against Rome (66–73 CE), which he published around 75 CE, and for his Anqtiquities of the Jews (published around 95 CE), which tells the story of Israel in 20 books from the creation of the world until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, using as sources the books of the Hebrew Bible, and non-canonical Jewish texts like Maccabees. Josephus’s works, therefore, cover the whole of Herod’s reign, the fortunes of Herod’s family, and the rule of the Roman governors in Palestine until the outbreak of war, relying on sources no longer available to us. Although not conspicuous for his loyalty to his own people during the war of 66–70, and sometimes presenting events in which he was directly involved in a less than dispassionate manner, Josephus is the only writer to have left us a connected narrative of the history of the Jewish people from pre-Hasmonean times to the fall of the Temple. He wrote in Greek, and was thus able to command a non-Jewish readership which preserved his writing for posterity. Of all the Jewish sources noted in this essay, he is undoubtedly the best known, and certainly the most widely investigated as a source for historical material (Feldman and Hata 1989; Hadas-Lebel 1993; Rajak 2002; Mason 2003a; Sievers and Lembi 2005; see also Chapter 7).
Throughout the first half of the first century CE, relations between Jews and their Roman masters steadily deteriorated, until the Jews of Judaea and the Galilee rose in rebellion against direct Roman rule in 66 CE. Two lengthy writings saw the light of day around this time. The first, called the Book of Biblical Antiquities (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum), incorrectly attributed to Philo of Alexandria, is another example of “Re-written Bible” and represents a highly selective re-working of information found in the biblical books Genesis–1 Samuel. Much additional, non-biblical information is incorporated into a text which is evidently keen to discuss various forms of leadership, and their appropriateness for the Jewish people at times of crisis, while offering insights into the ultimate significance of Israel’s history along with veiled predictions for the future. Scholars are divided over the book’s date, some preferring to place its final form in the years leading up to the First Revolt against Rome, others arguing that it is best understood as a reaction to the Fall of Jerusalem. Few students, however, would dispute its value as a source for Jewish thought and aspiration in the later part of the first century CE. It survives only in a Latin version, which was probably made from a Greek translation of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original (Jacobson 1996): this is of some interest, given that the other major Jewish source approximately contemporary with it also survives only in a Latin version. This is the apocalyptic text IV Ezra, also known as II Esdras, a remarkable composition which offers a sustained reflection upon, and response to, the political and religious problems consequent upon the destruction of the Jewish Temple and state (Harnisch 1969; Stone 1990). It offers a carefully and deliberately structured theological and philosophical discourse, built around a series of visions experienced by the eponymous author, and his dialogues with the archangel Uriel. The text proceeds by gradually analysing the situation of the Jews before and after the revolt against Rome: in the course of this analysis, there emerges the enduring power of what Israel still possesses as a people, most especially the Torah of Moses and its commandments. These present possessions offer a future for Israel; and the guidance of “the wise among the people,” to whom Ezra is told to commit certain writings not made public (14:46–47), is mentioned at the end of the book as something on which future generations might rely.
Some literary relationship (its precise nature is debated) is apparent between IV Ezra and a later text known as II Baruch, or the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, composed most likely around 135 CE at the end of the Second Revolt against Rome. Predictions of a glorious future for Israel in a Messianic age following her humiliation at the hands of the Gentiles are here set forth as part of a programme determined by God, who will judge the wicked and Israel’s oppressors, and create for His people prosperity and peace (Harnisch 1969; Nir 2003). It is noteworthy that we possess no Jewish source in our period later than II Baruch which deals with future hopes and Messianic expectations in such detail. There is little doubt that hopes for the future fuelled the Second Revolt against Rome, which broke out on 132 CE under the leadership of Simeon ben Kosiba, whose followers called him Bar Kokhba (the Son of the Star) with reference to the messianic prophecy recorded in Numb 24:17. Between 1950 and 1965, documents in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek relating to this revolt came to light: they were discovered in caves located in Nahal Hever (or in the case of some documents possibly in Nahal Se’elim) in the Judaean desert. Whilst these documents, sometimes referred to as the Bar Kokhba Letters, tell us little about the causes and overall progress of the revolt (these still remain matters of considerable debate), they indicate that Bar Kokhba was known to his supporters as “Prince of Israel”; that some non-Jews had joined the revolt (thus supporting some classical accounts of the revolt, indicating that it was no minor affair); and that the Jews were remarkably well-organized militarily, a fact corroborated by archaeological evidence from the same geographical area as the literary discoveries and from other sites (Eck 1999; Yadin e.a. 2002; Zissu e.a. 2011). Also at Nehal Hever were found documents belonging to a Jewish lady, Babatha (“the Babatha archive”), which date from the period c. 93–132 CE and are remarkably informative about the legal systems, both Jewish and Roman in use during this period (Oudshoorn 2007; see also Chapter 11).
“Rabbinic Literature”
By far the most impressive and significant of all Jewish sources surveyed here saw the light of day after the end of the Second Revolt in 135 CE. This is that vast corpus of texts commonly called “Rabbinic Literature,” many of whose foundational, classical texts were produced and redacted in the years following the revolts against Rome and preceding the outbreak of Islam in the early seventh century CE (for all sources mentioned hereafter, consult individual entries in Stemberger 2011). The roots of the Rabbinic movement lie deep in Jewish history and culture; but its distinctive teaching of the dual Torah – the written Torah enshrined in Scripture, and the autonomous Oral Torah transmitted and preserved by the Sages of Judaism (Jaffee 2001) – is explicitly articulated only after 70 CE. Indeed, it was the fall of the Temple which encouraged the growth of Rabbinic ideas, with their agenda of sustained and rigorous study of Torah both Written and Oral as a primary religious duty; statutory prayer; faithful adherence to and performance of the commandments of the Torah; and the master–disciple relationship in the building up of scholarly tradition. Some recent research suggests that Rabbinic Judaism’s journey toward the commanding position it eventually came to hold may have been less straightforward, and more prolonged, than was once held to be the case (Lightstone 2002; Lapin 2006; but see also Rosenfeld 2010); but this view of things must still take into account the fact that the historical evidence available allows us only partial glimpses of non-Rabbinic forms of Judaism which are often difficult to assess. Here we should mention the Synagogue, an institution which seems only gradually to have come under direct Rabbinic supervision: mosaics and inscriptions from sites such as Hammat Tiberias (late third to early fourth century CE); Sepphoris (fifth–sixth century CE), and Beth-Alpha (sixth century CE), to say nothing of Dura-Europos (before mid-third century CE) (Figure 12.2), reveal a rich cultural interaction between Jews and non-Jews, of which several explanations may be offered (Levine 2005). Crucial as these sites are for the investigation of Jewish social and religious conditions, they offer the researcher comparatively little in the way of direct evidence for political history, although they can provide valuable enrichment of the historical sources available in the writings of Greek and Latin authors.
That the Rabbis themselves formed a somewhat enclosed, rather exclusive group, small in numbers and accessible only to those with the necessary expertise to enable them to appreciate and take part in Rabbinic discourse, may nonetheless be granted; and the promulgation of their first written document, the Mishnah (English translation Danby 1933), underscores this point. It consists of a collection of Oral Torah (individual legal norms in conditional and unconditional formulations; disputes; some mini-narratives about named authorities, often illustrating legal points; rules for good conduct; and some parables and wisdom-utterances) deriving from the Tanna’im, the “repeaters” of the Oral Law. It is organized under six main headings or “orders.” These are Zera’im, “seeds” (the laws of agriculture); Mo’ed (the laws of festivals);