompey ( J.W. 1.153; Ant. 14.73). Later as well, it was by the decisions of Roman oicials that Hyrcanus retained this oice ( J.W. 1.169//Ant. 14.90 [Gabinius]; J.W. 1.199//Ant. 14.143 [Caesar]). his practice of intervention in the appointment of the high priests continued throughout the days of Herod and Archelaus as well as under the Roman procurators. here can be no doubt that these developments served as major incentives for subsequent revolts against the Romans. Indeed, the numerous revolts during the early years of the Roman occupation of Judea were not aimed exclusively against the Romans; they were also aimed, to no less an extent, against Hyrcanus the high priest. his is clear by the fact that the leaders of most of these revolts were Hasmoneans, Aristobulus and his sons, who obviously wanted to claim the high priesthood for themselves; and they were able to attract many Judean followers.77 However, in addition to these revolts, we may assume a priori that this state of afairs—especially the fact that the high priests governing the Temple did not receive that position due to their virtue or pedigree and were not elected to it by the nation or its institutions, but were appointed by the Romans and their agents—had another efect: Many Judeans who had formerly held the Temple in high esteem might now, at least until—as they hoped—some drastic change of this situation occurred sometime in the unknown future, become estranged from the Temple establishment. Such a tendency will have been further enhanced by the failure of the various revolts, as the Judeans came to 76 Cf. Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 109. An indication of this might be the fact that, despite his status as king, Mattathias Antigonus used only the high-priestly title in the Hebrew legends on his coins. Cf. Y. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (trans. R. Amoils; Jerusalem and Nyack, N.Y., 2001), 52–53; who is skeptical, however, on the question of whether the Greek legend, reading “king,” was aimed toward foreigners whereas the Hebrew legend, reading “high-priest,” was aimed towards his Jewish subjects. 77 © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 436 nadav sharon realize the overwhelming power of the Romans and the impossibility of defeating them in the foreseeable future. Such a partial withdrawal from the contemporary Temple, without a complete rejection of it, would have been analogous to the situation of Diaspora Jews. Hence, to the extent that such a withdrawal indeed occurred, it would point again to the early Roman era as a period that set the stage for post-70 life—for a Temple-less reality. Can we, however, discern some real evidence for such a withdrawal from the Temple? I believe there are some indications: 1. Daniel Schwartz discusses78 the phenomenon of prophets and other leaders who, in the irst century ce, led people into the desert and promised salvation from there. Schwartz asks why these leaders launched their rebellions in the desert and not in Jerusalem, and suggests that the withdrawal to the desert served, for these groups, the same function as the Qumran sect’s withdrawal to the desert: they felt that holiness had let Jerusalem and relocated in the desert.79 He further argues that, although these groups might be understood against the background of Qumran,80 it rather seems that the perception that holiness had let Jerusalem was more general. Schwartz posits three factors, all dating from the Hasmonean era, for this perception: (a) he nominal separation of state and religion which was the consequence of the Hasmoneans’ assumption of the kingship in addition to the priesthood, as discussed above. his was intensiied by Roman rule. (b) Growing criticism as to the very legitimacy of the Hasmonean priesthood, and growing moral criticism of this priesthood. he moral criticism of the ruling priesthood was increasing in the Roman era,81 and, as demonstrated above, it is most likely that there was also a deepening of the criticism of the high priests’ legitimacy. (c) he growing inluence of Hellenism. While it seems to me likely that indeed these factors dating from the pre-Roman era laid the foundations for this withdrawal from the 78 See Schwartz, Jewish Background, 38–43. Compare the request of rebels who survived the destruction of the Temple to be allowed to retire to the desert (War 6.351). 80 For the desert as the place of divine revelation for the Qumranites, see most recently A. Schoield, “he Wilderness Motif in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Israel in the Wilderness: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions (ed. K.E. Pomykala; Leiden, 2008), 37–53. 81 See Schwartz, Jewish Background, 39 n. 30. 