The Jewish Annotated New Testament (143 page)

Consequently, virtually all of the statements attributed to Jesus on “the law” specifically, or matters of Jewish rituals or ethics in general, can be placed within the broad context of ancient Jewish thought and practice. This is obviously the case for those passages that depict Jesus as adhering to the law, such as his instruction to the man he healed of leprosy: “Go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Mk 1.44; Mt 8.4; Lk 5.14; cf. Lev 14.2–32). But this assessment also holds for the more controversial passages, such as Jesus’ declaration to a would-be disciple: “Let the dead bury their own dead” (Mt 8.22; Lk 9.60), as well as the narrative concerning the plucking of grain on the Sabbath (Mt 12.1–8; Mk 2.23–28; Lk 6.1–5). Burial of deceased parent is an important facet of Jewish piety, and the Gospels themselves suggest that plucking a grain on the Sabbath apparently violated the oral traditions of the Pharisees (cf.
b. Shabb
. 73b). But neither of these pronouncements constitutes an unambiguous rejection of Jewish law.

The reasons for this are twofold. First, due to our paucity of sources contemporaneous with the Gospels, we cannot always reconstruct what various groups of Jews thought about matters of legal practice raised in the New Testament. For instance, we know little about Jewish mourning rites in the Second Temple period, and we know less about how non-Pharisaic Jews viewed the matter of plucking grain on the Sabbath. But the details we do
not
know are supplemented by some generalities we do know: ancient Jewish sources attest to a great variety of approaches to Jewish law and the interpretation of the Torah. We have already noted the dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees regarding the former’s adherence to extrabiblical oral traditions. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4QMMT presents a list of legal disputes, apparently between the Qumran sect and the Temple authorities. And the Temple Scroll from Qumran (11QTemple) rewrites the legal material from the Torah, making it look as if God revealed the architectural plans of a future temple directly to the people of Israel long ago. Further, there are legal treatises and biblical summaries by authors such as Philo and Josephus that diverge from scripture in their own ways without necessarily agreeing with the scrolls, later rabbinic sources, or any other known writer or group. We also know of groups of Jews who, at various times in antiquity, rejected much or even all of Jewish law, while nevertheless maintaining their identity as Jews and presumably believing in the Torah. The “extreme allegorizers” Philo describes (
Migr
. 89) serve as one example; the radical reformers who played a key role in the events leading up to the Maccabean revolt (1 Macc 1.10–13; 2 Macc 4.7–22) were another. According to Mark, perhaps Jesus would be a third example, if we are to accept the clarifying assertion advanced in Mark 7.19b: “thus he declared all foods clean.” Scholars are nearly unanimous in rejecting this passage’s authenticity: if there were a firmly established teaching of Jesus abrogating food laws, it is difficult to explain why this continued to be a controversy among the early followers of Jesus (e.g., Acts 10.9–16). Nevertheless, the legal statements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels fit within the broad range of ancient Jewish discourse on the law, precisely because that discourse was wide-ranging and diverse. Therefore, even when we cannot identify a precise parallel to a particular legal statement or practice associated with Jesus, we can still place the great majority of Gospel traditions concerning these matters within the broad diversity of ancient Jewish legal discourse and practice.

The situation is somewhat more complicated when it comes to considering Paul’s place within this arena. Certainly Paul did not reject “the Law,” when we understand that term to mean “the Pentateuch.” Even in Galatians where he declares that salvation is by faith and “not by works of the law” (2.16), what is rejected (as a means of Pauline “salvation”) is not the Pentateuch per se but some set of practices articulated within it, such as circumcision (5.2). Paul’s displacement of “the works of the law” nonetheless leaves Pentateuchal narratives concerning figures such as Abraham and Hagar (e.g., Gal 3.15–18; 4.21–5.1) in a place of importance. These Paul affirms as eternally valid.

When speaking of his own background, Paul tells us that he was “as to the law, a Pharisee” (Phil 3.5). The book of Acts depicts Paul as claiming to have been reared “at the feet of Gamaliel” (22.6) and to have lived according to Pharisaic law (26.5). Yet at some point for Paul there was a break: in his words, he “died to the law” so that he “might live to God” (Gal 2.19). Indeed, some scholars believe that Paul made a clean and complete break with Jewish law. But the problem is that the apparently rejectionist stance articulated in Galatians is softened elsewhere: “Do we then overthrow the law by means of this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Rom 3.31).

Scholars frequently introduce two distinctions to help make sense of Paul’s comments on the law. The first is one that looms large especially in Paul’s discussion of the law in Romans (2.12–3.31): the contrast between Jews and Gentiles. This particular distinction also operates in later rabbinic law. Building on passages such as Genesis 9.1–17 (and possibly postbiblical traditions such as
Jub
. 7.20), the rabbis developed a list of seven “Noachide Laws” that constitute the minimal legal obligations imposed on Gentiles. According to one Talmudic listing (
b. Sanh
. 56a), Gentiles are prohibited from cursing God, idolatry, sexual immorality, bloodshed, robbery, and eating a limb off of a living animal; they are obligated to establish and maintain courts of law. This concept may shed light on Paul’s assertion that some “Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires” (Rom 2.14; cf. 2.21–24). Presumably keeping kosher is not what came naturally to such Gentiles, but avoiding bloodshed, robbery, and perhaps even idolatry could have come naturally to those Paul has in mind.

A second distinction—between ritual and moral laws—has also been adduced to explain Paul’s position. Some scholars believe that Paul rejected the Torah’s ritual or ceremonial laws but maintained its ethical laws. The value of this position is that it focuses precisely on Paul’s vociferous rejection of specific rituals such as circumcision and food laws (e.g., Gal 5.2; Rom 14.14), at the same time making sense of his insistence on moral and sexual ethics (e.g., Rom 6.1–23; 1 Cor 5.1–13). But Paul does not draw a clear distinction between ritual and ethics; neither does rabbinic literature or any other Jewish legal source from the Second Temple period. Moreover, it is not clear that Paul’s ethical advice is entirely rooted in Jewish Scripture. While Paul recites four of the Ten Commandments in one passage (Rom 13.8–10), he offers ritual and ethical advice without quoting scripture in others (e.g., Rom 14.13–23). Understanding Paul’s view of the Law has proven difficult. Still, we can say that at least some “works of the law”—especially certain rituals concerning food and the body—troubled the apostle, particularly when practiced by Gentiles.

In the generations following Jesus and Paul, Judaism and Christianity moved in two very different directions with regard to the observances that characterized Second Temple Judaism. Rabbinic Jews maintained circumcision and expanded the dietary and Sabbath laws. Rabbinic Judaism also developed fuller systems of law to deal with marriage, civil matters, and criminal law, all the while maintaining the memory of laws concerning matters of purity and sacrifice that were no longer practiced following the Temple’s destruction. These come to be recorded in the first great literary monument of rabbinic Judaism, the law book known as the Mishnah. Christianity, by contrast, moved in the direction of Galatians 5.2 and Mark 7.19b: foods were declared clean, circumcision was disregarded, and the Jewish holy days, Sabbaths, and other observances were replaced by distinctive Christian rites such as baptism. The writings of the early church thinkers take on a tone that is entirely different from the legal style of the Mishnah. And Judaism comes to be seen by some Christians—unfairly—as a
legalistic
religion.

Yet with regard to “the Law,” when understood to mean the Pentateuch (the Torah), Christianity and rabbinic Judaism share more than is commonly realized. Christians include the Torah in their canon and believe it to be part of the “Old Testament”—the first covenant. It is, in other words, an authentic divine teaching that requires the fulfillment found in the New Testament, even while certain select passages (such as the Ten Commandments—see the Romans passage cited above) maintain their original significance. Jews too supplemented the Pentateuch with oral traditions and exegetical explanations, such that the Written Torah of Moses finds its completion for rabbinic Jews in the Oral Torah preserved in the Mishnah, Talmud, and other rabbinic writings. To be sure, traditional Judaism teaches that the Oral Torah is co-eternal with the Written, while Christianity considers the
Old
Testament fulfilled by something
New
. Yet Christians and rabbinic Jews have come to agree on one very important matter regarding what Greek-speaking Jews long ago called “the Law”: The Pentateuch does not stand on its own, and indeed is quite often insufficient in its plain sense. Neither Christians nor rabbinic Jews have come to abolish the Law. And traditionally, Christians and Jews have fulfilled the Torah/Pentateuch by finding its deeper meanings somewhere else, be it the New Testament for Christians, or the Oral Torah for Jews.

THE SYNAGOGUE

Lee I. Levine

The synagogue was a unique and innovative institution that played a central role in Jewish life in antiquity, leaving an indelible mark on Christianity and Islam as well. It was the most prominent public space in Jewish communities throughout the Greco-Roman world (excluding pre-70 CE Jerusalem and perhaps several Jewish cities in Galilee) and was always the largest and most monumental building, often located in the center of a town or village. After 70 CE, it came to replace the Temple in Jerusalem as the central religious institution in Jewish life, and was revolutionary in a number of ways:

(1)
Location
. Unlike the Temple, the synagogue was universal in nature and enabled Jews everywhere to organize their communal life and worship ritual.

(2)
Leadership
. Anyone could hold a leadership position in the synagogue; functionaries were not restricted to a specific socioreligious group, as was the case in the Temple, where only priests could officiate.

(3)
Worship
. The synagogue provided a context for forms of worship other than the sacrifices that had dominated the Temple ritual, eventually embracing a wide range of religious activities, including scriptural readings,
targum
(the Aramaic translation of Scriptures), communal prayers, hymns, sermons, and
piyyut
(religious poetry).

(4)
Participation
. The synagogue included a wide range of worshipers in its ritual, unlike the Jerusalem Temple setting, where almost everyone in attendance remained in the outer “Women’s Court,” unless they themselves were offering a sacrifice. Worshipers in the synagogue, both men and women, were present throughout the entire service. The term “synagogue” (Gk
synagōgē
, “assembly,” originally referring to a collection of persons, things, or writings) was used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, for
edah
, “congregation” (e.g., Ex 12.3) and
qahal
, “assembly” (e.g., Deut 5.22). Based in part on these usages, it eventually became the term for the
beit keneset
, the “house of meeting.”

JUDEAN SYNAGOGUES IN THE LATE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD

Synagogues in Judea are first attested in the first century BCE, and in one case (Modi’in) perhaps as early as the second century BCE. From its inception, the communal dimension was the building’s most prominent feature, and those excavated to date reflect an architectural plan befitting such a community-oriented institution. Synagogue structures in Gamla (in the Golan), Migdal (in the Galilee), Masada and Herodium (in the Judean Desert), as well as Qiryat Sefer and Modi’in (in the western Judean foothills) were all square or rectangular spaces with columns and benches on four sides (Qiryat Sefer had benches on only three sides), an arrangement that facilitated communal participation in political, religious, and social activities. The model chosen for these settings approximated the Hellenistic
bouleutērion
(“council chamber”) or
ecclesiastērion
(“place of assembly”), which likewise catered to a group of people gathering for multiple purposes.

The religious dimension was also a significant component of the synagogue’s agenda in this early period, although it should be placed in proper perspective given the natural propensity of both Jewish and Christian literary sources to emphasize this particular aspect of the synagogue’s activities. Archaeological remains provide an important corrective to this proclivity. The first-century synagogue buildings uncovered to date were neutral structures devoid of notable religious components, such as inscriptions, artistic representations (Migdal excepted), or a permanent place for a Torah shrine. Scrolls appear to have been introduced into the synagogue hall expressly for the Torah-reading ceremony and were then removed. Architecturally, these early synagogues did not have the decidedly religious profile that a synagogue would have in Late Antiquity (see below). The inclusion of the social-communal aspects of the synagogue, along with its religious-educational functions, is clearly evidenced in the Theodotos inscription from first-century CE Jerusalem, which notes both these components: