Reflecting on Judaism

    A comment, published in the Jerusalem Post Magazine, is the cornerstone of the accepted version of Jewish history. Many Jewish historians do not accept this version but it refuses to go away. Some years ago I wrote two essays on the subject which I have now combined into one, and now set it out below for your interest. Realising that it would be controversial, I sent it to a friend, whose nephew is an orthodox rabbi, leading a large community in North America. The rabbi is also a university graduate. I asked for his comments before publishing because he is known for plain speaking. Dr. Ellis Rivkin whom he mentions in his reply is one of the historians I quote in my essay.

This is the rabbi’s reply.

    "I have now had time to read this very interesting article. I’m not sure if you are aware that my major for my M.A. was Ancient and Medieval Jewish history, with a leaning toward the rise of Rabbinic Judaism. What Woolf Abrahams writes is very accurate and widely accepted in academic circles. Dr Ellis Rivkin was a brilliant scholar. Raised as an Orthodox Jew he carved his own way in Judaism. Because of his extensive knowledge he had the ability to stand up to the establishment and say the way it was, proving his theories time after time. Most academics both within and outside of Judaism hold him in great esteem. The question for you to ponder is how open are you to academic research that flies in the face of what the establishment had taught for generations?"

Jewish History rewritten. In the Jerusalem Post magazine dated March 25th 2011, the editor published a reply from Jonathan Rosenblum to a letter from a Mr. J.J. Cross in which R0senblum says “I would only note that the Torah proper includes both the written Torah and the oral Torah without which much of the former cannot be understood.”  This belief is often repeated by rabbis and only a few years ago, an article by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, published in the Jewish Chronicle, discusses this belief with regard to the differences between the Sadducees (the priests) and Pharisees (the rabbis) and their respective approach to Judaism. He made a number of points which I now summarise. He wrote: - both groups valued Torah. Both cherished the land of Israel. The Pharisees believed in the oral law; the Sadducees did not. The Sadducees interpreted the words of the Torah literally. The Pharisees relied on ancient tradition to teach that since there were gaps and ambiguities in the written text, the written text was not always to be taken literally. From the outset it had been supplemented by a set of unwritten traditions, passed down from teacher to disciple, since the days of Moses.

    For the Pharisees, Jews were the people of the Torah. For the Sadducees they were the people of the land and of the State of Israel. To be sure, their differences were a matter of emphasis rather than exclusion. The Sadducees dominated the priesthood and controlled most of the positions of political power. For the Pharisees, Jewish life rested on quite different institutions—the Synagogue, the School and the Bet Medrish, the house of study.

The Sadducees disappeared, almost without trace. They had made their wager and lost. Had it not been for the Pharisees, their belief in the oral law and their dedication to Torah, there would be no Jewish people today.

    According to many Jewish historians, Jonathan Rosenblum’s comment and Chief Rabbi Sack’s article are both incorrect and raise a number or questions. The facts are that both the Sadducees and the Pharisees were Jewish Sects active in Israel during the two centuries around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. Chief Rabbi Hertz observed that the Sadducees were strongly connected to the Priests, who were descendants of the House of Zadok, which anointed Solomon as King. They have a very long antecedence.

What was the antecedence of the Pharisees? In his book ‘The Three Crowns’, Prof. Stuart Cohen of Bar Ilan University, discusses the Centres of Power and Authority in Israel before the destruction of the Second Temple. He suggested that there were three such Centres; the Malchut Authority; The State, which was exercised by the Kings of Israel, the even older Priestly Authority derived from Moses at Sinai. I understand the theme of his book to be that the Third Crown belonged to the Pharisees (the rabbis) who took the opportunity to usurp the authority of the other two during the troubled period through which they lived, around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple.

In his book ‘The Ancient Jewish Mysticism’, Prof. Joseph Dan of the Hebrew University discusses the end of the Second Temple era and the era shortly thereafter. He wrote. ‘In this short period of time, in a backwood corner of a single Roman province, religious ferment took place which gave birth to Rabbinical Judaism, Christianity and Gnosticism, and the concepts and feelings which were born during that period shaped human culture for a very long time thereafter”.

Neither of these two professors, and they are not alone, credit the Rabbinate with a long antecedence. The Rabbinate does not accept this assessment of themselves. They set out their entitlement to their authority in Mishnah, Avot’ 1 which starts, ‘Moses received the Torah at Sinai and handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly.

