Seth Schwartz

The author’s objective is to demonstrate how changes in Jewish society through some 800 years can be related to the policies of and developments within the empires to which it was subject. It is an attempt to place Israel within the context of the different ethnicities and nationalities of the eastern mediterranean, to understand how it was subject to the same empire-wide influences as these others, and to identify in what way – and why – the developments in Jewish society converged on or diverged from those of the other societies.

The book divides the period into three parts – 200 BCE through the two major Jewish revolts ending in 135 CE, the high imperial period between 135 and 350 CE, and late antiquity 350 to 640 CE.

In the early period, his main point is that all the empires that ruled Judea – Persian, Macedonian and Roman until 70 CE – implicitly or explicitly regarded the Jews’ “ancient practices” - including both the Temple rites and the exclusivity of the Jewish God – as the “constitution” of the Judean or Jewish people. The policies of Antiochus IV Epiphanes should be seen as an exception to this rule, and were not an inevitable result of Hellenization. The latter was - more than a cultural hegemony imposed by the Macedonian conquerors - a process in which, by adopting Greek/Macedonian lifestyles – including their deities - local elite groups sought to increase their prestige and influence. It was natural therefore that this trend would be most evident among the elite of the Jewish people too, the priesthood. The exclusivity of Jewish worship however set a barrier to Jews integrating more thoroughly into the political organization of the Greco-Roman empires. The author points out that Judah Maccabee and his brothers were not fighting the Hellenizing trend as such, so much as Antiochus’ atypical interference in Jewish religious practice. Once their point had been made, the Hellenization of Judean elites proceeded apace with the Maccabeans’ Hasmonean successors.

To the extent that God, Torah, and Temple were regarded as the “constitution” of Judea, the author points out that these in fact defined the permissible limits of Jewish belief and practice under the early Roman empire. He therefore argues that there was a much greater religious conformity than the emphasis on different Jewish sects would lead one to expect. He speculates that adherence to a sect may have been much more widespread - as much as 30% of the male population - than is generally believed. The effect of this argumentation is to reduce the significance of sects to that of alternative country clubs.

Following the destruction of the Temple, direct Roman rule of Palestine – which had started effectively with death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE – became even more direct, as there was no longer a Judean aristocratic or priestly class to act as mediators. Although not triggered by the trauma of a rebellion, this trend – of the elimination of local rulers and “client kings” and their replacement by Roman procurators or governors - was completed in most other parts of the empire by the end of the first century CE. The second and third centuries saw the increasing homogenization of all parts of the empire – culturally and religiously. Without any national leadership and without the central religious focus of temple worship, most Jews too – although they may have felt a degree of separateness that the author does not define – would have been undifferentiated from other inhabitants (and from, the 220’s citizens) of the Roman empire. What this means, according to the author, is that – particularly in the cities – Jews led their lives at least as much in accordance to the dictates of Roman law and urban culture as in accordance to Torah precepts. In particular, participating in rites of pagan worship may have been a necessary accomodation to living life as a citizen in the empire. Torah law was the concern only of the rabbis and their immediate following, who were marginal to and had no authority over the bulk of the Jewish population. The author’s assertion of the virtual assimilation of the bulk of the Jewish population in the pagan population seems to owe more to the absence of evidence for Torah observance– for example, the absence of practical legislation in the Mishnah – rather than any more positive proof of alienation from Torah .

From the beginning of the 4th century, the diffusion of Christianity and its adoption as the official religion of the empire created a “sea change” throughout the empire, namely the separation of religion as a discrete category of experience (i.e. no longer embedded seamlessly in everyday life) and the growing identification of the population with specific religious communities. It was this that brought about the renewal of Jewish communal life, rather than any rabbinic influence. In fact the rabbis did not participate in this renewal until the 5th century; rather it was the patriarchate – alienated from the rabbis since the 3rd century – who were seen by the imperial authorities as the religious hierarchy for the Jews, much as bishops were for the Christian communities. As the empire became increasing identified with the orthodox church, it became more “officially” hostile to Judaism – although the effects of this hostility may have been somewhat mitigated in practice (for example the 4th-6th centuries was the great age of synagogue building, in spite of this having been severely curtailed and eventually proscribed in the Theodosian code). The consequent marginalization of those who opted to stay Jewish – unlike with paganism, it was not possible to make an accomodation with Christianity – had the effect of making Jews draw together in self-sufficient communities.

