Joshua Schwartz Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, Israel

Transcription

1 RBL 11/2012 Eckhardt, Benedikt, ed. Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity, and Rituals Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 155 Leiden: Brill, Pp. x Hardcover. $ ISBN Joshua Schwartz Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, Israel This volume is based on papers read at a conference on Groups, Normativity, and Rituals: Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba held at the University of Münster on November 2009 and organized by the editor and Clemens Leonhard. It contains papers of eleven of the thirteen participants (Albert I. Baumgarten, Ritual Difference: When Does it Make a Difference and Why? and Folker Siegert, Ideologie des Verschweigens im 1.Makkabäerbuch, did not submit their papers for publication). The book begins with an introduction by the editor. The introduction ( Introduction: Yet Another Book on Jewish Identity in Antiquity ) correctly points out that Jewish identity has become of late a very hot topic and has been studied extensively in relation to almost every possible aspect of what might be connected to identity. Thus, the editor has to make a case for yet another such volume (and conference). This might be an especially serious problem, since in spite of all these studies there is not even an agreedupon definition of what identity comprises. When all is said and done, the editor states that the volume contains specialized studies and not abstract models, and these specialized studies on Jewish identity to a great extent should correlate with politics. Since it is also not clear what is meant by politics, three keywords, groups, normativity,

2 and rituals, were adduced to pre-structure the observations. To be perfectly honest, I am not exactly clear what all this really means, notwithstanding the continuation of the explanations in the introduction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with publishing a conference volume of specialized studies relating, even loosely, to Jewish identity. It is doubtful that anyone reading the studies, in toto or in part, will remember how all this jibes with the attempt at theory in this introduction. Following the introduction are the eleven studies that make up the volume, each one connected in this or that fashion to matters of identity and politics or to one of the other keywords or concepts groups, normativity, and rituals. The first two studies relate to biblical traditions from which contemporary models could be adduced. David Goodblatt ( Varieties of Identity in Late Second Temple Judah 200 B.C.E. 135 C.E. ) focuses on biblical terminology for contemporary self-designation, and Arie van der Kooij ( The Claim of Maccabean Leadership and the Use of Scripture ) investigates the use of Bible translations for legitimizing Maccabean leadership. The next two articles deal with issues of self-definitions and othering, especially purity and impurity, which pervade the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jodi Magness ( Toilet Practices, Purity Concerns, and Sectarianism in the Late Second Temple Period ) analyzes toilet practices of the Dead Sea sect and their theoretical foundations, 1 and Hannah Harrington ( Identity and Alterity in the Dead Sea Scrolls ) discusses insider-outsider relations in the Damascus Document and the Community Rule. The next study is that of the editor, Benedikt Eckhardt ( An Idumean, That Is, Half-Jew : Hasmoneans and Herodians between Ancestry and Merit ). Eckhardt reviews the history of the Idumeans, the Hasmoneans, and circumcision and then postulates a historical connection between Hasmonean ideology of rule and circumcision. When leadership is redefined, as in the case of the rise of Herod, criteria for membership in the house of Israel changes, as observed in the case of Herod the half Jew. Adam Marshak ( Rise of the Idumeans: Ethnicity and Politics in Herod s Judea ) and Linda-Marie Günther ( Die Hasmonäerin Alexandra Integrationsfigur für den Widerstand gegen den neuen König Herodes? ) study Idumeanism at work in Judean contexts and the way power politics in the first century B.C.E. actually functioned. Julia Wilker ( God Is with Italy now : Pro- Roman Jews and the Jewish Revolt ) studies the Romanization of Jewish identity, using narratives in Josephus to identify the sociological profile and self-understanding of groups loyal to Rome during the War of Destruction (66 C.E. 70 C.E.). 1. This study appears as chapter 10 ( Toilets and Toilet Habits ) in Jodi Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Tome of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), See in general Joshua Schwartz, review of Jodi Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus, H- Judaic, H-Net Reviews (September, 2011); online:

