Textbook for this course is Gruber's Rabbi Akiba's
Messiah.
Web site at http://www.elijahnet.org
and email to dan@elijahnet.org.
Dialog with Jewish people (especially Orthodox) is like
a soccer game.
Except the game is almost always at our end, with one
side taking all the shots!
Well… if we study, we can discover that there’s a
whole field to talk about!
Most cultures do not
share with our modern Western culture separation of
church and state
- Politics and
religion are combined, to bring coherence to society
and justification to the state
- Religion and
politics are different names for the same thing:
basis for determining values, standards, power,
training of next generation
- Modern West
considers war and violence wrong, but not so other
cultures
- Many cultures
glorify war
Definition of
Jewishness
- Prior to destruction
of Temple, it was land and Temple-centered
- A few centuries
later, it was diaspora and based on halakha
- Seismic shift of
authority from kings, priests and prophets to rabbis
- Rabbinic hegemony
was not inevitable: they started with no
authoritative position
- Think of religious
sects as political parties, not as in West but as in
India or Iran
Historical sources are
few, and contradictory.
- No concept of
objectivity or unbiased reporting
- There are limits to
objectivity anyway
- Talmud and other
Jewish writings were not intended as history but to
teach
- The lesson is more
important to authors than accuracy of historical
details
Historical review
- For Maccabees, the
issue was whether to conform to dominant,
Hellenistic culture
- Or to remain
faithful to Jewish heritage, God and his covenant
- Maccabees were
priests, hence had authority as leaders
- Nevertheless,
authority was typically established by force and
violence if necessary
- Hasmoneans ruled by
force and fought among themselves, especially about
priesthood and succession
- Romans were invited
in to help and helped themselves
- They enforced their
will through appointed officials
- All conquered
peoples had to sacrifice to Caesar, hence
recognizing Caesar as ultimate authority and divine
- Romans made an
accommodation of the Jews, recognizing the God of
Israel as a god and allowing the sacrifice to be for
or on behalf of Caesar.
- 57 BCE: Gabinius
established five Sanhedria (a Greek term) as a means
of Roman administrative control through native
leaders
- High priests and
Sanhedrin were Roman appointed
- There were many theo-political
groups in Israel
No scholar today
believes there was a normative Judaism then
- Rather there were
many Judaisms
- But all identity was
Temple-centered
- Jewishness was
Temple and land-oriented
The Great Revolt:
started when a group of Sicarii took Masada from Romans
by force, killed all the Roman soldiers and took the
fortress from themselves.
- It used to be
thought that the Zealots took Masada, but it was
actually Sicarii (assassins), according to Josephus.
- So IDF air force no
longer take forces to make an oath there.
- Rebellion spreads to
Jerusalem and throughout the land.
- However, there were
lots of factions fighting among themselves in
Jerusalem.
- It’s hard to
keep straight who’s who in Josephus
- High Priests and
leading Pharisees predicted that stopping the
sacrifice for Caesar would bring Roman forces and
destruction, because it was an act of rebellion,
refusing to recognize Caesar’s ultimate
authority
- Josephus says that
priests and Pharisees were opposed to the revolt
- Talmud says that
the Rabbis were opposed
- Josephus says
there were supernatural warnings
- Jerusalem broke
down into total violence, comparable to gangs in
Somalia
- Josephus implies
that the Romans would have spared the Temple
- According to Talmud
(not Josephus), Jochanan Ben Zakkai had himself
smuggled out of Jerusalem in a sealed coffin (Jews
in city would not let anyone leave)
- Taken to Roman
general, Vespacian, recognizing him as king.
- Vespacian responds
that’s treason, but just then a messenger
arrives, reporting that Caesar is dead and
Vespacian has been appointed Caesar
- So Vespacian seeks
to reward Jochanan’s prophetic announcement,
allowing him to establish an academy of reward at
Yavneh (Jamniah)
- Rabbinic account
disassociate Rabbis with Great Revolt and Roman
approval of rabbinical academy at Yavneh
Bar Kochba rebellion
begins in 132
- In this time period,
Rabbanic Judaism begins to develop, structurally
What is a Rabbi?