The author pursues a thesis of the parallel development, in late antiquity, of Christian and Jewish community life, and seeks to draw many similarities between them; the proliferation of rural communities/villages each of which had its monumental house of worship, the similar attitude towards the church and synagogue as “sacred space”, supposed similarities in the style of worship, and even the growth of iconoclasm in both during the 6th and 7th centuries. The general point – that the Christianization of the empire was the trigger for the renewal of Jewish communal life, not the beginning of its end – has much merit. However, many of the parallels are tendentious, and seem to depend on a degree of speculation about things which, in the author’s words are “not recoverable”. He supports his argument about the decidedly non-rabbinic view of the sanctity of the synagogue and the significance of the liturgy (about which all we know is from rabbinic sources, which he has dismissed as irrelevant at this point) with a very contrarian interpretation of the Sepphoris and similar mosaics. It is only toward the end of the period that he sees more differentiation from Christian worship, which he attributes to the “rabbinization” of the communities and their “judification” of Jewish worship and liturgy.

Although the author makes a good case for the marginal role of the rabbis until the 5th century, in relation to the bulk of the Jewish population – and S.J. Cohen differs on this only to a degree – he does not satisfactorily account for the continued vitality of this small group through at least 200 years and more of apparent isolation, until they emerge as the leaders and shapers of the Jewish religion in the 5th and 6th centuries. Maybe this is not in his purview, as it does not relate to either empire or society, but it leaves a big hole in the picture.

This is no doubt an outstanding work of scholarship, but the academic language and style make it a difficult book for the general reader (this reviewer had to read the book twice from beginning to end, and some sections three or four times). It also assumes a detailed knowledge of the history , and at least a passing acquaintance with the archaeology and literary sources of the period. The author is wont to preface his analyses with what seems like a complete denial of any possibility of knowing anything certain about what he is about to discuss. This is however just a thorough covering of the academic posterior before he launches into what are often very radical historical interpretations. Many of the author’s theses – informed by his macro-imperial rather than micro-Jewish perspective - are often challenging to traditional Jewish narratives - particularly of the 2nd through 5th centuries CE. However, when you are able to stand back and embrace the new perspective, it is a refreshing experience - both at the detailed level and overall.… (more)

Seth Schwartz has a well thought out thesis and presentation. It addresses an enormous array of ideas and theses concerning ancient Judaism. The basic scheme of this book is how imperialist rule affected and shaped the lives of Palestinian Jews and their religion. Ancient Judaism was a complex a changing system in history, and Schwarz uses this book to identify the changes that could have been direct products of imperial authority over the society.

Schwartz’s argument is a solid one, but there are many places where I believe the author will be criticized by other scholars. The book covers 840 years worth of civilization, and in doing so it allows for much criticism. The author has foregone the mothod of focusing on an individual point in ancient Judaic history. He has attempted to create an umbrella text that assembles a considerable amount of scholarship for us to understand what actually occurred from 200 BCE – 640 CE. The massiveness of this project did not allow the author to build seriously deep arguments on any particular subject.

The book was divided into three parts. The first section dealt with Jewish life leading up to the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE. In this section Schwartz concerns himself with Hellenistic imperial rule, but he refutes the notion that Hellenism was attractive to Jews. Scholars would admit that life in Judea experienced Hellinization occurred in Judaea, there is no discounting that fact. In connection to his thesis Schwarz believes it was not the culture that leads to the Maccabean revolt, but rather the imperial rule caused friction in society.
The friction of course is not internal Jewish friction, but the friction that evolves from an occupying imperialist force upon ruled people. On the contrary Schwartz believes that the diversity of Palestinian Jewish society actually kept everything together, because it was not radically diverse. The basic tenant of Judaism – the Torah – continued to bind society. This is an interesting argument against the importance placed on sectarianism in contemporary scholarship. In even the most basic religion courses the first thing a student learns about are the importance between the Sadducees and the Pharisees – and to a lesser extent the Essenes. “Here I am taking issue with the common characterization of Ancient Judaism as radically diverse” (49)

This is a carefully thought out analysis concerning the physical reality of politics versus the textual reality of politics and this is where imperial rule would have played a very significant role. I think Schwartz has done an excellent job on reconsidering the importance of the Jewish sects. If imperial rule has been the center of society then what he defines as the “three pillars of ancient Judaism,” has not been controlled by these groups but by the imperial ruler. If the torah was to be considered a constitutional document, then it would have had to been approved by the ruler and the temple was rebuilt under imperial order. The sectarian groups had very little influence on the greater Jewish community, because they were not responsible for the formal establishment of Jewish laws and worship.

I find this to be one of the most important sub-theses in the text. It is moves like this (which I will expound upon later) that make this a unique and noteworthy piece of scholarship. This text could redefine the very way scholars are using ancient Judaism. The first portion of the book is a summation of how early imperial rule shaped and codified Jewish society. Judaism was being molded not by Jews but by their distant rulers.

