Judische Geschichte in hellenistisch-romischer Zeit: Wege der Forschung : vom alten zum neuen Schurer (Schriften des Historischen Kollegs)

Schriften des Historischen KoUegs

Herausgegeben v o n der Stiftung Historisches Kolleg KoUoquien 44

R. O l d e n b o u r g Verlag Miinchen 1999

Jiidische Geschichte in hellenistisch-romischer Zeit Wege der Forschung: Vom alten z u m neuen Schurer

Herausgegeben v o n Aharon Oppenheimer unter Mitarbeit v o n EUsabeth Miiller-Luckner

R. O l d e n b o u r g Verlag Miinchen 1999

Schriften des H i s t o r i s c h e n K o l l e g s im A u f t r a g d e r Stiftung H i s t o r i s c h e s K o l l e g im Stifterverband fiir die D e u t s c h e Wissenschaft herausgegeben von Lothar Gall in V e r b i n d u n g m i t M a n f r e d E r h a r d t , A r n o l d Esch, E t i e n n e F r a n c o i s , K l a u s H i l d e b r a n d , H i l m a r K o p p e r , J o c h e n M a r t i n , H e i n r i c h N o t h , U r s u l a P e t e r s , W i n f r i e d S c h u l z e u n d M i c h a e l Stolleis Geschaftsfiihrung: G e o r g Kalmer Redaktion: Elisabeth Miiller-Luckner Organisationsausschufi: G e o r g K a l m e r , H e r b e r t KieKling, E l i s a b e t h M u l l e r - L u c k n e r , H e i n z - R u d i Spiegel D i e Stiftung H i s t o r i s c h e s K o l l e g hat sich fiir d e n B e r e i c h d e r h i s t o r i s c h o r i e n t i e r t e n W i s s e n schaften d i e I ' o r d e r u n g v o n G e l e h r t e n , die sich d u r c h h e r a u s r a g e n d e L e i s t u n g e n in F o r ­ s c h u n g u n d L e h r e a u s g e w i e s e n h a b e n , z u r A u f g a b e gesetzt. Sie v e r g i b t z u d i e s e m Z w e c k jahrlich bis z u drei F o r s c h u n g s s t i p e n d i e n u n d ein F o r d e r s t i p e n d i u m s o w i e alle d r e i J a h r e d e n „ P r e i s des H i s t o r i s c h e n K o l l e g s " . D i e F o r s c h u n g s s t i p e n d i e n , d e r e n V c r l e i h u n g z u g l e i c h eine A u s z c i c h n u n g fiir die b i s h e r i g e n L e i s t u n g e n darstellt, sollen d e n b e r u f e n e n W i s s e n s c h a f t l e r n w a h r e n d eines KoUegjahres d i e M o g l i c h k e i t b i e t e n , frei v o n a n d e r e n V e r p f l i c h t u n g e n eine grofiere A r b e i t abzuschliefien. P r o f e s s o r D r . A h a r o n O p p e n h e i m e r (Tel Aviv) w a r - z u s a m m e n m i t D r . G e r h a r d S c h u c k (Frankfurt/Main), Professor Dr. Stephen A. Schuker (Charlottesville, VA) u n d Professor Dr. D i e t m a r W i l l o w e i t ( W i i r z b u r g ) - S t i p e n d i a t des H i s t o r i s c h e n Kollegs im KoUegjahr 1 9 9 6 / 9 7 . D e n O b l i e g e n h e i t e n d e r S t i p e n d i a t e n gemafS hat A h a r o n O p p e n h e i m e r aus s e i n e m A r b e i t s b e r e i c h ein K o U o q u i u m z u m T h e m a „ T h e S t u d y of J e w i s h H i s t o r y in t h e F i r s t a n d S e c o n d C e n t u r i e s C E . F r o m Schiirer t o t h e Revised S c h u r e r - A C e n t u r y of S c h o l a r s h i p " v o m 17. bis 2 0 . M a r z 1997 im H i s t o r i s c h e n K o l l e g g e h a l t e n . D i e E r g e b n i s s e des K o l l o q u i u m s w e r d e n in d i e s e m B a n d veroffentlicht. D i e Stiftung H i s t o r i s c h e s K o l l e g w i r d v o m Stiftungsfonds D e u t s c h e B a n k z u r F o r d e r u n g d e r W i s s e n s c h a f t in F o r s c h u n g u n d L e h r e u n d v o m Stifterverband fiir d i e D e u t s c h e W i s s e n s c h a f t getragen. Die Deutsche Bibliothek - C I P Einheitsaufnahme Jiidische G e s c h i c h t e in h e l l e n i s t i s c h - r o m i s c h e r Zeit. W e g e der F o r s c h u n g : V o m a l t e n z u m neuen Schurer / hrsg. von A h a r o n O p p e n h e i m e r unter Mitarbeit von Elisabeth Miiller-Luckner. M i i n c h e n : O l d e n b o u r g , 1999 (Schriften d e s H i s t o r i s c h e n Kollegs : K o l l o q u i e n ; 44) I S B N 3-486-56414-5 © 1999 O l d e n b o u r g Wissenschaftsverlag G m b H , M u n c h e n R o s e n h e i m c r Slrafie 145, D - 8 1 6 7 1 M i i n c h e n Internet: htlp://www.oldenbourg-vcrlag.de Das Werk aufierhalb lassig u n d filmungen

einschlie(?lich aller A b b i l d u n g e n ist u r h e b e r r e c h t l i c h geschiitzt. J e d e V e r w e r t u n g d e r G r e n z e n des U r h e b e r r e c h t s g e s e t z e s ist o h n c Z u s t i m m u n g d e s Verlages u n z u strafbar. D a s gilt i n s b e s o n d c r e fiir Vervielfaltigungen, U b c r s e t z u n g c n , M i k r o v e r u n d die E i n s p e i c h e r u n g u n d B e a r b e i t u n g in e l e k t r o n i s c h e n S y s t e m e n .

G e d r u c k t auf saurcfreiem, a l t e r u n g s b e s t a n d i g e m P a p i e r (chlorfrei geblcicht) G e s a m t h e r s t e l l u n g : R. O l d e n b o u r g G r a p h i s c h e B c t r i e b e G m b H , M i i n c h e n . I S B N 3-486-56414-5

Inhalt Vorwort

VII

Verzeichnis der Tagungsteilnehmer Geza

XI

Vermes

How the New Schurer Came into Being? Maren R.

1

Niehoff

Alexandrian Judaism in 19th Century Wissenschaft

des

fudentums:

Between Christianity and Modernization Daniel R.

Schwartz

From the Maccabees to Masada: On Diasporan Historiography of the Second Temple Period Martin

29

Hengel

Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle fiir die Geschichte des antiken Judentums Martin

41

Goodman

Jewish History and Roman History: Changing Methods and Preoccupations Giinter

75

Stemberger

Die Umformung des palastinischen Judentums nach 70: Der Aufstieg der Rabbinen David

85

Goodblatt

ludaea between the Revolts: Trends in Research Scholarship Peter

9

101

Schdfer

The Bar Kokhba Revolt and Circumcision: Historical Evidence and Modern Apologetics Isaiah M.

119

Gafni

Talmudic Research in Modern Times: Between Scholarship and Ideology

133

VI

Inhalt

Margarete

Schluter

Vom Objekt zum Subjekt der Geschichte? (Wie) verandert „Frauenforschung" den Bhck auf die jiidische Geschichte? Aharon

Oppenheimer

Gedahah Alon - zwischen der jiidischen Historiographie des 19. Jahrhunderts und der modernen historischen Forschung Benjamin

Hermann H.

M.

193

Schiffman

Halakhah and History: The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Recent Scholarship

205

Cotton

The Impact of the Documentary Papyri from the Judaean Desert on the Study of Jewish History from 70 to 135 CE Werner

181

Lichtenberger

Der Beitrag der Qumranfunde zu einer neuen Sicht des Judentums

Hannah

165

Isaac

Between the Old Schiirer and the New: Archaeology and Geography . . . .

Lawrence

149

221

Eck

Rom und die Provinz ludaea/Syria Palaestina: Der Beitrag der Epigraphik

237

Verzeichnis der zitierten Zeitschriften, Handbucher, Sammelbande und Quellenwerke

265

Personcn- und Ortsregister

269

Vorwort Der vorliegende Band ist hervorgegangcn aus dem Colloquium, das ich im Marz 1997 wahrend meines Aufenthaltes am Historischen Kolleg in Munchen veranstaltct habe. Thema war die Erforschung der jiidischen Geschichte im 1. und 2.Jahrhundert n.Chr.: Vom alten bis zum neuen Schiirer. So hatte ich das Thema angesetzt, denn der dcutsche protcstantische Historiker und Theologe Emil Schii­ rer war der erste, der sich in seiner .Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi'' mit dem Gesamtkomplcx des Judentums zur Zeit des Zweiten Tempcls wissenschafdich und kritisch auseinandergesetzt hat. Wertvoll ist sein Zugriff gerade durch den Verzicht auf eine vereinheitlichende historische Synthese; was er erreichen wollte und erreicht hat, war die Skizzierung eines moglichst detaillierten Bildcs jencs Zeitahers. Die Bedeutung seines Werks ist bis heutc unangefochten; sie hat ihre Bestatigung darin gefunden, dafi Fachleute in Oxford nahezu hundert Jahre spater eine englische Ncuauflage herausgebracht haben. Einer von ihnen, Prof. Geza Vermes, hat uns mit seiner Anwesenheit beehrt und in der Eroffnungssitzung iiber die Flntstehung des englischcn ,Schiirers' berichtet, wofiir ich ihm sehr zu Dank vcrpflichtet bin. Allein die Tatsache, dal? ein neuer .Schiirer' erschienen ist und keine vollig neue Arbeit, verweist die Teilnehmer am Colloquium und an dem vorliegenden Band auf die Frage nach der Entwicklung der einschlagigen Forschung im Vcrlauf eines Jahrhunderts. Bereits Schiirer selbst hatte erkannt, dafi die Erforschung des Ju­ dentums in seinen verschiedenen Stromungen fiir das Verstandnis des friihcn Christentums und seiner Quellen unerlafilich ist; dabei krankte die Arbeit noch an mangelnder Objektivitat gegeniiber der jiidischen Religion, insbesondcre dem Pharisaismus. Er erbiicktc in der Tempelzerstorung das F^nde des jiidischen Gemeinwesens in Israel und den Beginn der Zerstreuung, so dafi ihm der BarKochba-Aufstand nur noch als eine Art Epilog zum Grofien Aufstand erscheinen konnte. Diese Auffassung ist bereits durch verschiedene Forschcr zuriickgewiesen worden, und aus diesem Grunde haben wir den chronologischen Rahman des Symposions auf die gesamte tannaitische Epoche, bis ca. hundert Jahre nach dem Bar-Kochba-Aufstand, ausgedehnt; die Beitrage befassen sich iiberwiegend mit den ersten beiden nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten. An dieser Stelle soli nicht verschwiegen werden, dafi auch die Oxforder Herausgeber des neuen .Schiirer'^ die­ ser Erkenntnis Ausdruck verHehen haben; sie haben Schtirers chronologischen 1 L e i p z i g 1 8 8 5 - 9 1 , 4 . Aufl. 1901-09. 2 G. Vermes, F. Millar et al.. T h e H i s t o r y of t h e J e w i s h P e o p l e in t h e A g e of J e s u s C h r i s t , 1-111.2, E d i n b u r g h 1973-87.

VIII

Vorwort

Abhandlungen einen Satz folgen lasscn, der auf das Wiedercrstchcn der judischen Nation im Lande nach der Niederschlagung des Bar-Kochba-Aufstands hindeutet: „Yet the tears of mourning concealed hope, and hope refused to die."^ Aufs Ganze gesehcn versteht sich, dafi Schiirer zwar mannigfaitiges Quellenmaterial herangezogen hat, doch vieles von dem, was der heutigen Forschung zur Verfiigung steht, war zu seiner Zeit noch nicht bekannt; dies gilt in hohem Mafic fur die reichen archaologischen Funde, die in den vergangenen hundert Jahren gemacht worden sind, besonders seit der Griindung des Staates Israel (1948) und scit dem Sechs-Tage-Krieg(1967). Die Teilnehmer am Symposion haben jeder auf seine Weise und aus seinem Fachwissen beigetragen; manche gehen direkt auf die Frage ein, was fiir neue Erkcnntnisse zwischen dem alten und dem neuen Schiirer gewonnen worden sind; andere haben sich ein Thema aus der Historiographie der Zeit gewahlt, einige bringen neue Ergebnisse aus ihren eigcnen Forschungen. Die Gesamtheit der Aufsatze bietet einen Querschnitt durch ein Jahrhundert Erforschung der Epoche des Zweiten Tempels und der Mischna, vom Ende des 19. bis ins ausgehende 20. Jahr­ hundert. Die Beitrage schliefien sich zu einem interdisziplinaren Mosaik zusam­ men, Arbeiten zu verschiedenen Aspekten der jiidischen Geschichte neben solchen zur romischen Geschichte, zur Archaologie, zur historischen Geographic, Qumranforschung u.a.m. Einige Studien bieten neue Arten der Quehenbehandlung; auch die Frage nach der Abhangigkeit des Historikers von den Umstandcn seiner Zeit wird gcstellt. Mir scheint, das Symposion, dessen Ertrage im vorliegenden Band enthahen sind, war selbst ein historisches Ereignis. Unter den nahezu fiinfzig Symposion am Historischen Kolleg war es das erste, das sich mit antiker jiidischer Geschichte befafit hat. Sowohl die Wissenschaft des Judentums als auch die wissenschaftliche Erforschung der jiidischen Geschichte hat im 19. Jahrhundert in Deutschland eingesetzt und sich entfahet, bis sie im Drittcn Reich zusammen mit ihren Tragern vertrieben und vertilgt wurde. Zur Zeit sehen wir sie nicht nur in den USA und im Staat Israel zu neuer Blute gelangen, sondern auch an verschiedenen Instituten inncrhalb Deutschiands, an deren Spitzc einige Teilnehmer an diesem Symposion stehen. So fijgt sich dieses Symposion in eine aufsteigende Linie ein, was durch die nahezu glcichzeitige Errichtung des Lchrstuhls fiir Jiidische Geschichte und Kultur an der Miinchener Universitat bekraftigt wird.

Es ist mir cine angenehmc Pflicht, dem Stiftungsfonds Deutsche Bank im Stifter­ verband fiir die Deutsche Wissenschaft fiir die mir gewahrte Gelegenheit zu danken, ein Jahr am Historischen Kolleg ganz meinen Forschungen zur jiidischen 3 Vol. 1, p. 557.

Vorwort

IX

Geschichte im Zeitaher von Mischna und Talmud, die in die romisch-byzantinische Zeit fallen, zu widmen. Besonderer Dank gebiihrt Frau Dr Elisabeth MiillerLuckner, die keine Miihe geschcut hat, das Symposion fiir alle Beteiligten zu ei­ nem unvergcfilichen Erlebnis werden zu lassen, und die unermudlich auf das Zustandekommen des vorhcgenden Bandes hingearbcitet hat. Danken mochte ich auch mcincn Helfern bei der Fertigstellung der Beitrage fiir den Druck, Frau Rot­ ter und Herrn Schairer Zu besonderem Dank vcrpflichtet bin ich Herrn Markus Greif, dem gctreuen Assistenten, der mir wahrend meines Jahres am Kolleg zur Seite gestanden hat und der die Anfertigung des Index zum vorliegenden Band auf sich genommen hat. Last not least sind mein Kollege Prof. Benjamin Isaac und meine Frau Nili die langjahrigen Weggenosscn, ohne deren Anieitung, Initiative, Sachkenntnis und Ermunterung ich nicht so weit gekommen ware. Tel-Aviv, im November 1998

Aharon

Oppenheimer

Verzeichnis der Tagungsteilnehmer Prof. Dr. Hannah M. Cotton, Jerusalem Prof. Dr. Werner Eck, Koln Prof. Dr. Isaiah M. Gafni, Jerusalem Prof. Dr. David Goodblatt, La Jolla / USA Prof. Dr. Martin Goodman, Oxford / England Prof. Dr. Martin Hengel, Tiibingen Prof. Dr. Benjamin Isaac, Tel Aviv Prof. Dr. Hermann Lichtenberger, Tubingen Dr. Elisabeth Miiller-Luckner, Historisches Kolleg Miinchen Dr Maren R. Niehoff, Jerusalem Prof. Dr Aharon Oppenheimer, Tel Aviv (Stipendiat des Historischen Kollegs 1996/97) Prof. Dr. Peter Schafer, Berlin Prof. Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffman, New York Prof. Dr. Margarete Schliitcr, Frankfurt am Main Prof. Dr Daniel R. Schwartz, Jerusalem Prof. Dr. Giinter Stemberger, Wien Prof. Dr. Geza Vermes, Oxford / England

Geza

Vermes

H o w the N e w Schurer C a m e into Being? When my friend Aharon Oppenheimer kindly invited me to take part in a sympo­ sium on the study of first-second century CE Jewish history under the striking tide, "From Schiirer to the Revised Schiirer", despite my basic disinclination to attend conferences, I felt that this one was a must as probably no one better than I could recount the genesis of the new English Schiirer'. So here am I, thirty-two years after entering the big venture, ready to reveal the inside story of more than two decades of labour which I am sure will be entertaining and I hope a little instructive as weU. Here are some basic prehminaries provided for the minority as I am sure most of you are familiar with the "old" Schiirer and his work^. Jewish history of what used to be called the inter-Tcstamental age constituted the life work of Emil Schiirer (1844-1910). Schurer was professor of New Testament first at Giessen (1878-1895) and then until his death in 1910 in Gottingen where among his col­ leagues he counted Wilamowitz-Mocllcndorff and Julius Wellhausen. Schiircr's magnum opus took a threefold shape. It began as a youthful monument entitled "Manual of the History of New Testament Times" or Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte in 1874. During the following fifteen years or so it developed in essence if not in full detail into the Schiirer we know and was renamed in its metamorphosed form to Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. The two vol­ umes appeared in 1886 and 1890. Finally the so-called third/fourth edition was published between 1901 and 1909 in three fat tomes, the sum total of all available knowledge relating to the political, institutional and literary history of the Jews between 175 BCE and 135 CE. In 1910 the author died, but the work was and was judged so excellent that for the next two generations no one dreamt of challenging ' T h e H i s t o r y of t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e in t h e A g e of J e s u s C h r i s t (175 B . C . - A . D . 135) b y Emil Schiirer. A n e w E n g l i s h Version revised a n d edited b y Geza Vermes a n d Fergus Millar. L i t e r ­ a r y E d i t o r : Pamela Vermes. O r g a n i z i n g E d i t o r : Matthew Black, F.B.A., V o l u m e 1 (T. & T. C l a r k L t d , E d i n b u r g h 1973). V o l u m e I I , revised a n d e d i t e d b y Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar a n d Matthew Black. L i t e r a r y E d i t o r : Pamela Vermes. O r g a n i z i n g E d i t o r : M a t t h e w Black (1979). V o l u m e I I I , 1-2, revised a n d edited b y Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar a n d Martin Goodman. L i t e r a r y E d i t o r : Pamela Vermes. O r g a n i z i n g E d i t o r : Matthew Black ( 1 9 8 6 - 1 9 8 7 ) . 2 F o r a useful a c c o u n t , see Martin Hengel, " D e r alte u n d d e r n e u e ' S c h i i r e r ' " , in: JSS 33 (1990) 1 9 - 3 1 .

2

Geza Vermes

its reign in the form of a similar comprehensive reference book. Rumours reached me that after the last war leading German scholars agreed among themselves to revise the modern classics of late nineteenth-early twentieth century German theology and that Schiirer was assigned to Joachim Jeremias. Whether these rumours had any factual basis, I am unable to tell, but I am pretty sure that no one in Germany, and certainly no one in Britain, expected at that time the old Schurer, this quintessential German piece of scholarship, to acquire a new lease of life, a second century as one writer generously put it, in English. The venerable institution, which later on became primarily responsible for the rejuvenation of Schiirer, was the Victorian Scottish publishing house, T. & T. Clark. In their splendid Dickcnsian offices in Georgian Edinburgh's majestic George Street the Clarks represented what was the most carefully enterprising, the most earnest, respectable and best in British theological publishing in the late nineteenth century. So while Schiirer was completing the second incarnation of his work, a group of three translators were busying themselves to get ready volume by volume, partly in advance of the "original" German^, the first English version of Schiirer Mark 2. They were part of "Clark's Foreign Theological Library", started in 1846 and offering four volumes per annum, which the canny Scotsmen sold by yearly subscription to their pious and learned customers. The "notice to subscribers" prefixed to the first Schiirer instalment reads in prc-advertising agency style of English: "Messrs. Clark have pleasure in forwarding to their Subscribers the Second Issue of the Foreign Theological Library for 1885, viz.: Schiirer's History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Second Division. Vols. I and II." We learn from the notice that the subscription price for four volumes was one guinea (21s), payable in advance. Finally, printed in itahcs, the reader is told: "Messrs. Clark take this opportunity of expressing their thanks for the favour with which this new series of the Foreign Theological Library has been received. May they request an early remittance of Subscription for 1885." The English version of Messrs. Clark's Schiirer remained in print for many years without any alteration. No updating taking into account the many supple­ ments and improvements of the final German edition was attempted until we came along nearly a century later Schurer continued to sell by drips and drops over the years and the Clarks, who became less enterprising after the first World War than they were in the nineteenth century, were satisfied with the slow but steady sale of their many Victorian classics. Mr Christopher Francis, the recently deceased learned head of Blackwell's Theology department in Oxford revealed to me that for many years T. & T. Clark despatched their annual consignment of books to Blackwell's by a ship transporting coal to London. This was cheaper 5 T h e s e c o n d G e r m a n e d i t i o n a p p e a r e d in 1886 (vol. II) a n d 1890 (vol. 1). T h e E n g l i s h t r a n s ­ l a t i o n c o n s i s t e d of five v o l u m e s plus an index v o l u m e , a n d t h e first t w o , namely, S e c o n d D i v i s i o n , v o l u m e s I and I I , w e r e p u b l i s h e d in 1885.

H o w t h e N e w S c h u r e r C a m e i n t o Being?

3

than rail, let alone the post. I believe it was during the second World War that the last reprint of the English Schurer, issued in the year of my birth, 1924, finally went out of print. But this was not the end of the story as Messrs. Clark were not people who easily gave up. They thought about the matter, slept over the project and finally did what a re­ spectable Edinburgh publisher would do: they consulted a senior professor about the viability of a reprint of the old work. The scholar in question was the famous Professor H. H. Rowley (1890-1971), Professor of Hebrew Language and Litera­ ture at Manchester University, who in the 1950s was in the process of refurbishing for another Edinburgh publisher, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., the by then forty-years old widely used one-volume Peake's Commentary on the Bible, the revised version of which was published in 1962. In his wisdom, Rowley advised the Clarks indeed to publish a revised edition of the classic Schiirer, and suggested that Professor Matthew Black (1908-1994), Professor of Biblical Cridcism at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, Rowley's New Testament opposite number in the remaking of Peake, should be invited to take charge of the updating project. Waters flow slowly under the Edinburgh bridges and the agreement be­ tween the publishers and Matthew Black was not finalized until 1964. Black's original idea was to translate the last (1901-1909) edition of the German Schiirer into English and do the revision himself in a separate supplementary volume. He set the project in motion without delay and recruited a number of his former pupils plus one or two semi-retired Scottish clergymen and a couple of established free-lance scholars (among them the late Paul Winter and Alec Burkill) whose job it was to turn the German text into English. No doubt having taken a closer look at the task, Matthew Black realized by 1965 that it was bigger than he had imagined, and he turned to me and asked whether I would be willing to join him as a co-editor. At that time, my familiarity with Schiirer was that of most students of the late second Temple period: I con­ sulted it on particular points without reading entire chapters, let alone the vol­ umes from cover to cover Without the full knowledge of what was lying ahead, and busy with the preparation of my move from the University of Newcastle to Oxford, I gave my provisional consent. But when I began to perceive the real scale of the enterprise, I realized that Black's plan was rather inadequate. Therefore, I made my agreement to participate subject to two conditions. 1.1 pointed out that it would be both tiresome and confusing to read something in one volume only to be told that for the truth one had to turn to the supplementary volume. Conse­ quently I proposed that the revision should be made in the text itself, and not in a separate tome. 2. In view of the colossal amount of material relating to GraecoRoman history and civilization, it was essential that the editorial team included a proper ancient historian interested in the Roman Near East. Both my suggestions were readily accepted. Matthew Black hurriedly upgraded his team of translators into "translators/revisers" whose job description henceforward included also as much updating as they were able to perform. In turn, I was to find in Oxford an ancient historian interested in the Jews in the Roman empire. That was easy as I

4

Geza Vermes

knew who the man was. The former star pupil of the Camden Professor, Sir Ron­ ald Syme, Fergus Millar, was the obvious choice for the job. He was then Ancient History fellow of Queens College but now he himself occupies the prestigious Camden chair I learned to admire him soon after my arrival in Oxford and we be­ came friends and regular collaborators. The two of us set out to rc-read Schiirer and survey the more recent developments in the subject. One of my main assign­ ments was to work out how to integrate the masses of relevant information supphed by the Dead Sea Scrohs into the old Schiirer. Meanwhile Fergus and I were awaiting Matthew Blacks "translators/revisers" to produce the manuscripts which were to serve as basis for our editorial work. They began to arrive. As it happened, some of the early ones were the worst. In fairness, I must add that others were good and that by Paul Winter, for example, excellent. (His appendix on the Testimonium Flavianum was printed under his own name.) The very first instalment that reached me was typed single spaced on flimsy paper; the translation was horrible, and the revision consisted in correcting Schurer according to fundamentalist Christian principles. I insisted on, and after some fight with Matthew and the publishers succeeded in, rejecting it. The Clarks were distinctly unhappy as they had to pay for the commissioned (but unsatisfac­ tory) product. But when I proposed the same course of action after reading the second submission, I was firmly outvoted by the combined forces of Matthew Black and the publishers. Clearly, a compromise was needed and at the end turned out to be blessing. I proposed that the help of a hterary editor had to be secured, someone to ensure not only the stylistic unity, but also the reliability of the trans­ lation''. My late wife, Pam, volunteered to do the Englishing and, without any fuss, did afinejob. So the Oxford trio quietly pressed on for the next twenty years with what seemed to be a superhuman assignment. We coped, persevered and when the first volume appeared in 1973, to our quiet satisfaction it was hailed in the Journal of Theological Studies as "one of the few indispensable books". In truth, the revision of Schiirer proved a bigger task than it was ever imagined. Fergus Millar and I soon discovered that we both were novices at this game. We had to find out how to pour half a century of discovery and research into the old skin of the three volumes of the sixty to seventy years old final German edition. The old Schiirer also had to be cleansed of its nineteenth-century anti-Semitic overtones. This was particularly prominent in the second volume, especially in the chapters on the Pharisees and "Life under the Law". I did what I could to alleviate it and bring the account back to unbiased history. Furthermore we had to hope and pray that the literary editor would succeed in turning the rehashed, often double Dutch-sounding mixture of the revised trans­ lation into a smooth and readable text. As I have noted, we were not greatly helped in our editorial work by some of the "translators/revisers", who in any S o m e of t h e t r a n s l a t i o n s w e r e r o u g h l y a c c e p t a b l e as l o n g as t h e latest G e r m a n S c h u r e r c o n ­ t a i n e d n o fresh a d d i t i o n . In t h e latter case, m o r e t h a n o n c e t h e g a m e w a s u p w h e n t h e t r a n s ­ lator c o u l d n o t rely o n t h e crib of t h e p r e v i o u s E n g l i s h Schurer.

H o w the N e w Schurer C a m e

into Being?

5

case did precious little revising. Besides, they had not been instructed by Matthew Black how to present their copies. Quite often there was not enough blank left on the pages to allow for corrections and additions, and some of the typescripts were not even double-spaced. When I suggested that the publishers might Xerox the text on large, A-3 size sheets and thus create room for our annotation, the answer came from Edinburgh that a) Messrs. Clark's photocopier had broken down and b) that this was in any case editorial business for which the editors were expected to pay! Bearing in mind that we had already spent years on the project and, having sheepishly hstened to Matthew Black's plea that we should help the publishers by accepting a royalty of 5%, instead of the usual 10%, which was to be divided among the three editors, not surprisingly Fergus and I refused. As a result, we sent to T. & T. Clark a very messy copy, well-nigh unreadable in many places, and ad­ vised them to retype it before sending it to the press. Our suggestion was ignored and the almost illegible sheets were despatched to the printers. Not surprisingly, the proofs were a disaster Not only were they full of errors due to misreading, but they also revealed that what we imagined to be our final version still left much to be desired. So we had to revise, all three of us, Fergus, I^am and I, the entire volume on the proofs themselves, creadng to the outrage and stupefaction of Messrs. Clark an additional printer's bill of £3,000 (of 1972 vin­ tage). Fergus and I went round, cap in hand, and managed to raise half of this sum from three separate Oxford benefactions, leaving the other half to the Clarks to cope with. They did so without further complaint and also learned their lesson. We had their fullfinancialco-operadon in preparing the remaining volumes of the new English Schiirer. Before reaching the stage of the final proofs of volume I, Fergus and I had a major "political" battle to face over the dtle page indicating the various rcsponsibihties of the editors. Pam was not involved as her title of literary editor was uncontroversial. Neither was the role of the two Oxford editors questionable. But how to describe Matthew Black, who after setdng the venture into mouon, did no actual editing himself. The Oxford team came up with the unorthodox formula of "organizing editor" for Black, which though entirely correct, did not meet with his approval. He insisted on having the more impressive title of "general editor". Our conventional Edinburgh publishers, in whose eyes a professor stood next to God, were utterly dismayed when the disrespectful Oxford "youngsters" (aged forty-eight and thirty-seven respectively) issued an ultimatum: unless their design of the title page was accepted, they would go on strike and if downing tools was not enough, they would resign. A meeting was called and Fergus and I flew to Scotland to confront our irate elders. We stuck to our guns and won the batde over volume I, but conceded that if Matthew would share the burden of the fol­ lowing volumes, he would be entitled to appear as an editor as well as "organizing editor". Thus friendly relations were restored. For volume II, Matthew Black volunteered to take charge of the section on Messianism - he always wanted, he told us, to deal with the messianic evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls - and chose also the chapter on the Flssenes. The latter he

6

Geza Vermes

soon bequeathed to me as someone having worked more recently on the topic, and when I received for "editing" his draft of the messianic chapter, ghost-written by a graduate student, I had politely to remind Matthew that he had forgotten to make any reference to Qumran. He took my comment with good humour and quickly supplied the missing appendix. Volume II was far the most difficult part to revise. In fact, more than one reviewer of volume I wondered whether it was feasible at all. I hope we did as good a job of it as was possible without completely reshaping Schurer In the late nineteenth century precious little attention was paid to sociology and economics in the ancient world and much relevant hidden in­ formation may be discovered in the section entitled, "The Spread of Hellenism". By the time of the third volume, matters were clear Matthew Black tacitly bowed out and (young) Martin Goodman, who did his Oxford doctorate on State and Society in Roman Galilee (1983) under the joint supervision of Fergus and myself, joined the editorial team proper Indeed, his contribution to the chapters on Jewish literature in Greek belongs to the best parts of the work. Volume III is probably the most original. The revision of the long section on the Jewish Dias­ pora provided Fergus Millar with an opportunity to introduce into the original Schiirer a massive amount of fresh inscriptional and archaeological information. As for the literary history chapters, not only did they require a substantial reor­ ganization as the old distinction between Hellenistic and Palestinian hteratures, implying that all the Greek writings originated from outside Palestine, and all the Hebrew and Aramaic compositions came from the Holy Land, was no longer ten­ able. I had to incorporate also all the novelties of Qumran. Contrary to the pre­ viously prevailing ideas, I distinguished between works found at Qumran which were probably written elsewhere and those forming the literary corpus of the Qumran sect. The former are listed among the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha known prior to the Dead Sea Scrolls, while the latter constitute an independent 90 page long section entitled, "The Writings of the Qumran Community". The two original editors did their real apprenticeship in Jewish historiography through revising and rewriting the old Schurer But so did also a number of our advanced graduate students who first learned their skills in assisting Fergus and myself. In addition to Martin Goodman, who is by now a world authority on Jewish history and my successor as professor of Jewish Studies in Oxford, I must name Philip Alexander, professor of Postbiblical Jewish Literature in Manchester, equally expert in rabbinics and in the Dead Sea Scrolls, who contributed to all three volumes, and Tessa Rajak, now head of the Classics department at the Uni­ versity of Reading whose preparatory work on the Josephus section of volume I was afirststep towards international fame. Since the publication of Josephus: The Historian and his Society (1983), she is counted among the leading Josephus ex­ perts in Britain and in the world. My former doctoral student, Robert Hayward, now Reader in Theology at Durham and an expert on the Aramaic Targums and more recently on Saint Jerome, produced a new appendix on the Zealots-Sicarii to complete the description of the Flssenes and the Therapeutae at the end of vol­ ume II. Finally, in volume III, two of Fergus Millar's former pupils, Jenny Morris

H o w t h e N e w S c h u r e r C a m e i n t o Being?

7

and Leonie Archer, respectively took charge of the section on Philo of Alexandria and of the general Index. By the way, toiling with Schurer appears to have constituted a sure path leading towards the shrine of the British Academy. At the beginning only Matthew Black was an FBA. By now all the real editors have those three letters affixed to their names. I have often been asked whether this whole rejuvenating exercise was not a big mistake. Would it not have been better to write from scratch a new version of the history of the Jews in the Graeco-Roman age rather than attempt to revamp the old Schiirer which, excellent though it was in the first decade of the twentieth cen­ tury, was out of date in every respect sixty years later? My unhesitating answer has always been that yes, it would have been better to start everything afresh, but also no, because it would never have been completed. What Fergus, Martin and I endeavoured to do was to cut out the old wood, factually update the work, and achieve this as well as we could in the spirit of late twentieth century scholarship. Judging from the reactions to our labours, on the whole we must have reasonably succeeded.-In particular, wc have injected into the work the contribution of ar­ chaeology and epigraphy since 1910, the year of Schiirer's death; took notice of all the major products of contemporary research on older topics as weh as on sub­ jects unknown to Schiirer, and in particular injected into the body of the book the novelty of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now and then some pedantic critic queried the propriety of our interference with Schiirer's work in that we never indicate when we depart from the original. This complaint was anticipated in the Preface to the first volume where we state: "A few words of explanation must be added concerning firstly the principle of revising a classic and much used work of reference, and secondly the procedures adopted by the present editors. A modernization is justified in their view because Schiirer's History was not intended to provide a personal synthesis, but a critical and objective presentation of all the available evidence. Failing revision, it must either be declared obsolete, which would be a tragic waste, or meet an even more undeserved fate of becoming increasingly a source of error The aim of the present enterprise is precisely to salvage all that is still valid of Schiirer's monument and to offer it in a form that will permit the work to fulfil its original purpose. In conse­ quence, the editors have resolved not to mark additions, corrections and deletions in the text - those who wish to study Schiirer and his time can always refer to the latest German edition - but to revise it directly."^ How much is new in the new English Schiirer? The late and much lamented Professor Menahem Stern of the Hebrew University, who was one of the leading experts in this field, gave one day his summary assessment of the new volume I in a single sentence: "The large print is close to the old edition; the small print is mostly new but the small print is double the amount of the large print." Another question frequently put to me was this: "Since you have done an almost total 5 Vol. I, vi.

8

Geza Vermes

recasting of the entire work, why is it stiU called Schiirer} Your names should appear on top of the title page." Despite the tendency frequently observed in simi­ lar re-editions first to attribute the work to the original writer A, and its revision to B, then - stage two - to indicate joint authorship, A and B, andfinallyto drop A and assign everything to B alone, our answer was simple. There has remained enough of the old Schiirer that any removal of his name would have been unethi­ cal. Besides, this twenty years of slave labour, even though ultimately rewarded, was meant to be an old-fashioned act of public service. To finish on a lighter note, with volume III, the new Schiirer caught up with the computer age. Electronic type-setting technology had enormous advantages in handling in one fell swoop the English text and the substantial amount of Greek and Hebrew citations. But as in most walks of life, advantages go hand in hand with disadvantages. Imagine my astonishment when 1 discovered in the finished product four surprise question marks attached on both sides of the lines in foot­ note 6 on page 189. They definitely were not there when I last introduced a couple of corrections to that note and I certainly did not request them. Nonplussed and not a little dismayed, I satirically remarked to the lady in charge of the type-set­ ting at the University's Computing Service: "Catherine, I know that sooner or later somebody is bound to question our views, but is it necessary to encourage them by typographical means?" She refused to rise to my sarcasm, and answered with technological imperturbabihty: "Oh that's not like that. But if using Mike's programme you do something without also doing something else, the computer regularly will query the pro­ cess." If Mike's programme still exists, future users beware!

Maren R.

Niehoff

Alexandrian Judaism in 19th C e n t u r y Wissenschaft des Judentums: Between Christianity and Modernization'" Hellenistic Judaism was not the natural priority of Jewish scholarship in modern Germany. Initially this subject rather tended to be neglected, because its relevance for formative and contemporary Judaism was not immediately obvious'. Rabbinic and Medieval topics instead dominated the academic agendas^. Jewish scholars who nevertheless took an interest in Hellenistic Judaism lived in the atmosphere of Christian scholarship and were often stimulated by its chal­ lenging questions. From the pioneering works of the late 19th century onwards Christian scholarship had recognized the importance especially of Alexandrian Judaism as a background to Christianity. This approach was anticipated in the late eighteenth century by Gotthold E. Lessing's Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts, which postulated a gradual progress of human spirituality by leaving behind Ju­ daism and embracing Christianity. In a similar vein Christian scholars of the nine­ teenth century viewed Jewish Hellenism as an intermediary stage between "primi­ tive" Biblical Judaism and more advanced Christianity. This "progress" was de­ scribed in terms of transcending the allegedly binary opposite of Hellenism and Hebrew or Oriental religion^. While this approach implied a clearly condescend­ ing if not hostile atutude towards Judaism, it nevertheless acknowledged Judaism ' 1 w i s h t o t h a n k P r o f e s s o r s M i c h a e l A . M e y e r a n d E r i c h G r u e n , w h o b o t h read an earlier draft of this p a p e r a n d m a d e e x t r e m e l y useful c o m m e n t s . ' N o t e t h a t J a c o b F r e u d e n t h a l even called J e w i s h H e l l e n i s m t h e " s t e p c h i l d " of Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s , in: Jakob Freudenthal, Z u r G e s c h i c h t e d e r A n s c h a u u n g e n iiber die jiidischhellenistische R e l i g i o n s p h i l o s o p h i e , in: M G W J 18 (1869) 3 9 9 - 4 2 1 . F o r an o v e r v i e w of 19th c e n t u r y s c h o l a r s h i p o n P h i l o , see: Leopold Cohen, T h e Latest R e s e a r c h e s o n P h i l o of A l e x ­ a n d r i a , in: J Q R 5 (1893) 2 4 - 5 0 . C o m p a r e also Yaakov Shavit, A t h e n s in J e r u s a l e m . Classical A n t i q u i t y and H e l l e n i s m in t h e M a k i n g of t h e M o d e r n Secular J e w ( L o n d o n 1997, revised and t r a n s l a t e d v e r s i o n of t h e H e b r e w original of 1992) 3 3 0 - 3 2 , w h e r e h e suggests t h a t " A l e x ­ a n d r i a n J u d a i s m b e c a m e a s u b U m e m o d e l of c u l t u r a l s y m b i o s i s " . 2 See for e x a m p l e Leopold 2 « « 2 ' p r o g r a m m a t i c essay E t w a s iiber die R a b b i n i s c h e L i t e r a t u r (Berlin 1819). ^ O n different v e r s i o n s of this o p p o s i t i o n in general E u r o p e a n c u l t u r e , see: Shavit, A t h e n s 2 1 - 3 9 ; see also uses of "Classical G r e e c e " in t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t : Peter Hanns Reill, T h e G e r ­ m a n E n l i g h t e n m e n t ( B e r k e l e y 1975) \42-Ai, 2 0 5 - 7 .

10

M a r e n R. N i e h o f f

as part of the Christian heritage. It certainly represented a significant departure from Kant's Religion innerhalh der Grenzen der Vernunft, which altogether de­ nied Judaism's religiosity and thus share in the Christian tradition''. It may thus not be accidental that it was a convert to Christianity from Judaism, August Neander, who in 1818 first drew academic attention to Jewish Hellenism. He understood Philo's thought as an amalgamation of Oriental and Greek ideas which anticipated their complete and superior synthesis through Jesus^. Similarly Hegel^ followed by Droysen-', presented Judaism and Hellenism as binary opposites which were dialecticahy reconciled by Christianity'*. Christian scholarship on Jewish Hellenism influenced Wissenschaft des Juden­ tums both indirectly by provoking a broader interest in the subject and, more directly, by providing a challenging definition of the nature of each religion and their relationship to each other The foremost Christian concern which infiltrated Jewish scholarly circles was the notion of an inherent contrast between Judaism and Hellenism. Many Jewish scholars were moreover stimulated by Christian scholarship to understand Hellenistic Judaism in light of nascent Christianity. Especially Philo was thus studied with a view both to his supposed alienation from authentic Judaism and his congeniality to later Christian theology. Among Jews this perspective, echoing the Christian appropriation of Jewish Hellenism, naturally aroused considerable ambiguity. This in turn lead to repeated attempts at precisely defining especially Philo's place both vis-a-vis the New Testament and rabbinic sources. While Christian scholars had appropriated Alexandrian Judaism as a means of grounding their own identity in Ancient Hellenism, the subtext of the Jewish dis-

O n K a n t ' s n o t i o n of J u d a i s m , sec especially Heinz Moshe Graupe, T h e Rise of M o d e r n J u d a i s m . A n Intellectual H i s t o r y of G e r m a n J e w r y , 1 6 5 0 - 1 9 4 2 ( N e w Y o r k 1979, t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e G e r m a n original of 1969) 1 6 9 - 9 9 . 5 August Neander, G c n e t i s c h e E n t w i c k l u n g d e r v o r n e h m s t e n g n o s t i s c h e n S y s t e m e (Berlin 1818) especially 1-27; see also his f o l l o w e r s ; A. F. Gfdrer, K r i t i s c h e G e s c h i c h t e d e s U r c h r i s t e n t h u m s , vol. 1 (Stuttgat 1831); /4. F. Ddhne, G e s c h i c h t l i c h e D a r s t e l l u n g d e r jiidischa l e x a n d r i n i s c h e n R e l i g i o n s p h i l o s o p h i e ( H a l l e 1834); F. C. Bauer, D i e christliche G n o s i s ( T u b i n g e n 1834). * Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, V o r l e s u n g e n iiber d i e P h i l o s o p h i e d e r G e s c h i c h t e , J u b i l a u m s a u s g a b e , vol. 11 ( S t u t t g a r t 1992) 2 6 0 - 6 4 , 2 9 5 - 9 7 . ' Arnoldo Momigliano, J . G . D r o y s c n B e t w e e n G r e e k s and J e w s (1970), r e p r i n t e d in: idem. S t u d i e s in M o d e r n S c h o l a r s h i p ( B e r k e l e y 1994) 1 4 7 - 6 1 ; Christhard Hoffmann, Juden und J u d e n t u m im W e r k d e u t s c h e r A l t h i s t o r i k e r des 19. u n d 20. J a h r h u n d e r t s ( L e i d e n 1988) 76-84. ^ T h i s t h e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n has prevailed in t h e 2 0 t h c e n t u r y ; see especially: Martin Good­ man, J e w i s h A t t i t u d e s t o G r e e k C u l t u r e in t h e P e r i o d of t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e , in: Glenda Abrahamson a n d Tudor Parfitt (eds.), J e w i s h E d u c a t i o n and L e a r n i n g ( H a r w o o d A c a d e m i c P u b l i s h e r s 1994) 1 6 7 - 7 4 . T h e subject of J u d a i s m v e r s u s H e l l e n i s m w a s also extensively t r e a t e d b y H e i n r i c h H e i n e , w h o h o w e v e r e x t e n d e d " J u d a i s m " t o i m p l y also C h r i s t i a n i t y . T h i s a n t a g o n i s t i c c o n c e p t b e c a m e c o m m o n in n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y l i t e r a t u r e , see: Gilbert Highet, T h e Classical T r a d i t i o n . G r e e k and R o m a n Influences o n W e s t e r n L i t e r a t u r e ( N e w Y o r k , O x f o r d 1949) 4 3 7 - 6 8 .

A l e x a n d r i a n J u d a i s m in 19th C e n t u r y

11

cussion related to the inverse issues'. Accepting the equation Ancient Hellenism = Modern (Christian) culture, Jewish scholars were thus concerned to define Ju­ daism's relationship to its surroundings'^. The task was to define the nature, the desirabihty and degree of acculturation. To what extent could and should Judaism reform itself in the spirit of the time without loosing its own identity? Alexan­ drian Judaism came in this way to be treated as a paradigm for types of moderni­ zation in nineteenth century Germany. Depending on each scholar's position on contemporary affairs, it would either be praised and embraced as a model for imi­ tation or treated with caution and warned against. Overall, the 19th century witnessed a gradual rise of interest among Jewish scholars in Alexandrian Judaism. This positive interest became initially visible in the work of the liberal pioneer Isaac Marcus Jost. Subsequently, the subject was also studied by leading scholars of centre-conservative orientation, while it con­ tinued to engage the attention of liberal minds. At the very end of the century even some orthodox interest arose. Three stages can be distinguished in this overall development. In the 1820s the stage was set, in the 1840s and 50s Alexandrian Judaism became an integral part of Wissenschaft des Judentums, while the years from 1865 onwards saw the instituuonalization and proliferation of its study.

Setting the Stage in the early 1820s: Isaac Marcus Jost and Immanuel Wolf The study of Alexandrian Judaism among Jews is ushered in by two diametrically opposed approaches, respectively introduced by Jost and Wolf. While Jost re­ mained a pioneer scholar never fully integrated into Wissenschaft circles, Wolf's short remarks on Hellenism in his programmatic essay of 1822 set the tone for much of subsequent Jewish scholarship. Jost's perspective is informed by the Enlightenment concerns for emancipation and acculturation. Yet unaffected by Christian perspectives, these priorines lead him to praise the synthesis of Judaism and Hellenism in Alexandria as a paradigm for modernization in Germany. Wolf, by contrast, assumed with Christian scholarship the inherent, typological opposi­ tion between Judaism and Hellenism. Alexandrian Judaism was as a result only briefly acknowledged as a mitigated form of the Jewish principle. The nature of Jost's interest in Alexandrian Judaism reflects the transitional phase between the Enlightenment and Wissenschaft proper Although Jost has al-

' O n t h e close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n s c h o l a r s h i p a n d identity, see especially: Michael A. Afejer, J e w i s h S c h o l a r s h i p in M o d e r n G e r m a n y , in: S t u d i e s in C o n t e m p o r a r y J e w r y 8 (1992) 1 8 1 - 9 3 ; Shavit, A t h e n s 4 9 - 5 7 . ' ° Cf. Shavit, A t h e n s p a s s i m , w h o discusses H e l l e n i s m as a m i r r o r of J u d a i s m in t e r m s of m o d e r n secular cu\x.\xrc. T h e C h r i s t i a n e l e m e n t in t h e m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of H e l l e n i s m h a s t h u s n o t b e e n given sufficient a t t e n t i o n .

12

M a r e n R. N i e h o f f

ready turned to historiography, he remains loyal to the ideals of the Emancipation and is not influenced by Hegelian dialectics. He rather treats history from a gen­ eral political and cultural point of view without constructing overall national and ideational categories''. Alexandrian Judaism fascinates him as a model of non-rab­ binic diaspora culture, which profits from an enlightened host government and redefines itself in terms of a rational-ethical rehgion. Treating initially the political aspects of Jewish history, Jost clarifies the condi­ tions for religious and cultural rejuvenation in Jewish Alexandria. He argues in contemporary terms that Egyptian Jews benefited from a clear division between state and church. This enabled them to Identify nationally with their host country, while maintaining strong religious tics to Jerusalem'^. This assessment implies the Mendelssohnian definition of Judaism as a religion and equates Hellenism with modern secularization. Relying on the German concept of patriarchal emanci­ pation from above'5, Jost moreover explains that Alexandrian Jews were granted full civil rights upon proving their loyalty to their rulers. They consequently en­ joyed the "greatest civil bhss and a high degree of independence" (ibid, 299). Jost presupposes a direct hnk between emancipation and acculturation. He sug­ gests that it was the high civic status of Alexandrian Jews, which prompted their cultural flourishing and enabled them to create an enlightened alternative to what he considers as dishonest, corrupt and magical Pharisaism. The liberal climate of Alexandria provided the Jews with a suitable framework to develop a rational world-view, which subordinates the law to wisdom and not vice versa (ibid, 177). Alexandrian Judaism thus serves Jost as a highly relevant model for diaspora life, which implemented Enlightenment ideals and liberated itself from the kind of corruption represented by rabbinic culture. His only reservations concern the in­ sufficient degree of religious reform in Alexandria. He criticizes Philo for follow­ ing the Palestinian practice of Scriptural exegesis rather than developing an inde­ pendent philosophical system (ibid). In his opinion, Alexandrian Jews generally remained too receptive and too concerned with the transformation of Greek no­ tions into "proper" Jewish forms'''.

'' Salo W. Baron, H i s t o r y a n d J e w i s h H i s t o r i a n s , c o m p i l e d w i t h a f o r e w o r d b y A . H e r z b e r g a n d L. A . F e l d m a n ( P h i l a d e l p h i a 1964) 246; Michael A. Meyer, T h e E m e r g e n c e of M o d e r n J e w i s h H i s t o r i o g r a p h y : M o t i v e s a n d M o t i f s , in: Ada Rapopot-Albert (ed.). E s s a y s in J e w i s h H i s t o r i o g r a p h y ( A d a n t a 1991, 2 n d ed.) 1 6 0 - 7 5 ; Reuven Michael, J e w i s h H i s t o r i o g r a p h y , F r o m t h e R e n a i s s a n c e t o t h e M o d e r n T i m e ( H e b r e w , J e r u s a l e m 1993), especially 2 1 7 - 4 5 ; Ismar Schorsch, F r o m Wolfenbiittel t o Wissenschaft: T h e D i v e r g e n t P a t h s of Isaac M a r c u s J o s t a n d L e o p o l d Z u n z , in: L B I Y B 22 (1977) 1 0 9 - 2 8 . '2 Isaac Marcus Jost, G e s c h i c h t e d e r Israeliten seit d e r Z e i t d e r M a c c a b a e r bis auf u n s e r e Tage, n a c h d e n Q u e l l e n b e a r b e i t e t , vol. 2 (Berlin 1821) 265 ( f r o m n o w o n a b b r e v i a t e d as: history). Richard RUrup, E m a n z i p a t i o n u n d A n t i s e m i t i s m u s ( G o t t i n g e n 1975) 1 1 - 3 6 . I b i d , 64. In his later w o r k , G e s c h i c h t e d e s J u d e n t h u m s u n d s e i n e r S e k t e n ( L e i p z i g 1857) 1-12, 3 4 4 - 9 3 , J o s t expresses a h i g h e r a p p r e c i a t i o n of t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l justification of t h e Halacha by the Alexandrian Jews.

A l e x a n d r i a n J u d a i s m in 19th C e n t u r y

13

The underlying theme of Jost's discussion is the modernization of Judaism in light of both universal rationalism and the surrounding culture. Its topical con­ cern can be appreciated by comparing his description of Alexandria to his later discussion of his own time. German Judaism is - like Ancient Alexandria - praised for its efforts to abandon rabbinism in favour of enlightened rationalism. Poland, by contrast, is - like Ancient Palestine - criticized for remaining committed to tra­ dition and obstinate to modern scholarship'5. Jost especially praises the German Jewish schools whose curricula combine Jewish and general subjects. He more­ over stresses that Mendelssohn, despite his traditional rhetoric, really was a radical opponent of rabbinism, who aimed at the abolition of the law (ibid, 64—65). Finally, Geiger is deeply appreciated as the pioneer of progressive Judaism, who completed Philo's work by developing a Jewish theology from within. German Jews are thus shown to have implemented the ideals of their Alexandrian fore­ fathers. Jost's enthusiastic appreciation of Alexandrian Judaism is based on a liberal, dis­ tinctly Jewish perspective. Rather than evaluating it against the background of nascent Christianity or assuming an inherent tension between Judaism and Hel­ lenism, he presents Alexandria as the paradigm of authentic Judaism unaffected by "Pharisaic" corruptions. In his view, Judaism and general culture complement each other as well in Alexandria as in modern Germany. Jost's approach remains unique in the early 19th century and will be continued only later It is immediately counterbalanced by Immanuel Wolf's foundational manifesto (Jber den Begriff einer Wissenschaft des Judenthums (1822)'^. Hegelian dialectics are applied here in order to highlight the unchanging essence of Judaism in contrast to the Hellenic spirit' Later a principle totally different (ein von ihm ganz verschiedenes Prinzip) from Judaism came into conflict with it: Hellenism. Judaism assumes the Divine idea as the given and revealed; while in Hellenism all knowledge has developed by itself from the human mind. Both are, each in its distinct way, the most important elements in the cultural history of the human mind (Bildungsgeschichte des menschlichen Geistes). Wissenschaft des Judentums is thus officially established on the assumption of an unchanging Jewish essence which is diametrically opposed to Hellenism. Sym­ bolizing religion and philosophy respectively, these two are envisioned in perma­ nent and inevitable conflict. Wolf can consequently attribute only little impor­ tance to Alexandrian Judaism'^. While he briefly acknowledges that it produced Philo's philosophy, Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism, he suggests that these are '5 Isaac Marcus Jost, h i s t o r y vol. 9 (Berlin 1828) 4 0 - 1 0 3 ; see also: idem, h i s t o r y v o l . 10, III (Berlin 1847), especially 6 - 2 2 , 1 2 1 - 2 8 . "> Immanuel Wolf, U b e r d e n Begriff e i n e r W i s s e n s c h a f t des J u d e n t h u m s , in: Zeitschrift fiir die W i s s e n s c h a f t des J u d e n t h u m s 1 (1822) 1-24. '7 I b i d , 6. C f Shavit, A t h e n s 3 3 1 - 2 , s t r e s s i n g t h e i m p o r t a n c e a n d p o s i t i v e a p p r e c i a t i o n of A l e x a n ­ drian Judaism by W o l f

14

M a r e n R. N i e h o f f

hybrid forms, created by a mitigation of the Jewish and the Hellenic principle through Egyptian culture (ibid, 7). Philo can thus not be recommended as a prior­ ity of academic research, because his philosophy would not sufficiently illuminate the "Jewish principle" in its pure and unchanging form.

Alexandrian Judaism in the scholarship of the 1840s-50s: Zacharias Frankel, Heinrich Graetz and Maurice Wolff During the 1840s and 1850s, when Hellenistic Judaism becomes an integral part of Wissenschaft des judentums, the oppositional model predominates. Frankel, Graetz and Wolff are all familiar with the idea of an inherent contrast between Judaism and Hellenism. Each of them comes to terms with it in his own way, redefining the dividing line between Judaism and nascent Christianity. In 1854, Zacharias Frankel devotes his inaugural lecture as the president of the Breslau Seminary to the topic of Palestinian and Alexandrian exegesis'^. In his opinion, they differ in every important aspect. While Palestinian exegesis is based on direct familiarity with Scripture, Alexandrian exegesis refers to the LXX, itself a product of interpretation. While Palestinian exegesis is nourished by faith and aims at applying Biblical law to daily life, Alexandrian exegesis is oriented towards philosophy which is artificially attached to Scripture. Finally, Palestinian exegesis rejected Hellenism, whereas Alexandrian exegesis was highly receptive to and - in Frankcl's words - "slavishly dependent" on it (ibid, 29). This list of contrasts establishes Palestinian exegesis as the primary and more authentic form of Jewish Bible interpretation. Alexandrian hermeneutics, by contrast, emerges as derivative or un-Jewish. Frankel's list of contrasts between Palestinian and Alexandrian exegesis signifi­ cantly parallels his description of moderate and radical reform in the 19th century2°. In his inaugural article of the Zeitschrift fiir religiose Interessen des Juden­ thums^^ he outlines the path of moderate reform, which should embrace Wissen­ schaft in the service of faith. The radical reformers, on the other hand, are criti­ cized for their cold rationalism, which lacks religious devotion and halachic commitment22. Parallel to the Ancient Hellenists, they have in Frankel's eyes departed so much from traditional Judaism that they hardly deserve to be called Jewish. In­ deed, Frankel judges the threat of general culture to Judaism to be so severe that in

Zacharias Frankel, U b e r p a l e s t i n i s c h e u n d a l e x a n d r i n i s c h e S c h r i f t f o r s c h u n g , P r o g r a m m z u r E r o f f n u n g d e s j i i d i s c h - t h e o l o g i s c h e n S e m i n a r s z u B r e s l a u , J a h r e s b e r i c h t 1 (1854) 1-42. ^0 See also Michael A. Meyer, J e w i s h S c h o l a r s h i p 1 8 5 - 8 6 . 2' Zacharias Frankel, U b e r d i e R e f o r m e n i m J u d e n t h u m e , i n : Zeitschrift fiir religiose I n t e r ­ essen d e s J u d e n t h u m s 1 (1844) 3 - 2 7 (from n o w o n a b b r e v i a t e d as: R e f o r m e n ) . 22 N o t e also F r a n k e l ' s m o r e v e h e m e n t f o r m u l a t i o n s in later y e a r s : Zacharias Frankel, A l t e u n d N e u e Zeit, in: M G W J 13 (1864) 3 - 2 2 .

A l e x a n d r i a n J u d a i s m in 19th C e n t u r y

15

the Monatsschrift of 1872 he compares his own time to the Maccabcan period^-'. Interpreting the revolt primarily as a clash between Judaism and Hellenism^'', Frankel thus presents these two principles in permanent existential conflict. Frankel's own programme acknowledges the revelation of Biblical law and the authority of its traditional interpretation. Opposing Reform, he thus acknowl­ edges Scripture as noli me tangere, while applying historical criticism to all but the early strata of the Oral Law^^. The model for Frankel's "thinking party of faith" is Ancient Palestinian scholarship, which - in his words - "did not leave the bound­ aries of theology and remained untouched by foreign influences" (ibid, 23)^^. Alexandrian learning, on the other hand, poses the same challenge as the contem­ porary use of critical scholarship by the Reform Movement. Frankel responds to this challenge by subordinating criticism to faith and Alexandrian Judaism to Pa­ lestine. He is consequently able to appreciate Alexandrian Judaism to the extent that it can be shown to depend on Palestine and not to differ from it theologically. Frankel devotes his first major publication in I84I to the LXX^''. It is his ex­ plicit purpose to examine the development of Palestinian Halacha, for which few other sources of such early date are extant. He assumes that the Halachic tradition had emerged monolithically in pre-Maccabean Palesdne and subsequently in­ fluenced the peripheries of Jewish learning, including Alexandria (ibid, XIII)^^. Frankel thus appreciates the LXX as a form of disseminating Palestinian Judaism and particularly points to features, which he identifies as Palestinian in origin and character The nature and function of the LXX, he suggests, originaUy paralleled those of Targum Onkelos. Both translations responded to the religious, and not the aesthetic needs of the people. Both originally provided textual explanations, 23 Zacharias Frankel, D i e S o h n e d e s T o b i a s , d i e H e l l e n i s t e n u n d d e r S p r u c h d i c h t e r Sirach, in: M G W J 21 (1872) 4 9 - 6 4 , 9 7 - 1 2 2 . N o t e t h a t M G W J 13 ( 1 8 6 4 ) 1 0 6 - 1 1 8 c o n t a i n s an a n o n y m o u s article o n t h e M a c c a b e a n r e v o l t , w h i c h identifies t h e A n c i e n t l i e l l e n i s e r s w i t h m o d e r n s y m ­ p a t h i s e r s of the E m a n c i p a t i o n . 2'' T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d o e s n o t seem t o reflect t h e i d e o l o g y of t h e historical h e r o e s t h e m ­ selves, see also: Arnoldo Momigliano, Alien W i s d o m . T h e L i m i t s of H e l l e n i z a t i o n ( C a m ­ b r i d g e 1975) 7 4 - 9 6 ; Martin Goodman, o p . ch.; Jonathan Goldstein, ]ew\sh A c c e p t a n c e and R e j e c t i o n of H e l l e n i s m , in: E.P. Sanders et al. (eds.), J e w i s h a n d C h r i s t i a n Self-Definition ( P h i l a d e l p h i a 1981) 2 . 6 4 - 8 7 ; M. Ilimmelfarh, Judaism and H e l l e n i s m in II M a c c a b e e s , in: P o e t i c s T o d a y 19 (1998) 1 9 ^ 0 . 25 Sec also: Louis Ginzberg, S t u d e n t s , Scholars a n d Saints ( P h i l a d e l p h i a 1928) 1 9 5 - 2 1 6 ; Michael M. Meyer, J e w i s h R e l i g i o u s R e f o r m and Wissenschaft des J u d e n t u m s - t h e P o s i t i o n s of Z u n z , G e i g e r a n d F a n k e l , in: L B I Y e a r b o o k 16 (1971) 1 9 - 4 1 , especially 3 3 - 3 6 ; Ismar Schorsch, Z a c h a r i a s F r a n k e l a n d t h e E u r o p e a n O r i g i n s of C o n s e r v a t i v e J u d a i s m , in: idem. F r o m Text t o C o n t e x t . T h e T u r n t o H i s t o r y in M o d e r n J u d a i s m ( B r a n d e i s 1994) 2 5 5 - 6 5 (originally p u b l i s h e d in 1981). 2^ N o t e t h e positive r e c e p t i o n of F r a n k e l ' s p r o g r a m m e a m o n g his s t u d e n t s : Marcus Brann, G e s c h i c h t e des J i i d i s c h - T h e o l o g i s c h e n S e m i n a r s in Breslau (Breslau 1905) 2 8 - 4 0 . 27 Zacharias Frankel, V o r s t u d i e n z u r S e p t u a g i n t a ( L e i p z i g 1841). 28 See also his later d i s c u s s i o n of this p o i n t : Zacharias Frankel, Z u r F r a g e iiber das Verhaltnis des a l e x a n d r i n i s c h e n u n d p a l a s t i n i s c h e n J u d e n t h u m s , n a m e n d i c h in exegetischer H i n s i c h t , in: Zeitschrift d e r D e u t s c h e n M o r g e n l a n d i s c h e n Gesellschaft 4 (1850) 1 0 2 - 1 0 9 ; idem, A l e x a n d r i n i s c h e M e s s i a s h o f f n u n g e n , in: M G W J 8 (1859) especially 247—48.

