Introduction to First Century Judaism: Jewish Religion in the Second Temple period

Written by Lester M. Grabbe Reviewed By Brook R.W. Pearson

Professor Grabbe has, in this small but fact-filled volume, provided a very helpful summary of first-century Judaism. It is a book intended for the ‘beginner—the student, the educated lay person, the non-specialist’ (p. xi), but it in no way ‘talks down’ to the reader. Instead, Professor Grabbe takes pains to point out to the reader areas where there is difficulty, where sources are in doubt, and where there is significant ongoing discussion regarding the interpretation of certain issues. He covers all of the basic topics of which a student of first-century Judaism must be aware, which he manages in this short space by being consistently brief and concise. Another helpful pedagogical feature is the inclusion of a section of suggested reading at the end of each chapter.

The first of his five main chapters outlines the basic historical events of the intertestamental period, concentrating on the time extending from the Persian domination of Israel (around 539 BCE) to the Bar Kokhba War (132–5 CE). It then goes on to give a brief description of all the major areas of intertestamental literature (apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, Josephus, etc.). The final four sections deal with the four strains or currents of Judaism that were prevalent in the first century. Grabbe puts these under the headings Textual, Revolutionary, Eschatological and Inverted Judaism.

‘Textual Judaism’ is what Grabbe calls ‘the priestly and scribal current’, which includes discussion of those groups within first-century Judaism which we know about from textual sources. Amongst them are those connected with the temple cult (priest, Levites, etc.), the wisdom tradition, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. Under ‘Revolutionary Judaism’ he traces the development of and relationships between various revolutionary groups within early Judaism, starting with the Maccabaeans and progressing to the Bar Kokhba revolutionaries. In this section he also deals with the question of ‘messianic expectations’, concentrating on their relative influence on this particular strain of Judaism in the first century. ‘Eschatological Judaism’ is a term for those groups involved in both the production of and belief in apocalyptic literature. Grabbe deals with many of the major elements one finds in the apocalyptic literature in general, and has a very helpful discussion of the whole complex of ideas and aspirations surrounding the apocalyptic movement. The final major section is a discussion of ‘Inverted Judaism’, which is a rather unique inclusion of the current Gnostic thought in the discussion of first-century Judaism. Grabbe suggests that, while largely distinct from other Judaisms of the period, the development of the OT traditions found in Gnosticism is a development of Judaism. The chapter consists of a basic discussion of the major themes in Gnostic thought, as well as of several major Gnostic literatures and groups. Although Grabbe deals with each of these as separate areas within first-century Judaism, he is also very clear that none of them was distinct or disconnected from the others, but that it was very likely that members of one would also very possibly be members of another. All in all, this is perhaps the most compact and complete survey of first-century Judaism available at this level.

Instructors using this as a textbook (a use for which it is eminently well suited) might, however, do well to note two difficulties with the book. The most noticeable of these is the inclusion of references to suggested further reading (two works by Grabbe himself) that has not yet been published. Although this should always be avoided, it is especially unfortunate in a book aimed at students. The other area of difficulty is the credulity with which Josephus is cited as a reference, often with contrasting incredulity toward the NT sources. This is, of course, a problem throughout biblical studies, but one which, if it is ever to be corrected, we would do well to redress—especially at this most basic of levels.


Brook R.W. Pearson

Roehampton Institute, London