- Earliest zuggot
(pairs of teachers), appear in Hasmonean period,
according to Talmud
- No Rabbis in Tenach
- According to Talmud,
the first person to be called Rabbi is Yochanan ben
Zakkai
- Philo and Josephus
did not use the term
- Earliest written use
of the term is in the gospels, where it’s an
honorific title, not a position
- In Tanakh, leaders
were kings, priests, prophets, redeemers, not
rabbis.
- Rabbis speak of them
as though they were Rabbis, e.g., Moshe Rabbeinu,
but Moshe was not a rabbi, as far as Scripture or
history were concerned.
- Ezra was a scribe,
one of the soferim, and a priest.
- The word ‘rab’
does not describe anything like a rabbi, it
describes a captain or chief, or a troop or ship.
- Wise men are not
like rabbis, could be gentiles, or craftsmen, not a
title or office.
- Hence Talmud is a
revisionist document, holding that rabbis were
around from creation, not just from Moshe, but from
Adam.
- Stuart Cohen points
out that rabbis have no position, indeed no
existence.
- But in Talmud,
rabbis are the wise men, priests, kings – with all
authority, and no one, not even God, can contradict
them.
- Am ha-aretz (common
people) becomes a derogatory term for anyone who
doesn’t accept rabbinic authority
- In effect, the
ultimate replacement theology: replacing the
authority of priests, prophets, Scriptures and G-d,
with Rabbis.
- This does not say
that the Rabbis are bad people or that they don’t
have some worthwhile things to say, rather what took
place historically.
Law of Israel was the
national law, binding on everyone in the land
- Not a matter of
private religious belief; it’s the constitution of
Israel.
- Torah was not given
to individuals, but to Israel as a nation, when you
come into the land.
- A Yeshiva-bukker
today would say there is no law for Israel except
Jewish law.
- Thus Paul speaks of
"the commonwealth" of Israel as a politea.
Oral Law
- Talmud (codified 500
CE) mentions the phrase "oral law" four
times, in three places.
- Neither Josephus,
nor Philo, nor Qumran, nor Mishnah, nor Tosefta, nor
gospels, mention "oral law".
- Indicates that
doctrine of oral law develops later, after first
century
- These sources do
refer to oral traditions.
- For a Pharisee, oral
tradition was binding, but it was not called oral
law, as a separate revelation from God.
- Three claims about
Oral Law: 1) given to Moses at Sinai, 2) an
interpretation or elaboration of what was given at
Sinai, and 3) a fence around the Torah.
- WRT given at Sinai,
42 or 55 halakhot claimed to have been given at
Sinai (a relatively minuscule number), the vast
majority were explicitly developed thousands of
years later.
- Concept of oral law
doesn’t have an end, hence there isn’t a fixed
number of halakhot.
Claim #1: The Oral Law
is a separate revelation given to Moses at Sinai. See p.
34 ff.
Avoth 1:1: "Moses received the Torah at Sinai and
transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the
elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of
the great synagogue."
Scriptures speak often
of writing and speaking. For example, Ex 2:17,
"Write this is on a scroll as something to be
remembered and put it in the ears of Joshua." Note:
written first.
Torah emphasizes what "is written in this
book." Or immediately recording what is said.
- No mention of oral
law; it’s always written law that becomes the
constitution of Israel
- The written law is
the standard by which God says that he’s going to
judge Israel.
- It’s obedience to
the written law that brings restoration.
- HaShem instructs
Joshua to do everything written in the Torah.
- At the end of the
Joshua, he reads everything in the Torah. Everything
that God commanded through Moses he read, presumably
because it was written.
- David tells Solomon
to meditate on and do what is written in the book of
Torah of Moses.
- Josiah finds and
hears the book of Torah that had been lost.
- It was the written
Torah that defined what it meant to be faithful to
God or not.
- All that God said to
Moses was written and later read.
- Ezra and the Levites
read from the Torah, and explained it, because they
didn’t understand ancient Hebrew (they spoke
Aramaic).
- Still no reference
to an additional Oral Law; no king, priest or
prophet mentions or expresses concern about needing
it to know how to govern or worship or live.
