Wacholder's Messianism and Mishnah

I read (or actually reread) Ben Zion Wacholder's Messianism and Mishnah. Wacholder summarizes his argument on pages 34-35:

"As I see them, the mishnaic allusions to priestly and levitical privileges, the sacrificial cult in the Temple, as well as the rules of purity and pollution, refer, unless otherwise indicated, to Halakhah of the First Temple which will be reinstated in the Third Temple, but which does not necessarily describe practice in the Second. Rabbi Judah Hanasi transmits how the Halakhah governs Jewish life at its optimal, not in a period in which institutions such as the jubilee, the Hebrew slave, the nazirite, priestly and walled cities, are in abeyance. Moreover, a situation in which certain commandments had fallen into desuetude may have suggested to the early rabbis that the observance of other commandments was halakhically imperfect as well...The redactors of the Mishnah presume a time when the Land of Israel extends from the Euphrates to the 'River of Egypt,' when all twelve tribes are settled in the Holy Land, when the Davidic dynasty reigns in Jerusalem, when the priests are of unblemished pedigree and observe the rules of purity to the highest degree."

Wacholder's point is that many of the Mishnah's laws were intended to be for the Messianic Period, since they cover many topics that were irrelevant to the time of the Second Temple. Elsewhere in this booklet, Wacholder talks about rabbinic debates over whether the Second Temple was even sacred---since it lacked the Ark of the Covenant, the fire, and the Urim and Thummim---or if it were merely constructed for symbolic purposes, i.e., remembrance of the First Temple (pages 29-30).

For Wacholder, this insight accounts for certain details of the Mishnah, such as the similarity of the Temple in the Mishnah to the Temple of Ezekiel 40-48, especially in terms of dimensions (cp. Mishnah Middot 2:1 and Ezekiel 42:15-20), rather than the Second Temple, or the Temple of Herod (which was an expansion of the Second Temple). For Wacholder, the rabbis experienced the past and gained a foretaste of the World to Come when they talked about halakhah, even if the halakhah they were discussing was not always applicable to their day and age.

A lot of this makes sense to me. But I was confused by some things that Wacholder was saying. For example, on page 22, he talks about a rule in Avodah Zarah that states that Jews shall have no social or economic interaction with a pagan three days before an idolatrous feast. Wacholder believes that this was a rule for the time of the rabbis, but also that it was saying how things were in the days of King David, and how they would be again under the Messiah. But does that mean that idolatry will be tolerated in the times of the Messiah---that people will be engaging in idolatrous feasts?

I think that the rabbis believed that Jews were required, or encouraged, to observe certain halakhot, even though the observance would be imperfect. For example, I remember reading in Leviticus Rabbah that a Jew who keeps the Sabbatical year is a gibbor, a mighty man---especially since allowing his land to lie fallow would be difficult in a time period that had heavy Roman taxes!

James Arness

Many of you know that James Arness has passed on. Arness played Sheriff Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke, which was on television for twenty years. As I look at wikipedia, I see that so many of the other main actors on the series have died: Miss Kitty, Doc, Chester, and Festus. But Newly is still alive, and I was just reminded that Burt Reynolds was also on the series!

I have nostalgia about Gunsmoke. I'd remember watching it on sunny weekend afternoons with my Dad. There were also times when my Dad and I would watch it in the late afternoon, after he came home from work. It was on TV Land and the Western Channel---but, unfortunately, both only showed a limited number of episodes. My Dad and I liked this one episode in which there was a liberal advocate for prisoners, and she was trying to convert Matt to her cause on a train, as Matt was supervising someone he captured. Doc philosophized with her, but Matt simply said, "You're talking to the wrong man, maam. My job's just to bring them in!"

I admired Sheriff Dillon's tough-but-fair approach to the law. I vaguely recall him saying to someone who learned the error of his ways: "Usually, it's someone who knows what he did wrong who knows how to fix the situation" (or words to that effect). Matt struck me as someone who carried himself with confidence, but without vanity---and that's why I was disappointed to watch a 1980's Gunsmoke movie in which he dyed his hair black, even though he was old. That looked ugly! I would have preferred him playing an older, grayer Sheriff Dillon!