The middle portion of the book is a rebuttal of the importance of rabbis after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Here is where Schwartz believes the Jewish identify began to vanish from the Judea. The imperial rulers in the second section of the book are entirely Roman. Schwartz argument here does lack some of the stability he had shown in the early section of the book. He has chosen to accept very little of the Jewish (and Christian by this time) literature from this period, because of a slant he believes in present. “Rabbinic and Christian literature nevertheless regard the cities as having simultaneously been in some sense Jewish.” (105)

It is not shocking that Schwartz is taking this approach to the period, but I think his argument is weakened if he makes a conscious choice of granting more credence to pagan iconography and symbolism than that to the Judaic writings. He takes an approach that discredits the importance relayed by modern scholars on the importance of the rabbis. His claim is that rabbis were a fringe group that maintained Judaism in the Diaspora. They had very little authority and were merely religious bureaucrats. They did not make it into the formal leadership of Jewish communities. I do not think this goes far enough to explain why the rabbis lasted the longest of all the fringe Jewish authorities.

The disappearance of Judaism from the literature after the Bar Kokhba revolt I do not believe proves that Judaism was on its deathbed. After the second revolt Rome had punished Jews, and it is understandable that many of them would have simply integrated into Roman pagan life for the sake of ease, while maintaining their Judaism. I believe this is as plausible as Schwartz’s argument. In chapter four Schwartz argues that Jews become very assimilated into the pagan culture of the day, and in doing so lost their Judaism.

This may have happened on a few unique and selected cases, none that are listed. The strongest part of this argument is what I understood as Greco-Roman pop culture. Schwartz spends the chapter discussing the Pagan imagery found from coins to synagogues. His basis that Jewish symbolism has been usurped by the Pagan mediums is an important note to take, but I do not consider it is proof of the disintegration of Judaism. Tastes and trends change, and one would hypothesize that after two failed revolts and the destruction of the temple, the in your face Jewish trend was not popular. Some acceptance of Greco-Roman culture would have granted stability in time when no stability was present. This is an important revelation to consider, but I do not believe it supports the argument that Judaism waned near destruction in this time.

The third and final section of the book is Judaism‘s rise from the ashes under a Christian empire. The first part of the section states “quite a lot of Jewish culture was, to be vulgar about it, repackaged Christianity.”(179) The very marginalizing of Jews at this time granted them a status, so the pagans had never done.

As Christians gained autonomy they had to deal with idea of Jewish not being a part of their group. As the Christians begin to intellectualize Judaism, they grant it a separate identity. This identity allowed the new imperial rulers to recognize the Jews as being different. I think Schwartz hit the proverbial nail on the head with this argument.

With paganism, Judaism was just another non-pagan religion to be dealt with accordingly. Christianity on the other hand has very serious ties to Judaism, and the very existence of it causes problems in fundamental doctrine. Christians could not ignore Jews, that is a proven point of theology. So with the emergence of Christianity as the imperial ruler, that brings along certain traditions. One of those traditions is “what are the roles of the Jews.”

The synagogue is the bridge for Judaism when one has to deal with leaving antiquity. The synagogues had become less important in previous year, and had become architecturally quite paganized. As Christians came to power the synagogue became the new center of Jewish life. This according to Schwartz is a side effect urbanization had on rural communities. As Greco-Roman trends spread into the Diaspora urban communities bgan to spring up, and in doing so the synagogue (as long with the Christian church) could be constructed in areas not previously present.

In this third portion of the book the symbolism regarded in his argument is something of a new reawakened Judaism. I believe that the same pitfall made before is closely related in the meaning he ascribes to Jewish iconography. There is far more textual evidence to support a reemergence here, but this does not mean the Judaism has found new meaning. It only applies that the new status in of Jews under Christian imperialism, allowed synagogues to shed some of the then unpopular Greco-Roman influence.

Something that was never addressed in the book, but I sense Schwartz uses as a given is the notion of ethnic or national Judaism. There is a sense in this book that Schwartz considers the Jews of Palestine as ethically homogenous. I do not know if this was ideal of antiquity, but the idea of being ethnically Jewish is present in modernity. Did the Jews of Palestine consider themselves as distinct ethnic group from the rest of the Mediterranean basin, or is their collective identity based simply on the religious adherence? And we must also ask ourselves if there was a collective identity. Some of Schwartz evidence would say no, but the text has clearly been written as if there were one.

In conclusion this was a splendid text that does a lot for ancient Jewish scholarship. The final answers produced could be debated for ages, but the most important part of this text is how Schwartz approached evidence. The information we can find from asking, “why the evidence is the way it is”(292).

This text as controversial as it may seem was clearly planned out and does an extraordinary amount as a master text in Jewish studies. Schwartz fully realizes he has put himself on the line in vering away fromt eh traditional approach to choosing a small portion of Ancient Judaism and bleeding the sources for that moment dry. This of course leaves his argument open to a many arguments. Nevertheless, this text was extraordinary and is a pleasant addition to the field.
Schwartz has poured through an enormous volume of literature and in doing so discovered pervading trends in it and assembled his own authoritative text. His attempt to suggest that contemporary scholars should rethink their definitions of ancient Judaism is a noble one, but may fall on a few deaf ears.… (more)