But Deut. XXX1, verse 7 states “And Moses called unto Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel: ‘be strong and of good courage; for thou shalt go with this people into the land which the Lord hath sworn unto their fathers to give them; and thou shalt cause them to inherit it.’  Verse 9 states ‘And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, that bore the ark of covenant of the Lord, and unto all the Elders of Israel’”     From these quotations, taken directly from the Torah, we learn that Avot 1 does not report the true sequence of events, as Prof. Stuart Cohen implied in his book. We see that Moses did not hand down the tradition to Joshua for Joshua was appointed only as the leader of the people. The tradition was handed down directly by Moses to both the Priests (the Kohanim) and to the Elders – but not through Joshua. Why does the Avot 1 not report these clearly documented facts correctly?

In his commentary to the Chumash, (page 826) the late Chief Rabbi Hertz wrote, “Modern writers seldom do justice to the priesthood. They exalt the Prophet, and almost invariably depreciate the priest. The priest’s indispensable function was to conserve the spiritual discoveries of the past by means of religious institutions.” The prophets were not part of the chain of transmission of the Torah. Why are they mentioned as such in Avot 1?

    The Great Assembly, to which Avot 1 refers, dates back only to the time of Ezra, a Cohen, a scribe and a descendant of Zadok. (circa 460 BCE). It was the Priests, (the Sadducees) of whom Ezra was one, who were the conduit in the chain of transmission, as stated by Chief Rabbi Hertz. This fact is also acknowledged by Chief Rabbi Sacks in his book ‘Will we have Jewish Grandchildren’ (page 42) where he writes about Ezra and says ‘’A group of Levites acted as instructors to the people, reading from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving meaning so that people could understand what was being read’. There were far too few prophets to have acted as part of the conduit for the tradition.

    It has been shown that the Sadducees had a very long antecedence going back through to the early Priesthood, via the era of Ezra the Priest, to Zadok the Priest, a descendant of Eleazar son of Aaron, a period of some 1300 years. The antecedence of the Rabbinate goes back no further than the Men of the Great Assembly; a period of some 200/300 years and probably not even that far.

    It is therefore difficult to accept without reservation the statement by Chief Rabbi Sacks that the Sadducees (Priests) believed in no Oral Law. During the course of those 1300 years, from the time of the Exodus to the destruction of the Second Temple they transmitted the tradition, and an Oral Law, but different from the Oral Law subsequently developed by the Pharisees. It is said that the Sadducees held to a strict interpretation of the Torah whilst the Pharisees were more lenient. This enabled them to formulate biblical precepts with greater detail as well as to apply the Torah to varied and changing economic, social and political circumstances. The Rabbis (The Pharisees) represented a revolt against the establishment and won. Although at the time they could not have known of the forthcoming destruction of the Second Temple, it might well be that their interpretation of the written Law preserved Judaism during its period in exile. But this does not mean that their interpretation is an Oral Law from Sinai.

When the first essay was completed I sent it to a number of Rabbis asking for their comments. Only three responded. The first suggested that I have misunderstood the history of the period, without explaining why, and recommended that I do some further reading. The second commented on one or two aspects of it, discussed below, and he too ended his letter by suggesting that I read more. The third agreed with many of my thoughts and loaned me a book, ‘A hidden Revolution’ which discusses, at length, ‘The Pharisees’. I followed their suggestion and précis below, as faithfully as I can the results of my research.

      In my first essay I tried to show that the Pharisees, (the rabbis) in establishing their authority, deliberately did not report past events accurately. We are taught that Torah truths are eternal and are relevant for every generation. The Torah states that the Law was handed over directly by Moses to the Priests. This Law was taught and explained by the Priests throughout the ages, certainly down to the period of Ezra and beyond. The Pharisees must have been aware of these facts but virtually wrote the Priests out of our history. Generations of Rabbis must have been aware of the correct facts but repeat the incorrect version.

     Chief Rabbi Sacks also stated that without the teaching of the Talmud, a product of the Pharisees, there might well be no Jewish people in existence today. I acknowledge that this might well be so. But Jewish survival is not the subject under discussion. What we are discussing is whether the Oral Law of the Pharisees is more authoritative than that of the Sadducees. As my research shows, we may now confidently say that it is not.

Précis extract of “Sects in Judaism” by the Rev. Reuben S. Brooks, past director of the Birmingham Hebrew Congregation. He quotes the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius (37-100 CE) as saying that the Pharisee party came into existence either circa, 160 BCE or circa. 134 BCE and suggests that they introduced into normative Judaism, certain beliefs based upon apocalyptic visions only hinted at in the Hebrew Scriptures (see Graetz below). They also added new restrictions to the Biblical law in order to keep the people at a safe distance from forbidden ground, thus making a fence around the Law. These new restrictions do not constitute receiving an Oral Law at Sinai.  

Précis extract of  ‘ Hillel the Elder’ by Nahum N. Glatzer. Prof. Glatzer states that since the period of the Maccabean struggle, circa 168 BCE, the Jews in Israel were divided into two major groups; the Pharisaic (rabbinic) and the Sadducean (priestly). While the Pharisee’s tradition can be traced back, at the earliest, to the period of Alexander the Great, (356-323 BCE,) the Sadducees probably derived from the Solomonic Chief Priest Zadok.

    Hillel, whom Glatzer described as the greatest sage of the 2nd Temple period (70 BCE- 10 CE), came from Babylon, and rose to the position of central leadership of the religious and communal life of Judea. When he died his disciples said of him “The Hasid (Hillel) the humble man, the disciple of Ezra is no more.’ This would imply that Hillel the Pharisee (the rabbi) was following Ezra’s (The Sadducee’s) teachings and their Oral Law.

    Précis extract of ‘The Parting of the Ways’ by the Rev. Dr. A. Cohen, editor of the Soncino Chumash.  He writes that in connection with the religious composition of the Jewish community during the period under consideration, the sources of information for the first three hundred years (circa 500-200 BCE) are almost non-existent. As far as it is possible to judge, the Jewish people remained a homogeneous religious body until the time of the Maccabean war. This does not mean that all agreed on every detail of creed and practice. The first rift made its appearance circa 175 BCE as the aftermath of the crisis which resulted from the attempt by Antiochus to merge Judea completely into the Syrian Empire and obliterate the distinctiveness of the Jews by suppression of their religion.  The rift grew wider until two distinct parties were formed to support different viewpoints; the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Dr. Cohen goes on to say that often these are described as ‘Sects’ in Judaism but they alike paid allegiance to the Temple and the Mosaic Code and both observed fundamental Jewish rites and holy occasions.

From Dr. Cohen’s statements it can be assumed that until the rift occurred, both the Pharisees and the Sadducees observed the same Oral tradition. Dr. Cohen heaps praise upon Ezra. When Israel had forgotten the Torah, Ezra came up from Babylon and restored it. He wrote, ‘Traditionally, the Priests were the teachers in matters of ritual’.  Ezra also established the Keneset Ha’ Gedolah, the Great Assembly, and some of the ordinances ascribed to it in the Talmud may be due to a tendency to attach antiquity to religious laws and practices which in fact were not as ancient as claimed

    Précis extract of ‘ Popular history of the Jews’ by Graetz suggests that the Judeans borrowed some beliefs from the Babylonians and succumbed easily to their influence. They believed it would be to the glory of God if He were surrounded, after Iranian fashion, by myriads of beings ready to carry out His will and desires, i.e. angels. The Judeans also borrowed their reprehensible demonology i.e. Satan. A new concept of reward and punishment after death, and the belief in future resurrection of the dead also developed in Judaism as a result of this Babylonian influence.  In later years the Pharisees made these beliefs Articles of Faith and part of the Oral Law which the Sadducees would not accept. It became a bone of contention between them but which Oral Law must be the more authentic?  

    Graetz shows that Hillel the Great made no claim that the Pharisees’ Oral Law dated back to Sinai. Hillel also paved the way for reconciliation between the Pharisees and Sadducees by admitting the Sadducees’ principle that no law is valid unless it appears to be based upon the Written Law. He then weakened this principle by saying that this basis need not be looked for in ‘the dead letter‘ but in the general spirit of the text and he formulated seven principles by which this can be done. Graetz points out that Hillel enriched the Oral Law which his Pharisee teachers taught him, by referring back to the ancient traditions which he had brought with him from Babylon; i.e. pre Pharisee traditions.           

    Graetz also suggests that alongside the Written Law, customs and usages came into vogue, the origins of which were lost in obscurity. If a certain religious custom could not be derived explicitly from the letter of the Law, it was made to point back to some great teacher or to the Men of the Great Assembly. Graetz does not minimize the importance of these developments but he recognized them for what they were and for what they achieved in preserving Judaism. They do not however, constitute an Oral Law stretching back to Sinai.