In any case, R.I.P. James Arness!

Psalm 27

For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 27 and its interpreters. I have four items:

1. I like Peter Craigie's comments on page 232 of his Word Biblical Commentary on Psalms 1-50. Craigie states that the Psalm "refers...to living permanently in God's presence; such a life was regularly punctuated by actual visits to the temple..." Craigie continues: "It was deliverance from military threats that would make possible the permanent dwelling in God's house; and it was faith in God, renewed in his house, that contributed to fearlessness in the face of military threats."

I can not imagine being in the midst of military threats, and I am not sure if my faith in God would give me the composure that I'd need in that kind of situation! I have intense worries about lesser things than military battle, even though I believe in God! But I will admit that being in God's presence---at an encouraging church, or in prayer, or at a recovery meeting, or among those who love me---can give me the strength to get through life. I'm reminded in those settings that life is about more than my successes and failures, and that there are people (including God) who care about me. But I especially appreciate the times when I can worship God after a tough situation---such as taking a test that I may or may not have passed. For me, it's a small-scale version of the Israelites worshiping God after their Exodus from Egypt! When I am distressed, I am certainly drawn to God; but I also enjoy relishing God when I am in a state of relaxation, after the passing of trial.

2. I talked above about how community can bring encouragement to a person. But the Psalmist makes an important point in v 10: that God will gather him up even though the Psalmist is forsaken by his very own parents. Joel Osteen appealed to his verse when he said that, even if everyone on the face of the earth dislikes us, we can still have assurance that God loves us. Although I have not arrived at the point where everyone dislikes me, this verse has given me comfort.

This verse has given some people difficulties, however, because they wonder when exactly David was forsaken by his parents. Some have said that this verse concerns children leaving their parents after adolescence to go out on their own. One Jewish interpretation applies v 10 to David's parents having sex in an irregular fashion, meaning that David's very conception was unusual and miraculous.

Then there was an article by scholar Shalom Paul, which I read in the October 1, 1982 Vetus Testamentum. Paul compares Psalm 27 to the Babylonian Theodicy, and he notices that the Theodicy talks about a man who has become an orphan. But Psalm 27 goes beyond the Theodicy, Paul argues, in its assertion that God will take care of the orphan. Whether God does that or not is difficult to determine: Exodus 22:22-24 presents God punishing those who oppress orphans, but that doesn't necessarily insure that the orphans are living a decent life. God's approach in the Torah appears to be to create a just society in which orphans will not fall through the cracks. And yet, the Psalmist still decided to have hope that God would protect orphans. It doesn't hurt to hope!

3. The Masoretic Text of Psalm 27:8 states (in my translation): "To you (2ms) my heart said, 'seek (2mp) my face'; your face, LORD, I will seek." This is an odd verse. So the Psalmist's heart is telling God (who is addressed in the plural) to seek his (the Psalmist's) face, right before the Psalmist affirms his own intention to seek God's face? That doesn't make much sense!

Consequently, it's no surprise that the King James Version emends the text to read, "When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." The Septuagint that is on my BibleWorks doesn't make much more sense than the Masoretic, for it states: "My heart said to you, 'He sought my face'; your face, Lord, I will seek." But Peter Craigie refers to a Septuagint version that has, "My heart said to you, 'I have sought your face'; your face, Lord, I will seek", and Augustine interacts with this particular reading. This version makes more sense, for, here, the Psalmist is affirming and reaffirming his seeking of God's face. But Peter Craigie's conclusion is that the "variety of renditions in the versions indicates the possibility that the original text was corrupt at an early stage..."

This is a legitimate text critical conclusion. But religious Jewish interpreters have derived theological points from the Masoretic Text as it stands, with all its difficulty. One interpretation of Psalm 27:8 that I found was this: David is speaking for God when he exhorts Israel to seek God's face. That means that David is speaking from his own heart, but his words are the words of God for Israel. Rashi sees the concept of human beings representing God in Job 13:8 and 33:6.

Another interpretation, which is in the Orthodox Jewish Artscroll, is that God has placed in the Jews' heart the desire to seek God's face. The Psalmist, therefore, is praying God's words, which God has placed in his heart. God has placed in his heart the exhortation to all Israel to seek God's face.

There are things that I dislike and things that I like about this interpretation. What I dislike is that it reminds me of Calvinism: Calvinists have sought to reassure people that they are part of God's elect by telling them that the very fact that they are seeking God is evidence that they belong to God, for they would not have a desire to seek God had God not placed that desire within their heart. Personally, I don't desperately seek assurance that I am saved or that God loves me. I just assume that he does. If my assurance is based on my emotions about God---or whether I am seeking God appropriately---then it is resting on a pretty un-sturdy foundation, for I don't feel good about God all of the time, nor do I seek God consistently (or at least I don't seek him in the manner that some Christians think I should). Plus, my problem with Calvinism is that it depicts God drawing some people to himself, but not others, as if those other people are pieces of garbage. Is that what I should be seeking?

But I have liked the concept that God has placed in every human being the desire to seek him, as long as such an insight is not used to dismiss the views of atheists in a condescending manner, as some Christians have done when they have said, "Those atheists really believe there is a God, since God has put in every heart the desire to seek him, and so their atheism must be rooted in their sinful rebellion." Not trying to understand, or at least respect, where people are coming from obviates bridges from being built.

I remember a sermon that one person gave in an Armstrongite church that I used to attend. This guy was not exactly a powerful preacher, but he made a powerful point. He talked about a period in his life when he was backsliding from God, as he hung out at Hooter's, or did things just as bad (which I could not picture, since this guy wasn't exactly Mr. Cool!). But, eventually, he listened to a voice inside of him that said, "I love you", and he decided to follow that voice. He encouraged us to do the same. I appreciate the idea that God is always there---inside of us---reminding us of his love.

4. Psalm 27:13 is another verse that has baffled readers! The verse states (in my translation): "If I did not (Hebrew---lule) believe to see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living." But the verse does not complete that thought! What would have happened had the Psalmist not had faith that he would see the LORD's goodness in the land of the living?

Consequently, translations have supplied some words. The King James Version has, "I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living." The New American Standard Version has, "I would have despaired unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living." The Septuagint lacks the troublesome lule, however, and so it reads, "I believe to see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living." The New Revised Standard Version follows that particular version, in this case.

A solution to the problem in Psalm 27:13 is to say that the apodosis (the "then" clause) is in the preceding verse, namely, v 12, for there are places in the Hebrew Bible in which the apodosis precedes the protasis (the "if" or "unless" clause"). Examples include Deuteronomy 32:26-27 and II Samuel 2:27. If this interpretation is correct, then Psalm 27:12-13 is saying something like: "Do not give me over to the will of my enemies, for false witnesses and ones breathing out violence would have risen against me, had I not believed that I would see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living." The idea here may be that God has protected the Psalmist up to that point, on account of his faith, and so the Psalmist hopes that God will continue to protect him.

Jewish exegetes have approached the lule in other ways, however. One interpretation is that the Psalmist's use of the word is an expression of doubt on his part that he will receive a reward in the World to Come. But the medieval Midrash on the Psalms offers a more positive interpretation: it traces the use of the word lule in the Hebrew Bible and concludes that the word often occurs when the topic is merit within the covenant relationship. Examples include the merit of Israel's forefathers (Genesis 43:10), which brings blessing on Israel; the merit of God when he acts on Israel's behalf (Isaiah 1:9); the merit that one gains by studying Torah (Psalm 119:92); and the merit of faith (Psalm 27:13, our present verse). In Judaism, there are many reasons that God may honor or reward a person: the merit of somebody else (the ancestors, according to Judaism, but Christians apply this sort of concept to the merit of Jesus Christ), or God's own grace and love, or a desire to learn God's ways, or trust in God. For the Midrashist, the word lule expresses profound points about God's covenant relationship with Israel.

