Talk:Origins of Rabbinic Judaism

undue weight

Jesus and Christianity aren't very relevant to the Origins of Rabbinic Judaism. Instead, start with the Pharisees, move to Hillel and Shammai and the Tannaim, then the School of Jamnia, then the Mishna. Rabbinic Judaism looks back to the Torah, see also Torah Judaism, it is only Christianity which has to define itself against Judaism. Since Christianity borrows the Torah, it has to make the claim that Rabbinic Judaism has the wrong interpretation. Or another way to look at it: the Talmud defines Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament defines Christianity. There is some but very little mention of Christians in the Talmud, but there are lots of mentions of Jews and Pharisees in the New Testament, see for example Woes of the Pharisees. 75.14.214.25 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I'm fine with that. I created this article by copying over the entire text of Origins of Christianity which will explain why there is the current overemphasis on Jesus. I've been meaning to fix that but this is part of a larger effort and I could only do so much at one time.

I became interested in these topics through my learning about the Frend, Bowersock and Boyarin theses. W.H.C. Frend says Christianity arose from Judaism, G.W. Bowersock says it grew independently from Greek culture and Daniel Boyarin asserts that they are twins who were intertwined until late antiquity. From this material, I split out Origins of Christianity from History of early Christianity, created Origins of Rabbinical Judaism and Split of early Christianity and Judaism. These three articles all take slightly different perspectives on the same basic phenomena (i.e. the rise of Christianity, Rabbinical Judaism and various theories as to when they became distinct from each other). I acknowlege that Boyarin's theory is new and does not represent the mainstream. I am looking for a way to present his ideas in the context of the origin of Rabbinic Judaism. The basic thesis here is that Rabbinic Judaism represents a clear break from the Judaism which preceded the fall of the Second Temple. The article Origin of Judaism focuses on the history of the Canaanites and Israelites and doesn't cover the material discussed in this article at all. I am trying to fill that gap. --Richard S (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. If Boyarin's thesis is that the Destruction of the Second Temple was the cause of the "clear break", then seems like the Council (or more correctly: School) of Jamnia and Yochanan ben Zakai would be most significant. But then how does he explain the other Jewish–Roman wars? And why didn't the destruction of the first temple, Solomon's Temple, and the Babylonian captivity cause a previous "clear break"? 75.15.205.116 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually pretty new to this so I have to make the disclaimer that I'm not always rock solid as to which scholar said what. In particular, I'm not sure that it is Boyarin's thesis that there was a "clean break" between Second Temple Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism although I'm pretty sure he agrees with it. I'm just not sure who put forth that thesis originally.

I think it is held by many scholars that there was, in fact, a break between the Judaism of ancient Israel/Judah and Second Temple Judaism. Most of the Jewish scriptures were written or assembled after the Babylonian exile. Second Temple Judaism starts with the Babylonian exile and the return to build the Second Temple and then later morphs into Hellenistic Judaism, ending of course with the destruction of the Second Temple. The basic argument is that the fall of the Second Temple puts an end to Judaism based on temple-based worship and pushes Judaism towards Rabbinic Judaism, possibly as an evolution from the Pharisees. (Well, to be precise, Judaism based on temple-worship doesn't end unequivocally with the fall of the Second Temple. That's just when it becomes critically ill. Later on, Julian the Apostate gives Jews authorization to rebuild the Temple but he dies during his failed campaign against the Persians and, with him, dies the hope of rebuilding the Temple. --Richard S (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The focus shifts to the rabbis and their teaching rather than the priests and their rituals. That much is pretty much mainstream if I have understood correctly.

The unanswered question is when does Christianity become distinct from Judaism? The traditional understanding is that the break happened sometime between the Council of Jerusalem (50CE), the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136). Boyarin turns this traditional understanding on its head and argues that there was no clear distinction between Jews and Christians until well into the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. He basically argues that Jewish and Christian leaders of that era looked back and decreed that there had been a split back in the first and second centuries when, in fact, (according to Boyarin et al) no such split had been discernible in that time.

--Richard S (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor clarification: religious Jews have never given up hope of rebuilding the Temple. See Third Temple. 75.15.201.33 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]