- The Rabbinic system
or redemption through study of halakha does not
appear in Tanakh. Moreover, biblical figures are
often doing things that are not according to halakha
or even opposed to halakha. (For example, Abraham
serves meat and dairy.)
Claim #2: The Oral Law
is an interpretation or elaboration of Torah.
Menathoth 29b. See p.
49 in the book. Moses asks about the coronets to the
letters and God tells him to sit in Akiba’s academy,
and is unable to follow the arguments of Akiba. Moses
returns to the Holy One, who tells him, "Be silent,
for such is My decree."
This passage teaches:
1. The halakha is an
elaborate interpretation of Torah, an infinite
number of laws (coronets) generated from
ornamentation on individual letters.
2. Moses didn’t know
halakha. He didn’t recognize what Akiba taught and
was ill at ease.
3. Rabbi Akiba gets
credit from God as the originator of Oral Law.
4. Neither Akiba nor
his disciples recognized Moses, because Akiba is
more important than Moses, who sits behind eight
rows in Akiba’s class, and is in awe of Akiba.
Talmud distinguishes
between laws that are based on Scripture, connected to
it, and others that are like "mountains on a
hair" connected to Scripture, and others that are
completely unconnected to Scripture (hovering in the air
above it).
- Halakha permits what
the Bible forbids and annul what the Bible forbids.
- E.g., Hillel changes
the Torah commandment concerning canceling of debts
on seventh year, because people wouldn’t make
loans. Hillel instituted prosbul, a legal fiction
(something you know isn’t true, but have to act as
if it is): loan is a transfer to the community and
then not canceled.
- Rabbis effectively
claimed that they have authority over Torah.
- Can’t call Oral
Law an interpretation of Torah when it’s a
negation.
Claim #3: The Oral Law is a fence around Torah. See p.
85.
Avoth 1:1 continues "The latter used to say …
make a fence around the Torah."
- Fence helps one to
avoid transgressing the Torah; hence the fence is
mercy.
- Question: why does
the Torah need a fence around it? Why isn’t Torah
good enough?
- Are we preserving
the original commandment (keeping it as is) or
replacing it?
- Who has the
authority to put a fence around Torah?
- This is perhaps the
most accurate of the three claims: it is a sign of
ownership, prevents access, keeping people removed
from Torah itself, because only the Rabbis are
authorized to interpret it.
- Studying the Bible
itself are of indifferent merit, but studying the
Mishnah has merit.
- Hence many Orthodox
Jews do not know large portions of Scripture.
Question: how do Rabbis
respond to Deut 4:2, "Do not add to what I command
you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands
of the LORD your God that I give you."
- Response: more
Scripture was added. We’re not adding or
subtracting, Oral Law was there all along.
The tanoor Akhnai, an
earthen oven: is it clean or unclean? (P. 111 the basis
of my joke!)
- Note that the issue
of whether what Jewish people do is worthwhile or
valid or merciful
- The issue is the
authority that the Rabbis claim over Scripture and
even God himself.
- As a consequence of
Rabbi Eliezar’s defeat, the other Rabbis voted to
excommunicate him (when he wasn’t there).
- Rabbi Eliezar was
the heir of Yachonan Ben Zakkai (Yochanan praised as
the wisest of the sages) and brother-in-law of
Rabban Gamaliel. He was a priest and a traditional
Rabbi (opposed to interpretation), the leader in his
generation of Beit Shammai, called Rabbi Eliezar the
Great, the very first Rabbi quoted in the first
tractate of Mishnah.
- What is happening
here is theo-political: Beit Hillel is takes
authority from Bet Shammai.
Five major things that
this story teaches:
1. The Rabbis do not
accept the miraculous in determining the correctness
of a tradition.
- Deut does warn
against following someone with a sign, if they are
proclaiming let us go after other gods. So signs
can be in an anti-God context.
- But the issue with
Rabbi Eliezar doesn’t fall into this category,
since he wasn’t talking about following other
gods. It wasn’t a question of idolatry but
authority.
- Can proof be
brought from a carob tree or a stream of water or
a voice from heaven? Scriptures says so. E.g.,
Aaron’s rod, or blood in Nile, fleece of Gideon.
