Scripture
Judaism in the time of the New Testament was marked by its variety and vitality. Two major historical events at the close of the Old Testament period set the stage for subsequent centuries: the return of some of the Jewish exiles to the land of Israel and the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. While the Jewish people enjoyed a measure of religious freedom, external political domination (Persian, Greek, and Roman) characterized much of the next 500 years. The day-to-day struggles of life under foreign occupation in Judea exerted tremendous influence on the shape of religious attitudes and concerns in the postexilic period.
Scripture
Political turmoil and pressing spiritual challenges (idolatry, intermarriage, ritual purity) required attention. It is during this period that the Jewish community achieved some general consensus regarding which ancient writings should be considered authoritative - the Hebrew Bible, Christianity's Old Testament canon. At the beginning of the postexilic period the Mosaic law (Pentateuch) was already universally recognized. Later in the and century B.C. the Jewish scribe Jesus ben Sirach suggests that a collection he calls "the Prophets" - the composition of which he leaves undefined - is likewise suitable for "wisdom and instruction" (Sirach Prologue 7). Scholarly debate continues concerning the time of the eventual inclusion of the third component of the canon, the Writings. In any regard, its acceptance is not later than the council of Jamnia in A.D. 90.
Since for much of this period the book of Malachi was regarded the last writing that could claim prophetic inspiration, contemporary authors sought other ways to strengthen the authority of their message. They resorted to writing under the pseudonyms of heroes of the biblical past (e.g., Abraham, Enoch, Moses). This literature was marked by its interpretive freedom to reshape well-known biblical stories in order to address the specific challenges facing the Jewish nation in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Overall, it also often possessed a pronounced pessimism toward current events that in turn gave rise to apocalyptic speculation. The writers held out little hope that the course of history could be salvaged. Instead, they hoped God would intervene to re-create a new heaven and a new earth, devoid of sin and suffering.
Redemption
From the golden age of Israel's monarchy, political rule was understood to be the covenantal right of David's descendants (2 Sam. 7:16). During the postexilic period the limits of political power created a vacuum that was filled from necessity by the high priest. This shift toward political power-sharing may already be signaled in Zechariah's vision of the two olive trees (Zech. 4:1-14). The Jewish revolt (167-164 B.c.) against the Seleucids led by the Hasmoneans, a priestly family from Modiin, culminated in a dynasty of ruler-priests.
The traditional separation of powers between the political and cultic spheres prevented these priests at first from assuming the title "king" Soon, however, their inhibitions waned. Coins minted during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76) ascribed to him the title in Hebrew "Yehonathan the King" together with its Greek equivalent, "King Alexander" Josephus further reports that the father of Jannaeus, John Hyrcanus (134-104), was "thought worthy by God of three of the greatest things: government of his people, the priestly honor, and the gift of prophecy" (J. W. 13.299-300). Josephus's testimony is evidence of the first occasion in Jewish tradition that a single individual assumed the offices of "the three crowns" (prophet, priest, and king). This fusion of biblically distinct roles would later prove fertile ground for early Christian Christology.
The changes in political power likewise influenced Jewish ideas regarding the identity and future role of the hoped-for Redeemer. Both Jewish Pseudepigrapha (T. Levi 18:1-14; T. Jud. 17:5-6) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (CD 12:23;14:9; 20:1) suggest belief among some in two messiahs, one royal and one priestly. Nevertheless, while the assumption of political power by the Hasmonean priests may have proven a catalyst for belief in a priestly Messiah, disillusionment with their rule also revived renewed expressions of the traditional hope for a Davidic Messiah (Pss. Sol. 17:6, 21).
Temple
The temple played a central role in Jewish life during the New Testament period. The most prominent demonstrations of this were the annual pilgrimage feasts (Passover, Feast of Weeks, Tabernacles) centered at the temple and public participation in the sacrificial system. The annual temple tax - obligatory for all Jewish males, whether they lived in Judea or abroad - helped to unify the Jewish people. According to Josephus, "In no other town may there be an altar or a temple, because God is one and the Hebrew race is one" (Ant. 4.20). The influence of the temple was felt in daily life, especially in areas of ritual purity (Acts 21:26). Practices of ritual washing that earlier were limited to the temple precincts became expected custom elsewhere (Matt. 15:1-2). So important was the temple to Jewish spirituality that eschatological expectations were even defined in terms of hope for a heavenly temple "not made with hands" (4Q174 3:2-6; cf. Mark 14:58; Tob. 14:5).
Although scholarship has sometimes suggested intrinsic tension between the temple, with its Sadducean priesthood, and local synagogues, which served as the focal point for Pharisaic learning, there is no record of institutional incompatibility in the literary sources (cf. m.Abot1:2). Recent archaeological excavations in Jerusalem accord with the testimony of Jewish literature to numerous synagogues in Jerusalem (y. Meg. 3:1:73[d]). According to these sources, some were even within the temple precincts themselves. Moreover, 1st-century synagogues were oriented toward the temple in Jerusalem, as were public daily prayers.
Synagogue
Inscriptional evidence from mid-3rd century-B.c. Egypt suggests that the synagogue was already an established institution. The time and purpose of its origins are unknown. Rabbinic tradition reports that the exiled King Jehoiachin (2 Kgs. 24:10-15) took stones from the destroyed Solomonic temple to build synagogues for the community in Babylonian exile (b. Meg. 29a). The implication is that these served to replace the first temple, but we have no other literary or archaeological evidence to corroborate this notion.
Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament describe synagogues in 1st-century Judea and abroad (Embassy 132,156,311; Mark 1:21; Acts 14:1; 17:1). While prayer would become a focal point of Jewish gathering, we have no mention of corporate prayers in Jewish synagogues prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Instead, they served as venues for the Jewish community to meet, particularly for reading and teaching the Scriptures (Luke 4:16-20; Acts 13:15; m. Sotah 7:7-8; m. Yoma 7:1; Ant. 4.209; Good Person 81-82).
Jewish Sects
In his report about the Hasmonean period (164-40), Josephus first mentions three Jewish philosophic groups: the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes (Ant. 13.171-73). While other groups find mention in 1st-century witnesses, these parties represent the three broadly divergent streams of Jewish piety during the days of the Second Temple. The stark scarcity of our historical sources limits our certainty regarding both the date and circumstances surrounding the origins of each movement.
Baram synagogue in the Upper Galilee. (Wikimedia Commons)
Sadducees Of the three Jewish philosophies mentioned by Josephus, we know the least about the Sadducees. Indeed, we have not a single page penned by a Sadducean hand. Moreover, the reliability of what information we do have is tempered by the fact that it has come to us through the hands of their detractors. The Sadducees are first mentioned in the 2nd century B.C. According to uncertain rabbinical tradition (Abot R. Nat. 5), the name for the sect is derived from Zadok, a student of Antigonus of Socho, who taught: "Be not like servants who serve the master for condition of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master not upon condition of receiving a reward" (m. Abot 1:3). Zadok misunderstood this to suggest that there would be no eternal reward (resurrection). We hear elsewhere that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, nor the immortality of the soul (Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8; J. W. 2.162-63; Ant. 18.16). It is likely they founded their doctrine upon a very rigid, narrow reading of the Mosaic law. Unlike the Pharisees, who maintained the continuity of divine revelation in the literature of the Law, Prophets, Writings, and even later teachings (oral law) of Israel's sages, the Sadducees insisted that doctrine should be derived from the written Scriptures alone (Ant. 13.297;18.16).
A second tradition regarding the origin of the Sadducees is that they were descendants of another Zadok, the high priest in the time of David (2 Sam. 8:17) and Solomon (1 Kgs. 1:34ff.). In Ezekiel, the family of Zadok is entrusted with control of the temple (Ezek. 40:46; 43:19; 44:15). Regardless of the origin of the Sadducees, by the New Testament period they are closely identified with the temple establishment in Jerusalem. They were predominated by aristocratic priests who controlled the temple and the Sanhedrin. The longest family dynasty of high priests during the period of the Second Temple is that of the Sadducee Annas (Luke 3:2). It is his family that the New Testament identifies by name as the primary opponents of Jesus (Luke 19:47) and who are responsible for his transfer into Roman hands (John 18:13, 24; Luke 23:10). They also opposed Jesus' followers after his death and resurrection (Acts 4:6).
Essenes The Essenes in recent scholarship have been closely identified with the Qumran congregation. Among all the 1st-century Jewish sects, the reports about the Essenes in classical literature (Josephus, J. W. 2.119-61; Pliny, Natural History 5.73; cf. Philo, Contempl. Life 25) approximate most closely the doctrine and practices of the Dead Sea sect. For example, they advocated an extreme opinion regarding divine predeterminism: ". . . Fate is mistress of all things, and nothing befalls men unless it be in accordance with her decree" (Ant. 13.171). Although Josephus couches his report in Greek philosophical vocabulary that would have been familiar to his Roman readers, his portrayal of the Essene view of divine predeterminism mirrors the faith of the Dead Sea sect: "From the God of Knowledge comes all that is and shall be ... it is in accord with his glorious design that they accomplish their task without change" ('QS 3:15-16).
The Essenes shared all their possessions within a highly structured communal setting (J. W. 2.122; 1QS 6:18-23). Moreover, according to Josephus, they lived in strict observance of the Torah and were punctilious about ritual purity (J.W.2.129). Their uncompromising demands for doctrinal correctness put them at odds with the temple establishment (CD 6:11-13; 4:15-18; 5:6-7) and eventually resulted in their separation from the temple and the mainstream of Jewish religious life. These separatist tendencies were reinforced by a spiritual dualism that divided humanity into two camps ('QS 3:17-18) and led to an ethic of hatred toward those outside their movement: "that they may love all that he has chosen and hate all that he has rejected" ('QS 1:3-4; 9:21-22; cf. Matt. 5:43-44).
Pharisees The Pharisees are the Jewish group most frequently mentioned in the New Testament. Accounts of pointed exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees likely reflect the dialectical method of learning so indicative of the Pharisaic style of study. Josephus records that "the Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Law of Moses" (Ant. 13.297). His statement attests to their role in the development of the oral law - the interpretation and practical application of the written Scriptures. Jesus also speaks of this role and its authoritative place in Jewish society: "The Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses (the seat of instruction in the synagogue). Do what they say. . " (Matt. 23:2).
Josephus reports that in contrast to the harsh and sometimes precipitous rulings of the Sadducees, the Pharisees were more lenient in judgment (Ant. 13.294; 20.199). Indeed, it is within this stream of Jewish piety - reflected also in proto-Pharisaic Judaism and its successor, Rabbinic Judaism - that we hear increasing emphasis upon the intrinsic value of the human individual: "The world was created through a single man to teach that if any man has caused a single soul to perish, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish .." (m. Sanh. 4:5; cf. Matt. 12:6; Luke 6:9).
Likewise, we hear concern among the sages about the frailty of the human condition in bearing the sometimes difficult precepts of Scripture. For example, concerning the challenge of Sabbath observance the guiding was, "the Sabbath is given to you but you are not given to the Sabbath" (Mek. Exod. 31:14; cf. Mark 2:27). The scope and impulse of Pharisaic Judaism are epitomized in the threefold imperative enunciated by the men of the Great Synagogue: "Be humane in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a hedge for the Torah" (m. Abot 1:1).
R. STEVEN NOTLEY