George Foot Moore, "Christian Writers on Judaism"

I reread an article by George Foot Moore, which was in the July 1921 Harvard Theological Review. It's entitled "Christian Writers on Judaism". Here are some items that stood out to me:

1. I've often wondered why apologists for Christianity against Judaism during the medieval period---such as Pablo Christiani---attempted to substantiate Christianity to Jews through appeal to the Talmud or other Jewish religious literature. I do not entirely know why they in particular did this, but, in Foot Moore's article, I gained insight into why Pico della Mirandola in the fifteenth century did so. For him, Ezra wrote down an esoteric tradition that was preserved orally by Jews for centuries, a tradition that included the Trinity, the incarnation, the Messiah's divinity, purgatory, atonement through Christ, etc. That was why the Cabala contained those sorts of concepts, according to Pico della Mirandola, and so Jews could be refuted from their own Cabala, leaving them no corner left in which they could hide.

Christian apologists to non-Christian Jews have used a similar approach---to show that Judaism has concepts that are similar to Christian themes. But my question is this: So what if they're similar? That doesn't prove Christianity is true.

On a similar note, Foot Moore talks on page 247 about Christian scholars who argued that Judaism had a concept of the pre-existence of the Messiah, as does Christianity. Foot Moore states that these scholars are misunderstanding the sources: seeing a vision of a Messiah is not the same thing as seeing a Messiah who existed before his coming, and the creation of the Messiah's name before the world's creation does not mean that the Messiah himself pre-existed the world.

2. On page 222, Foot Moore says that Protestant scholars who glossed the New Testament with rabbinic statements were not saying that those rabbinic statements were representative of the Judaism of New Testament times. Nor did scholars such as Lightfoot and Cartwright say that rabbinic Judaism was responsible for concepts in the New Testament---as those who used their works claimed when they argued that rabbinic Judaism had a concept that the Messiah would be a second Adam, as Paul says in I Corinthians 15:45. Rather, according to Foot Moore, Lightfoot and Cartwright were using rabbinic Judaism to illustrate the New Testament---the way that some scholars use Greek and Latin authors for this purpose. An example that comes to my mind is when Christian commentator John Gill appeals to Greek ritual to explain ritual in the Hebrew Bible. Certainly Gill does not believe that the Greeks influenced Hebrew or Semitic culture in the times of the Old Testament! But he does think that Greek culture can somehow elucidate customs in the Bible---perhaps because both are from the ancient world, or both the Greeks and the Hebrews gained customs from a common religion that existed prior to Babel, or human beings develop similar worship customs across cultures. I don't know.

But Foot Moore's comments on page 222 surprised me because he has often been characterized as one who quotes various Tannaitic sources and synthesizes them into "the teaching of the rabbis", without being aware that these sayings are from different times, and different people. On page 222, however, Foot Moore appears to be well aware that rabbinic Judaism is different from the Judaism of New Testament times.

Gerstenberger on Post-Exilic Psalms

I'm continuing my way through Erhard Gerstenberger's Psalms Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry.

This book covers Psalms 1-60, and Gerstenberger appears to date many of those Psalms to Israel's post-exilic period. Among the settings that he prescribes for these Psalms are small-groups, a service organized by a sufferer and his kin, synagogues, and the temple cult. On page 119, Gerstenberger refers to peasants.

Essentially, Gerstenberger identifies in these Psalms themes that he considers to be late, on the basis of comparison with other late biblical literature, and perhaps Second Temple literature. Such themes include meditation on the Torah, God's compassion for the poor (a tradition that Gerstenberger says "grew very strong in postexilic times", on page 175), a sufferer's sense of urgency as he attacks God for slowness to act, a father teaching his son the salvation history of Israel, eschatology, etc. For Gerstenberger, these Psalms are hoping for deliverance from post-exilic enemies foreign and domestic, and the ones about the poor reflect the social divisions that we see in Nehemiah 5, which is about the post-exilic Jewish community in Yehud.

So far, Gerstenberger does not address practical questions, such as how small group of peasants could write a scroll of Psalms, when many scribes in the ancient world needed a sponsor in order to work full-time in the scribal profession, or how a post-exilic community could attack its foreign captors, when a common practice in ancient Judaism was to conceal the identity of the Jews' oppressors. Perhaps small communities knew people who could be paid or commissioned to write Psalms, and the post-exilic community does not explicitly mention Persia or the Hellenists, so maybe it got by with its Psalms against oppressors.

I'd like to take a look at Gerstenberger's treatment of Psalm 24. Gerstenberger considers this Psalm to be post-exilic, since it has late themes such as a "cosmic theology" and a reference to creation that echoes the exilic Second Isaiah (and Gerstenberger also cites Amos, who was technically pre-exilic). "Glory", or "kavod", was associated with Yahweh "especially since the days of the P writer" (page 118). Gerstenberger also thinks that Psalm 24:3-6 reflects an "advanced stage of community formation" (page 118). The moral requirements for entry into the temple are very general, showing that they were probably introductions or summaries of longer lists, of the sort that we find in Job 31:5-40 and Ezekiel 18:5-29. And Psalm 24:3-6 points to a "confessional organization of the worshiping community" (page 118). In such texts as the post-exilic Isaiah 65:10 and Ezra 6:21, we encounter a community of the faithful, which may account for Psalm 24:6.

But what about opening the gates so that the King of Glory can come in? Doesn't that refer to the entrance of the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem in the time of David? How can that be post-exilic, since there was no Ark in post-exilic Israel? Gerstenberger's answer is that Psalm 24:7-10 may be post-exilic and yet draw on themes going back to the Israelite monarchy. And yet, Gerstenberger notes that Psalm 24 does not mention the Ark. Psalm 24 could be about God entering the Second Temple (and Gerstenberger cites Ezekiel 43-44). Or Gerstenbeger is open to Psalm 24 being about God's symbolic entry into the synagogue.

A Chance to Respond

I'm rereading Erhard Gerstenberger's Psalms Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. On page 79, Gerstenberger talks about Psalm 11, in which the Psalmist defends himself against accusations by enemies. Gerstenberger asks if there is evidence in the Hebrew Bible of disputes within the cult---in which someone accuses somebody else, and the accused defends himself, or pleads his innocence before God.

There are indeed statements about divine and cultic ordeals that investigate guilt or innocence. Deuteronomy 17:8-11 is about Levites and a judge at the central sanctuary pronouncing judgment on difficult cases concerning bloodshed, lawsuits, or assaults. Exodus 22:7-9 is about God (or judges, according to translations) determining whether a person is a thief. Numbers 5:11-26 is an ordeal to determine if a woman was unfaithful to her husband. And Joshua 7:16-21 describes the procedure that led to the discovery of Achan's sin, and this story concludes with Achan's confession of guilt. Gerstenberger says that the accused may have had an opportunity to defend himself or herself before God at such occasions, but we are not told that explicitly.

Gerstenberger then cites what he considers to be "definite evidence of this confrontation with enemies within the worship ceremony (see Psalms 4; 52; 62; and the evidence from Jer 11:18-23; 18:18-23; 20:7-13...)", but I don't think that those passages describe that. Rather, they could be the Psalmist and Jeremiah putting words into their enemies mouths and responding to them---rather than the Psalmist and Jeremiah replying to enemies who are with them in the very vicinity of the cult.

Items from Davies' Scribes and Schools

In this post, I'll do two things. First, I will comment on some items that I found in the endnotes of Philip Davies' Scribes and Schools. Second, I will look at Davies' remarks on the Council of Yavneh.

1. The two items that stood out to me in the endnotes are on pages 192-193. On page 192, Davies states: "The view that a good deal of writing took place in Persian-period Jerusalem, despite the evidence of a rather poor material culture, is entailed even on the traditional view that places the beginnings of the Judean canonizing process in the Iron Age. For on this view, the editing of virtually all this supposedly earlier literature must be assigned to the Persian period."

This note is to things that Davies says on page 79. Davies states that what Chronicles says about the temple may reflect the Persian Period, although Chronicles exaggerates the number of temple staff and the amount of donated wealth to the temple. The Psalm headings reflect the "division of Levites and priests into ancestral houses, clans, or guilds", and "the collection of revenues throughout the province and the subsequent necessity of guarding the temple entrances are all plausible administrative functions." Davies speculates that the Chronicle may show how temple administration was "organized in the fourth century B.C.E.", and, if it does indeed reflect the Persian Period, "The view of Judah in the Persian period as a cultural backwater and as economically poor perhaps needs to be reconsidered." But Davies thinks that another time period may be a more suitable context for intense scribal literary activity: the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Periods, when Judah's wealth increased significantly. In the Persian Period, Davies states, "we do not know how well funded the temple was".

On page 193, Davies states: "Not only is the Mosaic canon not pro-Judean; it is in many respects pro-Samarian: Joshua makes covenants at Shechem, while there is no hint of Jerusalem as a sanctuary. The presence of Bethel, Hebron, and Beersheba in Genesis, of course, balances this slightly. But since the Mosaic canon is impartial regarding Jerusalem and Samaria, should we assume that it was, in fact, a Jerusalem product?"

This note is to a paragraph on page 94, which I discussed yesterday: Davies talks about the schism between the Jews and the Samaritans by 100 B.C.E., and he says that is the terminus ad quem "for the creation of a Mosaic canon including Deuteronomy". Davies says that the Pentateuch of the Samaritans is largely the same as the Judean one. Why does he think that the Pentateuch was "impartial regarding Jerusalem and Samaria"? He believes that Deuteronomy reflects the perspective of exiles who were coming into Judah to displace the people of the land. Why would they be neutral towards the Samaritans in the land?

2. On pages 169-170, Davies discusses the Council of Yavneh. Davies does not believe that the rabbinic canon of Scripture was decided there. He acknowledges that rabbis gathered at Yavneh to "transform and extend some of the roles once exercised in the temple cult", which had just been destroyed. But he thinks that the evidence for a major council is quite slim. What we see is this: "There are references in the Mishnah to a court and a school 'in the vineyards at Yavneh' (e.g., m. Sanhedrin 11:4; m. Ketuboth 4:6), while Ben Zakkai is mentioned in m. Yadayim 4:6 in having participated in the discussion about scriptures, and 3:5...refers to a 'decision.'" But Davies maintains that the discussion in Yadayim is not about canonicity, but rather the "handling of artifacts" and "books publicly read", and that, even if the rabbis were debating the status of certain books, that doesn't mean that the canon wasn't already established by their time, for the rabbis debated "even over matters already established" (page 171). Davies' position is that the canon was established in the Hasmonean Period. Davies also states that "Most discussions recorded in rabbinic literature are artificially constructed, attestations notoriously unreliable", and that the rabbis didn't always refer to discussions to arrive at a decision, "but sometimes to raise a methodological issue" (page 170).

At the same time, Davies does distinguish the rabbinic canon from other canons. The Book of Enoch was popular "with circles hostile to the Jerusalem priesthood" (i.e., Qumran), which may explain why it "was not incorporated into the rabbinic scriptures" (page 165). Davies highlights the importance of the Levites in canonization, and there were Levites who were in the Jerusalem priesthood. For Davies, canonization was not so much a matter of deciding which books were in and out in a council, but of communities preserving and copying the books that they considered important. Enoch was not copied that much in certain circles, which became authoritative.