2. The Rabbis paid no
attention to a heavenly voice (Bath Kol) after
Sinai.
- Rabbi Joshua says,
"lo ba-shamayim hi, It is not in
heaven."
- So after Sinai, we
pay no attention to a heavenly voice.
- Yet throughout
Scripture, HaShem speaks it.
- In Job, Psalms,
and Ezekiel, He speaks from heaven.
- Indeed, everywhere
else in Talmud itself, a voice from Heaven is
authoritative.
3. The authority to
determine what is acceptable does not rest with God
but with the majority.
- Pay no attention
to a heavenly voice (bath kol).
- Ex 23:2. "You
shall follow a multitude to do evil," by
implication you must follow a multitude to do
good. But who defines good? In the story, God didn’t
know he had decreed this! He didn’t know that he’d
given up his authority to the majority of Rabbis.
- In Tanakh, the
majority is almost always wrong! Throughout Tanakh,
God acts as if he’s still in charge, bringing
judgment upon the majority when it is in sin.
4. Yet this story
portrays God as laughing, "My sons have
defeated (outwitted) me!" Yet is God ever
portrayed in Tanakh this way? Are men ever smarter
than God?
- It’s a humorous
story when you read it, but when you think of it,
it’s not so funny. Contrast Psalm 2 and other
references to God laughing, in supreme authority.
5. The Rabbis will
excommunicate anyone who will not submit to their
decision.
- This is not
normative first century Judaism.
- It’s fitting
that it’s Rabbi Eliezar the Great that’s been
excommunicated, circa 115 CE.
- BTW, Talmud
records that Eliezar had discussions with Talmidei
Yeshua, and respected some things they had to say.
This story marks a
major turning point in Jewish history, comparable to
Constantine giving authority to the Bishops.
- Jonathan Sacks: this
story asserts a Catholic as opposed a Protestant
view of interpretation, which now rests in ecclesia,
rather than the Word of God itself.
- Both Rabbinic and
Church history involve revisionism.
There have been
significant changes in Rabbinic Judaism
- Due to Akiba, who
has come to be known as the father of Rabbinic
Judaism, because he was began to write halakha down
and determined its organization.
- Initially, according
to halakha, it was forbidden to write oral
traditions down, because if it caught fire during
Shabbat, it was forbidden to carry it out (only
Torah scroll could be carried), but then the name of
God would be burned.
- So writing down
halakha was a theo-political act, giving the editor
(Akiba) the ability to decide what would be included
in halakha and what would not.
- Beit Hillel
overthrows Beit Shammai, which had been the dominant
school during the first century.
- Until the Talmud was
written, even Pharisaic Judaism permitted different
traditions, but after Akiba, it become one
interpretation with the power of law.
Use of the Sanhedren to
establish Rabbinic law as the national law of Israel
- Most Jews prior to
rise of Rabbinic Judaism were not Pharisees or
followers of rabbis.
- Since Torah was
national law (not merely religious law), Rabbi Akiba
and his followers sought to establish rabbinical law
as the national law of Israel
- Sanhedren had been
Roman-appointed and dominated by priests
- With the destruction
of the Temple, the rabbis replaced the priests on
the Sanhedren
- Talmud story:
priestly sages and Yochanan were debating whether it
was halakhacally acceptable to blow the shofar for
Rosh Hashanah at Yavneh. Yochanan said, rather than
discuss, let’s blow. So they did. Then the humble
sages asked to discuss it and Yochanan said, now
that it has been blown, what is there to discuss?
- Sanhedren becomes
the means of enforcing rabbinic law, because there
was no Temple and no power base for the priests. The
locus of Jewish identity becomes the synagogue.
- Rabbi Joshua gives
scholarly qualifications for sitting on the
Sanhedren (see p. 127). Among other things, you have
to have knowledge of sorcery, know 70 languages, and
prove the cleanness of a reptile from biblical
texts!
- Thus you have to be
able to prove what is false, since reptile is
actually unclean. This qualification affirms Akiba’s
style of reasoning and interpretation of Torah as
well as consolidates power, excluding traditional
Rabbis, Beit Shammai, Sadduccees, Talmudei Yeshua,
etc.