    Précis extract of ‘A hidden revolution’ by Professor Dr. Ellis Rivkin. This book proved to be the most disturbing, the most radical, the most controversial and the most interesting of all the books that I have read on the subject. For this reason it would be proper to give some account of the author before reporting on his writings.

    Dr. Rivkin was a professor of Jewish history when the book was published in 1978.He received his Doctorate from the Johns Hopkins University and received an Honorary Doctorate from the Baltimore Hebrew College. In researching the book he applied, he said, the clarity of analysis which he learned from his teachers whom he much admired. He was brought up in a family in which he, his parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts lived the life of the ‘twofold law’ (oral and written) and which he totally embraced. It is in the light of this background that I found his statements so unexpected. In his book ‘The hidden revolution’, he sets out to show that the Pharisees took away the leadership of the Jewish People from its’ rightful owners, i.e. the High Priests. By detailed analysis of contemporary writings he discusses, the who, when, why and how.

    Who were the Pharisees? He describes them as a ‘Revolutionary Scholar Class’ who introduced the ‘twofold’ law to which the Sadducees objected so strongly. Their name probably means ‘those who separated themselves’ from the ordinary people because of their strict observance of the laws of purity.

    When did they arrive on the scene?  Dr. Rivkin can find no mention of them before, circa 185 BCE nor could he find any reference whatsoever to an Oral Law before that date. He refers to Ben Sira’s wisdom book ‘Ecclesiasticus’ written circa 280 or 180 BCE which makes no mention of such an Oral Law nor of the Pharisees but which projects a society constructed by the priests on the foundation of a single Written Law.

    Why did they take the Priests’ authority? Dr. Rivkin gives two reasons. The first is that at the time the priesthood had become corrupt. Both Jason and then Menelaus were improperly appointed as High Priests although neither was eligible. Secondly, the Written Law was bogged down in a commitment to immutable laws administered by a priestly class which was tied to preserving the interests of only the priests and peasants. It was not geared to the fast-paced urbanisation and commercialisation which was then developing. People became frustrated and the time for revolution had arrived. The Pharisees were there and took their opportunity to seize power.

    How did they seize power? Dr. Rivkin gives several reasons of which I will mention just three. (a) They showed that perhaps the ultimate authority did not lie with the priesthood. (b) There were various ambiguities in the Torah, which enabled them to draw their own inferences. (c) They introduced their grand achievement as an Article of Faith i.e. the concept of individual eternal life, a concept that the majority wanted to believe. These were all new concepts.

    I have read several other books on the subject and they all follow in similar vein. I believe that I have established, prima facie, the fact that an oral tradition of the Sadducees existed and is far older than that of the Pharisees. It is now for our Rabbis to explain why they consider the Oral Law of the Pharisees to be the more authentic. It might be, as the Chief Rabbi said, that had we not followed the Oral Law of the Pharisees there would be no Jewish people today. But I repeat that this is not the subject under consideration.  

I believe that I now understand what may disturb the rabbis. Could it be that such facts undermine the authority of the Rabbinate, whose Oral Law many now follow? Do they fear their teachings might be undermined by such research?

    I now revert to the comments made by the second rabbi referred to in the first paragraph of this essay.. He said that the reason for the rabbis taking the authority away from the Priests was because they had become unworthy to retain it. This in itself is an admission that it had originally rested with them. I replied that this was not sufficient reason for virtually writing the Priests out of our history as the rabbis have done. Graetz goes even further and quotes from Ben Sira’s wisdom poem ‘Ecclesiasticus’. In Ben Sira’s time a question was raised as to whether the high priesthood had to remain hereditary. Ben Sira wrote that God had selected the house of Aaron as a sacred family, just as He had appointed a certain house as His sanctuary, and just as He had distinguished certain days as holy festivals; and man in his imprudence, dare not change this order of things. Surely the Pharisees should have applied the same principle to the priest’s position within Judaism.

    If you are not yet convinced that the rabbis do not have the authority for their Oral Law, which they claim reaches back to Sinai, I submit another piece of evidence, not from the rabbis, nor from academics, but from the bible itself. Some 700 years after Sinai, circa 600 BCE, the prophet Ezekiel wrote; (Ezekiel Chapter 19 v 15), ‘But the Priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok  (hence the name Sadducees), that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister unto Me’. No mention of Rabbis or Pharisees or anything to show that they were on the scene at the time. Only Priests i.e. the Sadducees.

    Jewish History should not be rewritten.