3 The work continues with Clemens Leonhard ( Herod s Days and the Development of Jewish and Christian Festivals ), taking the enigmatic dies Herodis as a test case and discussing the question of political influence on the celebration of feasts. Günther Stemberger ( Forbidden Gentile Food in Early Rabbinic Writings ) and Korbinian Spann ( The Meaning of Circumcision for Strangers in Rabbinic Literature ) discuss aspects of the reconstruction of Judaism after 70 or 135 C.E. Food and circumcision are of relevance because of their political significance in the period before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 C.E. The individual articles are generally of a very high level and excellent. Obviously, it is not possible to discuss each and every study, and we shall make do with brief discussions of two of the articles. Adam Marshak examines the royal court in Judea during the time of John Hyrcanus II and of Herod the Great in terms of power struggles of Idumean nobles. While these power struggles may have raged for years in local Idumean context, they were new to the national stage of the Judean royal court. 2 In the case of John Hyrcanus II, two Idumean factions, the Antipatrid, named after Antipas grandfather of Herod, and the Malichean, founded by Malichos of Idumean- Nabatean extraction, vied for power at the court of John Hyrcanus II, and he attempted to play one faction against the other. In the struggle between John Hyrcanus and his brother Aristobulus II, Marshak hypothesizes that Hyrcanus enjoyed the support of Idumeans nobles while his brother may have depended on Judean Sadducees for his support. The Antipatrids apparently managed to destroy all of their rivals, whether Malichean or the old Hasmonean aristocracy. Apparently, though, not all Idumean factions were happy with the turn of events in both Idumea and Judea. While the Idumean noble Kostobaros might have been the husband of Salome, Herod s sister, he sought to detach Idumea from the Judean kingdom, to renounce the Idumean conversion to Judaism, and to return to the old Idumean ancestral practices. His family, after all, had been priests of the Idumean god Qos, as indicated also by his theophoric name. Kostobaros tried to make use of every possible connection and option, such as Idumean Hasmonean relatives ( Sons of Baba ) or even Cleopatra, and, surprisingly, Herod tried to find a modus vivendi for co-existence with him, such as marrying his sister to him, but the realities of politics and intrigues proved too great, and Herod had no recourse but to utilize the trusted means of quashing opposition: he eliminated Kostobaros and his 2. See, in general, Adam Kolman Marshak, Herod the Great and the Power of Image: Political Self- Presentation in the Herodian Dynasty (Ph.D. diss., Yale 2008).

4 associates. While Marshak is certainly not the first to discuss the Idumeans in Judean politics, and while there is much unproven hypothesis in his reconstructions, his interpretation of the accounts in Josephus on these matters is fascinating. Sometimes the periphery becomes the center. Julia Wilker discusses pro-roman Jews, members of the peace party in Jerusalem, turncoats, uprising holdouts, and other types of Jews who opposed the rebellion against Roman rule that broke out in 66 C.E. Apparently not all Jews believed that the events of the first century C.E., as well as Roman and Jewish policy, had to lead to a collision course between Rome and Jerusalem, and even if events were proceeding in this direction, these Jews believed that upheaval and revolt were bad for the Jews in general (and certainly for them in particular). Who supported the Romans? The first group that Wilker discusses are the Herodians and their followers. 3 This is certainly no surprise. Pro-Roman sentiments were part of their heritage. They had long maintained close ties with the imperial elite and had greatly benefited from these ties. Agrippa II and his family had every reason to try and convince the Jews to refrain from taking drastic steps. This, however, did not mean that he and his supporters would not take such drastic steps as actively supporting the Romans in the revolt or even joining Roman forces. As far as the insurgents were concerned, they were no different from the Roman, yet the Herodians continued to consider themselves to be Jews and did not see Jewish identity as being based on support of the revolt. One could almost describe their outlook as Diasporean in nature, foreseeing the need to develop a Judaism that relied less and less on the temple cult. 4 To some extent there was also a peace party in Jerusalem. Obviously this comprised Herodians there, but also other members of the upper class, including some upper-class priests. They were clearly a minority, but, as Wilker points out, the general population in Jerusalem became radical supporters of the revolt only over the course of time. Most supporters of Rome left the city when they could. There were apparently more upper-class Jewish supporters of Rome in both Tiberias and Sepphoris. They had everything to lose by joining the revolt and nothing to gain; they 3. See in detail Julia Wilker, Für Rom und Jerusalem: Die herodianische Dynastie im 1. Jahrhundert n.chr. (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike, 2007). 4. See M. Tuval, Doing without the Temple: Paradigms in Judaic Literature of the Diaspora, in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple (ed. D. R. Schwartz and Z. Weiss, in collaboration with R. A. Clements; Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 78; Leiden: Brill, 2012),

5 probably assumed they could weather what they hoped would be a brief storm. They were mistaken, and in the case of a long-term disturbance many were, it seems, in a lose-lose situation. The Jewish residents of Scythopolis-Beth Shean found this out only too quickly when, in spite of their willingness to join their pagan neighbors in the defense of their city against an attack by Jewish rebels, they were slaughtered by these neighbors, who seemed to distrust the Jews of Scythopolis, their political sentiments notwithstanding. Jewish opposition to the uprising and/or active participation in the revolt was apparently more widespread than assumed. While many of those who supported Rome were local (Jewish) elites, others joined them, and they, like the elites, sought to protect their own interests and way of life, be it economic, social, political, or cultural. Self-interest was apparently thicker than blood in these instances. During the course of the revolt the ranks of Roman supporters grew as defectors realized the futility of the insurgency. Was it worth it to support the Romans? No one would argue that the results of the revolt were not catastrophic for the Jews of Palestine. There are even those who would argue that the Romans under Vespasian were trying to destroy Judaism as they understood it. 5 It is hard to imagine that this is what the Jewish supporters of Rome wanted or expected, but this is apparently what they got. We make do with our comments on these two studies. All of the articles warrant discussion and attention. The book is well worth reading, not only by those who study Jewish identity in the ancient world but also by all who are interested in Second Temple times and the Mishnah and Talmud periods. 5. James Rives, Flavian Religious Policy and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, in Flavian Josephus and Flavian Rome (ed. J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), ; and idem, Religion in the Roman Empire (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2007). According to Rives, the Romans understood religion as public ritual (i.e., the Jerusalem temple cult), and everything else was just mores.