79 © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 437 Temple, it must be remembered that these withdrawals to the desert are all from the irst century ce, i.e., the early Roman period, and not earlier. As noted, Schwartz, too, sees an escalation of some of these factors in the Roman era. hus it seems to me that this perception developed fully only in the early Roman period as a consequence of the stimuli noted above. 2. It seems that at least two texts that are commonly perceived as originating in Judea in the early years following the Roman occupation do not attribute importance to the Temple: he Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71), which includes what seems to be a reference to the Parthian invasion of 40 bce (56:5–7) and is therefore usually dated not long ater,82 seems hardly to mention the Temple, altar, or sacriices.83 Similarly, the Psalms of Solomon—which clearly alludes to the initial Roman invasion of Judea led by Pompey (Pss. Sol. 2; 8; 17) and is dated not long thereater84—includes only a few references to the Temple, altar and sacriices (e.g., 2:2–3; 8:12, 22), and the author does not seem to be very interested in them. Indeed, where one would expect to ind references to the Temple, the sacriices, or the priesthood, such references are missing. hus, at the end of Psalm 8 (vv. 27–30) the psalmist prays for future redemption, asking that God’s mercy be upon Israel, and that he gather the Diaspora; but not a word is said of the Temple, which only a few verses earlier was said to have been profaned (v. 22). So, too, Psalm 17 criticizes the Hasmoneans for assuming the kingship, which rightly belongs to the House of David 82 For the dating of the Parables see J.C. Greenield and M.E. Stone, “he Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977): 51–65; and recently the essays by D.W. Suter, M.E. Stone, and J.H. Charlesworth in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids, 2007). It seems that there is almost a consensus that the text should be dated to around the turn of the era. For the view that 56:5–7 relects the Parthian invasion see these papers and also the papers by A. Luca and H. Eshel in the same volume. he one dissenting view in this book is Suter’s; he sees this reference as an apocalyptic myth more than history, but does not deny that it might be based on an old memory of the invasion (pp. 420–22). 83 In fact the only possible reference to the Temple seems to denote the heavenly Temple and is found in chapter 71, which some scholars view as a late addition (see M.E. Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period [ed. M.E. Stone; Assen, 1984], 399, 401, and 403 n. 106). 84 2:26–27 alludes to Pompey’s murder in Egypt on September 28, 48 bce, and thus Psalm 2 should be dated to sometime ater that. Some scholars view Psalm 17 as alluding to Herod’s ascension to the kingship; according to them this psalm should be dated to ater 37 bce. See Schürer, History, 3:194; Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord, 2–6. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 438 nadav sharon (vv. 4–6), but does not make a point of similarly criticizing them for unjustly assuming the high priesthood, which rightly belongs to the descendants of Zadok. he same psalm also has a somewhat detailed portrayal of messianic expectations (vv. 21–46), but again the Temple and sacriices remain unmentioned.85 Similarly, in passages where we might have expected to ind allusions to sacriices, we ind, instead, references to prayer and fasting (e.g., 3:8; 9:6; 10:6; 15:2–4; 18:2). In general, in fact, prayer is a major issue for the psalmist,86 just as, for that matter, it is important for the Parables of Enoch (see e.g., chapters 47; 61).87 The Synagogue in Judea he issue of prayer leads us to another important institution: the synagogue. here is an abundance of studies on the synagogue in antiquity and its origins, including the origins of this institution in Judea, which is the subject at hand. he scope of the present paper does not permit dealing with all aspects of and views on this issue, and I will limit myself to a brief discussion. he irst part of this discussion mainly 85 See further A. Büchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.: he Ancient Pious Men (London, 1922), 140–42; 170–74. 86 K. Atkinson (I Cried to the Lord) actually sees the context of the Psalms of Solomon as similar to that of the Qumran sect (but does not suggest that they were authored by this sect, and avoids identifying the collection with any particular sect or group [pp. 7–8]): the group polemicized against the halakhic positions of the Temple authorities, rejected the contemporary Temple cult, and replaced the sacriices with prayer and fasting (p. 2). I do not see such outright polemic and rejection, but rather a diminished interest in the world of the Temple and sacriices (cf. Büchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety, 170–74). In contrast to the Temple and that which concerns it speciically, Jerusalem appears to be particularly important for the psalmist (e.g., 2:19–22; 8:4, 15–22; 17:22, 30). Jerusalem also seems to be prominent in the recently published, so-called Gabriel Revelation, which is dated to the turn of the era as well; at least in its surviving portions, this text similarly does not allude to the Temple and its world. See the original publication by A. Yardeni and B. Elitzur, “A First-Century BCE Prophetic Text Written on a Stone: First Publication,” Cathedra 123 (2007): 155–66 (in Hebrew); and also I. Knohl’s reading in “Studies in the Gabriel Revelation,” Tarbiz 76 (2007): 324–28 (in Hebrew). 