16

M a r e n R. N i e h o f f

which were meant as supplements and not as substitutes of Scripture (ibid, 5-13). It was, according to Frankel, only the later alienation of Egyptian Jews from Pa­ lestine, culminating in Philo's total ignorance of Hebrew, which changed the char­ acter of the LXX and made a continuous authoritative translation necessary. In a similar vein, Frankel interprets the LXX's deviations from the Hebrew text as a form of Midrash based on Palestinian traditions. His foremost examples are the euphemistic replacements of Biblical anthropomorphisms. He takes them to be inspired by Onkelos and thus undoubtedly Palestinian in character The possibil­ ity of Greek influence, as might be suggested by Aristobulus, is not considered. Frankel expands this line of investigation in his subsequent book Uber den Einfluss der palastinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig 1851). This study extends beyond the LXX and includes such documents as the Greek translation of Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon. Frankel now includes in the wider tradition of mainstream Judaism works with weaker links to Pales­ tine. PhUo, however, indicates the limits of Frankel's appropriation. While his views of Philo have become more positive over time, they remain ambivalent and ultimately critical. Lowering his demands of Hebrew as an sign for Jewish authen­ ticity, Frankel now differentiates between Philo's knowledge of Hebrew and his possible familiarity with Palesdnian traditions. He suggests that Philo sometimes relied on Palestinian Aggada, which he then sought to legitimize by wrong ctymologies^**. It is implied that Philo could be regarded as authentically Jewish al­ though he knew no Hebrew. Significantly, Frankel's greater leniency regarding the linguistic boundaries of authentic Judaism anticipates a change in his own views on contemporary affairs. While he withdraws from the Frankfurt Rabbinical Conference in protest against the reformers' demand for a vernacular liturgy, he later concedes that Hebrew could be abandoned if the people no longer regard it as a meaningful vehicle of the sacred^°. Philo's mystical allegorization of Scripture, however, remains a method of exe­ gesis which Frankel continues to regard as thoroughly un-Jewish. While acknowl­ edging the Midrashic appearance of Philo's hermeneutics, Frankel criticizes it se­ verely for its unreliable quotations from Scripture and its assimilation of foreign philosophy (ibid, 190-94). Frankel's ambivalence about Philo is moreover visible in his subsequent ardcle in the Monatsschrift dealing with Philo's ethics. These are negatively compared to the Talmud, because they are said to lack a Scriptural basis. Philo's moral philosophy is thus described as self-centered, aiming at mys­ tical perfection of the individual rather than at practical beneficence to society^'. Apart from some traditional aspects found especially in his historical writings, Philo can therefore not be integrated into Frankel's concept of main-stream Pales­ tinian Judaism. For him, Philo is not sufficiently rabbinic and too mystical to be 2' See f o r e x a m p l e F r a n k e l ' s d i s c u s s i o n of P h i l o ' s M i d r a s h o n C h a n o c h , ibid, 4 4 - 4 5 . '° Zacharias Frankel, U b e r d a s W e s e n t l i c h e d e r F u n c t i o n u n d Q u a l i f i c a t i o n d e s R a b b i n e r s , in: T h e C e n t r a l A r c h i v e s for t h e J e w i s h P e o p l e (Jerusalem) 1 7 - 9 9 1 . 3' Zacharias Frankel, Zur E t h i k d e s J i i d i s c h - A l e x a n d r i n i s c h e n P h i l o s o p h e n P h i l o , in: M G W J 16 (1872) 2 4 1 - 2 5 2 , 2 8 1 - 2 9 7 .

Alexandrian Judaism in 19th Century

17

truly Jewish. Ironically, Frankel's conservative position meets Christian scholar­ ship which also tended to regard Philo as un-Jewish in important respects. Frankel's early protege, Heinrich Graetz, develops an independent approach to Alexandrian Judaism. His two major discussions in Construction der jiidischen Geschichte (1846)^2 ^nd in Geschichte der Juden (1856) indicate a significant change of his views. While his early essay relies on the ideas of the Enhghtenment in order to overcome the Hegelian opposition between Hellenism and Judaism, his later discussion is far more sensitive to Christian concerns and agendas. His views thus change in the opposite direction of Frankel, whose position has be­ come more liberal over time. Graetz' early essay Construction der jiidischen Geschichte represents a clear de­ parture from Frankel's position. Alexandrian Judaism is here no longer evaluated by its dependence on Palestine. Graetz rather examines it from a broader cultural perspective, relying both on the values of the Enlightenment and Hegelian idea­ lism. In his eyes, Jewish history can be understood as a welcome dialectics be­ tween Jewish and foreign ideas. The most important confrontation of this kind in early Judaism is the "strife of life and death" between Judaism and Hellenism. Despite such rhetorics of a binary opposition Graetz creates a distinctly Uberal framework for his discussion of Alexandrian Judaism. Parallel to his predecessor Jost, he initially points to the cmancipadon of the Jewish community in Egypt, which lead to their acculturation. While Jost however favoured acculturation un­ reservedly, Graetz differentiates between the high and low culture of Hellenism. He supports Jewish exposure to Greek learning, but criticizes the imitation of their "corrupt" life style (ibid, 128-29). In this context Graetz gives particular attention to the emergence of Ancient Jewish scholarship, which he interprets with Hegel as the beginning of an ever in­ creasing self-awareness (ibid, 364-73). His attitude towards Alexandrian learning is both appreciative and ambivalent. Graetz' own traditional values and Frankel's work encourage him to highlight Talmudic learning as the quintessence of Judaism, which is said to assert Jewish identity against foreign influence and to precede other forms of Jewish scholarship. At the same time, however, Graetz cherishes a high esteem for Alexandrian learning. He stresses that it attempted for the first time to conceptualize the Jewish idea in philosophical terms. While Graetz acknowledges that Alexandrian literature is partly inspired by Greek ideas, he argues for its distinct Jewishness and loyalty to Halacha. He thus shows that Philo's exposure to Platonism dialecticahy enhanced his Jewish self-awareness and produced a theology similar to that of the rabbi-s^^. He moreover insists that in the case of Philo allegorization of Scripture did not imply the abrogation of its literal and historical sense. The literal meaning was instead appreciated as much as the allegorical.

32 Heinrich Graet/., C o n s t r u c t i o n d e r jiidischen G e s c h i c h t e , in: Zeitschrift fiir die Religiosen I n t e r e s s e n d e s J u d e n t h u m s 1 (1846) 8 1 - 9 7 , 1 2 1 - 1 3 2 , 3 6 1 - 8 1 , 4 1 3 - 2 1 . 33 A similar a p p r o a c h is t a k e n b y Nachman Krochmal in h i s M o r e h N e b u k h e i H a - z m a n (ed. by Simon Rawidowicz) (chapter twelve).

18

M a r e n R. N i e h o f f

Graetz' early position does not merely represent a broadening of Frankel's ap­ proach, now including also Philo among the authentic Jews of Antiquity. Stressing that Alexandrian scholarship has conceptualized the Jewish idea for the first time in philosophical terms, he in fact suggests its centrahty for all of Jewish history. Indeed, assuming with the Enlightenment that general culture is identical with universal rationahsm, Graetz has overcome the posited opposition between Hel­ lenism and Judaism. This enables him to hesitantly suggest Alexandrian Judaism as an inner Jewish paradigm for enlightened diaspora life. A decade later, in his monumental Geschichte der Juden, Graetz' view on Alex­ andrian Judaism has changed^''. Studying the development of this literature from the LXX onwards, he no longer appreciates it in light of rabbinic literature but nascent Christianity. This perspective creates considerable ambivalence especially with regard to Philo and shifts his interest to earlier Alexandrian thinkers. Graetz' discussion corresponds now more to Christian scholarship. He interprets all forms of Alexandrian Judaism in terms of prophecy and frequently speaks about their "apostolic mission". It is again his commitment to the Enhghtenment idea of acculturation, which nevertheless steers his new ambivalence about Alexandrian Judaism into a positive direction. Gractz's view of Alexandrian Judaism is now oriented towards nascent Chrisdanity. This primarily means that his focus has shifted from Philo, now identified as an inadvertent founder of Christianity, to the earlier stages of Alexandrian Ju­ daism which are safely removed from Jesus. Especially Aristobulus, living around 200 BCF], is now praised as ushering in an enlightened culture similar to that of Medieval Spain^^. Indeed, Aristobulus' thought is - despite its highly fragmentary nature- presented as a paradigmatic reconciliation of religion and philosophy. Graetz particularly appreciates the Ancient identification of Aristobulus as an Ar­ istotelian, because he takes Aristotle's rationalism to be inherently congenial to Judaism, while Plato's mystical poetry is associated with Christianity (ibid, 40). Graetz moreover reinterprets Alexandrian Judaism in light of the apostolic role it is said to have played among the nations. This function is explicitly identified as a continuation of "the work of the great prophets"^^. Graetz's appreciation of prophecy as universal mission reflects liberal intcrpretadons of Judaism and its relationship to the nations. In contrast to Geiger, however, Graetz is concerned about the particular Jewishness of this mission. Regarding Ancient Alexandria, he distinguishes three stages and types of missionary activity. The LXX is said to have been Judaism's first "apostle", who familiarized the nations with the historical and religious facts. Hellenistic apologetic literature, such as the Sibyline oracles, is H i s t o r y v o l . 3 ( L e i p z i g 1856) 3 0 - 5 4 , 2 9 8 - 3 4 2 . I shall o n l y refer t o t h e first e d i t i o n , f o r w h i c h G r a e t z himself w a s r e s p o n s i b l e . B r a n n ' s later revised e d i t i o n c h a n g e s t h e t o n e of G r a e t z ' s w r i t i n g s , stressing p i e t y a n d a n t i - s e m i t i s m . 35 G r a e t z later d o u b t s t h e reliability of t h e A n c i e n t s o u r c e s a n d t h u s A r i s t o b u l u s ' J e w i s h ­ ness, see: Heinrich Graetz, D e r a n g e b l i c h e j u d a i s c h e P e r i p a t e t i k e r A r i s t o b u l u s u n d seine Schriften, in: M G W J 27 (1878) 4 9 - 6 0 . 36 H i s t o r y vol. 3 , 3 3 1 .

A l e x a n d r i a n J u d a i s m in 1 9 t h C e n t u r y

19

described as the second apostle who actively fought idolatry by seeking to convert its adherents to monotheism. The third stage is characterized by diversity: while most Jews became too assimilated to spread Judaism, Philo continued the apostolic task, remained committed to the Halacha and subordinated philosophy to religion. While Philo is still appreciated against the background of his Jewish contem­ poraries, he is portrayed now with a new degree of ambivalence as a transitional figure between Judaism and Christianity. On the one hand, Graetz continues to appreciate Philo's defense of the law. He even describes Philo in terms which an­ ticipate his somewhat Romantic description of the great Biblical prophets: both arose in generations of Jewish self-alienation and fought as individuals for the revival of authentic Judaism^^. Graetz is, however, significantly sceptical about Philo's allegorization of Scripture and criticizes his reconciliation of Judaism and Hehenism. Stressing the inherent conflict between the latter two, Philo's synthesis is now presented as a cosmetic operation, which docs not penetrate beyond the surface and docs not accomplish a true reconciliation. This rather harsh criticism of Philo derives from Graetz's keen awareness of his role in early Christianity. As he put it, Philo inadvertently became "the father of a mystical world view" (ibid, 3 3 1 ) . Graetz' disappointment with Philo increases over time. In the second edition of his History, he explicitly associates Philo with Kabbalah, which is in his opinion - parallel to the modern Reform movement - another way of reintroducing Chris­ tianity into Judaism^^. Beneath the surface Graetz' discussion of Alexandrian Judaism clearly deals with modern Jewish identity. For him, as for his predecessors, Alexandria sym­ bolizes diaspora culture and serves as a paradigm for acculturation in contempor­ ary Germany. He explicitly draws the parallel in his discussion of the Reform movements. He initiaOy asserts here that German Jews were, thanks to Mendels­ sohn, destined to play the same role as Alexandrian and Spanish Jews before, namely to reconcile Judaism with general culture-'^. Graetz welcomes such a reconciliation on the condition that it preserves the special nature of Judaism and avoids imitation of Christian sentimentality. Indeed, the rejuvenation of Judaism through general culture must, Graetz insists, enhance the appreciation of Ju­ daism's historical role, liberating it from the Kabbalistic and Hassidic aberrations. In this context Graetz appreciates Mendelssohn as the initiator of a felicitous acculturation, while harshly condemning the reform circles around Israel Jacobson''°. His true heroes, however, arc more the conservative Isaak Bernays and 37 R e g a r d i n g G r a e t z ' view of Biblical p r o p h e t s , see especially: H i s t o r y v o l . 1 ( L e i p z i g 1874) 2 1 - 2 3 , 1 5 1 - 5 3 , ibid, vol. 2, 2 7 - 2 9 , 1 1 8 - 2 0 , 2 9 2 - 9 5 . 38 HLstory v o l . 3 , (^1863) 3 0 8 . 3 ' Heinrich Graetz, H i s t o r y , v o l . 10 ( L e i p z i g 1870) 4 1 0 . Ibid, 1 ^ 0 , 4 0 8 - 4 1 8 . R e g a r d i n g t h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e r e f o r m e r s c h r i s t i a n i z e J u d a i s m , see also G r a e t z ' letter of 7. 2. 1869 t o R. K i r c h h e i m , in: Heinrich Graetz, T a g e b u c h u n d Briefe, edited a n d a n n o t a t e d b y R. Michael ( T u b i n g e n 1977) 297: " G e g e n d i e V e r c h r i s t l i c h u n g d e s J u d e n ­ t h u m s , die i n d e r C u l t u s r e f o r m liegt, w e r d e ich bis z u m l e t z t e n H a u c h u n d m i t alien Waffen, die m i r z u G e b o t e s t e h e n , k a m p f e n . "

20

Maren R. Niehoff

Isaac Noa Mannheimer, who both favoured moderate reform and personified rab­ binic Judaism in somewhat enlightened garb (ibid, 427-37). Graetz even claims that Bernays had a deeper, "prophetic" understanding of Judaism than Mendels­ sohn, because he recognized more clearly its historical function and apostolic role among the nations (ibid, 428, 431). It is Salomon L. Steinhcim who is in this con­ text explicitly called "German Philo" (ibid, 477). Graetz meant this both as a com­ pliment and criticism. He is on the one hand impressed by what he identifies as Steinheim's clear grasp of Judaism's essence, namely its historical role vis-a-vis the nations. Steinheim is thus appreciated for using Kantian ideas in order to estabhsh Judaism's superiority over Christianity, for his appreciation of rabbinic Judaism and his concern about alienated contemporary Jews. At the same time, however, Graetz criticizes Steinheim's neglect of halachic observance and ignorance of He­ brew (ibid, 481). He significandy suggests that these shortcomings brought the Jewish theologian closer to Christianity. As he puts it, it was no surprise that al­ though Steinhcim himself did not convert he was buried by his wife in a Christian cemetery. This comment indicates that Graetz considers such modern features as ignorance of Hebrew and insufficient halachic commitment as a betrayal of Ju­ daism to Christianity. In the same way as Philo had in Antiquity become the fore­ father of Christianity, so does Modern Reform prepare the way for total assimi­ lation into Christian Europe. While Frankel's views of Alexandrian Judaism have increasingly become posi­ tive, those of Graetz became more critical and ambivalent over time. It was the model of main-stream pious Judaism which allowed Frankel to overcome to some extent the opposition between Judaism and Hellenism. He could consequently in­ tegrate more and more Jewish Hellenistic thinkers into the framework of authen­ tic Judaism and into the list of academic subjects deserving Jewish research. Graetz, by contrast, increasingly exchanged the integrative model of the En­ lightenment by oppositional parameters of Christian scholarship. Although he was himself much influenced by Christian accents and perspectives, he attempted to avoid their theological conclusions by focussing on the early stages of Alexan­ drian Judaism. Philo, it was implied, could happily be left to the study of those embracing the "mystical world view" of which he had become the founding father A third, more popular perspective illuminates the process by which Alexan­ drian Judaism is integrated into modern Jewish scholarship. Maurice Wolff, a liberal rabbi officiating in Sweden after completing his doctoral studies at the universities of Berlin and Leipzig, discovers Philo in the late 1840s as a model for modern Jewish spirituality. Faithful to the ideals of the Enlightenment, Wolff appreciates Philo most enthusiastically among the Jewish scholars of the second generation. In contrast to the early Jost, however, he is keenly aware of Christian scholarship on the subject and explicitly challenges it. It is his explicit aim to extricate Philo from such perspectives and to render him in this way relevant to the broader Jewish public. Wolff's conception of Philo develops in three stages.

A l e x a n d r i a n J u d a i s m in 19th C e n t u r y

21

In 1848 Wolff publishes a pioneering article on Philo in the last volume of SulaHis approach is characterized by the interest he shares with the Enlighten­ ment in acculturation and reconcihation of Judaism and general culture. He thus stresses that when Philo's pristine thoughts are separated from his often fanciful style, his humanism and rationalism become apparent. Wolff especially praises Philo's appreciation of the virtues and their contribution to man's spiritual im­ provement and imitadon of God. These are seen as central Jewish values advo­ cated also in rabbinic literature. A year later, in 1849, Wolff publishes a book length study on Philo's philosophy''2. The main purpose of this popular research is to defend Philo from a Jewish point of view against his treatment in Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy. Within his overall dialectics of human culture Hegel had interpreted Philo's notion of God as Jewish, which meant for him wholly transcendent and thus inferior to Christianity. Wolff criticizes this interpretation of Philo, rightly insisting that his concept of God is not completely transcendent, but instead contains two features of immanence, namely the creation of the world and the Divine Logos''^. Hegel had moreover presented Philo against the background of Gnosticism, stressing that prcexistent matter is indeed a positive principle for Philo. Wolff correctly replies that matter is for Philo a neutral entity - a feature which precisely distinguishes him from Gnostic dualism'''*. Wolff overall insists that contrary to Hegel's claims Philo has already achieved - prior to Christianity - a felicitous synthesis of the competing Greek and Oriental principles. While thus accepting the notion of a binary opposiuon between Hellenism and Judaism, he has denied Christianity's claim to their reconciliation and instead accredited it to Philo. In 1854 Wolff recommends Philo from the platform of the Jewish Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums^^. He now praises him to the general pubhc as a preacher of prophetic values. Parallel to the Biblical prophets Philo is said to have preferred devotion of the heart to cult sacrifices, stressing both religious experience and Jewish ethics. Wolff describes him as being totally immersed in the Divine Being and aiming at "hochste Gottesbegeisterung". This enables man to realize the Di­ vine image within himself and to achieve true morality^^. "It is high time", Wolff concludes, "that our spiritual life be improved so that we gain that deep inner spirituality which among Israel's great and wise teachers also Philo recommended so heartily.'"''' These Romantically enriched interpretations of Philo are based on mith'^^.

Maurice Wolff, S u l a m i t h 9 / 1 8 4 8 2 1 9 - 3 6 . T h e first t w o pages as well as t h e title a r e massing f r o m t h e m i c r o f i l m c o p y availabe at t h e N a t i o n a l L i b r a r y in J e r u s a l e m . '^^ Maurice Wolff, D i e P h i l o n i s c h c P h i l o s o p h i e in i h r e n H a u p t m o m e n t e n ( L e i p z i g 1849) ( f r o m n o w o n a b b r e v i a t e d as: P h i l o s o p h i c ) . « Ibid, 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 6 - 2 7 . Ibid, 23-24. '^^ Maurice Wolff, P h i l o n i s c h e I d e e n iiber G o t t e s v e r e h r u n g , in: A l l g e m e i n e Z e i t u n g d e s J u ­ d e n t h u m s 18/1854, 3 5 8 - 6 1 ( f r o m n o w o n a b b r e v i a t e d as: P h i l o n i s c h e I d e e n ) . Ibid, 3 5 8 - 6 0 . "•^ I b i d , 3 5 9 " . . . E s ist h o h e Zeit, dass es mit u n s e r e m religiosen L e b e n b e s s e r w e r d e u n d w i r

22

M a r e n R. N i e h o f f

the ideas of tfie Enlightenment and aim at presenting Philo as an ancestor of Jewish spirituality. Although Wolff stresses the homogeneity in this respect of Ancient Judaism and refrains from contrasting Philo to Pharisaism, his approach resembles in important respects that of Jost. On the margins of Wissenschaft des Judentums both men attempted to reactivate the form of acculturation achieved by Alexandrian Judaism in general and by Philo in particular

The Scholarship on Alexandrian Judaism from 1865 onwards: institutionalization and proliferation From 1865 onwards, two centrist institutions begin to promote the study of Alex­ andrian Judaism: the Institut zur Forderung der israehtischen Literatur, headed by Ludwig Philppson et al., and the Breslau Seminar/'^. The Institut zur Forderung der israehtischen Literatur, which aims at a general educated public, publishes in 1865 and 1870 a transladon of Philo's works'*'. The editors explain their endeav­ our as a response to the recent recognition of Jewish Hellenistic works as an inde­ pendent branch of Jewish literature. They moreover stress the relevance of this lit­ erature for modern Judaism. In their opinion, Jewish Hellenism truly integrated the Jewish and the Greek spirit - a process, in which both cultures were trans­ formed and influenced each other This kind of synthesis was later repeated in Medieval Spain and - in the editors' words - "gains a strong revival in recent times "50. The editors thus recommend Philo's works to the general Jewish public in the hope that they might find here stimulating ideas for their own identity. Indeed, Philo is presented as a direct predecessor of the moderate liberal path ad­ vocated by the editors. He is especially praised as an alternative to two negative extremes, namely the "exclusive reverence of the letter", on the one hand, and wide-spread "frivolity" on the other^'. The more conservative Rabbinical Seminary at Breslau institutionalizes the study of Jewish Hellenism by gradually integrating it into the syllabus and pro­ ducing two generations of leading scholars in the field. Nearly the whole first dec­ ade of the Seminary is marked by a complete separation of Jewish and Classical zu d e r tiefen I n n e r l i c h k e i t k o m m e n , die u n t e r d e n g r o s s e n , w e i s e n L e h r e r n Israels a u c h P h i l o ans H e r z legt." ••8 A t t h e Hochschule fiir Jiidische Wissenschaften in Berlin, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , J e w i s h H e l ­ l e n i s m d o e s n o t s e e m t o have d r a w n m u c h a t t e n t i o n . Sec e.g. Haim Steinthal, f j b e r J u d e n u n d J u d e n t u m . V o r t r a g e u n d A u f s a t z e (Berlin 1925, 3 r d ed.). 't' I n s t i t u t z u r F o r d e r u n g d e r i s r a e h t i s c h e n L i t e r a t u r (ed.), D a s L e b e n M o s i s v o n P h i l o v o n A l e x a n d r i a ( f r o m n o w o n a b b r e v i a t e d as: M o s e s ) , in: B i b l i o t h e k d e r g r i e c h i s c h e n u n d r o ­ m i s c h e n Schriftsteller iiber J u d e n t h u m u n d J u d e n in n e u e n U b e r t r a g u n g e n u n d S a m m l u n g e n , v o l . 1 ( L e i p z i g 1865); idem, P h i l o des A l c x a n d r i n e r s g e s a m m e l t e Schriften, ibid, vol. 3 ( L e i p z i g 1870). 5° M o s e s , ibid, V o r w o r t . 51 I b i d , 1 5 - 1 6 .

A l e x a n d r i a n J u d a i s m in 19th C e n t u r y

23

Jacob Bernays and Manuel Joel, followed later by Jacob Freudenthal, teach only general Greek and Latin literature and history^^. In 1863 Joel delivers for the first time a course on Jewish Philosophy of Religion from Philo to Maimon­ ides. In 1871 the Seminary's advertisement of the Lehmann'scher Prdmienpreis requires for thefirsttime an essay on Philo. Significantly, nobody applies that year for the prize, which so far focused on rabbinic subjects. During the 1870s and 80s, however, the study of Hellenistic Judaism flourishes at the Seminary. From 1873 onwards it is principally taught by Freudenthal, who both delivers general survey courses and teaches more specialized subjects for advanced students. Inspired by Frankel, the graduates and teachers of the Breslau Seminary pro­ duce most of the research on Jewish Hellenism during the 1870s and 80s. The Seminary's Jahresherichte become a central organ for the new discipline. These studies of Alexandrian Judaism can be clearly divided into two groups: those that remain loyal to Frankel's methodological and ideological approach and those that depart from it. Benjamin Ritter was the most important of Frankel's direct disciples continuing his work. Accepting his teacher's hypothesis of Palestinian superiority over Alexandria, Ritter takes a more positive approach to Philo and argues for his knowledge of Hebrew. Indeed, he integrates him into the system of Palestinian Halacha. His book Philo und die Halacha aims at showing Philo's agreements with the Palestinian schools^^. Even more loyal to Frankcl's posidon are Schmiedl, who criticizes Philo's allegory in the Monatsschrift of 18655'*, and Rippner who describes Philo's theory of the Logos as confused and unJewish^s. Bernays and Freudenthal, on the other hand, both rather alienated from tradi­ tion and not ordained as rabbis, introduce a new perspective to the study of Alex­ andrian Judaism. Bernays remains unaffected by both Christian and Orthodox agendas to the extent that he does not even justify the authentic Jewishness of Alexandrian Judaism. He argues in his few essays on Jewish rather than purely classical subjects for the great fluidity of the boundaries between Judaism and Hcllcnism^^. He shows that the author of a work hitherto attributed to Philo is Studies.

52 See: J a h r e s b e r i c h t des J i i d i s c h - T h e o l o g i s c h e n S e m i n a r s F r a e n k e l s c h e r Stiftung ( 1 8 5 6 - 6 8 ) , f r o m n o w o n a b b r e v i a t e d as: Breslau J a h r e s b e r i c h t . 53 Bernhard Ritter, P h i l o u n d die H a l a c h a . E i n e v e r g l e i c h e n d e S t u d i e u n t e r steter Berijcks i c h t i g u n g d e s J o s e p h u s ( L e i p z i g 1879). 5t A. Schmiedl, Z u r G e s c h i c h t e d e r allegorischen S c h r i f t a u s l e g u n g , in: M G W J 14 (1865) 2 9 6 306, 3 3 5 - 4 6 . 55 Benjamin Rippner, U b e r die U r s p r u n g e d e s P h i l o n i s c h e n L o g o s , in: M G W J 20 (1872) 2 8 9 305. N o t e t h a t R i p p n e r s a w himself as a f o l l o w e r of M e n d e l s s o h n , w h o m he places in t h e c o n s e r v a t i v e c a m p , idem, M o s e s M e n d e l s s o h n . E i n V o r t r a g ( L e i p z i g 1879). 56 N o t e t h a t also M a n u e l Joel investigates P h i l o . H e i n t e g r a t e s h i m i n t o his h i s t o r y of p h i l o s ­ o p h y , w h e r e he e m p h a s i z e s his r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of t h e Bible w i t h Stoic t h o u g h t , as well as P h i l o ' s s u b s e q u e n t influence o n t h e C h u r c h F a t h e r s . See: Manual feel, U b e r einige g e s c h i c h t ­ liche B e z i e h u n g e n d e s P h i l o n i s c h e n S y s t e m s , in: M G W J 12 (1863) 1 9 - 3 1 ; idem, B e i t r a g e z u r G e s c h i c h t e d e r P h i l o s o p h i e , v o l . 1 (Breslau 1876) 5 3 - 6 7 ; idem, Blicke in die R e l i g i o n s g e s c h i c h t e , vol. I (Breslau 1880) 1 4 3 - 4 4 .

24

M a r e n R. N i e h o f f

actually a non-Jew, while the phocylides so far regarded as a non-Jew is indeed He thus assumes the deep respect for Judaism on the part of a non-Jew. The Jew, on the other hand, is identified as Jewish only by virtue of his references to some Biblical laws and despite the fact that he lacks a sense of Jewish distinction from other nations. For Bernays, being Jewish - both in Antiquity and modernity - does not necessarily imply segregation or opposition to the Gentile environ­ ment. Continuing Bernays' approach, Freudenthal focuses his research more specifi­ cally on pre-philonic Alexandrian Judaism. He rcaddresses the issue of an as­ sumed opposition between Judaism and Hellenism, challenging Frankel's earlier approach both by stressing their harmonious coexistence and the dominant posi­ tion of Alexandria. In 1869 Freudenthal publishes a detailed study of IV Macca­ bees, which points to the successful amalgamation of Judaism and Hellenism^^. This work of the diaspora is said to have reconciled the tensions between the two cultures, which had violently clashed in Palestine. Freudenthal thus concludes that the author is a proud believer, while cherishing at the same time a Greek sense of aesthetics and using HeUcnistic rhetorics (ibid, 115). A few years later Freudenthal's Hellenistische Studien explicitly challenge Fran­ kel's method and view of Hellenistic Judaism as inauthcntic. In his study of Eupolemus and Artapanus he shows how the authors' assimilation of foreign tradi­ tions was fully compatible with their Jewish identity and did not at all diminish their Jewish national pride^'. Freudenthal moreover reopens the question of Alex­ andrian exegesis in relation to Palestine^o. One has to take into account, he insists, that Jewish Egyptian literature precedes the written Palestinian sources. Hellen­ istic exegetes have furthermore drawn on Palestinian and Greek sources, both of which they independently develop further Freudenthal speaks in this context about "Hellenistic Midrash" and demands its appreciation as an independent cre­ ation. He even raises the possibility that Hellenistic Midrash from Egypt in­ fluenced rabbinic literature. Such influence is all the more plausible in his opinion because of the high degree of Hcllenizadon throughout Palestine. While he stresses that generalizations must be avoided, each case demanding an individual examination, he suggests that the allegorization of Scripture in Palestine is an im­ port from Egypt (ibid, 74). The motif of the Androgynous is furthermore shown to have been a Platonic tradition which was adapted by Philo to the Biblical story of Adam's creation and then transmitted to Palestine. In this way, Freudenthal also provides an alternative approach to the work of Michael Sachs and Julius

Jewish57.

57 Jacob Bernays, U b e r d i e u n t e r P h i l o ' s W e r k e n s t e h e n d e Schrift iiber d i e U n z e r s t o r b a r k e i t d e s Weltalls ( A b h a n d l u n g e n d e r K o n i g l . P r e u s s . A k a d e m i e d e r W i s s e n s c h a f t e n z u Berlin v o m J a h r e 1882, B e r l i n 1883); idem, U b e r d a s P h o k y l i d e i s c h e G e d i c h t . E i n B e i t r a g z u r h e l l e n i s t i s c h e n L i t e r a t u r (Breslau J a h r e s b e r i c h t 1856). 58 Jacob Freudenthal, D i e Flavius J o s e p h u s beigelegte Schrift iiber d i e H e r r s c h a f t d e r Ver­ n u n f t ( I V M a k k a b a e r b u c h ) (Breslau J a h r e s b e r i c h t 1869). 59 Idem, H e l l e n i s t i s c h e S t u d i e n , H e f t II (Breslau J a h r e s b e r i c h t 1875) 105-218. 6" Idem, H e l l e n i s t i s c h e S t u d i e n , H e f t 1 (Breslau J a h r e s b e r i c h t 1874) 66-68.

A l e x a n d r i a n J u d a i s m in 19th C e n t u r y

25

Ftirst, who study Greek influence on rabbinic sources without taking Jewish Hel­ lenism into account''!. Towards the end of the century, when all extant works of Philo begin to be translated and published in a critical edition by Leopold Cohn and Paul Wendland^2^ studies on this most challenging representative of Jewish Hellenism prolif­ erate. Most of them are produced by academically trained rabbis, who synthesize and elaborate the themes which have guided Jewish scholarship thus fan In 1884, S. Weisse, a rabbi of centre-conservative views, publishes a book which compares Philo to Maimonides^^. His perspective is informed by the fact that - in his words - both "made a systematic attempt to reconcile positive faith with philosophy". He stresses that both relied on allegorical exegesis, but suggests that in the case of Philo this sometimes lead to inadvertent abandonment of "positive Judaism". In 1891 Max Freudenthal publishes a study of Philo's epistemology, in which he de­ scribes him as an eclectic of mystical tendencies. He especially appreciates him as a convinced humanist, who aimed at the "Verschmelzung zweier eigenartiger Bildungsstrome"^'*. A year later appears rabbi Dr Meyer Dienstfertig's book on prophecy in the first century of the common Era, which idendfies Philo as the "father of mysticism"^^ jjj 1895^ Salomon Tiktin publishes his doctoral thesis on Philo's theory of the virtues, which shows in detail how Philo was a believing Jew as well as a follower of Greek philosophy^^. In 1900 Jakob Horovitz, the Polish born centre orthodox rabbi of Frankfurt, publishes a book on the Platonic in­ fluences on Philo's theory of creation^^ Faithful to Frankcl's approach, he argues for the exclusively Hellenic character of Philo's thought and does not even address the issue of his place within Judaism. Finally, at the beginning of the 20th century, Leopold Treitel begins to publish a series of extended essays on Philo, showing that his appeal to the nations did not imply an abrogation of the law, but rather to the contrary its wider dissemination and thus affirmation^^. 6' Michael Sachs, Beitrage z u r S p r a c h - u n d A l t e r t u m s f o r s c h u n g (Berlin MSI); Julius Fiirst, G i o s s a r i u m G r a e c o - I l e b r a e u m o d e r d e r g r i e c h i s c h e W o r t c r s c h a t z d e r jiidischen M i d r a s c h w e r k c (.Strassburg 1890); idem, Zur E r k l a r u n g g r i e c h i s c h e r L e h n w o r t e r im T a l m u d u n d M i d r a s c h , in: M G W J 38 (1894) 3 0 5 - 1 1 . 62 L e o p o l d C o h n u n d P a u l W e n d l a n d , P h i l o n i s A l e x a n d r i n i O p e r a q u a e s u p e r s u n t ( R e i m e r 1896-1915). 63 S. Weisse, P h i l o v o n A l e x a n d r i c n u n d M o s e s M a i m o n i d e s ( D e s s a u 1884). 6't Max Freudenthal, D i e F . r k e n n t n i s l e h r e P h i l o s v o n A l e x a n d r i a (Berlin 1891) 1. F r e u d e n t h a l a d m i t s t h a t P h i l o w a s less s o p h i s t i c a t e d o n p u r e l y t h e o r e t i c a l issues, w h i c h h e t e n d e d t o link t o p s y c h o l o g y a n d ethics. 65 Meyer Dienstfertig, D i e P r o p h e t o l o g i e in d e r R e l i g i o n s p h i l o s o p h i e d e s e r s t e n n a c h c h r i s t ­ lichen J a h r h u n d e r t s (Breslau 1882). 66 Salomon Tiktin, D i e L e h r e v o n d e n T u g c n d e n u n d Pflichten bei P h i l o n v o n A l e x a n d r i c n ( I n a u g u r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n z u r E r l a n g u n g d e r D o k t o r w i i r d e , Breslau 1895). 67 Jakob Horovitz, U n t e r s u c h u n g e n iiber P h i l o n s u n d P l a t o n s L e h r e v o n d e r W e l t s c h o p f u n g ( M a r b u r g 1900). 68 Leopold Treitel, D e r N o m o s , i n s b e s o n d e r h e i t S a b b a t u n d F e s t e in p h i l o n i s c h e r B e d e u ­ t u n g , in: M G W J 47 (1903) 2 1 4 - 3 1 , 3 9 9 - 4 1 7 , 4 9 0 - 5 1 4 ; idem. D i e religiose u n d k u l t u r g e s c h i c h t l i c h e Stellung P h i l o s , T h e o l o g i s c h e S t u d i e n u n d K r i r i k e n 3 (1904) 3 8 0 ^ 0 1 .

26

M a r e n R. N i e h o f f

The study of Philo makes an entree also into Viennese circles. Moritz Friedlander (1844-1919), a Hungarian born educator and scholar who abandoned a rabbinic career because of his liberalism, publishes several volumes on Judaism during the Second Temple. He gives special emphasis to the role of Jewish Hellen­ ism in the emergence of Christianity^', beginning his work in 1880 with a trans­ ladon and annotation of a Philonic treatise^^. Combining the perspective of Chris­ tian and Jewish liberal scholarship, Friedlander writes in order to draw Jewish attention to a neglected author, whose thoughts on Judaism remain in his opinion unparalleled in their beauty, nobility and depth (ibid, II). He especially praises Philo for subordinating the law to the spirit and pointing to Judaism's universal, prophetic and humanistic principles. In contrast to his Palestinian brethren, Friedlander suggests, Philo was thus able to liberate himself from national nar­ row-mindedness and to reach a higher level of spirituality, which he transmitted to the nations (ibid, VI-IX). Friedlander has clearly adopted here the Christian view of a spiritual progress from Palestinian to Alexandrian Judaism, whose uni­ versality and assumed abrogation of the law he admires. At the same time, how­ ever, he identifies Philo as unquestionably Jewish, presenting him to his contem­ poraries as a model for their own identity. He is able to do so, because he con­ ceives of both pairs Hellenism and Judaism, and Christianity and enlightened Judaism as congenial systems with no inherent tension. Even Adolf Jellinek, who cherishes no particular interest in Jewish Hellenism, supports Friedlander's views, while however rejecting his harsh criticism of Pales­ tinian Judaism (ibid, 65-71). Jellinek emphasizes that whenever Judaism has been liberated from its national boundaries it revived prophetic universalism. This truth, proven already in Ancient Alexandria, expresses itself in Modernity, too. Indeed, Jellinek insists that since the time of Mendelssohn and Lessing "the genius of Philo hovers over Europe" (ibid, 71).

Summary and Conclusion The history of Jewish scholarship on Alexandrian Judaism has revealed a complex picture which tells of acculturation and attempts to define Jewish identity in nine­ teenth century Germany. At the hidden centre of these academic discussions stands the issue of Judaism's relationship to both Christianity and modernization, which were in nineteenth century Europe intimately linked.

6' See especially: Moritz Friedlander, D a s J u d e n t h u m in d e r v o r c h r i s t l i c h e n g r i e c h i s c h e n Welt. E i n B e i t r a g z u r E n t s t e h u n g s g e s c h i c h t e d e s C h r i s t e n t h u m s ( W i e n 1897); idem, D e r v o r c h r i s t l i c h e j u d i s c h e G n o s t i c i s m u s ( G o t t i n g e n 1898); idem. D i e R e l i g i o s e n B e w e g u n g e n i n ­ n e r h a l h des J u d e n t h u m s im Z e i t a l t e r J e s u ( W i e n 1905). 70 Moritz Friedlander, U b e r die P h i l a n t h r o p i c des m o s a i s c h e n G e s e t z e s . V o n P h i l o . O b e r s e i z i u n d e r i a u t e r t ( W i e n 1880).

A l e x a n d r i a n J u d a i s m in 19th C e n t u r y

27

Alexandrian Judaism receives increasingly more attention by Jewish scholars towards the end of the century even being addressed by orthodox rabbis. A posi­ tive interest in Jewish Alexandria is initially visible in I. M. Jost's writings, which combine a new historiographical approach with a firm commitment to the values of the Emancipation. His liberal orientation, as yet uninfluenced by Christian perspectives, is characterized by the absence of a conflict between Judaism and Hellenism. Indeed, Jost identifies Philo as an exemplary model for acculturation leading to a rational reformulation of Judaism's principles. Wissenschaft des Judentums proper, however, is ushered in on the basis of the Christian oppositional model, which assigns Hellenistic Judaism an important transitional role in the dialectics of spiritual progress. This approach presented a considerable challenge, both stimulating interest in the subject but also arousing deep Jewish ambivalence about Jewish figures thus appropriated by Christian theology. This ambivalence and oppositional view of Judaism and Hellenism were overcome to varying degrees by applying either of two integrative models: Fran­ kel's hierarchical model of Palestinian mainstream Judaism to which increasing numbers of Alexandrian Jews - except Philo - could be subordinated and the uni­ versal model of the Enlightenment. The latter had been partly used by Graetz, wholeheartedly embraced by Wolff and subsequently became the basis of much research by liberal Jews in the second half of the nineteenth century. While Jewish scholarship on Alexandrian Judaism thus adopted Christian themes and concerns, it has created its own cultural subtext. Christian scholars needed to define more precisely the relationship between Judaism, Hellenism and Christianity so as to clarify their own identity in Modern Flurope. They chose Hellenism as the root of their ChrisUan heritage, while defining Judaism as the Other from which Christianity emerged and transcended. Jewish scholars also needed to define the relationship between Judaism, Hellenism and Christianity in order to clarify their own identity. Yet for them this meant to describe Judaism in relation to the majority culture. Thus Jewish scholars, too, associated Hellenism with general culture, often stressing its universal and rational aspects, but usually well aware of its Christian dimension. The integration of Judaism and Hellenism in Ancient Alexandria moreover became a paradigm for acculturation, moderniz­ ation and pluralism within Judaism. These aspects were unique to the Jewish dis­ cussion and distinguished it rather clearly from Christian approaches. In this context, it is not surprising that orthodox scholars took little interest in Alexandrian Judaism and did not have any formative impact on its study among Jews. Wishing to establish rabbinic culture in its orthodox interpretation as the only authentic form of Judaism, they were naturally not interested in either mod­ ernization or pluralism. Equally significant, however, is the lack of serious interest on the part of Abraham Geiger^'. In some ways we might have expected him to 7' See Geiger's p a s s i n g references t o A l e x a n d r i a n J u d a i s m in t h e f o l l o w i n g places: Ahrahemi Geiger, D a s J u d e n t h u m u n d seine G e s c h i c h t e (Breslau 1940) 7 8 - 9 2 ; idem, B e r i i h r u n g e n d e r Bibel u n d d e s J u d e n t h u m s m i t d e m classischen A l t e r t h u m e u n d d e s s e n A u s l a u f e r n , i n : J i i -

28

Maren R. Niehoff

embrace Jewish Alexandria as a model for his o w n Reform programme. H e does not d o so, it seems, because he takes the Bible - and not the Talmud - to be the authentic basis of Judaism in its historical development. Alexandrian Judaism therefore lacks importance as a significant alternative to rabbinic authority. Finally, 20th century scholarship repeats the patterns of the 19th century, s o m e ­ w h a t gravitating towards conservative positions. Countries w i t h strong Jewish liberal traditions, such as America, have significantly produced m u c h of the re­ search o n Alexandrian Judaism, while the subject has been almost entirely ne­ glected in IsraeF^. This situation will o n l y change as a result of profound cultural transformations.

d i s c h e Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaft u n d L e b e n 4 (1866) 5 1 - 6 7 ; idem. D i e G e s c h i c h t e d e r Z w e i t e n T e m p e l p e r i o d e u n d d e r e n B e h a n d l u n g , ibid, 6 (1888) 2 4 7 - 7 9 ; idem, E n t s t e h u n g d e s C h r i s t e n t h u m s , ibid, 1 1 (1875) 8 - 1 7 ; idem, A l l g e m e i n e E i n l e i t u n g in d i e Wissenschaft des J u ­ d e n t h u m s , e d i t e d b y Ludwig G a g e r (Berlin 1875). 72 A n e x c e p t i o n t o this rule is especially Y e h o s h u a G u t t m a n . A m o r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t r a n s ­ f o r m a t i o n of a G e r m a n - J e w i s h P h i l o s c h o l a r seems t o b e Isaac I l e i n e m a n n , w h o u p o n arrival in Israel b e g a n t o w r i t e in H e b r e w a b o u t r a b b i n i c M i d r a s h .

Daniel R.

Schwartz

F r o m the Maccabees to Masada: O n D i a s p o r a n H i s t o r i o g r a p h y of the Second Temple Period Around the time Prof. Oppenheimer invited me to this conference, I was prepar­ ing the introduction to my translation of II Maccabees, and had come to the part where I was going to characterize II Maccabees as a typical instance of diasporan historiography. I was thinking, first of all, about the comparison of such passages as I Mace 1:20-23 with II Mace 5:15-16, which both describe Antiochus IV Epiphanes' robbery of the Temple of Jerusalem: I Mace 1:20-23: H e w e n t u p against Israel a n d c a m e t o J e r u s a l e m w i t h a s t r o n g force. H e ar­ r o g a n t l y e n t e r e d t h e s a n c t u a r y a n d t o o k t h e g o l d e n altar, t h e l a m p s t a n d for t h e light, a n d all its u t e n s i l s . H e t o o k a l s o t h e t a b l e for t h e b r e a d of t h e P r e s e n c e , t h e c u p s for d r i n k offerings, t h e b o w l s , t h e g o l d e n c e n s e r s , t h e c u r t a i n , t h e c r o w n s , a n d t h e g o l d d e c o r a t i o n o n t h e f r o n t of t h e t e m p l e ; h e s t r i p p e d it all o f f H e t o o k t h e silver a n d t h e g o l d , a n d t h e cosriy u t e n s i l s . . . (Revised S t a n d a r d Version) // Mace yii-]6: N o t c o n t e n t w i t h this (i.e., s l a u g h t e r and e n s l a v e m e n t ) , A n t i o c h u s d a r e d to e n t e r t h e m o s t h o l y t e m p l e in all t h e w o r l d , g u i d e d b y M e n e l a u s , w h o h a d b e c o m e a t r a i t o r b o t h t o t h e laws and t o his c o u n t r y . H e t o o k t h e h o l y vessels w i t h his p o l l u t e d h a n d s , and s w e p t a w a y w i t h p r o f a n e h a n d s t h e votive offerings w h i c h o t h e r k i n g s h a d m a d e t o e n h a n c e t h e g l o r y a n d h o n o r of t h e place. (RSV)

Here II Maccabees offers two obvious and standard contrasts between Palesti­ nian works and diasporan ones, as well as two more subtle ones. The obvious ones are, first, its short and vague allusion to "holy vessels" which, in contrast to the detailed list in I Maccabees, exemplifies a diasporan lack of interest in the sacrifi­ cial cult; and, second, its emphasis on the benevolence of Gentile kings, which illustrates a familiar and necessary theme of Diaspora historiography (contrast I Mace 1:1-10, where all Gentile kings are simply wicked). As for the two more subtle points, it seems, as I will suggest below, that II Maccabees' emphasis - here and elsewhere - on the individual Jewish traitor, and its characterization of such a traitor as one not only to his country but also to its laws, are especially character­ istic of diasporan works. And, of course, there are also other aspects of II Macca­ bees, not illustrated in the passage cited here, which seem quite clearly to be typi­ cally diasporan; thus, for example, the lionization of martyrs. So, to return: at this point of my introduction to II Maccabees I left a footnote for bibliography about the general category of diaspora historiography, assuming

30

D a n i e l R. S c h w a r t z

I would find, in the standard works on Jewish historiography in general or on ancient Jewish historiography in particular, some relevant discussion which I could cite. In fact, however, after much work in the library, and numerous conver­ sations with colleagues, I was quite surprised to discover that the category, as such, seems not to have been developed - although I will be grateful to anyone who can correct that impression. While there is of course much literature on his­ toriography produced in the diaspora, I have found no attempt to characterize it as such and to sec what that means. What I didfind,however, is that much of what I see as typically galuti in hterature of the Second Temple period reminds my col­ leagues of things they see in medieval and modern Jewish historiography - a fact which reinforces my impression, that such a genre is indeed a real and useful cat­ egory, perhaps, in fact, one which we take for granted, but which it might be worthwhile to spell out. So I decided to seize the opportunity of Prof. Oppenheimer's invitation and make a stab at such an approach. To clarify what is new here, we should point out that this approach comes in the wake of an earlier one. Namely, it used to be thought that a cultural category, "Hellenism", corresponded to a geographical category, so "Hellenistic Judaism" was "Diasporan Judaism", i.e., Judaism in lands outside of Palestine, especially from regions to its west. Thus, for our most relevant example, Schurer - beginning with the second (1886-1890) edition of his handbook, which was the first to in­ clude a survey of Jewish literature - divided it between "Die palastinensisch-jiidische Literatur" (§ 32) and "Die hellenistisch-judische Literatur" (§ 33). But al­ ready Schurer himself, as others of his generation, emphasized that the categories were not precise and mutually exclusive: "Es hat palastinensisches Judenthum auch ausserhalb Palastina's gegeben, wie umgekehrt auch hellenistisches Juden­ thum in Palastina" (p. 576)'. Nevertheless, he viewed the distincdon as generally correct, and it maintained itself for decades; one book after another built on this same distinction. More recently however, and especially due to the work of Mardn Hengel, the notion that the contrast of Hellenism and Palestine is a useful and appropriate way of organizing the literature of the Second Temple period has be­ come even more doubtful. Hence, the revised English Schiirer replaced it with a new one, one which distinguishes "Jewish Literature Composed in Hebrew or Aramaic" (§ 32) from "Jewish Literature Composed in Greek" (§ 33). This is definitely a simpler distinction, and one which avoids such anomalies as dealing with Josephus and Justus in the chapter on Jewish literature which isn't Palestinian, or - only slightly less anomalously - deahng with Judith and Ben Sira ' So t o o , a few years earlier: " . . . s o miissen w i r u n s hiiten, d e n G e g e n s a t z des P a l a s t i n i s c h e n u n d d e s H e l l e n i s t i s c h e n zu i i b e r s p a n n e n [;] m a n w a r e i n a n d e r w e d e r s o u n b e k a n n t n o c h s o feindselig als dies bisweilen dargestelit w o r d e n ist". Carl Siegfried, D e r jiidische H e l l c n i s m u s , in: Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche T h e o l o g i e 15 (1875) 4 8 3 . T h i s article b y Siegfried ( 4 6 5 - 4 8 9 ) w a s w r i t t e n a p r o p o s of t h e a p p e a r a n c e of fakoh Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhist o r u n d die v o n i h m e r h a l t e n e n R e s t e j u d a i s c h e r u n d s a m a r i t a n i s c h e r G e s c h i c h t s w e r k e ( H e l ­ lenistische S t u d i e n , 1-2; Breslau 1875), w h e r e 1 2 8 - 1 3 0 similarly e m p h a s i z e t h a t H e l l e n i s m w a s w i d e s p r e a d e v e n a m o n g nationalist J e w s in P a l e s t i n e of t h e H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d .

D i a s p o r a n H i s t o r i o g r a p h y of t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e P e r i o d

31

in the chapter on Jewish literature which isn't Hellenistic. But this solution also entails a loss, for the original Schiirer at least tried to characterize types of Judaism and, accordingly, to categorize ancient Jewish literature according to some mean­ ingful categories. The new Schurer gives a categorization which can more respon­ sibly be defended, but how meaningful is it? But we can't return to Schiirer's original typology, for it has eroded completely. He defined his types quite clearly: W i r v e r s t e h e n u n t e r d e r p a l a s t i n e n s i s c h - j u d i s c h e n L i t e r a t u r diejcnige, w e l c h c i m W e s e n t lichen ( a b e r a u c h n u r im W e s e n t l i c h e n ) d e n S t a n d p u n k t des p h a r i s a i s c h e n J u d e n t h u m s v e r tritt, w i e es in P a l a s t i n a sich a u s g e b i l d e t hat; u n t e r d e r hellenistisch-jiidischen diejenige, w e l c h e e n t w e d e r in d e r F o r m o d e r im I n h a l t in i r g e n d w i e b e m e r k e n s w e r t h e r Weise helleni­ stische B c e i n f l u s s u n g zeigt. ( p . 576)

We have already noted the erosion of the notion that Hellenism was found among Jews only outside of Palestine; to this we may add the erosion of the no­ tions that Pharisaic Judaism was untouched "in any remarkable fashion" by Hel­ lenism and that Pharisaic Judaism may be assumed to be characteristic of Palesti­ nian Jews in general^. Moreover, it has also become unfashionable, or unrespectable, to portray Pharisaic Judaism in such an un-Christian way as Schiirer did in his chapter on "Das Leben unter dem Gesetze", so there is no longer much Chris­ tian profit in holding onto the notion of a Pharisaic monopoly on Palestine^. That chapter too, now called "Life and the Law", was heavily rewritten in the new Schiirer, and I submit that the change goes hand in hand with the other one, which prefers to divide up the literature according to language rather than anything having to do with its essence. Perhaps that is good enough for a handbook. But recent developments in our notions concerning Hellenism and Pharisaism should not lead us to abandon all efforts to categorize our literature in meaningful ways. Indeed, that quest has not been abandoned, and has proceeded on several fronts; especially Qumran scholars seem concerned to devote much attention to categorizing their texts, perhaps be­ cause they are so numerous. Insofar as historiography is concerned, however, not too much progress has been made. Thus, for example, about thirty-five years ago my late teacher, Menahem Stern, began a study of Josephus' historical writing by stating that all of Jewish historiography of the Second Temple period may be di­ vided among those works, such as I Maccabees, which continued the biblical tradition, and those others such as II Maccabees and Josephus, which imitated Hellenistic models; twenty years later, in what remains today the standard survey of Jewish historiography in our period, Harold Attridge began precisely the same 2 F o r an especially seminal c o n t r i b u d o n t o t h e e r o s i o n of all t h r e e v i e w s , see Morton Smith, Palestinian J u d a i s m in t h e F i r s t C e n t u r y , in: Israel: Its R o l e in C i v i l i z a t i o n (ed. Moshe Davis; N e w Y o r k 1956) 6 7 - 8 1 . O n t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y vicissitudes of t h e n o t i o n of P h a r i s a i c h e ­ g e m o n y , see Daniel R. Schwartz, M M T , J o s e p h u s a n d t h e P h a r i s e e s , in: R e a d i n g 4 Q M M T : N e w P e r s p e c t i v e s o n Q u m r a n L a w a n d H i s t o r y (SBL S y m p o s i u m Series 2, ed.John Kampen a n d Moshe J. Bernstein; A d a n t a 1996) 6 7 - 7 4 . 5 See t h e l i t e r a t u r e cited ibid. 68, n. 3.

32

D a n i e l R. S c h w a r t z

way''. Indeed, this is a categorization which is both more defensible than the Hel­ lenistic-Palestinian one and yet more meaningful than the one according to lan­ guage. However, the question of biblical or non-biblical models is not a simple one, for however biblicizing I Maccabees may be, it is nevertheless true - as C.L.W. Grimm pointed out well over a century ago - that "in einem nicht unwesentlichen Punkt" I Maccabees differs from biblical historiography, namely, in that God is hardly involved in its story^. If you believe God's involvement in the story is the sine qua non of biblical historiography, then just how biblical is I Mac­ cabees? And what then shall we say of II Maccabees, where God is involved - at times very graphically - everywhere you look^? The most concerted effort in recent years to discuss the genres of Jewish his­ toriography in our period is that of Gregory Sterling: focusing on Josephus and Luke-Acts, he posited the genre "apologetic historiography"^. Indeed, this is quite a useful category, just as his book is quite a useful one. However, "apolo­ getic" is quite a broad term; we could not use it, for example, to say anything use­ ful about the obvious differences between I and II Maccabees, for each is an apology for something, be it the Hasmonean dynasty or Judaism. Nor, even, could it be used to say something about the differences between Josephus' War and his Antiquities, for both are equally apologetic on behalf of the Jewish people. But there are important differences between First and Second Maccabees, and be­ tween Josephus' War and his Antiquities, and to a large extent they may, I believe, be captured by their analysis as diasporan or non-diasporan works. What we must do, basically, is return to the fundamental political sense of these terms, instead of using them - as Schiirer did - as cultural terms. We need to think about the mean­ ing, for historiography, of the difference between writing in, and for, Jewish com­ munities which enjoy sovereignty and those which do not. There is, of course, no problem in defining First and Second Maccabees as, re­ spectively, Palestinian and diasporan works. The notion, however, that Josephus' War is to be viewed as essentially Palestinian, as opposed to Antiquities which is to be viewed as diasporan, will certainly surprise some people, and, therefore, it is in need of justification. After all, everyone knows that War is a very Hellenistic Menahem Stern, J o s e p h u s ' W a y of W r i t i n g H i s t o r y (1963), in: idem. S t u d i e s in J e w i s h H i s ­ t o r y : T h e S e c o n d T e m p l e P e r i o d (ed. Moshe Amit, Isaiah Gafni a n d Moshe David Herr; J e r u s a l e m 1991) 408 (in H e b r e w ) ; Harold W. Attridge, H i s t o r i o g r a p h y , in: J e w i s h W r i t i n g s of t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e P e r i o d ( C o m p e n d i a R e r u m I u d a i c a r u m ad N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m 2 / 2 , ed. Michael E. Stone; A s s e n , P h i l a d e l p h i a 1984) 157. 5 Carl Ludwig Wilibald Grimm, D a s erste B u c h d e r M a c c a b a e r . K u r z g e f a s s t e s exegetisches l l a n d b u c h z u d e n A p o k r y p h e n d e s A l t e n T e s t a m e n t e s 3 ( L e i p z i g 1853) xvii-xviii. I h a v e d e v e l o p e d t h i s t o p i c in t h e p a p e r m e n t i o n e d in t h e n e x t n o t e . 6 See m y article O n S o m e t h i n g Biblical a b o u t II M a c c a b e e s , in: Biblical P e r s p c c d v e s : E a r l y U s e a n d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e Bible in L i g h t of t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls ( P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e 1996 O r i o n C e n t e r C o n f e r e n c e , J e r u s a l e m ; ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael E. Stone; L e i d e n 1998) 2 2 3 - 2 3 2 . 7 Gregory E. Sterling, H i s t o r i o g r a p h y and Self-Definition: J o s e p h o s , L u k e - A c t s a n d A p o l o ­ getic H i s t o r i o g r a p h y ( S u p p l e m e n t s t o N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m 64; L e i d e n 1992).

D i a s p o r a n H i s t o r i o g r a p h y of t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e P e r i o d

33

book; indeed, one of the view scholars to compare War and II Maccabees in detail, Giorgio Jossa, took it to be obvious and natural that yZ«r shows much more Greek influence than II Maccabees**. Again, it is usually, and correctly, noted that An­ tiquities is dedicated to defending the Jewish people against its detractors, as is also Contra /4/?io«ew - Josephus' other major work of the nineties. And this even ex­ presses itself, at times, in the form of anti-Herodian rewriting in the Antiquities, writing which necessarily redounds to the glory of the Hasmoneans', the Jewish national line which Herod nearly eradicated but from which, on the other hand, Josephus of the nineties was now claiming descent {Vita 1-5; Ant. 16.187). How, then, could one claim that War is Palestinian and Antiquities - diasporan? To begin with, let us recall, on the negative side, that we have rejected the notion that the alternative Hellenistic/non-HeUenisdc is equivalent to diasporan/nondiasporan. And as for Antiquities and Contra Apionem being pro-Jewish, or even nationalistic, no reader of Second or Third Maccabees, or of Philo's Legatio or In Flaccum, could suppose that those adjectives cannot apply to diasporan his­ toriography. And on the positive side, let us also recaU that War was written by a Judaean general within a decade of his capture, and was originally written in Ara­ maic; Antiquities, in contrast, was composed in Greek by a Jew who had lived in the imperial capital for two decades. Next, we should recah x\\z.i Antiquities has already been shown, in various ways, to be diasporan. Take, for example, Isaiah Gafni's analysis of the way Josephus, m Antiquities, rewrote I Maccabees so as to move the accent to dying for Judaism, in trying times, instead of fighting for it'^. Dying for their religion is something Jews can do anywhere; fighung is something which goes hand and hand with a Jewish state. By emphasizing Jewish m^nyrs. Antiquities is like II Maccabees; I Maccabees, in contrast, lionizes those who fought for Judaism, while those who died for it, passively, are certainly pious but they don't bring salvation. Thus, for example, the martyrs who get most of two chapters (6-7) in II Maccabees get only four verses in I Maccabees, where they serve as a foil, at the end of Chapter 1 (vv. 60-63), for the salvation which begins with the appearance of the Hasmoneans at the beginning of Chapter 2. Similarly, while II Maccabees frequently underlines the sanctity of the Sabbath and intimates that warfare is forbidden upon it (5:25-26; 8:26; 12:38; 15:2-3), in I Maccabees it is the naive, if pious, who refuse to fight on the Sabbath and therefore die (I Mace 2:32-38), while the Hasmonean warriors realistically decide to fight in self-defense on the Sabbath (ibid. vv. 39^1). 8 Giorgio Jossa, L a storiografia giudeo-ellenistica: 11 s e c o n d o l i b r o dei M a c c a b e i e la G u e r r a giudaica di F l a v i o G i u s e p p e , in: L a storiografia della B i b b i a (Atti della X X V l l l S e t t i m a n a Biblica; B o l o g n a 1986) 9 3 - 1 0 2 ( p . 94: " M a I'influenza greca c e v i d c n t e in e n t r a m b i , in Flavio G i u s e p p e n a t u r a l m e n t e m o l t o piii c h e nel l i b r o dei M a c c a b e i . " ) . ' See Gideon Fuks, J o s e p h u s a n d t h e H a s m o n e a n s , in: J o u r n a l of J e w i s h Studies 41 (1980) 1 6 6 - 1 7 6 . Cf. Daniel R. Schwartz, J o s e p h u s o n H y r c a n u s I I , in: J o s e p h u s a n d t h e I l i s t o r y of t h e G r e c o - R o m a n P e r i o d (Studia P o s t - B i b l i c a 4 1 , (ed.) Fausto Parente a n d Joseph Sievers; Leiden 1994)210-232. '° Isaiah M. Gafni, J o s e p h u s a n d I M a c c a b e e s , in: J o s e p h u s , t h e Bible, a n d I l i s t o r y (ed. Louis FL Feldman a n d Gohei Hata; D e t r o i t 1989) 1 2 4 - 1 2 5 .

34

D a n i e l R. S c h w a r t z

Similarly, it seems that Josephus, in Antiquities, strove to separate religion and state in a way which, while typical of the diaspora, did not at all fit the realities of the Judaea, which he was describing - and which he correctly depicted in War^K Thus, time and time again in Antiquities 20 he describes religious figures who ap­ parently pose no real threat to Roman rule, but are nevertheless pursued and stamped out, with Josephus' approval, by the Roman governors. In the parahels in War, in contrast, the real threat to the state, posed by this religiousfigures,was spelled out; Josephus sanidzed - that is, diasporized - the stories ior Antiquities. Next, reverting again to the Antiquities rewriting of I Maccabees, for what do Jews fight and die? Idere again, Gafni has pointed the way, underlining the way the law is played up in Josephus' rewriting of I Maccabees'^. Where I Maccabees doesn't mention it, or mentions something else, Josephus speaks of the law. Now this, at first glance, need not be diasporan; the Torah is always the hallmark of Judaism. Nevertheless, it is the case that it is more prominent in Antiquities than it is in the War - just as it is more prominent in II Maccabees than in I Maccabees, including in the passage with which we began, which, as we noted, characterizes Menelaus as a traitor not only to his country but also to the laws (cf. Paul in Acts 28:17). Indeed, it has been shown that II Maccabees takes care to portray the laws of Judaism as if they were those of a Jewish city^^. Jews jtoXiTEijeoGai according to the laws of Judaism, according to this book (6:1; 11:25), which is positively brack­ eted by the notion of Jerusalem as the Jews' city (3:1; 15:37), as they do according to III Maccabees (3:4), just as Philo and Antiquities time and time again consider the Jews' laws as their JtoX.ixeia''*. But in his recent work on Josephus' view of Jewish law, Bernd Schroeder has emphasized the relative marginality of Jewish law in War, as opposed to Josephus' later works'^. Correspondingly, a check of the concordance reveals that jtoXixeia is used in War only three times and none of them with reference to the Jewish religion; JtoXiTeDfta is used in Antiquities and Against Apion but never in War, and JtoX,iTsi)(i) - twenty-six times in Antiquities, thrice in Vita, but only once in War, in a passage where the text is in fact doubtful (1.513)1^. In the t w o decades or so between War and his other three books, Jo­ sephus learned to talk like a diasporan Jew.

' ' F o r this p a r a g r a p h , see Daniel R. Schwartz, S t u d i e s in t h e J e w i s h B a c k g r o u n d of C h r i s ­ t i a n i t y (Wissenschaftliche U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u m N e u e n T e s t a m e n t 60, T i i b i n g e n 1992) 2 9 34. '2 See Gafni, ( a b o v e , n. 10) 1 2 1 - 1 2 3 . '3 See B. Renaud, L a loi et les lois d a n s les livres d e s M a c c a b e e s , in: R e v u e b i b l i q u e 68 (1961) 5 5 - 6 7 ; D. R. Schwartz, Scripta Ciassica Israelica 17 (1998) 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 . I'' O n t h e i r u s a g e , see Aryeh Kasher, T h e J e w s of H e l l e n i s d c a n d R o m a n E g y p t (Texte u n d S t u d i e n z u m A n t i k e n J u d e n t u m 7, T u b i n g e n 1985) 3 5 8 - 3 6 4 . '5 Bernd Schroder, D i e " v a t e r l i c h e n G e s e t z e " : Flavius J o s e p h u s als V e r m i t d e r v o n H a l a c h a h an G r i e c h e n u n d R o m c r (Texte u n d S t u d i e n z u m A n t i k e n J u d e n t u m 5 3 , T u b i n g e n 1996) 5 2 , 128, 1 5 2 - 1 5 6 . '6 Karl Heinrich Rengstorf (ed.), A C o m p l e t e C o n c o r d a n c e t o Flavius J o s e p h u s , 3 ( L e i d e n 1979)474-476.

D i a s p o r a n H i s t o r i o g r a p h y of t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e P e r i o d

35

As an example of tfiis difference between Josephus' two works, let us take his accounts of Pompey's conquest of the Temple in 63 BCE. In War 1.145-147, Josephus reports that Pompey's troops found it difficult to build siegeworks, due to Jewish opposition, and indeed might never have succeeded, had they not taken advantage of the Jewish abstention from manual work on the Sabbath "due to reli­ gious scruples" (8ia TT]V OprioKeiav). Then, in § 148, the Romans are said to have been full of admiration for the way the Jews persevered in their 9pT]OKeia despite the weapons flying about. Finally, in § 150 (after the Romans broke into the Temple courts), the priests are said to have been killed while continuing their GpTjOKeia, for they put the e e p a j t e i a of the Deity above their own salvation. That is. War bespeaks a view of the cult not as an aspect of Law (which is never men­ tioned in this narrative) but, rather, as independently important. In the parallel utAnt. 14.63, in contrast, it is the Jewish law (voftog) which for­ bids fighting on the Sabbath; in § 65 the priests' perseverance in the sacrificial cult is presented as evidence of the Jews' piety (etioEpeia) and observance of their laws (tG)\ v6[i(0\); and § 67 says that the priests thought it was better to suffer beside the altar than to violate any of the vofxifta. Thus, just as War has no reference here to v6no5 or v o ^ n a or anything similar, so too Antiquities has no OpT]OK8ia or Oepajteia. The contrast is one of the first of those with which we began, between I Maccabees and II Maccabees. And it is the same contrast which one finds in the Mishnah between the words of Simon the Just at the outset of the first chapter of Avot, and those of Simon ben Gamaliel at the close of that chapter: the former, as Palestinian as one can be (a high priest!), counts the Temple cult among the pillars of the world, while the latter already evinces a diasporan point of view'^ and en­ visions a Jewish world based on portable values only (law, truth and peace). To return to Josephus on 63 BCE: these parallel accounts also illustrate another point about diasporan historiography. At Ant. 14.70, Josephus says that in the car­ nage when the Romans entered the Temple, some Jews were slain by the Romans, others by each other The latter, in context, sounds like it refers either to the result of confusion - a frequent motif in battle scenes - or to mutual kihing a la Masada, so as to avoid death at Roman hands or enslavement. In his note to the Loeb edition here, however, Ralph Marcus clarified otherwise: "That is, by Jews of the opposite faction, as we are told in B.J. i.l50." Indeed, where Antiquities has vn' aXkr\k(ov dvT)potJVTO, War has vnb xc&v 6no4)i)?tcov a v T i o t a o i a o x c b v dvTipoOvxo. Now, historically speaking, it is not so clear that Marcus is right. His note pre­ sumes that what War says is true and that Josephus has deviated from that truth, in Antiquities, whether due to sloppy writing or, perhaps, so as to avoid the nasty truth'^. In fact, however, it often seems that Antiquities hews closely to Josephus' '7 T h i s is a g o o d e x a m p l e of t h e p o i n t t h a t o n e can b e d i a s p o r a n even in Palestine; w h a t m a t t e r s is s o v e r e i g n t y ( o r t h e illusion of it). C f Schwartz, ( a b o v e , n. 11) 42, n . 3 8 . '8 F o r an o b v i o u s case of a similar m o v e , in this c o n t e x t , n o t e h o w t h e d i a s p o r a n J o s i p p o n (ch. 36; ed. Flusser, 158) s i m p l y s k i p p e d H e g e s i p p u s ' w h o l e a c c o u n t of this e p i s o d e (ch. 1.16; ed. Ussani, 27), w h i c h - as m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d f r o m a C h r i s t i a n w o r k - h a d d e v e l o p e d , even m o r e t h a n J o s e p h u s ' War h e r e , t h e t h e m e of J e w s b e i n g killed b y t h e i r J e w i s h e n e m i e s .

36

D a n i e l R. S c h w a r t z

original source (here, Nicolas - cited in 14.68), while Josephus' assistants, who helped him in preparing War (see Against Apion 1.50), spiced the source up; hence, perhaps they - and not historical truth - are at the bottom of the fraternal murder mentioned in W^r". But this historical issue isn't our problem now. What is im­ portant is that, one way or another, the War story here fits in with a general char­ acteristic of that work, as emphasized especially by Tessa Rajak2°: the portrayal of Jewish history as one shot through with inner-Jewish civil dissension, stasis be­ tween parties of Jews. Antiquities docs not; the stasis in this period is between two individuals: Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus IP'. Now this contrast corresponds perfectly to a major difference between I Mac­ cabees and II Maccabees. For the Palestinian work portrays its Jewish villains as being organized and numerous (I Mace 1:11-15,43). Indeed, the Hasmoneans begin their career by killing a Jewish renegade (I Mace 2:23-24), and follow up their successes against the Greeks by striking down sinners and lawless men, for­ cibly circumcising Jewish boys (i.e., against the wishes of their parents), hunting down "arrogant men", etc. (vv. 44-47). In II Maccabees, however, we hear of no such party; the Jewish villains of II Maccabees are - as noted above in connection with II Mace 5:16 - wicked individuals (Simon, Jason, Menelaus, Lysimachus, Alcimus), and - with only a few exceptions (4:40; 5:5) - one must work quite hard, between the lines, to discover that they had supporters^^. Rather, the trouble­ makers are portrayed as self-seeking individuals: "one Simon" (3:4) who argues with the good Onias, "one Alcimus" (14:3) who is thinking only of his own ca­ reer; note that while I Mace 7:5 has Alcimus leading a whole delegation, II Mace 14 has him all alone. Anyone who, like me, spent decades of his life living in Dias­ pora communities where everyone was very concerned to put up a unified front, and other decades in a Jewish state, where party politics are our bread and butter during all our waking hours, will have, I'm sure, no difficulty in recognizing this difference too as one which is characteristic of the difference between diasporan and Judaean historiography. For us - to revert to antiquity - what is important here is to note that An­ tiquities, for all its usual dependence upon I Maccabees, has no parallels to the above-mentioned passages in I Maccabees 1 which show there were numerous Hellenizers. Rather, in a passage (12.237-241) which is very reminiscent of II Maccabees, it focuses on only a few high priests. Correspondingly, where " F o r this f r e q u e n t p h e n o m e n o n , w h i c h implies t h e later a c c o u n t is closer t o t h e s o u r c e t h a n t h e earlier o n e is, see Daniel R. Schwartx, O n D r a m a a n d A u t h e n t i c i t y in P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s , in: Scripta Ciassica Israelica 10 (1989/90) 1 2 1 - 1 2 8 . 20 Tessa Rajals, J o s e p h u s : T h e H i s t o r i a n a n d H i s Society ( L o n d o n 1983) 9 1 - 9 6 . Sec, for e x a m p l e , §§ 10, 24, 2 7 of t h e p r o l o g u e t o War, a l o n g w i t h t h e v e r y first w o r d of t h e b o d y of t h e b o o k (1.31 maatoic,). 2' See especially J o s e p h u s ' e d i t o r i a l i z i n g in Ant. 14.77. 22 See, for e x a m p l e , t h e e n i g m a t i c reference in 11 M a c e 10:15 t o refugees f r o m J e r u s a l e m . S o m e w o u l d c o r r e c t 14:14 s o as t o find a n o t h e r reference t o s u c h J e w i s h o p p o n e n t s of t h e H a s m o n e a n s , b u t it seems t h a t t h e parallel in t h e v e r y next verse c o n f i r m s t h a t t h e reference h e r e is i n d e e d t o n o n - J e w s .

D i a s p o r a n H i s t o r i o g r a p l i y of t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e P e r i o d

37

I Maccabees 1:43 says "many of Israel" acquiesced to the royal decrees against Judaism, Ant. 12.255 has only "some" doing so willingly, adding at length that "the worthiest people and those of noble soul" did not, since they - as the priests of 14.67 - "held their ancestral customs of greater account than the punishment with which he threatened them..." (trans. Marcus^^). And, again, in its version of I Mace 2:47, concerning forcible circumcision. Antiquities makes it clear that force was required not to overcome Jewish, parental, opposition, but, rather, in order to drive out "the officers who had been appointed to prevent this" {Ant. 12.278)^'*. These (Seleucid?) "officers" are Josephus' contribution. I Maccabees mentioned none, leaving only Jewish parents blocking the way to circumcising Jewish children. Some of the other aspects of diasporan historiography are more briefly sum­ marized. Thus, for example, it is typical of diasporan historiography to claim that Gentile kings are really fair and benevolent toward the Jews - witness their dedi­ cations to the Temple underlined by II Mace 5:16 (as already 3:1-3, the very begin­ ning of the book). Hence, whatever persecutions arise are only the result of mis­ understanding, or of the machinadons of some underlings or wicked counselors who manage to mislead the king. Thus, Philo has Scjanus misleading Tiberius into persecuting the Jews, and makes Gaius' Egyptian and Ascalonite counselors re­ sponsible for his order to erect an idol in the Temple of Jerusalem {Legatio 159161,203-205). Or three examples from II-lIl Maccabees: the only reason the good king Antiochus Epiphanes acquitted Menelaus and condemned the good Jews of Jerusalem was because Menelaus bribed Ptolemy Dorymenes to lead Antiochus astray (4:45-47), just as the author of III Maccabees allows Philopator to claim that it was his wicked advisors who misled him into persecuting the Jews (6:23-24; 7:3), and just as - back in II Maccabees again - it was only Antiochus' mistaken impression that Judaea had rebelled which brought him to attack Jerusalem (5:11). Similarly, although Josephus recounts the Caesarea dispute in great detail in both War and Antiquities, it is only in Antiquities that he claims that Nero would have punished Felix had not the Syrians of Caesarea bribed a Greek official at Nero's court to influence the emperor {Ant. 20.183-184; cf. Warl.lM), just as it is only in Antiquities (13.294-295) that Josephus claimed that John Hyrcanus I's troubles with his Jewish subjects arose as a result of a misunderstanding. According to War, dealing here with an event which is definitely within the book's purview and is treated in detail, Nero ruled against the Jews without any interference (2.284), just as the Jewish "open war" against Hyrcanus and his sons resulted simply from Jewish envy due to their successes (1.67). Josephus, in War, had no,compunctions about describing groups of Jews as envious troublemakers, just as the author of I Maccabees had no problem telling us about numerous wicked Jews.

23 E x c e p t t h a t I s u b s t i t u t e d " a n c e s t r a l " for M a r c u s ' " t h e i r c o u n t r y ' s " - j i a x p i w v EOCOV. ^'^ T r a n s . M a r c u s in L o e b e d i t i o n . T h e G r e e k d o e s n ' t actually m e n t i o n "officers", b u t xoug . . , KaOeaxanEVOvg definitely i m p l i e s t h e m . See, for e x a m p l e , Hannah Cotton, T h e G u a r d i a n ­ ship of J e s u s S o n of B a b a t h a . . . , in: J o u r n a l of R o m a n S t u d i e s 83 (1993) 9 5 , n. 9.

38

D a n i e l R. S c h w a r t z

Finally, note that diasporan historiography is always interested in claiming that respectable Gentiles, just as their kings, respect the Jews. Thus, according to II Maccabees (4:35-36,49), the Greeks of Antioch are terribly upset at the murder of Onias III and the Tyrians are upset at the maltreatment of the Jerusalemites, just as III Maccabees (3:8-10) has the Greeks of Alexandria upset at the way Ptolemy IV mistreats his Jewish subjects; correspondingly, while the Palestinian I Macca­ bees (3:41) has Gentile merchants flocking to join the invading Syrian army in the hope of getting Jewish slaves for cheap, II Maccabees (8:11) has them coming only upon the invitation of the Syrian general, Nicanor, who is the book's arch-villain. So too, Josephus, in Antiquities, is fond of pointing out Roman protection of the Jews; note the many documents collected in Books 14 and 16. Now, whatever the provenance of those documents^^, it is clear that Josephus' long account of Herod's successful intervention on behalf of the Jews of Ionia, found in Ant. 16.27-65, derives from the history of Nicolas of Damascus, who, as Herod's spokesman, played the central role in that story. And the point of the story is Roman defense of Jews against Greek hostility. Although he very obviously had Nicolas' work in front of him when writing War, Josephus skipped this story entirely, indicating how little he cared, then, about the status of Jewish commu­ nities in the diaspora, and how little he eared, then, to claim Roman benevolence. By the time he was writing Antiquities, and especially Contra Apionem, he was even happy to point out Greek malevolence, on the assumption that Roman scorn for the Greeks would make such Greek malevolence redound to the Jews' favor^^. Before concluding, I would revert to terms used at the outset of this paper and ask what the use of categorizing works as diasporan or non-diasporan is. I see two possible applications. First, in coming to evaluate historical questions we must be aware that a given claim, in one or the other of our sources, is to be understood as part of a larger complex of values. Focusing on "diasporan" vs. "non-diasporan" may bring us to see such larger complexes more clearly. Thus, for example, if we want to know whether the Jewish rebellions against Antiochus Epiphanes and John Hyrcanus derived from mere misunderstandings or from deepseated prob­ lems, or whether Jews killed priests of the opposing party in the midst of their ministrations at the altar in the summer of 63 BCE, or whether an unbribed Nero would or would not have ruled in favor of the Greeks of Caesarea, it is important to evaluate Josephus' evidence in light of this criterion. The second use of the diasporan criterion is composition-critical. Namely, focusing on this criterion can sensitize us to contexts within our sources, which at 25 See Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, G r e e k a n d R o m a n D o c u m e n t s f r o m R e p u b l i c a n T i m e s in t h e A n t i q u i t i e s : W h a t W a s J o s e p h u s ' S o u r c e ? , in: Scripta Ciassica Israelica 13 (1994) 4 6 - 5 9 . 26 O n J o s e p h u s ' R o m a n and a n t i - G r e e k p o s t u r i n g in Against Apion, see esp. Martin Good­ man, J o s e p h u s as a R o m a n C i t i z e n , in: Parente, Sievers ( a b o v e , n. 9) 3 3 4 - 3 3 5 ; idem. T h e R o m a n I d e n t i t y of R o m a n J e w s , in: T h e J e w s in t h e H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n W o r l d : Studies in M e m o r y of M e n a h e m Stern (ed. Isaiah M. Gafni, Aharon Oppenheimer a n d Daniel R. . 9 c ^ w a n z ; J e r u s a l e m 1996) 89='-93='-.

D i a s p o r a n 1 l i s t o r i o g r a p h y of t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e P e r i o d

39

times may turn out to bear witness to an involved editing process. Thus, for example, everyone knows that II Mace 10:1-8, on the dedication of the Temple and proclamation of the Hanukah festival, sdcks out like a sore thumb, interrupt­ ing between the death of Antiochus IV at the end of ch. 9 and "this, then, was the death of Antiochus" in 10:9. Moreover, it is evident that the cultic interest of these eight verses, which focus on the details of the Temple and its purificanon, is a crass departure from the usual in II Maccabees, which usually ignores such details; recall, for example, the contrast between the long and detailed list of Temple equipment in I Mace 1:21-23 and the mere "holy vessels" of II Mace 5:16. Hence, it is often suggested that these eight verses be viewed as secondary. The perspec­ tive emphasized in this paper buttresses this suggestion. For it can sensitize us to such issues as the way Gentiles are referred to, and hence lead us to note that it is only in this passage, but twice in it, that II Maccabees calls non-Jews 'aA,X,6(t)t)X,oi (w. 2,5), just as there is nothing else in the book which comes close to the charac­ terization of Gentiles, in v. 4, as "blasphemous and barbarous peoples". Just as much as the interest in the Temple cult, which we expect from a Jerusalemite and not from Jason of Gyrene or his (Alexandrian?) epitomator, such a way of refer­ ring to non-Jews is to be expected of Jews who talk among themselves: "goyyim", not "Gentiles". Indeed, 'aX,>.6(j)tjA,oi are as frequent in I Maccabees as is interest in the Temple cult. But to return to Josephus, here I will venture, finally, a suggestion that for him too, considerations such as ours may lead to composition-critical conclusions. And I will be adventurous enough to take quite a large and central example, namely, his account of the fall of Masada. This passage (^ar 7.252 ff.), one of the most famous in his work, is also quite a problematic one, in the context of War, for it expresses the wrong values. It portrays the Sicarii of Masada as heroes, although Josephus always condemns them terribly; and in particular it admires them for their fortitude in killing one another, although Josephus himself, at Jotapata, not only refused to do so but even brings long arguments in favor of that refusal {War 3 . 3 6 1 - 3 8 2 ) and considers it polluting to kill a fellow-Jew ( § 3 9 1 ) . Indeed, as we have seen, underhning the Jews' willingness to die for their religion is something typical of diasporan historiography. But diasporan historiography is something which we have found not so much in War as, especially, in Josephus' works of the nineties. Now, it is interesting that Thackeray - a great expert on Josephus' style - re­ marked that the Greek of War 7 differs from that of the rest of the work, remind­ ing him instead of that of Antiquities^^. More recently, Seth Schwartz argued that although the body of War was written in the seventies (as emerges esp. from Vita 361 ff. and Against Apion 1.50-51), at least the last sections of War 7 were written 27 H. St. John Thackeray, A n U n r e c o r d e d " A r a m a i s m " in J o s e p h u s , in: J o u r n a l of T h e o l o g i ­ cal S t u d i e s 30 ( 1 9 2 8 / 2 9 ) 3 6 5 ; idem, J o s e p h u s : T h e M a n a n d t h e H i s t o r i a n ( N e w Y o r k 1929) 3 5 . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , T h a c k e r a y d i d n o t offer a n y details, so w e c a n n o t k n o w if his i m p r e s s i o n related t o all of B o o k 7 or, p e r h a p s , t o a p a r t of it.

40

D a n i e l R. S c h w a r t z

in the nineties, as is shown by the fact that they relate to the death of their villain, Catullus (governor of Lybia), who - assuming he is to be identified with L. Vale­ rius Catullus Messalinus - died no earlier than 93 CE^^. To which we may add that the long and detailed table of contents supplied in War 1.19-29 stops short with Titus' triumph, which is described in detail in 7.123-162 - just before the narrative returns to Judaea, to the cleaning-up operations which culminated with the long Masada affair^'. Interim summary: the latter half of War 7 is missing from the work's table of contents and ends with a passage demonstrably added later than the rest of the work. This combines well with our opening point, that the story's attitude to the Sicarii differs from that of the rest of War, and that its attitude toward religious self-sacrifice corresponds more to what we would expect from Josephus' later works. What is important, here, is that another two more of our "diasporan" criteria converge in this final section of War 7. First, Cohen has noted that while Josephus condemned rebels in War 4-6 for violating the norms of society and cult, in War 7 he introduces "halachic" formulations which are typical oi Antiquities; note, for example. War 7.264^°. Second, we ourselves have shown that War 7 is similar to Antiquities but different from the rest of War in that it sanitizes/diasporizes a re­ ligious revolutionary, specifying that he and his foHowers were unarmed (7.440) and thus leaving the reader wondering why the Roman governor moved so force­ fully against them. Thus, this story reflects a diasporan focus upon law and a dias­ poran concern to separate religion and state, just as Antiquities frequently does in contrast to War^^. Given this accumulation of arguments, it seems that also the at­ titude toward self-sacrifice, with which we began, is to be understood as an ex­ pression of the point of view of the latter-day, diasporan, Josephus, and, therefore, joins the dossier of arguments for viewing the latter half of War 7 as secondary.

28 Seth Schwartz, T h e C o m p o s i t i o n and P u b l i c a t i o n of J o s e p h u s ' Bellum ludaicum B o o k 7, in: 1 l a r v a r d T h e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 79 (1986) 3 7 3 - 3 8 6 . 2 ' T r u e , j u s t b e f o r e t h e reference t o t h e t r i u m p h , in this t a b l e of c o n t e n t s , J o s e p h u s refers t o " h o w t h e R o m a n s c r u s h e d t h e last r e m n a n t s of t h e w a r a n d d e m o l i s h e d t h e local fortresses [ a n d j h o w T i t u s p a r a d e d t h e w h o l e c o u n t r y a n d r e s t o r e d o r d e r " {War 1.29, t r a n s . T h a c k e r a y in I . o c b e d i t i o n ) . It is n o t clear w h a t this refers t o ; t h e o n l y s u c h stories in War 7 c o m e after T i t u s ' t r i u m p h and h e is n o t involved in t h e m . In a n y case, it is difficult t o i m a g i n e t h a t t h e s e few w o r d s are m e a n t t o s u m m a r i z e such a l o n g n a r r a t i v e as t h a t o n M a s a d a , w h i c h takes u p a full t h i r d of B o o k 7. P r o b a b l y t h e y refer o n l y t o § § 1 6 3 - 2 1 8 , w h i c h i n c l u d e t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of s o m e fortresses and t h e r e s t o r a t i o n of o r d e r , a l t h o u g h n o t b y T i t u s . T h i s section e n d s w i t h a r o u n d s u m m a r y , " S u c h , t h e n , w e r e J u d a e a n affairs at this t i m e " , a n d n o o n e w o u l d b e s u r ­ p r i s e d if t h e b o o k e n d e d h e r e . All t h a t c o m e s after this p o i n t is a n a r r a t i v e o n C o m m a g e n e a n d t h e S c y t h i a n s (§§ 2 1 9 - 2 5 1 ) , w h i c h has little b u s i n e s s in a b o o k o n t h e J e w i s h W a r b u t d o e s have a Sitz im L e b e n in t h e nineties (see Schwartz, [ a b o v e , n. 28] 3 7 9 - 3 8 2 ) , t h e l o n g M a ­ sada n a r r a t i v e , a n d s o m e material o n L g y p t (§§ 4 0 7 ^ 5 5 ) w h i c h c o n c l u d e s w i t h t h e C a t u l l u s story. 30 Shaye J. D. Cohen, J o s e p h u s in Galilee a n d R o m e ( C o l u m b i a S t u d i e s in t h e Classical T r a d i t i o n 8; L e i d e n 1979) 8 7 - 8 8 . 3' See Schwartz, ( a b o v e , n. 11) 3 0 - 3 2 .

Martin

Hengel

D a s Johannesevangelium als Quelle fiir die Geschichte des antiken J u d e n t u m s Emil Schurer hat lebenslang seine ganze Arbeitskraft einem einzigen Werk gewidmet, seiner .Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi'', die von Auflage zu Auflage umfangreicher wurde. Daneben hat er nur - als Mitherausgeber der Theologischen Literaturzeitung - zahllose Rezensionen und einige wenige kleinere Studien verfafit, darunter auch eine heute noch lesenswerte .Ueber den gegenwartigen Stand der johanneischen Frage'^. Es handelt sich um einen Vortrag, den er vor Pfarrern gehalten hat. Schiirer kommt darin zu einer deutlichen Korrektur der alteren radikalen Johanneskritik eines Bretschneider und der Tiibinger Schule F.C. Baurs, die dem 4. Evangelisten „Unkenntnifi palastinensischer und jiidischer Dinge" vorwarfen, und daher seine palastinische, ja sogar seine jiidische Herkunft bezweifeltcn - eine Tendenz, die sich bis E. Hirsch und R. Bultmann fortsctzt^. In Wirklichkeit habe der Evangelist ,.eine gute Renntnis der jiidischen Dinge" besessen. Daher werde ..auch von den Gegncrn der Echtheit mehr und mehr fiir wahrscheinlich erklart, daf5 er jiidischer Herkunft war, wenn auch nicht palastinisch-jiidischer, so doch hellenistisch-judischer Herkunft". Entsprechend meint Schurer selbst, ,.daf5 der Verfasser des vierten F>angeliums ein Mann von griechischer Bildung war", dafi jedoch ..diese Bildung die des hellenistischen Ju-

' D i e 1. Auflage 1874 enschien n o c h in e i n e m B a n d , die 3. b z w . 4. in 3 B a n d e n m i t e i n e m R e g i s t e r b a n d 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 1 1 , s. d a z u M. Hengel, D e r alte u n d d e r n e u e Schiirer. in: JSS 35.1 (1990) 1 9 - 7 2 . S. j e t z t die vollig i i b e r a r b e i t e t e e n g l i s c h e A u s g a b e : T h e H i s t o r y of t h e J e w i s h P e o p l e in t h e A g e of J e s u s C h r i s t , revised a n d edited b y G. Vermes, F. Millar..., Vol. I (1973); II (1979); 111,1 (1986); 111,2 (1987) (Vol. I I I . l u. 2 m i t M. Goodman). 2 In: V o r t r a g e d e r t h e o l o g i s c h e n K o n f e r e n z zu Giefien. g e h a l t e n a m 2 0 . J u n i 1889 (V. F o l g e ) Giefien 1889) 2 8 - 7 3 . N a c h g e d r u c k t in: K. H. Rengstorf ( H r s g . ) , J o h a n n e s u n d sein E v a n g e l i u m (Wege d e r F o r s c h u n g L X X X I I , D a r m s t a d t 1973) 1-27. S. d a z u K. H. Rengstorf S . X V I I f . d e r m i t R c c h t h e r v o r h e b t . dafi S c h u r e r „ g e r a d e als n e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e r E x e g e t sich in e r s t e r L i n i e als H i s t o r i k e r v e r s t a n d e n h a t " . 3 O p . c i t . 6 7 f = Rengstorf, 19; E. Hirsch, d a s vierte E v a n g e l i u m in seiner u r s p r i i n g l i c h e n G e stalt v e r d e u t s c h t u n d e r k l a r t ( T i i b i n g e n 1946) 7 5 , v e r m u t e t e i n e n h e i d e n c h r i s t l i c h e n G r i e ­ c h e n aus A n t i o c h i e n . d e r „ n a c h 70 eine Reise ins H e i l i g e L a n d " m a c h t e . R. Bultmann, ^RGG 3,849 d e n k t g a n z genereil an eine H e r k u n f t d e s W e r k e s aus e i n e m s y n k r e t i s t i s c h e n s y r i s c h c n Milieu u n d v e r w e i s t d a b e i auf die - m . E . r u n d 100 J a h r e s p a t e r e n - O d e n S a l o m o s u n d auf I g n a t i u s , d e r k i r c h e n p o l i t i s c h eine e t w a s s p a t e r e S i t u a t i o n v o r a u s s e t z t .

42

Martin Hengel

dentums" gewescn sei, „in der Form, wie es besonders durch Philo reprasentiert ist", und dafi er daher nicht mit dem Zebedaiden, der einstmals ein galilaischer Fi­ scher gewesen sei, identisch sein konne'*. Nun hat sich Schiirer bei dem Vergleich mit Philo sicher auf die falsche F'ahrte bcgeben. Zwischen dem hochgebildeten Religionsphilosophen aus Alexandricn, Bruder des jiidischen Rothschild seiner Zeit, und dem Evangelisten besteht in Stil und philologischer Bildung ein tiefer Graben, den auch der den Prolog beherrschende Eogos als Schopfungs- und Offenbarungsmittler nicht iiberbriicken kann. Was Sprache und Stil betrifft, so hat bereits A. Schlatter in seiner noch heute gtiltigen Untersuchung ,Die Sprache und I leimat des vierten Evangelisten'^ den richtigen Weg gewiesen, und die Qumrantexte haben weitere grundlegende Ubereinstimmungen aufgezeigt. Schon Schlat­ ter machte u. a. darauf aufmerksam, dafi griechische Bildung ca. 360 Jahre nach Alexander d.Gr auch im jiidischen Palastina langst zuhause war, auch ich selbst glaube, in zahlreichen Untersuchungen diesen Punkt hinlanglich geklart zu haben. Der lange Zeit iiberbetonte grundsatzliche Gegensatz zwischen dem Ju­ dentum des Mutterlandes und dem hellenistischen" der Diaspora ist inzwischen weitgehend relativiert worden. Damit stofien wir auf einen zweiten Punkt von grundsatzlicher Bedeutung, der zeigt, wie sehr sich die Forschungslagc seit den Tagen Schtirers geandert hat. Wenn der Autor des 4. Evangeliums ein aus Palastina stammender Jude war, dann erhalt dasselbe einen neuen, bisher zu wenig beachteten Quellenwert. Dies gilt zugleich auch fiir zahlreiche andere neutestamentliche Schriften. Denn dafi das Neue Testa­ ment ohne die Kenntnis der zeitgenossischen jiidischen Geschichte und Religion historisch weithin unverstandlich bleibt, wird heute kaum mehr bestritten. Dafi es jedoch umgekehrt selbst eine wichtige Quelle fiir die Erforschung des Judentums seiner Zeit darstellt, wird erst allmahlich erkannt. Dabei denkt man in erster Linie an die synoptisehen Evangelien mit ihrem galilaischen Lokalkolorit, an die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, die eine erste Missionsgeschichte der neuen messianischen Bewegung darstellt, oder an die Briefe des chemaligen pharisaischen Schriftgelehrten Paulus. Daft aber das Johannesevangelium, das im Rahmen der vier kanonischen Evangelien zeitlich und sachlich am weitesten vom historischen Jesus entfernt ist, als Quelle fiir das Judentum des 1. Jahrhunderts in Frage kommt, wird bis heute kaum erwogen. Veroffentlicht wurde das Evangelium sicher nicht vor dem Ende des 1. Jahrhunderts im wcstlichen Kleinasicn, wo es schon im 2. Jahr­ hundert seine starkste Wirkung entfaltete. Sein Autor, ein iiberragender Lehrer, der dort eine Schule oder Gemeinde griindete, bleibt bewufSt in einem eigenartigen Halbdunkel, das mehr verhullt als sichtbar werden lafit. M. E. steht hinter ihm der „Altc Johannes" des Papias, den dieser als „Herrenjiinger" bezeichnet und haufig als Traditionstrager zitiert. Papias war z.Zt. Hadrians Bischof von Hierapolis in Phrygien. Der „Alte" ist Autor des 2. und 3. Johannesbriefs und be­ zeichnet sich selbst als „6 JtpEoPiJxepog", was dem palastinischen Ehrennamen •* O p . c i t . 6 8 - 7 0 = Rengstorf, 20 f. 5 B F C T h 6 (1902) H e f t 4, a b g e d r u c k t in: K. H. Rengstorf,

( A n m . 2) 2 8 - 2 0 1 .

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir d i e G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

43

„haz-zaqen" entsprechen mag. Er selbst konnte wiederum ein Schuler des Zebe­ daiden gewesen sein - aber bier bewegen wir uns schon auf historisch relativ unsicherem Boden^. Das Evangelium hat im Grunde genommen nur ein Thema: die Christologie. Diesem Thema von der Sendung des praexistenten Gottessohnes in die Welt, der Glauben wirkt und ewiges Leben schenkt, ist alles andere untergcordnet. Der Stil ist einheitlich wie bei kaum einem anderen antiken Autor, fast bis zur Monotonie. Keine neutestamentliche Schrift hat, gemessen am Gesamtumfang, einen so begrenzten Wortschatz^. Der historische Gehalt des Werkes im Blick auf den wirklichen Jesus der Geschichte ist - ich sage es vorsichtig - umstritten. Wahrend Her­ der und Schleiermacher unter dem Vorzeichen des deutschen Idealismus seinen historischen Wert sehr hoch einschatzten - fiir Schleiermachers Leben Jesu war es die wichtigste Quelle -, hat der junge Stiftsrepetent David Friedrich Straufi seinen Geschichtswert radikai bestritten und damit den Apfel der Eris unter die Theologen des 19. Jahrhunderts geworfen. Seine radikale historische Kritik hat sich in der Forschung seither weitgehend durchgesetzt. Als Beispiel sei nur das Urteil eines genialen Altphilologen und Historikers, Eduard Schwartz, zitiert**: „Eins nimmt den... Blick sofort gefangen und iiberwiegt zunachst jede andere Wirkung: die Riicksichtslosigkeit, mit der der iiberlieferte Stoff gestaltet wird, die ungeheure Kiihnheit der Erfindung, die nichts unangctastet lafit— Ein gewaltsam concipierender, hochst individueller Dichter treibt sein Wesen, der von den dpetai seines Gottes ein ganz neues Lied anzustimmen sich unterfangt." - „Er mufi in einer Zeit geschrieben haben, die von den Anfangen schon reeht weit ablag, und doch noch so friih, dafi er es wagcn konnte, die synoptische Ueberlieferung bei Seite zu schieben und die Gottliehkeit Jesu in eine Poesie eigener Art, frei von dogmatischer Gebundenheit, umzusetzcn." So konnte das Evangelium auf einen kritischen Leser wirken. Und doch kann man gerade dieses Evangelium nicht mit der Willkiir der spate­ ren apokryphen Evangelien und Apostelromane in alien historischen Fragen vergleichen, es enthalt, nicht weniger als die Synoptiker - den ..Historiker" Lukas mit eingeschlossen -, zahlreiche Hinweise, die z.T. fast schlaglichtartig konkrete Punkte der jiidischen Geschichte im Muttcrland beleuchten, in Geographic, Festzeiten, Gebrauchen und einzelnen Personen - Punkte, die von der kritischen For­ schung, welchc lange Zeit das Evangelium vornehmlich mit dem hellenistischen Synkretismus oder gar der Gnosis verbinden wollte, in der Kegel zu wenig beachtet worden sind. Im folgenden wollen wir uns unter Zuriickstellung der religionsgeschichtlichen Fragestellung auf einige dieser historischen Details konzentrieren, die m.E. unubersehbar auf die palastinische Herkunft des Evangelisten hinweisen und datum indirekt auch fiir seine theologische Interpretation bedeutsam sind. 6 S. d a z u M. Hengel, A p o k a l y p s e v o n Jorg 7 Dies erinnert etwas 8 Aporien im vierten

D i e j o h a n n e i s c h e F r a g e . E i n L o s u n g s v e r s u c h . M i t e i n e m Beitrag z u r Frey, in: W U N T 67 (1993). an d i e s t e r e o t y p e S p r a c h e d e r K e r n s c h r i f t e n d e r Q u m r a n e s s e n e n E v a n g e l i u m IV, i n : N G W G (1908) 557f.

44

Martin Hengel

Wegen der Beschrankung in Zeit und Raum kann ich freilich nur wenige Punkte herausgreifen, die hinsichtlich unserer Kenntnis des palastinischen Juden­ tums im 1. Jahrhundert einen gewissen historischen „Mehrwert" besitzen und nicht nur fur das Evangelium selbst von Interesse sind. Dabei ist zu bedenken, daf? man Historic und Religion im antiken Judentum nicht streng trennen kann.

1. Zur Geographic 1.1. Joh 4,5: Sychar und die

Samaritaner^

Der Evangelist folgt im Groben dem synoptisehen Schema Galilaa - Jerusalem, doch auf ganz eigenwillige Weise: Er berichtet nicht nur von einer, sondern von drei Festreisen aus Galilaa in die Heilige Stadt, wobei der Schwerpunkt des Aufenthalts Jesu dort, und - im Gegensatz zu Mk und Mt - nicht mehr in der jiidi­ schen Nordprovinz liegt'°. Dazwischen befindet sich Samarien, das durchwandert werden mufi (4,4: e8ei 8 e a i i T o v 6tEpx£oGai 8id x f j g S a ^ a p E i a g ) , an welchem der Evangelist (wie schon vor ihm Eukas) besonderes Interesse hat". Jesus kommt von Judaa, d.h. vom Siiden her (4,3) zu „einer samaritanischen Stadt mit dem Namen Sychar" ( E 1 5 Kokiv x f j g S a p i a p E i a g X,EYO(tevTiv S t j / d p ) . Die altsyrischen (jbersetzungen lesen sechim und meinen damit das altisraelitische Sh'^kem, LXX llvx£\i oder grazisiert S i K i f t a , das die Samaritaner nach der Zerstorung Samarias durch Alexander d.Gr 331 zu ihrem Hauptort machten, der heutige Tell halata, unmittelbar am nordlichen Fufi des den Samaritanern heiligen Berges Garizim gelegen. Hieronymus deutete die Namensveranderung von Sychem in Sychar mehrfach als Kopierfehler eines Schreibers'^. Aber diese Gleichsetzung, die die Auslegung bis ins 19., ja ins

' S. d a z u die grofien K o m m e n t a r e v o n Th. Zahn, C. K. Barrett, R. E. Brown, R. Schnackenhurg; w e i t e r B. Schwank, D a s E v a n g e l i u m n a c h J o h a n n e s (St. O t t i l i e n 1996) 128f.; G. Dalman, O r t e u n d W e g e J e s u ( t l 9 2 4 , N D D a r m s t a d t 1967) 2 2 6 - 2 2 9 ; K. Knudsin, T o p o l o g i s c h e U b e d i e f e r u n g s s t o f f e im J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m , in: F R L A N T 39 (1925) 2 7 - 3 0 ; C. Kopp, D i e heiligen Statten d e r E v a n g e l i e n ( R e g e n s b u r g 1959) 1 9 6 - 2 1 1 ; H.-M. .^c^ew^e, J a k o b s b r u n n e n - J o s e p h s g r a b - Sychar. T o p o g r a p h i s c h e U n t e r s u c h u n g e n . . . , in: Z D P V 84 (1968) 1 5 9 - 1 8 4 (181 ff.): die w i c h t i g s t e U n t e r s u c h u n g z u r Sache; ferner H. G. Kippenherg, Garizim und S y n a g o g e , in: R W 30 (1971) 87, 94f., 109, 116ff.; M. Hengel, D e r H i s t o r i k e r L u k a s u n d die G e o g r a p h i c Palastinas in d e r A p o s t e l g c s c h i c h t e , in: Z D P V 99 (1983) 1 4 7 - 1 8 3 ( 1 7 5 - 1 8 2 ) ; W. D. Davies, T h e G o s p e l a n d t h e L a n d (Berkeley etc. 1974) 2 9 8 - 3 0 2 . '0 I t i n e r a r i u m B u r d i g a l e n s e , C C S L 175,13. D e u t s c h e U b e r s e t z u n g m i t k u r z e m K o m m e n t a r bei H. Donner, Pilgerfahrt ins H e i l i g e L a n d . D i e altesten B e r i c h t c c h r i s t l i c h e r P a l a s t i n a p i l g e r ( 1 . - 7 . J a h r h u n d e r t ) ( G u t e r s l o h 1979) 2 f. " L k / A p g h a t die W o r t g r u p p e „Samarien, Samariter, S a m a r i t e r i n " l l m a l , J o h 9 m a l , M k gar n i c h t u n d M t n u r in d e r n e g a t i v e n A u s s a g e 10,5. D a s w e i s t auf tiefere G e g e n s a t z e in d e n E v a n g e l i e n hin, w a s d a s I n t e r e s s e an d e n S a m a r i t a n e r n betrifft. L k s c h e i n t hier als N i c h t - P a lastiner m i t d e r G e o g r a p h i c des L a n d e s w e n i g e r v e r t r a u t zu sein als J o h , vgl. 17,11. 12 H e b r . q u a e s t . in G e n 48,22 = C C S L 72 1,1,52 A u t i n = L a g a r d e , p . 66, 7 - 1 0 ; L i b . interpr.

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

45

20. Jahrhundert hinein beherrschte'^, lafit sich weder historisch noch auf Grund der Ortsiiberlieferung halten. Denn schon der Pilger aus Bordeaux nennt geographisch sehr prazise ,,1000 Doppelschritte (von Sechim = am Fufie des Garizim) entfernt" einen „Ort namens Sechor, von dem aus die Samaritanerin zu der Statte hinabstieg, an der Jakob den Brunnen gegraben hatte, um Wasser daraus zu schopfen". Weiter bezeugt das Onomastikon Eusebs deutlich den Unterschied beider Orte''*. Nach Euseb liegt Sychar „vor Neapohs" als ein selbstandiger, bewohnter Ort. Sychem, die Stadt Jakobs (Gen 34), befindet sich zwar auch in unmittelbarer Nahe derselben Stadt (ev jtpoaoxEioig Neac, jr6X,ecog), ist aber jetzt unbewohnt (vCv epTKiog). Schliefilich unterscheidct auch die Madaba-Karte deudich zwischen den drei Orten: Sie nennt Neapohs, ,Sychar, das jetzt (As)chora (genannt wird)' und ,Sychem, das auch Sikima (genannt wird) und Salem''^. Die samaritanische Metropole Sichem wurde namlich ca. 128 v.Chr (bzw. sicher vor 107 v. Chn) durch den hasmonaischen Hohenpriester Johannes Hyrkan I. vermutlich zusam­ men mit dem samaritanischen Konkurrenzheiligtum, einer Art Tempelstadt auf dem Garizim, zerstort'^ und blieb eine weitgehend unbewohnte Triimmerstatte mit einzelnen sparlichen und in ihrer Beurteilung umstrittenen Besiedlungsspuren'''. Nach der Eroberung Jerusalems griindete Vespasian, der die Samaritaner bestraft hatte, die sich 67 n. Chn ebenfalls gegen die romische Herrschaft emporten'^, ca. 72/73 n.Chr die Veteranenkolonie Flavia Neapolis an der Stelle eines alteren Dorfes Mabartha ca. 2,5 km nordwestlich von Tell Balata in der Senke zwi­ schen dem Berg Garizim im Siidosten und dem Ebal im Nordosten. Der Name dieser Neugriindung hat sich im heutigen Nablus erhalten". Sychar, ca. 3 km ostlich von Neapolis und ca. 1,2 km nordostlich vom Tell Balata, war sehr wahrscheinlich der Hauptort der Samaritaner seit ihrer Befreiung von der jiidischen Oberherrschaft nach der Eroberung Jerusalems durch Pomhebr. n o m . op.cit 142 = L a g a r d e 66,10; ep. 108 E p i t a p h i u m S. P a u l a e , c. 13 ed. L a b o u r t 5, 173f '3 S. z . B . T h e o p h y l a k t o s , P G 123,1229; Hugo Grotius, a n n o t . in Nov.Test.; A. Bengel, G n o ­ m o n ; / . Wettstein ( m i t iiberfliefiender G e l e h r s a m k e i t ) ; W. M. L. de Wette, K u r z e E r k l a r u n g des E v a n g e l i u m s u n d d e r Briefe J o h a n n i s , 1837, jeweils z u J o h 4,5. S. h e u t e n o c h Davies, ( A n m . 9) 2 9 8 f ; Raymond E. Brown, T h e G o s p e l a c c o r d i n g t o J o h n , I - X I I (1966) 169; Schwank, ( A n m . 9) 128 f u . a . 1* E d . E Klostermann, G C S 11,1 (1904) ( N D H i l d e s h e i m 1966) 164,1: S v x a p t p o zx\c, N e a g J i o t e o g , vgl. Z . 11 f, u n d z u 150,1 f vgl. 54,23 f '5 H. Donner, T h e M o s a i c M a p of M a d a b a . A n I n t r o d u c t o r y G u i d e ( K a m p e n 1992) 47—49. D a n e b e n w e r d e n n o c h das G r a b J o s e p h s ostlich v o n Sichem u n d die J a k o b s q u e l l e (Joh 4,5f) erwahnt. "> Schiirer, H i s t o r y of t h e J e w i s h P e o p l e ( w i e A n m . 1) I (1973) 2 0 7 . '7 A u c h d e r Pilger v o n B o r d e a u x s p r i c h t bei Sichem n i c h t v o n einer S i e d l u n g , s o n d e r n sagt n u r : i n d e ad p e d e m m o n t i s ipsius (= g a z a r e n / G a r i z i m ) locus est cui n o m e n est Sechin, s . o . A n m . 13. Z u Sichem s. n o c h A. D. Crown et al, A C o m p a n i o n t o S a m a r i t a n Studies ( T i i b i n ­ gen 1993) 218 f., e t w a s u n k l a r f o r m u l i e r t ( m i t L i t e r a t u r a n g a b e n ) ; H. M. Schenke, ( A n m . 9) 181 z u r A r c h a o l o g i e : „Auf d e m Tell B a l a t a fand sich s o g u t w i e n i c h t s R o m i s c h e s m e h r . " 18 J o s . bell. 3 , 3 0 7 - 3 1 5 . J o s . bell. 7,3; Plin. maior, n. h . 5,69. Schiirer, l , 2 0 f ; 2,40; 183.

46

Martin Hengel

peius 63 v.Chr. und bis zu seiner Verdrangung durch das mehr und mehr von Sa­ maritanern besiedelte Neapohs etwa seit dem 3./4. Jahrhundert n.Chr Das sama­ ritanische Ethnos benotigte ja auf die Dauer ein politisches Zentrum, und dies wurde wohl zunachst das E)orf Sychar am siidostlichen Fufie bzw. am unteren Hang des EbaP*^, das einen schonen Blick auf den stidwestlich gelegenen heiligen Berg der Samaritaner, den Garizim, bietet. Dafi das unbefestigte Dorf als k6X[.c, be­ zeichnet wird, entspricht - so zu Recht R. Bultmann im Anschlufi an A. Schlatter - „palastinischer Redeweise"^'. 1973 entdeckte man in Sychar/Askar ein in den Fufi des Ebal gehauenes Mau­ soleum aus dem Ende des 2. bzw. Anfang des 3. Jahrhunderts mit insgesamt 10 Sarkophagen und griechischen Inschriftcn offenbar von einer vornehmen samari­ tanischen Familie mitfigurativerAusschmiickung in jiidischcm Stil im Gegensatz zu dem in Neapolis ublichen paganen S y n k r e t i s m u s 2 2 . Spater in byzantinischer Zeit wurde aber dann doch Neapolis zum samaritanischen Hauptort. F-ine sama­ ritanische Synagogeninschrift aus Thessalonich aus dem 4.Jahrhundert n.Chr, die den griechischen Priestersegen Nu 6,22-27 in der Fassung der „samaritanischen LXX" enthalt, schliefit mit der Bitte "Av^i NeanoXic, \iexa xwv qpi)iOi)VTa)v ai)Tr|v23. Nach der Vita Isidori des Damascius war der neuplatonische Philosoph Marinus abgefallener Samaritaner aus Neapohs, „das bei dem Argarizon genannten Berge liegt". Damascius habe hinzugefiigt, daf5 „auf diesem der allerheiligste Tempel des Zeus Hypsistos sei, den Abraham geweiht habe, der Stammvater der Hebraer der alten Zeit"^'*. Johannes ist der erste antike Autor uberhaupt, der Sychar/Askar, diese „Zwischcnstation der samaritanischen Geschichte", erwahnt, er bezeichnet den Ort als noXiq TTjg Sajtapeiag, seine Bewohner, die seiner Auskunft nach auf Grund des Zeugnisses der Samaritanerin in grofier Zahl zum Glauben kommen, genereil als „oiSa[xaptTat" (4,40), d.h. sie vertreten paradigmatisch das ganze samaritanische Ethnos. Diese Haretiker sind fiir ihn das Gegenbeispicl der Jesu Verkiindigung eher widerstrebenden Juden und weisen indirekt auf die erfolgreiche kiinftige Heidenmission hin^s. 2" „ S y c h a r / ' A s k a r mufi in r o m i s c h e r Zeit, v o r allem n a c h d e r Z e r s t o r u n g S i c h e m s ( 1 2 8 - 1 0 7 V. C h r . ) u n d v o r d e r G r i i n d u n g v o n N e a p o l i s (72 n. C h n ) , eine z i e m l i c h grofie u n d b e d e u t e n d e , u n b e f e s t i g t e u n d d a r u m breit angelegte O r t s c h a f t g e w e s e n sein, d i e an A u s d e h n u n g v e r m u t l i c h grofier w a r als d a s e h e m a l s befestigte S i c h e m . " (Schenke, [ A n m . 9] 182). 21 K E K 11 (1950)129, A n m . 4. 22 /. A. Damati, A R o m a n M a u s o l e u m at ' A s k a r , in: Q a d m o n i o t 6 (1974) 1 1 8 - 1 2 0 ( H e b r . ) ; Vgl. Z. Yevin, in: R B 81 (1974) 97 pi. X I I / X I I I ( U n w a h r s c h e i n l i c h ist hier freilich die B e m e r k u n g d e s A u s g r a b e r s , dafi die v o r n e h m c Familie in Sichem w o h n t e , e h e r k o n n t e m a n an N e a ­ polis d e n k e n ) ; JV. Schur, H i s t o r y of t h e S a m a r i t a n s , in: B E A T 18 (1992) 78. 23 B. Lifshitz, L Schihy, U n e s y n a g o g u e S a m a r i t a i n e a T h e s s a l o n i q u e , in: R B 75 (1968) 3 6 8 374; s. a u c h R. Pummer, in: A. D. Crown, T h e S a m a r i t a n s ( T u b i n g e n 1989) 1 4 8 - 1 5 0 . 2'' D a m a s c i i vitae I s i d o r i reliquiae, ed. C. Zintzen ( H i l d e s h e i m 1967) 196 § 141 = M. Stern, G L A J J II, 673 ff. N r . 548. D a m a s c i u s lebte z u B e g i n n d e s 6. J a h r h u n d e r t s . E r identifiziert d e n v o n H a d r i a n e r b a u t e n Z e u s t e m p e l auf e i n e m B c r g v o r s p r u n g d e s G a r i z i m m i t d e m alten H e i l i g t u m d e r Samaritaner, s. M. Mor, in: Crown, ( A n m . 23) 2 8 . 25 Vgl. 4,9.22 u n d 8,44.

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

47

Ca. 800 m siidlich des Dorfes liegt der gegen 30 m tiefe Jakobsbmnnen, der ebenfalls von Johannes erstmals erwahnt wird und dann ganz selbstverstandlich als traditioneller heiliger Ort in den Pilgerberichten wieder erscheint^''. Die Sama­ ritanerin sucht ihn zu ungewohnlicher Zeit am Mittag auf, um Wasser zu schopfen, obwohl Sychar eine eigene Quelle besitzt. Das mag geschicktes erzahlerisehes Arrangement sein, denn so kommt sie mit dem von der Wanderung ermatteten Jesus ins Gesprach. Tatsachlich teilt sich an eben jener Stelle der aus Jerusalem oder aus dem Jordantal nach Norden fuhrende Wanderweg. Der eine fiihrt iiber Tell Balata und Sebaste, die von Herodes neugegriindcte alte hellcnistisch-heidnische Polls, nach Nordwesten und dann nach Norden in Richtung Mittelgahlaa (Nazareth und Kana), der andere an Sychar vorbei in Richtung Nordosten iiber Skythopolis/Beth-Shean nach Ostgalilaa und den See Genezareth. Nach Dalman hatte darum der schon vom Pilger von Bordeaux bezeugte Jakobsbrunnen „den Charakter eines Strafienbrunncns, der dem Vorteil der Reisenden dient"^^. Es han­ delt sich hier fast um so etwas wie eine Pilgerstation auf dem Wege von Galilaa nach Jerusalem und umgekehrt. Der Ort Sychar erscheint erst wieder in der Mischna um 200 n.Chr Der Traktat Menachot 10,2 erwahnt friihreifenden vorziiglichen Weizen, der einmal als Omergabe dargebracht wurde, aus einer Ebene der Quelle Socher (biq'at 'en Soker oder Sukar), d. h. aus der fruchtbaren und quellenreichen Talebene, die sich siidlich und ostlich von Sychar erstreckt - moglicherweise ist damit der Jakobsbrunnen gemeint. Spatere Belege crwahnen die Quelle, die Ebene und einen regenreichen Ort ^Askarot, der wohl mit der Ebene identisch ist^^. In den spatantiken und mittelaherlichen samaritanischen Traditionen und Quellen tragt der Ort den Namen 'Askar oder 'Askor, im heutigen arabischen Dorf 'Askor hat sich dieser Name crhalten. Interessant ist die von Abu'l Path, dem samaritanischen Chronisten des 14. Jahrhunderts, iiberlieferte Nachricht, dafi Dusis (Dositheos), eine sagenhafte eschatologische Propheten- oder Offenbarergestalt der Samaritaner aus dem 1. Jahrhundert n.Chr, vom Judentum zu den Samaritanern konvertierte und Vertrauter des samaritanischen Weisen Yahdi in 'Askar wurde, den er dann zur Haresie verfiihrte^'. 26 Kopp, ( A n m . 9) 200f. Dafi d e r . J a k o b s b r u n n e n " in j u d i s c h e n Q u e l l e n als s o l c h e r n i c h t er­ w a h n t w i r d , m a g d a m i t z u s a m m c n h a n g e n , dafS er v o n d e n S a m a r i t a n e r n b e a n s p r u c h t w u r d e . 27 O r t e u n d W e g e J e s u (1924, N D D a r m s t a d t 1967) 2 2 9 . Z u S y c h a r s. 226 ff. 28 G. Reeg, D i e O r t s n a m e n n a c h d e r r a b b i n i s c h e n L i t e r a t u r , B T A V O , B51 (1989) 4 8 0 f., 147.52 f.;s. a u c h Billerbeck, 2 , 4 3 1 ; Dalman, ( A n m . 9) 2 2 6 f. 2'' E n g l . U b e r s e t z u n g bei S. I. Isser, T h e D o s i t h e a n s . A S a m a r i t a n Sect in L a t e A n t i q u i t y , in: S J L A 17 ( L e i d e n 1976) 77 f., 157f. S. a u c h I. M. Cohen, A S a m a r i t a n C h r o n i c l e . A S o u r c e C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s of t h e Life a n d T i m e s of t h e G r e a t S a m a r i t a n R e f o r m e r , B a b a R a b b a h , in: S P B 30 ( L e i d e n 1984); § 8,13 p . 18: qrjt ' s k w r U s . p . 7 1 ; § 9,9 p . 20 U s . p . 7 3 : v o n ' A s k a r bis T i ­ berias; § 11,12 p . 2 5 : h r ' s k w r U s . p . 73 = B e r g E b a l : § 20,12 p . 46 U s . p . 99: Sieg Babas u b e r die R o m e r bei ' A s k a r . (In W i r k l i c h k e i t e n d e t e d e r A u f s t a n d des s a m a r i t a n i s c h e n „ K 6 n i g s " Julian o s 529 m i t einer v e r n i c h t e n d e n N i e d e r l a g e . ) D a s s y r i s c h e ' a s k a r h a t die B e d e u t u n g v o n H e e r ( l a g e r ) . Sollte dies d e r u r s p r i i n g l i c h e Sinn d e s O r t s n a m e n s g e w e s c n sein: „ H e e r l a g e r " ( d e r S a m a r i t a n e r nach W i c d c r g e w i n n u n g i h r e r S e l b s t a n d i g k c i t , d a die R o m e r i h n e n z u n a c h s t

48

Martin Hengel

Eine rabbinische Parahelc zeigt, dafi der Dialog Jesu mit der Samaritanerin mit Berg Garizim, auf dem die Samaritaner bis heute ihre religiosen Feste, wie etwa das Passafest, feiern, fast so etwas wie ein Topos war Die Frau aus Sychar spricht Jesus auf die religiosen Unterschiede an: „Unsere Vater haben auf diesem Berge angebetet. Ihr aber sagt, dafi in Jerusalem der Ort ist, an dem man anbeten soil." Jesus antwortet zunachst, dafi man den Vater in Zukunft weder an diesem noch an jenem Ort anbeten soli, fiigt aber dann doch kri­ tisch differenzierend hinzu: „Ihr betet an, was ihr nicht kennt, wir beten an, was wir kennen, denn das Heil kommt von den Juden" (4,20-22). Trotz seiner heftigen Polemik gegen die „'Iot)8atot" lafit hier der Evangelist Jesus ein Bekenntnis zu seinem Judentum ablegen. In den rabbinischen Texten finden wir zahlreiche polemische Auseinandersetzungen zwischen rabbinischen Lehrern und „Kuthim", dem jiidischen Ausdruck fur die samaritanischen ,Schismatiker'^o. Dafiir ein Bei­ spiel: Der tannaitische Lehrer R. Jishmael b. Jose (ca. 180 n.Chr) „ging hinauf, um in Jerusalem anzubeten, er kam an diesem ,Palatinus'5i vorbei, wo ihn ein Samari­ taner (smrjj) sah, der zu ihm sagte: Wo gehst du hin? Er antwortete ihm: Ich gehe hinauf, um in Jerusalem anzubeten. Jener sagte zu ihm: Ware es nicht besser fiir dich, auf diesem gesegneten Berge anzubeten^^ und nicht an jenem Misthaufen (d.h. an dem zerstorten Tempel auf dem Zion in Jerusalem)? Er (R. Jishmael) ant­ wortete: Ich werde dir sagen, wem ihr gleicht: einem Hunde, der nach Aas giert, weil ihr wifit, dafi Gotzenbilder unter ihm verborgen sind, (denn es heifit): „Und Jakob verbarg sie" (d. h. die fremden Gotter etc. unter der Eiche in Sichem, Gen 35,4). Darum giert ihr nach ihnen." Da die Samaritaner Rabbi Jishmael - nach die­ sem Angriff, der sie als Gotzendiener, d. h. als Heiden, diffamiert, verstandlicherweise - nach dem Leben trachten, flieht er in der Nacht^^. dem Blick auf den Heiligen

n i c h t g e s t a t t e t e n , S i c h e m w i e d e r a u f z u b a u e n ) ? D a s ' A j i n hat sich d a n n , w i e s o oft, in ein 'Alef verwandelt. 30 W i r b e s i t z e n einen k u r z e n „ a u f i e r k a n o n i s c h e n " T a l m u d t r a k t a t , K u t h i m ' , d e r auf die Z e i t v o r d e m 3. J a h r h u n d e r t z u r i i c k g e h t , als die S a m a r i t a n e r n o c h nicht einfach als H e i d e n b e t r a c h t e t w u r d e n . E n g l i s c h e U b e r s e t z u n g : T h e M i n o r Tractates of t h e T a l m u d , ed. A. Cohen, ( L o n d o n 1965) 2 , 6 1 5 - 1 8 . 3' p l t n w s : d . h . d e r G a r i z i m als m o n s P a l a t i n u s d e r Samaritaner, s.Jastrow, D i e t . 1180. D e r N a m e d e s B e r g e s G a r i z i m w i r d bewufSt v e r m i e d e n u n d u m s c h r i e b e n , s o z . T . s c h o n i m AT. 32 Vgl. D t n 11,29; 27,12, s. Billerbeck, 1, 550. 33 G e n R 1,8 ( p . 974 = 81,4: Theodor, Alheck); v e r k u r z t e Parallelc j A Z 5,44d,41 ff m i t d e r O r t s a n g a b e Neapolis, im Kontext weitere Samaritanerkontroversen, z.B. 44d,35, w o der Z e i t g e n o s s e R. J i s h m a e l s , R. S c h i m o n b . Elazar, „in eine S t a d t d e r S a m a r i t a n e r h i n e i n g i n g " u n d e i n e n d o r t i g e n Schriftgelehrtcn um etwas zu trinken bittet, vgl. J o h 4,7. ( D e u t s c h e U b e r ­ s e t z u n g v o n G. A. Wevers, A v o d a Z a r a , G o t z e n d i e n s t , U s . d. T a l m u d Yer. IV,7 ( T i i b i n g e n 1980) 159-162.). S. a u c h Billerbeck, I, 549 ff; d o r t w e i t e r e Parallelen, z. B. z u d e r o b e n zitier­ t e n A n e k d o t e a u s G e n R 81 n o c h G e n R 32,10 (p. 2 9 6 f = 32,19: Theodor, Alheck), w o d e r s e l b e V o r g a n g R. J o n a t h a n b . E l a z a r ( u m 220) z u g e s c h r i e b e n w i r d , d i e D i s k u s s i o n sich j e d o c h a n d e r s e n t w i c k e l t : D e r S a m a r i t a n e r b e z e i c h n e t d e n G a r i z i m als gesegnet, weil i h n d i e Sintflut n i c h t b e d e c k t e . R . J o n a t h a n k a n n d e m n i c h t s e n t g e g n e n , bis i h n sein E s e l t r e i b e r auf G e n 7,19f a u f m e r k s a m m a c h t . W e i t e r e Parallelen: C a n t R 4,45: R. J o n a t h a n reist n a c h J e r u s a l e m u n d trifft a m ( m o n s ) P a l a t i n u s einen S a m a r i t a n e r ; D t n R 3,6: E r reist n a c h N e a p o l i s , ein S a m a r i t a -

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

49

Die Szene ist wohl kaum historisch, denn Juden durften damals Aelia Capitolina nicht betreten, der Topos weist so in cine friihere Zeit vor dem Bar KochbaAufstand zuriack. Die Haufigkeit dieser und ahnlicher Auseinandersetzungen in der rabbinischen Uberlieferung seit den Tannaiten macht es wahrscheinlich, dafi schon der Evange­ list das Schema der Begegnung eines Jiiden mit einem Samaritaner, verbunden mit einer Diskussion um den heiligen Berg Garizim, kannte und seine Erzahlung ent­ sprechend gestaltete. Dies schliefit nicht aus, dafi die Erzahlung einen historischen Anlafi im Leben Jesu hatte, aber den urspriinglichen Vorgang konnen wir nicht mehr rekonstruieren. Er ist zu einem theologisch zu interpretierenden „idealen" Geschehen geworden. Freilich wird Jesus trotz seiner Kritik an dem Kult auf dem Garizim nicht vertrieben, sondern hat in Sychar, dem damaligen Hauptort des Ethnos, missionarischen Erfolg (Joh 4,39-42, vgl. schon die Wcissagung 4,35-38). Dies verweist auf cine auch Apg 8,5-25 berichtete friihe urchristliche „Samaritanermission". Apg 8,5 geht Philippus „in die Stadt Samariens" und hat dort erstaunliche Erfolge. Mit dieser Stadt ist sicher nicht die heidnisch-hellenistische Pohs Sebaste (das ehemalige Samaria) gemeint, auch nicht das zerstorte Sichem, sondern am ehesten wie in Joh 4,5 der damalige Hauptort Sychar^'*. Sowohl Lukas als auch Johannes wissen um die besondere Situation der Samaritaner als jiidische ,Schismatiker' bzw. ,Haretiker', erwahncn ihren Hauptort - Lukas anonym, Jo­ hannes namentlich -, und fiihren die Neigung, sich ihnen zuzuwenden, auf Jesus selbst zuriick, der nicht zufallig in Joh 8,48 von seinen jiidischen Gegncrn als „ein von einem Damon besessener Samaritaner" bezeichnet wird. Dafi es im friihesten Urchristentum auch ganz andere Beschreibungen gab, zeigt das Jesus in den Mund gelegte Wort Mt 10,5f in der grofien Aussendungsrede: „Auf den Weg der Heiden gehet nicht, und in cine Stadt der Samaritaner geht nicht hinein." Nach Joh 4 machcn Jesus und seine Jiinger gcnau das Gegenteil und ebenso in Apg 8 Philippus als Missionar und dann Petrus und Johannes als .Visitatoren'. Dies weist auf divergierende Ansichtcn in der friihesten Gemeinde in Jerusalem hin. Das erzahlerische Interesse eines Lukas und Johannes an den Samaritanern hangt so mit friihesten „Missionserfolgen" der jungen eschatologisch-messianischen Sekte bei den Samaritanern zusammen, die freilich zunachst offenbar keinen Bestand hatten. Nach Lukas und Johannes wird es lange Zeit ruhig um chrisdiche Gemeinden in Samarien. H. Donner hat wohl recht, wenn er vermutet, dafi „cine christliche Lokaltradition" in Sychar „wegen der Samaritaner nicht aufkommen konnte" 55. F^useb schweigt iiber spatere christliche Gemeinden bei den Samaritanern. First in Nicaa tauchen zwei christliche Bischofe aus Scbaste/Samaria und Neapolis

ner schliefit sich an, u n d als sie d e n G a r i z i m e r r e i c h e n , b e g r i i n d c t dieser m i t H e s 22,24 die l l e i l i g k e i t des Berges: d . h . die W a s s e r d e r Sintflut h a t t e n i h n n i c h t e r r e i c h t . 3t S. d a z u Hengel, ( A n m . 9) 1 8 0 f f 35 O p . c i t . ( A n m . 9) 164, A n m . 12. I n d e r A p g e r s c h e i n t die G e m e i n d e in S a m a r i e n n o c h 9,31 u n d 15,3.

50

Martin Hengel

Beides aber waren damals iiberwiegend heidnische Stadte. Justin stammt von heidnischen Eltern aus Neapolis, zu den Samaritanern hat er keine engere Beziehung. Fiir die friihen Vater dagegen erhalten sie Bedeutung als Ursprungsort der Haresie in der Gestah des Simon Magus aus dem samaritanischen Dorf Gittha, der die Sukzession der Haredker begriindct, die iiber seinen angeblichen Schiiler, den Samaritaner Menander, weitergeht^''. Nach Justin soU Simon Magus „beinahe alle Samaritaner" gewonnen haben, was eine starke Ubertreibung ist oder auf einer Verwechslung mit dem in Samarien erfolgreichen Dositheos bertiht^^. Wahrscheinlich war - ahnlich wie Judaa - Samarien vor dem jiidischen Krieg, der auch dort zu einer Katastrophe fiihrte, von eschatologischen Propheten- und Offenbarergestalten bewegt. Dazu waren neben dem endzeitlichen Propheten bei Josephus Ant. 18,85-88, den Pilatus am Garizim mit seinen zahlreichen Anhangern toten \'ie&, Simon Magus und vor allem der ganz schattenhafte Dositheos zu nennen, der grofien Einflufi gewann und das Volk lange Zeit spaltete. Auch die Samaritanerin aus Sychar spricht in Joh 4,25 Jesus auf die endzeitliche Erwartung an: „Ich weifi, dafi der Messias, der sogenannte Gesalbte, kommen wird." Das ist jiidisch-christlich formuliert^', denn die Samaritaner, die die Prophetenbiicher und damit den davidischen Gesalbten ablehnten, kannten nur den endzeitlichen Propheten nach Dtn 18 als Mose redivivus, der spater die Bezeichnung „Tahcb" (= „der Wiederhersteller") erhielt''°. Die neuesten Qumranfunde zeigen, dafi dieser endzeitliche Prophet in der essenischen „Gemeinde vom Neuen Bund" eine besondere Rolle spielte neben dem priesterlichen und davidischen Messias"". Auch im 4. Evangelium kommt ihm grofie Bedeutung zu, wobei die Forschung ihm bisher eher mit einer gewissen Ratlosigkeit gegeniiber stand''^. Johannes gibt auch hier den historischen Tatbestand wieder, dafi Jesus zunachst weniger als konigliche Gestah, sondern als der endzeitliche Prophet auftrat und angesehen wurde, d.h. als eine Gestah, die in Qumran als „(Geist-)Gesalbter" nach Jes 61,Iff bezeichnet werden konnte. Auch die samaritanische Frau spricht ihn zuerst als „Propheten" (4,19) an. „K6nig" ist Jesus zunachst nur fiir die Jiinger Offentlich erscheint der Konigstitel erst beim aup6.

36 A. V. Hamack, D i e M i s s i o n u n d A u s b r e i t u n g des C h r i s t e n t u m s ( ' 1 9 2 4 ) 2 , 6 4 1 . 37 Jmtin, A p o l . 1,26; I r c n a u s , adv. hacr 1,23,1-5 = E u s e b 3,26, vgl. 4,7. 38 A p o l . 1,26,3: Kal 0 X E 6 6 V :n:dvxE5 ^ E V Safxapeig . . . cog xov jipcoxov Oeov EKEIVOV o p o X o YOtJvxEg EKEivoi, Kal itpooKiivoDOiv. Vielleichi b e h a u p t e t c n dies die S i m o n i a n e r in R o m . 3"* Vgl. n o c h J o h 1,41: J o h a n n e s ist d e r einzige n e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e A u t o r , d e r das a r a m a i s c h e A q u i v a l e n t z u m g r i e c h i s c h e n x p i o x o g , m c s i h a , in griechischer U m s c h r i f t MEOotag k e n n t u n d i i b e r s e t z t . D a s Epxexai ist hier e i n d e u t i g p r o s p e k t i v u n d futurisch z u i i b e r s e t z e n , vgl. 4,21.23. ''° S. d a z u Crown, ( A n m . 23) I n d e x 843 „ P r o p h e t like M o s e s " u n d 847 „ T a h e b " u n d hier b e ­ s o n d e r s Dexinger, S a m a r i t a n E s c h a t o l o g y 2 6 6 - 2 9 2 . Z u m T a h e b 272. "" S. d a z u jetzt die T i i b i n g e r D i s s e r t a t i o n v o n Johannes Zimmermann, Messianische Vorstell u n g e n in d e n Schriften v o n Q u m r a n ; e r s c h e i n t 1998 in W U N T . « J o h 1,21.23.25; 6,14; 7,40. S. d a z u F. Hahn, C h r i s t o l o g i s c h e H o h e i t s t i t e l , in: F R L A N T 83 (21964) 3 8 0 - 4 0 4 u n d d e n A n h a n g d e r S. A . , 4 8 8 f (Lit.).

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fur die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

51

Einzug in Jerusalem und - wie der Titulus am Kreuz zeigt - in der Anklage und Verurteilung''^. Es war wohl Jesus als der endzeitliche Prophet, dessen damals fur viele anstofiige Offenheit gegeniiber den „verlorenen Schafen des Hauses Israels"'*'' seine Botschaft zunachst auch fiir Samaritaner anziehend machte, wobei seine Verkiindiger dann jedoch in Konkurrenz zu samaritanischen Offenbarergestalten wie Dositheos und Simon Magus treten mufiten und hier als „messianische Juden" doch weniger erfolgreich waren. Die Samaritaner in Sychar bekennen ihn dagegen - in einer Vorwegnahme der Heidenmission - als „Erl6ser der Welt" ( o c o t f i p XOIJ KOOfiou, 4 , 4 2 ) .

Der Ort Sychar und die ganze Erzahlung, die mit ihm ihren Ausgang nimmt, bedeutet deshalb mehr als nur einen zufalligen Hinweis. Es ist damit erstmals das damalige Zentrum des samaritanischen Ethnos angesprochen. Die geographischen Angaben mit ihren z.T. prazisen Details wie auch die ganze Schilderung setzen eine Ortskenntnis sowie auch eine Einsicht in die samaritanisch-jiidische Kontroverse voraus, die sich nicht einfach aus den v o m Autor verwendeten Quellen ableiten lafit, zumal sich solche schriftlichen Quellen in seinem stilistisch einheidichen Werk nicht tiberzeugend nachweisen lassen. Hier spricht ein eigenwilliger, aus Palastina stammender Judenchrist, der seine Heimat nicht verleugnet, auch wenn er die ganze Erzahlung auf ideale, gegeniiber der historischen Realitat rela­ tiv freie Weise stilisiert. 1.2 Bethesda'^^

Nach Joh 5,1 zieht Jesus wieder von Galilaa zu einem nicht naher besdmmten Fest nach Jerusalem hinauf, vermutlich meint der Autor das Laubhiittenfest (s.u. S. 60). Vgl. 1,49: K o n i g Israels; 12,11 - 1 5 ; 1 8 , 3 3 - 1 9 , 1 5 , vgl. d a g e g e n 6,15f; s. d a z u M. Hengel, R e i c h C h r i s t i , Reich G o t t e s u n d Weltreich im J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m , in: M. Hengel, A. M. Schwemer ( H r s g . ) , K d n i g s h e r r s c h a f t G o t t e s u n d h i m m l i s c h e r K u l t , in: W U N T 55 (1991) 1 6 3 - 1 8 4 . ••'' M t 10,6; 15,24; M k 6,34, vgl. J o h 1 0 , l - 1 6 , 2 6 f "•5 Z u r L i t e r a t u r s. d i e grofien K o m m e n t a r e v o n Th. Zahn, A. Schlatter, R. Bultmann, R. E. Brown, C. K. Barrett, R. Schnackenburg. B i b l i o g r a p h i c bei A. Duprez, J e s u s et les dieux g u e risseurs. A p r o p o s d e J e a n , V., in: C R B 12 (Paris 1970) 7 - 2 7 ; M.-J. Pierre, J.-M. Rousee, S a i n t e - M a r i e d e la P r o b a t i q u e , etat et o r i e n t a t i o n des r e c h e r c h e s , in: P r o c h e - O r i e n t C h r e t i e n 31 (1981) 2 3 4 1 ; / . D. P w r a i j , J e r u s a l e m . T h e H o l y C i t y . A B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 vol. ( A T L A . B S 2 0 , N e w Y o r k , L o n d o n I, 1988) 3 5 5 f f ; II (1991) 3 6 4 f f S. j e t z t v o r allem die g r i i n d l i c h e S t u d i e v o n M. KUchler, D i e , P r o b a t i s c h e ' u n d B e t e s d a m i t d e n fiinf Stoas (Joh 5,2), in: P e r e g r i n a C u riositas. E i n e Reise d u r c h d e n o r b i s a n t i q u u s z u E h r e n v o n D i r k van D a m m e , in: N T O A 2 7 (1994) 1 2 7 - 1 5 4 . E i n e n k n a p p e n U b e r b l i c k m i t r e i c h e r L i t e r a t u r a n g a b e finder sich a u c h bei K. Bieberstein, H. Bloedhorn, Jerusalem. Grundziige der Baugeschichte v o m Chalkolithikum bis z u r F r i i h z e i t d e r o s m a n i s c h e n H e r r s c h a f t , in: B T A V O B N r . 1 0 0 / 3 ( W i e s b a d e n 1994) 1 6 2 - 1 6 7 ( N r . 1 7 2 4 . 1 3 2 0 - 2 1 ) . N a c h w i e v o r b e d e u t s a m sind die U n t e r s u c h u n g e n v o n / . Jere­ mias, D i e W i e d e r e n t d e c k u n g v o n B e t h e s d a , in: F R L A N T N . F . 41 (1949); T h e R e d i s c o v e r y of B e t h e s d a , J o h n 5,2 (Louisville 1966); D i e K u p f e r r o l l e v o n Q u m r a n u n d B e t h e s d a , in: A b b a ( G o t t i n g e n 1966) 3 6 1 - 3 6 4 . S. a u c h seine k r i t i s c h e B e s p r c c h u n g v o n / Duprez, in: Biblica (1973) 1 5 2 - 1 5 5 . Fiir d e n l e t z t e n H i n w e i s d a n k e ich H e r r n K o l l e g e n G . J e r e m i a s . V o n i h m erhielt ich a u c h eine A n t w o r t v o n P. B e n o i t auf die R e z e n s i o n v o n J. J e r e m i a s .

52

Martin Hengel

Darauf folgt als Einleitung der Erzahlung von der Heilung des seit 38 Jahren Gelahmten v^^ieder eine sehr prazise Ortsangabe, die freilich durch eine grofiere Zahl komplizierter Textvarianten belastet wird. Der Text von Nestle/Aland lautet in Ubersetzung: „Es ist aber in Jerusalem beim Schaf(tor'*^ oder -markt) ein Teich, der wird auf Hebraisch (d.h. Aramaisch) Bethzatha genannt." ("Eoxiv be ev T015 ' l e p o o o ^ t i j u o i s ejtl xfj jipo(3aTiKfj Ko)ii)(iPr|6pa r) enikeyo\i£vi] 'EPpa'ioxl BT)9^a0d J i e v x e oxod^ exovoa). Bei dem Namen des Teiches, der in der Textiiberlieferung stark differiert, sollte man jedoch nicht dem „Bethzatha" von Nestle/Aland folgen, sondern unbedingt „Bethesda" lesen''^. Die aufierlich am besten bezeugte Lesart „Bethsaida" ist eine ganz friihe Angleichung an den bekannten Ortsnamen Joh 1,44 und 12,21'"*. Die von Nestle/ Aland in den Text gebrachte Lesart „Bethzatha" ist eine gelchrte Korrcktur, die das unverstandliche „Bethesda" durch die ahnlich bei Josephus bezeugte Bezcichnung fiir die nordlichc Vorstadt ersetzt und in der Textiiberlieferung nur schmal bezeugt isf'. Auch wenn der Teich noch zur nordlich der Tempelmauer und der ••^ Z u m .Schaftor s. N e h 3,1.32; 12,39: E s ware d a n n zu J i p o P a T i K T ) ein nvXr\ (oder d y o p d ) zu e r g a n z e n , s. A. Schlatter, D e r E v a n g e l i s t J o h a n n e s (21947) 1 4 1 , d e r d a r a u f h i n w e i s t , dafi T i t u s m i t d e r M a u e r a u c h alle T o r e z c r s t o r e n liefi; w e i t e r Barrett, ( A n m . 9) 251 u n d B. M. Mef/.ger (ed.), A T e x t u a l C o m m e n t a r y in t h e G r e e k N e w T e s t a m e n t ( L o n d o n , N e w Y o r k 1971) 207f. S p a t e r hat m a n diese Ellipse xcpoPaTiKr) mit w A u p P r j O p a v e r b u n d e n u n d s o B e t h e s d a m i t d e m Schafsteich identifiziert. .S. s c h o n E u s e b ( A n m . 14) 58,26: B r ] ^ d 9 a ( | o h 5,2). KoXijpPT|Op« Ev ' l e p o D o a X r i p , fJTLg EOTLV »f| ; i p o P a t i i c r | « T O jiaA.ai6v e 0 x 0 0 5 'ixovaa. K O L vOv 8Eiicvi)X(XL e v xaig (xiixoOi Xipvaig ftLftvixoig, wv e m x e p a . . . d. h. er w e i s t auf e i n e n D o p p e l t e i c h h i n , d e r eine c i n h e i d i c h e B e z e i c h n u n g h a t u n d e i n s t m a l s fiinf S a u l e n h a l l e n besafi. Jeremias, W i e d e r e n t d e c k u n g ( A n m . 45) 6, liest m i t E u s e b EV xfl TtpopaxiKf) KoXv|xPT|Opq u n d sieht in , B e t h e s d a ' d e n N a m e n „ d e r B a u l i c h k e i t e n a m T e i c h e " = R e d i s c o v e r y ( A n m . 45) 9f. I n d i e s e m Falle miifite m a n h i n t e r f| endEyopEvr) e t w a ein oiKia e r g a n z e n : d . h . a u c h hier h a n d e l t es sich u m eine Ellipse. Z u r Z u r i j c k w e i s u n g d e r L e s a r t EV xfj K. s. KUchler, ( A n m . 45) 131, A n m . 9. Vgl. genereil d e s s e n a u s f u h r l i c h e E r o r t e r u n g , in w e l c h e r a c h t „ L e s e m 6 g l i c h k e i t e n " h e r a u s g e a r b e i t e t w e r d e n . K i i c h l e r s T r e n n u n g v o m „Teich B e t h e s d a " hat m i c h freilich n i c h t i i b e r z e u g l , da 5,7, w o KoX,i)pPf|Opa w i e d e r e r s c h e i n t , d a m i t u n v e r s t a n d l i c h w i r d . Dafi B e t h e s d a s c p a r a t neben d e m Schafsteich als eigene T e i c h a n l a g e liege, w a r a u c h n i c h t die M e i n u n g d e r k i r c h l i c h e n O r t s i i b e r l i e f e r u n g , w e l c h e ja ..Schafsteich" u n d „ B c t h e s d a " d i r e k t m i t c i n a n d e r identifiziert. D i e a n d e r e M o g l i c h k e i t , JipopaxiKTi d y o p d w i i r d e sich d u r c h d e n O p f e r t i e r h a n d e l an d e r N o r d s e i l c des T e m p e l s n a h e l e g e n , ist a b e r w e n i g e r w a h r s c h e i n l i c h . Vgl. Jos.bell. 2, 305.316; 5,137 f| avco d y o p d in d e r O b e r s t a d t . d e r . H o l z m a r k t ' (2,530) u n d d e r K l e i d e r m a r k t (5,331) in d e r N e u s t a d t . S. d a z u Barrett, op.cit. 252 f, Metzger, op.cit. 2 0 8 , d e r d a r a u f h i n w e i s t . dafi das t c x t k r i t i s c h e E x p c r t e n k o l l e g i u m in d i e s e m P u n k t g e s p a l t e n war. t8 P 75 ( a h n l i c h P 66), B W» T I* pc s y h vg T e r t s. d a z u Donner, ( A n m . 13) 54, A n m . 8 1 : S c h o n d e r Pilger v o n B o r d e a u x hat B e t h s a i d a . t'' Sin. 33 itala. vgl. a u c h L u n d E u s e b ( A n m . 14) 5 8 . 2 1 : B r | ^ a 0 a . S. d a z u Jos. bell. 2,328: B e t a O d ; 2,530 = KaivimoXic,, V L B E ^ a O d w o h l k o r r u m p i c r t von be(t) h a d a s ; 5,149.151: t o VEOKxioxov pEpog. das ins G r i e c h i s c h e i i b e r s e t z t KOivt) nohs; hci(?l; 246 auf d e m H i i g e l n o r d ­ lich d e r A n t o n i a . S. d a z u Jeremias, W i e d e r e n t d e c k u n g ( A n m . 45) 7: ..Teil einer g e l e h r t e n U b e r a r b e i t u n g . . . " S. a u c h y4. Schalit, N a m e n w o r t e r b u c h zu Elavius J o s e p h u s ( L e i d e n 1968) 25f. (A. C o m p l e t e C o n c o r d a n c e t o I'l. Jos., ed. K. H. Rengstorf, S u p p l e m e n t I). E r v e r m u t e t z w e i v e r s c h i e d e n e N a m e n und einen I r r t u m des J o s e p h u s .

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

53

Burg Antonia gehorenden „Neustadt" Bezetha, so Josephus, oder Bezatha, so Euseb und einige wenige Handschriften, gehorte, so trug er doch nicht diesen Namen. Die richtige Lesart Bethesda, die wesentlich besser iiberliefert ist^o, wird jetzt tiberraschend durch die Kupferrolle von Qumran mit ihrem ratselhaften Schatzverzeichnis bestatigt. „Ganz nahe daneben in Bet 'esdatajin in dem Teich (dort), wo man das kleinere Becken betritt, ein Holzgefafi mit Aloe und eines mit Pinienharz(?)."5' Der Plural bet 'esdatajin, der Begriff 'sjh, Teich, und die Erwahnung - wortlich - „des kleineren Meeres" (jmwmjt) weisen dabei auf eine Anlage mit zwei Teichen hin. Eine solche wird auch durch den Pilger von Bordeaux, Eusebs Onomastikon und spatere Berichte bezeugt^^. Die zwei insgesamt ca. 5000 qm grofien, trapezformig angelegten und nur durch einen Felsendamm getrennten Teiche^^ erklaren nach wie vor am ehesten die sonderbare Angabe Joh 5,2, dafi der als eine Einheit verstandene Teich als Doppelteich fiinf Saulenhallen besafi. Dies bestatigen auch die friihesten christlichen Ortsangaben beim Pilger von Bordeaux, bei Euseb, Hieronymus, Ps. Athanasius, Cyrill von Jerusalem und Theodor v. Mopsuestia, die freihch in der Frage divergieren, ob von diesen Stoai noch etwas zu sehen ist^t. Die 5. Halle verhef nach Cyrill und Theodor v. Mopsuestia auf dem Damm zwischen beiden Teichen55. Vermutlich stammen diese Saulenhallen von Herodes, der den unmittelbar an der Nordmauer der Tempelanlage und der Antonia gelegenen und als wundertatig geltenden Doppelteich gebiihrend ausschmiicken wollte. Grabungen ergaben, dafi der nordlichc kleinere Teich alter ist als der siidliche. Der nordliche mag auf die Konigszeit zuriickgehen, der siidliche aus dem Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts konnte mit dem vom Hohenpriester Simon dem Gerechten angelegten Teich iden­ tisch sein (Sirach 50,3): „in dessen Tagen der Teich gegraben wurde, ein Becken (X,dKK05 'sjh) gleich einem Meer an Grofie"^^. Dafi nur ganz wenige oder gar keine herodianischen Saulenreste gefunden wurden, hangt damit zusammen, dafi 50 A C 0 078 f u n d ' 3 , M e h r h e i t s t e x t u n d d e r grofite Teil d e r s y r i s c h e n U b e r l i e f e r u n g . 5' / T. Milik, L e r o u l e a u d e cuivre p r o v e n a n t d e la g r o t t e 3 Q ( 3 Q 1 5 ) , in: D J D I l l a , Les .petites' g r o t t e s d e Q u m r a n , ed. M. BailletJ. T. Milik, R. de Vaux (1962) 296 ff.. C o l . X I , 1 1 , vgl. d e n K o m m e n t a r D 4 4 , p . 271 f A. Walters, T h e C o p p e r Scroll: A n O v e r v i e w (Sheffield Press 1996) 53 liest jetzt: „ I n B e t h E s h d a t a i n , in t h e reservoir, o n y o u r w a y in t o w a r d s it f r o m its t a n k s ( m j m w t ) D i e s b r i n g t k e i n e V e r b e s s e r u n g ; mjmwt statt mjmit b l e i b t unsicher. D i e O r t s a n g a b e ist a u c h hier d e u t l i c h . 52 Donner, ( A n m . 13) 54; I t i n e r a r i u m ( A n m . 13) C . 15: piscinae gemellares, q u i n q u e p o r t i c o s h a b e n t e s , vgl. Donner, 178 = Eucherius, E p . ad F a u s t u m , C C S L 1 7 5 , 2 3 8 : Vicina t e m p l o B e t h ­ saida piscina g e m i n o a p p a r e t insignis lacu, q u o r a m alter h i b e r n i s p l e r u m q u e i m p l e t u r i m b r i b u s , alter r u b r i s est d i s c o l o r a q u i s . 53 S. d a z u Bieberstein, Bloedhorn, ( A n m . 45) 3,162f: N o r d l i c h e r Teich: O s t - u n d W e s t w a n d 39,95 m , S i i d w a n d 33,05 m , N o r d w a n d 50 m . Siidlicher Teich: O s t - u n d W e s t w a n d 49,4 / 47,85 m , S i i d w a n d 65,55 m, N o r d w a n d 57,6 m . 5'' S. d i e U b e r s i c h t bei Jeremias, R e d i s c o v e r y ( A n m . 45) 1 6 - 2 0 . 55 C y r i l l , H o m i l i a in p a r a l y t i c u m iuxta piscina i a c e n t e m , P G 3 3 , 1 1 3 3 : x e o o a p a g (oTodg) pev jiepixpEXovoag, peoriv 6e itepmT)v. Theodor v. Afo/)j«ejtza, J o h a n n e s k o m m e n t a r , in Studi e Testi 141 (1948) 324,8 u n d s y r i s c h e F a s s u n g , e d . / B. Chahot, (1897) I, 108, 3 f. 56 Text u n d U b e r s e t z u n g n a c h V. I lamp, ( E c h t e r b i b e l 1969) 4, 708.

54

Martin Hengel

bei der Belagerung durch Titus das ganze Areal nordhch der heftig angegriffenen Antonia bzw. der Tempelmauer besonders schwer in Mitleidenschaft gezogen, ja z.T. direkt planiert wurde, um die circumvallatio und Damme zu errichten. Die ersten christlichen Berichte scheinen zudem noch Reste vorauszusetzen, die dann wohl fiir spatere Bauten, etwa fiir die gewahigen Substruktionen der byzantinischen Basilika innerhalh beider Teiche verwendet wurden. Dafi von den fiinf ver­ mutlich herodianischen Stoai archaologisch nichts mehr sicher nachzuweisen ist, darf bei diesem Sachverhalt nicht verwundern^^. Ostlich, direkt angrenzend an die Teiche entdeckte man eine weitere Anzahl von Badeanlagen mit Kleinfunden aus der Zeit nach der Zerstorung der Stadt, die auf eine romische Asklepius- oder Serapis-Kultstatte hinweisen, welche wohl auch als Heilungsstatte diente. So wurde u.a. eine Weihschrift auf Jupiter Serapis aus dem letzten Jahr der Herrschaft Trajans (116 n.Chn) gefunden. D.h. die Heiltradition hat sich in der Zeit, da die 10. Legion in Jerusalem ihr Legionslager besafi - vielleicht auf Grund von Hinweisen von Uberlaufern wie Josephus oder von Kriegsgefangenen - auch nach 70 und dann spater in Aelia Capitolina fortgesetzt. Sarapis erscheint relativ oft auf den Stadtmiinzen der Stadtgriindung Hadrians und zweimal auch Hygieia^^. A. Duprez hat daher vermutet^', dafi schon im jiidischen Jerusalem eine offentliche pagane Heilgott-Kultstatte semitischen Ursprungs existiert habe, die von Juden aus dem einfachen Am-haarez und Nichtjuden frequentiert worden sei. Nach allem, was wir iiber das Jerusalem zwischen Makkabaeraufstand und 70 n. Chr wissen, scheint mir dies vollig ausgeschlossen zu sein. Wenn die Juden schon z.Zt. des Pilatus gegen die Einbringung der romischen Feldzeichen mit den 57 G e g e n KUchler, ( A n m . 45) 150: „ D i e s e a r c h a o l o g i s c h e N i c h t - W i e d e r e n t d e c k u n g d e r ^IEVTE OToai ist ein a r c h a o l o g i s c h e s V e r d i k t : I'iinf S t o e n im S i n n e v o n fiinf S a u l e n g a n g e n e n t l a n g d e n R a n d e r n d e r b e i d e n m o n u m e n t a l e n B e c k e n h a b e n a r c h a o l o g i s c h nie existiert. Es miifSte j e m a n d s y s t c m a t i s c h g e s a u b e r t h a b e n , u m alle S p u r e n v o n S a u l e n g a n g e n z u e n t f e r n e n " . E b e n eine s o l c h e „ s y s t e m a t i s c h e S a u b e r u n g " h a t T i t u s bei d e r B e l a g e r u n g v o r g e n o m m e n . D i e V o r ­ s t a d t B e z e t h a w a r b e r e i t s v o n C e s t i u s G a l l u s a n g e z i i n d c t w o r d e n (bell. 2,530). N a c h bell. 5,148 w a r d e r V o r s t a d t - H i i g e l B e z e t h a n o r d l i c h des T e m p e l s s c h o n b e b a u t u n d d u r c h e i n e n tiefen k i i n s t l i c h e n M a u e r g r a b e n v o n d e r A n t o n i a g e t r e n n t . D i e s e r mufite v o n T i t u s beseitigt w e r d e n . D a z u m a g er alle B a u r e s t e v o n B e t h e s d a v e r w e n d e t h a b e n . Z u r r i g o r o s e n E i n e b n u n g des G e l a n d c s im N o r d e n d e r S t a d t s. bell. 5,106 ff: „Jeder Z a u n u n d j e d e r Steinwall w u r d e n i e d e r g e r i s s e n " , alle B a u m e a b g e h a u e n u n d d a m i t die Vertiefungen d e s G e l a n d e s aufgefiillt. V o m S c o p u s bis z u d e n H e r o d e s g r a b e r n w u r d e alles e i n g e e b n e t , vgl. 5,263 f f Z u r E r o b e r u n g u n d Z e r s t o r u n g d e r N e u s t a d t s. 5,331 ff; z u r E r r i c h t u n g v o n B e l a g c r u n g s d a m m e n 5,466; n a c h d e m S c h e i t e r n d e r ersten Angriffe gibt T i t u s d e n Befehl z u r E r r i c h t u n g d e r c i r c u m v a l ­ latio v o n ca. 7 k m L a n g e m i t 13 Kastellen, 504 ff; die vier W a l l e gegen die A n t o n i a 5,523 ff.; z u r V e r w i i s t u n g d e r U m g e b u n g i n s b e s o n d c r e d e r „ V o r o r t e " , 6,5 ff; 6,93 die Schleifung d e r F u n d a m c n t c d e r A n t o n i a . Bei alledem w i r d v o n d e n fiinf H a l l e n u n m i t t e l b a r an d e r N o r d ­ m a u e r k a u m e t w a s i i b r i g g e b l i e b e n sein. 58 S. d a z u Duprez, ( A n m . 45) d e r freilich falsche F o l g e r u n g e n d a r a u s z i e h t . V o r s i c h t i g e r Pierre, Rousee, ( A n m . 45) 35 ff G. F. Hill, C a t a l o g u e of t h e G r e e k C o i n s of Palestine (1914, N D B o l o g n a 1965) 8 4 f f . N r . 1 3 - 1 6 . 3 6 . 5 1 - 5 3 . 5 5 - 5 6 . 5 9 ; H y g i e i a : WO. Kadman,'rhe Corns of Aelia C a p i t o l i n a (Jerusalem 1956) 3 9 f f , 4 8 f , H y g i e i a m i t Schlange, N r . 191 u. 199. 59 O p . c i t . ( A n m . 45) 5 7 - 1 2 7 ; z u s t i m m e n d Davies, ( A n m . 9) 3 1 0 - 3 1 3 .

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

55

Kaisermedaillons in die Antonia und gegen die Schilde zu Ehren des Kaisers am Herodespalast, dem Amtssitz des Prafekten in der Stadt, bis hin zur Gefahrdung ihrcs eigenen Lebens protestiertcn, wie viel mehr gegen ein fiir alle offenes heidnisches Heiligtum in unmittelbarer Tempelnahe. Das Argument, dieses habe aufJerhalb der eigentlichen Stadtmauer gelegen, iiberzeugt nicht, da das ganze dichtbesiedelte Gebiet als „Neustadt", d.h. als Teil der Stadt gait und spatestens unter Agrippa I. ummauert worden war Allein schon die rigorose Einhaltung des Bilderverbots machte derartige offentliche Kulte, die Kultbilder voraussetzten, unmoglich^o. Schliefilich sollte man auch den vermutlich vorhadrianischen hebraischen Sgraffito an der Siidwand des Siidteiches nicht iibersehen, auf den Jeremias auf­ merksam macht'"'. Die Romer willigten sogar ein, fiir Judaa Miinzen ohne Herrscherbilder und heidnische Darstellungen zu schlagen. Das ratselhafte gdjwn^^^ der Mischna ist sicher keine aktive Kultstatte der Gottin Tyche-Fortuna vor 70, sondern vermutlich ein Relikt aus der Herrsehaftszeit der Hellenisten, aus dem Umfcid der Akra nach 167 v. Chr., oder es stammt aus der Zeit nach der Tempel­ zerstorung. Heidnische Kulte waren nur innerhalh der Kasernen oder im Palast des Prafekten bzw. in heidnischen Privatraumen moglich. Die jiidische Bevolkerung wird in ihrem Hafi gegen alles heidnische Wesen und in der Furcht vor Verunreinigung derartige private Kultstatten in oder um Jerusalem herum sicher nicht aufgesucht haben. Dariiberhinaus mufi der Befund der Kupferrolle, trotz aller Unsicherheit im Detail, ernstgenommen werden. Die urspriingliche Lesart „Bethesda" ist nicht, wie lange Zeit vermutet wurde, als bet hdsda, Haus der Gnade oder Giite, zu er­ klaren, sondern hangt mit der Wurzel 'sd „ausgiefien" zusammen^5_ j_ Jeremias vermutete, dal5 die Anlage u. a. auch der kultischen Reinigung durch das Tauchbad vor Betreten des Tempelberges diente. Dies ist wohl moglich. Das Argument da­ gegen, dafi sie dann wohl kaum von Kranken hatte genutzt werden konnen, iibersieht, dafi es sich um zwei nicht verbundene Teiche handelte, die nicht denselben Zweck haben mufiten. Herodes war u.a. auch ein grofier Bauherr von Badern, nicht nur in seinen Palasten, sondern auch in Jerusalem. Wahrend seiner Herr­ sehaftszeit vioirden dort auch viele Miqwaot errichtet^''. Unsicher bleibt, wie die Anlage mit Hohlen, kleinen Tauchbeckcn unmittelbar ostlich der grofien Bassins vor 70 verwendet wurde, vor allem, ob und wie ihre Nutzung mit dem grofien Becken in Verbindung stand^^ jj^fi riur sie - wie Kiichler vermutet - allein den 60 M. Hengel, D i e Z e l o t e n , in: A G A J U 1 ( L e i d e n 21976) 109f., 195ff., vgl. J o s . b e l l . 2 , 1 6 9 f f = ant. 18,55 ff; P h i l o , leg. 2 9 9 - 3 0 2 . N a c h A n t . 18,121 f v e r m c i d e t Vitellius s o g a r d e n D u r c h z u g seiner T r u p p e n d u r c h J u d a a gegen d e n „ N a t i o n a l f e i n d " d e r J u d e n , die N a b a t a e r , u m Anstofi w e g e n d e r r o m i s c h e n F e l d z e i c h e n zu v e r m e i d e n . 6' j l e d i s c o v e r y ( A n m . 45) 31 f 62 M i g - g a d j a w a n ? m Z a b 1,5 vgl. t Z a b 1,10. 63 Milik, ( A n m . 51) 271 f 6* S. d a z u R. Deines, J i i d i s c h e Steingefafic u n d p h a r i s a i s c h e F ' r o m m i g k e i t , in: W U N T 11/52 (1993) 3 ff u n d I n d e x s.v. M i q w a o t , S. 320. 65 Vielleicht w a r d o r t d e r s t a n d i g e A u f e n t h a l t s o r t d e r K r a n k e n .

56

Martin Hengel

Namen „Bethesda" getragen haben, bleibt unwahrscheinlich. Dagegen spricht nicht nur die Tempelrolle mit dem Dual und der Unterschcidung der beiden Bekken, sondern auch der Umstand, dafi dort ebenfalls schlechterdings nichts von 5 Saulenhallen oder Peristylen zu finden ist. Das Aufwallen des Wasscrs in Joh 5,7 wird noch von dem PUger von Bordeaux erwahnt, wie auch die 5-Saulenhallen^^. Freilich wird er von diesen nur noch ganz sparliche Reste gesehcn haben. Eusebs Onomastikon und die Ubersetzung sprechen davon, dafi in dieser Zeit ein Doppelteich gezeigt wurde, die 5-SauIenhallen jedoch der Vergangenheit zugehoren^''. Selbst noch Cyrill von Jerusalem schildert die Anordnung der Hahen sachlich durchaus zutreffend: „VIer hefen ringsum, die fiinfte aber, in welcher die Menge der Kranken lag, ging durch die Mitte."^^ Auch er konnte noch geringe Uberreste gesehen haben. Die angebhch Heilung wirkende Bewegung des Wassers in Joh 5 , 7 (otav xapaxBfj t o •i58a)p) ging vielleicht auf intermittierende plotzliche Zufliisse zuriick. Nach dem PUger von Bordeaux rotct sich das Wasser, wenn es aufgewirbelt wird, von den Heilungen berichtet er dagegen nur noch in der Vergangenheit^', d.h. auch die heidnische Heilstatte bestand zu seiner Zeit in der 1. Halfte des 4. Jahr­ hunderts nicht mehr Nach Euseb und Hieronymus fiillte sich das eine Becken durch den Winterregen, das andere wurde dagegen auf wunderbare Weise gerotet; dies sei ein Hinweis darauf, dafi einstmals die Priester darin ihre Opfertiere gereinigt hatten. Darum habe man auch den Teich „Schafsteich" genannt^o. Wir haben so bei Johannes den ersten Hinweis auf eine grofie Doppelteichanlage nordlich der Tempelmauer, die in Verbindung mit anderen kleineren Anlagen den Namen Bethesda trug und in der Nahe des Schaftors lag, welches vermut­ lich aus dem Tempel nach Norden - vielleicht zu einem Markt fiir Opfertiere fiihrte. Diese Anlage ist wahrscheinlich von Herodes prachtig ausgeschmuckt worden und hatte u.a. den Ruf, heilkraftig zu sein'''. Es ware sonderbar, wenn eine religiose Metropole wie Jerusalem, die wohl die bedeutendste Pilgerstadt der anti­ ken Welt war, keine derartige Heilstatte besessen hatte. Sie auf einen paganen Kult zuriickzufiihren, ist ungerechtfertigt. Dafi die Wundererzahlung selbst etwa in der Frage Jesu an den Kranken: Willst du gesund werden? {Qzkzvz, t>YiT)G ytys-oQav) Ziige enthalt, die sich so im NT nicht finden, vielmehr in den Asklepioskuh passen, spricht nicht gegen unsere historische Erklarung der Ortsangabe. Johannes schreibt ja in Kleinasien. Hier hatten die Asklepiosheihgtiimer zugleich grofie Be­ deutung als offentliche Heilstatten, und Jesus, der Gottessohn, konnte dabei von O p . c i t . ( A n m . 13) 1 c. 15. 67 O p . c i t ( A n m . 14) 58,22f: TO 3taX,(xi6v e oxoctg E X O t i o a . Kal vOv 6eiicvt)Tai a u T o G i Xipvaig 6i6l)(iOi5: dies ent,spricht genau d e r K u p f e r r o l l e . F l i e r o n y m u s : haec q u i n q u e q u o n d a m p o r t i cus h a b u i t , o s t e n d u n t u r q u e g e m i n i l a c u s . . . , vgl. o. A n m . 46. 68 S . o . A n m . 55 = P G 33,1133; s. Kopp, ( A n m . 9) 366. Vgl. a u c h T h e o d o r v. M o p s u e s t i a . 69 O p . c i t . ( A n m . 13) 1 c. 15. 70 H i e r b e i h a n d e l t es sich d e u t l i c h u m eine s e k u n d a r e E r k l a r u n g auf G r u n d einer e i n g e b i i r g e r t e n - m . E . n i c h t u r s p r i i n g l i c h e n - Lesart. 71 Vielleicht h a n d e l t e es sich u m M i q w a o t , d e n e n eine b e s o n d e r e Q u a l i t a t z u g e s c h r i e b e n wurde.

Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle fiir die Geschichte des antiken Judentums

57

Heiden durchaus als Konkurrent zu Asklepios betrachtet werden^2_ {g^ hjer ahnlich wie bei dem „dionysischen" Weinwunder in Kana, das bis in die Details im jiidisch-galilaischen Milieu spielt, das sich aber in Kleinasien zugleich gegen den erfolgreichsten Gott der hellenistischen Zeit richten konnte^^ Ks bleibt die Frage, ob das vierte Evangelium, welches - zumindest an bestimmten Stellen - fur eine typologische bzw. allegorische Deutung offen ist, mit den Zahlen einen tieferen Sinn verbindet. Die 5-Saulenhallen sind vielleicht doch mit den Vatern der alten Kirche auf den Pentateuch, d. h. die Jiidische Tora, zu deutcn. Am Ende des Kapitels kommt der Evangehst auf ihr rechtes Verstandnis zuriick. Die judischen Gesprachspartner werden jetzt direkt dazu aufgefordert, „in den Schriften zu forschen", weil diese von Jesus Zeugnis ablegen (5,39), das gilt gerade auch fur Mose, den Autor der Tora: Er hat uber Jesus geschrieben, sie aber wollen seinen Worten nicht glauben (5,46f). Noch klarer deutet die ungewohnliche Dauer der Krankheit von 38 Jahren auf jiidische Haggada hin (Joh 5,5). Nach Dtn 2,14 dauerte die Zeit der Wiistenwanderung Israels bis zum Tal Zarad 38 Jahre. Es ist die Zeit der Strafwanderung des Gottesvolkes, bis es die Grenze zum Kulturland iiberschreiten konnte. Die grie­ chischen Vater wohl seit Origenes, der ja mit jiidischer Exegese vertraut war, interpretierten diese Zahl darum gerne als Typos des Unglaubens, dem Heilung durch den Glauben verheifien wird. In dem spateren jiidischen Midrasch NuR 19,24 und mehreren Parallelen heifit es zu Nu 21,12, wo der „Bach Zarad" erst­ mals erscheint: „Obwohl dieser nur eine Handspanne breit war, konnten sie ihn 38 Jahre lang nicht iiberschreiten." Erst danach war es moglich, „weil sich der Heilige mit ihnen versohnte". Nach den Targumim zu Dtn 2,15 sind diese 38 Jahre eine Zeit des Gotteszorns und der Heimsuchung, in Joh 5,1-9 die Zeit der Hilflosigkeit - bis zur rettcnden Zuwendung Gottes^"*. Es geht dem Autor in dieser teils realistischen, teils phantastischen Wundererzahlung um die Vorbereitung der ersten grofien Auseinandersetzung Jesu mit seinem Volk in Jerusalem. Die beiden prazisen geographischdn Angaben, die unsere Kenntnis des palasti­ nischen Judentums (die Samaritaner sind hier unbedingt cinzuschliefien) an zwei kleinen, aber konkreten Punkten erweitern, sind typisch fiir das Johannesevange­ lium; sie licfien sich noch leicht vermehren. Erklart werden konnen sie nicht ein­ fach durch die Vermutung einer besonderen schriftlichen Quelle, etwa der sogenannten vieldiskuderten, aber historisch mehr als fragwurdigen Semeiaquelle. 72 S. d a z u K. H. Rengstorf, D i e A n f a n g e d e r A u s e i n a n d e r s e t z u n g z w i s c h e n C h r i s t u s g l a u b e u n d A s k l e p i o s f r o m m i g k e i t ( M u n s t e r 1953) 16. R e n g s t o r f v e r m u t e t , „dafi d e r 4. Evangelist in seiner D a r s t e l l u n g bewufit in p o l e m i s c h e r A b s i c h t auf b e s t i m m t e Ziige des G l a u b e n s an d e n H e i l a n d A s k l e p i o s a n s p i c l t " (18). D a s weist n a c h Kleinasien als A b f a s s u n g s o r t d e s E v a n g e ­ l i u m s , s. d e n an A s k l e p i o s a n k n i i p f e n d e n W u n d e r t a t e r u n d K u l t g r i i n d e r A l e x a n d e r v o n A b o nuteichos. 73 S. M. Hengel, T h e D i o n y s i a c M e s s i a h , in: Studies in E a r l y C h r i s t o l o g y ( E d i n b u r g h 1995) 293-331. 7'' S. d a z u M. Hengel, D i e S c h r i f t a u s l e g u n g des 4. E v a n g e l i u m s auf d e m H i n t e r g r u n d d e r u r c h r i s t l i c h e n Exegese, in: J b B T h 4 (1989) 286 f

58

Martin H e n g e l

G e g e n diese H y p o t h e s e sprieht nicht nur die einzigartige stilistische Einheit des Evangeliums, sondern auch die Tatsache, dafi diese geographischen u n d anderen historischen A n g a b e n s o kenntnisreich in das Evangelium integriert sind, dafi m a n als A u t o r einen aus Palastina selbst s t a m m e n d e n Judenchristen vermuten mufi.

2. Festzeiten: Chanukka und Sukkot Beim drittcn, jetzt iiber z w e i Monate sich crstrcckenden Aufenthalt Jesu in Jeru­ salem stofien w i r i n J o h 10,22 auf eine exakte Zeitangabe: „Darauf kam das T e m pelweihfest ( e y K a t v i a ) in Jerusalem. Es war W i n t e r " D e r Verfasser schreibt a u fierhalb des palastinisch-syrischen Raumes, auch sind seine H o r e r iiberwiegend Heidenchristen. D a r u m kann er zwar gewissc Grundbegriffe des Judentums v o r aussetzen, mufi aber d o c h die Details erklaren. S o auch hier D a s Tempelweihfest im Winter stellt neben Purim das jiingste Fest im jiidischen Kalender dan Seine B e z e i c h n u n g xct e y K a i v t a ' ' ^ bei Johannes ist das griechische Aquivalent fiir den seit der talmudischen Eiteratur bis h e u t e gelaufigen A u s d r u c k h'niikkah, und ist die erste

Erwdhnung

des Festes

unter

diesem

Namen'^.

Es geht u m das G e d e n k e n

an die N e u e i n w e i h u n g des Tempels durch d e n siegreichen Judas Makkabaus am 25. Rislev 164 v. C h r , d. h. etwa zur Zeit der W i n t c r s o n n c n w e n d e . D a s H e i l i g t u m war drei Jahre zuvor'''' durch A n t i o c h u s IV. Epiphanes und die mit ihm verbiindeten jiidischen A p o s t a t e n entweiht w o r d e n . I.Makk 4 , 3 6 - 5 9 schildert mit b e w e g t e n Worten seine Reinigung und die N e u e i n w e i h u n g des Altars, die v o m 25. Kislev a n a c h t Tage gefeiert wurde'''*. 2.Makk 10,8 berichtet n o c h zusatzlich v o n einem Beschlufi: „das ganze Volk der Juden solle diese Tage jedes Jahr feiern." D e r N a m e des neuen Festes wird jedoch nicht genannt. Josephus berichtet iiber seine Q u e l l e , I.Makkabaer, hinaus, dafi die Juden „aus Freude iiber die Erneuerung ihrer religiosen Gebrauche" (xfi n;epl xif)v d v a v e t o o i v xc&v eOwv f|8ovfj)„ein G e s e t z (vojiov) beschlossen, dafi ihre Nachfahrcn die Wiederherstellung des Tern­ 's Z u r Wortbedeutung s. Bauer,

Aland,

WbzNT, 4 3 3 u n d Bdlerbeck,

2,539: 2. Esra 6,16

EyKcxivia mv OI'KOIJ steht der griechische Begriff fiir die Einweihung des Tempels nach seiner

Wicdererrichtung als Folge der H e i m k e h r aus d e m Exil - und zwar im Zusammenhang mit dem Passafest als Ubersetzung von h^nukkat bet '^laha; vgl. 22,27 = Neh 12,27 fiir die Ein­ w e i h u n g der Stadtmauer und D a n 3,2 (Theodotion) fiir die des Standbildes v o n Nebukadnezar.

7'' Grammatisch ist es ein typischer „F'estplural", eine Abkiirzung v o n a t f|p6pai t w v eyicaivLwv, vgl. Blafl, Dehrunner, Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch ("•1975) § 141,3, Anm. 8. 77 Jos. A n t . 12,320 f 78 I.Makk 4,36: KaOaptaaL t d aywi Kal eyKaiviaai, vgl. 4,54.56: Kal CToirioav TOV eyKaiVLopov Toxj OtioiaoxriploD f)|xepag OKTW; 4,59: a l rjpepai T O C ey'^^O'-ViapoiJ xoii ODOiaoxripio-u; vermutlich dauerte die Reinigung und Wiederherstellung des Altars eine W o c h e . Vgl. 2.Makk 10,1-8, w o V. 6f betont wird, da(5 sie diese acht Tage nach Art des Laubhiittenfestes feierten in Erinnerung dessen, dafS sie v o r kurzem n o c h die Zeit des Herbstfestes „in den Bergen und H o h l e n w i e w i l d e Tierc verbracht hatten".

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir d i e G e s c h i c h t e d e s a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

59

peldienstes acht Tage feiern sollten", und dafi dies bis in die Gegenwart geschehe, wobei das P'est den Namen qptota, „Lichterfest", erhielt, „weil, wie ich glaube, uns diese Freiheit (zur Wiederherstellung des Kultes) als ein Ereignis wider alle Hoffnungen erschien". Vermutlich spielt Josephus damit indirekt auf die nach der Zer­ storung des zweiten Tempels wieder hoffnungslose Lage seines Volkes an. Dafi der Name mit dem Anziinden der Lichter des siebenarmigen Leuchters zusammenhangt''', sagt er nicht, auch der Plural td EyicaLVia erscheint weder bei ihm noch in den Makkabaerbiichern als Festbezeichnung. Johannes — fast zeitgleich mit Josephus - ist so der erste Zeuge fur die im Judentum gebrauchlich gewordene Bezeichnung dieses Festes. Das hcbraisch-aramaische Aquivalent fiir das Fest findet sich erstmals in der ratselhaften, schwer datierbaren Fastenrolle und dann haufig in der Mischna**°. Nach Joh 10,23f halt sich Jesus in der „Halle Salomos", d.h. der 400 Ellen langen Saulenhalle an der steil zum Kidrontal abfallenden Ostseitc des Tempelberges auf, deren Bau Salomo zugeschrieben wurde und die aus vorherodianischer Zeit stammte. Sie war nach der Apg der Versammlungsort der friihesten Jerusalcmer Gemeinde*". I^afi dieses Fest nicht wie das altere Purim ein eher in privater Weise gefeiertes Volksfest war, sondern im Tempel ahnlich wie sein Vorbild, das Laub­ hiittenfest, feierlich begangen wurde, ergibt sich schon aus seiner Begriindung. Als Schriftlesung wurde N u 7 vorgetragen mit der Schilderung der „Einweihung des Altars" vor dem Stiftszelt (h^nijkka = EYKaivio^iog) durch Salbung (msh = XpLEiv) von Seiten Moses (7,1 Of). Die Leviten sangen beim Opfergottesdienst im Tempel Ps 30, der die Uberschrift tragt: „Lied zur Weihe des Hauses von David" (sir h^nukkat hab-bajit hdawid): „Hocherheben will ich dich, Herr, denn du zogest mich empor. ."^^ Man konnte sich fragen, ob fiir den Autor, der mehr iiber das Fest wufite, als er im Evangelium sichtbar werden lafit, dieses Freudenfest der Tempelweihe, an wel­ chem - der Fastenrolle nach - nicht gefastet werden darf, nicht in einem Gegen­ satz steht zu dem anschliefiend geschilderten Hohepunkt der Auseinandersetzung Jesu mit seinen Gegnern, die ihn mit der Forderung bedrangen, er solle offen sagen, ob er „der Gesalbte" sei: ei av el 6 xpiaxoc,, ebie r\\u,v JtappTiotqt (10,24)^3 Die Antwort Jesu, die mit der Glaubensfrage beginnt und sich steigernd mit dem Bekenntnis schliefit: „Ich und der Vater sind eins" (10,30), fiihrt zu dem Versuch, ihn als Gotteslasterer zu steinigen. D a aber er selbst fiir den Evangelisten der Ort der Gegenwart Gottes, man konnte auch sagen: das „Heihgtum Gottes auf 79 V g l . A n t . 1 2 , 3 1 9 - 3 2 4 . 80 Z a h l r e i c h e Belege bei Billerbeck, 2 , 5 4 0 f , d i e z . T . auf d i e Zeit d e s 2 . T e m p e l s z u r i i c k w e i sen. Z u r F a s t e n r o l l e s. K. Beyer, D i e a r a m a i s c h e n Texte v o m T o t e n M e e r ( G o t t i n g e n 1984) 354 ff (367) z u m C h i s l e v : „ a m 2 5 . Tag ist d e r Tag d e r T e m p e l w e i h e " . 8' A p g 5,12, vgl. 3 , 1 1 ; 2,46; b e i J o s e p h u s , bell 5,185; a n t . 2 0 , 1 8 5 ; s. M. Hengel, i n : Z D P V 99 (1983) 154, A n m . 4 2 . Vielleicht b e t r a c h t e t e m a n sie in b e s o n d e r e r Weise als „ m e s s i a n i s c h e " Statte i m T e m p e l . 82 m M e g 3,6; T r a k t a t S o p h e r i m 18,2; s. Billerbeck, 2 , 5 4 1 . 83 , D e r G e s a l b t e ' , d. h. z u g l e i c h , d e r v o n G o t t G e w e i h t e ' , vgl. J o h 6,69: 6 a y i o g xov Oeov. Vgl. d a s S t i r n b l a t t d e s H o h e n p r i e s t c r s , E x 28,36: ' A y i a o p a icupiot).

60

Martin Hengel

Erden"'*'', ist, bedeutet dies nichts anderes als den Versuch, „Gottes Heiligtum" zu schanden und zu entweihen - eben am Fest der Tempelweihe. Damals in der Makkabaerzeit hatten die Vater dem heidnischen Unglaubcn widerstanden und den wahren Gottesdienst wieder aufgerichtet (vgl. 4,21-24). Jetzt ist ftir den Evangelisten die Frontstellung umgekehrt: Der, der Gottes Wahrheit verkiindet, ja der, der als der „Heihge Gottes" (6,69) Gottes Wahrheit verkorpert (14,6), wird bedrangt und am Ende gar mit dem Tode des Gotteslasterers und Tempelschanders, mit der Steinigung, bedroht. In der Perikope, die mit dem Hin­ weis auf das Tempelweihfest - in der Kalte des Winters - beginnt und mit der Todesdrohung und dem Wort Jesu iiber seine Einheit mit dem Vater endet, erreicht das Evangelium eine erste Klimax. Die zweite, noch wichtigere Klimax wird dabei schon angedeutet: Sie liegt in dem Todeswort x e x e ^ e o t a t 19,30. Es kniipft an den „Neuanfang" schlechthin an, der typologisch durch Gen 2,If - die VoUendung der Schopfung am Flnde des 6. Schopfungstages - vorabgebildet ist: Jesus stirbt an einem Freitagabend zur selben Stunde, da Gott in der ersten Weltenwoche sein Schopfungswerk vollendete. Bei Johannes endet der 3. Aufenthalt Jesu in Jerusalem mit dieser ersten Klimax am Tempelweihfest. Jesus entzieht sich dem morderisehen Zugriff seiner Gegner durch den Riickzug an die Taufstelle von Johannes dem Taufer jenseits des Jordans, wo dieser einst getauft hatte. Begonncn hatte der 3. Aufenthalt mit dem Laubhuttenfest, hag sukkot, OKTivojxriYia, dem judischen Herbstfest - ein Begriff, der sich schon in der LXX findet und auf den Branch hinweist, Laubhiitten zu bauen und sich wahrend der Dauer des Festes darin aufzuhalten^^ £sfindetvom 15.-21. Tischri statt, nach der Zeit der Weinernte, genau zwei Monate vor Hanukka/eyKatvia. Josephus nennt es „das grofite und heiligste Fest"^^, darum konnte es im Judentum auch einfach als „Fest" schlechthin, hebn „hag", aram. „hagga", bezeichnet werden. Demnach dauerte der 3. Aufenthalt Jesu in Jerusa­ lem fiir den Evangelisten zwei Monate, wahrenddessen es sukzessivc zu immer scharfcren Auseinandersetzungen mit den Gegnern kommt, durch die sich der Tod Jesu vorbereitet. Der Bericht von diesem Fest beginnt mit einer scharfen Kontroverse Jesu mit seinen Briidern, die ihn in Galilaa drangen, zum Fest nach Jerusalem zu gehen und „sich durch seine Wunder der Welt offenbar zu machen"^^. Jesus weist dies zu­ riick, zieht dann aber etwas spater - nach seinen Briidern - in der Mitte des Festes (7,14) heimlich (7,10) doch nach Jerusalem hinauf, wo die Juden sich iiber seine Person zerstritten haben. Den alten Zusammenhang zwischen Laubhiitten- und Tempelweihfest demonstriert 2.Makk 1,9 in dem - echten - Brief, den die Juden in Jerusalem vermutlich 124 v.Chr. z.Zt. Johannes Flyrkans an die jiidische GeJ o h 2 , 2 1 : ekzyev jiKpi xoD v a o t i TOV a(h\iaxoc, amov. Vgl. z u r „I leiligkeit" J e s u J o h 1,51; 6,69; 17,19. 85 D t n 16,16; 31,10; 1. E s r a 5,21; Sach 1 4 , 1 6 - 1 8 ; I . M a k k 10,21; 2. M a k k 1,19. A q u i l a m a c h t d a r a u s OKTivoreoiia, s. d a z u Billerbeck, 2 , 7 7 4 - 8 1 2 , vgl. a u c h m e h r f a c h bei J o s e p h u s . 86 A n t 8 , 1 0 0 : o q j o S p a napa t o t g ' E P p a i o i g dYLtoxdxrig Kai peyioxtig. Vgl. o . S . 51 z u 5 , 1 . 87 J o h 7,4: cpcxvepwoov o e a u x o v xw Koapco.

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

61

meinde in Alexandricn schrieben, durch welchen sie die Wiedereinweihung des Tempels mitteilten und die Alexandriner aufforderten, ebenfalls diesen Tag des „Lauhhiittenfests im Monat Kislev" zu feiern. Hier finden wir den altesten offiziellen Namen des Festes, der sich freilich wegen seiner Umstandlichkeit nicht durchsetzen konnte**^. E. Bickerman hat darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dafi schon im Jahr nach der Tempelweihe, 163 v. Chr, wieder die Scleukiden Herr des Tempels waren und den makkabaerfeindlichen Hohenpriester Alkimos einsetzten. Vermutlich konnte das Fest erst wieder seit der Ernennung des Makkabaers Jonathan als Hohepriester 152/151 wirklich gefeiert werden. In dem gefalschten Brief 2.Makk 1,10-2,18 wer­ den die Alexandriner nach 1,18 - angeblich schon von Judas Makkabaus selbstebenfalls zur Feier des „LaHbhiittenfestes und des (Opfer)feuers" am 25. Kislev in Gedenken an die ..Reinigung des Tempels" aufgefordert. E. Bickerman hat weiter den Nachweis gefiihrt, dafi nach 2.Makk 1,7 bereits 143 v.Chr z.Zt. des Makka­ baers Simon ein Brief mit einer ahnlichen Aufforderung an Alexandriner gesandt worden war Alle diese Briefe enthahen wohl bereits eine indirekte Polemik gegen den Konkurrenztempel von Leontopolis, der von dem legitimen Hohenpriester Onias IV. mit ptolemaischer Unterstiitzung nach 150 n.Chr gegriindet worden war Wer der Tempelweihe im wahren Heiligtum in Jerusalem festlich gedenkt, konnte schwerlich das der Tora widersprechende Pseudoheiligtum im agyptischen Leontopolis verehren. Um dem neuen ..Fest" eine gewisse biblische Legitimitat zu gehen, nannte man es zunachst OKT]VOJtT)Yia \ov Xaokzv fiTjvog, wortlich ..Laubhiittenbau des Monats Kislev"'*'. Man vermied aber bewufit den Begriff ..Fest", hag, EOpTr], der fiir das Laubhiittenfest, welches man ja auch einfach nur ..hag" nennen konnte, ebenso wie fur das Passafest besdmmend war'°. Im Johannesevangelium wird diese Unterschcidung - soweit ich sehe - erstmals deutlich sichtbar Johannes gebraucht das griechische Aquivalent von hag mit Abstand am haufigsten im Neuen Testament, ofter als alle anderen Autoren mit 12 von insgesamt 26 Belegen. ..Das Fest" bezieht sich auf Passa" oder auf Sukkot'^, in einem Falle - 5,1 vor der Bethesda-Szene - ist von einem ungenannten ..Fest der Juden" die Rede. In 10,22 verwendet der Evangelist dagegen die Redewendung: 88 2 . M a k k 1.9: K a l vtiv Lva a y r i t e t a g THiEpag x\\c, OKtivojiriYiag xov X a o X e u \ir\\6c, . . . S. d a z u E. Bickerman, Studies in J e w i s h and C h r i s t i a n H i s t o r y , in: A G A J U 9 (1980) 1 3 6 - 1 5 8 , d e r die E c h t h e i t des ersten Briefes n a c h w e i s t u n d die v e r w i r r e n d e D a t i e r u n g richtigstellt. 89 I. F. Schleusner. N o v u s T h e s a u r u s . . . sive L e x i c o n in L X X . . . . V (1821) 46: t a b e r n a c u l i fixio. 90 / . A. Goldstein, II M a c c a b e e s . A n c B (1983) 153; vgl. ders., I M a c c a b e e s (1976) 2 7 2 - 2 8 6 , zu I . M a k k 4 , 3 6 - 6 1 : „ T h e R e s t o r a t i o n of t h e T e m p l e " . N o c h i m S i d d u r w e r d e n die drei Wallfahrtsfeste Passa. W o c h e n f e s t u n d L a u b h u t t e n f e s t ( h a g h a m - m a z z o t , h a g h a s - s a b u ' o t u n d h a g h a s - s u k k o t ) g e n a n n t , d a g e g e n ist n u r v o n h ^ n u k k a h u n d p u r i m b z w . d e n acht j e m e h » n u k k a h u n d d e r V e r p f l i c h t u n g la'^sot p i i r i m d i e R e d e , s. S i d ( d ) u r sefat e m e t , hrsg. v o n S. Bamberger ( N D Basel 1987) 217, 2 7 4 , 2 7 5 f Vgl. a u c h d e n K o m m e n t a r z u r F a s t e n r o l l e , H. Lichtenstein, in: H U C A ( 1 9 3 1 / 3 2 ) 3 4 1 : I'swt h n k h b z w . kj h n k t h m z b h 's'w sb't j m j m . 91 2,23 vgl. 4,45; 6,4; 13,1 vgl. 11,56; 12,12.20; 13,29. 92 7,2 vgl. 7 . 8 . 1 0 f 14.37.

62

Martin Hengel

EYEvexo TOTE Tct EYKaivia EV xoig lEpoooXiinoig. Man konnte diesen Festplural auch mit at rmepat xwv EyKatvitov, „Tage der (Ahar)weihe", wiedergeben'^. Jo­ hannes ist sich nicht nur wie das 2. Makkabaerbuch des engen Zusammenhangs zwischen Sukkot und Hanukka bewufit, er rahmt mit ihm das dritte - fiir seinen Weg entscheidende - Auftreten Jesu in Jerusalem, vor dem letzten, welches keine grofien offentlichen Auseinandersetzungen mehr bringt, sondern mit jesu Tod am Riisttag zum Passafest endet''*. Erst in der Mitte von Sukkot kommt Jesus nach Jerusalem, der Evangelist legt ihm am „letzten Tage, dem grofien des Festes"'^ einen feierlichen Ruf in den Mund: „Wenn einer Durst hat, der komme zu mir, und es trinke, wer an mich glaubt. Wie die Schrift sagt: ,Str6me lebendigen Wassers werden aus seinem Leibe flieficn'" (7,37-38). Der 8. Tag des Festes, fiir welchen Lev 23,36 und Nu 29,35 eine abschliefiende Festversammlung vorschreibcn, wurde in gewisser Selbstandigkeit als „letzter Feiertag des Festes" gefeiert"^'. U. a. war er mit einer besonderen Berakha verbun­ den, und man betete - nach spaterer Uberlieferung - an ihm nicht nur um Regen, sondern gedachte auch in besonderer Weise der Liebe Gottes zu Israel. Das johanneische Jesuswort konnte auf das Regengebet anspielen oder aber auf die siebentagige Wasserspende am Altar, beides Brauche, die erst die rabbinische Uberlieferung bezeugt. Die Wasserspende wird bereits in mSukka 4,9 geschildert, die Regenbitte in den spateren Midraschim. Die Sache selbst wird aber sehr viel alter sein. Bedeutsam ist hier, dafi beim rituehen Wasserschopfen am Sabbat aus der Siloahquelle Jes 12,3 gesungen wurde: „Ihr werdet mit Freude Wasser schopfen aus den Quellen des Heils." Dieser Psalm gait der eschatologischen Prophetic Jesajas iiber den Siloah'''. Es ist wohl auch kein Zufall, dafi bei Johannes der Siloahteieh im Anschlufi an die Streitgesprache am Laubhuttenfest in 9,7 erwahnt und etymologisch richtig mit der Wurzcl slh verbunden wird, womit der Evange­ list indirekt auf Jesu Sendung hinweist (djtE0xaX,(tEV05)'**. Auf jeden Fall kennt Johannes nicht nur den jiidischen Festkalender relativ genau, sondern setzt auch bei seinen heidenchristhchen Florern und Lesern eine gewisse Kenntnis desselben voraus, die er diesen zuvor vcrmittelt haben mufi. Fiir eine ganze Reihe jiidischer Begriffe und Gebrauche ist er so der erste Zeuge und z.T. der einzige im griechi­ schen Sprachgewand.

s.o. A n m . 76. D e s s e n B e d e u t u n g als T o d e s t a g J e s u h c b t J o h a n n e s b e s o n d e r s h e r v o r : 19,14 jtapaoiceuT) xov jictoxa, vgl. 19,31.42. D i e S y n o p t i k e r n e n n e n d e n „ R u s t t a g " n u r als d e n Vortag z u m S a b ­ b a t (des M a z z o t f e s t e s ) , M k 15,42 = L k 23,54; e t w a s a n d e r s M t 27,62. 95 7,37: ev 6 e Tfl e o x d x r | r|nepcj xfj. peydXri xi\c, topxf\c,. 96 Billerbeck, 2, 808 ff.; A. Schlatter, D e r Evangelist J o h a n n e s ( S t u t t g a r t 1948) 199f. 97 Vgl. Vit. P r o p h . 1,5; m S u k k 5,1; b S u k k 4 8 b ; S. d a z u ^ l . M. Schwemer, S t u d i e n zu d e n friihjiidischen P r o p h e t e n l e g e n d e n . Vitae P r o p h e t a r u m I, in: T S A J 49 ( T i i b i n g e n 1995) 145 f. 98 J o h 9,7 vgl. 3,17.34; 5,36.38; 6,29.57; 7,29; 8,42; 10,36. A u c h d e r TSufer ist d j i e o x a X p e v o g , d. h. v o n G o t t g e s a n d t . 93

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

63

3. Personen: Die beiden Hohenpriester Hannas und Kaiaphas Die Evangelien nennen nur wenige Gestalten der zeitgenossischen Geschichte Judaas auficrhaib des Jijngerkreises Jesu. Allein Lukas, der „Historiker", macht mit dem „Synchronismus" Lk 3,1 f eine Ausnahme, indem er das Auftreten Johan­ nes d. Taufers in das 15. Jahr des Tiberius, d.h. ca. 27/28 n.Chr datiert und damit dessen Wirken - wie auch Jesu Geschichte - mit der Weltgeschichte verbindet. Allen Evangelien gemeinsam ist allein die Erwahnung des Prafekten (Pontius) Pilatus''. Bei Markus erscheint der Hohepriester noch ohnc Namen'°°, erst Matthaus nennt seinen Namen historisch zutreffend Kaiaphas'"'. Lukas spricht im „Synchronismus" 3,2 auf ratselhafte Weise von zwei Hohenpricstern em dpxtepecog 'Avva Kal Kaidq)a'°2, in der Leidensgeschichte des Lukas bleibt das politisch-religiose Haupt des jiidischen Ethnos dagegen wie bei Markus namenlos (Lk 22,50.54), bei der Verhandlung selbst erscheint es gar nicht (22,66-23,1). Lukas nennt hier nur kollektive Grofien: den Altestenrat des Volkes (TO jtpeof3tJTepiov TOO Xaov), die Hohenpriester und Schriftgelchrten. Der Begriff TO ouveSptov avxiav crhiilt dabei die Bedeutung „ihre Ratsversammlung". D.h. Lukas (und erst recht Johannes) korrigieren den altesten Bericht des Markus. Erst Johannes bringt hier wesentliche neue Details, die auch die eigenartige Berichterstattung des Lukas verstandlichcr machen. Zum Ersten bestimmt er das unklare Verhaltnis der beiden Hohenpriester Hannas und Kaiaphas nahcn Jesus wird nach seiner Verhaftung - gegen den Bericht der Synoptiker - nicht in das Haus des amtierenden Hohenpriestcrs'°5, den Mt mit Kaiaphas bezeichnet, sondern zuerst zu Hannas'"'* gefiihrt, der der Schwiegcrvater des offiziellen Hohenpriestcrs Kaia­ phas war'°5. Johannes fugt die ebenfalls ratselhafte und umstrittene Bemerkung hinzu: „..., welcher der Hohepriester jcnes Jahres war"'"''. Schon vor Beginn der Leidensgeschichte hatte der Evangelist den amticrenden Hohenpriester mit einer ahnlichen Formel als Propheten wider Willcn eingefiihrt: „Einer aber von ihnen (=den I lohenpriestern und Pharisaern 11,47), Kaiaphas, der Hohepriester jenes '^9 D a s C i e n t i l n o m e n P o n t i u s findet sich i n n e r h a l h des N T s n u r in L k 3 , 1 ; A p g 4,27 u n d in d e r b e k e n n t n i s a r t i g c n F o r m u l i e r u n g I . T i m 6,13, d a g e g e n d r e i m a l bei I g n a t i u s : M a g n . 11,1; Trail. 9,1; Smyr. 1,2; M t 27,2 ist es erst s e k u n d a r in d e n Text e i n g e d r u n g e n . '00 M k 1 4 , 6 0 - 6 3 , vgl. 14,47.53 f. 6 6 . 101 M t 26,3.57. '02 In A p g 4,6 n e n n t er n e b e n H a n n a s u n d K a i a p h a s n o c h e i n e n J o h a n n e s u n d A l e x a n d e r , s.u. A n m . 117. '03 So a u c h n o c h L k 22,54. 'O"* 18,13: Jtpog " A v v a v Kpwxov, erst 18,15 ist v o n d e r aijX,ri zov dpxiepews d i e R e d e . '05 J o h 18,13a: K a l fJYayov :tp65 ' A v v a v i t p w T o v f|v ydp jiEvOepog xoiJ Ka'idqja. '06 J o h 18,13b: 6g rjv dpxLepeijg toiJ eviatJTOiJ E K E I V O D , vgl. 11,49. Z u r P e r s o n des K a i a p h a s u n d s e i n e m m o g l i c h e r w e i s e g e f u n d e n e n G r a b s. j e t z t d i e g r i i n d l i c h e U n t e r s u c h u n g m i t a u s fiihrlicher L i t e r a t u r a n g a b e v o n W. Horbury, T h e . C a i a p h a s ' O s s u a r i e s a n d J o s e p h C a i a p h a s , in: P E Q 126 (1994) 3 3 ^ 8 ; d o r t 3 7 z u r S c h r e i b w e i s e des N a m e n s in d e r V L K a i c p a g 11,49 s. p45.75vid I ) it lateinische T e x t e .

64

Martin Hengel

Jahres, sagte ihnen: ,lhr versteht gar nichts, auch bedenkt ihr nicht, dafi es fiir euch besser ist, wenn ein Mensch fiir das Volk (iiJtep xov X.ao'u)'"^ stirbt, als wenn das ganze Volk zugrunde geht.' Das sagte er nicht von sich aus, sondern als Hoheprie­ ster jenes Jahres weissagte er, dafi Jesus fiir die Nation (eOvog) sterben soil; aber nicht nur fur die Nation, sondern dafi er die zerstreuten Gotteskinder zur Einheit zusammenfiihrte" (11,49-53). Den voUen Namen des Kaiaphas und die lange Dauer seiner Amtszeit erfahren wir von Josephus, dem Zeitgcnossen des Johannes, der Kaiaphas zweimal erwahnt: bei seiner Einsetzung im Jahr 18 n.Chr und bei seiner Absetzung 36 n.Chr Er nennt ihn Joseph Kaiaphas, d.h. Kaiaphas'^^ war an sich blofier Beiname, aber anstelle des allzu gelaufigen Namens Joseph zur Unterschcidung notwendig. Denn aUein schon Josephus nennt 20 Trager dieses Namens, der neben „Judas" und „Shim\>n" der haufigste jiidische Name seiner Zeit iiberhaupt war'"'. Dafi Han­ nas Schwiegcrvater des Kaiaphas war, horen wir nur durch Johannes. Nicht zuletzt dieser Tatbestand jedoch erklart die einmalige hohepriesterliche Karriere des Kaiaphas und zugleich die tlrwahnung des Hannas bei Lukas und Johannes sowie des letzteren Rolle im Prozefi Jesu. Hannas war namlich das Oberhaupt des einflufireichsten und miichtigsten priesterlichen Clans in der Zeit der Prafekten bzw. Prokuratoren zwischen 6 n. Chr, der Umwandlung Judaas in eine romische Pro­ vinz, und 66 n.Chr, dem Ausbruch des jiidischen Krieges. Josephus berichtet von ihm im Zusammenhang mit der Ernennung seines Sohnes, Hannas II., zum Ho­ henpriester durch Konig Agrippa II., 62 n.Chr: „Dieser altere Hannas, so sagt man, sei besonders gliicklich gewesen. Denn er hatte fiinf Siihne, und diese alle eriangten das Hohepriesteramt vor Gott. Er selbst war der erste, der diese Ehre erhielt und sich ihrer lange Zeit erfreute. Das geschah mit keinem anderen unter unscren Hohenpricstern.""" Nach den Hohepriesternotizen des Josephus wurde Hannas I., Sohn des Sethi, unmittelbar nach der Umwandlung Judaas in eine romische Provinz 6 n.Chr durch den Statthalter P. Sulpicius Quirinius zum Hohenpriester eingesetzt. Er trat an die Stelle des noch von Archelaos eingesetzten Joazar aus dem Hause Boethos, '07 A a o g ist d e r atl. A u s d r u c k fiir das G o t t e s v o l k Israel u n d e r s c h e i n t bei J o h a n n e s n u r i m V o t u m des K a i a p h a s . '0* A n t . 18,35: Tworirtog 6 Ka'idcpag; 18,95: 'IWOTIJIOV T O V K a i d q ) a v e:mKaX,aTjpEvov. D i e T a t s a c h e , daK es sich bei „ K a i a p h a s " u m einen B e i n a m e n h a n d e l t , la(5t Zweifel an d e r I d c n t i fikation d e s N a m e n s q p ' b z w . j h w s p b r qjp' ( o d e r q w p ' ) b z w . q p ' in d e m b e k a n n t e n O s s u a r i c n f u n d in N o r d - T a l p i o t h a u f k o m m e n , d e n n hier ist es N a m e u n d P a t r o n y m . Horbury, ( A n m . 106) 3 7 - 4 1 in seiner sorgfaltigen U n t e r s u c h u n g . E i n w e i t e r e s A r g u m e n t , d a s eine e i n fache I d e n t i f i z i e r u n g e r s c h w e r t , ist die u n s i c h e r e N a m e n s f o r m : q o p h , q e p h a o d e r qajjapha. Sie e n t s p r i c h t d e n D i f f e r e n z e n in d e n 3 r a b b i n i s c h e n E r w a h n u n g e n d e s N a m e n s : m P a r a 3,5 (s.u. A n m . 122); t j e b 1,10 u n d j M a a s e r o t h 8,7 52a. '0'' W a s die B e d e u t u n g des B e i n a m e n s anbetrifft, s o muf5 m a n d e m auf e i n e r sorgfaltigen U n ­ tersuchung der verschiedenen H y p o t h e s e n griindcnden Urteil von H o r b u r y zustimmen: „ T h e significance of t h e n a m e C a i a p h a s r e m a i n s u n c l e a r " ( O p . c i t . 40). " ° A n t . 20,198: Tofixov &e c p a o i t o v i t p e o p i i t a T o v " A v a v o v e u t u x e o t a T o v yeveoOai- jtevTE y d p EOXE J i t t i 6 a g Kal xovxovz, J t d v x a g atJVEpT] dpxiEpaTEiiaai x(o Geo), atixog jtpoTEpog Tfjg Tijifig km. JIXEIOTOV d j i o X a i J o a g , omp o i i b s v l ouvepri tcijv n a p ' T)piv dpxiepEcov.

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

65

wobei die Boethusaer - aus Alexandricn stammend - die von den Herodianern begunstigte Hohepriesterfamilie waren. Joazar hatte zwar noch die Volksmenge davon abhalten konnen, sich dem Aufstandsbegehren eines Judas Galilaus und seines Genossen, des Pharisaers Zadok, anzuschliefien, wurde dann aber von Quirinius dem Drangen des Volkes geopfert"'. Offenbar verstanden es Hannas und seine Familie besser, die schwierige Ba­ lance zwischen der Gunst der romischen Oberherren und der des Volkes zu hal­ ten. Josephus nennt Hannas II. einen energischen Parteiganger der Partei der Sadduzaer"2. Fr veranlafit dann als sadduzaischer Hohepriester, kaum im Amte, die Steinigung des Herrnbruders Jakobus und anderer Judenchristen als Gesetzesbrecher"5. Dagegen lafit Lukas in Apg 4,1 die (fuhrenden) Priester"'*, den Tempelhauptmann und die Sadduzaer"^ gegen die friiheste Jesusgemeinde in Jerusalem auftreten, und in Apg 5,17 sind es „der Hohepriester und sein ganzer Anhang, die die Partei der Sadduzaer bilden""^. Als Sprccher der von den fiihrenden Priestern und Sadduzaern einberufenen Ratsversammlung fiihrender Manner, der Altesten und Schriftgelehrtcn, nennt Lk in Apg 4,6 vier hochpriesterliche Namen, wobei die Reihenfolge wohl auf eine Altersabstufung hindeutet: „Hannas, der Hohe­ priester, und Kaiaphas und Johannes und Alexander und welchc sonst noch aus hochpriesterlichem Geschlecht stammten." Eigenartig ist, dafi hier Hannas an erster Stelle steht und Hohepriester genannt wird, wahrend Kaiaphas erst nach ihm folgt, ahnlich wie im Synchronismus Lk 3,1 und in der von den Synoptikern abweichenden Prozefischilderung bei Johannes. Nach einer Jerusalemer Ossuarieninschrift, in der eine „Johanna, Tochter des Johannes, Sohn des (Hohcn)priesters Theophilos" erscheint, konnte es sich bei dem erwahnten Johannes um einen Flnkel des Hannas handeln. Gemafi Josephus wurde namlich Theophilos, Sohn des Hannas (I.), am Passa 37 n.Chr als Nachfolger eines weiteren Hannassohnes, Jonathan, von Vitellius zum Hohenpriester eingesetzt" 7. Die Namen jener vier sadduzaisch-hochpriesterlichen - Hauptakteure scheinen auf guter Uberlieferung zu beruhen. Aus all diesen Hinweisen kann man erschliefien, dafi der Clan des Hannas, mit ihm selbst als dem iiber langere Zeit aktiven Oberhaupt an der Spitze, die eigent1 " J o s . A n t . 18,3.26, s. da/.u M. Hengel, D i e Z e l o t e n , in: A G A J U 1 (21976) 132ff., 143f., vgl. auch 216-218. "2 A n t . 20,199. E r spielt d a n n a u c h eine f i i h r e n d e R o l l e als A n f i i h r e r d e r „ n a t i o n a l g e s i n n t c n " , g l e i c h w o h l gemafiigten S a d d u z a e r i n n e r h a l h d e r K r i e g s p a r t e i in J e r u s a l e m (Jos. bell. 2,564.648; 4,151.325; vita 193-196.216.309) u n d w i r d v o n d e n Z e l o t e n u m g e b r a c h t . 113 J o s . A n t . 20,200. 1 I'l D e r Text hat n u r lepEi?, C o d . B u n d C i n t e r p r e t i e r e n h i s t o r i s c h r i c h t i g diese als dp/LEpeTc, vgl. 4,6. 115 Vgl. n o c h L k 20,27 = M k 12,18; A p g 5,17; 23,6 ff. ii*" 6 apxiEpeiig Kal jidvxEg oi at)v aiiTW, f| o u o a al'pEoig xc&v 2a68oiiKaia)v. 117 A n t . 18,123, vgl. 19,297, s. Schurer, ( A n m . 1) 2,230. Z u d e r Inschrift s. D. Barag, D. flus­ ser. T h e O s s u a r y of Y e h o h a n n a h , G r a n d d a u g h t e r of t h e H i g h P r i e s t T h e o p h i l u s , in: l E J 36 (1986) 3 9 - 4 4 u n d L. Y. Rahmani, A C a t a l o g u e of J e w i s h O s s u a r i e s J e r u s a l e m 1994) 259, Nr. 871.

66

Martin Hengel

liche Fijhrungsgruppe der Sadduzaer darstellte, welche beginnend mit dem Pro­ zefi Jesu ca. 30 n.Chr bis zur Steinigung des Herrnbruder Jakobus ca. 32 Jahre spater die eigentlichen Gegner der Jesusbewegung waren"^. Der Einflufi der Gruppe war wahrend der gesamten Prokuratorenzeit wesentlich grofier als der des Konkurrenzclans der Boethusiier, die von den Herodianern begiinstigt wur­ den, obwohl bcide Clans je und je auch zusammenarbeiten mufiten. Das gilt besonders fiir die spatere kritische Prokuratorenzeit seit Felix und bis zum Jiidi­ schen Krieg. Hannas 1. amtierte nach seiner Einsetzung durch den Statthalter Syriens wah­ rend der gesamten Zeit der ersten Prafekten Coponius (ca. 6-9 n. Chr), Marcus Ambibulus (ca. 9-12 n.Chn) und Annius Rufus (ca. 12-15 n.Chr)"'. D.h., die ersten Prokuratoren setzten die Politik des Herodes und Archelaos, welche die Hohenpriester haufig wechselten, nicht fort. Fiir das hohepriesterliche Amt bedeutete die direkte Herrschaft des romischen Prafekten, der seinen standigen Sitz in Casarea hatte und nur zu den grofien Festen in die jiidische Metropole kam, eine Ausweitung seiner Macht und seines Ansehens nicht nur in Judaa selbst, son­ dern auch in der Diaspora'^o. Von jetzt an war nicht mehr das herodianische Herrscherhaus, sondern der Hohepriester das Oberhaupt des jiidischen Volkes und damit auch sein politischer Vertreter nach aufien. Dies gilt zumindest bis zur Er­ nennung des ehrgeizigen Herodesenkcls Agrippa I. zum Nachfolger des Tetrarchen Philippus mit Konigstitel 37 n.Chr und zum Konig von ganz Judaa 41 n. Chr Nach seinem Tode Anfang 44 n. Chr setzte Kaiser Claudius zuerst dessen Bruder, Herodes von Chalkis, und dann dessen Sohn Agrippa II. als oberste Tempelaufsicht ein, was zu standigen Spannungen zwischen den hochpriesterlichen Familien und dem Konigshaus fiihrte und das Verhaltnis zur priesterlichen Aristokratie verschlechterte. Zunachst aber hatte Hannas ca. 9 Jahre lang seine personliche VormachtsteUung sowie die seiner Familie ausbauen konnen. Vermuthch erwarb er, jetzt unabhangig von der Konkurrenzfurcht und den Launen der herodianischen Herrscher, jene Autoritat gegeniiber dem Volk wie auch gegeniiber den Vertretern der romischen Macht, die - wenn auch spater mehr und mehr abgeschwacht - bis in die Zeit des Ausbruchs des jiidischen Krieges andauerte, und zu der auch der notwendige Reichtum gehorte'^i. "8 D a s b c t o n e n a u c h n a c h d r i i c k l i c h D. Flusser, C a i a p h a s in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , ' A t i q o t 2 1 , 6 3 - 7 1 ; vgl. a u c h M. Goodman, T h e R u l i n g C l a s s of J u d a e a (1987) 44, 1 4 1 - 1 4 4 , 2 1 1 ; Horbury, (Anm. 106)44f. ' i ' S. d a z u Schurer, ( A n m . 1) 1,382, vgl. J o s . bell. 2,117 = ant. 1 8 , 2 9 - 3 3 . '2° D i e r o m i s c h e n A m t s t r a g e r , d i e in d e n G l i e d e r n d e s h e r o d i a n i s c h e n H e r r s c h e r h a u s e s e h e r K o n k u r r e n t e n s a h e n , mufSten m i t d e r S p i t z e d e r P r i e s t e r a r i s t o k r a t i e eng z u s a m m e n a r b e i t e n . D e r A u s b r u c h d e s J i i d i s c h e n Krieges w u r d e u . a . d u r c h d e n A b b a u dieser Z u s a m m e n a r b e i t v o r b e r e i t e t , d e n n Telle d e r A r i s t o k r a t i e gingen auf die Seite d e r A u f r i i h r c r iiber. '21 L e i d e r b e r i c h t e t J o s e p h u s iiber die Z e i t d e r e r s t e n P r a f e k t e n z w i s c h e n 6 u n d 26 n . C h r . bis z u r A n k u n f t des Pilatus k e i n e E i n z e l h e i t e n , s o n d e r n n e n n t n u r die r o m i s c h e n B e a m t c n u n d d i e H o h e n p r i e s t e r m i t d e n n o t w e n d i g s t e n zeitlichen A n g a b e n . So sind w i r iiber diese e n t ­ s c h e i d e n d e Z e i t fast vollig o h n e N a c h r i c h t e n .

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

67

Erst der 4. Prafekt Valerius Gratus (15-26 n.Chr), der erste nach dem Tode des Augustus, ersetzte Hannas nach fast zehnjahriger Amtsfiihrung durch den eben­ falls aus einer Konkurrenzfamilie stammenden Jsmael, S.d. Phiabi. Dieser Wechsel scheint bald nach der Ankunft von Valerius Gratus in Judaa vorgenommen wor­ den zu sein - vielleicht war diesem die Macht des Hannas zu grofS geworden'22. Der neue Prafekt brach zugleich radikai mit der bisherigen toleranten Politik ge­ geniiber dem Hohenpriesteramt, denn er berief Jsmael nach kurzer Zeit wieder ab und ernannte an seiner Statt Eleazar, einen Sohn des Hannas - offenbar ein erster Sieg des kurz zuvor Abgesetzten'23. Aber auch dieser wohl alteste Sohn konnte sich nur ein Jahr seines Amtes erfreucn, dann mufite er Simon aus der Familie des Kamithos Platz machen, der freilich ebenfalls nur ein Jahr amtierte, um dann durch Joseph Kaiaphas ersetzt zu werden. Dieser schliefilieh hatte das hohe Amt ca. 18 Jahre inne (von ca. 18 n.Chr bis zu seiner Absetzung durch Vitellius 36 n. Chr) - ein weiterer radikaler Wechsel in der Besatzungspolitik und ein einzigartiger Fall in den ca. 57 Jahren romischer Verwaltung. In diesem Zusammenhang erhalt die Nachricht von Joh 18,13, dafS Hannas der Schwiegcrvater des Joseph mit Beinamen Kaiaphas war, besondere Bedeutung. Zum drittenmal hatte ein Glied aus dem Hannasclan den Vertreter einer angesehenen Priesterfamilie'^'* nach kur­ zer Zeit aus dem Amt verdrangt, um dieses dann lange Zeit zu behalten. Joseph Kaiaphas mufi ein Genie der Balance gewesen sein, diplomatisch geschmeidig gegeniiber den Prafekten und den herodianischen Fiirsten, machtbewufit und doch nicht beim Volk verhafit, so dafi es ihm gelang, die Hohepriesterwijrde auf so lange Zeit unter zwei Prokuratoren zu behalten, die beide als schwierig gelten konnen: Gratus, der durch den vierfachen Hohenpriesterwechsel gezeigt hatte, dafi man mit ihm nicht leicht zurechtkam (ca. 18-26 n.Chr) und Pilatus (ca. 26-36 n.Chr), der sowohl von Josephus als auch von Philo aufierst negativ beurtedt wird und aufgrund seiner Grausamkeit den Samaritanern gegen­ iiber abberufen wurde'25. Diese einzigartig lange Amtszeit war wohl - bei alien personlichen Fahigkeiten des Amtsinhabers - nur deshalb moglich, weil hinter dem Schwiegersohn als eminence grise Hannas und seine Famihe standen. Darauf deutet jedenfalls die Tatsache hin, dafi nach der Absetzung des Kaiaphas durch den Statthalter Syriens im Zusammenhang mit der Amtsenthebung des Pilatus im '22 J o s . a n t . 18,33 f D i e F a m i l i e P h i a b i g e h o r t e s c h o n z u r Zeit des H e r o d e s z u d e n f i i h r e n d e n P r i e s t e r g e s c h l e c h t e r n , s. e b e n d a 15,322 u n d d a z u Schiirer, ( A n m . 1) 2,229, A n m . 6. A u c h f r u h r a b b i n i s c h e Q u e l l e n w e i s e n auf die F a m i l i e P h i a b i hin, s. m S o t 9,15; m P a r 3,15, vgl. n o c h t M e n 13,21 u n d P a r 3,6. S p a t e r w i r d ein H o h e p r i e s t e r gleichen N a m e n s ant. 20,179 u. 1 9 4 f g e n a n n t , d e r v e r m u t l i c h in K y r c n e b e i m A u s b r u c h des jiidischen K r i e g e s als Geisel h i n g e r i c h t e t w u r d e (bell. 6,114). M o g l i c h e r w e i s e w a r er ein E n k e l des a n t . 18,34 G e n a n n t e n . '23 A n t . 18,34: xoOxov 8 E pex' noli) pfixaoxriaag. '2'* Simon, S.d. K a m i t h o s , w i r d relativ haufig in d e r r a b b i n i s c h e n L i t e r a t u r e r w a h n t ( s m ' o n b n q m n j t ) , s. Schurer, ( A n m . 1) 2,230, A n m . 1 1 . N a c h d e m T o d A g r i p p a s I. s e t z t dessen B r u ­ d e r H e r o d e s v o n C h a l k i s w i e d e r e i n e n H o h e n p r i e s t e r aus d i e s e r F a m i l i e ein, J o s . ant. 20,16.103, vgl. Schurer, ( A n m . 16) 2 , 2 3 1 . '25 S. die V o r g a n g e u n t e r s e i n e r R e g i e r u n g s z e i t J o s . ant. 1 8 , 5 5 - 6 4 , seine A b s e t z u n g 8 8 f u n d das v e r n i c h t e n d c U r t e i l P h i l o s leg. ad C . 2 9 9 - 3 0 5 .

68

Martin Hengel

Jahr 36 n. Chr wieder ein Sohn des Hannas I., Jonathan, die hohe Wiirde er­ hielt'^6. Dieser spielte spater eine aktive politische Rolle und wurde u.a. nach Rom gesandt und spater auf Betreiben des Prokurators Felix von den Sikariern ermordet'^'', was ebenfalls auf die Bedeutung der Familie verweist. Obwohl Jona­ than eine wirkliche Personhchkeit war, ersetzte ihn Vitellius, als er im Friihjahr 57 wieder nach Judaa kam, durch seinen Bruder Theophilos'^s, Diese Herrschaft der Familie des Hannas iiber drei Jahrzehnte hinweg mufite in Jerusalem zu einer gewissen Kontinuitat und Konsistenz in politischer und religioser Hinsicht fiihren. D.h., die Verhaltnisse scheinen bei weitem nicht so unruhig gewesen zu sein wie in den 20 Jahren nach dem Tode Agrippas I. 44-66 n. Chr Dies konnte den Satz des Tacitus „sub Tiberio quies" (hist. 5,9,1) erklaren. Nachdcm Konig Agrippa I., der Enkel des Herodes, im Friihjahr/Sommer 41 die Macht iibernommen hatte, machte er der uber 35 Jahre hinweg fast ununterbrochen wahrenden Vorherrschaft der Hannas-Sippe zunachst ein Ende und er­ nannte Simon Kantheras aus dem Hause Boethos, den Favoriten der Herodianer, zum Hohenpriester Aber auch dieser konnte sich dem Einflufi der machtigsten Priesterfamilie nicht entziehen: Wohl kaum ein Jahr spater trug er dem schon ge­ nannten Jonathan, S.d. Hannas, das Amt an, und nach dessen Weigerung seinem Bruder Matthias, S.d. Hannas'^', welcher es freilich wiederum nur ganz kurze Zeit innehatte'50. Erst nach dem Tod Agrippas I. treten wieder andere Familien in den Vordergrund, alien voran das den Herodianern geneigte Haus des Boethos, da das Amt von nun an bis 66 n. Chr nicht mehr durch die Prokuratoren, sondern durch he­ rodianische Konige wie Herodes von Chalkis und Agrippa II. vergeben wurde. Allein der schon erwahnte Hannas II. 62 n.Chr macht hier eine Ausnahme, wurde jedoch wegen des Justizmordes an Jakobus rasch abgesetzt. Nach J. Jeremias gehorten „von den 25 illegitimen (das meint bei ihm: nichtzadokidischen) Hohenpricstern der herodianisch-romischen Zeit", d.h. etwa zwischen 40 v. Chr und 66 n. Chr, „nicht weniger als 22 zu... vier Famihen", und zwar zum Haus des Boethos und Hannas je 8, zu Phiabi und Kamith je 3. Die Zeit der Boethusaer fallt dabei praktisch zusammen mit den Zeitcn, in denen das hero'26 J o s . ant. 18,95.123. J o n a t h a n l e h n t e u n t e r A g r i p p a I. eine c r n e u t e E r n e n n u n g m i t d e r B e ­ g r i i n d u n g a b , es geniige i h m , e i n m a l das heilige ( H o h c p r i e s t c r - ) G e w a n d g e t r a g e n z u h a b e n (ant. 19,313f.). 127 J o s . bell. 2 , 2 4 0 - 2 4 3 . 2 5 6 ; ant. 20,163; Schiirer, ( A n m . 1) 2,231; s. Hengel, Zeloten ( A n m . I l l ) 4 7 3 , I n d e x s.v. J o n a t h a n , S.d. A n a n o s . 128 S.o. A n m . 117; J o s . a n t . 18,123. 129 J o s . a n t . 1 9 , 3 1 3 - 3 1 6 . '30 A n t . 19,342 u n d 20,16: Sein N a c h f o l g e r E l i o n a e u s , S.d. K a n t h e r a s (v. K d v O a p o g , d e r Kafer?) k o n n t e m o g l i c h e r w e i s e m i t d e r F'amilie des K a i a p h a s z u s a m m c n h a n g e n , d e n n m P a r a 3,5 n e n n t e i n e n H o h e n p r i e s t e r 'Elio'enai b e n h a q - q a j j a p h , s . / . Jeremias, J e r u s a l e m z u r Z e i t J e s u (31962) 108, A n m . 1. D i e T e x t i i b e r l i e f e r u n g d e r M i s c h n a ist h i e r freilich u n e i n h e i t l i c h . Teiiweise h a t sie a u c h h a q q o p h , s. Horbury, ( A n m . 106). D i e s e n t s p r i c h t d e n O s s u a r i e n inschriften v o m s o g . K a i a p h a s g r a b . Vielleicht h a n d e l t es sich d o r t u m G l i e d e r e i n e r P r i c s t e r s i p p e q o p h a / h a q q o p h , d i e d a n n v o n d e r F a m i l i e des K a i a p h a s z u u n t e r s c h e i d e n w a r e .

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir die G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

69

dianische Konigshaus die Verfiigungsgewalt iiber den Tempel hatte, also bis 6 n. Chr und dann wieder ab 41 n. Chr, wahrend Hannas und sein Schwiegersohn Joseph die 35 Jahre dazwischen beherrschten, wobei sie zusammen ca. 27 Jahre selbst amtierten. Wenn also Lk 3,1 und Apg 4,6 Hannas und Kaiaphas nebeneinander als Hohe­ priester aufzahlen, so beruht dies nicht auf historischer Unwissenheit, sondern ist von der Sache her wohl begriindct. Dasselbe gilt von dem Prozefibericht bei Jo­ hannes, demgemafi zunachst ein Verhor im Hause des Hannas stattfand'^i, wobei Johannes noch praziser als der Grieche Lukas betont, dafi Kaiaphas der eigentliche Trager des Amtes war'52. Die entscheidende Beschlufifassung findet dann vor dem Plohenpriester statt; Johannes, der die alteren Passionsberichte seiner Vorganger natiirlich kennt, lafit sie bewufit weg, weil er - die Synopdker korrigierend - aus theologischen Griinden den Schwerpunkt der Verhandlung vor die heidnische Autoritatsperson des Romers verlegen will. Ihm, dem spatesten Evangelisten, kommt es wie I.Tim 6,13 und Ignatius darauf an, dafi Jesus „sein gutes Bekenntnis vor Pontius Pilatus" bezeugt'53. Vor seinen jiidischen Gegnern hat Jesus dieses Zeugnis schon langst offentlich in der Synagoge und im Tempel abgclegt (Joh 18,19-21). Die Messiasfrage mufi deshalb nicht mehr wie im Prozefibericht des Markus durch den Hohe­ priester gestelh werden. Mit ihr wurde Jesus schon beim Tempelweihfest in der Halle bedrangt, sie steht nicht mehr zur Diskussion. Historisch betrachtet mag die Darstellung der Verhandlung gegen Jesus vor den jiidischen Autoritaten bei Johannes (und Lukas) der des Markus (und des Mat­ thaus, der hier von Markus vollig abhangig ist) vorzuziehen sein - aus folgenden Griinden: Einmal ist die Existenz eines Synhedriums als permanente, feste, gewis.sermafien „verfassungs-mafiige" Korperschaft in der Zeit bis zum jiidischen Krieg umstritten. Es konnte sich auch um ein relativ offenes Ratskollegium gehandelt haben, das ganz durch den Widen der jeweils Herrschenden, d.h. zwischen 6 und 41 n. Chr durch Hannas, Kaiaphas und ihre Sippe, gepragt war Der Hohepriester konnte dieses Ratskollegium nach cigcnem Gutdiinken ganz oder teiiweise einberufen'54. Zum anderen hatte selbst das oberste Gericht kein Recht, eine Todes'31 J o h 1 8 , 1 3 . 1 9 - 2 4 . 132 I n 18,13 lafit er bei H a n n a s d e n Titel w e g u n d s e t z t i h n b e t o n t bei K a i a p h a s h i n z u , vgl. 18,24. '33 Vgl. o. A n m . 30 u n d J o h 18,37. 131 S. d a z u jetzt (iiber)kritisch D. Goodblatt, T h e M o n a r c h i c P r i n c i p l e , in: T S A J 38 (1994) 7 7 - 1 3 0 : T h e P r o b l e m of t h e C o u n c i l b e f o r e 70, z u m N T 1 1 9 f f Vf i i b e r s i e h t z u sehr, dafi n i c h t n u r z u r a n t i k e n a b s o l u t e n M o n a r c h i c g e r a d e a u c h das R a t s k o l l e g i u m g e h o r t e , das eine b e s t i m m t e Festigkeit b e s i t z e n mufite, u n d dafi erst r e c h t die S u p r e m a t i e d e r - k o m p l i z i e r t e n - T o r a ein solches e b e n s o n o t w e n d i g m a c h t e w i e d e r relativ haufige I l o h e p r i e s t e r w e c h s e l u n d d i e p o l i t i s c h e n V e r p f l i c h t u n g e n , e t w a die U b e r w a c h u n g des S l e u e r e i n z u g s . Dieses ,Synh e d r i u m ' mufi d u r c h a u s n i c h t auf e i n e n g a n z festen P e r s o n e n k r e i s b e s c h r a n k t w e r d e n . S. d a z u F. Mdlar, Reflections o n t h e Trial of J e s u s , in: A T r i b u t e t o G e z a V e r m e s . E s s a y s o n J e w i s h and C h r i s t i a n L i t e r a t u r e a n d H i s t o r y , ed. P. R. Davies, R. T. White, in: J S O T s u p p . 100 (1990) 3 5 5 - 3 8 1 (37 8 {.); Goodman, ( A n m . 118) 115, b e i d e u n t e r I l i n w e i s auf ant. 20,200.202.

70

Martin Hengel

strafe zu vollziehen. Dieses lag offenbar beim Prafekten. Es war daher beim Vorgehen gegen Jesus kaum sinnvoll, einen ungewohnlichen, iiberstiirzten wirklichen Kapitalprozefi zu fiihren, sondern es geniigte ein bloEes Verhor und ein Beschlujl, ihn aufgrund dieses Verhors mit einer iiberzeugend wirkenden Anklage an den Prafekten auszuliefern. Vermutlich war Pdatus iiber den Fall schon zuvor benachrichtigt worden. Sicher wirksam war die Beschuldigung, dafi Jesus messianische Anspriiche erhebe, was dann in der Anklageschrift gegeniiber Pilatus so formu­ liert wurde: Jesus behaupte, „K6nig der Juden" zu sein. Bei Johannes und Lukas tritt das polidsche Element der Anklage gegen Jesus deutlich hervor'^s. Dessen von Markus und Matthaus erwahntes Gerichtswort iiber den Tempel hangt mit diesem messianischen Anspruch zusammen'^^. Selbst Markus scheint eine zweistufige Verhandlung anzudeuten. Die erste findet vor „den Hohepriestern und (etwas tibertreibend) dem ganzen Synhedrium" im Palast des anonymen Hohepriesters statt'^'^ der die entscheidende Messiasfrage stellt, und sie endet mit der Verspottung des Beschuldigten, der wegen seiner Gotteslasterung den Tod vcrdient hat'^^. Daran schliefit sich - unterbrochen durch die Verleugnung des Petrus - der Satz an, dafi „die Hohenpriester" und „das ganze Synhedrium"'^? in der Morgenfriihe einen Beschlufi ausfertigten, Jesus gefesselt abfiihrten und Pilatus iibergaben'''". D. h. doch, dafi der entscheidende Beschlufi, Jesus mit einer entsprechenden Anklage an Pilatus auszuliefern, von der obersten judischen Behorde erst ganz friih am Morgen gefafit wurde. Voraus ging das bei Markus dramatisch ge­ staltete Verhor, das der Meinungsbildung und der Begrundung der Anklage diente. Lk 22,66-71 berichtet nur von einer Versammlung des hochsten jiidischen Gremiums am friihen Morgen, das Jesus die Messiasfrage stellt, und auf seine bejahende Antwort hin als gestandigen Angeklagten an Pilatus ausliefert. Die eigenwillige Darstellung des Johannes mit dem nachtlichen Verhor vor Hannas, dem ehemaligen Hohepriester, und der anschhefienden Uberfiihrung zu Kaiphas, dem amtierenden Hohepriester, bei welchem dann relativ rasch der Auslieferungsbeschlufi gefafit wurde, so dafi Jesus noch in der Friihe dem Prafekten iiberstellt werden konnte''", scheint so plausibel zu sein. Sie vermcidet den EinA u f d e r a n d e r e n Seite g e b e n natiirlich d i e T r a k t a t e S a n h e d r i n u n d M a k k o t w e i t h i n s p a t e r e „ideale, g e l c h r t e S c h u l m e i n u n g e n " d e r T a n n a i t e n z e i t w i e d e r u n d diirfen n i c h t o h n e w e i t e r e s z u r kritischen Beurteilung d e r Berichte d e r Evangelisten herangezogen werden. '35 J o h 1 8 , 3 0 - 7 8 ; 1 9 , 1 4 - 1 6 . 2 1 ; L k 2 3 , 2 f . l 4 . 136 M k 14,57f. = M t 2 6 , 6 0 f f . , vgl. J o h 2,19; M k 13,1 f. u n d A p g 6,13f. 137 M k 14,55 ff. = M t 26,59. '38 M k 14,64f. (= M t 26,66): KateicpLvtxv <XVIT6V evoxov e i v a i Oavdxot): E s ist hier n u r v o n einem Schuldspruch, nicht von einem formlichen Todesurteil die Rede. 13** M k v e r w e n d e t d e n Begriff formelhaft, vgl. 14,55. W a h r s c h e i n l i c h will er d i e V e r a n t w o r t u n g d e r g a n z e n o b e r s t e n B e h o r d e fiir die A u s l i e f e r u n g J e s u b e t o n e n - h i s t o r i s c h z u U n r e c h t , u n d m o g h c h e r w e i s e i m G e g e n s a t z z u a n d e r e n A n s i c h t e n in d e r G e m e i n d e . i''0 M k 15,1: jtpcoL oupPoukov jtoir|aavTEg, vl. e x o i p d o a v x E g . E s k o n n t e sich hier u m e i n e n L a l i n i s m u s h a n d e l n , „ c o n s i l i u m c a p e r e " , vgl. a u c h M t 2 7 , 1 : oupPotiA.iov ekxPov, s. BauerAland, W o r t e r b u c h z u m N T , 1 5 5 2 f '''1 J o h 18,13; 1 9 - 2 3 . 2 8 .

D a s Johannesevangelium als Q u e l l e fiir die Geschichte des antiken Judentums

71

druck einer vollgiiltigen nachtlichen Gerichtsversammlung, den der alteste Be­ richt des Markus erwecken kann. Dies gilt vor allem dann, wenn man gegen die theologisch bedingte Chronologic des 4 . Evangelisten, wonach Jesus am Abend des Rtjsttages zum Passafest stirbt, die synoptische Chronologic vorzieht, wonach die Verhaftung und das Verhor in der Passanacht erfolgen. Eine Verhaftung in der Festnacht, da ganz Jerusalem von weinseligem Hallelgesang widerhallte, vermied jedes Risiko. Die galilaischen Festpilger waren zu diesem Zeitpunkt vollig ungefahrlich. Bevor die Stadt richtig erwachte, war die Verurteilung vor Pilatus schon geschehen. Am Riisttage zum Passafest, so die johanneische Chronologic, war die Stadt sehr viel unruhiger Das „Volk", das „kreuzige, kreuzige" rief, bildete dann die bestellte umfangreiche Klientel des Hannasclans: So konnte der Prozefi Jesu verlaufen sein. Dafi Johannes besondere Informationen iiber Jerusalem besafi, lafit sich am be­ sten dann erklaren, wenn der Autor, welcher am Ende des Buches in 2 1 , 2 4 mit dem Lieblingsjiinger identifiziert wird, aus der Jerusalemer Priesteraristokrade stammte. In 18,15 f. wird der Lieblingsjiinger als ein „Bekannter des Hohenprie­ stcrs", d.h. des Hannas, bezeichnet. Dadurch wurden auch alle anderen exakten Angaben beziiglich Jerusalemer Ortsverhaltnisse, Reinheitsvorschriften und jiidi­ scher Festbrauche verstandlich. Trotz dieser vereinzelten berechtigten histori­ schen Korrekturen gegenuber Markus, sollte man vom Evangelisten keinen wirk­ lichen „Geschichtsbericht" erwarten. Dazu hat die christologische Interpretation das ganze Evangelium zu sehr iiberlagert. Einen Punkt gilt es noch zu klaren, den die Kridk gegen den 4 . Evangelisten ausspricht: Zweimal bezeichnet Johannes Kaiaphas als denjenigen, „der in jenem Jahre Hohepriester war"'''2. Kaiaphas aber war ca. 18 Jahre lang Hohepriester. Konservative Exegeten deuten die Stellen in dem Sinne, dafi von „jenem entschcidenden Jahre" die Rede ist, die kritische Exegese sieht darin ein Zeichen fiir die Geschichtsferne des Evangelisten und eine Verwechslung mit dem griechischen Branch, Priesteramter jedes Jahr neu zu besetzen. Das Problem lafit sich nicht vol­ lig befriedigend losen. Zu beobachten ist jedoch, dafi die drei Hohenpriester vor Kaiaphas etwa zwischen 15 und 18 n. Chr wie auch sein Nachfolger 3 6 n.Chr das Amt nur jeweils ca. ein Jahr innehatten, und dies auch bei den drei Hohenpriestern unter Agrippa ( 4 1 - 4 4 n.Chr) sowie der Mehrzahl der Hohenpriester zwi­ schen 4 4 und 6 6 n.Chr der Fall war'''^. Nach einer rabbinischen Nachricht war die Zahl der Hohenpriester in der Zeit des 2. Tempels deshalb so grofi, weil diese ihr Amt durch Bestechung erwarben"''; die Zahlenangabe schwankt dabei zwi­ schen 81 und 88 Hohenpriestern. Diese Vorgange bcziehen sich vor allem auf die Ictzte Zeit des 2. Tempels unter der Herrschaft der romischen Prafekten und der '''2 Joh 11,49: Eig 6 E Tig zE, avxdiv Kaidqiag, dpxiepetjg wv xoii eviauxoij EKeivou, vgl. 18,13: 6g fjv dpxiEpEvg xoO Eviauxoi) eKEivoii. '43 S. dazu die H o h e p r i e s t e d i s t e bei Schurer, ( A n m . 1) 2 , 2 3 0 - 2 3 2 . jjoma 1,1 38c Z. 44 ff, deutsche U b e r s e t z u n g v o n F. Avemarie, Yoma. Versohnungstag, U s . d. Talmud Yerushalmi 11,4 (1995) 1 4 f = b j o m a 9a; s. auch Billerbeck, 2 , 5 6 9 f D o r t w e i ­ tere Belege z u m Kauf des Hohepriesteramtcs.

72

Martin Hengel

darauffolgcnden Oberaufsicht der herodianischen Epigonen Herodes v. Chalkis und Agrippa II. Der Hinweis auf den „Hohenpriester" jenes Jahres konnte z.B. durch den haufigen jahrlichen Wechsel in diesem Amt begriindct sein. Moglicher­ weise war auch die Herausgabe des hochpriesterlichen Prachtgewandes, das bis 37 n. Chr von dem romischen Kommandanten der Antonia aufbewahrt und nur zu den grofien Festen freigegeben wurde, mit jahrlichen Zahlungen an die Prafekten verbunden. Erst Vitellius hat bei seinem Besuch in Jerusalem 37 n. Chr dieses Argernis beseitigt und die Verfiigungsgewalt iiber das heilige Gewand an die Priester zuriickgcgeben'''^. Bei der von Philo gegeifielten Bestechlichkeit des Pilatus''*^ wird die ganz ungewohnlich lange Amtszeit des Kaiaphas, die von 26-36 n.Chr der des Pilatus par­ allel lief, im wahrsten Sinne des Wortcs jahrlich „teuer erkauft" gewesen sein, und dies mag auch fiir die Herrschaft der Hannasfamilie zwischen 6 und 41 n.Chr ge­ nereil gehen. Die rabbinischen Nachrichten iiber die Kaufhallen der b'^ne hanan, die vor der Eroberung Jerusalems - also ca. 67 n. Chr - zerstort wurden, angeblich „weil sie ihre Frtichte der Verzehntung entzogen"'''^, weisen wohl auf eine wich­ tige Quelle des Reichtums der Familie des Hannas hin. Kein Wunder, dafi die Spitze der Priesteraristokratie iiber die Storung des Geldwechsler- und Taubenhandelbetriebs durch Jesus emport war'"*** und alles daran setzte, diesen „messianischen" Unruhestifter rasch und sicher zu beseitigen. Man kann darum nicht einseitig Pdatus allein fur die Hinrichtung Jesu verantwortlich machen. Auch die Anklager und Auslieferer Jesu wufiten, dafi ihm der Tod am „Fluehholz"'''' gewifi war. ¥.s ist auch zu bedenken, dafi wir von einer Strafverfolgung der Christen durch Romer in Palastina bis zur Zeit Trajans zu Beginn des 2. Jahrhunderts nichts mehr horen, vielmehr die Verfolgung der Christen vornehmlich von der priesterlichen Aristokratie, Konig Agrippa I. und schhefilich Hannas II. ausging. Die Nachrichten des 4. Evangliums iiber Hannas und Kaiaphas sind so wichtige Bausteine fiir das Bild der Hohenpriesterherrschaft wahrend der Zeit der Prafek­ ten von 6-41 n.Chr Dariiberhinaus ist die Darstellung der Passion Jesu nicht nur - wenn wir von den christlichen Martyrerberichten absehen - die ausfiihrlichste J o s . ant. 1 8 , 9 0 - 9 5 . D e r erste r o m i s c h e P r o k u r a t o r n a c h d e m T o d e A g r i p p a s I., C u s p i u s F a d u s , v e r s u c h t e , das G e w a n d w i e d e r u n t e r seine O b h u t zu n e h m e n . C l a u d i u s i i b e r g a b auf G r u n d d e r F'iirsprache A g r i p p a s II. dasselbe w i e d e r d e n J u d e n , a n t . 2 0 , 7 - 9 . 1 0 - 1 4 . D e r Brief r i c h t e t sich an A r c h o n t e n , d i e B o u l e u n d das Volk v o n J e r u s a l e m u n d an das g a n z e E t h n o s der Juden. Leg. ad C . 302: x d g 8u)po6oK:ta5, xdg tiPpELg, t a g d p n a y d g . ''•7 S D t 14,22 § 105 (Finkelstein, 165; d t . U s . v o n / / . Bietenhard, Sifre D e u t e r o n o m i u m , J u d C h r 8 (1984) 305 u n d A n m . 57), d a z u Billerbeck, 2,570 f, d o r t w e i t e r e Belege z u m finanziellen M i f i b r a u c h d e s O p f e r t i e r h a n d e l s b e i m T e m p e l . '"i* J o h 2 , 1 4 - 1 7 v e r s e t z t diesen V o r g a n g in die erste Reise J e s u z u m Passafest, die S y n o p t i k e r ( M k l l , 1 5 - 1 7 p a r ) schliefien sic u n m i t t e l b a r an d e n E i n z u g J e s u in J e r u s a l e m an u n d v e r b i n ­ d e n sie m i t d e m w e n i g e Tage s p a t e r s t a t t f i n d e n d e n ProzcK Jesu. D i e V o r a n s t e l l u n g bei J o h h a t d o c h w o h l t h e o l o g i s c h e G r i i n d e . H i e r d u r f t e n die S y n o p t i k e r d e n h i s t o r i s c h e n Z u s a m m e n ­ hang besser bewahrt haben. ''»9 D t n 21,23; 27,26, vgl. G a l 3,13; A p g 5,30; 10,39; 13,29.

D a s J o h a n n e s e v a n g e l i u m als Q u e l l e fiir d i e G e s c h i c h t e des a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m s

73

Darstellung eines Strafprozesses gegen einen einfachen Provinzialen in der romi­ schen Kaiserzeit, sondern auch der umfangreichste Bericht iiber das Vorgehen der Jiidischen Fiihrungsspitze gegen einen gefahrlich erscheinenden Unruhestifter aus dem eigenen Volk. Johannes gibt seiner Passionsgeschichte eine ganz eigene Note, indem er historische Fakten und freie christologische Interpretadon in grofier Kuhnheit miteinander verbindct'^O. Zu den ungelosten, Ja unlosbaren Riitseln des 4. Evangeliums gehort diese im Urchristentum wohl einzigartige Kombination von prazisem historischem IDetail und schopferischer theologischer Gestaltung des Stoffes. Man verkennt die Besonderheit dieses Werkes, wenn man das eine zugunsten des anderen vernachlassigt. IDurch seine auffallenden Angaben zu Orten, Gebrauchen und Personen bereichert es auch unsere Kenntnis des palastinischen Judentums in der Zeit zwi­ schen Herodes und der Zerstorung Jerusalems.

'50 Vgl. d a s abschlieiSende U r t e i l v o n Horbury, ( A n m . 106) 45 zu d e n B c r i c h t e n d e r E v a n g e ­ listen genereil, d a s a b e r b e s o n d e r s fiir J o h a n n e s gilt: „ B e h i n d t h e n a r r a t i v e s t h e r e is m o r e C h r i s t i a n a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h t h e J e w i s h C o m m u n i t y t h a n h a s s o m e t i m e s b e e n s u p p o s e d . " S. a u c h Millar, ( A n m . 134) 355 fa,st i i b e r p o i n t i e r t : „ T h i s d i s c u s s i o n will suggest s o m e reasons w h y , if a n y o n e of t h e G o s p e l s can b r i n g u s closer t o t h e historical c o n t e x t a n d overall p a t t e r n of J e s u s ' acrivities t h a n t h e o t h e r s , it is J o h n r a t h e r t h a n a n y of t h e S y n o p t i c s . " D a s m a g z u ­ m i n d e s t fiir Telle des h i s t o r i s c h e n R a h m e n s u n d gewisse D e t a i l s des 4. E v a n g e l i u m s gelten. N o c h w e i t e r g e h e n d i e b e i d e n Satzc d e s f i i h r e n d e n e n g l i s c h c n A l t h i s t o r i k e r s : „In a p r o f o u n d sense t h e w o r l d of t h e G o s p e l s is t h a t of J o s e p h u s " u n d „ . . . t h e G o s p e l s are b i o g r a p h i c a l n a r r a t i v e s " (357).

Martin

Goodman

Jewish H i s t o r y and R o m a n H i s t o r y : C h a n g i n g M e t h o d s and Preoccupations The study of Roman history underwent great changes during the hundred years between the original Schurer and his reincarnation, but those changes had surpris­ ingly little impact on the study of Jewish history in the Roman period until recent years. The aim of this paper is to investigate the reasons for this neglect. If in the process of describing trends in scholarship over two huge fields I generalise unacceptably, I hope this will be forgiven. Roman historiography emerged from the antiquarianism of the Renaissance above all in the monumental works of Theodore Mommsen and German scholar­ ship of the middle of the nineteenth century'. Mommsen shifted the focus of scholars from the celebration of classical art, literature and myth to the analysis of institutions. The prolific output of these pioneers set the framework for the understanding of Roman political history and law down to the present day, both in the sense that many of their analyses have been accepted and in the extent to which much Roman history of the twentieth century has been written in more or less conscious opposition to their methods, particularly their over-orderly view of the functioning of constitutions. Among these reactions since the nineteenth century, some have become wholly integrated into Roman history writing. Thus Syme built on the research into aris­ tocratic prosopography, itself initiated by Mommsen and carried on by Klebs, Dessau and others in their work on the Prosopographia Imperii Romania, to dem­ onstrate the shifts of power within the Roman ruling ehte which underlay appar­ ent constitutional continuity, and this preoccupation with the real workings of power in the Roman world remains important in contemporary Anglo-Saxon scholarship^. Other scholars branched out into areas little considered in the nine­ teenth century, such as the analysis of ancient economic history pioneered by Max

' Theodor Mommsen, R o m i s c h e G e s c h i c h t e , 5 vols. (Berlin 1 8 8 6 - 9 9 ) ; R o m i s c h e s Staatsrecht, 3 vols. ( L e i p z i g 1 8 7 6 - 8 7 ) . 2 Elimar Klebs et al, P r o s o p o g r a p h i a I m p e r i i R o m a n i (Berlin 1 8 9 7 - 9 8 ). 3 S y m e ' s classic s t u d y was Ronald Syme, T h e R o m a n R e v o l u t i o n ( O x f o r d 1939), b u t h e r e ­ t a i n e d t h e s a m e i n t e r e s t in his later career (cf. Ronald Syme, R o m a n P a p e r s , 7 vols. [ O x f o r d 1979-91]).

76

Martin G o o d m a n

Weber and others and further developed in the revisionist history of Rostovtzev"*. Of these, most relevant to the study of Jewish history has been the efflorescence since the 1920s of scholarship on the Roman provinces, in which historians have used the findings of archaeologists, whose techniques have themselves become dramatically more sophisticated in the course of the century, to try to understand provincial cultures in their own terms rather than simply as conquered peoples ruled by an imperialist state^; in f2gypt, the study of the province mushroomed from the late 1890s into a field of its own because of the discovery and gradual publication of masses of papyri*". Equally relevant to Jewish history was the development of serious research into the religions of the Roman empire. This latter field, in the earlier part of the cen­ tury bedevilled by the Christianising assumptions of Cumont that Roman pagan­ ism was ripe for its demise by the second and third centuries CE and that so called "oriental" cults appealed to Romans because of their irrational and emotional na­ ture, was placed on afirmerfooting by the epigraphic researches and sound com­ mon sense of A. D. Nock''; in the work of E. R. Dodds, and to even better effect by others in more recent years, it has been further enlightened by cautious use of insights derived by social anthropologists from the observation of the function of religions in contemporary societies^. Of this great wealth of scholarship on the Roman world since Mommsen very little had penetrated before 1973 into studies of Jewish history in the period. Roman historians themselves used Jewish evidence only for marginal illustrations: the political and religious history of the Jews was taken to be so exceptional in the ancient world that it could not readily be applied to the experience of other sub­ jects of the Roman state'. As for historians of the Jews, their reasons for ignoring the advances of their colleagues were varied, and mostly unstated. The first attempts to produce a systematic account of Jewish history in the Graeco-Roman period were undertaken by the pioneers of the Wissenschaft des Judentums under the influence of varied, sometimes conflicdng, impulses, as Yaa-

Max Weber, W i r t s c h a f t u n d Gesellschaft ( T i i b i n g e n , 1 9 2 1 - ); Mikhail Rostovl/.eff, The Social a n d E c o n o m i c H i s t o r y of t h e R o m a n E m p i r e ( O x f o r d 1926). 5 F o r t h e s t u d y of R o m a n Britain c o m p a r e t h e c o n c e r n s and m e t h o d s of Francis J. Haverfield, T h e R o m a n i s a t i o n of R o m a n Britain ( L o n d o n 1906) t o Peter Salway, R o m a n Britain ( O x f o r d 1981). wahnung von verschiedenen romischen Legionen im Lande Is­ rael zur Zeit des Bar-Kochba-Aufstands; aus jeder dieser Erwahnungen allerdings schliefien zu wollen, dafi die einzelnen Legionen zur Ganze in Judaa eingesetzt ge­ wesen seien, ist sicherlich ein Fehlschlufi, zumal Alon im zu Beginn zitierten Ab­ schnitt ja selbst von der Moglichkeit ausgeht, dafi einige dieser Belege vielleicht nur von der Entsendung einer Transporteinheit (vexillatio) sprechen. Ein Umstand, der unmifiverstandlich auf mangelnde Quellenkritik hindeutet, ist die Tatsache, dafi Alon gelegentlich ein und dieselbe talmudische Quelle fiir die F^hellung verschiedener historischer Epochen heranzieht. Dabei mufi man ihm allerdings zugute halten, dafi es sich um Vorlesungsmitschriebe handelt, die nieht mehr von ihm selbst zum Druck gebracht wurden; dabei hatte er solche Unstimmigkeiten wahrscheinlich bemerkt und ausgemerzt. So heifit es dort etwa in bezug auf die Verordnungen, die fiir die Situation nach dem Bar-Kochba-Aufstand be­ stimmt waren: Zweifellos w a r e n es die u n g i i n s t i g e n w i r t s c h a f t l i c h e n U m s t a n d e , w o d u r c h sich d i e R a b b i n e n in U s c h a veranlafit s a h e n , die Sorgepflicht eines Vaters g e g e n i i b e r s e i n e n K i n d e r n z u e r o r t e r n - u n d sie v e r o r d n e t e n , ein M a n n h a b e seine S o h n e u n d T o c h t e r z u e r n a h r e n , s o l a n g e sie m i n d e r j a h r i g sind^^.

Doch als er zum Ende der severischen Epoche und zum Beginn der Krise des Kaisertums im dritten Jahrhundert kommt, sagt Alon: A u f i e r d e m ist z u b e m e r k e n , dafi eriiche d e r , V e r o r d n u n g e n v o n U s c h a ' , die v o n A m o r a e r n b e z e u g t w e r d e n ( R e s c h L a k i s c h u n d R. Ilai u n d R. J o s s e b . C h a n i n a ) in d e n b e h a n d e l t e n Z e i t 27 Alon, op.cit. ( s . o . A n m . 4) II, 610. 28 b K e t u b b o t 4 9 b ; j K e t u b b o t IV, 2 8 d . In d e r h e b r a i s c h e n O r i g i n a l a u s g a b e v o n A l o n s z w e i ­ b a n d i g e m W e r k ( s . o . A n m . 1) I I , 67 (= engl. A u s g . [ s . o . A n m . 4] I I , 661). A n a n d e r e r Stelle s p r i c h t A l o n d a v o n , dafi es in J a h r e n v o n D i j r r e o d e r H u n g e r s n o t bereits v o r d e m BarK o c h b a - A u f s t a n d v o r g e k o m m e n sei, dafi J u d e n aufierstande w a r e n , i h r e F a m i l i e z u e r n a h ­ r e n , u n d die G e l e h r t e n v o n U s c h a seien n a c h d e m A u f s t a n d d a r a u f e i n g e g a n g e n {Alon, h e b n O r i g i n a l - A u s g a b e loc.cit., 3; in d e r engl. U b e r s e t z u n g loc.cit., 574).

G e d a l i a h A l o n in d e r h i s t o r i s c h e n F o r s c h u n g

177

r a u m g e h o r e n . D e n n es lafit sich k a u m a n d e r s als a u f g r u n d dieser A n n a h m e e r k l a r e n , w a s w i r gelesen h a b e n , dafi R. J o c h a n a n z u R. S c h i m o n b . L a k i s c h sagt, d e r im N a m e n v o n R. J u d a b . C h a n a n j a iiberliefert: Sie s t i m m t e n in U s c h a d a r u b e r a b , dafi ein M a n n seine m i n d e r j a h r i g e n K i n d e r zu e r n a h r e n h a b e (j a . a . O . ) ^ ' .

Zweifellos war es in beiden Fallen die extreme wirtsehaftliche Notsituation, wie sie sowohl nach dem Bar-Kochba-Aufstand als auch zu Beginn der Krise des Kai­ sertums bestand, die Alon veranlafite, die Festsetzung jener Verordnung abwechselnd in diesen oder jenen Zeitraum zu verlegen, obwohl iiber hundert Jahre dazwischenliegen; aber die Herausgeber der Vorlesungen hatten diese Unstimmigkeit doch bemerken und wenigstens darauf hinweisen sollen. Solche Falle gibt es noch etliche, wenn auch nicht ganz so drastische. So werden etwa die gleichen Quellen zweimal behandelt, das eine Mai bei den Nachwirkungen des Grofien Aufstands, das andere Mai bei der Schilderung der wirtschaftli­ chen Notsituation anlafilich der Krise des Kaisertums im 3. Jahrhundert. Oder die Doppelerwahnung der Verordnungen, die das Verkaufen von Grund und Boden im Lande an Nichtjuden sowie den Verkauf von Sklaven und Vieh an Nichtjuden, sogar an einen im Ausland wohnhaften Juden, verbieten, das eine Mai im Zusam­ menhang mit dem Ausgang des Grofien Aufstands, das andere Mai zur Behcbung der Situation, die durch das Scheitern des Bar-Kochba-Aufstands entstanden war Wenn Alon die Zwangsarbeit behandelt, die den Juden nach dem Grofien Auf­ stand auferlegt worden war*", bezieht er sich auf die Flinzelheiten der Aussage in folgender Quelle: R a b b a n J o c h a n a n b . Sakkai w a r s c h o n n a c h E m m a u s ^ ' h i n a u f g e z o g e n . E r sah ein M a d c h e n G e r s t e u n t e r d e n Pferdeapfeln a u f s a m m e i n , da sagte R a b b a n J o c h a n a n b . Sakkai zu i h n e n : H a b t ihr g e s e h e n , w a s das fiir ein M a d c h e n ist? Sie a n t w o r t e t e n : E i n e H e b r a e r i n . U n d w e m g e h o r t dieses P f e r d ? Sie a n t w o r t e t e n : E i n e m a r a b i s c h e n Reiter. D a s p r a c h R a b b a n J o c h a n a n b . Sakkai z u seinen S c h u l e r n : M e i n L e b e n lang h a b e ich m i r K u m m e r g e m a c h t u m diesen Vers, d e n ich n i c h t v e r s t e h e n k o n n t e : „ W e n n d u ' s n i c h t weifit, S c h o n s t c u n t e r d e n F r a u e n " ( C a n t . 1, 8). I h r w o i l t e t d e m H i m m c l n i c h t u n t e r t a n sein, n u n b e u g t ihr e u c h u n t e r miese A r a b e r ; i h r w o i l t e t d e m H i m m e l die K o p f s t e u e r d e s Ffalbschekels n i c h t e n t r i c h t c n , n u n h a b t ihr an das R e i c h e u r e r F e i n d e 15 Schekei z u e n t r i c h t e n ; i h r w o i l t e t d i e W e g e u n d Strafien n i c h t i n s t a n d h a l t e n fiir die B c s u c h e r d e r Wallfahrt,sfeste, n u n haltet ihr F e s t u n g e n u n d B u r gen i n s t a n d fiir die B e s u c h c r d e r Konigsstadte."-'^

Alon nimmt diesen Text wortlich und versteht ihn ganz als Widergabe von Worten Rabban Jochanan b. Sakkais. So folgert er aus der letzten der polemischen Gegcniiberstellungen, dafi die jiidische Bevolkerung nach der Niederschlagung des Grofien Aufstands zu Bauarbeiten herangezogen worden sei. Doch hat schon 2' Alon in d e r h e b r a i s c h e n O r i g i n a l - A u s g a b e ( s . o . A n m . 1) II, 153 u n d n. 4 7 1 . A n dieser Stelle hat d e r U b e r s e t z e r sich b e m i i h t , d e n W i d e r s p r u c h in d e r englischen A u s g a b e zu glatten ( s . o . A n m . 4, K, 730). 30 Alon, op.cit. ( s . o . A n m . 4) I, 6 8 - 7 0 . 31 A l o n b e v o r z u g t m i t R c c h t die L e s a r t , E m m a u s ' ( a n s c h e i n e n d n a c h d e r O x f o r d e r H a n d schrift) g e g e n i i b e r d e r g e d r u c k t e n Version, die hier , M a o n J e h u d a ' liest; d a z u Aharon Oppen­ heimer, Galilaa im Z e i t a l t e r d e r M i s c h n a ( J e r u s a l e m 1991) 94 A n m . 38 [ h e b n ] . 32 M e c h i l t a d e R a b b i J i s c h m a e l , M a s s e c h t a d e b a C h o d e s c h I, E d . Horovitz-Rabin, 203 f.

178

Aharon Oppenheimer

Urbach in seiner Rezension zum ersten Band von Alons Geschichtswerk darauf hingewiesen, dafi die weiteren Ausfiihrungen zu dem Vers aus dem Hohenlied in den zahlreichen Paralleliiberlieferungen dieser Episode nicht stehen**. Dariiber hinaus ist zu bemerken, dafi ,burgi' erstmals in Inschriftcn aus der 2. Halfte des 2. naehchristhchen Jahrhunderts erwahnt sind. Dessen war sich Alon bewufit, als er schrieb: „Somtt haben wir hier den friihesten Beleg fiir ,burgi' als eine Erschei­ nung der romischen Realitat (vom Ende des 1. Jahrhunderts) vor uns." Allerdings ist die Annahme weitaus wahrscheinlicher, dafi nur der erste Teil des Textes bis hin zu dem Vers aus dem Hohenlied in die Uberlieferung uber Rabban Jochanan b. Sakkai gehort, die Fortsetzung dagegen ist eine spatere Fortsetzung des Tradenten, der die Implikationen jener Flpisode verdeuthcht, wozu er die Realitat seiner eigenen Zeit heranzieht. Die Vermutung liegt nahe, dafi der spatere Zusatz in die Zeit der Krise des Kaisertums im 3. Jahrhundert gehort und die Zwangsarbeit {an­ garia) bezeichnet, die jiidische Bewohner des Landes bei der Errichtung der Burgen zu leisten hatten, die in jenem Zeitraum, wie Isaac seinerseits aus verschiede­ nen Inschriftcn entnommen hat, einen integralen Bestandteil des romischen Strafiennetzes zwischen den Stadten der Provinz ausmachten*'*. Demnach war Alon bei seiner Behandlung dieses Textes nicht kritisch genug, doch eine sorgfaltigere Untersuchung, die sowohl die talmudischen Paralleliiberlieferungen des Textes als auch den epigraphischen Befund beriicksichtigt, ergibt deutlich, dafi es sich hier um zwei urspriinglich getrennte Textelemente handelt, die sich jeweils auf ver­ schiedene Erscheinungen zu verschiedenen Zeiten im Lande und im Kaiserreich bcziehen. Dies ist nicht der einzige Fall, wo der Eindruck entsteht, dafi Alon derselben Naivitat unterliegt, die er an den judischen Ilistorikern vor ihm riigte, indem er einen Text als authentisches historisches Zeugnis wertet, obwohl dessen kritische Untersuchung zeigt, dafi er dies nicht ist. So nimmt Alon etwa im 2. Band seines Gesehichtswerks die Details des Berichts iiber R. Juda b. Baba wortlich, wonach dieser den Martyrertod erlitten haben soli, als er fiinf Schiiler zum Rabbinat ordinierte „zwischen zwei hohen Bergen... und zwischen zwei Sabbatbezirken, nam­ lich dem von Uscha und dem von Schefaram" (b Sanhedrin 13b-14a), jedenfalls meldet er keinem Detail gegeniiber Bedenken an**. In seinem Aufsatz iiber .dieje­ nigen, die sich fiir Geld erncnnen lassen' bringt Alon talmudische Aufierungen, die Zweifel an jener Flpisode anmeldcn, insofern als namlich zwei der dort angeb­ lich von R. Juda b. Baba ordinierten Gelehrten - R. Meir und R. Schimon - bereits 33 U r b a c h kritisiert A l o n s A n n a h m e , w o n a c h alles, was u r s p r i i n g l i c h aus d e r M e c h i l t a k o m m e , v o n R a b b a n J o c h a n a n b . Sakkai gesagt w o r d e n sei; z u s a m m e n f a s s e n d s c h r e i b t er: „ A n o n y m e U b e r l i e f e r u n g c n iiber U n t e r d r i i c k u n g s - u n d V e r f o l g u n g s m a f i n a h m e n sind m . E . in d i e Z e i t n a c h d e m B a r - K o c h b a - A u f s t a n d zu d a t i e r e n " (in: B e c h i n o t b e B i q o r e t haSifrut 4 [1953] 70 [hebr.]). A l l e r d i n g s b e s t e h t kein G r u n d , d e n b e t r c f f e n d e n Z u s a t z n i c h t in d i e K r i s e d e s r o m i s c h e n K a i s e r t u m s i m 3. J a h r h u n d e r t z u d a t i e r e n . 3'* Benjamin Isaac, Z u m W e s e n d e r T e r m i n i , b u r g i ' u n d . b u r g a r i i ' , in: J u d e n u n d J u d e n t u m z u r Z e i t d e s Z w e i t e n T e m p e l s , im Z e i t a l t e r v o n M i s c h n a u n d T a l m u d , F S S h m u e l Safrai, h r s g . V. Isaiah M. Gafni cl al., (Jerusalem 1993) 2 3 5 - 2 4 2 [hebr.]. 35 Alon, op.cit. ( s . o . A n m . 4) I I , 632.

G e d a l i a h A l o n in d e r h i s t o r i s c h e n I ' o r s c h u n g

179

zuvor von Rabbi Akiba die Ordinierung zum Rabbinat empfangen hatten*^. In jenem Aufsatz erwahnt Alon auch eine Baraita, wonach R. Juda b. Baba gar nicht den Martyrertod erlitten habe, sondern an einer Krankheit gestorben sei*''. Au­ fierdem gibt es eine ganze Reihe von Unstimmigkeiten, auf die Alon iiberhaupt nicht eingegangen ist und die allesamt deuthch machen, dafi die Episode von der Ordinierung durch R. Juda b. Baba, wie sie im babylonischen Talmud berichtet wird, nicht authentisch sein kann, z. B.: Ist es wahrscheinlich, dafi eine romische Strafaktion nach einer Entfernungseinheit aus der jiidischen Halacha, dem ,Sabbatbezirk', bemessen wurde? Wo gibt es in der Gegend um Uscha und Schefaram ,zwei hohe Berge'? Und sollten die ordinierten Rabbiner in den wenigen Jahren der Religionsverfolgung allesamt gestorben sein, so dafi eine Neuordinierung dringend notwendig wurde? Wenn wir in Betracht ziehen, dafi sich die Uberliefe­ rung im Munde babylonischer Amoraer findet, aUerdings auf Raw zuruckgefiihrt wird, der im Land Israel gelernt hat und der sonst historische Uberlieferungcn bringt, dann liegt die Vermutung nahe, dafi wir einen Anachronismus vor uns haben: Der Bericht stammt wohl aus der Zeit, als die Fiihrungsinsdtutionen be­ reits in Uscha und Schefaram etabliert waren, und will rekonstruieren, wie dies vonstatten gegangen sei**. Seiner traditionellen judischen Schulbildung hatte Alon die Vertrautheit mit der talmudischen Literatur zu verdanken, doch geriet diese seinen akademischcn Ab­ handlungen auch zum Nachteil. Er hatte sich sozusagen Stil und Denkweise der talmudischen Diskussion zu eigen gemacht. Daher pflegt Alon sogleich zum Kern der Sache zu kommen, er geht das historische Problem an, als sei es eine talmudi­ sche Kontroverse. Er stellt die Pramissen auf, bringt Argumente zu ihrer Widerlegung, fiihrt Einwande an und entkraftet sie, wirft die Belege in den Schmelztigel seines Scharfsinns, durchlebt das Thema und kampft mit den daraus hervorgehenden Schwierigkeiten. Dabei denkt er gar nicht daran, seine Schlufifolgerungen aufzuzeigen und zusammenzufassen, vielmehr lafit er das Problem nach ausreichender Behandlung einfach fallen und wendet seine Energie neuen Fragen zu. Die Erforschung der antiken judischen Geschichte in Israel liegt heutzutage in den Handen von Alon-Schiilern, von denen einige wie er eine traditionelle jiidi­ sche Bildung genossen haben, bevor sie eine akademische Karriere einschlugen. Andere wiederum gehen die Quellen weitaus kritischer an, als Alon dies tat. Diese sind dann darauf bedacht, die talmudischen Quellen untereinander nach ihrer hi­ storischen Echtheit zu unterscheiden, sie ziehen etwa nur Texte heran, deren Re­ daktion mit den berichteten Ereignissen zeitlich ungefahr zusammengeht, lehnen also die Benutzung in Babylonien redigierter Texte fiir die Geschichte der Juden im Land Israel grundsatzhch ab. Noch andere legen Wert darauf, jede talmudische 36 j S a n h e d r i n I 19a; b S a n h e d r i n I4a. D a z u Shalom Albeck, R a b b i n i s c h e G e r i c h t s h o f e in t a l m u d i s c h e r Z e i t ( R a m a t - G a n 1981) 86 [hebr.]. 37 t Bava K a m m a V I I I 13, ed. Lieberman, 3 9 - 4 0 ; j S o t a I X 24a; b Bava K a m m a 80a; T e m u r a h 15b, M i d r a s c h Schir h a s c h i r i m , ed. Greenhut, 5a; Y e l a m d e n u G i n z e i Schechter, I, 46. Geda­ liah Alon, „ T h o s e A p p o i n t e d for M o n e y " , in: idem, op.cit. (s. o. A n m . 5) 4 0 3 , A n m . 83. 38 Oppenheimer, op.cit. ( s . o . A n m . 31) 4 6 f

180

Aharon Oppenheimer

Quelle einzeln auf ihren Bezug zur historischen Wirklichkeit zu befragen, ohne die Aussage von parallelen und ahnlichen Uberlieferungen als ein Gesamtes auszuwerten. Eine andere Gruppe setzt Alons Weg fort und vergleicht den Ertrag der talmudischen Quellen mit den Worten der griechischen und romischen Schrift­ steller und mit dem archaologischen Befund. Die interdisziplinare Forschung kann einerseits den talmudischen Text als Quelle fiir die jiidische Geschichte kri­ tisch angehen, andererseits bietet sie, gerade wegen seines besonderen Charakters, auch die Moglichkeit, daraus Aufschliisse iiber gewisse Aspekte der romisch-byzantinischen oder persisch-sassanidischen Geschichte zu gewinnen - nicht nur in jiidischen Belangen. Zusammenfassend bleibt festzuhalten, daE Alon ungeaehtet der obigen Ein­ wande der unbestrittene Wegbereiter fiir die wissenschaftliche Erforschung der Epoche von Mischna und Talmud war und ist. Sein Weitblick, seine Griindlichkeit, seine souverane Beherrschung von Texten aus der talmudischen Literatur sowie aus dem griechischen und romischen Schrifttum der Antike, all diese Vorziige haben ihn dazu befahigt, die bis dahin fehlenden wissenschaftlichen Grund­ lagen fiir die Erforschung der jiidischen Geschichte im Zeitalter von Mischna und Talmud zu legen und diesem Zeitraum den ihm gebiihrenden Rang in der Ge­ schichte des jiidischen Volkes zuzuweisen. Noch heute ist es legitim, bei der F>forschung der Epoche von Mischna und Talmud in Alons FufSstapfen zu treten; seine Methode ist im grofien und ganzen bis heutc anwendbar, allerdings nicht un­ kritisch und unter Vermeidung ihrer Schwachen. Freilich lassen sich inzwischen auch vollig neue und andere Wege in der historischen Forschung einschlagen als zu Alons Zeiten - aber noch heute, nahezu ein halbes Jahrhundert nach seinem Tode, ist sein Beitrag uniibersehbar

Benjamin

Isaac

Between the O l d Schurer and the N e w : Archaeology and G e o g r a p h y In the introduetion to his History of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ, Schurer states that his aim was to write a history 'fiir den Christhchen Theologen', rendered in the revised version as 'the New Testament Scholar'. The justification for this undertaking, he asserts, is that the Gospels can only be understood when seen in the context of contemporary Jewish thought. Here he saw Pharisaism as the ruling trend, which he characterized disapprovingly as 'legalism'. Pharisaism had defeated the opposing hellenising tendencies in the Maccabean Wars, and as a result, 'Die Schriftgelehrten regieren nun das Volk', i.e. a branch of the religious establishment had become politically dominant. Schiirer was interested in both in­ ternal Jewish religious developments and in the political situation. A secular his­ torian working in the late twentieth century might translate this, saying that the central question to be posed for Jewish society in Judaea 'in the age of Jesus Christ' is how it changed in the process of becoming, first of all part of the Hel­ lenistic world, and then part of the Roman Empire. Two elements which would interest present-day historians are what are now often termed 'political control' and 'acculturation'. The latter is often called 'Romanization' in the north-western provinces*. Leaving aside the question of whether this is an appropriate concept for the north-west, it is clear that we cannot use it in the Roman East, for the peoples living there became part of an integrated Roman empire, without under­ going a process of cultural change comparable with that which occurred in Gaul and Britain. Schiirer's first volume is concerned with 'politische Geschichte', a running narrative, the second with 'innere Zustande', which includes a survey of the cultural setting of political institutions, as well as the Hellenistic cities, com­ munity organization and religion. I would like to consider here to what extent ar­ chaeology and geographical studies have advanced our insights into these subjects and how far they have or have not affected the old and new Versions of Schurer It is not my intention to apply the standards and concepts of current methodology to both these monumental works in order to uncover shortcomings in them. On the contrary, this is an attempt to look at both versions of Schiirer as the best ' Sec n o w v a r i o u s essays in: David J. Mattingly (ed.), D i a l o g u e s in R o m a n I m p e r i a l i s m ( J R A s u p p . 2 3 , P o r t s m o u t h , R l 1997).

182

B e n j a m i n Isaac

handbooks available for the subject under discussion, in order to get a clearer im­ pression of the contributions which have been made already by archaeology and geographical studies, and what we might expect of these disciplines in the future. Although Schiirer says in his introduction that he intended to write a handbook for theologians, the shape and methods of his work were dictated by those of Classical history. The methods of Greek and Roman history, in turn, are deter­ mined to a large extent by the discipline of classical philology. This explains the choice of sources to some extent: Schiirer's work is largely based on historical texts in Greek. There are, of course, good reasons for this choice, as must be ob­ vious to anyone who has attempted to study Jewish history in the periods for which such texts do not exist. While the old Schurer uses the term 'archaeology' in the nineteenth-century sense as referring to ancient political institutions and customs, both religious and secular, the revised version cites archaeological hterature in the modern sense under this heading. This does not mean, however, that archaeology in the current sense of the term has been incorporated conceptually, for that would have meant the production of a different work, not the revision of an old one. I should add here that the sense in which the old Schiirer used 'archaeology' was not in general use in his time. In the nineteenth century, classicists usually understood archaeol­ ogy to mean the study of Greek and Roman art and architecture. (Some of them continue to see it as such even today.) In this paper I use the term archaeology in its common current meaning as a discipline concerned with the recovery and study of ancient artifacts^. For the purpose of this paper these artifacts include objects of art, but they should clearly exclude inscriptions, which are discussed in another paper in this colloquium. While inscriptions are indeed ancient artifacts, and therefore often discovered by archaeologists during their fieldwork, they are at the same time texts and thus should be interpreted according to the methodol­ ogy and discipline of philology. The old Schiirer fully incorporates the epigraphic material that was available at the time, and so does the revised version. To the ancient historian it makes no real difference whether a text has survived on stone, metal, papyrus or in a codex. For similar reasons, we shall exclude the discovery of the documents from the Judaean desert from our consideration of Schurer and ar­ chaeology. They are, of course, extensively discussed in the revised Schiirer, and form the subject of three other papers in this colloquium. The discovery of these documents is indeed an offshoot of the interest in material culture, for they were found through systematic exploration by archaeologists, and in an archaeological context. Once discovered, however, they were properly studied as texts and inter2 Cf. David L. Clarke, A n a l y t i c a l A r c h a e o l o g y ( L o n d o n 1968), f o r t h e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s u b ­ jects in t h e t e r m s of ' N e w A r c h a e o l o g y ' . See t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a b o u t a r c h a e o l o g y a n d h i s t o r y in t h e s t u d y of t h e African p r o v i n c e s b y Brent D. Shaw, A r c h a e o l o g y a n d K n o w l e d g e : T h e H i s t o r y of t h e African P r o v i n c e s of t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , in: F l o r i l e g i u m : C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P a p e r s o n L a t e a n d A n t i q u i t y a n d t h e M i d d l e A g e s 2 ( O t t a w a 1980) 2 8 - 6 0 ; r e p r i n t e d in Brent D. Shaw, E n v i r o n m e n t a n d Society in R o m a n N o r t h Africa: Studies in H i s t o r y a n d A r c h a e ­ o l o g y ( V a r i o r u m , A l d e r s h o t , H a m p s h i r e 1995).

Between the O l d Schurer and the N e w : Archaeology and Geography

183

preted like other texts with the tools of Classical and Semitic philology. The docu­ ments are not part of the literary tradition because they represent the works of a marginal group. They are therefore, as it were, a coincidental by-product of the work of archaeologists, whose main concern is material culture. Thus they are not relevant to a discussion of the contribution of archaeology as a discipline to our insights into the subject discussed in this paper This paper, then, will consider the contribution that the study of non-verbal artifacts has made, or could make, to the political and cultural history of the Jewish people in the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. At this point we tnay note briefly the contribution which archaeology can make to the study of the Roman provinces in general. Here a distinction should be made between the Mediterranean provinces hke Greece and Africa which have a relative wealth of inscriptions and literary texts, and the north-western provinces, which do not. It wih be obvious that, in spite of Tacitus' Germania, the role of archaeol­ ogy in the study of the Germanic provinces is thus more important than in most of the Greek-speaking provinces. We are faced with problems of methodology, for it is not easy to determine what questions can usefully be asked and what methods properly applied. Here I should note that it would not be profitable to discuss at length the possible contribution of archaeology to the study of Diaspora Judaism, for this would involve including the excavations of all the relevant cities in the Diaspora, or, in other words, a survey of numerous cities in the Roman empire, an unprofitable exercise in scholarship*. In the case of Judaea/Palaesdna, which is relevant, it must be admitted that more than a century of intensive exploration has contributed less than we might have expected or hoped. In saying this, I do not intend to disparage the work of the many hard-working archaeologists who spend their lives producing highly professional studies on the archaeology of Judaea/Palaestina from the Persian to the E2arly Islamic periods. I am speaking of the contribution of archaeology to our understanding of the history of the period. In this respect, indeed, I think many would agree with me that the results are as yet fairly modest in relation to the ef­ forts expended in exploring this part of the world. There are several reasons for this: 1) Until fairly recendy, archaeologists focused heavily on Biblical archaeology. Archaeology in the Land of Israel was seen as an auxdiary science to the study of the Old Testament. This has caused problems for the archaeology of the Bronze and Iron Ages, but that is not our subject here. It is relevant, however, to note that in the past this led to a serious neglect of the study of the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods'*. 3 F o r a r e v i e w of this s e c t i o n of t h e revised e d i t i o n , see Martin Hengel, D e r A l t e u n d d e r N e u e „ S c h u r e r " , in: J o u r n a l of Semitic Studies 3 5 (1990) 1 9 - 7 2 . H e n g e l discusses vol. I l l , t h e D i a s p o r a 3 - 8 6 , w i t h a g e o g r a p h i c a l survey. O b v i o u s l y S c h u r e r c o u l d n o t h a v e dealt w i t h all t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l a n d a r c h a e o ogical issues t h e r e , f o r h e w a s n o t w r i t i n g a general h a n d b o o k of t h e A n c i e n t W o r l d . T h i s is n o l o n g e r t r u e f o r t h e p r e s e n t g e n e r a t i o n of a r c h a e o l o g i s t s . F o r a full s u r v e y of t h e

184

B e n j a m i n Isaac

2) Excessive emphasis was laid on the study of the Jewish revolts against Rome, both among historians and archaeologists. This tendency was reinforced by the spectacular discoveries in the Judaean desert, and caused a distortion of both focus and method. 3) Another form of distortion was caused by the exclusive emphasis laid on the exploration of churches and synagogues*. It is easy to understand why archaeol­ ogists would prefer to excavate these structures: they are usually the dominant and most obviously interesting feature of an ancient site, and the most likely to pro­ duce objects of art and inscriptions. They identify the builders as Jews, Samaritans or Christians, and the plan, decorations and inscriptions are of use in the study of religious beliefs and practice. It cannot be denied, however, that these attractions have diverted the attention of scholars from the study of ancient communities as an integrated whole, and from the investigation of other structures^. 4) The excessive emphasis on the study of the Jewish revolts and of ancient prayerhouses has, in turn, often led to problems of method: inappropriate ques­ tions were often asked and inappropriate methods applied. 5) One example which illustrates both the second and the fourth point may be mentioned here. F.-M. Abel, S. Yeivin and M. Avi-Yonah gave much thought to the development of the Roman road-network in Palestine and its possible connec­ tion with the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The result of their preoccupation with this topic was a theory which held that the Roman army constructed a road-network in Ju­ daea during the revolt, encircling the area held by the rebels^. The truth is that no road-construction anywhere in the province can be assigned to the years of the revolt on any factual evidence. Many roads in the province were first marked by milestones dated to the reign of Hadrian, but whenever a precise date is given, it is clear that they must have been set up well before the beginning of the revolt. This is, therefore, a vain attempt to use archaeological material for the reconstruction of specific historical events. It is true that in exceptional cases mdestone inscrip­ tions can help in illuminating specific events in history, but that is not the aim of m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e of Palestine f r o m t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y till t h e Islamic c o n q u e s t : Yoram Tsafrir, E r e t z - l s r a e l f r o m t h e D e s t r u c t i o n of t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e t o t h e M u s l i m C o n q u e s t , vol. II (Je­ r u s a l e m 1984, H e b . ) . 5 E x c a v a t e d s y n a g o g u e s , of c o u r s e , arc hardly, a n d c h u r c h e s n o t at all r e l e v a n t for t h e p e r i o d c o v e r e d b y Schiirer's h i s t o r y . F o r r e c e n t s u r v e y s : Frowald HUttenmeister a n d Gottfried Reeg, D i e a n t i k e n S y n a g o g e n in Israel ( W i e s b a d e n 1977); Marylin foice Segal Chiat, H a n d b o o k of S y n a g o g u e A r c h i t e c t u r e ( C h i c o , C A 1982); Lee L Levine, A n c i e n t S y n a g o g u e s Revealed Q e r u s a l e m 1982). F o r S a m a r i t a n s y n a g o g u e s , see t h e essays b y Yitzhak Magen a n d b y Leah Di Segni, in: Frederic Manns and Eugenio Alliata, E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y in C o n t e x t : M o n u m e n t s a n d D o c u m e n t s ( J e r u s a l e m 1993) 1 9 3 - 2 3 0 a n d 231-239. C h u r c h e s : Yoram Tsafrir, A n c i e n t C h u r c h e s Revealed (Jerusalem 1993). F o r a r e p e r t o i r e of Palestinian c h u r c h e s : Asher Ovadiah. C o r p u s of t h e B y z a n t i n e C h u r c h e s in t h e H o l y L a n d ( B o n n 1970); Ovadiah a n d C. Gomez de Silva, S u p p l e m e n t u m t o t h e C o r p u s ( L o n d o n 1984). 6 See n o w , for i n s t a n c e , t h e s t u d y b y Yizhar Hirschfeld, T h e Palestinian D w e l l i n g in t h e R o m a n - B y z a n t i n e P e r i o d (Jerusalem 1995). 7 See references in Benjamin Isaac a n d Aharon Oppenheimer, T h e R e v o l t of B a r K o k h b a : I d e o l o g y a n d M o d e r n S c h o l a r s h i p , in: J o u r n a l of J e w i s h Studies 26 (1985) 3 3 - 6 0 , esp. 40 f

Between the O l d Schurer and the N e w : Archaeology and G e o g r a p h y

185

the systematic exploration of Roman roads and milestones. Sustained and planned exploration is not carried out for the sake of serendipitous discoveries. The pur­ pose of this kind of research is to gain an impression of the road and transport sys­ tems under Roman rule over the centuries. The aim of archaeologists should be to uncover long-term developments. It is generally true, and I am not the first to observe this, that uninscribed arti­ facts are not usually instrucdve in this manner Even if they can be dated fairly precisely with the help of the archaeological context in which they are found, they must be interpreted in a wider context and will not usually give us insights into specific historical events. Masada is an excellent example. No one can deny the great importance in many respects of the excavations there, and the wide impact they made. It is hard to claim, however, that the results add much information about the Roman siege to what we already knew from Josephus, apart from con­ firming what he wrote. This does not detract from the value of the material: we have a unique complex of a desert palace from the first century BC and the first century AD not covered by later remains, and surrounded by Roman siege works. All this is a mine of information about many matters, but it does not bear directly on what we can learn from Josephus' text. For instance, both the date of the siege and its length are disputed because of uncertainties in Josephus' narrative, but the excavations do not help in deciding these problems. The same is true for the many excavations which have uncovered other Herodian buildings: they demonstrate that Josephus was right in reporting that these were built, but as far as the political history of the period is concerned, no more can be said. The information to be de­ rived from the excavadons enriches our insights in other fields. It seems fair to say that our views of the political history as it is related in vol­ ume I of the old Schiirer have not been drastically affected by the accumuladon of archaeological material, nor would it be possible to write an essentially different history based on this material. Geographical problems are a different matter, as wc shall see below. The subject matter most likely to be illuminated by the results of archaeological research is that of volume II, on the spread of Hellenism, the cultural setting and political institutions: i.e. the sections dealing with the cities, and 'the Jewish re­ gion'. Just how I see this possibility will form the next section of this paper Since it is not the intendon of this colloquium to produce a sort of new 'mini Schiirer', I will not attempt to provide extensive bibliography, but will mention only specific areas of interest that might be relevant.

The Cities Extensive excavations have by now been undertaken in several of the cities listed in Schiirer, where the survey of cities is included under the heading 'Cultural reladonships: the spread of Hellenism', as is proper within the terms of its overall subject matter Special mention may be made of the excavations at two sites: those

186

B e n j a m i n Isaac

on Mt. Gerizim above Nablus*, and those at Marisa', because these two sites pro­ vide remarkable new insights into settlement of these areas by different ethnic groups living side by side: Samaritans, Phoenician settlers and inhabitants of Idumaean extraction, mentioned in volume II: 'The cultural setting'. In general, how­ ever, it would be relevant to consider the following questions with regard to the cities: 1) Theatres, Herodian and later These are all Roman rather than Greek the­ atres. What is the cultural context whereby Greek-speaking cities built theatres after the western model? How much is known about what went on in such theatresio? 2) Aqueducts". Were aqueducts in the region of Palestine introduced as part of a pattern of Romanization or Hellenization? More important still is the question of the water supply. How much water did the cities receive from other sources and how much through aqueducts? Did the aqueducts supply water for basic needs such as drinking and washing, or for luxuries such as bath-houses and gardens? Baths in particular are very characteristic of the Roman way of hfe, and it would be interesting to know how important a factor they became in the urban culture of Palestine, both before and after the Roman conquest. 3) City Walls. Many, but by no means all, of the major cities had walls at various stages of the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods. These walls may have been built for genuine protection or as status symbols. It is not easy to decide which was the true reason, but a systematic survey of dated walls might help in answering this question. There is very httle reason to assume, for instance, that the Hellenistic cities in the coastal region and the Decapolis actually needed walls for their protection during the first two and a half centuries AD. The observations of Shereshevski about the Negev at a later period may be relevant here: the towns in the northern Negev, supposedly under threat from nomads, did not usually have any walls. Only Mampsis-Kurnub and maybe Oboda-Avdat were walled'^.

8 Yitzhak Magen, M o u n t G e r i z i m a n d t h e S a m a r i t a n s , in: Frederic Manns a n d Eugenio Alli­ ata (eds.). E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y in C o n t e x t (Jerusalem 1993) 9 1 - 1 4 8 . 9 After t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e revised -Schiirer II, p . 1 6 5 , n . 8 , t w o articles o n M a r i s a a p p e a r e d : Gabriel Horowitz, ' T h e T o w n P l a n n i n g of 1 lellenistic M a r i s a ' , in: P E Q 112 (1980) 9 3 - 1 1 1 ; Eliezer D. Oren a n d Uri Rappaport, T h e N e c r o p o l i s of M a r e s h a - B e t h G o v r i n , in: l E J 34 (1984) 1 1 4 - 1 5 3 . '0 E'or a r e p e r t o i r e of t h e a t r e s in t h e area u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n : Arthur Segal, T h e a t r e s in R o m a n Palestine and P r o v i n c i a A r a b i a ( L e i d e n 1995). F o r d i s c u s s i o n of t h e a t r e s in general: Richard C. Beacham, T h e R o m a n T h e a t r e and its A u d i e n c e ( L o n d o n 1991); William]. Slater, R o m a n T h e a t e r a n d Society: S a l m o n - C o n f e r e n c e P a p e r s , 1 ( A n n A r b o r 1996). ' ' F o r a q u e d u c t s in general: David Amit, Yizhar Flirschfeld a n d Joseph Patrick, T h e A q u e ­ d u c t s of A n c i e n t Palestine: C o l l e c t e d Essays (Jerusalem 1989, H e b . , E n g l i s h ed. f o r t h c o m ­ ing)'2 Joseph Shereshevski, B y z a n t i n e U r b a n S e t d e m e n t s in t h e N e g e v D e s e r t (Beer-Sheva 1991); for a p o s i t i v e r e v i e w : Clive Foss, T h e N e a r E a s t e r n C o u n t r y s i d e in L a t e A n t i q u i t y , in: T h e R o m a n and B y z a n t i n e N e a r East: S o m e R e c e n t A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e s e a r c h ( J R A s u p p . 14, A n n A r b o r , M I 1995) 2 1 3 - 2 3 4 , esp. 2 2 5 - 2 3 1 .

Between the O l d Schurer and the N e w : Archaeology and G e o g r a p h y

187

4) Amphitheatres and hippodromes. Several of those have now been discovered in the cities of the area, but it is not quite clear whether any of them belong to the period under discussion'*. Some of the amphitheatres were actually converted hippodromes (Gerasa, Neapolis). In any case, they are an interesting and impor­ tant cultural feature, for the amphitheatre especially is of indubitably Roman ori­ gin. This is all the more interesdng because we do not have regional parallels for the inscriptions treated in Louis Robert's classic work about gladiators in the Greek Orient'''. Since the munera organized in the provinces are known to have been connected with the imperial cult, it is clear that any study of this will have to take the existence of amphitheatres in the region into account. 5) Dwellings. The typology of houses is an important indicator of cultural ori­ gins. The general characteristics of houses and their grouping in neighbourhoods show different degrees of adaptation to the local climate, topography and econ­ omy. An interesting study of the dweUings in Early Byzantine Negev towns (which, chronologically, falls outside the scope of our Cohoquium) shows that these were budt after the pattern of houses in the moderate Mediterranean climate rather than according to the norms which might be expected in a desert environ­ ment'*.

'3 O n h i p p o d r o m e s : John H. Humphrey, R o m a n C i r c u s e s : A r e n a s for C h a r i o t R a c i n g ( L o n ­ d o n 1986), especially c h a p t e r 9. H u m p h r e y s h o w s t h a t t h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e for t h e existence of H e r o d i a n h i p p o d r o m e s in s p i l e of a s s u m p t i o n s t o this effect b y v a r i o u s s c h o l a r s . F o r t h e h i p p o d r o m e at C a e s a r e a : 4 7 7 - 9 1 ; G e r a s a : 4 9 5 - 5 0 4 ; G a d a r a : 5 0 4 f Amos Kloner and A. Hiibsch, T h e R o m a n A m p h i t h e a t e r of Bet G u v r i n : A P r e l i m i n a r y R e p o r t o n t h e 1992, 1993, a n d 1994 S e a s o n s , in: ' A t i q o t 30 (1996) 8 5 - 1 0 6 . T h e a m p h i t h e a t r e m a y n o w b e d a t e d w i t h the help of an altar d i s c o v e r e d in t h e s u b s t r u c t u r e of t h e saccllum ( p . 100). R e f e r e n c e s t o s t r u c ­ t u r e s c o n v e r t e d i n t o a m p h i t h e a t r e s in Scythopolis.- Yoram Tsafrir a n d Gideon Foerster, in: Q a d m o n i o t 1-7/8 (1995) 9 3 - 1 1 7 ( H e b . ) ; N e a p o l i s : Itzhak Magen, in: N E A E H L iv, 1 3 5 4 - 9 . A t N e a p o l i s as at G e r a s a t h e h i p p o d r o m e w a s c o n v e r t e d i n t o an a m p h i t h e a t r e , a p h e n o m ­ e n o n n o t o b s e r v e d e l s e w h e r e ( o r at least n o t d e s c r i b e d b y Humphrey, op.cit.). N o t e also t h e m u l t i - p u r p o s e b u i l d i n g s e n c o u n t e r e d in v a r i o u s cities, i n c l u d i n g n o w : Yosef Porath, H e r o d ' s ' a m p h i t h e a t r e ' at C a e s a r e a : a m u l t i p u r p o s e e n t e r t a i n m e n t b u i l d i n g , in: T h e R o m a n a n d B y ­ z a n t i n e N e a r East (1995) 1 5 - 2 7 . F o r a m p h i t h e a t r e s : Jean-Claude Golvin, L ' a m p h i t h e a t r e r o ­ m a i n (Paris X^ii); Jean-Claude Golvin and Christian Landes, A m p h i t h e a t r e s & G l a d i a t e u r s (Paris 1990). G o l v i n a n d L a n d e s o b s e r v e that t h e g a m e s n o r m a l l y staged in a m p h i t h e a t r e s in t h e West are held in stadia and a m p h i t h e a t r e s c o n v e r t e d for t h i s p u r p o s e in t h e East. T h e y are u n a w a r e of t h e existence of actual a m p h i t h e a t r e s in Palaestina a n d A r a b i a . T h e a t r e s in Pales­ t i n e w e r e r e b u i l t for u s e in w a t e r g a m e s , as o b s e r v e d b y Segal, op.cit., 13, w i t h n. 3 8 . Louis Robert, Les g l a d i a t e u r s d a n s I ' O r i e n t grec (1940, repr. A m s t e r d a m 1971); in general: Keith Hopkins, M u r d e r o u s G a m e s , in: D e a t h and R e n e w a l . Sociological Studies in R o m a n H i s t o r y , 2 ( C a m b r i d g e 1983) 1-30; also: Erik Gunderson, T h e I d e o l o g y of t h e A r e n a , C l a s s i ­ cal A n t i q u i t y 15 (1996) 1 1 3 - 1 5 1 ; Thomas Wiedemann, E m p e r o r s and G l a d i a t o r s ( L o n d o n , N e w Y o r k 1992). '5 Shereshevski, op.cit.

188

B e n j a m i n Isaac

The rural hinterland 1) The Negev. For the Negev it is important to note that much of the development that used to be attributed to the Nabataeans (first century BC - first century AD) has been shown to belong to the Fater Roman Empire"". As far as the period covered by Schiirer is concerned, this is a negative fact, but it is a fact that has important bearings on our views of the Nabataean presence in the desert south of Judaea proper The survey and excavation of temporary sites occupied by nomads, primarily in the Later Roman Empire, is gradually uncovering the relationship be­ tween permanent settlements and pastoralists'7. 2) The army. In this connection it is important to note the recent criticism of theories regarding the Roman military presence in the Negev. I. Shatzman has now produced convincing arguments that there is no evidence of any army units permanently based in the Negev before the end of the third century'*. Conversely, it is important to consider whether the Roman army, from 70 till the third century, was based mainly or exclusively in the cities and in the rural parts of Judaea, and far less in the desert".

"" T h e a t t r i b u t i o n of u r b a n d e v e l o p m e n t t o t h e L a t e R o m a n p e r i o d r a t h e r t h a n t h e N a b a ­ taean k i n g d o m is t h e result of r e c e n t e x c a v a t i o n s : Yoram Tsafrir, E x c a v a t i o n s at R e h o v o t BaN e g e v I: T h e N o r t h e r n C h u r c h (Jerusalem 1988); Yoram Tsafrir and Kenneth G. Holum, R e h o v o t in t h e N e g e v P r e l i m i n a r y R e p o r t , 1986, in: Israel E x p l o r a t i o n J o u r n a l 38 (1988) 1 1 7 - 2 7 ; Shereshevski, p r e v i o u s n o t e ; Rehav Rubin, T h e N e g e v as a Settled L a n d - U r b a n i z ­ a t i o n a n d S e t t l e m e n t in t h e D e s e r t in t h e B y z a n t i n e P e r i o d ( J e r u s a l e m 1990, H e b . ) . '7 Yehuda D. Nevo, P a g a n s and H e r d e r s (IPS, Sede B o q e r 1991); MordechaiHaiman, 'Agri­ c u l t u r e a n d N o m a d - S t a t e R e l a t i o n s h i p in t h e N e g e v D e s e r t in t h e B y z a n t i n e a n d E a r l y Islamic P e r i o d s ' , in: B A S O R 97 (1995) 2 9 - 5 3 . Gideon Avni, N o m a d s , F a r m e r s , a n d T o w n D w e l l e r s : P a s t o r a l i s t - S e d e n l i s t I n t e r a c t i o n in t h e N e g e v H i g h l a n d s , S i x t h - E i g h t h C e n t u r i e s C E (Israel A n t i q u i t i e s A u t h o r i t y , J e r u s a l e m 1996). T h e s e p u b l i c a t i o n s refer p r i m a r i l y t o finds f r o m L a t e A n t i q u i t y . T h e results of s u r v e y s m a y b e f o u n d in t h e p u b l i c a t i o n s of t h e A r ­ chaeological S u r v e y of Israel, p u b l i s h e d r e g u l a r l y in J e r u s a l e m . '8 Israel Shatzman, T h e B e g i n n i n g of t h e R o m a n D e f e n s i v e S y s t e m in J u d a e a , in: A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l of A n c i e n t H i s t o r y 8 (1983) 1 3 0 - 6 0 , a r g u i n g against S h i m o n A p p l e b a u m ' s H e b r e w paper, r e - p u b l i s h e d in English, in: J u d a e a in H e l l e n i s t i c a n d R o m a n T i m e s , H i s t o r i c a l a n d A r c h a e o l o g i c a l E s s a y s ( L e i d e n 1989) 132-42 a n d M o r d e c h a i G i c h o n in his u n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . thesis ( J e r u s a l e m 1966); Gichon, I d u m a e a a n d t h e H e r o d i a n L i m e s , in: lEJ 17 (1967) 2 7 - 4 2 . A n o t h e r critic: Michael H. G r a c e j , T h e A r m i e s of t h e J u d a e a n C l i e n t K i n g s , in: Philip Freeman and David Kennedy (eds.). T h e D e f e n c e of t h e R o m a n a n d B y z a n t i n e East ( O x f o r d 1986) 3 1 1 - 2 2 ; also: Israel Shatzman, T h e A r m i e s of t h e H a s m o n a e a n s and I l e r o d ( T u b i n g e n 1991)239-46. '9 Benjamin Isaac, T h e L i m i t s of E m p i r e ( O x f o r d , revised ed. 1992), C h a p t e r I I I . In s o u t h ­ e r n J o r d a n t h e r e is n o w o n e d e s e r t site w h i c h was c e r t a i n l y o c c u p i e d b y t h e R o m a n a r m y in t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y . Patricia M. Bikai a n d Virginia Egan, A r c h a e o l o g y in J o r d a n , in: A J A 100 (1996) 5 2 8 - 3 0 ; 529; 101 (1997) 4 9 3 - 5 3 5 , esp. 5 1 8 - 5 2 0 : H u m a i m a , excavated b y J o h n R O l e s o n . T h e v e r y s u b s t a n t i a l q u a n t i t i e s of ceramics f o u n d in t h e b a r r a c k s area in 1995 indicate w i t h o u t d o u b t t h a t t h e fort was active b y t h e first half of t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y A D , p o s s i b l y early in t h e c e n t u r y . T h e b a r r a c k s at least m a y have b e e n a b a n d o n e d f o r s o m e t i m e in t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y , t h e n r e - o c c u p i e d in t h e f o u r t h .

B e t w e e n t h e O l d Schiirer a n d t h e N e w : A r c h a e o l o g y and G e o g r a p h y

189

3) Regional surveys and the excavation of villages and isolated farmsteads pro­ vide important information about social and economic patterns in the country­ side. An example of the sort of work that can be done in this connection may be found in a very interesting recent paper by Y. Hirschfeld^". Hirschfeld plots the distribution of isolated farmsteads in various regions at different periods and at­ tempts to formulate historical conclusions. I myself would tend to see regional and social patterns where he sees religious and ethnic factors at work, but this is a question of approach and matter for debate. Regional surveys uncover the inter­ connection between major roads, local roads, villages and farmsteads and can thus contribute much to our understanding of a society which was still largely rural in character^'. The excavation of entire villages, as opposed to that of individual buildings in a site, is essential for an understanding of the social and economic setting. 4) The interpretation of artifacts discovered in surveys and excavations is a sub­ ject with historical implications in its own right. To what extent is Nabataean pot­ tery Nabataean? For years it has been assumed that Nabataean pottery ceased to be produced when the Nabataean kingdom was annexed as a Roman province in AD 106. Now excavations have shown that it goes on for at least another century. In another area pottery is found that is often called 'Ituraean', because this is the region where the Ituraeans used to live (Revised Schurer, volume I, Appendix I). Pottery should be studied, not as an expression of ethnicity, but as a commodity, and as the end result of certain techniques and preferences, like art and architec­ ture. It is an integral part of the culture of a society and the processes of accultur­ ation, which is one of the subjects of Schurers second volume, although he does not use this term. In the section on 'The cultural setting' several pages are devoted to terms indicating objects of commerce. Archaeology, of course, can help in trac­ ing patterns of import and export, through the study of the distribution of im­ ported pottery, amphora stamps, marble and valuables. The use of archaeological material for the study of the social and economic history of Palestine is a complex but attractive t o p i c 2 2 . 20 Yizhar Hirschfeld, C h a n g e s in s e t t l e m e n t p a t t e r n s of t h e J e w i s h rural p o p u l a c e b e f o r e and after t h e r e b e l l i o n s against R o m e , in: C a t h e d r a 80 (1996) 3 - 1 8 ( H e b . ) . C f Yizhar Hirschfeld and R. Birger-Calderon, ' E a r l y R o m a n a n d B y z a n t i n e Estates n e a r C a e s a r e a ' , in: l E J 41 (1991) 8 1 - 1 1 1 , f o r t h e e x c a v a t i o n of o n e of t h e estates d i s c u s s e d b y H i r s c h f e l d . See also: Yizhar Hirschfeld, T h e early R o m a n b a t h a n d fortress at R a m a t H a n a d i v n e a r C a e s a r e a , in: T h e R o m a n and B y z a n t i n e N e a r East: S o m e R e c e n t A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e s e a r c h ( J R A s u p p . 14, A n n A r b o r , M I 1995) 2 8 - 5 6 . T h e r e w a s n o t m u c h e v i d e n c e of estates b e f o r e t h e m o s t r e c e n t e x c a v a t i o n s and s u r v e y s : c f Hans-Peter Kuhnen, Palastina in g r i e c h i s c h - r o m i s c h e r Zeit ( M u ­ nich 1990) 2 4 1 , for w h a t little t h e r e was t o be cited at t h e t i m e . N o t e t h a t t h e identification of t h e estate n e a r C a e s a r e a as J e w i s h is d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e p r e s e n c e of a ritual b a t h . A s o b s e r v e d b y t h e e x c a v a t o r s , S a m a r i t a n s h a d similar b a t h s ( m i q v a ' o t ) , s o t h e identification c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d e n t i r e l y certain. 2' See for i n s t a n c e Shimon Dar, L a n d s c a p e and P a t t e r n : A n A r c h a e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y of S a m a ­ ria ( O x f o r d 1986) 2 vols.; Adam Zertal, Seqer H a r M e n a s h e (Tel Aviv 1993). 22 F o r a r e c e n t effort, based o n an analysis of finds f r o m M o u n t C a r m e l in t h e L a t e r R o m a n p e r i o d : Hans-Peter Kuhnen, K i r c h e , L a n d w i r t s c h a f t u n d Fliichtlingssilbcr: Z u r w i r t s c h a f t -

190

B e n j a m i n Isaac

So far wc have attempted to indicate a number of aspects of archaeology which could make a contribution at a conceptual level to developments indicated in both versions of Schiirer, whose outlook reflects the historiography found in the books of Maccabees, Josephus and the Gospels. One final topic should be mentioned here, of crucial importance and hence the subject of quite a few serious studies, namely demography. It cannot be said, however, that the results of theses studies are sufficiently definitive as to warrant inclusion in a handbook - and that, after all, is the present subject^*.

Geography Neither the old Schiirer nor the revised version include maps or illustrations^'*. Yet it is obvious that the authors of both looked at maps very carefully. Schiirer him­ self had already cited the literature and maps available in his time (Kiepert, the SWP maps), and he clearly distinguished between studies written in the library and those based on field-work. The revised version was brought up-to-date along the same lines. Neither version reflects independent study of the terrain. Schiircr's interest in geography is strictly limited to two inter-connected aspects: the identi­ fication of ancient sites with modern ones, and their location on modern maps. The way the work was written, Jewish history in antiquity could have taken place anywhere: in Bavaria, Britain, or the US. There is no climate, no topography, and no ecology. lichen E n t w i c k l u n g P a l a s u n a s in d e r Spiitantike, in: Z D P V 110 (1994) 3 6 - 5 0 . T h e article d i s ­ cusses t h e i m p a c t of C h r i s t i a n i t y ( d o n a t i o n s , p i l g r i m a g e , imperial s u p p o r t ) o n t h e Palestinian economy. 23 See t h e p a p e r s o n t h e d e m o g r a p h y of a n c i e n t Palestine b y Magen Broshi, La p o p u l a t i o n d e I ' a n c i e n n e J e r u s a l e m , in: R e v u e B i b l i q u e 82 (1975) 5 - 1 4 ; T h e P o p u l a t i o n of W e s t e r n P a l e s t i n e in t h e R o m a n - B y z a n t i n e P e r i o d , in: B A S O R 236 (1979) 1-10; T h e P o p u l a t i o n of E r e t z Israel in t h e R o m a n - B y z a n t i n e P e r i o d ( H e b . ) in: 2 . Baras et al., E r e t z Israel f r o m t h e D e s t r u c t i o n of t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e t o t h e M u s l i m C o n q u e s t Q c r u s a l e m 1982) 4 4 2 - 7 ; A g r i c u l t u r e a n d E c o n o m y In R o m a n Palestine: Seven N o t e s o n t h e B a b a t h a A r c h i v e , in: l E J 42 (1992) 2 3 0 240; a n d n o w : Yoram Tsafrir, S o m e N o t e s o n t h e S e t t l e m e n t a n d D e m o g r a p h y of Palestine in t h e B y z a n t i n e P e r i o d : T h e A r c h a e o l o g i c a l E v i d e n c e , in: foe D. Seger (ed.). R e t r i e v i n g t h e Past: E s s a y s o n A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e s e a r c h and M e t h o d o l o g y in H o n o r of G u s W. Van B e e k ( W i n o n a L a k e , I n d i a n a 1996) 2 6 9 - 8 3 . I-'undamental l i t e r a t u r e a b o u t t h e d e m o g r a p h y of t h e R o m a n e m p i r e : Tim G. Parkin, D e m o g r a p h y a n d R o m a n S o c i e t y ( B a l t i m o r e , J o h n s H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s 1992); Richard P. Sailer, P a t r i a r c h y , P r o p e r t y a n d D e a t h in t h e R o m a n F a m i l y ( C a m b r i d g e 1994); Walter Scheidel, M e a s u r i n g Sex, A g e , and D e a t h in t h e R o m a n E m p i r e : E x p l o r a t i o n s in A n c i e n t D e m o g r a p h y ( J R A s u p p . 2 1 , A n n A r b o r , M l 1996); Britce W. Frier, ' T h e D e m o g r a p h y of t h e E a r l y R o m a n E m p i r e ' , in: C A H 112, f o r t h c o m i n g . Roger S. Bagnall a n d Bruce V. Frier, T h e D e m o g r a p h y of R o m a n E g y p t ( C a m b r i d g e 1994) is essen­ tia! in t h i s field. 2"* Schiirer, of c o u r s e , w r o t e l o n g before R o s t o v t z e f f t a u g h t a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s w h a t p h o t o ­ g r a p h s w i t h c o m m e n t s weil i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e text can d o t o e v o k e a n c i e n t social a n d e c o n ­ o m i c reality. F o r this p o i n t : Arnaldo D. Momigliano, M . I. Rostovtzeff, in: Studies in H i s t o r i ­ o g r a p h y ( L o n d o n 1966) 9 1 - 1 0 4 , e.sp. 9 1 .

Between the O l d Schurer and the N e w : Archaeology and G e o g r a p h y

191

An example which shows that Schiirer himself clearly looked at maps may be found on p. 183 (old) =140 (new): 'How far into the exterior these territories reached, becomes evident from the fact that Ekron and Gazara were not part of Judaea. Ekron was not united to Jewish territory and judaised until the dme of Jonathan... and Gazara, not undl that of Simon.' For the location of Ekron we are then referred to the section on Jonathan, p. 22, n.l9 = p.181, n.l9. Here we find brief references to the hterary sources and modern authorities for the identifica­ tion. Similarly we are referred to the section on Simon for the location of Gazara, p.345, n.f2 = 191, n.8. There is some topographical information about Gazara: 'Gazara, the ancient Gezer, not far from Emmaus-Nicopolis in a westerly direc­ tion, at the foot of the mountains,... Its possession was of importance to the Jews because it was one of the places which dominated the mountain passes and, in con­ sequence, communications between Jerusalem and the port of Joppa annexed by the Jews.' This description, literally translated from the old Schiirer, is only half correct, for Gezer does not control any mountain passes. It is sited 200 metres above sea-level and affords a splendid view across the coastal plain. To the north, the road to Jerusalem passes through a fertile valley, 2.5 kilometres broad, which links the coastal plain with the valley of Ayalon^*. Schiirer, however, was aware that both Ekron and Gezer were relatively far inland. One final example should suffice to convey the point I want to make. Schiirer devotes considerable attention to the campaign of Cestius Gallus in 66, with the disaster at Beth Horon (revised edition, volume I, 487f.). However, any understanding of what really happened requires study of the terrain, maps and photographs^^. With these remarks it is not my intention to accuse Schiirer of shortcomings. If he had been the sort of man who travelled to the Near F^ast, he would not have written his book and the au­ thors of the revised edition had enough to do without walking the Beth Horon road. It may be observed, however, that there are aspects of the historical landscape not easily conveyed with the techniques available to nineteenth-century scholars.

25 C l e r m o n t - G a n n e a u , w h o d i s c o v e r e d t h e site in 1873, describes G e z e r ' s t h r e e s p r i n g s , an essential feature for its d e v e l o p m e n t ; see: Moshe Fischer, Benjamin Isaac and Israel Roll, R o m a n R o a d s in J u d a e a , 11, t h e J a f f a - J e r u s a l e m R o a d s ( O x f o r d 1996) 160. 26 O p . c i t . , 7 7 - 8 3 , figs. 8 - 1 0 ; c o m m e n t s o n p p . l 3 f . Schiirer, loc.cit. a b o v e , states t h a t C e s t i u s G a l l u s ' r e t i r e m e n t d e v e l o p e d i n t o a r o u t in a g o r g e near B e t h H o r o n . T h i s is an error.

Hermann

Lichtenberger

D e r Beitrag der Q u m r a n f u n d e zu einer neuen Sicht des Judentums''" Hartmut

Stegemann

zum 65. Geburtstag

am 18. Dezember

1998

I. Einfiihrung und Problemanzeige In meinem zweiten Studiensemester 1965 in Erlangen horte ich bei Ethelbert Stauffer Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, und Stauffer empfahl uns, Schurers „Geschichte" zu lesen, und er warnte sogleich: „Schurer glaubt Josephus mehr als Luthers Kleinem Katechismus", der bei einem bayerischen Lutheraner wie Schu­ rer gewissermafien so etwas wie Offenbarungscharakter hat. Dafi Stauffer selbst ganz im Banne Schiirers unterrichtcte, bemerkte ich erst, als ich nach I leidelberg kam und dort im Kreis um R. Rendtorff Distanz zu dieser Sicht des Judentums erhielt. Als knapp zehn Jahre nach meiner Erstbegegnung der erste Band der englischen Neubearbeitung' herauskam, war es wie eine Bestati­ gung des inzwischen Erkannten. Da er unter dem alten Autorennamen und mit quasi dem alten Titel erschien, kam es uns vor, als wollte der alte Schurer revozieren, also insgesamt mehr tun, als einige Retractationes nachreichen. In der Beibehaltung von Namen und Titel haben die Neubearbeiter nicht allein in nobler Geste ihr Licht unter den Scheffel gestelh, sondern auch deutlich gemacht, dafi heute ein Gelehrter vom Rang Schiirers, und das heifit: Schiirer selbst, in vielem anders urteilen wiirde. Friedrich Avemarie^ hat m.R. festgestellt, Schurers „Bemerkungen zum jiidischen Gesetzesgehorsam verraten mehr uber Theologie im wilhelminischcn Deutschland als uber das antike Judentum". Schurer war be­ stimmt von einem konfessionell-lutherischen und zugleich liberalen Protestantismus, der im Christentum die schlechthin vollkommene, das Judentum transzcnM a r i e t t a H a m m e r l e d a n k e ich fiir das S c h r e i b e n d e s M a n u s k r i p t s in s e i n e n v e r s c h i e d e n e n Stadien, M o n i k a M e r k l e fiir K r i t i k u n d R e v i s i o n . ' T h e H i s t o r y of t h e J e w i s h P e o p l e in t h e A g e of J e s u s C h r i s t (175 B . C . - A . D . 135). A N e w E n g l i s h Version Revised and E d i t e d b y Geza Vermes a n d Fergus Millar. L i t e r a r y E d i t o r P a m e l a V e r m e s , O r g a n i z i n g E d i t o r M a t t h e w Black, vol. 1 ( E d i n b u r g h 1 9 7 3 - 8 7 ) . 2 /: Avemarie, T o r a u n d L e b e n . U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u r H e i l s b e d e u t u n g d e r T o r a in d e r f r u h e n r a b b i n i s c h e n L i t e r a t u r ( T u b i n g e n 1996) 20, A 34.

194

H e r m a n n Lichtenberger

dierende vcrniinftige Religion sah. Das klingt bereits an in jenem ersten Satz von § 1 „Aus dem Schoosse des Judenthums ist in der Fiille der Zeiten die christliche Religion entsprungen, zwar als eine Thatsache der gottlichen Offenbarung, aber doch durch unzahlige Faden mit der tausendjahrigen Geschichte Israels verknupft. Keine Thatsache der evangelischen Geschichte, kein Wort in der Verkiin­ digung Jesu Christi ist denkbar ohne die Voraussetzung der judischen Geschichte und der ganzen Vorstellungswelt des judischen Volkes."* Wird hier einerseits heilsgeschichtlich argumentiert („Fulle der Zeiten", s. Gal 4,4), so wird doch nachdriicklich die Herkunft des Christentums aus dem Judentum und seine unaufgebbare Verbindung mit ihm herausgestellt. Man erschauert dann jedoch, in einer kritischen Besprcchung eines antisemitisehen Pamphlets in der von Schurer zusammen mit A. von Harnack herausgegebenen Theologischen Literaturzeitung zu lesen: „Referent (also Schiirer) ist [zwar] auch der Ansicht, dafi der Einflufi des Judentums auf unsere geistige und materielle F^ntwicklung kein segensreicher war und ist."'* Mit einer solchen Sicht stand er unter den Gebildeten nicht allein - ich erinnere nur an vergleiehbare Aufierungen wahrend des etwa zeitgleichen Berliner Antisemitismusstreits*. Die historia calamitatum der Verzerrung des jiidischen Toraverstandnisses in der christhchen Bibelwissenschaft seit dem letzten Drittel des vorigen Jahrhun­ derts mit ihren verheerenden Wirkungen auf die Sicht des Judentums und des Ur­ christentums, besonders auf die Paulusauslegung, ist mehrfach mit grofier Entschiedenheit geschrieben worden, am klarsten und weitreiehendsten zuletzt von E.P. Sanders^; und mit einem Gefuhl der Erleichterung darf man heute, knapp zwei Jahrzehnte nach dem Erscheinen seines „Paul and Palestinian Judaism", feststellen, dafi die Demontage des alten Klischees von einem Judentum, das in kramerhafter Werkgcrechtigkeit, engherziger Ritualkasuistik und einer sterilen Gottesbeziehung erstickt, mit Erfolg weitergeht. Julius Wellhausen konnte iiber das nachprophetische Judentum noch ungnadig - und in offenbarer Unkenntnis der iiberragenden Bedeutung von Lev 18,5 fiir das rabbinische Toraverstandnis'' - das Urteil fallen: „Gesetze sind nach Ezechiel dazu da, dafi man dadurch mag leben. Damit wird iiber das System der pharisaischen Satzungen der Stab gcbroehen. Das Leben wurde dadurch nicht gefordert, sondern behindert und eingeengt. (...) Das Gesetz vcrdarb nieht blofi die Moral (...); es entseelte auch (...) die Rehgion. (...) Es herrschte ein wahrer Gotzendienst des Gesetzes."* Und in der - von Wellhau­ sen entscheidend mitgepragten - theologischen Atmosphare des friihen 20. Jahr­ hunderts konnte selbst ein so unbestrittener Kenner der antik-jiidischen Literatur 3 Bd. 1 , 1 . Z i t i e r t n a c h M. Hengel, D e r alte u n d d e r n e u e ,Schiirer', in: JSS 35 (1990), hier: 27, A 2 5 . 5 W. Boehlich ( H r s g . ) , D e r B e r l i n e r A n t i s e m i t i s m u s s t r e i t ( F r a n k f u r t 1965). '> E. P. Sanders, P a u l a n d Palestinian J u d a i s m ( L o n d o n 1977); d e u t s c h : P a u l u s u n d das p a l a ­ s t i n i s c h e J u d e n t u m , in: S t U N T 17 (1985). 7 Vgl. h i e r z u e t w a D. R. Schwartz, L e b e n d u r c h J e s u s versus L e b e n d u r c h die T o r a h . Z u r R e l i g i o n s p o l e m i k d e r e r s t e n J a h r h u n d e r t e ( F r a n z - D e l i t z s c h - V o r l e s u n g 1 9 9 1 , M i i n s t e r 1993) 5. 8 Israe itische u n d jiidische G e s c h i c h t e ('M958) 283 f

D e r Beitrag d e r Q u m r a n f u n d e z u e i n e r n e u e n Sicht d e s J u d e n t u m s

195

wie Paul Billerbeck sich dazu hinreifien lassen, die „altjudische Religion" als „eine Religion volligster Selbsterlosung" zu disqualifizieren'. Heute sind derartig eklatante Fehlurteile spiirbar seltener geworden. Nur noch vereinzelt - wenn auch mitunter an ganz unerwarteter Stelle - liest man in der neueren Literatur von jiidischer „Erstarrung und Mumifizierung" oder davon, dafi der „jiidische Gott" ein „archaischer Volks- und Landesgott" geblieben sei und das „komphzierte Ge­ setz. .. nur Schriftgelehrte" hatten erfiillen konnen'". Bezeichnend fiir den seit Mitte der siebziger Jahre sich anbahnenden Um­ bruch ist die revidierte englische Ausgabe von Emil Schurers Standardwerk zur antiken jiidischen Geschichte". Schiirer selbst, dessen Paragraph iiber das „Leben unter dem Gesetz"'2 weder besondere Sympathie fiir die jiidische Reli­ gion noch das Bemuhen um ein tieferes Verstandnis erkennen liefi, hatte sich nicht geschcut, Spitzensatze jiidischer Theologie schlicht als irrelevant abzutun: „Das Wort des Antigonus von Socho: ,Gleichet nicht den Knechten, die ihrem Herrn um des Lohnes willen dienen, sondern seid denen gleich, die ohne Riicksicht auf Lohn Dienste leisten', ist keineswegs ein korrekter Ausdruck der Grundstimmung des pharisaischen Judentums. Dieses gleicht in der Tat den Knechten, die um des Lohnes willen dienen."'* Die englische Revision hat jenen Paragraphen unter dem Titel „Life and Law" umfassend neuformuliert''' und belafit dem Diktum des Antigonus nun sein Recht: „(It) foreshadows many si­ milar counsels preserved in rabbinic literature."'* Die Neuorientierung erfolgt, noch ein wenig tastend, bereits in der Einleitung, deren zweiter Abschnitt ehe­ dem gelautet hatte: „Das Charakteristische dieser Periode ist die Herrschaft des Pharisaismus. Die gesetzliche Richtung, die einst Esra begriindct hatte, ist jetzt weit uber das von Esra geforderte Maass hinaus gesteigert. Man begniigt sich nieht mehr, die Forderungen der schriftlichen Thora zu erfullen. Dieselben sind in eine Unzahl der peinlichsten und minutiosesten Einzelvorsehriften zerlegt, deren genaue Beobaehtung zur heiligen Pflicht, ja zur Bedingung der Seligkeit gemacht wird. Und diese gesteigerte Gesetzlichkeit hat die unbedingte Herr­ schaft iiber die Gemiither crlangt, so dass alle anderen Richtungen in den ' K o m m e n t a r z u m N e u e n T e s t a m e n t a u s T a l m u d u n d M i d r a s c h , B d . IV/1 ( M i i n c h e n 1928) 6. ' " D i e Z i t a t e sind e n t n o m m e n a u s K. Beyer, D i e a r a m a i s c h e n Texte v o m T o t e n Meer, E r g a n zungsband (Gottingen In dem erschienenen H a u p t b a n d hatte Beyer noch ausgefiihrt, im J u d e n t u m „ s c h i e b t sich das G e s e t z z w i s c h e n d e n E i n z e l n e n u n d s e i n e n N a c h sten u n d e n d e t schhefilich in s p i t z f i n d i g e r K a s u i s t i k . G o t t a b e r v e r s t u m m t u n d v e r s c h w i n d e t in u n e n d l i c h e r F e m e " I m m e r h i n w i r d in d e m E r g a n z u n g s b a n d d e r a r t i g e s n i c h t w i e d e r h o l t ; s t a t t d e s s e n findet sich h i e r ein H i n w e i s auf das W e r k v o n S a n d e r s (61). " Schiirer, (wie A n m . 1); vgl. Hengel, D e r alte u n d d e r n e u e ,SchiJrer' ( w i e A n m . 4). '2 £. Schiirer, G e s c h i c h t e des j u d i s c h e n Volkes i m Z e i t a l t e r J e s u C h r i s t i , Bd. II ( L e i p z i g ff Schiirers H a l t u n g lafit sich am b e s t e n m i t seiner F e s t s t e l l u n g z u s a m m e n f a s s e n , das R c s u l t a t d e r G e s e t z e s f r o m m i g k e i t sei „eine unglauhliche Verdujlerlichung des religiosen undsitdichen Lebens" g e w e s e n ( I I , 548; I l e r v o r h e b u n g e n hier u n d bei d e n f o l g e n d e n Z i t a t e n v o n Schiirer). '3 dt.* ' t engl. n, 464 ff '5 engl.

1994) 60-61.

(158).

•'1907) 545

n, 548.

11,466.

1984

196

H e r m a n n Lichtenberger

Hintergrund gedrangt sind."'^ In der revidierten Fassung wird sehr viel sorgsamer formuliert: „The chief character of this period was the growing impor­ tance of Pharisaism. The legalistic orientation initiated by Ezra had slowly deve­ loped into a religio-social system in which it was no longer sufficient to fulfil the commandments of the written Torah; the generalities of biblical law were resol­ ved into an immense number of detailed precepts, the performance of which was imposed as a most sacred duty. Though never universally fohowed, and never completely divorced from truly spiritual and even charismatic tendencies, this concern with the punctilious observance of the minutiae of religion became the hall-mark of mainstream Judaism."''' Uber die Ausgestaltung des Arbeitsverbots am Sabbat heifit es bei Schurer: „... mit diesem schlichten Verbot konnten sich die Rabbinen naturlich nicht begniigen. Sie mufiten auch genau bestimmen, welche Arbeit verboten sei. Und so brachten sie denn mit vielem Scharfsinn endlich heraus, dass im ganzen 3 9 Hauptarbeiten verboten sind, von welchen na­ tiirlich nur die wenigsten im Pentateuch irgendwie sich angedeutet finden."'* Der neue Schiirer hat den iiberheblich-ironischen Tonfall des alten abgelegt: „The short pentateuchal ban on work on the Sabbath day... grew in the course of time into a lengthy Mishnah tractate. For the rabbis, feeling it necessary to be more exact, specified the following thirty-nine activities as forbidden on the Sabbath..."". Hatte Schiirer iiber den Jiidischen Gottesdienst geurteilt: „Wenn aber vollends auch das Zentrum des religiosen Lebens, das Gebet selbst, in die Fesseln eines starren Meehanismus geschlagen wurde, dann konnte von lebendiger F'rommigkeit kaum mehr die Rede sein. Auch diesen verhangnisvollen Schritt hatte das Judentum zur Zeit Christi bereits getan"^", so nimmt man dankbar zur Kenntnis, dafi die revidierte Ausgabe ein derartiges Urteil ersatzlos fallenlafit.

II. Das Essenerbild Um den Beitrag der Qumrantexte zu einem neuen Verstandnis des Judentums aufzeigen zu konnen, werfen wir zunachst einen Blick auf das Essenerbild des alten Schiirer^'. Hier folgt Schiirer naturgemafi Josephus und Philo, wobei Josephus den Rahmen abgibt, der aus Philo erganzt wird. Geradezu irritiert ist Schiirer - wie seine Vorganger - von nicht aus dem Juden­ tum herleitbaren Charakteristika, aber insgesamt zweifelt er den genuin jiidischen Charakter der essenischen Gemeinschaft nicht an. „Wenn iiberhaupt der Essenis16 dt.5 I, 2.

17 18 19 20 21

engl. 1 , 1 . dt.i 552. engl. 11,468. d t . " I I , 569; siehe d a z u u n t e n S. 201 f. d t . i n , 651-680.

n,

D e r B e i t r a g d e r Q u m r a n f u n d e z u e i n e r n e u e n Sicht d e s J u d e n t u m s

197

m u s als ein rein jiidisches Gebilde begriffen werden kann, ist es immer noch am einfachsten, ihn lediglich als cine Steigerung der pharisaischen Richtung zu be­ trachten, denn mit dieser hat er den Ausgangspunkt und viele Einzelheiten ge­ meinsam. Man kann daher die Frage dahin vereinfachen: ob der Essenismus nichts anderes ist als ein eigentiimlicher Seitentrieb des Pharisaismus, oder ob auf seine Entstehung und Entwickelung auch fremde Einfliisse eingewirkt haben^^?" Als pharisaisch-jiidische Charakteristika nennt er „die strenge Gesetzlichkeit und das iingstliche Reinheitsstreben"^*, Hochschatzung des Gesetzgebers Moses und rigoristische Sabbatfeier So kann Schiirer schhefilich konstatieren: „Der F^ssenismus ist also zunachst nur der Pharisaismus im Superlativ", daher auch die Separa­ tion, „ihre Organisation zu engen geschlossenen Gemeinschaften"^'*. „Die gemeinsamen Mahlzeiten in diesen Vereinen, fiir welche die Speisen von den Prie­ stern zubereitet werden, geben dem Essener eine Biirgsehaft dafiir, dafi er nur koschere Kost zu geniefien bekommt", und schhefilich erklart sich so auch die Giitergemeinschaft: „Uer enge briiderliche Verband fiihrt dann zur Giitergemeinschaft."25 Gemeinsamkeit und Unterschiede mit den Pharisaern werden wahrge­ nommen: „Die Reinheit und Heiligkeit, welche die Flssener zu verwirklichen streben, ist nun freilich doch cine andere, hohere und absonderlichere als die der Pha­ risaer Aber fast alle Besonderheiten haben wenigstens ihre Ankniipfungspunkte im Pharisaismus.Jedoch: „Die Verwerfung der Ehe ist freilich etwas dem genuinen Judentume Heterogenes"27, aber doch von jiidischen Pramissen aus zu verstehen: „Da namlich der eheliche Akt als solcher den Mensehen verunreinigt und ein levitisches Reinigungsbad notwendig macht, so konnte das Bestreben, den hochstmoglichen Grad von Reinheit und Heiligkeit darzustellen, wohl zur volligen Verwerfung der Ehe fiihren."2* Schiirer versucht, weitere auffallige Ziige der Flssener als Versuch, „zu der Einfachheit der Natur und der natiirlichen Ordnungen" zuriickzukehren und die Verwerfung der Sklaverei, des Eids, des Salbols und des Handels als Ausflufi des­ sen zu v e r s t e h e n 2 9 .

Eine Besonderheit stellt die Ablehnung der Tieropfer dar: Hier sieht Schiirer prophetische Opferkritik wirksam: „Wie die Propheten betonen, dafi Gott nicht an Opfern Gefallen habe, sondern an Reinheit der Gesinnung, so ist nach esscnischer Anschauung nicht die Schlachtung von Tieren, sondern die Heiligung des eigenen Leibes der wahre Gottesdienst"*", die Essener vertreten also einen ethischen Rigorismus und Radikahsmus. Jedoch: „Mit Verwerfung der Tieropfer (ist) 22 23 2't 25 26 27 28 29 30

dt.-t II, 6 7 1 . d t . t 11, 671 f dt." I I , 6 7 3 . aaO. aaO. d t . t I I , 674. aaO. aaO. d t . t 11, 6 7 5 .

198

H e r m a n n Lichtenberger

ein voUiger Bruch mit dem eigentlichen Judentum vollzogen."*' Unerklarlich ist Schiirer auf judischem Boden das Verhalten der Essener auch gegenuber der Sonne: Die Gebetsrichtung zur Sonne hin erscheint ihm als etwas geradezu Heidnisches, so dai5 er nicht umhin kann, fremde Einfliisse anzunehmen*^. Erwogen werden: Buddhismus, Parsismus, das syrische Heidentum und insbesondcre der Pythagoreismus, die griechische Philosophie iiberhaupt**. Nach Schiirer weist der Pythagoreismus die meisten Parallelen mit dem Esse­ nismus auf: Waschungen, die den SinnengenufS verneinende Lebensweise, das Streben nach Reinheit und Heiligkeit, Hochschatzung der Ehelosigkeit, weifSe Kleidung, Verwerfung des Eids, Ablehnung blutiger Opfer, Anrufung der Sonne und Schutz ihrer Strahlen vor Befleckung, das dualistische Verhaltnis von Seele und Leib*'*. Einerseits ist - so Schiirer - ein geschichtlicher Zusammenhang zwi­ schen Pythagoreismus und Essenismus moglich, andererseits wird sichtbar, wel­ che Anziehungskraft von ihnen auf das Judentum ausging, ja, der Essenismus ist geradezu der Beweis fiir den seit der Alexanderzeit wirksamen Einflufi des Helle­ nismus auf das Judentum. „Der Essenismus ware demnach eine Separation von dem Boden des eigentlichen Judentums, welche etwa im zweiten Jahrhundert vor Chr unter griechischen Einfliissen sich vollzogen hat zum Zweck der Verwirklichung eines dem Pythagoreismus verwandten Lebensideales, aber unter Festhaltung der jiidischen Grundlage."** Freilich gibt es ein Caveat: Gerade die Gemeinsamkeiten von Pythagoreismus und F^ssenismus sind „h6chst wahrscheinlich orientalischen Ursprungs"*^. Schii­ rer erwagt, dafi beide unabhangig aus einer orientalischen Quelle geschopft bat­ ten, was wieder den Parsismus ins Spiel braehte. So konnten es parsistische und pythagoreische Einwirkungen zugleich sein. Eine aufschlufireiche Parallele findet sich am Beginn der Qumranforschung zum Dualismus: Auch hier wurden beson­ ders fiir IQS 3,13-4,26 parsistische Einfliisse geltend gemacht*''. Schhefilich kann Schiirer als Ergebnis festhalten: „1.) dafi der Essenismus zu­ nachst und vorwiegend ein jiidisches Gebilde ist, und 2.) dafi er in seinen nicht­ jiidischen Ziigen sich am meisten mit der pythagoreischen Richtung der Griechen beriihrt"*8.

31 a a O . 32 d t . t n , 676. 33 d t . i I I , 677. 31 d t . M L 678f. 35 dt." II, 679, bei S c h u r e r h e r v o r g e h o b e n . 36 dt." I I , 680. 32 K. G. Kuhn, D i e in Palastina g e f u n d e n e n h e b r a i s c h e n Texte u n d d a s N e u e T e s t a m e n t , in: Z T h K 47 (1950) 1 9 2 - 2 1 1 ; ders., D i e S c k t e n s c h r i f t u n d die i r a n i s c h e R e l i g i o n , in: Z T h K 49 (1952) 2 9 6 - 3 1 6 ; A. Dupont-Sommer, A p e r g u s p r e l i m i n a i r e s s u r les M a n u s c r i t s d e la M e r M o r t e (Paris 1950); ders., L ' i n s t r u c t i o n s u r les d e u x E s p r i t s d a n s le „ M a n u e l d e D i s c i p l i n e " , in: R F I R 142 (1952) 5 - 3 5 ; W. H. Brownlee, T h e D e a d Sea M a n u a l of D i s c i p l i n e . T r a n s l a t i o n a n d N o t e s , in: B A S O R .suppl. 1 0 - 1 2 ( N e w H a v e n 1951). 38 d t . " I I , 680.

D e r B e i t r a g d e r Q u m r a n f u n d e zu einer n e u e n Sicht des J u d e n t u m s

199

Gegeniiber der fiir den alten deutschen Schurer so bestimmenden These eines pythagoreischen Einflusses auf die Essener ist der neue englische Schurer apodiktisch: „Direct Essene dependence on Pythagorean teachings and customs is diffi­ cuh to conceive and impossible to prove"-", und zustimmend wird Hengel''" zitiert, der als das eigentlich Bemerkenswerte die Tatsache nennt, dafi die Essener der hellenistischen Welt als Philosophen, ja sogar als pythagoreiseh prasentiert werden konnten. Jiingst hat Roland Bergmeier"' vorgeschlagen, eine pythagoraisierende Essenerquelle anzunehmen (84-93; 104-107; bed 2, 119-161; ant 18, 1822), die die auffallenden Gemeinsamkeiten in den Essenerberichten mit den Pythagoreern erklaren wiirde. Ein weiterer Gesiehtspunkt im Essenerbild des alten Schiirer sei aufgegriffen: der Essenismus als gesteigerter Pharisaismus. Hier findet sich im alten Schiirer ein merkwiirdiger Bruch: Ist die Pharisaer-Darstellung mit so starken negativen Wer­ tungen durchsetzt, so fehlen diese bei den Essenern ganz, obwohl diese doch eine Steigerung der pharisaischen ..Gesetzlichkeit" darstellen. Ist Schurer auch darin von Josephus mit seinem sympathischen Essenerbild abhangig? Oder steht er ein­ fach im Bann der christlichen Essenerrezeption''^?

III. Das Pharisaerbild Die Darstellung der Pharisaer in Paragraph 26 ist letztlich nur das notwendige Praludium zu dem erwahnten Paragraphen 28 (..Das Leben unter dem Gesetz"): ..Die dort charakterisierte Gesetzlichkeit ist eben die pharisaische."''* „Die Phari­ saer sind ihrem Wesen nach einfach diejenigen, welche es mit der Auslegung und Beobaehtung des Gesetzes besonders genau nehmen, also die streng Gesetzhchen, die sichs auch Miihe und Entbehrungen kosten liefien, das Gesetz piinktlieh zu er­ fiillen"'''', so leitet Schiirer den Abschnitt iiber die Pharisaer ein. Was die Lehren der Pharisaer betrifft, so folgt Schiirer Josephus und dem Neuen Testament (Unsterbliehkeit der Seele, Engel und Geister, Willensfreiheit), um dann an Namen (..Abgesonderte") und Organisationsform (..Chaberim") die ..Exklusivitat des Pharisaismus"''* zu demonstrieren. ..Von ihrem Standpunkte aus war die ,Abson" engl. II, 589. "0 M. Hengel, J u d e n t u m u n d H e l l e n i s m u s . S t u d i e n z u i h r e r B e g e g n u n g u n t e r b e s o n d e r e r B e r i i c k s i c h t i g u n g Palastinas bis z u r M i t t e d e s 2. J a h r h u n d e r t s v. C h r ( T i i b i n g e n 1969) 452; engl. J u d a i s m a n d H e l l e n i s m I ( L o n d o n . P h i l a d e l p h i a 1974) 2 4 7 . "i R. Bergmeier, D i e E s s e n e r - B e r i c h t e des Flavius J o s e p h u s . Q u e l l e n s t u d l e n zu d e n E s s e n e r t e x t e n im W e r k d e s j u d i s c h e n H i s t o r i o g r a p h e n ( K a m p e n 1993). ••2 Siehe d a z u Ch. Burchard, Zur N e b e n i i b e r l i e f e r u n g v o n J o s e p h u s ' B e r i c h t iiber die E s s e n e r Bell 2 . 119-161 bei H i p p o l y t , P o r p h y r i u s . J o s i p p u s . N i k e t a s C h o n i a t e s u n d a n d e r e n . in: O . Betz, K. Haacker, M. Hengel ( H r s g . ) . J o s e p h u s - S t u d i e n . Festschrift fiir O . Michel ( G o t ­ t i n g e n 1974) 7 7 - 9 6 . « dt." II, 4 5 7 . "" dt." II, 456. "5 dt." II. 472.

200

Hermann Lichtenberger

derung', v o n welcher sie ihren N a m e n hatten, etwas durchaus Riibmliches und Gottwohlgefalliges.'"'^ Wahrend sie sich einerseits v o m Am ha-aretz trennen, so haben sie d o c h „die Menge des Volkes z u m Bundesgenossen; besonders haben sie die Weiber in ihrer Hand'"*^. „Dieser grofie Elinflufi, w e l c h e n die Pharisaer tat­ sachlich ausiibten, ist nur die Kehrseite der exklusiven Stellung, die sie sich selbst gaben. Gerade deshalb, weil sie ihre Forderungen so h o c h spannten und nur die­ jenigen als vollbiirtige Israeliten anerkannten, die das G e s e t z nach der vollen Strenge ihrer Forderungen beobachteten, gerade deshalb imponierten sie der M e n g e , die in diesen exemplarisch F r o m m e n ihr eigenes Ideal und ihre legitimen Fiihrer anerkannte.'"i* D a z u dienen Schule und Synagoge, w i e Paragraph 27 ent­ fahet: „Gesetzeskunde als das hochste, vor andern erstrebenswerte Gut'"", „so erklingt denn auch in alien Tonarten die Mahnung: H i n z u m Gesetz*"!" „Was die pharisaischen Schriftgelchrten in ihren Schulen als G e s e t z Israels festgestellt hat­ ten, das mufite G e m e i n g u t des ganzen Volkes werden."*' Gegenstand des U n t e r richts in der Schule ist „so gut w i e ausschliefilich das Gesetz"*^. „Es war (...) im G r u n d e nur das Interesse am Gesetz, welches auch den Unterricht im Lesen zu einem z i e m h c h weit verbreiteten gemacht hat."** In der Darstellung des Lernens selbst und der Schilderung des S y n a g o g e n g o t tesdienstes ist die protcstantische Sympathie fiir den opferlosen Wortgottesdienst der Synagoge mit Flanden zu greifen. U m s o scharfer wird dann das Verdikt iiber „Das Leben unter dem Gesetz" (§ 28). Motiv fiir diesen „Enthusiasmus fiir das Gesetz" sei einzig und allein „der Glaube an die gottliche Vergeltung"*''. U n g e ­ aehtet der geringen Rolle, den der Bundesgedanke in der rabbinischen D i s k u s s i o n spielt, sieht Schiirer ein pervertiertes, „juristisches" Bundesverstandnis: „Das Volk ist verpfliehtet, das v o n G o t t ihm gegebene G e s e t z piinktlieh und gewissenhaft zu beobachten; dafiir ist aber auch G o t t vcrpflichtet, den verheifienen L o h n nach Mafigabe der Leistung dem Volke zu entrichten."** H i e r findet sich d e n n auch die Abqualifizierung des zitierten D i e t u m s des A n t i g o n o s von S o c h o . Leitendes Stichwort wird „Veraufierlichung", es wird „das gesamte religiose und sittliche Leben in die Sphare des Rechts herabgezogen"*^. Ich breche hier ab, das entstandene Bild und die K o n s e q u e n z e n daraus sind be­ kannt genug. Eigendich miifite dieses negative Pharisaerbild in einem n o c h negativeren Essenerbild kulminieren. Warum dies nicht geschah, dafiir sind z w e i Griinde zu erwagen: (1) D i e christliche Uberlieferung hatte seit der Alten Kirche -

"7

48 t9 50 51 52 53 5t 55 56

dt.t n, 468. di.t I I , 474. dt.t n , 475. dt.t n, 489. aaO. dt.t n, 4901. dt.t n, 495. dt.t n , 495. dt.t 545. dt.t n, 546. dt.t n, 548.

D e r Beitrag d e r Q u m r a n f u n d e z u einer n e u e n Sicht des J u d e n t u m s

201

natiirlich zuriickgehcnd auf Philo und Josephus - ein positives Essenerbild gepflegt. (2) Diese positive Wahrnehmung esseniseher Frommigkeit und Lebenspraxis konnte einem negativen Pharisaerbild entgegengestellt werden. Merkwiirdigerweise geschah dies, obgleich bereits Josephus die radikale Gesetzesobservanz der Essener hervorgehoben hatte. Durch die Funde vom Toten Meer wird die These vom gesteigerten Pharisaismus der qumran-essenischen Gemeinde also zu­ nachst einmal bestatigt. Schon Josephus gab dafiir Argumente, wenn er davon spricht, dafi sich die F^ssener gegeniiber den anderen Gruppen eines besonders heiligen Wandels befleifiigten (Bell 2, 119), die Damaskusschrift hot dafiir die Belege, z.B. Verbot, am Sabbat ein Tier aus einem Brunnen zu retten (CD 11, 13f.), die Gemeinderegel ordnet Verscharfungen in ihren Strafbestimmungen an, und Tempelrolle und 4QMMT lassen keinen Zweifel an der jeweils engeren, d.h. strengcren Toraauslegung*7. Und wenn in den Dor^sche ha-halaqot tatsachlich die Pharisaer zu sehen sind, so besteht kein Zeifel, dafi die qumran-esseni.sche Halacha die der Pharisaer an Strenge und Verbindliehkeit iibertraf**. Auf der anderen Seite steht eine Viel­ zahl unterschiedlicher Texte, ganz gleich, ob wir sie im einzelnen der qumran-es­ senischen Gemeinde zuschreiben konnen, darunter viele Hymnen und Gebete, die eine Engfiihrung auf ausschliefilich halachische Betrachtungsweise als ungerechtfertigte Verkiirzung erscheinen lafit. Und dennoch ist dies nur die halbe Wahrheit. Schon der Schlufipsalm der Gemeinderegel IQS hatte von Anfang an vor einer kurzsichtigen und vorschnellen Beurteilung warnen miissen, die Hodayot zumal und jetzt die vielen Lieder und Gebete, die aus Hohle 4 bekannt ge­ worden sind*'. Darum kommen wir zuriick zu Schurers DarsteUung des Gebets, dessen Anfang wir oben bereits zitiert haben. "Wenn aber vollends auch das Zentrum des religiosen Lebens, das Gebet selbst, in die Fesseln eines starren Meehanismus geschlagen wurde, dann konnte von lebendiger Frommigkeit kaum mehr die Rede sein. Auch diesen verhangnisvollen Schritt hatte das Judentum zur Zeit Christi bereits getan. Die beiden Hauptgebete, welche damals fiir den Privatgebrauch allgemein iiblich waren, sind: 1) das Schma, welches taglich zweimal zu reziticren war, eigentlich kein Gebet, sondern ein Bekenntnis zu dem Gott Israels, und 2) das Schmone Esre, das gewohnliche tag­ liche Gebet, welches morgens, mittags und abends zu beten war Auch diese Gebete wurden nun zum Gegenstande kasuistischcr Diskussionen gemacht, und ihr Gebrauch damit notwendig zu einem aufierhchen Werkdienst herabgewiirdigt."6° 57 L . 11. Schiffman h a t dies in vielen A r b e i t e n sorgfaltig e r a r b c i t e t . 58 Vgl. K. G. Kuhn, A r t . Q u m r a n , R G G 3,V 746f.: „ D a s "Wesendiche ist also fiir die G e ­ m e i n d e die s t r e n g s t e Erfiillung d e r T o r a . S o ist a u c h d i e Praxis i h r e r G e s e t z e s e r f i i l l u n g , ihre H a l a c h a , n o c h s t r e n g e r als die p h a r i s a i s c h e u n d d i e s p a t e r e r a b b i n i s c h e . " 59 Siehe d i e B i b l i o g r a p h i e v o n M. Harding, i n : / . H. Charlesworth (Hrsg.), T h e Lord's Prayer and o t h e r P r a y e r Texts from t h e G r e c o - R o m a n E r a (Valley F o r g e , P A 1994) 1 6 2 - 1 7 6 ; B. Nitzan, Q u m r a n P r a y e r a n d R e h g i o u s P o e t r y ( L e i d e n 1994). 60 d t . t n , 570.

202

H e r m a n n Lichtenberger

Schiirer selbst ist nicht ganz konsistent in dieser allgetneinen Beurteilung, kann er doch zum Gebet bei Tisch sagen: „Eine schone Sitte war es, dafi Speise und Trank nie ohne Dank gegen Gott genossen wurden", um aber sogleich einen Schatten darauf zu werfen: „Aber auch hier war alles bis ins kleinste geregelt" (aaO), und abschliefiend zu konstatieren: „Wo das Gebet in solcher Weise unter die gesetzliche Formel gebannt war, mufite es notwendig zu einem aufieren Werk­ dienst erstarren." Dabei weifi Schiirer, „dafi Gebete schon und gehaltreich waren (wie man dies namentlich vom Schmone-Esre wird zugeben miissen)". „Ist schon die gesetzliche Behandlung des sittlichen Lebens iiberhaupt vom Ubel, so ist sie es beim Gebete, dieser zartesten Bliite des innersten Gemiitslebens, doppelt und dreifach."^' Die Forschungen zum Gebet sind iiber diese durch den deutschen Idealismus bestimmten Urteile hinweggegangen. Gerade auch fiir die Hymnen und Gebete aus den Qumranfunden gibt es z.T. Ordnungen, ich erinnere nur an die hymnische Entfaltung der Gebetszeiten in den Hodayot (IQH^" 12,4-11) und im Schlufipsalm der Gemeinderegel (IQS 9, 26ff.)^^ Und diese Ordnungen und Regelungen gehoren nicht einer veraufierlichten Spatzeit an (als welche in der von Schurer vertretenen Sicht die friihrabbinische erscheint), sondern reichen ins 2. vorchristliche Jahrhundert zuriick.

IV. Abschliefiende Uberiegungen Das starre Bild, das sich insbesondcre die deutsche neutestamentliche Forschung vom pharisaischen Judentum gemacht hatte (Stiehworte: Gesetzlichkeit, Veraufierliehung etc.), kam dutch das Bekanntwerden der Texte aus Hohle 1 und deren Zuordnung zu den Essenern bereits in den 50er Jahren in Bewegung und fuhrte zunachst - so paradox es erscheinen mag - zu einer Entlastung des gelaufigen Pharisaerbildes, konnte man doch nun - zumal in authentischen Zeugnissen - eine noch strengere Gruppe kennenlernen. Bezeichnend fiir diese Einschatzung ist die Verwendung des Begriffs „Sekte", der im Deutschen einen betont negativen Klang hat. Den Essenern gegeniiber erscheinen die Pharisaer als geradezu menschenfreundhch, und man hat zunehmend Jesus naher an die Pharisaer herangeriickt, wahrend seine erbitterten Feinde (eigentlich) die Qumran-Essener hatten sein miissen. Nun hat sich auch dieses negativ besetzte Bild einer rigoristischcn und in sich geschlossenen „Sekte" im Lauf der Jahre eine griindliche Revision gefallen lassen miissen. Diese geht einerseits auf die Erkenntnis zuriick, dafi nur ein Teil der Texte aus den Qumranfunden tatsachlich von der qumran-essenischen Gemeinschaft verfafit wurde, andererseits auf die Wahrnehmung der Tatsache, dafi der Ge­ meinde selbst eine ca. 200jahrige Geschichte zukommt, in der Entwicklungen an61 d t . i I I , 571 f. « Siehe 4 Q 2 5 6 ; 4 Q 2 5 8 ; w e i t e r I Q M 14, 13f.

D e r Beitrag d e r Q u m r a n f u n d e zu einer n e u e n Sicht d e s J u d e n t u m s

203

zunehmen sind, sei es in der Halacha, der Gemeindeorganisation oder in der mes­ sianischen Erwartung. "Wie llQTS und 4QMMT erkennen lassen, standen am Anfang der qumran-essenischen Gemeinschaft Auseinandersetzungen sadduzaiseh-priesterlicher Positionen auf seiten der (spateren) qumran-essenischen Ge­ meinde mit friihpharisaisch beeinflufiten Kreisen^*. 4QMMT ist am besten verstandlich als ein Brief sadduzaisch bestimmter Kreise an einen hasmonaischen Herrscher und die ihn unterstiitzende Priesterschaft in Jerusalem. Im Prinzip bestatigt diese Auseinandersetzung die alte These - wenn auch facettenreicher -, nach der die Qumranbewegung aus einer Revolte traditionell-priesterlicher Kreise gegen die hasmonaische Usurpation des Hohepriesteramtcs entstan­ den ist. Ein entscheidender Punkt kommt hinzu: Die auf Josephus zuriickgehende Drei- bzw. "Vierteilung der jiidischen Gruppierungen reicht nicht aus, die Vielfalt der Stromungen und Entwicklungen zu erfassen und zu ordnen. Dafur haben Sadduzaer, Pharisaer und Essener einerseits viel zu viel Gemeinsames, anderer­ seits lassen sich die in den Qumranfunden begegnenden Traditionen nur zum Teil einer fest definierten Gemeinschaft zuschreiben. Auch wenn - wie ja G. Stembergej.64 gezeigt hat - die alten Gruppenbezeiehnungen und -bilder die Komplexitat nicht wirklich erfassen konnen, so geben die Qumranfunde doch Einblick in das Entstehen und die friihe Auseinandersetzung friihjiidischer Gruppen. Solche Auseinandersetzungen begegnen paradigmadsch z.B. in der Damaskusschrift oder 4QMMT6*. Reflexe des Konfliktpotentials sind aber auch wahrnehmbar z.B. in den vielfaltigen und zum Teil konkurrierenden messianischen Erwartungen (priesterliche, konigliche, prophetische)^^. Sie spiegeln historische und theologi­ sche Entwicklungen wider, aus denen zugleich hervorgeht, wie sehr in den Anfan­ gen noch alles im Flufi ist. Die Qumranfunde notigen uns, Bedenken gegen das auf Josephus zuriickge­ hende Konzept dreier bzw. vierer streng getrennter und unterschiedener Religionsparteien anzumelden. Wenn diese Sicht durch den „ahen" Schurer quasi kanonisiert wurde, so ist dies forschungs- und mentalitatsgeschichtlich durchaus ver­ standlich, bedarf aber gerade im Hinblick auf die Textfunde vom Toten Meer einer 63 D a s hat L. H. Schiffman in einer R e i h e v o n A r b e i t e n herausgestellt; z u s a m m e n f a s s e n d in ders.. R e c l a i m i n g t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , J e r u s a l e m 1994) b e s . 2 4 3 - 2 8 7 ; z u l e t z t ders.. T h e Place of 4 Q M M T in t h e C o r p u s of Q u m r a n M a n u s c r i p t s , in: / . Kampen, M. J. Bernstein ( H r s g . ) , R e a d i n g 4 Q M M T . N e w P e r s p e c t i v e s o n Q u m r a n L a w a n d H i s t o r y ( A t ­ lanta 1996) 8 1 - 9 8 ; siehe in d e r B i b h o g r a p h i e , 155. Z u r T e m p e l r o l l e siehe d i e B i b l i o g r a p h i e v o n F. Garcia Martinez, in: E. Qimron, T h e T e m p l e Scroll. A C r i t i c a l E d i t i o n w i t h E x t e n s i v e R e c o n s t r u c t i o n s ( J e r u s a l e m 1996) 9 5 - 1 2 1 . ^t G. Stemberger, Pharisaer, S a d d u z a e r , E s s e n e r ( S t u t t g a r t 1991). 65 E. Qimron,]. Strugnell, Q u m r a n C a v e 4, V M i q s a t M a ' a s e H a - T o r a h ( O x f o r d 1994); siehe jetzt d e n S a m m c l b a n d m i t B i b l i o g r a p h i e v o n / . Kampen, M. ]. Bernstein ( H r s g . ) , R e a d i n g 4 Q M M T . N e w P e r s p e c u v e s o n Q u m r a n L a w and H i s t o r y ( A r i a n t a 1996). 66 Siehe d a z u jetzt / . Zimmermann, M e s s i a n i s c h e V o r s t e l l u n g e n in d e n T e x t f u n d e n v o n Q u m r a n ( D i s s , t h e o l . , T i i b i n g e n 1996; D r u c k M e s s i a n i s c h e Texte aus Q u m r a n , T i i b i n g e n 1998).

204

H e r m a n n Lichtenberger

griindlichcn Revision. Priesterliche, v^^eisheitliche, apokalyptische u.a. Traditio­ nen lassen sich nicht einfach diesen drei bzw. vier „Grundtypen" zuordnen, einer­ seits ergeben sich erhebliche Schnittmengen, andererseits bleiben Ubersehiisse. Der neue Schiirer hat mit der differenzierten Einleitung in die Qumranfunde^'' diesem Befund auf der literarischen Ebene bereits Rechnung getragen; man wiinschte sich, dafi diese Diskussion auch in die historische Darstellung eingehen konnte.

67 I I L L 380-469.

Lawrence

H.

Schiffman

H a l a k h a h and H i s t o r y : T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n of the D e a d Sea Scrolls to Recent Scholarship From the beginning of modern Jewish scholarship, the nexus between halakhah and history was reahzed. Throughout Jewish history, Jewish law has played a decisive part in shaping the character of the Jewish community and has had pro­ found effects on the political, social, and religious history of the Jews. At the same time, Jewish law has itself been affected in many ways throughout history by the historical circumstances in which it developed. Hence, it is virtually impossible to separate the two poles of our subject here from one another It is perhaps a curiosity that despite these virtually self-evident facts, neither one of these disciplines in the pre-modern period recognized the role of the other Virtually ah of those few medieval Jewish scholars who took up the study of his­ tory - those whom we somewhat disdainfully term historiographers - wrote their works as if the placing of the Sages of Jewish law in chronological order were suf­ ficient to claim the title "history"'. No attention was paid to the evaluation of the contents of Jewish law except as regards the few cases in which the legal materials themselves testify directly to their own history. F>en the most cursory examina­ tion of halakhic literature will show that even though this material constitutes one of the modern scholar's prime sources for the study of political, economic, and so­ cial history, it itself barely recognized the role that such factors had in the shaping of its content and character Modern conceptions of social and polidcal evolution were quickly grafted on to traditional Jewish legal learning in the 19th century and so the field of the history of halakhah as we know it, indeed as we take it for granted, came into being. In fact, this field of inquiry was greatly encouraged by two interrelated non-aca­ demic factors. First, it was to a great extent born in the feeling that the scientific investigation of the history of Jewish practice would help in dealing with the challenges posed to traditional Judaism by modernization. Such figures as Abraham Geiger and ' Sec Gerson D. Cohen, Sefer H a - Q a b b a l a h , T h e B o o k of T r a d i t i o n b y A b r a h a m i b n D a u d ( P h i l a d e l p h i a 1967) I,-LVI f o r a s u r v e y of m e d i e v a l J e w i s h h i s t o r i o g r a p h y a n d its relation t o t h e M u s l i m isnad.

206

L a w r e n c e H . Schiffman

Zacharias Frankel sought to base the reform and/or preservation of Judaism on such scholarly inquiry^. Second, individual Jewish scholars, many of them pulpit rabbis, saw the aca­ demic study of the Talmudic texts in which they had been trained for the rabbinate as an effective bridge between the tradition and the modern world in which they now found themselves. One has only to peruse the Monatsschrift fiir die Ge­ schichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums or the Jahresherichte of the various mod­ ern European rabbinical seminaries to see how attractive such topics were in the 19th century*. With the emergence of Jewish studies as we know it, which, in fact, should be traced to the opening of the Hebrew University in 1925, the self-conscious vision of the study of the nexus of halakhah and history gave way to what proposed to be dispassionate scholarly inquiry. Ffenceforth, a new page was turned in the study of history of Jewish law which would primarily be carried on in universities in Israel and the United States, and, to some extent, in American rabbinical sem­ inaries. Even here, however, ideological considerations were still present, yet a much greater degree of objeedvity was certainly achieved. But by the time this transition occurred, fundamental changes in what we may define as the canon of texts in Jewish law would take place. Further, interaction between the study of ancient Judaism and the disciplines of ancient history and classics would bring about such fundamental recasting of the political, social, and economic history of the Jews in Late Andquity as to prepare the way for a totally new vision of the links between halakhah and history. When scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentums first turned to the study of the history of halakhah, and when they first began mining halakhic sources for more convendonal historical data, they immediately found themselves working with a much wider set of evidence than had been available to pre-modern students of this topic. This was because of important developments that had taken place in Jewish and Christian intellectual history. Beginning in the Renaissance, Jews, al­ beit a small minority, once again became conversant with Hellenistic Jewish litera­ ture which had been preserved by the Christians'*. The works of Josephus, PhUo, the Septuagint, and the Apocrypha provided numerous examples of halakhic ma­ terial which appeared to be at variance with Rabbinic halakhah and which histori­ cally-minded scholars realized pre-datcd the collections of Rabbinic material as they have been preserved. In Christian circles a series of expeditions and dis­ coveries in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries brought to the attention of European scholars Jewish documents of the Second Temple period, which we today impre­ cisely term pseudepigrapha. These texts, most notably Jubilees and Testament of 2 Ismar Schorsch, F r o m Text t o C o n t e x t , T h e T u r n t o H i s t o r y in M o d e r n J u d a i s m ( H a n ­ nover, L o n d o n 1994) 1 7 7 - 2 0 4 , 2 5 5 - 6 5 , 3 0 3 - 3 3 ; Michael A. Meyer, R e s p o n s e t o M o d e r n i t y , A H i s t o r y of t h e R e f o r m M o v e m e n t in J u d a i s m ( N e w Y o r k , O x f o r d 1988) 6 2 - 9 9 . * O n t h e rise of t h e m o d e r n r a b b i n a t e , see Schorsch, 9 - 5 0 . See Lester A. Segal, H i s t o r i c a l C o n s c i o u s n e s s a n d R e l i g i o u s T r a d i t i o n in A z a r i a h d e ' Rossi's Me'or 'Einayim ( P h i l a d e l p h i a 1989) 2 7 - 8 6 .

T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls t o S c h o l a r s h i p

207

Levi, contain numerous halakhic materials which are at variance in some cases with Rabbinic material. More generally, the emerging picture of Second Temple Judaism was greatly advanced by the theologically colored research of those seeking to establish the background of Christianity. The research of these scholars for the most part either ignored or misunderstood the role of halakhah in Jewish history. The theological prejudices of these authors certainly had a major impact on their work. Nonetheless, they laid the basis for the historical study of the Sec­ ond Temple period, the work of Emil Schurer, of course, being the prime example*. The availability of this expanded documentary evidence meant that the study of halakhah and its history in Second Temple times had now gone way beyond the mi­ ning of Rabbinic references to the pre-70 C.E. period. Attempts to reconstruct Sad­ ducean or other forms of non-Pharisaic law, such as the work of Abraham Geiger^, the path-breaking study of Jubilees by Chanokh Albeck^, the work of Zacharias Frankel on the Septuagint*, and the somewhat later work of B. Ritter' and Samuel Belkin'° on Philo had opened up new issues and in fact laid a firm basis for the study of Second Temple Jewish law as afieldof study truly unthinkable without the newly expanded documentary canon with which these scholars now worked. It was against this background that we must see the discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls, not by a Bedouin boy in 1947 but rather in the medieval manuscripts of the Zadokite Fragments (Damascus Document) by Solomon Schechter in 1896". It is, of course, now a commonplace that the genizah, the one hundredth anniversary of which we recently celebrate, transformed many areas of Jewish studies, including, of course, the history of halakhah. But in the form of this one document, preserved in two partial manuscripts, the genizah began a revoludon in the history of Second Temple Jewish law. We should pause to note that the gen­ izah yielded up not only the Zadokite Fragments but other Second Temple texts as well: partial manuscripts of Ben Sira, and parts of medieval copies of the Testa5 T h e r e n e w e d J e w i s h interest in t h e p o l i t i c s , society, a n d e c o n o m y of t h e J e w s in Late A n ­ t i q u i t y s t e m m e d in Israel f r o m t h e r e n e w a l of J e w i s h life in t h e a n c i e n t land w h e r e a s in t h e D i a s p o r a it w a s in fact t h e o p p o s i t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e e x i s t e n c e of a H e l l e n i s t i c D i a s p o r a and religious p l u r a l i s m , w h i c h fueled this interest. 6 Abraham Geiger, U r s c h r i f t u n d U b e r s e t z u n g e n d e r Bibel in i h r e r A b h a n g i g k e i t v o n der i n n e r n F . n t w i c k l u n g d e s J u d e n t u m s (Breslau 1857); H e b r e w t r a n s , b y Y. L. Baruch, H a - M i q r a ' v e - T a r g u m a v b e - Z i q q a t a m l e - H i t p a t h u t a h h a - P e n i m i t shel h a - Y a h a d u t (ferusa­ lem 1948/9). 7 Chanokh Alheck, D a s B u c h d e r J u b i l a e n u n d die H a l a c h a ( B e d i n 1930). 8 Zacharias Frankel, V o r s t u d i e n z u d e r S e p t u a g i n t a (1941); idem, U e b e r d e n Einfluss d e r p a l a e s t i n i s c h e n E x e g e s e auf d i e a l e x a n d r i n i s c h e H e r m e n e u t i k ( L e i p z i g 1851). 9 Bernhard Ritter, P h i l o u n d die F l a l a c h a ( L e i p z i g 1879). '° Samuel Belkin, P h i l o a n d t h e O r a l Law, T h e P h i l o n i c I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Biblical L a w in R e l a t i o n t o t h e P a l e s d n i a n H a l a k a ( C a m b r i d g e , M A 1940). '' Solomon Schechter, D o c u m e n t s of J e w i s h Sectaries, V o l u m e I, F r a g m e n t s of a Z a d o k i t e W o r k ( C a m b r i d g e 1910, r e p r i n t e d N e w Y o r k 1970). Cf. Yaakov Sussmann, H i r h u r i m Talm u d i y i m R i s h o n i m l e - ' O r Megillat M i q s a t M a ' a s e h a - T o r a h , H e q e r T o l e d o t h a - H a l a k h a h u - M e g i l l o t M i d b a r Y e h u d a h , in: T a r b i z 59 ( 1 9 8 9 / 9 0 ) 1 1 - 2 2 .

208

L a w r e n c e H . Schiffman

ments of Levi (now called the Aramaic Levi Document) and Naphtali, and the book of Tobit. The Testament of Levi should be singled out as a work of halakhic content which, together with its Qumran fragments, has great potential for con­ tributing to the history of halakhah. The publication of the Zadokite Fragments was accompanied by the pioneering commentary of Solomon Schechter who came to his work with a solid training in traditional Jewish learning but with little of the ideological baggage of his Wissenschaft predecessors or their Christian "col­ leagues". Schechter's choice of a title for this document correctly emphasized its Zadokite/Sadducean links'^, but he incorrectly attributed the document to a group of Saddueean-type Samaritans'*. It was ironic that Louis Ginzberg, who believed incorrectly that the document was proto-Pharisaic in origin, provided in his commentary on this work the keys to understanding virtually every line of its difficult halakhic section't. While the work of Ginzberg, Schechter and numerous other scholars made possible a fairly thorough understanding of the halakhic content of this text, they were not able to settle the debate about either the historical ramifications of this document, that is to say the identity of the sect described in it, or its significance for the study of the history of Jewish law. Suffice it to say that between the wars, that is, in what we might call the pre-Qumran era, every possible theory was put forth about the provenance of the Zadokite Fragments'*. And in regard to the im­ portance of this material for the study of Jewish law, a great methodological error was made which must be explained at some length. Already in the works of Abraham Geiger, it was implicit that Second Temple ha­ lakhic sources cannot be arranged in some kind of linear, chronological fashion. Gei­ ger's work should have shown that competing halakhic trends vied with one another in Second Temple times and that differences in halakhah could not be ascribed sim­ ply to differences of date. But perhaps under the influence of the theory of evolution as it had been transported to the social and historical world from its original place in the natural sciences, most early students of the history of Jewish law, even Geiger himself, had fallen into the trap of what we might call halakhic Darwinism. In fact, a Darwinian approach to the history of Jewish law may well account for the "survival of thefittest"which many scholars identify in the hegemony of Rabbinic Judaism in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple. But the notion of a limited historical sequence which, by the way, has now been abandoned in the natural sciences, in­ correctly took hold of the scholars of the history of Jewish law. Further, we can again see here tendencies towards religious reform playing a role in this process as well. '2 T h e t e x t is n o w k n o w n m o s t l y as t h e " D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t " b e c a u s e of t h e few refer­ ences t o D a m a s c u s , w h i c h in o u r view is a c o d e w o r d for Q u m r a n . T h e d e s i g n a t i o n Z a d o k i t e F r a g m e n t s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n retained, h o w e v e r , since it c o r r e c t l y indicates t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e legal t r a d i t i o n s in t h e text. 13 Schechter, X X I - X X V I . ' t Louis Ginzberg, E i n e u n b e k a n n t e j u d i s c h e S e k t e ( N e w Y o r k 1922); E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n w i t h a d d i t i o n a l c h a p t e r s . A n U n k n o w n J e w i s h Sect ( N e w Y o r k 1976). '5 F o r a s h o r t s u r v e y , see Lawrence H. Schiffman, H a l a k h a h at Q u m r a n ( L e i d e n 1975) 1-2.

T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls t o S c h o l a r s h i p

209

Scholars simply assumed that the law had progressed from the stricter to the more lenient, clearly a reflection of their desire to see more lenient approaches applied in their own time, a trend common even amongst tradidonal Jewish scholars. So there was born the niB" ns'^n, the "old law", a peculiar construct of Jewish scholarship which assumed that the old law was reflected in such texts as Jubilees, and the Za­ dokite Fragments, as well as in some references in Rabbinic literature to earlier prac­ tice (HJiiDSi n:BQ), and that this old law had been gradually replaced through an evo­ lutionary process with what we may call a "new law" - that of the Pharisaic-Rab­ binic tradition. This theory, ironically, had the peculiar effect of rendering the Mishnah the "New Testament" of the Jewish people in a curious aping, no doubt unconscious, of classical Christian belief. This entire notion, however, as we now know, was entirely false. Both the canon of documentary evidence and the perspective with which the material was approached were radically altered as the result of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first to reahze the connection between the Zadokite Fragments and the scrolls after the discovery of Qumran Cave 1 in 1947 was Eleazar L. Sukenik"' who was effectively the founder of Israeli (read: Jewish) archaeology'^. Even though by 1954 the seven major scrolls from Cave 1 were in the hands of Israel'*, a series of circumstances, historical, political and religious, joined together to create an environment in which the study of the scrolls would be dominated by a group of Christian scholars with little interest in Jewish law. This group, because of its unique position in the editorial process and its exclusive access to much of the evidence, especially the Cave 4 coUecdon, was essentially able to shape the history of research until quite recently". Before examining that research, it is important to briefly survey the new materi­ als and their significance for the study of Jewish law. The Cave 1 collection to which we have already alluded, yielded two major scrolls with halakhic content, albeit mixed in with sectarian teachings. The Rule of the Community provides, among its initiation rites, information on the purity system of the sectarians as well as about their understanding of the theology of Jewish law. The Rule of the Congregation, a messianic document, sets out a kind of eschatological halakhah. The War Scroll contains an entire version of the Deuteronomic laws of war as understood by the sectarians. In addition, the War Scroll alludes to sacrificial law and rules of ritual impurity. It was Cave 4 that yielded manuscripts of the Zado­ kite Fragments and other halakhic works describing an entire system of Jewish law concerning Sabbath, marriage, purity, priestly status, etc. The now famous or infamous MMT document provided in a sectarian context even Pharisee-SadduEleazar L. Sukenik, M e g i l l o t G e n u z o t m i - t o k h G e n i z a h Q e d u m a h s h e - n i m s e ' a h b e - M i d b a r Y e h u d a h ( J e r u s a l e m 1948) 2 1 - 2 4 . 17 See Neil Asher Silberman, A P r o p h e t f r o m A m o n g s t Y o u , T h e Life of Yigael Yadin ( R e a d ­ ing, M A 1993). 1" T h e s t o r y of t h e i r a c q u i s i t i o n is t o l d in Yigael Yadin, T h e M e s s a g e of t h e Scrolls ( N e w Y o r k 1957) 1 5 - 5 2 . 19 C f Lawrence H. Schiffman, R e c l a i m i n g t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls ( P h i l a d e l p h i a 1994) 3 - 3 5 .

210

L a w r e n c e H . Schiffman

cean disputes regarding sacrificial and purification laws. The eaves also yielded phylacteries and mezuzot, and the biblical scrolls revealed much information on the scribal halakhah of the times. Cave 11 yielded the Temple Scroll, a rewridng of the Torah designed to put forward the author's views on a variety of topics of Jew­ ish law, most notably relating to the Temple, sacrifices, and purity. This document, however, did not surface until the '67 War, when it played an exceedingly signifi­ cant role in the history of research. But the Qumran corpus is not the sum total of the material discovered in the Judean Desert. Exceedingly important for the study of Jewish law are the Samaria papyri from Wadi el-Daliych which provide numerous legal documents from the fourth century B.C.E. as well as the so-cahed Bar Kokhba documents which in­ clude a large number of legal documents pertaining to marriage and divorce and economic transfers, most notably land transfers and loans of various sorts. We should parenthetically note that these documents came to light at the very same time that much new archaeological evidence for early synagogues and miqva'ot was also being discovered and analyzed. Elsewhere we have analyzed the process by which the Qumran material was contextuahzed in New Testament studies and interpreted in a Christianized fashion^". The first generadon of Qumran scholars, because of both training and Tendenz, did not effectively continue the work of Schechter, Ginzberg - not even of Schiirer - but sought to find in the sectarians - identified as Essenes - the mon­ astic proto-Christians. Accordingly, for these scholars, Qumran research was car­ ried on with little or no attention to the entire second half of the preserved Gen­ izah manuscripts of the Zadokite Fragments or to the halakhic materials in the remainder of the Qumran corpus, most of which were left unpublished^i. The notable exception was the publication by J. T. Mihk of the Jewish legal contracts from Wadi Murabba'at^^. Despite the virtual ignoring of halakhah by the main­ stream of Dead Sea Scrolls researchers in the years between 1948 and 1967, a number of important contributions were made by isolated Jewish scholars. Most notable are the early papers by the great Talmudist Saul Lieberman^*, the work of Chaim Rabin^'', whose edition of the genizah manuscripts of the Zadokite Frag­ ments became standard, and the work of Joseph M. Baumgarten^*. We should note, however, that perhaps the most popular of all these works, the Rabin edition 20 Lawrence H. Schiffman, C o n f e s s i o n a l i s m a n d t h e S t u d y of t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls, in: J e w i s h S t u d i e s 31 (1991) 5 - 1 4 ; idem. R e c l a i m i n g 1 6 - 1 9 . 2' T h e h a l a k h i c s e c t i o n of t h e text w a s i g n o r e d in t h e o t h e r w i s e incisive s t u d y of Philip R. Davies, T h e D a m a s c u s C o v e n a n t (Sheffield 1983) a l t h o u g h t h e legal aspects of t h e A d m o n i ­ t i o n , t h e text's sectarian ideological i n t r o d u c t i o n , are d i s c u s s e d , p p . 1 0 5 - 4 2 . 22 fosef T. Milik, in: Les g r o t t e s d e M u r a b b a ' a t ( D i s c o v e r i e s in t h e J u d a e a n D e s e r t I I , O x f o r d 1960) 9 3 - 1 5 4 . 23 Sanl Lieberman, T h e D i s c i p l i n e in t h e S o - C a l l e d D e a d Sea M a n u a l of D i s c i p l i n e , in: J B L 71 (1951) 1 9 9 - 2 0 6 ; idem. L i g h t o n t h e C a v e Scrolls f r o m R a b b i n i c S o u r c e s , in: P A A J R 20 (1951)395-404. 2't Chaim Rabin, T h e Z a d o k i t e D o c u m e n t s ( O x f o r d 1954). 25 foseph M. Baumgarten, S t u d i e s in Q u m r a n L a w ( L e i d e n 1977).

T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls t o S c h o l a r s h i p

211

of the Zadokite Fragments, was effectively a summary of the work of his prede­ cessors, providing for the wider scholarly world a watered-down although im­ proved version of the halakhic researches of Schechter and Ginzberg. In fact, in its efforts to attain usefulness, this book accidentally obscured from its readers the complexity of the halakhic material and its analysis, a lack partly remedied in Rabin's important book, Qumran Studies^^. It is remarkable that during this period, works of excellent and fair-minded Christian scholars continued to give httle attention to the halakhic aspects of the scrolls. To be sure, the pohtical situation in the Middle East was a factor here. Israe­ li scholars limited their research primarily to the scrolls bought by Israel now housed in the Shrine of the Book. The excellent commentaries of Yigael Yadin on the War ScrolP^ and Jacob Licht on the Rule ScrolP* certainly dealt with halakhic issues. Yadin's commentary was more influendal due to its translation into English^' and to his renowned expertise in military matters. But Israeli scholars did little to investigate the halakhic aspects of those texts published by the inter­ national team operating on the other side of the Mandelbaum Gate, and, of course, they were denied access to the unpublished manuscripts. Accordingly, in the pre-1967 period, httle headway was made in the topic that we are addressing here. Neither the internal history of Jewish law nor its interac­ tion with aspects of political, social, and economic history of the Jews was given any serious treatment in synthetic works published at this time, and the Qumran scrolls were largely treated as a kind of curiosity. Ironically, with all the Christian exegesis of the sectarian corpus, synthetic works on the New Testament and early Christianity likewise demonstrated little impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus, despite the raucous public debate which went on after the publication of the work of Edmund Wilson*". By contrast, this very same period, essentially from 1947-67, saw major ad­ vances regarding the simdar issues raised in the study of Jewish law in the biblical, medieval and modern periods. One has only to peruse Jewish studies journals and synthetic works on Jewish history to see the tremendous progress made in these areas. A few examples will be helpful for comparative purposes. It is during this period that biblical scholars mined the newly available Nuzi documents, sometimes even too enthusiastically, for parallels to biblical law. In­ deed, the history of biblical law and its place within the ancient Near Eastern con­ text advanced substantially. The Cairo Genizah materials continued to yield docu­ mentary evidence for the geonic period in which the history of the development of post-Talmudic legal institutions was set out. For the modern period, these same 26 Chaim Rabin, Q u m r a n S t u d i e s ( O x f o r d 1957). 22 Yigael Yadin, Megillat M i l h e m e t b e n e ' O r b i - V e n e H o s h e k h m i - M e g i l l o t M i d b a r Y e h u ­ d a h ( J e r u s a l e m 1955). 28 Jacob Licht, Megillat h a - S e r a k h i m m i - M e g i l l o t M i d b a r Y e h u d a h ( J e r u s a l e m 1965). 29 Yigael Yadin, T h e Scroll of t h e W a r of t h e S o n s of L i g h t against t h e S o n s of Darknes.s, t r a n s . Batya Rabin a n d Chaim Rabin ( O x f o r d 1962). 30 Edmund Wilson, T h e Scrolls f r o m t h e D e a d Sea ( L o n d o n 1955).

212

L a w r e n c e H . Schiffman

years saw the rise of modern Jewish history as we know it, and it was the great accomplishment of Israeli scholarship, cspeciahy in the work of Jacob Katz, which understood that halakhah both responded to the massive societal changes that passed over the Jewish people at this time, and at the same time helped to shape the manner in which they responded to those changes*'. That the study of the halakhah of the Dead Sea Scrolls - indeed of the Second Temple period as a whole - escaped this golden age is only to be understood as re­ sulting from the unique - even bizarre - circumstances which led to the continued suppression of much of the required evidence of the scrolls as well as the absence of cross-fertihzation of ideas between Jewish and Christian scholars. This situ­ ation would soon change, however, as the result, not of academic trends, but of political affairs. From the beginning, the study of the Dead Sea Scrohs had a strange intercon­ nection with the political affairs in the turbulent Middle F^ast. Sukenik purchased the first lot of scrolls on the very eve of the division of the city of Jerusalem by barbed wire. By the time the dust of the War of Independence had settled, Qum­ ran had passed from British Mandatory Palestine to Jordanian rule. The remaining large scrolls were purchased by Israel from the Syrian Metropolitan under cover of secrecy while the newly discovered lots from Caves 4 and f I as weh as the Wadi Murabba'at documents were being sold by the Bedouin to Jordanian authorities. Of course, the oddest of all the results of the political situation was the creation of a judenrein Dead Sea Scrolls publication team in Jordanian Flast Jerusalem. Like the Holy City, the scrolls were divided, east and west, only to be reunited in 1967. The 1967 War was indeed a turning point for Dead Sea Scrolls studies. In the course of the War, Israel recovered the Temple Scroll and took nominal control of the unpublished materials still in the Rockefeller Museum. Yadin's preliminary lectures which accompanied the announcement of the recovery of the Temple ScrolP^ as well as its publication first in Hebrew** and then in English*'' set before the scholarly world, not simply a full-length halakhic work, but perhaps even more importantly for much of the scroll, Yadin's full-length halakhic commentary which demonstrated the complexity and significance of this material both for the history of halakhah and for Dead Sea Scrolls research. We have elsewhere discussed the impact of this particular discovery and its pub­ lication on the reconceptualization of the Dead Sea Scrolls as Second Temple Jew­ ish documents, a process in which wc are proud to have shared along with a fairly large group of Jewish and Christian colleagues. But in the present context, we need to explain that the Temple Scroll effectively re-energized the study of the his3' See Jacob Katz, H a l a k h a h v e - Q a b b a l a h , M e h q a r i m b e - T o l e d o t D a t Yisra'el 'al M e d o r e h a v e - Z i q q a t a h h a - I l e v r a t i t (Jerusalem 1984) 1-6. 32 Cf. Yigael Yadin, T h e T e m p l e Scroll, in: B A 30 (1967) 1 3 5 - 9 ; idem, in: N e w D i r e c t i o n s in Biblical A r c h a e o l o g y , ed. David N, Freedman a n d Jonas C. Greenfield (Garden City, N Y 1971) 1 5 6 - 6 6 . 33 Yigael Yadin, Megillat h a - M i q d a s h , 3 vols. (Jerusalem 1977). 3'' Yigael Yadin, T h e T e m p l e Scroll, 3 vols. G e r u s a l e m 1983).

T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n of the D e a d Sea Scrolls t o S c h o l a r s h i p

213

tory of Second Temple Jewish law, setting forth what would become an agenda for years to come. Further, the beautiful Hebrew edition of the scroll, replete with Rabbinic quotations and citations, drew the attention of Talmudic scholars and historians of Second Temple Judaism to this fascinating work. Throughout the analysis of this document, in Yadin's commentary and in the works of other scholars who dealt with the scroll, the Darwinian theory which had spawned the "old" and "new" halakhah never reared its head. By this time, students of the history of halakhah in other periods, whether in the Rabbinic cor­ pus, in the medieval Rabbanite-Karaite debate, or the scientific study of the rise of new movements in modern Judaism, had all made clear the need to recognize that varying opinions coexisted at the same time and that debate and dispute often characterized the history of Jewish law. Further, by this time, new studies of the law of Jubilees and other Second Temple documents had greatly enhanced the sense that alongside the law of the Pharisees, later enshrined and developed into the Rabbinic tradition, other ideas competed in the halakhic marketplace. Further, the historical context of this situation was now easily understood since the previous half-century had brought with it tremendous strides in the study of the history of the Jews in Late Antiquity, most of which are summa­ rized in the new Schiirer In the interim, however, the history of Rabbinic hala­ khah had itself entered into a period of furious debate as a result of the chal­ lenges to the methods for reconstrucdng the history of both Rabbinic literature and Judaism in Late Antiquity from Rabbinic sources, bringing to bear methods and questions derived from recent progress in New Testament studies. Jacob Neusner challenged the assumption that later sources could be used to testify to periods far removed chronologically. He argued that a general approach of creduhty and lack of critical sense had led to the construction of a historically skewed picture of Rabbinic tradition**. Further, and perhaps most important for the present context, Neusner saw Rabbinic Judaism as primarily the creation of the post-70 Rabbis. In this respect, he had essentially appropriated a now dis­ credited, originally anti-Semitic idea. Nineteenth-century Protestant scholars had seen "rabbinism" as a post-30 C.E. development echoing the Christian no­ tion that with the rejection of the messiahship of Jesus - indeed with his cruci­ fixion - Judaism had strayed from its prophedc origins and had entered into a period of legalistic decline. Ncusner's theory simply moved the date of this sup­ posed transition forty years later, seeing a profound discontinuity - an almost unbreachable chasm - between pre-70 and post-70 C.E. Judaism. It was not far from this assumption to the provocative claim that ancient Judaism was reahy "ancient Judaisms" and that what separated different approaches to Judaism in this period was greater than what united them. As regards the Second Temple period, Neusner applied this approach as well. But in truth, these claims would not stand up to the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 35 T h e fullest s t a t e m e n t of this view is in Jacob Neusner, P h a r i s e e s Before 70, 3 vols. ( L e i d e n 1971).

T h e Rabbinic Traditions about the

214

L a w r e n c e H . Schiffman

Throughout Yadin's commentary on the Temple Scroll, he alluded to the po­ lemical nature of the text. A casual reader of the scroll, however, would have been impressed by the ironic tone of the author or compiler who chose to build his po­ lemics into positive statements of his own views. But this text is correctly seen as a reformist document, calling for changes in the Temple structure, sacrificial prac­ tice, even government and military practices in the Hasmonean state in which the author lived. So Yadin was correct in observing that numerous statements of the author constituted polemics against what he termed the rmiJD ns'^n (lit. "the so­ lidified law") of the Sages. Over and over Yadin pointed to such ideas, but most scholars outside the State of Israel had been sufficiently convinced by the work of Neusner regarding the late date of Rabbinic traditions, including those deahng with the pre-70 period, that they implicitly ignored these claims of Yadin. After all, how could a sectarian author writing in the year 120 B.C.E., using sources that went back to the pre-Maccabean period (as we now know), polemicize against views supposedly formulated in the later first century C.E.*^? The nature of these polemics would not be understood until 1984, but we must first discuss the substantial progress which occurred in the study of other aspects of Qumran halakhic material and the history of Jewish law in the years between the publication of the Temple Scroll in 1973 and the announcement of MMT in 1984. This was a period which in scrohs research in general can now be seen in retrospect to have been one of the widening of the circle of scrolls scholars. Dur­ ing this period, the number of scrolls scholars not part of the international team was swelled substantially by the researches of a group of mostly younger scholars who to a large extent dedicated themselves to research on the pubhshed scroh cor­ pus. A number of these scholars, including the present writer, dealt with materials which bore directly on Second Temple halakhah^^. What typified this group of scholars, already inherent in the work of Baumgarten, was the bridging of the gaps in their training that had resulted from their respective religious backgrounds. Jewish scholars began to understand the value of the New Testament and other early Christian materials for the study of ancient Judaism even as regards the study of Jewish law. Christians, initially drawn to the study of Jewish sources in this period because of their value for the background of Christianity, now entered fully into the evaluation of Second Temple Jewish legal sources for this purpose and were drawn even into Rabbinic literature in a first-hand manner because of their study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is no question that these tendencies, along with recent ecumenical pro­ gress in Israel, America, and Europe, have substantial roots in the quest for a new

36 O n t h e s o u r c e s of t h e T e m p l e Scroll, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, T h e Temple Scroll a n d t h e N a t u r e of its L a w : T h e Status of t h e Q u e s t i o n , in: T h e C o m m u n i t y of t h e R e n e w e d C o v e n a n t , ed. Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam ( N o t r e D a m e , I N 1994) 4 6 - 5 1 . 37 M o s t of t h e w o r k s of t h e s e c o n t e m p o r a r y scrolls s c h o l a r s are listed in Florentino Garcia Martinez a n d Donald W. Parry, A B i b l i o g r a p h y of t h e F i n d s in t h e D e s e r t of J u d a h , 1 9 7 0 - 9 5 ( L e i d e n 1996).

T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls t o S c h o l a r s h i p

215

interreligious understanding which followed from the delayed awareness of the Holocaust as a major event in human history. Nonetheless, this research was for the most part pursued according to the highest standards of academic research and would soon have profound significance for the study of the scrolls. Specifically, the work of these scholars opened up the study of the scrolls to a wider public and gradually replaced the Christianizing approach with one which investigated in a balanced manner the Judaism of the Second Temple period, only then using the results of such studies to understand the later history of Judaism and the back­ ground and history of early Christianity. More importantly, it is the collective work of a new generation of scholars which was the cause of the successful movement for the release of the scrolls which then catapulted this new generation of scholars to the center of Qumran research. This process, along with, and to some extent a result of, the publication and discussion of the Temple Scroll, in turn placed the study of halakhah and its relevance to Second Temple Jewish history squarely in the center of the debate where it properly belonged. With the discovery of the Temple Scroll, another aspect was illuminated as re­ gards the study of Jewish law. One of the profound issues which divided scholars of the history of halakhah was the intractable question of which camefirst- Mid­ rash or Mishnah? Did exegesis of the scriptures generate general, abstract halakhic statements or did halakhic statements requiring explanation generate a literature of secondary scriptural justification**? Or, possibly, did a complex interactive process allow the simultaneous creadon of both genres of tradition? The discovery of the Zadokite Fragments presented scholars with a mishnahlike document in which apodictic legal statements dominated, in which some casuistic statements were included as well, and in which a small number of justifi­ catory scriptural proof-texts also appeared. This actually led some scholars to conclude that the Mishnaic type was the earliest form. This view makes the ques­ tionable assumption that the sectarian texts and the Pharisaic-Rabbinic materials would have undergone a similar history. Now, however, the Temple Scroll shows how the very words of the Torah were rewritten to express the legal traditions and polemics of the author(s)*'. The very same laws are sometimes found both in this "midrashic" text and in "mishnah" form in the Zadokite Fragments, MMT, or other texts. It is clear, therefore, that at least for some Jews already in the second century B.C.E., both forms coexisted among students of the Torah just as they co­ existed in tannaitic circles by the second century C.E. The polemics which Yadin had noticed against views inherent in later Rabbinic literature were soon to be understood by scholars in hght of the MMT document, the significance of which was first announced in 1984'*". Based on a short allusion 38 See David Weiss Ilalivni, M i d r a s h , M i s h n a h , and G e m a r a : T h e J e w i s h P r e d i l e c t i o n for Justified L a w ( C a m b r i d g e , M A , L o n d o n 1986) for a r e c e n t t r e a t m e n t of this issue. Yadin, T e m p l e Scroll, vol. 1, 7 1 - 8 8 . to Elisha Qimron a n d John Strugnell, A n U n p u b l i s h e d H a l a k h i c L e t t e r f r o m Q u m r a n , in:

216

L a w r e n c e H . Schiffman

to this document and a brief quotation which had been earlier published under the title of 4QMishnique'", it had already been proposed that this document as well as the Temple Scroll included some Sadducean laws'*^. Indeed, at the very beginning of modern Jewish research, studies of Jewish law by Geiger had sought to recon­ struct the influence of the Sadducean tradition. Further, early reformers were, for a variety of reasons, fascinated with the Karaite movement which they saw as a predecessor in revolting against Rabbinic authority^**. As a result, the Sadducees, as the supposed spiritual - even physical - ancestors of the Karaites, had received considerable attention in the early days of the Wissenschaft des Judentums. But the only real information on the halakhic differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees then available was that contained in tannaitic sources. Josephus had reported only theological differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees, not mentioning any specific halakhic disputes. Now, for the first time, in MMT a Sec­ ond Temple text was available which, as its editors showed'*'', discussed numerous halakhic disputes, some of which were directly parallel to the Pharisee-Sadducee disputes of tannaitic texts. Further, other disputes in this document easily lent themselves to interpretation along the same lines for they clearly involved differ­ ences of opinion which could be understood as arising from the hermeneutical assumptions of the Sadducees or as a result of their priestly and Temple-centered piety. Clearly, in this document and in the tannaitic material, we were deahng not with Sadducees bent on Hellenization, but rather with highly committed Jews whose homiletical and legal tradition differed from those of the Pharisees. It now became clear that the polemics of the Temple Scroll and other halakhic documents from Qumran represented the views of this group whose traditions and interpretations were already to some extent crystallized before the Maccabean Revolt. But perhaps, more surprisingly, the aggregate of ah such polemics in the halakhic material in the scrolls, whether direct or indirect, pointed toward the existence, certainly by about 150 B.C.E., of a considerably developed Pharisaic system of laws against which these particular priestly sectarian circles were ar­ guing. While these conclusions have important relevance to the question of the identity of the Dead Sea sect, that issue must remain beyond the scope of this study. What does need to be said is that the conclusion that Sadducean-type law lies at the root of both the schism and the laws of the sectarian documents is Biblical A r c h a e o l o g y T o d a y : P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e o n Biblical A r ­ c h a e o l o g y , J e r u s a l e m , A p r i l 1984, eA. Janet Amitai ( J e r u s a l e m 1985) 4 0 0 - 4 0 7 . *' Josef T. Milik, in: Les ' P e t i t e s G r o t t e s ' d e Q u m r a n , ed. M. Baillet, f. T. Milik, a n d R. de Vaux ( D i s c o v e r i e s in t h e J u d a e a n D e s e r t I I I , O x f o r d 1962) 225. Fie d e s c r i b e d t h e text as "ecrit pseudepigraphique mishnique." ''2 foseph M. Baumgarten, T h e Pharisaic S a d d u c e a n C o n t r o v e r s i e s a b o u t P u r i t y a n d t h e Q u m r a n T e x t s , in: JJS 31 (1980) 1 5 7 - 7 0 . C f Manfred I.ehmann, T h e Temple Scroll as a S o u r c e of Sectarian H a l a k h a h , in: R e v Q 9 (1978) 5 7 9 - 8 8 . tJ Schorsch, 324, 349. '*'' See t h e h a l a k h i c analysis of Elisha Qimron, in: D J D X ( O x f o r d 1994) 1 2 3 - 7 7 a n d t h e a p p e n d i x b y Yaakov Sussmann, 1 7 9 - 2 0 0 . T h e full v e r s i o n of t h a t a p p e n d i x is available in H e b r e w , in: T a r b i z 59 (1989/90) 1 1 - 7 6 .

T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls t o S c h o l a r s h i p

217

widely accepted, even by many of those who still maintain the traditional "Es­ sene" theory regarding the sect. This indeed constitutes a major conclusion for the history of Jewish law. For not only was direct evidence for the Sadducean approach recovered but, more importantly, it was estabhshed conclusively that the Pharisaic-Rabbinic tradition was deeply rooted in the Hasmonean period. In fact, these conclusions are in marked contrast to the claim of radical discontinuity between the pre- and post-70 period that had been put forward by some scholars, most notably by Neusner The increase in our knowledge regarding the Pharisees went hand in hand with some previous conclusions drawn by scholars from the Zadokite Fragments and the pesher literature. These documents had polemicized against a group known as the mp'^n 'onn'** who preached supposedly false teachings under the leadership of the 3Dn B-R, the "man of lies"''^. Among the designations of the mp':'n 'iain was that they were said to be "builders of the wall", "f'nn 'mA^. Previously, scholars had suggested that the term mp'pn 'omi was a pun on the word mbn (loosely translated as "laws"), and that this derogatory sobriquet, best translated "false interpreters", referred to the Pharisees. Further, the term "builders of the wall" was understood in view of the Rabbinic adage rnin'^ TO liDXi, "make a fence around the Torah"***, to refer as well to the Pharisees. In one passage it was said about this same group m p o mnbna itas, "that their teaching {talmud) is their dishonesty"'". It had been suggested that the term mo'pn referred here to an early variety of legal methodol­ ogy practiced by the Pharisees already in the Hasmonean period*". Taken to­ gether, the evidence of the Temple Scroll, MMT, the Zadokite Fragments, and the pesher literature had in fact provided substantial reflection of Pharisaic teaching and law. Along with what we seem now to be learning about Sadducean halakhah, the scrohs have radically altered our picture of Jewish law of the Second Temple period. The discovery of the manuscripts from Qumran, as well as those from the other Judean Desert sites about which much less has been said here, has come at a time in the history of the study of Second Temple Jewish law which is most fortunate. They have provided extremely important information and indeed a needed cor­ rective which hopefully will help to dispel some false notions and bring proper balance to the field. Specifically, the Qumran materials have provided us with what we now know to be an entirely alternative system of Jewish law from Second Temple times, dat­ ing at least from the Hasmonean period, and in the ease of some laws and even « t"47 ts

1 Q H 2 : 15, 3 2 ; 4 Q p N a h 3 - 4 1 2, 7; C D 1:18. I Q p H a b 2:2, 5:11; C D 20:15. C D 4:19, 8:12, 18, 1 9 : 2 5 , 3 1 . M . A v o t 1:1. 4 Q p N a h 3 ^ ii 8. 50 Ben Zion Wacholder, A Q u m r a n A t t a c k o n O r a l Q u m r a n Exegesis? T h e P h r a s e c-ipo i-g±>m -\m in 4 Q P e s h e r N a h u m , in: R e v Q 5 (1966) 3 5 1 - 6 9 .

218

L a w r e n c e H . Schiffman

texts, to the pre-Maccabean period. These documents point to the Sadducean priestly heritage as the locus from which these traditions originate and have allowed us to understand an entirely different system of biblical interpretation which was previously not available. These documents push back the date of some of the various halakhic debates known from tannaitic sources into the Hasmonean period and also show us that the Pharisaic-Rabbinic tradition, at least in certain areas of law and specific hala­ khot, was well developed and distinct already in the Hasmonean period. In this respect certain false notions recently put forth need to be abandoned. Perhaps most importantly, the new scrolls allow us to clarify that the linear or evolutionary approach to the history of halakhah will not satisfactorily explain the various halakhic traditions available to us in Second Temple materials. Rather, we must reckon with the notion that competing trends, what we might call priestly/Sadduccan and Pharisaic/proto-Rabbinic were operative throughout this period. In this respect some of the earlier studies were correct in emphasizing Sad­ ducean approaches in some of the so-cahed schismatic or sectarian traditions, and some supposedly "credulous" scholars were correct in assuming that certain Pharisaic traditions were to be dated much earlier than the tannaitic texts in which they were embedded. We are now set for tremendous advances in this field of study as is evident from articles already in the pipeline in various journals and the renewed interest which the release of the scrolls has sparked in this area of research*'. Several other aspects of Second Temple and early Rabbinic research will also intersect so as to stimulate even greater success in the near future. First, the importance of the other collections of Judean Scrolls for the study of Jewish law is becoming clearer as they are being fully pubhshed and analyzed. The Wadi el-Daliyeh texts as well as the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek documents from the so-called Bar Kokhba caves have yet to have the impact they should have, since they have been widely ignored by scholars of the history of Jewish law. The importance of these texts for their testimony about the symbiosis of Jewish and other systems of law, whether Mesopotamian in the first instance or Hellenistic/ Roman in the second, means that these texts have important historical impli­ cations. Those working on them are sure to continue to illumine these aspects through their work. Second, archaeological studies have opened up other areas of inquiry regarding ritual objects such as Tefillin (phylacteries), miqva'ot, burial customs and other is­ sues. Now that we can approach these questions with a much more sophisticated approach to the history of Jewish law as a rehgious and cultural phenomenon, we will better be able to assimilate the important information that these researchers

*' See t h e r e v i e w s of Lawrence H. Schiffman, M i l h e m e t h a - M e g i l l o t : H i t p a t h u y o t b e - H e q c r h a - M e g i l l o t h a - G c n u z o t , in: C a t h e d r a 61 (1991) 3 - 2 3 a n d t h e m o r e r e c e n t s u r v e y oi Emanuel Tov, M e g i l l o t Q u m r a n l e - ' O r h a - M e h q a r h e - H a d a s h , in: J e w i s h Studies 34 (1994) il-bl.

T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls t o S c h o l a r s h i p

219

are providing. Such a synthesis of archaeological data - evidence of the real world - is essential to the history of halakhah. Finally, w e have argued that halakhah and history have a s y m b i o t i c relation­ ship. Jewish law had an effect o n the history of the Jews in every generation, yet the historical circumstances helped to shape and form the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the law. It is this dynamic symbiosis w h i c h makes this area so fruitful and yet so challeng­ ing.

Hannah

M.

Cotton

T h e Impact of the D o c u m e n t a r y Papyri from the Judaean Desert o n the Study of Jewish H i s t o r y from 70 to 135 C E We are now in possession of inventories of almost the entire corpus of documents discovered in the Judaean Desert'. Obviously the same cannot be said about the state of pubheation of the documents. We still lack a great many documents. I pro­ pose to give here a short review of those finds which are relevant to the study of Jewish history between 70 and 135 CE. The survey will include the state of publi­ cation of texts from eachfind^.After that an attempt will be made to draw some interim, and necessarily tentative, conclusions about the contribution that this fairly recent addition to the body of our evidence can make to the study of differ­ ent aspects of Jewish history between 70 and 135 CE. This material can be divided into several groups: 1) The first documents came from the caves of Wadi Murabba'at in 1952. They were published without much delay in 1961*. The collection consists of docu­ ments written in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Arabic, and contains, among

' F o r a c o m p l e t e list till t h e A r a b c o n q u e s t see Hannah M. Cotton, Walter Cockle, Fergus Millar, T h e P a p y r o l o g y of t h e R o m a n N e a r East: A Survey, in: J R S 85 (1995) 2 1 4 - 2 3 5 , h e n c e ­ f o r t h Cotton, Cockle, Millar, Survey. A m u c h s h o r t e r s u r v e y , restricted t o t h e finds f r o m t h e J u d a e a n D e s e r t , can b e f o u n d in Hannah M. Cotton, s.v. D o c u m e n t a r y Texts, in: E n c y c l o ­ p e d i a of t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls, e d s . Lawrence H. Schiffman, James C. VanderKam (forthcom­ ing). T h e s e t w o s u r v e y s , like t h e p r e s e n t paper, are limited t o t h e n o n - l i t e r a r y , t h e d o c u m e n ­ t a r y texts. T h e f o l l o w i n g t w o c a t a l o g u e s i n c l u d e t h e literary texts as well: Emanuel Tov w i t h t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n of Stephen J. Pfann, T h e D e a d Sea Scrolls o n M i c r o f i c h e , C o m p a n i o n Vol­ u m e , revised e d i t i o n ( L e i d e n 1995), h e n c e f o r t h Tov, Pfann, C o m p a n i o n V o l u m e ; see also T h e D e a d Sea Scrolls C a t a l o g u e . D o c u m e n t s , P h o t o g r a p h s and M u s e u m N u m b e r s , c o m p i l e d b y Stephen A. Reed, revised a n d edited b y Marilyn. J. Lundherg w i t h t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n of Michael B. Phelhs (SBL R e s o u r c e s for Biblical S t u d y 32, A t l a n t a 1994). 2 In t h e p r e s e n t s u r v e y m e a n i n g l e s s f r a g m e n t s a n d s c r a p s are i g n o r e d . 3 P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, R. de Vaux, Les G r o t t e s d e M u r a b b a ' a t ( D i s c o v e r i e s in t h e J u d a e a n D e s e r t II, O x f o r d 1961), h e n c e f o r t h Benoit, Milik, de Vaux, M u r a b b a ' a t . T h e p a p y r i p u b ­ lished in t h i s v o l u m e a r e referred t o as M u r

222

Hannah M. C o t t o n

letters and leases of t h e Bar Kokhba administration^ as well as private documents* from our period. 2) The most important documents for our period were discovered in Nahal fdever in the course of two seasons of excavations in 1960 and 1961, as part of a large scale Judaean Desert Survey, which included Nahal Hever, Nahal Se'elim, Nahal David (Wadi Sdeir), Nahal Mishmar and Nahal fiardof (Wadi Mardif)^. In the Cave of Letters in Nahal Hever was found the rightly celebrated Babatha archive, which contains legal documents in Nabataean-', Aramaic*, and Greek' be­ longing to a Jewish woman who lived in the village of Mahoza/Mahoz 'Aglatain on the southern shore of the Dead Sea, in what used to be the Nabataean Kingdom and in 106 became the Roman province of Arabia'". The Greek part of the Ba­ batha archive was published in 1989". In the same cave were found letters of Bar Kokhba, in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, the majority of which were dictated by the leader himself'^, as well as leases from the Bar Kokhba administration'*. Neither the Bar Kokhba letters and leases nor the Nabataean and Aramaic parts of the Babatha archive have been published, other than preliminary publications of the former by Yadin't, and more recently of two Aramaic documents from the Babatha archive'*. Two Greek letters were published in 1962'^. It is to be hoped Other t e x t s ,

t M u r 2 4 A - L (a lease); M u r 4 2 ^ 4 (letters); t h e f r a g m e n t a r y M u r 4 5 - 5 2 m a y b e l o n g t o t h e Bar K o k h b a circle as well. 5 M u r 1 8 - 2 3 , 2 5 , X H e v / S e 5 0 + M u r 26, M u r 2 7 - 3 3 , 8 9 - 9 7 , 1 1 3 - 1 1 6 . M u r 18 is b e f o r e o u r period, 55/6 C E . 6 See Stephen ]. Pfann, H i s t o r y of t h e J u d a e a n D e s e r t D i s c o v e r i e s a n d Sites in t h e J u d a e a n D e s e r t w h e r e Texts have b e e n f o u n d , in: Tov, Pfann, C o m p a n i o n V o l u m e 9 7 - 1 9 . See b e l o w o n texts f r o m t h e o t h e r sites m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . 7 P. Yadin 1-4, 6 and 9. 8 R Y a d i n 7 - 8 a n d 10. 9 P Y a d i n 5; 1 1 - 3 5 . ' ° E'or X H e v / S e n a b 1 see b e l o w n. 6 1 . " Naphtali Lewis, T h e D o c u m e n t s from t h e Bar K o k h b a P e r i o d in t h e C a v e of L e t t e r s . G r e e k P a p y r i ( J u d e a n D e s e r t Studies II, J e r u s a l e m 1989), h e n c e f o r t h Lewis, D o c u m e n t s . '2 P. Y a d i n 4 9 - 6 3 , t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e s e letters are a d d r e s s e d t o J o n a t h a n s o n of Baianos a n d s o m e t i m e s t o h i m a n d M a s a b a l a h (P. Yadin 4 9 - 5 6 , 58-59); n o n e of t h e letters is d a t e d . '3 P. Y a d i n 4 2 - 4 6 , leases; P. Yadin 4 7 a + b s e e m s t o b e a p r i v a t e d e e d . '4 Yigael Yadin, E x p e d i t i o n D , in: l E J 11 (1961) 3 6 - 5 2 ; idem. E x p e d i t i o n D - C a v e of L e t t e r s , in: l E J 12 (1962) 2 2 7 - 2 5 7 ; idem. T h e N a b a t a e a n K i n g d o m , P r o v i n c i a A r a b i a , P e t r a and E n G e d d i in t h e D o c u m e n t s from N a h a l H e v e r , in: P h o e n i x . E x O r i e n t e L u x 17 (1963) 2 2 7 - 2 4 1 . '* P. Y a d i n 7, p u b l i s h e d b y Yigael Yadin, Jonas C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, A D e e d of Gift in A r a m a i c f o u n d in N a h a l I J e v e r P a p y r u s Yadin 7, in: E r e t z - l s r a e l 25 (1996) 3 8 3 - 4 0 3 ( H e ­ b r e w ) a n d P. Yadin 10, p u b l i s h e d b y Yigael Yadin, Jonas C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, B a b a t h a ' s K e t u b b a , in: l E J 44 (1994) 7 5 - 9 9 . '6 P Yadin 52 a n d 59 (= SB 9843 a n d 9844), p u b l i s h e d b y Baruch Lifshitz, P a p y r u s grecs d u d e s e r t d e J u d a , in: A e g y p t u s 42 (1962) 2 4 0 - 5 8 , a n d often d i s c u s s e d later: G. Howard, fohn C. Shelton, T h e B a r - K o c h b a L e t t e r s a n d Palestinian G r e e k , in: l E J 23 (1973) l O l f ; Haim B. Rosen, D i e S p r a c h e n im r o m i s c h e n Palastina, in: D i e S p r a c h e n im r o m i s c h e n R e i c h d e r K a i ­ serzeit (Beihefte d e r B o n n e r J a h r b i i c h e r 40, K o l n , B o n n 1980) 2 2 4 - 2 2 6 ; Dirk Ohbink, Bilin­ gual L i t e r a c y a n d S y r i a n G r e e k , in: B A S P 28 (1991) 5 1 - 5 7 ; Haim Lapin, P a l m F r o n d s a n d C i t r o n s : N o t e s o n T w o L e t t e r s f r o m Bar K o s i b a ' s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , in: H U C A 64 (1993) 1 1 1 -

D o c u m e n t a r y P a p y r i from t h e J u d a e a n D e s e r t

223

that the entire material, Aramaic, Nabataean, Hebrew and Greek, will be pub­ lished soon'''. All the papyri found by Yadin in Nahal Hever are designated P. Yadin. 3) The so-called Seiyal collection II'* is composed of documents that were not discovered in the course of controlled excavations, but were found by Bedouin and brought in August 1952 and July 1953 to the Palestine Archaeological Mu­ seum (subsequently known as the Rockefeller Museum), where they are kept to this day. The plates were labelled "Se", i.e. Wadi Seiyal (Nahal Se'elim)". Al­ though the labelling suggests that the papyri came from Nahal Se'elim, those di­ rectly in charge of the documents at the time of their discovery have never made this claim anywhere in print. We can safely assume, even when we do not have tangible proof, that most of the documents in this lot came from the caves of Nahal Hever in the early fifties. This is why the documents are described as Xldev/Se. The X stands for the fact that the cave number is not known for certain, although most of them probably come from the Cave of Letters. Depending on the language in which they were written, the documents are designated Hev/Se for the Hebrew documents, XHev/Se ar for the Aramaic documents, XHev/Se nab for the Nabataean documents and XHev/Se gr for the Greek documents. Single documents from this lot have been published in preliminary publications. The entire corpus (with the exception of the Nabataean documents) appeared in 19972°. Among the papyri designated XHev/Se in this publication, there are sev­ eral which were not part of the original Seiyal collection but which like them were not discovered in a controlled excavation. The Seiyal collection contains the only surviving letter addressed to Bar Kokhba (written in Hebrew)^', as well as private legal deeds in Aramaic and Greek, seven (or eight) of which belong to the archive 135; a n d m o s t recently, G. Wilhelm Nebe, D i e b e i d e n g r i e c h i s c h e n Briefe d e s J o n a t a n A r chivs in E n g e d i aus d e m z w e i t e n j u d i s c h e n A u f s t a n d 1 3 2 - 1 3 5 n . C h n , in: R e v u e d e Q u m r a n 17 (1996) ( H o m m a g e a J. T. M i l i k 1996) 2 7 5 - 2 8 9 . '7 T h e p a p y r i w e r e d e c i p h e r e d b y t h e late Yigael Yadin a n d b y A d a Y a r d e n i ; t h e y will b e p u b l i s h e d in Yigael Yadin, Jonas C. Greenfield, Ada Yardeni, Baruch Levine, T h e D o c u ­ m e n t s f r o m t h e Bar K o k h b a P e r i o d in t h e C a v e of L e t t e r s II Q u d e a n D e s e r t S t u d i e s 111). "* T h e Seiyal c o l l e c t i o n 1 c o n t a i n s t h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e M i n o r P r o p h e t s ( 8 H e v X I I g r ) . T h e f r a g m e n t s of this t r a n s l a t i o n d i s c o v e r e d b y A h a r o n i in 1960 in t h e ' C a v e of H o r r o r ' of N a h a l H e v e r established t h a t t h e larger f r a g m e n t s of t h e text d e s i g n a t e d o n t h e plates in t h e Rockefeller M u s e u m as c o m i n g f r o m W a d i Seiyal also c o m e f r o m C a v e 8 of N a h a l H e v e n T h u s t h e e n t i r e Seiyal c o l l e c t i o n I o r i g i n a t e d in N a h a l H e v e n '9 X H e v / S e : s u r v e y s : / . T. Milik, L e travail d ' e d i t i o n d e s m a n u s c r i t s d u D e s e r t d e J u d a , in: V o l u m e d e C o n g r e s , S t r a s b o u r g , 1956 ( V T s u p p . 4, 1957) \7-2b; Jonas C. Greenfield, The Texts f r o m N a h a l Se'elim ( W a d i Seiyal), in: T h e M a d r i d Q u m r a n C o n g r e s s : P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n g r e s s o n t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls, M a d r i d 1 8 - 2 1 M a r c h 1 9 9 1 , vol. I I , e d s . / . Trebolle Barrera, L. Vegas Montaner ( L e i d e n 1992) 6 6 1 - 6 6 5 . T h i s last s u r v e y is based o n a p r e l i m i n a r y s o r t i n g and identification of t h e A r a m a i c a n d H e b r e w texts b y A d a Y a r d e n i . 20 Hannah M. Cotton, Ada Yardeni, A r a m a i c , H e b r e w a n d G r e e k Texts f r o m N a h a l H e v e r a n d O t h e r Sites, w i t h a n A p p e n d i x c o n t a i n i n g alleged Q u m r a n Texts. T h e Seiyal C o l l e c t i o n II ( D i s c o v e r i e s in t h e J u d a e a n D e s e r t X X V I I , O x f o r d 1997), h e n c e f o r t h Cotton, Yardeni, Seiyal C o l l e c t i o n . 21 X I I e v / S e 3 0 .

224

Hannah M. C o t t o n

of Salome Komaise daughter of Levi who, like Babatha, lived in the village Mahoza/Mahoz 'Aglatain in the province of Arabia^^. In addition to these texts this volume includes an Appendix with some Qumran texts, said to come from cave 42*. The derivation of documentary texts from Qumran would be a sensation indeed^'*, had their provenance not been cast into doubt; it is for this reason that they are published as 'alleged Qumran Texts'^*. 4) Very few documents were found in other sites in the course of the Judaean Desert Survey mentioned above: one Greek text was found in cave 8, Cave of Horror, in Nahal Hever^^, a few Greek papyri were found in cave 34, Cave of the Scrolls, in Nahal Se'elim and one Greek papyrus was found in Nahal Mishmar; the last two finds were published by Lifshitz in 1961, and corrected by Benoit and Sehwartz27, one Aramaic document and a few documents in Greek were dis­ covered in Wadi Sdeir; these remained so far unpublished. Excavations in 1986 and 1993 in Cave Abi'or and the Cave of the Sandal in the vicinity of Jericho yielded Aramaic and Greek papyri^*, of which only two fragments in Aramaic have so far been published^'. 5) The papyri, jar-inscriptions and ostraca in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek found on Masada during the excavations conducted there in 1963-4 and 1964-5, and published in 1989*°, have a terminus ante quem of 73 or 74 CE*', and

22 X H e v / S e ar 12, X H e v / S e gr 6 0 - 6 5 , p e r h a p s also X H e v / S e a r 32 a n d 4 Q 3 4 7 as well as s o m e of t h e a s - y e t u n d e c i p h e r e d X H e v / S e n a b 2 - 5 ( 6 ) w h i c h u n d o u b t e d l y c o m e f r o m t h e C a v e of L e t t e r s in N a h a l H e v e r ; see b e l o w . T h e o t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l , o r at least m e a n i n g f u l , d o c u m e n t s p u b l i s h e d in Cotton, Yardeni, Seiyal C o l l e c t i o n are: X H e v / S e ar 7, 8, 8a, 9, 10, 1 1 , 1 3 , 4 9 , 50, X H e v / S e gr 6 6 - 7 3 . 23 4 Q 3 4 2 - 3 4 6 a , 348, 3 5 1 - 3 5 4 , 3 5 6 - 3 6 0 b . 21 S u c h as w a s r i g h t l y caused b y t h e o s t r a c o n f o u n d at t h e site of Q u m r a n b y J a m e s F. S t r a n g e , a n d p u b l i s h e d b y Frank M. Cross, Esther Eshel, O s t r a c a f r o m K h i r b e t Q u m r a n , in : l E J 4 7 (1997) 1 7 - 2 8 . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e e d i t o r s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n this is a d e e d of gift b y a n e o ­ p h y t e in f a v o u r of t h e c o m m u n i t y of t h e Y a h a d . T h e r e a d i n g of ' Y a h a d ' (nn') in line 8 is c r u ­ cial for t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H o w e v e r , A d a Y a r d e n i h a s n o w c o n v i n c i n g l y d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e r e a d i n g of ' Y a h a d ' (nn') in line 8 is w r o n g . T h u s t h e o s t r a c o n can n o l o n g e r serve t o silence t h o s e w h o d i s p u t e t h e close c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c o m m u n i t y w h i c h lived o n t h e site a n d t h e scrolls f o u n d in t h e adjacent caves; cf. Ada Yardeni, D r a f t of a D e e d o n O s t r a c o n f r o m K h . Q u m r a n , in: l E J 4 7 (1997) 2 3 3 - 3 7 . 25 See Cotton, Yardeni, Seiyal C o l l e c t i o n 283 f 26 8 H e v 4, t r a n s c r i b e d b y Baruch Lifshitz, T h e G r e e k D o c u m e n t s f r o m t h e C a v e of H o r r o r , in: l E J 1 2 ( 1 9 6 2 ) 2 0 6 f 22 Baruch Lifshitz, T h e G r e e k D o c u m e n t s f r o m N a h a l Se'elim a n d N a h a l M i s h m a r , in: l E J 11 (1961) 5 3 - 6 1 ; / . Benoit, Bulletin, in: R e v u e B i b l i q u e 6S {196\)466{.;facquesSchwartz, Rem a r q u e s s u r d e s f r a g m e n t s grecs d u D e s e r t d e J u d a , in: R e v u e B i b l i q u e 69 (1962) 6 1 - 6 3 . 28 See Hanan Eshel, Boaz Zissu, Ketef J e r i c h o , 1993, in: l E J 45 (1995) 2 9 2 - 2 9 8 . 29 Esther a n d Hanan Eshel, F r a g m e n t s of t w o A r a m a i c d o c u m e n t s w h i c h w e r e b r o u g h t t o A b i ' o r C a v e d u r i n g t h e Bar K o k h b a R e v o l t , in: E r e t z Israel 23 (1992) 2 7 6 - 2 8 5 ( H e b r e w ) . All t h e d o c u m e n t s m e n t i o n e d in this c a t e g o r y will be p u b l i s h e d ( o r r e p u b l i s h e d - as t h e case m a y be) in D i s c o v e r i e s in t h e J u d a e a n D e s e r t vol. X X X V I . 30 Yigael Yadin, foseph Naveh, M a s a d a I: T h e A r a m a i c a n d H e b r e w O s t r a c a a n d J a r I n s c r i p ­ t i o n s (Final R e p o r t s , J e r u s a l e m 1989); Flannah M. Cotton, Joseph Geiger, M a s a d a II: T h e

D o c u m e n t a r y P a p y r i f r o m tfie J u d a e a n D e s e r t

225

thus are only marginally relevant to the present survey. More documents were dis­ covered in the course of excavations conducted on Masada in 1995-7, but these are so far unpublished*^. The Latin texts from Masada constitute a unique find in the Roman province of Judaea: we have tituli picti on jars from Italy and Spain imported by King Herod (or brought, perhaps, by the besieging Roman army)**, papyri and ostraca written by legionaries of the Tenth Legion Fretensis as well as Aramaic and Greek papyri and ostraca which originated in all likelihood among the Sicarii who occupied the fortress from 66 until its fall in 73 or 74. What then do these documents contribute to the study of Jewish history for the period which they mostly record, i.e. 70 to 135? Since not all the documents have been published, any conclusions to be drawn from them are bound to be partial and tentative. This is especially true of the mostly unpublished letters and leases which originate from Bar Kokhba and his men. These are sure to shed further light on this poorly documented revolt which had such catastrophic consequences for the history of the Jewish people. Three pieces of evidence are relevant to the question of the geographical and chronological extent of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. 1) First, Jerusalem: was Jerusalem occupied by the rebels, or to put it more cir­ cumspectly: was Jewish sovereignty recognized there? The relevant lines of Mur 29 and 30, two deeds of sale dated by the the era of the revolt, as corrected by Milik himself in an 'addendum'*'*, and confirmed by Ada Yardeni, seem to estab­ hsh that Jewish sovereignty was recognized in Jerusalem at least from Aug./Sept. 133 and undl Sept./Oct. 135**. Mur 29 (Aug./Sept. 133) lines 9-10 (outer text) read:

Latin a n d G r e e k D o c u m e n t s (Final R e p o r t s , J e r u s a l e m 1989), h e n c e f o r t h Cotton, Geiger, M a s a d a II. T h e d o c u m e n t s are d e s i g n a t e d D o c . M a s . *' See Hannah M. Cotton, T h e D a t e of t h e Fall of M a s a d a : t h e F.vidence of t h e M a s a d a P a ­ p y r i , in: Z P E 78 (1989) 1 5 7 - 1 6 2 . 32 See Ehud Netzer, Guy D. Stiebel, ' M a s a d a 1 9 9 5 - 6 ' ( f o r t h c o m i n g ) . 33 See Hannah M. Cotton, Joseph Geiger, T h e E c o n o m i c I m p o r t a n c e of H e r o d ' s M a s a d a : t h e E v i d e n c e of t h e J a r I n s c r i p t i o n s , in: J u d a e a a n d t h e G r e c o - R o m a n W o r l d in t h e T i m e of I l e r o d in t h e L i g h t of t h e A r c h a e o l o g i c a l E v i d e n c e , e d s . Klaus Fittschen, Gideon Foerster ( G o t t i n g e n 1996) 1 6 3 - 1 7 0 ; Hannah M. Cotton, Omri Lernau, Yuval Goren, F i s h Sauces from H e r o d i a n M a s a d a , in: J o u r n a l of R o m a n A r c h a e o l o g y 6 (1996) 2 2 3 - 2 3 8 . F o r t h e p o s s i ­ bility t h a t t h e R o m a n a r m y b r o u g h t s o m e of t h e L a t i n i n s c r i b e d a m p h o r a e t o M a s a d a d u r i n g t h e siege, sec John Rea o n D o c . M a s . 820 ( M a s a d e a n d P o m p e i i : A n o t h e r L i n k , in: S C I 18 (1999) f o r t h c o m i n g ) . 3'' Benoit, Milik, de Vaux. M u r a b b a ' a t 2 0 5 . 35 C o n t r a Menachem Mor, T h e B a r - K o c h b a R e v o l t : Its E x t e n t a n d Effect (Jerusalem 1991) 1 4 6 - 1 7 1 , e s p . 1 5 6 f ( H e b r e w ) . C o n t r a r y t o w h a t h e a s s u m e s ( p . 133, n. 5 a n d p . 157, n. 72) t h e r e is n o i n d e p e n d e n t e v i d e n c e for l u l i u s S e v e r u s ' arrival in J u d a e a ( w h i c h m i g h t have b e ­ c o m e a l r e a d y S y r i a - P a l a e s t i n a ) , see Arthur R. Birley, T h e Fasti of R o m a n B r i t a i n ( O x f o r d 1981) 1 0 6 f f

226

Hannah M. Cotton

'On fourteenth Elul, Year Two of the redemption of Israel, in Jerusalem, Yehonathan son of Yehosaf and Shime'on son of Shabbai are signing ... '. Later on, lines 10-11 read: ••'7Dn"Q

D i ' ^ s n o i s -\2

Ot±>p - ) 0 D

'Kalbos son of Eutroplos from Jerusalem sold etc.'. Mur 30 (Sept./Oct. 135), lines 8-9 (outer text) reads: . . . - o ' D - • p a o D i D i n - 1 3 | r , j i n ' n - D m n • " b B i i - n "pr-IS'

rbm"? a m s

n:0

'On twenty first Tishrei, Year Four of the redemption of Israel in Jerusalem, Yehonathan son Yehosaf and Shime'on son of Simai are signing...'. Now it could be argued that despite the preposition 'in' (•), the expression 'in Jerusalem' (C'':'0TT3) does not stand for the place where the contract was signed, but is part of the dating formula - a dating formula which expresses political as­ piration and a hope, as is claimed for formulae mentioning Jerusalem on coins from the time of the revolt*^. However, taking 'in Jerusalem' in these documents to be part of a dating formula used simply for propaganda purposes wih leave the contracts, quite abnormally, without any reference to the place where they were concluded*''. Legal usage excludes such a forced interpretation. The implications seem to be inescapable: Jerusalem recognized the authority of a Jewish state as late as Sept./Oct. 135**. 2) Mur 22 (a deed of sale in Hebrew) line 1 used to read: 'Fourteenth of Marheshvan year one (nn« n:o) of the freedom of Israel'. The new reading of the line, for which full credit should be given to Ada Yardeni, makes this the latest dated document from the time of the revolt (later than Mur 30 just discussed): 'Four­ teenth of Marheshvan year four (ums res) of the freedom of Israel', that is, Oct./ Nov. 135. The cumulative weight of these late documents must arouse doubts about the traditional date for the fall of Beithar and the conclusion of the revolt with it. Otherwise we have to assume that the revolt continued in other areas well after the fall of Beithar, traditionally dated to July 135*'. We should take it that people 36 See e.g. L. Mildenherg, B a r K o c h b a in J e r u s a l e m , in: S c h w e i t z e r M i i n t z b l a t t e r 2 7 (1977) 1-6. 37 O n e has t o d r a w a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n c ' ^ b i t d bvr/D- rb-\Vit> in M u r 29 a n d 30 a n d TbT\ r,[:B] c ' ' 7 B { i ) t m-rt (.Year T h r e e of t h e f r e e d o m of J e r u s a l e m ' ) in M u r 25 ( 1 3 4 / 5 C E ) line 1, w h i c h is clearly p a r t of a d a t i n g f o r m u l a , a n d c a n n o t , w i t h o u t f u r t h e r p r o o f , be t a k e n as a reflection of reality . 38 T h e a l t e r n a t i v e is t o t a k e t h e d a t e in M u r 2 9 a n d 30 as r e f e r r i n g t o t h e first r e v o l t . In s u p ­ p o r t of this it c o u l d b e said t h a t in b o t h d o c u m e n t s t h e f o r m u l a ' t o t h e r e d e m p t i o n of I s r a e l ' is n o t f o l l o w e d b y a reference t o B a r K o k h b a as it is in M u r 2 4 A - I ; X H e v / S e a r 7. 8, 13. 49 a n d in P. Y a d i n 4 2 . 4 4 . H a n a n E s h e l a n d myself p r o p o s e t o deal w i t h t h e s e d o c u m e n t s in m o r e detail e l s e w h e r e . 39 Emd Schiirer, Geza Vermes, Fergus Mdlar, T h e H i s t o r y of t h e J e w i s h P e o p l e in t h e A g e of J e s u s C h r i s t (175 B . C . - A . D . 135) v o l . I ( E d i n b u r g h 1973) 551 ff. h e n c e f o r t h Schurer, Vermes, Millar, H i s t o r y .

D o c u m e n t a r y Papyri from the Judaean Desert

227

in these areas continued to date their documents as if Israel were still independent. Additional evidence for the continuation of the revolt at least to the end of 135 CE seems to be supplied by the absence of imperator iterum from Hadrian's titulature untd his twentieth tribunicia potestas, i.e. after 10 December 135'*°. The most obvious contribution of the documents which come from Bar Kokhba's own circles is to a better understanding of the exploitation of land which fell into the rebels' hands. The leases and sub-leases found among the docu­ ments from Wadi Murabba'at and Nahal fdever, as well as some of Bar Kokhba's letters to his administrators (parnasim) in Ein Gedi'", imply that Bar Kokhba laid his hands on parts of the imperial domain in the places recorded. Land owned by the^5C«5 was exploited in different ways: between land leased to tenants and land worked by slaves under a vilicus 'there was still an infinite range of local variations'''^. Was the system of leasing and sub-leasing reflected in the Bar Kokhba documents taken over from the imperial^SCM5? In some, but not all, of the docu­ ments (e.g. not in Mur 24A-L), the first lessees lire parnasim of Bar Kokhba who sublease to others. Should we assume that there was always a sub-layer of tenants left unrecorded in the documents, those who actually tilled the land? Such a threetiered administration is typical for example of imperial estates in Egypt. On the other hand the sub-lessees in the Bar Kokhba leases are not share-croppers, but pay for the lease in money. This was not the method employed by the fiscus, at least for the balsam in Judaea, about which we know from Phny that the fiscus itself sold the balsam to retailers, who in their turn sold it to others for less than a third of what they had paid for it, and yet made a profit by adulterating the pure balsam^*. I believe that there are hints in some of the Bar Kokhba documents that, as might have been expected, Bar Kokhba took over the precious balsam groves'*''. Since I have mentioned the imperial ^sc«s and the evidence for the existence of imperial domains in Ein Gedi, let me say something parenthetically about the possible interpretation of Jewish documents from the province of Arabia as evi­ dence for Jews having perpetual leaseholds on imperial estates in Mahoza. Three land declarations from 127 CE, two receipts from 124 and 131 respectively, and a deed of gift from 129, may all be describing rent rather than tax paid to the im''° See Werner Eck, E p i g r a p h i c D o c u m e n t s f o r t h e B a r K o k h b a R e v o l t : T h e R o m a n P o i n t of View. N e w I n s i g h t s , in: J R S 89 (1999, f o r t h c o m i n g ) a n d Werner Eck, Gideon Foerster, Ein T r i u m p h b o g e n fur H a d r i a n i m Tal v o n Beth Shean, in: J R A ( f o r t h c o m i n g ) , ti Leases: M u r 2 4 A - L (134 C E ) , and t h e u n p u b l i s h e d P Y a d i n 42 (132 C E ) , 43 (132 C E ) , 4 4 , 4 5 and 4 6 (all t h r e e f r o m 134 C E ) ; letters: P Yadin 52 ( G r e e k = SB 9843); t h e u n p u b l i s h e d R Yadin 4 9 , 50, 5 4 - 5 8 , 60; M u r 46; u n p u b l i s h e d P Yadin 5 1 , 5 3 ; P Yadin 59 ( G r e e k = SB 9844). D. ]. Crawford-'Tijompson, I m p e r i a l E s t a t e s , in: Studies in R o m a n P r o p e r t y , ed. Moses L Finley ( C a m b r i d g e 1976) 44; c f D. Flach, R o m i s c h e A g r a r g e s c h i c h t e ( M u n c h e n 1990) 82 ff ''3 Plinius, N H 12, 123: nec m a n i f e s t i o r alibi fraus q u i p p e m i l l i b u s d e n a r i u m sextarii e m p t i v e n d e n t e fisco t r e c e n i s d e n a r i i s v e n e u n t : in t a n t u m e x p e d i t a u g e r e l i q u o r e m ; c f Hannah M. Cotton, Werner Eck, E i n S t a a t s m o n o p o l u n d seine F o gen. P h n i u s , N a t u r a l i s historia 12,123 u n d d e r Preis fiir B a l s a m , in: R h M 140 (1997) 1 5 3 - 1 6 1 . See P. Yadin 50, u n p u b l i s h e d : a:R r e m p ' s"? ' i rwb^ ( , n o o n e s h o u l d get near the Lotem(?)').

228

H a n n a h M. C o t t o n

perial fiscus. Were the date groves in M a h o z a part of an imperial d o m a i n and an imperial m o n o p o l y hke the balsam groves in E i n Gedi'**? D o c u m e n t s w h i c h did n o t originate in Bar Kokhba's circles m a y also have s o m e t h i n g to tell us, albeit indirectly, about the revolt. T h e existence of intimate ties b e t w e e n famihes in Ein Gedi in the province of Judaea and those living in M a h o z a ( M a h o z 'Aglatain) in the province of Arabia strikes o n e immediately o n reading the Babatha archive. Very often w e find the expression 'from Ein G e d i residing in M a h o z a ' , or vice versa, as in o n e of Bar Kokhba's leases: 'from the L u h i t in M a h o z 'Aglatain, residing in Ein Gedi"**". Ein Gedians reside in M a h o z a , o w n property there and intermarry w i t h the Jews of M a h o z a . It is just possible that Yadin w a s right t o identify Beianos, father of Miriam of the Babatha archive, w i t h the father of o n e of Bar Kokhba's parnasim in E i n Gedi**^. People w h o b e ­ longed t o the same families lived o n b o t h sides o f the so-called provincial b o r d e r W h e n w e r e they separated? I believe that the families w e r e separated during the Great Revolt. After the raids b y the sicarii in Passover 68'** and the battles over the balsam b e t w e e n the Jews and the R o m a n army in that year^', E i n G e d i must have been practically abandoned, at least for a while: 'Ein Gedi is n o w another ruin' says P h n y the Elder in the late 70s*°. E i n Gedi ceased being the capital o f a t o p archy, became s u b s u m e d in the toparchy of Jericho*', and in 1 2 4 is attested as 'a village o f our Lord Caesar'*2. A t least the balsam groves must have b e c o m e part of •ts Land declarations: P Yadin 16; X H e v / S e gr 61 and X H e v / S e gr 62; receipts: X H e v / S e gr 60 and X H e v / S e ar 12; deed of gift: X H e v / S e gr 64, see esp. lines 2 8 - 3 0 : (i. e. the date grove) TsXecei Ka6' t x o c etc Xoyov ICUPIAKOTJ (jitcKOD [ m O ' ETOC] (j)OTVEIKOC Jtaxrixoij c d x a ftem KAI cupofi KAI v a a p o t ) c a t a e|; see Hannah M. Cotton, Land Tenure in the D o c u m e n t s from the Nabataean K i n g d o m and the R o m a n Province of Arabia, in: Z P E 119 (1997) 2 5 5 - 6 5 . ''6 F o r the expression 'from E i n - G e d i , residing in M a h o z a ' : P. Yadin 18 (128 C E ) , 11. 3 2 - 3 7 = 11. 3 - 6 : e | [ e 6 ] o x [ o 'Ioij6a]C ' E X e a ^ a p o u XOIJ Kai [XOot)ci]a)v[oc CJeXapijifiJwvTiv xr|v i&iav ODyaxEpav j i a p O e v o v ' I o v 8 a x i eniKaXotjpevu) KtpPEpi uto) ' A v a v i o u xoii Cu)pa>La, DP(|)6TEpoi a l i o Ka)|tr|C ALVYa6(ov xf)c ' I o i j 6 a i a [ C ] EVOCXSE KAXAPEVOVX[EC]; P. Yadin 19 (128 C E ) , 1 1 - 1 2 : ['lojii&ac 'EX[a^d]POD X6oDc[ico]voc 'HvYa8T)[vo]C oiKcov E V Mawi^ac; CF P. Yadin 2 0 (130 C E ) , II. 4 - 5 = II. 2 3 - 2 4 : Bricac 'Ir)coiJoi) 'HvyaSTivoc oiKtov E V M a ^ p a q E<Jtt>xpo3toc opcjjavojv 'lT)coi)ou XOotJciwvoc; P. Yadin 4 4 ( N o v e m l s e r 134, unpublished), II. 4-6: •N; c ' 3 S T CRRA ]'rhyi> NNOND N-NI'^N ;q ]IJJOA p N;NM MIN' P SO'^S : ' A l m a s o n OF Judah and Tahna s o n of S h i m e ' o n from the L u h i t in M a h o z 'Aglatain, b o t h re­ siding in E i n Gedi'. '•7 P Yadin 26,1. 3: Mapiafrriv B E I O V O D 'HvYa6T)VT|v; P Yadin 52 (= A e g y p t u s 4 2 (1962), 2 4 0 , no. 1 = SB VIII, 9843), 11. 1-3: CoDJpaijoc 'tovaOfji Baiavoi) Kal Ma[C]aPa>ia x a l p s i v ; P. Yadin 4 9 (unpubUshed), 11. 1-2: CI'TB \-m ~Q \mT\-b-\ >ib'sxb 'naru KSDIS ~a jiman, cf. Yadin, in: lEJ 12 (1962) 2 4 7 f Jos. BJ 4. 402. « P h n i u s , N H 12.112. 50 P h n i u s , N H 5.73: 'Infra h o s (i.e. the Essenes) Engada o p p i d u m fuit, s e c u n d u m ab H i e r o s o l y m i s fertilitate p a l m e t o r u m q u e n e m o r i b u s , nunc aiterum b u s t u m ' . 5' P. Yadin 16 (127 C E ) line 16: 'Iov6dvoD 'EXai;dpou Kwpric A l v Y a 6 6 a ) v nEpL 'lEpEixoOvxa Tfie ' l o t i S a i a c ; note that Ein Gedi is absent from Pliny's list of toparchies, N F I 5.70, w h i c h is m o r e updated than that of Josephus: BJ 3.55. 52 P Yadin 11 ( 6 / 5 / 1 2 4 ) , II. 1 2 - 1 3 = II. 1-2: EJXI v[JIDX](pv MavEipi) ' A K E I W O D r?taPpiu)voc

D o c u m e n t a r y Papyri from the Judaean Desert

229

the imperial domain. The Jewish families who escaped from Ein Gedi settled in a place with similar climatic conditions, similar cultivation, a similar watering sys­ tem, where other Jewish famihes had settled before: in Mahoz 'Aglatain - a village in what was then and until 106 the Nabataean kingdom. But the ties with the home village remained. I believe that communication was facilitated by sea travel: both vdlages were situated on the seashore, and the Dead Sea was navigable**. The very fact that documents of people from Ein Gedi and of families from Arabia were found in the same cave is the best testimony to the survival of close ties be­ tween the families. It seems not unreasonable to assume that the close ties with the mother community go a long way to explain why the well-off Jews of Arabia, not­ withstanding their excellent relations with their neighbours the Nabataeans (who serve as guardians, witnesses and subscribers in the Jewish documents), left their property behind and crossed over to Judaea soon after the beginning of the Bar Kokhba revolt. This event may tell us as much about the nature of the Bar Kokhba revolt as the documents left behind by the leader of the revolt and his adminis­ trators themselves. Unless the revolt spread into Arabia, we must assume that Jews from Arabia responded to some sort of call and returned home. Was it a messianic hope or what seemed like the renewal of Jewish sovereignty that made them come home? The Bar Kokhba revolt reunited the families whom the First Revolt had rent asunder - tragically, they were reunited in death***. Fllsewhere in the series of Kolloquien des Historischen Kollegs I discussed at great length the contribution of the documents from the Judaean Desert to our understanding of the Roman administration of the province of Judaea/Syria-Palaestina. I shall therefore limit myself here to a brief summary**. Schurer and his new editors distinguish between the 'Greek cities' and the 'Jewish region'*^. The Jewish region includes Judaea proper, Samaria, the Galilee and the Peraea. There are very few cities in these areas and the majority of cities that are there are on the fringes, and in any case are not likely to have controlled the entire Jewish region as their city-territories. The documents enable us now to confirm, revise and reinter­ pret the evidence about the administrative divisions in the Roman province of Judaea contained in the literary sources, namely Josephus and Pliny the F!lder Josephus, Pliny and the papyri prove that the Jewish region was divided into ad­ ministrative units with central villages or cides at their head. Only about Judaea Kai ropKoud|TOD 0]iiPavuivo[iJ

Jtpo] |ti(xc v w y o j v Mai(o[vJ ev ' H v y a S o l c Kwpti icupiou K a i c a p o c ; X F I e v / S e gr 67 lines 1-2 ['Ev]Ya6u)v KupLoii K[(XLcupoc Kcopric]. 53 Gideon Hadas, W h e r e w a s t h e harbour of ' E i n - G e d i s i t u a t e d ? , in: lEJ 43 (1993) 4 5 - 4 9 ; see b o a t s sailing o n t h e D e a d Sea in t h e M a d a b a M a p . 5'' F o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e v o l t s p r e a d t o t h e p r o v i n c e of A r a b i a sec Werner Eck, E p i ­ g r a p h i c D o c u m e n t s for t h e B a r K o k h b a R e v o l t ( a b o v e , n. 40). 55 See Hannah M. Cotton, S o m e A s p e c t s of t h e R o m a n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of J u d a e a / S y r i a - P a ­ laestina, in: L o k a l e A u t o n o m i c u n d r o m i s c h e O r d n u n g s m a c h t in d e n k a i s e r z c i t h c h e n P r o v i n z e n v o m 1.-3. J a h r h u n d e r t (Schriften des H i s t o r i s c h e n K o l l e g s , K o l l o q u i e n 4 2 , ed. W. Eck, f o r t h c o m i n g ) . s** Schiirer, Vermes, Millar, H i s t o r y , vol. II ( E d i n b u r g h 1979) 8 5 - 1 9 8 . I d o n o t p r o p o s e t o e n t e r h e r e i n t o t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e validity of this division.

230

Hannah M. C o t t o n

proper ean we be sure that these units were eahed toparchiai. There is no evidence for local officials at the head of these capital villages, nor for centrally appointed officials in charge of the toparchiai - but the existence of one kind or another of local officials must be assumed. There are some hints that the toparchiai were in charge of taxation. Above all it is hard to believe that nothing beyond a merely geographical relationship is intended by the description of the dependence of a village on a central village, especially since the dependence of the single village on the central village is described both in the papyri and in Josephus in terms identi­ cal to those describing the dependence of the chora on its poUs^^. Furthermore, we know that under the Severi some of these central villages received the status of a pohs: thus Lydda became Diospolis in 199/200, and Emmaus became Nicopolis in 219 or 220. In 199/200 Beth-Govrin - about which we do not know that it was a capital village - received the status of zpolis and was renamed Eleutheropolis. The accelerating urbanization of Judaea (now called Syria-Palaestina) resulted in the eventual disappearance of the toparchies and their replacement hy poleis with their territories*^. This is the picture conveyed by the fourth century Onomasticon of Eusebius. But if we are right to think that the capital villages achieved a degree of local autonomy and administrative responsibilities already in the first and second centuries, then this urbanization was but a logical development*'. The main contribution, however, of the growing corpus of documentary texts from the Judaean Desert is towards a better understanding of legal and social as­ pects of Jewish society in the Roman provinces of Judaea and Arabia in the first half of the second century CE. All the documents from the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, whether written by Bar Kokhba and his people or by individuals who somehow got entangled in the revoh, can be utilized for this purpose. Flspecially in the case of the latter, only the dating formula and the use of Hebrew single them out from contracts in Aramaic concluded before the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The impression is that the private-law procedures visible in these documents are continuous with those from the immediately preceding 'provincial' period. Nevertheless, in the absence of a final publication of this cor*7 cf. t h e d e p e n d e n c e of t h e village of Soffathe [...] o n t h e city of Livias in t h e Peraea d e ­ s c r i b e d in X H e v / S e gr 65 ( o l i m P. Yadin 37): TricoOc M a v a i i p o v xfwv anb KwpTjc . . . ] Co<j)(t)aOe [ . . ] . . . JTEPL nokvv Aio-uid6oc tfjc n [ 8 p a i a c ] (lines 3 - 4 ) , a n d t h e d e p e n d e n c e of t h e village of Kin G e d i o n t h e central village of its t o p a r c h y , J e r i c h o , in P. Yadin 16 line 16: T o t ) 6 d v o t i 'FAa^dpOTj K(i)p,ric A i v y a S S c o v j t e p l T E p E i x o C v T a tfjc ' l o v S a i a c ; o r t h a t of B e t h b a s s i vis-a-vis H e r o d i o n - EV B a i T 0 | 3 a i c c a i a c . . . T O J i a p x E i a c ' H p c p 6 E i o [ D ] ; G a l o d a vis­ a-vis A k r a b a t t a - d j t o K(a)nric) FaXcoStov xfjc Jtepl 'AKpcxPaTXcuv, a n d B a t h a r d a vis-a-vis G o p h n a e v Kwpr] B a i x o g p S o i c xfic KEpl Focjjvoic - all in M u r 115 lines 2 - 3 ; a n d finally t h a t of A r i s t o b o u l i a s and Y a q i m (or Y a q u m ) vis-a-vis Zif in X H e v / S e gr 69 lines 3 - 5 : ' A p i c x o p o i ) k d 6 i xf)c Zei