- There were Sanhedren
in Yavneh and Bathar, the center of Bar Kokhba’s
power
- Sanhedren took upon
itself the power to act in place of God to enforce
(oral) law.
- Property was
confiscated, people imprisoned and even put to
death, to enforce Rabbinic law and authority and
quash any dissent
Dealing with Zaken
Mamrei, a rebellious elder, based on Deut 17:12-13 (p.
131).
- In the tefillin of
Qumran, there are five passages of Scripture. This
was forbidden by Talmud, ultimately by execution
(unless there is repentance). On the other hand,
rejecting tefillin altogether is not punishable
(even though Torah commands it). So the authority of
the Rabbis is what is enforced, not the written
Torah itself.
- Ramban explains that
the need to punish in this case is not due to the
severity of the offense but because of its
destructive impact, because it threatens to
undermine the uniform normative behavior crucial to
any legal system.
Dealing with Mesith, a
deceiver, based on Deut 13:6-12
- Someone who entices
you to worship other gods
- Yeshua and his
followers were put in this category
Pharisees used the
terms ‘bind’ and ‘loose’
- Refer to their
supernatural authority to make decrees that prohibit
or permit (p. 127)
- Rise of modern
Western society weakens this authority in Jewish
life.
- In Israel,
ultra-Orthodox would like to reassert this authority
in national life.
Am ha-aretz (people of
the land, common people)
- In Rabbinic
writings, it becomes a pejorative term (p. 135 ff.)
- Refers to anyone who
does not recognize Rabbinic authority and give to
support Rabbis.
- Even among Jews not
pronounced ‘minim’ (heretics), those who didn’t
recognize the Rabbis had to be won over. This took
centuries, since most Jews didn’t recognize the
authority of the Rabbis.
- No testimony
acceptable from them in a Beit Din, cannot be
appointed as guardians for orphans, cannot be
stewards of humanitarian aid, etc. Political
consolidation.
- Common people were
thus disenfranchised, unless they recognize the
authority of the Rabbis in every area of life, such
as marriage (a daughter of follower of the Rabbis
could not marry an am ha-aretz, Rabbis could annul
marriages) or property.
The minim (heretics)
especially believers in Yeshua (p. 150 ff.)
- Minim may be a
shortened, derogatory form of ma’aminim, believers
(in Yeshua)
- Rashi explains the
minim refered to disciples of Yeshua "who did
not believe in the words of the wise."
- Determining who is a
Jew was a very vital question, since if you weren’t
a Jew, you had to sacrifice to the Emperor, and if
you didn’t you were guilty of treason.
- Minim were a threat
because they could draw away followers of Rabbis by
their teachings, writings and healings.
- Rabbis forbade
reading the writings of minim and sanctioned burning
their books.
- Birkat ha-Minim
blessing (curse) developed and recited daily in
every synagogue to weed out unknown Minim and their
sympathizers and inculcate popular hatred of them
(p. 156).
- Passages about
Yeshua were later censored, due to persecution of
Church. But uncensored text of Talmud from
Amsterdam, 1644, has this material.
- Eliezar the Great
was brought before the Roman court as a heresy.
Akiba suggested to him that it may have been because
he approved of the teachings of the minim.
During the Bar Kochba
revolt
- There was a
Sanhedren in Bathar.
- Maimonides says that
Akiba was known as Bar Kochba’s right hand man.
- Suggests more
consolidation of rabbinical power and exclusion of
others, especially Talmidei Yeshua.
- See book for more
about consequences of Bar Kochba revolt for Judaism
and Christianity.
Question: were the
"Jews" of the gospel of John actually
Pharisees?
- The Greek word
Iudaios has multiple meanings in Greek text,
distinguished by context
- Comparable to the
word ‘Yankee’, which can refer to baseball
player, northerner, American
- E.g., in John 1:19,
24, Iudaios refers to Jewish people representing
leaders of Pharisees in Jerusalem.
In other contexts, it
could represent religious authorities (most common) or
Judeans (as opposed to Galileans).
|