87 he question of Jesus’ and his early followers’ attitudes towards the Temple is beyond the scope of this paper, but see the beginning of the paper by Jörg Frey in this volume, where he argues that the message of Jesus (and John the Baptist), and the early Christians, was independent of the Temple, distanced from it, and included some criticism of it. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 439 follows the lines of a 1988 study by Lester L. Grabbe;88 later discoveries and scholarship will also be adduced, but in my view they have not altered Grabbe’s fundamental conclusions. Numerous theories have been proposed as to the time and place of the synagogue’s origin: in the Land of Israel during the late First Temple period; in Babylon during the exile; in Jerusalem ater the return from that exile; in third-century bce Egypt; and in Hasmonean Judea.89 If we follow the evidence closely and refrain from getting carried away by assumptions and theories, we ind that the earliest evidence for synagogues is supplied by references to proseuchai (places of prayer) in inscriptions from third-century bce Egypt.90 In contrast, there is no evidence for the existence of synagogues in the Land of Israel until post-Hasmonean times. In earlier sources the terms proseuchē and synagōgē do not seem to refer to this institution (but rather to “prayer” and “gathering/assembly,” respectively); Grabbe inds especially important, in this context, the fact that in our main narratives of Antiochus IV’s persecutions and the subsequent Maccabean revolt (1 and 2 Maccabees, and Josephus) there is no mention of any synagogues. Had synagogues existed we would have expected to hear something about their desecration or at least about disruption of worship in them. he earliest literary evidence for synagogues in the Land of Israel comes from the Gospels (e.g., Mark 1:21–29; Luke 4:16–30), Acts (e.g., 6:9), and Josephus’s narrative of the irst century ce (J.W. 2.285–289; Ant. 19.300–305; Life 277–280).91 he archaeological data accord with 88 L.L. Grabbe, “Synagogues in Pre-70 Palestine: A Re-Assessment,” JTS 39 (1988): 401–10. 89 On the diferent theories see R. Hachlili, “he Origin of the Synagogue: A Re-Assessment,” JSJ 28 (1997): 34–37; L.I. Levine, he Ancient Synagogue: he First housand Years (2d ed.; New Haven, 2005), 22–28. Levine proposes a diferent theory: the synagogue developed, through a more subtle and prolonged process, out of the city-gate of the biblical era and its functions (ibid., 28–44). For a suggestion that synagogues as buildings emerged only ater the Destruction, see H.C. Kee, “he Transformation of the Synagogue ater 70 ce: Its Import for Early Christianity,” NTS 36 (1990): 1–24; but see also the decisive rejections of that argument by, among others, P.W. van der Horst, “Was the Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship Before 70 CE?” in idem, Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Studies on Jewish Hellenism in Antiquity (Leuven, 2002), 55–62; and J.S. Kloppenborg Verbin, “Dating heodotos (CIJ II 1404),” JJS 51 (2000): 243–80. 90 Grabbe, “Synagogues,” 402–3. 91 See also L.I. Levine, “he Pre-70 C.E. Judean Synagogue: Its Origins and Character Reexamined,” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. M. Cogan, B.L. Eichler, and J.H. Tigay; Winona Lake, 1997), 156*–57* (in Hebrew). © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 440 nadav sharon the literary evidence: the heodotus inscription from Jerusalem, which mentions a synagogue, is usually dated to the irst century ce, pre-70;92 and the few pre-70 synagogues from the Land of Israel (of which the most famous are those of Masada, Herodium, Gamla) are all dated to the irst century ce, or the end of the irst century bce at the earliest.93 herefore, it seems that in the Land of Israel the synagogue is a phenomenon of the early Roman period.94 Grabbe notes how the development of this institution set the stage for post-Destruction Judaism: he rise of the synagogue was a fortuitous but vital development which paved the way for a post-temple Judaism which became necessary 92 In a recent and very thorough paper John S. Kloppenborg Verbin (“Dating heodotos”) irmly rejects views which date this inscription to well ater the Destruction, and concludes that it should be dated to the Herodian or early Roman periods, prior to 70 ce. 93 For a survey of the evidence for Judean synagogues of the pre-70 era, see Levine, he Ancient Synagogue, 45–74. Ehud Netzer has identiied a building in Jericho from the beginning of the irst century bce as a synagogue (E. Netzer, Y. Kalman, and R. Loris [sic], “A Hasmonean Period Synagogue at Jericho,” Qadmoniot 32 [1999]: 17–24 [in Hebrew]). In a later article he dates the building to 75–40 bce (E. Netzer, “A Synagogue in Jericho from the Hasmonean Period,” Michmanim 20 [2007]: 16 [in Hebrew]). Also see the excavation’s inal report: E. Netzer, R. Laureys-Chachy, and Y. Kalman, “he Synagogue Complex,” in Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, 2: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations (ed. E. Netzer; Jerusalem, 2004), 159–92, where the excavators date the building’s main phase to the days of Alexandra (p. 159) and ofer a detailed discussion explaining its identiication as a synagogue (pp. 184–88). I am persuaded, however, by Lee Levine’s doubt as to the identiication of this building as a synagogue; see L.I. Levine, “he First-Century Synagogue: New heories and heir Assessment,” in Studies in the History of Eretz Israel Presented to Yehuda Ben Porat (ed. Y. Ben-Arieh and E. Reiner; Jerusalem, 2003), 187–88 (in Hebrew); and idem, he Ancient Synagogue, 72–74. See also U.Z. Maoz’s critique of this identiication, “he Synagogue that Never Existed in the Hasmonean Palace at Jericho: Remarks Concerning an Article by E. Netzer, Y. Kalman, and R. Loris,” Qadmoniot 32 (1999): 120–21 (in Hebrew); and E. Netzer’s reply, “he Synagogue in Jericho—Did it Exist or Not? A Response to U.Z. Maoz’s Remarks in Qadmoniot XXXII, no. 2 (118) 1999,” Qadmoniot 33 (2000): 69–70 (in Hebrew). In general, it seems that when dealing with early buildings, dated to periods concerning which we do not have literary or epigraphic evidence supporting the institution’s very existence, we should be wary of classifying them as synagogues rather than just as ordinary public buildings. 94 Grabbe, “Synagogues,” 404–8. Cf. Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 173–74; Cohen, From the Maccabees, 107. Levine (he Ancient Synagogue, 41–42) admits the lack of evidence for synagogues in Judea prior to the irst century bce, and therefore views that century as an advanced step in his proposed reconstruction of the development of the synagogue. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 441 ater 70. . . . Synagogues were not planned as a substitute for the temple but they were a useful vehicle to make the transition.95 We must ask, however, how it is that this institution, which had already existed in the Diaspora for a few centuries, arrived in Judea only now? In a diferent essay Grabbe remarks that “[i]t was mainly during the Roman period that developments within Diaspora Jewish communities started to have a signiicant inluence on religion in the homeland.”96 However, Grabbe does not seem to see this inluence as an intrinsic efect of the Roman era. He mainly remarks on the growing population of the Diaspora, which by this time may have been larger than the Judean population, and the fact that many Diaspora Jews made pilgrimages to Jerusalem. While these factors for the growth of Diaspora inluence on Judea seem likely, we should take notice of one direct outcome of the Roman conquest of Judea and the entire Middle East, which was probably a major factor in the growth of Diaspora inluence on Judea: It brought into a single, Roman, framework Jews who previously had been divided among diferent states (Judea, Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucid Syria, Greece, Italy, and more). hus, for the irst time in a long time the Judeans were in fact ruled by the same empire as a large portion of their Diaspora brethren (not including the Mesopotamian Jews under Parthian control). Although the growing inluence of the Diaspora communities on Judea might be reason enough for the appearance of this institution in Judea at this point in history, I think we should still look for an additional factor. For it seems that there were always connections between Judea and the Diaspora. It is interesting to note that most theories as to the origins of the synagogue view it as emerging because of the absence of the Temple (those who propose that it emerged in the Babylonian exile) or the distance of the community from the Temple (those who propose that it emerged in the Diaspora of the Second Temple period), and, obviously, post-Destruction synagogues are usually viewed as fulilling the void made by the Temple’s destruction. However, when dealing with the synagogue in late Second Temple period 95 Grabbe, “Synagogues,” 409–10. Cf. J.N. Lightstone, “Roman Diaspora Judaism,” in A Companion to Roman Religion (ed. J. Rüpke; Oxford, 2007), 367–68. 96 Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 113, and see pp. 113–14; 328–29. In this context it is noteworthy that Acts 6:9 explicitly associates a Jerusalem synagogue, or several synagogues, with Diaspora Jewry; see Levine, he Ancient Synagogue, 55–57. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 442 nadav sharon Judea, scholars refrain from ascribing a similar role to the Temple. hus, even Grabbe, who explains the emergence of the synagogue in the Diaspora as a result of distance from the Temple,97 explicitly says that it was not planned as a substitute for the Temple.98 I would like to suggest, nonetheless, that the appearance of an institution such as the synagogue might not have occurred had there only been the abovenoted Diaspora inluence. Rather, for that inluence to have its efect in Judea it must have illed some vacuum there, and I propose that this vacuum is similar to that which was illed by synagogues in the Diaspora (or by similar substitutes in the Qumran community), i.e., the distance from the Temple.99 Of course, this does not mean a geographical distance from the Temple (or: only a geographical distance), but rather a growing sense of moral, religious, spiritual, and/or political alienation from it, brought on by the factors discussed above.100 But whether or not the appearance of the synagogues in Judea derived from a growing sense of distance from the Temple, the opposite will have been the case; namely, to the extent that synagogues appeared in Judea they will have played a role in marginalizing or undermining the Temple and its cult. Ater all, as time went by, the 97 Grabbe, “Synagogues,” 403. See above, at n. 95. See also Hachlili, “Origin of the Synagogue,” 46–47. 99 P.V.M. Flesher (“Palestinian Synagogues before 70 C.E.: A Review of the Evidence,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, Vol. VI: Studies in the Ethnography and Literature of Judaism [ed. J. Neusner and E.S. Frerichs; Atlanta, 1989], 67–81) likewise accepts the Egyptian origin of the synagogue and its post-Hasmonean appearance in Judea, and assumes an inherent diference between the Judaism of the Temple and that of the synagogue. He further surveys the evidence for pre-70 synagogues in Judea, and concludes that all such evidence pertains only to Galilee, not to Judea proper. he only exceptions are the synagogue(s) of foreigners mentioned in Acts 6:9, and possibly the synagogues at Herodium and Masada, which were established only during the Great Revolt, i.e., very close to the Destruction. he reason for this diference is, according to Flesher, that in Galilee, like in the Diaspora, people had no immediate access to the Temple, whereas in Judea proper the Temple was the main religious focus. Responding to Flesher’s theory, however, we should note the following. First, for his case Flesher is obliged to accept scholarly opinions that reject the historicity of other passages in Acts that attest to the existence of synagogues in Jerusalem (22:19; 24:12; 26:11). Second, at least two buildings, which were excavated some years ater Flesher wrote his paper and whose location is quite close to Jerusalem, have been identiied by their excavators as synagogues—Qiryat Sefer and Modi‖in (for which see the brief survey and bibliography in Levine, he Ancient Synagogue, 69–70). Further, it is telling that the literary sources, and especially the Jerusalem-born priest, Josephus, refer to the synagogues naturally without any hint that it was a phenomenon foreign to native Jerusalemites. 100 his does not have any deinite bearing on the question of whether regular gathering for prayer actually took place in the synagogues. 98 © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 443 synagogue and the worship therein would probably have been viewed as worthy functional substitutes for the Temple and its cult, even if they were not meant as such when established. he more we are convinced that, as Esther Chazon argues elsewhere in this volume, ixed prayer was indeed developing during the Second Temple period, the more we will expect that to have been associated with the synagogues. But whatever we believe about communal prayers in the synagogues, it is well established that Scripture was regularly read and studied in the synagogues. As Martha Himmelfarb shows in her contribution to this volume, the more Scripture becomes accessible to the general public, the more the authority of the priests is undermined. One way or another, as result or cause or both, synagogues in pre-Destruction Judea indicate additional early Roman stage-setting for post-70 Temple-less existence. Conclusion he proposal made in this paper is that while we should not deny the extraordinary efect of the destruction of the Temple, at least some of the developments of post-70 Judaism are rooted in the period prior to the Destruction. his view was promoted earlier by Grabbe: Many of the particular features of Judaism which became characteristic ater the fall of the Second Temple were those which we ind already developing in the Diaspora religious practices.101 With hindsight we can see how certain pre-70 trends were highly important in meeting the post-70 situation without temple or priestly leadership. . . . Other elements giving direction to the new situation were those aspects of Judaism that had evolved to meet the Diaspora situation: the synagogue, prayer, and the study of written Scriptures. hese had already started to have an efect on Palestinian Judaism even before 70. he seeds were sown for a Judaism sine templo; even if the temple had not been destroyed, Judaism might well have developed in new directions anyway. . . . Even without the Roman Destruction, Judaism was likely to have developed a new shape which placed more emphasis on these “para-temple” practices.102 101 102 Grabbe, Judaic Religion, 179. Ibid., 333–34. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV 444 nadav sharon Grabbe correctly emphasizes the similarity between the post-Destruction situation and that of the Diaspora of the Second Temple period. However, in addressing developments in Judea similar to those in the Diaspora he tends to view the former only as the result of Diaspora inluence, rather than as relections of and responses to conditions and developments in Judea itself prior to the Destruction. In this paper, in contrast, I have suggested that in fact these developments were intrinsic to Judea itself and to the situation following the Roman occupation and the end of the independent Hasmonean state. he Roman conquest brought about the uniication of Judeans with their Diaspora brethren, which enhanced the ability of the Diaspora to inluence Judea. More signiicantly, however, it placed the Judeans in a situation very similar to that of their brethren abroad. he state of afairs in Judea itself, following the Roman occupation, was to some extent an exile-like,103 or semi-Diasporan, situation.104 herefore, concepts and institutions which developed in Judea in this period were inherent to the situation in Judea, even if they were sometimes inluenced by the Diaspora. For this reason, while Grabbe views the appearance of the synagogue as a result of a growth in the inluence of the Diaspora, in this paper I focus upon the Roman conquest of Judea as a condition and catalyst for that inluence. Judean Jews were receptive to the synagogue because of a Temple-related vacuum created by the Roman conquest and its atermath. I have similarly tried to show that in addition to the synagogue, this period instilled in the Judeans some of the basic 103 For an understanding of the term “exile” in rabbinic literature as meaning, not physical deportation, but rather subjugation and a state of mind, see C. Milikowsky, “Notions of Exile, Subjugation, and Return in Rabbinic Literature,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (ed. J.M. Scott; Leiden, 1997), 266–78. For the Diaspora-like identity of the Qumran sect see N. Hacham, “Exile and SelfIdentity in the Qumran Sect and in Hellenistic Judaism,” in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9–11 January, 2005 (ed. E.G. Chazon, B. Halpern-Amaru, and R.A. Clements; Leiden, 2010), 3–21. 104 hat some Judeans of the period regarded their situation as “exilic” may be implied by the above-mentioned phenomenon of men who led Jews into the desert promising salvation (see above, at nn. 78–80). his is clear at least in the case of heudas (Ant. 20.97–98), who promised his followers that the Jordan River would part at his command, following the biblical precedent of Joshua; his actions implied an understanding of their current situation as exilic. See further C.A. Evans, “Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels,” in Scott, Exile, 300–305. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV roman conquest and the loss of sovereignty 445 concepts of the post-70 (and Diaspora) reality: the absorption of the fact that they were living under foreign subjugation; the separation of religion and state; and the decline in the centrality of the Temple. I have also tried to show that at least two political institutions, the ethnarch and the synedrion, which probably developed only in this period, are also appropriate to a Diaspora, or post-70, situation. For the present purpose it is not important to what extent these institutions were actually adopted in post-70 Judea; what is important are the perceptions that they instilled in the people. Finally, I hope that this paper has shown the great efect of the end of independence and the importance of the early Roman era in Judea, not only for the background of Christianity and the Great Revolt, but also for a better understanding of post-Destruction Judaism and how it was able to adapt and survive. Further study may uncover additional ways in which this period set the stage for developments that came to fruition ater the Destruction. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV