The Nature of the Great Synagogue

Author(s): Hugo Mantel

Source: The Harvard Theological Review , Jan., 1967, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 69-
91
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1508959

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Harvard Theological Review

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 6o (1967), 69-91.

THE NATURE OF THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE *

HUGO MANTEL
BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY, ISRAEL

THE first historical record of the Men of the Great Synagogue

(or Assembly) appears in Tannaitic lierature. In the list of the
chain of tradition, they are placed between the prophets and the
Zugot (that is, the Pharisaic leaders after the Maccabean vic-
tory).' The Talmud ascribes to the Men of the Great Synagogue
a threefold achievement. (I) They canonized certain Scriptural
books, as Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, Daniel,2 and, according to
some versions, also Esther, Proverbs, Canticles and Ecclesiastes.3
(2) They instituted prayers and benedictions, including Kiddush
and Habedallah (at the entrance and exit of Sabbaths and festivals,
respectively).4 (3) They classified the Oral Law into Midrash,
Halakah and Haggadah.5 These activities go a long way toward
making the Men of the Great Synagogue the Fathers of Pharisaic
Judaism.
Concerning the reliability and significance of these traditions,
historians are divided into four camps.
(I) There are those who reject the traditions out of hand, as
a late invention;6 or else, they deny that the Great Synagogue
was a distinct institution.7 But these historians are hard put to
account for the origin of the traditions or to explain its nomencla-
ture in other than an institutional sense.8
* An enlarged edition of a paper read at the Fourth World Congress for Jewish
Studies, Jerusalem, 1965.
1 M. Abot, I. i; Abot de-R. Nathan versions I & II, chapter i, ed. SCHECHTER,
Ib (English translation in JUDAH GOLDIN, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan
[New Haven, 19551, 4ff.).
2Baba Batra 15a.
8Abot de-R. Nathan, version I, chapter i, ed. SCHECHTER, Ib. (But see ibid.
note 22; also GOLDIN, op. cit., 176, n.22).
'Ber. 33a.
' Yer. Shek. V, I, 48c.
'See H. E. RYLE, The Canon of the 0. T. (London, 1914), 250-83, who sum-
marizes most medieval and modern views.
7 H. ENGLANDER, HUCA (1925), 145-66; E. BICKERMANN, Revue Biblique 55
(1948), 397-402; Y. GUTMAN, ha-Shilo'aeh 21(1909-1910), 313f.
SIn a forthcoming work on the Men of the Great Synagogue, I discuss these

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
70 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

(2) At the other extreme are the scholars

Great Synagogue as the official government in
the presidency of the high priest.9
(3) According to some historians, the Gr
the name given to the assemblies of the le
country, which met in times of high national
decide on crucial issues. Such an assembly was
Ezra presided; another appointed Simon the
of State and high priest in 142 B. C. E.; th
assembly met was in 66 C.E. to declare th
against Rome.'o Unfortunately for these tw
nothing in the sources concerning the Great S
ascribing to it any political activities.
(4) Finally, there is the view, the chief sp
is Finkelstein, that the Great Synagogue w
nonofficial religious movement. According
organized his disciples into an association,
Hasidim, an organization which is still men
Book of Maccabees (7:12) as participating
against Antiochus IV's decrees. In proof of
stein cites several passages in Tannaitic literat
Keneset is used as a synonym for Pharisee
M. Zabim III, 2; M. Bek. V, 5, etc.). As th
rejected the high priestly authority in religio
up their own tribune, which they called K
meaning Great Court (usually translated as
Except for some points of detail, Finkelstei
the other views in its compatibility with the
points in detail. An abbreviated form of that work wi
the fourth volume of the World History of the Jews.
SN. KROCHMAL, Kitbe R. N. Krochmal, ed. S.. Rawido
1961), 62ff., 121, 128ff.; S. LEVY, MGWJ 4(1855), 301-
schichte des Volkes Israel, I (Leipzig, 1863), 380-95; S. SACHS, Zeitschrift d.
religidsen Interessen des Judenthums 2(1845), 301-12; D. HOFFMAN, Magazin
fiir die Wissenschaft des Judenthums Io(I883), 45-63; S. KRAUSS, JQR, O. S. io
(1898), 347-77.
1 L. LOEW, Gesammelte Schriften (Szegedin, 1889), I, 399-499; S. ZEITLIN,
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 2(1930-1931), 69-81;
idem, Ner Ma'arabi 2(1925), 137-42; L. FINKELSTEIN, The Pharisees, II, 576-77;
idem, JBL 59(I940), 455ff.; S. B. HOENIG, The Great Sanhedrin, 33.
" L. FINKELSTEIN, Ha-Perushim we-Anshe Keneset ha-Gedolah (N.Y., 5700-
1950), 31-38, 51ff.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 71

flaw of Finkelstein's evidence is twofold. It introduces a certain

ambiguity by offering two definitions of the term Keneset: (i)
an association of the pious, or Keneset ha-Hasidim; and (2)
a supreme court, Keneset ha-Gedolah. Moreover, Finkelstein
ascribes the origin of both institutions to the days of Ezra,
though there is no trace of either of them in the Books of Ezra
and Nehemiah. To retain Finkelstein's theory, we suggest mod-
ifying it on two counts. In the first place, the term Keneset was
not born until at least a century and a half after the days of
Ezra. The title of Ezra's organization was "the community" or
"children of the exile." 12 This "community" was composed pri-
marily of various clans 13 under the leadership of the Sarim, or
heads of fathers' houses.14 The religious authorities of the com-
munity were the Levites, who "caused the people to understand
the Torah." 15 At some time in the second half of the Persian
period, the Sarim and the Levites yielded their authority to a
council of elders and prophets. Some early traditions ascribe the
institution of Eighteen Benedictions to a council of "120 elders,
among them 30-odd prophets" 16 and the Festival of Purim and
the Book of Esther to "85 elders, among them 30-odd proph-
ets." 17 The end of the Persian era spelled the dissolution of
this council, since the Seder 'Olam Rabba preserves a tradition
that in the days of Alexander prophecy ceased in Israel.is The
Talmudic 19 tradition which speaks of Malachi as the last prophet
obviously refers to the end of the classic or literary prophets,
whereas the Seder 'Olam Rabba apparently refers to the end of
the scholar-prophets who took the place of the Levitic "Mebinim"
' Ezra io:7,8,16. It was also called simply "Kahal" (=community), Ezra
10:12; and "Golah" (=exile), ibid. io:6. The references in Ezra (1o:13, etc.) and
Nehemiah (8:Iff.) to "people" ('Am) are not to the entire Jewish population, but,
as the context indicates, to "the community."
3 Ezra Io:I6.
14Ezra 1o:I4; Nehemiah Io:I; II:Iff.
' Nehemiah 8:7,9,11; 9:4ff.
16 Megillah, 17b; Yer. Ber. II, 4, 4d.
1 Ruth Rabbah IV, 5; Yer. Meg. I, 7, 7od. Elsewhere (see note 8) I explain
my reason for regarding these traditions as genuine.
18Seder 'Olam Rabba, chapter 6, p. 70o (ed. B. Ratner, Wilno, 1894-97). Cf.,
however, URBACH, Tarbiz 17 (5706-1946), 2; Y. KAUFMAN, Toledot ha-Emunah ha-
Yisraelit, IV, I, 379, n.2.
19 Tos. So.tah XIII, 2, 318; Sotak 48b; Yoma 9b; Sanh. iia; Abot de-R. Nathan,
version I, chapter i, p. 2 (ed. SCHECHTER; Engl. transl. by GoLDIN, p. 4.).

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

in the second half of the Persian era. The Ta

frequently renders Nabi as Safra (scribe) (as
Samuel Io:5ff., 19:24). This translation must
at a time when the two titles were interchange
istic era, Ezra's disciples reorganized along in
lines in place of the clans of the Persian period
organization was no longer "Community of the
set. The local branches of the movement also bore the name
Keneset.20 The supreme body in Jerusalem which led the move-
ment, consisting probably, as we shall try to show, of delegates
from all the units, was the Keneset ha-Gedolah, and its members
were known as the Men of the Great Synagogue - Anshe Keneset
ha-Gedolah.
This brings us to the second modification of Finkelstein's
theory. In our scheme, The Keneset ha-Gedolah was not a court
or Supreme Court. Finkelstein's reason for defining the term
Keneset as a court, as well as a synonym for the Pharisaic move-
ment and its branches, is the Mishnah which prescribes that flag-

ellation
Since is toare
penalties benormally
administered
imposedby the .Hazan
by courts, of thethat
he concludes Keneset.21
the Keneset here can refer only to a court. But Finkelstein's
premise is not beyond question. In the days of the Second
Temple, the city courts had no monopoly on passing sentences.
The Pharisees, like the other sects, sat in judgment over members
who strayed from the path. Among the Essenes 22 and/or the
Damascene 23 and Qumran 24 sect (or sects), the Rabbim judged

20R. MARCUS (JBL 51 [1952], 2o7f.) argues that in Philo's description of

the Essenes the term 5uCXos (which is the Greek equivalent of Yahad) serves to
identify both the order as a whole and its local communities. Marcus' conclusion
is supported by the text of the Serek ha-Yahad (Megillat ha-Serakim VI, ed.
Haberman, 65-66) and elsewhere. This is also the view of J. LIGHT, Megillat ha-
Serakim (Jerusalem, 5725-1965), 9, 14. However, Cross has shown that Yahad
was the name of the principal settlement in the desert in Qumran and of the
original Community of the founder. The other settlements were known as Malha-
not, Camps (F. M. CRoss, JR., The Ancient Library of Qumran, 2nd ed. [Garden
City, N.Y., I96I], 79f. and notes).
21M. Makkot III, 12-13.
22 Bell. J. II, 8,9,145. For the equivalent of Rabbim among the early Christians,
see F. M. CROSS, JR., op. cit., 230ff.
2The Zadokite Documents, ed. CH. RABIN, 2nd rev. ed. (Oxford, 1958), X,
4ff., 49; Megillot Midbar Yehudah, ed. A. M. HABERMAN, 84.
24 Ed. HABERMAN, ibid., 65ff.; ed. BURROWS (The Dead Sea Scrolls), 378-84; ed.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 73

defaulting members. The term Rabbi

shown, for the general assembly of th
was for the Pharisees what the Rabbim meant for the other
sect(s), the Mishnah merely ascribes the same judicial procedur
to the Pharisaic Keneset which the Rabbim performed among the
other sects. The Hazan ha-Keneset was therefore not an official
of a city court; rather, he was a minister or beadle of the Pharisaic
association. This Mishnah, then, is an old one, going back per-
haps to pre-Maccabean times, before the Pharisees dominated
the city courts.26 At that time the violation of a Pharisaic rule
was not tried by a city court, or Bet Din, but by the assembly of
the Pharisaic membership, that is, the Keneset.27 Keneset, then,
meant court only in the secondary sense; the primary meaning
was Pharisaic Association.
In support of his definition of Keneset as court, Finkelstein
also cites Onkelos, who renders the Hebrew term 'Edah with the
Aramaic Kenishta. He argues that the Rabbis' definition of
'Edah as court or even the Great Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin i3b)
holds also for Kenishta and hence for its Hebrew equivalent
Keneset.28
But the evidence from Onkelos is self-defeating, for Onkelos
usually adheres to the literal meaning, even to the point of con-
tradicting the Halakic exegesis.29 A conspicuous example is his
rendition of "an eye for an eye." 30 Hence, Onkelos' rendering of

DUPONT SOMMER (The Essene Writings from Qumran, trans. from French), 85ff.
See especially note i (ed. GASTER, p. 49, however, renders rabbim as "publicly").
' S. LIEBERMAN, JBL 71(1952), 199-206, especially 2ol, 203.
' See H. MANTEL, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge, Mass.),
30, end of note 175; 96-98.
' See above, note 8. The Gospels (Matt. Io:17, 23:34; Mark 13:9; Acts 22:19)
corroborate the Mishnah's report that floggings took place in the Synagogues. In
two of these passages (Matt. io:17; Mark 13:9) the first impression is that the
synagogues merely administered the flogging which had been pronounced by "the
Sanhedrins" (that is, courts). S. KRAUSS (Synagogale Altertumer [Berlin-Vienna,
1922], 186) suggests that this arrangement belongs to a transition period.
However, the other three authorities mentioned in these passages, namely,
Sanhedrins, kings and rulers are independent judicial bodies, so that we should
assume the same for the synagogues. It seems that minor transgressions, namely
those which call for flogging (See M. Sanh. I, 2), were tried and punished by a
court situated in the synagogues. See below, 16.
' FINKELSTEIN, Op. cit., 53-54.
'A. BERLINER, Targum Onkelos (Berlin, 1884), II, 224-25.
'See A. SPERBER, The Bible in Aramaic (Leiden, 1956), on Ex. 21:24 (124);

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
74 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

'Edah as Kenishta, where the former is Halak

as court,31 points, on the contrary, to the conc
is not court but simply community. This concl
by the observation that Onkelos renders 'Edah
where 'Edah obviously means community.32 Fin
sect, called 'Edah,32a referred to its opponents,
"their Keneset." 32b Apparently, 'Edah and K
terms, not interchangeable.
There is, however, another passage where mos
the term Kenishta - and hence Keneset - in t
and even great Court or Sanhedrin. The Me
that the 28th of Tebet is a half-holiday because
Kenishta sat in judgment (al dina)." In elabo
conic statement, the Scholion (edited in the Ge
that Simeon b. Shetah succeeded in eliminat
from the Great Sanhedrin gradually one by o
witnessed the replacement of the last Sadduc
scholar was declared a festival.- The generali
ans accepts, with various forms of reservat
story, which implies that Kenishta - Ken
means court or Great Court, that is, Sanhed
obviously a legend - 68 members of the Sanh
same trap voluntarily, one after another. Too,
is refuted by Josephus, who records that upon
ander Jannai, his widow, Queen Salome, turn
government to the Pharisees.35 She did so appa
one stroke, not gradually, as the Scholion woul
of the Megillat Ta'anit therefore may not r
Sanhedrin at all but rather to the revival, resti

Deut. 19:21 (324). See also discussion in H. MANTEL, Studie

Sanhedrin (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), 261f.
' Lev. 4:13, etc. See MANTEL, op. cit., 45, n. 257.
'See A. SPERBER, op. cit., on Ex. 16:1-2 (115), Ex. 1
(246), Nu. 16:2 (249).
3a See CRoss, op. cit., 79.
S2bQp Nah. 3:7. See D. FLUSSER, Molad 19(1961), 457.
' H. LICHTENSTEIN, Die Fastenrolle (reprinted from
1342-431), 86f.
"' LICHTENSTEIN, Op. cit. (297-98), 41f.; see, especially,
0o(1883), 57f.
SAnt. XIII, x6, 1-2, 405-o9.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 75

itation of the Pharisaic Association

Shetah and Queen Salome. If this is s
(like Keneset) connotes here, as in t
Assembly, not the Great Sanhedrin.

II

Our definition of Keneset as a nonofficial religious association

is borne out by the existence of nonofficial, nonstate religious soci-
eties in the contemporary Mediterranean world.36
Philo and Josephus report that the synagogue communities in
the Roman Empire had the legal status of collegia or corpora-
tions.37 What remains to be pointed out is that the Jewish sects
in Palestine itself, such as the Keneset, which was equivalent to
the Pharisees, and its supreme council, the Keneset ha-Gedolah,
were modeled in their organization on the Hellenistic religious
and social associations.37a
We may enumerate at least twelve points of similarity, of
greater or lesser degree, between the two types of associations.
(i) These Hellenistic societies owed their origin to the social
' For literature on the Hellenistic societies, see especially F. POLAND, Geschichte
des Griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig, 1909).
'PHILO, Legatio ad Gaium 40, 311; JOSEPHUS, Ant. XIV, 257-60; Digest
XLVII, 22. See E. SCHUERER, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes, III (4th ed., Leipzig,
1909), 97ff. (Eng. transl., A History of the Jewish People, 2nd Division, vol. II
[18981, 252ff.). Further discussion and bibliography, see E. M. SMALLWOOD, Phil-
onis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden, 1961), 205f., 236f. J. BAUMGARTEN
(JBL 77 [I958], 244-57) supposes that the haburah was simply "a society for the
strict observance of ritual cleanliness." He overlooks the fact that the haburah
was merely the highest subdivision of the Keneset or Pharisaic society. Before
joining the haburah as a HIaber, a man had been a Pharisee on a lower level, as
Ne'eman and Kenafayim --so that he had been a Ben Keneset. And the differ-
ence between the Pharisees, even on the inferior level, and the Sadducees embraced
the entire outlook on religion as involving the attitude toward the Oral Law. The
identity of the Haber and the Perushi is evident from the fact that both regard
the clothes of an 'Am ha-'aretz as impure (M. Hag. II, 7; M. Demai II, 3). (See,
however, S. ZEITLIN, The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State [Philadelphia, 5722 -
1962], 200f.).
KRAUSS identifies the Keneset with the Heber ha-'Ir, which, in turn, he regards
as a cultural association like the Greek Eranoi and Thiasoi or the Roman Collegia;
and these, he believes, constituted the city-council (Synagogale Altertumer [Berlin-
Vienna, 1922], 20-23).
7a E. KOFFMAHN, Biblica 42(1961), 433-42 and ibid. 44(1963), 46-61, points
out that Yahad and the Damascene Berith were organized as legal units. However,
CRoss (Ancient Library of Qumran, 137-41) has shown that the Essenes were
in fact illegal groups.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 76 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

revolution of the times. In antiquity, all rel

connected with the political units, the tribe
Alexander's empire sounded the death-knell
units, the old religious forms, too, went by
result, there arose innumerable voluntary as
to the cult of deities other than those of the established state re-

ligion.3s The Hellenistic world, including the Aegean Sea and

Asia Minor, as well as all of Egypt, swarmed with such religious
societies.39 In the course of time the religious aim was replaced,
partly or wholly, by social and economic ones. There were pro-
fessional and business clubs as well as purely social ones. Mer-
chants, soldiers and officials who were stranded in a foreign coun-
try could organize clubs of their countrymen 40 where the em-
phasis was usually on the religious aspect.41
In the history of the religion of Israel and of Judaism, the po-
litical and religious developments did not keep strict pace. The
priestly authority, as well as the royal, was kept in check by the
influence of the prophets, already in the days of the First
Temple.42 The destruction of the Temple and the state by the
Babylonians made a further dent, without radically affecting the
structure of the clan system.43
The first organized revolt against the official religious authority
of the high priest is associated with Ezra 44 - though Ezra al-
ready found "the Community of the Exile" in full bloom. How-
ever, the reorganization of Ezra's disciples from units of fathers'
houses to that of individual or family membership did not take
place until the Hellenistic era, which spelled the end of the tribal
and clan system in general.44a The Keneset's arrival upon the
M38. N. TOD, Sidelights on Greek History (Oxford, 1932), 71ff. For further
references, see W. L. WESTERMANN, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18(1932),
19.
' POLAND, op. cit., 23ff., 77; see also M. SAN NICOL, Aegyptische Vereinswesen
zur Zeit der Ptoleminer und Rdmer (Miinich, 1913), I, i8ff.
40 TOD, op. cit., 8of.
' POLAND, op. Cit., 79, 256.
" II Kings, 22:14.
* See L. ROST, Die Vorstufen von Kirche und Synagoge im A.T. (Stuttgart,
1938), 61-64.
" I. H. WEISS, Dor I (1924 ed.), 49-50; M. ZER-KAVOD, Bet Mikra 15 (5723-
1963), 5-8; R. T. HERFORD, The Pharisees (N.Y. 1924), 18-21; L. FINKELSTEIN,
The Pharisees, I, 263f.
44" The large scale immigration to Egypt, the commerce with Egypt (see V. A.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 77

scene at this time was not accompanied

it merely amounted to a regrouping of
changed social situation. The loss of
heads of the clans necessitated a reorgan
istic basis. The democratization of the movement no doubt facil-
itated the extension of the religious leadership of the nonpriestly
and non-Levitic Soferim.45

(2) The term Keneset

The analogy with the Hellenistic societies may give us a clue
to the original significance of the term Keneset, which has puz-
zled historians. The Hellenistic societies frequently bore two or
three types of titles, a general title, a specific and an individual
one; or several of one or the other title.
The general title indicated the type of organization, whether

religious (6pyewveq), social (Oao-Ar'a,) or economic (`pavao-ral).

Some general titles merely meant "association." In the Hellen-
istic era, the term KOLVOL was the most common designation in
Greece; while the Egyptians, both at home and abroad, preferred

the title cr-voo8o0.4

The Zenon papyri have revealed that under the Ptolemean rule
a considerable number of Egyptian officials, soldiers and mer-
chants were stationed throughout Judea.48 Like their compatriots
elsewhere,49 these Egyptians no doubt established religious soci-
eties in all parts of Judea and Palestine. In foreign countries
these societies provided the only outlet for religious and social

TCHERIKOVER and A. FUKS, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum, vol. I, 1-2; V. A.

TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilization [Phila., Pa., 196I], 272-73) and the penetra-
tion of Hellenistic individualism (Ant. XII, 4,10,224) must have contributed to
the undermining of the prestige of the heads of the fathers' houses.
5 See above, note 8. W. L. WESTERMANN, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
18(1932), 16-27, especially 19, supposes that among Jews no synodoi existed be-
cause the theocratic state "dominated the lives of the Orthodox Hebrews." He is
unaware of the unofficial status of the Pharisees and the Essenes, who, too, were
synodoi, as we shall see.
*4POLAND, op. cit., 8ff., 152; TOD, op. cit., 74-76.
"POLAND, op. cit., I6of.; A. D. NocK, etc., HTR 29(1936), 72. The Egyptian
clubs exercised great influence over those of Asia Minor. POLAND, op. cit., 128, 218,
361, 524.
" See V. A. TCHERIKOVER and A. FUKS, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1957), vol. I, 2, especially note 3.
' POLAND, op. cit., I28f.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
78 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

living. It must be more than an accident th

is the precise equivalent of cr-vo8ao, the favo
tion of the Egyptian religious associations,
session and as a permanent association.50 It
fetched to suppose that when the disciples of
general designation of their newly reorganized
mean era, they took a leaf out of the book of
gious societies in their midst.

(3) Pharisees, Trustworthy, Wings

The analogy in names may be carried furt
societies had, in addition to the general tit
individual ones. The specific titles provided a
of the purpose or method of the society.
/vLo-raT resorted to mystic rites; another, ref
a8EX oo, emphasized friendship or brotherh
titles may be detected in the Pharisaic movem
As has been shown elsewhere,52 there wer
Pharisees; the sources, however, have not y
analyzed or, rather, classified. The highest lev
Pharisees proper - that is, those who "sepa
from possible or doubtful (Safek) ritual imp
0 See JASTROW, A Dictionary, 650; A. KOHUT, 'Aruk
60; J. LEVY, Wiirterbuch iiber die Talmudim, etc., II, 355
51 POLAND, op. cit., 53.
' For a discussion of this point, see A. BtYCHLER, Der g
(Vienna, 1906), 9ff. (Heb. 'Am ha-'Arez ha-Galili, tran
1964], 15); LIEBERMAN, art. cit., 20If., 206c.; RABIN, Q
1957), 1-21; J. NEUSNER, HTR 53(1960), 125-42. LIEBER
of the rules of the Haburah (art. cit., 204f.) which tallies

Keneset (a cognate
" M. Demai term
II, 3; Tos. forII,.Haburah)
Demai goes
2, p. 47; ed. back to pre-Maccabean
LIEBERMAN, 68. For a bibliog-times.
raphy on the meaning of "Pharisees," S. W. BARON, A Social and Religious History
of the Jews, 2nd rev. ed. (1958), vol. I, 369, note 3. For other views, see S. ZEITLIN,
The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State (Philadelphia, 1962), iof.; L. FINKELSTEIN,
The Pharisees, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia, 1962), 76.
LIEBERMAN'S correction (Tosefta Ki-Feshu.tah, Zera'im I, 210) of Tos. Demai
II, 2 from "ha-Melkabel" to "u-MeKabel" does not result in the elimination of the
class of the Ne'emanim. For the Mishnah (Demai II, 2) distinctly reports the
existence of the class of Ne'eman. The corrected version rather refers to someone

who assumes the obligations of Ne'eman and .Haber at once (ibid., 209). In either
versionasthe
himself, Tosefta
follows: first enumerates the four things with which the .Haber obligates
(1) He will not give Terumah to an 'Am ha-'Aretz;
(2) nor tithes to an 'Am ha-'Aretz; and

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 79

the spiritual aristocrats among Ezra's fo

movement is therefore named after them.
One degree below the Pharisees are the Ne'emanim ("Trust-
worthy"),4 also designated as Tohorot ("Purities").' Trust-
worthiness in avoiding doubtfully tithed fruit (Demai) is the
characteristic of the Ne'emanim, according to the Mishnah and
the Tosefta, a quality which R. Mana in the Yerushalmi ascribes
to the Tohorot, thus making the Ne'emanim identical with the
Tohorot.56

(3) he will not fix foods requiring levitical purity in the company of the 'Am
ha-'Aretz. These three prohibitions are based on the suspicion that the 'Am ha-
'Aretz will defile the produce. In principle, then, these prohibitions are identical to
the first two prohibitions which the HIaber assumes according to the Mishnah
(Demai II, 3) "that he will not sell to an 'Am ha-'Aretz foodstuffs that are (i)
wet or (2) dry," for the latter will defile them. The Tosefta concludes with the
assumption of the IHaber (4) that he will eat profane food in a state of Levitical
purity. (In the above Mishnah this is specified by two cases: (3) "that he may
not be the guest of an 'Am ha-'Aretz (4) nor may he receive him as a guest in his
own raiment.") Apparently, as LIEBERMAN points out (ibid., 4-5), the general rule

was that were

however, a .Haber assumes four
not uniform. obligations;
Moreover, it seemsthe specifications
that of these
these obligations obligations,
concerned
the avoidance of possible causes of ritual impurity.
As for the Ne'eman, the Mishnah and the Tosefta agree that he assumed three
obligations, all concerning tithes: that "he will give tithes (i) from what he eats,
(2) from what he sells and (3) from what he buys (to sell again)."

The superior
permission status
to be the of of
guest the
an.Haber is illustrated
'Am ha-'Aretz appliesby thetofact
only that R. Judah's
the Ne'eman, but
not to the Haber. The versions of the Tosefta which do not follow Lieberman's
corrections place the HIaber first because of his superior position, for the Haber
represents the final stage of the ascent.
54M. Demai II, 2; Tos. Demai II, 2, 47; ed. LIEBERMAN, Seder Zera'im, 68f.
' Tos. Demai II, I1, 48; ed. LIEBERMAN, 70 (see his notes ad loc. 34, 35; also
Tosefta ki-Feshutah I, 214 f.); Bek. 30b.
5 Yer. Demai II, 3, 23a. For the correct version, see LIEBERMAN, Tosefta ki-
Feshutah I, 215. Our conclusion concerning the obligations of the Ne'emanim and
Kenafayim is based on an analysis of the Yerushalmi. "R. Yizhak b. Eleazar said:
The Kenafayim refrain from actual contact with impurity, and the Tohorot avoid
Hesset. R. Mana said: the Kenafayim refrain from both contact and Hesset, and
the Tohorot are careful about doubtful tithes." The factual basis of this dispute
is no doubt the existence of divergent customs, the two Amoraim taking sides as to
which custom was the right one. R. Yizhak maintained that those Kenafayim who
refrained from Hesset went beyond the requirement of the grade, while R. Mana
held those who did not refrain from Hesset failed in their full obligation as Kena-
fayim. On the other hand, both Amoraim took it for granted that the Tohorot
did not partake of doubtful tithes, and R. Yizhak thought it superfluous to refer
to this obligation. R. Mana merely emphasized that abstention from doubtful
tithes was the sole obligation of Tohorot.
There remains only one question. If the avoidance of doubtful tithes was, ac-
cording to R. Mana, the only obligation of Tohorot, what correspondence is there

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
80 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

At the bottom of the Pharisaic ladder sto

("Wings"; or Kappayim, "Hands"), who were
the strict requirement of the Law as interpret
scholars. Thus, they refrained from definit
with a corpse. The one point on which the
Law was the purity of Hands, that is, they
before meals, on the possibility that they may
light form of impurity." In the Yerusha
Yizhak b. Eleazar claims that Kenafayim nee
Hesset (a form of indirect contact with imp
Mana takes a strict view. This dispute seems
gency of customs and/or periods.
All three classes of Pharisees were subsumed
title Bene Keneset. Hence the Mishnah rules that cases of doubt-
ful Hesset "are clean for the Bene Keneset, and unclean only for
them that eat of the Heave-offering," that is, priests; 58 this
tallies with the ruling of the Mishnah elsewhere that "the clothes
of the Pharisees - even those of the highest group - are unclean
(Midras) for them that eat Heave-offering." 59 We have seen that
custom varied on whether the Kenafayim observed Hesset. In
either case, the Mishnah is right in generalizing that doubtful
cases of Hesset are clean for the Bene Keneset."6
All Bene Keneset, including the Kenafayim, were strict ob-
servers of the entire Torah, as interpreted by the Pharisees; that
they attended regularly the prayer and study meetings of the
between this restraint and the name of the grade - Tohorot - which usually means
ritual purity? Perhaps Tohorot here refers to permitted food, just as a "clean
animal" signifies a permissible animal (cf. M. Terumot X, 8; M. HuUin IV, 3;
M. Bek. I, 2).
A more likely explanation is that the title Tohorot for Ne'emanim stems from
Temple days when restraint from Hesset was not yet practiced by the Kenafayim.
It was only after the Destruction that the rules of the Pharisees became the uni-
versal Halakah, that the Kenafayim - or a portion of them - refrained also from
Hesset. Incidentally, the imposition of the rules of the Kenafayim on all Jews
after the Destruction may account for the fact that the Mishnah makes no mention
of this Pharisaic group.
" See Yerushalmi in previous note and LIEBERMAN, ibid.; also, H. ALBECK,
Sinai 54(5724-1964), Book I-2, p. 19.
'M. Zabim III, 2.
*M. HIagigah II, 7.
so The point of our argument is that the Bene Keneset included all three grades
of Pharisees, for, though they were not necessarily experts (see R. Jose's view, M.
Bek. V, 5), their piety was unimpeachable (anonymous Mishnah, ibid.).

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 81

Pharisees goes without saying."' Their

so firm that the majority of sages repres
- except Sepphoris, R. Jose's residence
nary Bene Keneset - not experts - we
an obviously blind or lame Firstling as
permissible for profane food.62
We may summarize our discussion of th
sees - or Bene Keneset - by emphasizi
a) The Perushim or Haberim avoided c
of the 'Ame ha-'Aretz,63 but not with th
Ne'emanim. The reason is that the Ke
frained from contact with first-degree im
b) The two lower classes of the Bene
from contact with the clothes of the 'A
to the principle of the Hazakah 65 an
to be pure, unless proven to the contrary
In brief, the differences between the
Keneset are as follows:
The Kenafayim avoided definite impurity (Wadday Tume-

'ah),; 66 some avoided also Hesset.

The Ne'emanim (Tohorot) avoided also doubtfully tithed
fruit (Demai) as well as the impurity of definite (Wadday)
Hesset.
The Perushim (Haberim) avoided both doubtful (Safek) im-
purity and doubtfully tithed fruit.

61 See Mark 6:2, which reports that the common people thronged the synagogues;
that these people observed the purity of hands is implied, ibid. 7:2ff., where only
Jesus' disciples were rebuked for neglecting this duty. Further, Eliezer b. Hanok
was excommunicated for making light of this practice (M. 'Eduyot V. 6), showing
that it was generally observed.
"M. Bek. V, 5.
6 M. Hag, II, 7.
6 See note 56. Even if it were certain that the 'Am ha-'Aretz - whom the
Kenafayim touched --had come into contact with a corpse, the Kenafayim would
become impure only for the day (M. Oholot I, 1), while the Perushi who touched
him would be pure.
' See M. Mikwa'ot II, 2; M. Yadayim II, 4. Unless we can investigate the facts,
even "a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor is assumed to be clean" (M. Tohorot

III, 6). H.azakah assumes the status quo, see HIullin iob-iia. See A. J. UNTERMAN,
Sinai, ibid., pp. 4-10o. (On the juridical aspects of .Iazak.ah, see Z. WARHAPTIG, Ha,-
Hazakah be-Mishpa.t ha-'Ibri [Jerusalem, 5724-19641.)
"See M. 'Eduyot VIII, 4 ("he who touches a corpse becomes unclean"). See
ALBECK, Seder Nezikin, ad. loc., 316.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 82 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Josephus' report that in the days of Her

thousand 67 Pharisees does not refer to all three classes of the
Keneset, but in all probability only to the highest group, th
Pharisees proper.

4) Haburah
Just as the local unit of the three types of Pharisees together
was called Keneset, so the local unit or subdivision of the highest
group was known as IHaburah." This specific title recalls the
Hellenistic specific titles tikoa and aStXo 9.6 The singular 4l9Xo
and 4dSXfok corresponds to the title of the Pharisaic members
Haber.70 This title no doubt was appropriate for the Pharisees
who, avoiding contact with the ritually impure,7 must have been
internally on a friendly and brotherly footing, as indeed Josephus
reports,72 and as Tannaitic literature implies.73
Rabbinic literature reports that there were various associations
(Haburot) in Jerusalem, dedicated to the purpose of insuring a
quorum in homes where the attendance of ten men was needed
for "the Benediction of the Mourners," "the Mourners' Consola
tion," "the Benediction at the Marriage Ceremony," as well as
circumcision and betrothals, and Geiger suggests that they were
Pharisaic Haburot.74 While there is no warrant for Geiger's
theory that these Haburot had evolved from the national Senate,
known at first as priestly Heber and in the Hasmonean era a
Heber ha-Yehudim,75 there can be little doubt of their Pharisaic

nature. The hall-mark of these .Haburot, like that of the Phari-

7 Ant. XVII, 2,4,42. M. SMITH, in Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed. M.
DAVIS (N.Y., 1956), 78, disregards the existence of various levels of Pharisees.
L. FINKELSTEIN, The Pharisees, II, 609, correctly represents the 6,ooo as heads of
families. See Tos. Demai II, 14, p. 48 (ed. LIEBERMAN, op. cit., 7I).
68 Tos. Demai II, 14, p. 48 (ed. LIEBERMAN, 71).
0 See POLAND, Op. cit., 53.

70 The members
Le Nabateen, of a Nabataean
II, Lexique (Paris, 1932), 93. association were entitled .Haber. J. CANTINEAU,
71 For example, M. Demai II, 2; Tos. Demai II, 20, 21, 22, p. 48 (ed. LIEBERMAN,
72). For a general picture of the subject, see NEUSNER, art. cit., 136-42.
72 Ant. XVIII, I, 3, 15; especially Bell. J. II, 8, 14, 166.
73M. Demai VI, 9; M. Shebi. V, 9 (=M. Gittin V, 9); M. HIag. II, 4; M.
Tohorot VII, 4; etc.; see also Yeb. i4b.
" Tos. Meg. IV (III), I5, p. 226; ed. LIEBERMAN (Seder Mo'ed), 357. Semahot
XII, 5, ed. HIGGER, 195.
" GEIGER, Urschrift (Breslau, 1857), 2I1-26 (Heb. Hamikra we-Targumow
[Jerusalem, 81-82 ).

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 83

sees proper, was that they carried th

of the Law.76 These Haburot, then,
other Pharisaic units in that they we
mance of a particular Mizwah, in ad

purity.77 The
specifically, title shel
HIaburah H.iaburah shel
Bet ha-'A bel,Mizwah,
etc., may or, perhapstomore
correspond
the specific title of the Hellenistic societies. The reference to

.Haburot in the laws regulating the Paschal lamb and 'Erubin 78

apply only
composed of to Pharisaic groups; so that .Haburot there, too, are
Pharisees.
We may conclude our discussion of club titles by noting the
absence of individual ones. These titles usually indicated the
god to whom the society was dedicated or the benefactor, who
may have also been the founder or president of the organization.79
Obviously, individual titles of this nature were out of place with
the movement of Ezra's disciples.

(5) Bene Keneset

The term Bene Keneset which designated members of the
Keneset 80 is a genuine Hebrew idiom, as for instance Bene 'Ir
("the people of the city").8s It may therefore be no more than a
coincidence that the title Bene Keneset, like the Hellenistic soci-
eties - in harmony with the Greek cities, which were named
after their inhabitants 82 - emphasized the members who com-
posed the societies. At any rate, Bene is the literal equivalent
of the Greek suffix - o-rat, and of the terms ol o'-jv, oL wrEpt, which
were in vogue in Greece as well as in the Hellenistic societies in
Egypt beginning with the third century B.C.E.83
7 See MANTEL, op. cit., 86-88.
77 See MANTEL, op. cit., 266. The Talmudic reference to an early custom of

drinking a(Ket.
ha-Keneset cup8b;
of Semahot
wine atXIV,
the 14,
funerary meals,
ed. HIGGER, in recalls
209), honorthe
of report
both the
thatRosh and .Hazan
the members of the synodoi who participated in the funeral were rewarded with a
jug of wine each. POLAND, op. cit., 508.
7 M. Pes. VII, 12; M. 'Erubin III, 6.
79 POLAND, op. Cit., 56, 78.
so M. Bekorot V, 5; M. Zabim III, 2.

s"C. Y.AKASOVSKY,
JASTROW, Dictionary, 82;O.ar Leshon
KOHUT, 'Arukha-Mishnah (Jerusalem, 1956), I, 388;
ha-Shalem, I, 121. also
' See MAX RADIN, The Legislation of the Greeks and Romans on Corporations
(Columbia University), 14, 23. The city of Athens is called 'A90vatol.
'PoLAND, op. cit., 8ff., 25, 64, 77, 78-79; also ol abv, oi 0repI (ibid, 77).

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
84 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Thus, clubs were accustomed to style them

("those who follow . . ."), 4pavikorat ("those
laparto-rat ("the men of [who worship] Sara
'HpaKXco-,ral, 'Apo8&ctrcLaolta , Aovuvotrao-ral, e
membership was at times made even more c
addition of the definite article, of t"porat.s84

(6) Rosh ha-Keneset and Hazan ha-Keneset

The resemblance between the Jewish and H
tions extended also to their officers. Though
formity as to the number of officials among th
tions, two officials seem to have been almost u
dent and his minister.s" The most common tit
among the Greeks was -rpoo-rdr-q, eyq~uv;
title was usually dpXtcrvvdywyo, dapxto-wayw
This office not only corresponds to that of the
as we define the term Keneset, but these Gree
the ones applied to the presidents of synagogu
world.88 The second official, the rrqprqg,
synodos,89 corresponds to the Hazan ha-Ken
tion,90 and the same Greek title occurs in t
senses in which the Mishnah uses the term, nam
or beadle in charge of the sacred scrolls,91 and
ment official.92

4 POLAND, op. cit., 77.

'POLAND, op. cit., 337, 368; A. D. NOCK, art. cit., 75; s
(Loeb Classical Library), IX, 536.
s POLAND, op. cit., 355ff., 361. See also NOCK, art. cit.,
7 M. Yoma VII, i; M. Sotah, VII, 7-8. The terms "Rab
later as titles of presidents of trade guilds. R. Eleazar b. P
that he was not a scholar but a "Rabbi of the weavers"
Lakish (3rd cent.) was the "Rabbi" of gladiators (B.M

"Rosh"
of of the
professional butchers
guilds in Sepphoris
in Palestine (Tos. H. ullin
in the post-Destruction III,G.2,ALLON,
era, see p. 504). For
Toledot the existence
ha-Yehudim I, Io3-o6.
S"Mark 5:22, 35, 38; Luke 13:14; Acts 13:15, 18:8, 17. See LIDDELL-SCOTT, A
Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. cpXlw&-vvdywyos; ARNDT-GINGRICII, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the N.T. (London-Chicago, I957), 112.
89 See LIDDELL-SCOTT, 1872; ARNDT-GINGRICII S.V. V7r7ip6'7s, 850; B. T. HOLMES,
JBL 54(1935), 63-69; NOCK, art. cit., 79f.
0o M. Yoma III, I; M. Sotah VII, 7-8; M. Makkot III, 2.
" Acts 13:5; M. Yoma VII, I; M. So.ta VII, 7-8.
~ M. Makkot III, i2; Matt. 5:25, 26:58; Mark 14:54, 65; John 7:32, 45, 46,
18:3, 12, 18, 22, 19:6; Acts 5:22, 26.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 85

Another official, common to the Jewish

tions, was the ypaupparE,d. But their func

The Hellenistic grammateus was in char
ments,93 whereas the Jewish one was a
honored seat in the synagogue, accordi
parently because he taught there, and
Talmud, fixed the Biblical text,95 inter
acted as a legislator."9
The Jewish scribes were therefore more
grammateus who fixed the text and interp
works.98

Some Hellenistic societies had an official entitled dvayv(r-rT,

who read from the sacred books on the festivals.99 The same title

(dvaywVo-Kovre~) is applied to Jewish experts in the Torah by

the grandson of Ben Sira, in his introduction to his grandfather's
book.

(7) Bet ka-Keneset

Many of the Hellenistic associations which were dedicated
to the cult of a deity who was not the official god of the city
met at a fixed house, which they frequently owned. Some of
these associations were therefore known simply as 6 oTKOT.100
One of the names of the association houses was KOLVO oTKOT 101
- "the house of the association." The original meaning of the
Hebrew term for synagogue, Bet ka-Keneset, was then "the house

9 POLAND, Op. Cit., 383.

"4Matt. 23:1-8; Luke, 11:43. See ARNDr-GINGRICH, ypaAzuare'ds, I64f. There
was only one "seat of Moses" in each synagogue. E. L. SUKENIK, Tarbiz I (5690-
1930), 145.
9 Tikkune Soferim, etc. See LIEBERMAN, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (N.Y.,
1950), 28ff.
" Sank. 87a.
SM. 'Orkah III, 9; M. Yeb. II, 4; IX, 3.
9 See LIEBERMAN, Op. cit., 27. The Alexandrian grammateis, unlike the Soferim,
were tightly organized in a arvvoos. STRABO XVIII, 794; U. VON WILAMOWITZ-
MOELLENDORFF, Antigonos von Karystos, in Philogische Untersuchungen, vol. IV,
289; POLAND, op. cit., 228, 250, 464, 272; E. MAAs, Orpheus, 49.
"POLAND, Of. Cit., 399.
"1 POLAND, Op. cit., 152, 460; NOCK, art. cit., 75. The Greek name for synagogue
- avva-ywy7 - is found also as a general name for association. POLAND, op. Cit.,
152-55. Some early churches, too, adopted this title. E. ZIEBART, Das griechische
Vereinswesen (Leipzig, 1896), 131, n.2.
"o POLAND, Of. Cit., 460.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
86 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

of the Keneset," that is to say, the house set as

tion's meetings.
This does not mean, of course, that previou
public prayers and readings from the Torah, su
in Ezekiel,102 in the books of Ezra 103 and Neh
the second half of the Persian period whe
twenty elders, among them some thirty (or
instituted the Eighteen Benedictions." "05 On
istic era the form of organization changed 10
upheaval.107

(8) Prayer and Sermon

Remarkably enough, resemblance between the Keneset and
the Hellenistic clubs touches even the program of the meetings.
While the larger portion of the Hellenistic sessions was devoted
to the common meal and entertainment,108 nevertheless, it was
part of the obligation of the president or the chaplain of at least
some of the clubs to offer a prayer and deliver a sermon (OEoXoyla)
in praise of the patron god of the association.'09 In contrast, the
sessions of the "house of the Keneset" consisted exclusively of
prayer as well as reading from, and exposition of, the Torah and
prophets.10o Unlike the Hellenistic societies,111 the synagogues

12 Ezek. 8:Iff.
"o Ezra io:ioff.
1" Neh. 8:Iff.
" Meg. I 7b; Yer. Ber. II, 4, 4d.
0o See above, note 8.
o The Hellenistic associations had a social or dining hall, called dvpapdv (see
NOCK, art. cit., 47f.; POLAND, op. cit., 469). The room also served for various rites
(Noce, art. cit., 47f.). According to Ant. XVI, 6, 2, 164, the synagogues in the
Roman empire also contained a room, designated as dr5pwup, which has been defined
variously (see R. MARCUS, LCL, Josephus, vol. VII, 273, note c). Professor A.
Schalit in his Hebrew translation renders the term as a council-room, as does S.
KRAUSS, Synagogale Altertuemer, 25, but Schalit now tells me (citing Bell. J. V,
177) that all we can infer from the name is that it was set aside for men. KRAUSS
(ibid.) associates this with the Indrona or Iddron of the Babli (Meg. 26b), but
the origin of that term may be Assyrian (see JASTROW, A Dictionary, 45).
'" POLAND, op. cit., 350; NOCK, art. cit., 74; WESTERMANN, art. cit., 21, 24-27.
See also PHILO'S In Flaccum XVII, 136, and Legatio ad Gaium XL, 312.
"10POLAND, Op. cit., 268, 269, 399; NOCK, art. cit., 46; E. MAAS, Orpheus
(Munich, 1895), 26 (n. 2), 54, 84, 12o.
n11See PHILO, Legatio ad Gaium XL, 312. GEIGER (Urschrift, 114; Heb., 82)
supposes that the Haburot used to have common meals. See, however, MANTEL,
Studies, 266-67. In the diaspora, there may have been common meals associated

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 87

had no musical programs ( vw80oi'), proba

superior sanctity of the Temple in Jeru
that the institutions of public prayer and
entrenched in Judaism. The analogy, sligh
nevertheless, the association of these reli
synodoi and the Keneset.

(9) Penalties
The Keneset was similar to the Hellenist
both made provisions for penalizing vi
in these violations are typical. In the syn
primarily of a social nature, such as distu
delinquency in paying dues, disobedien
association.113 The Keneset imposed pe
of religious rules, presumably those wh
by the official city courts. Prior to th
the city and state courts were under the
priest,"'4 and to him the Pharisaic inte
had no validity. The Mishnah where th
described as administering flagellation 11
suggested previously, from the pre-Macc
the Second Temple period.
The antiquity of this Mishnah may ac
tion from the Pentateuch in prescribing on
instead of forty."7 The reason for this d
In the pre-Maccabean era, the flagell
Keneset were of an extra-legal characte
merely a sectarian organ. Second, the
with the synagogues. S. W. BARON, The Jewish C
I, 95f.
111 POLAND, op. Cit., 398ff.
" See Enziklopediah Talmudit III, 139-40; also, M. Ta'anit II, 5, and R. H.
24a.
n"POLAND, op. cit., 74, 446; NOCx, art. cit., 51; A. E. R. BOAK, Transactions
of the American Philological Association 68(1937), 212-20, and Michigan Papyri
(Ann Arbor-London, 1944), vol. V, Part II, no.243, 9off.
' See, e.g., The Book of Judith 4:6-8; 11:I4. See also ZUCKER, Studien zur
jiidischen Selbstverwaltung, 29; Y. M. GRINTZ, Sefer Yehudith (Jerusalem, 1957),
46.
`u M. Makkot III, 12.
1' M. Makkot III, io.
11 Deut. 25:3 ("by number forty").

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
88 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

under the aegis of the Zadokite high priests, pr

with the Pharisees as to what constitutes culpab
tion. Scripture associates flogging with social cr
Sadducees were literalists."19 The Pharisees, o
extended flagellation to the violation of practic
commandment and to trespasses calling for
by Divine hands.120 To indicate the nonlegal na
lation, the Keneset imposed only thirty-nine st
form of punishment remained generally in eff
Pharisees and their interpretations of the L
status.121 Finally, a form of punishment co
synodoi and the Pharisees was excommunication
this point significant is that the Pentateuch do
this form of punishment.123

(io) Rules and Regulations

Each Hellenistic association seems to have h
called vo'4lo or v~o'l cruvv6ov,124 regulating th
members. Candidates had to sign a copy of t
of approval.125

8s Deut. 25:1-3.
"9 Ant. XIII, 1o, 6, 297.
120o Tos. Makkot V (IV), I6, p.445. See also M. Makk
DEMBITZ, Jewish Encyclopedia, XI, 569f.
" See MANTEL, Studies, 96. The Amoraic exegesis (Makk
justifying the deviation from the Biblical forty stripes, is
of the Halakah. Raba states distinctly that "while in the To
are prescribed, the Rabbis came and reduced them by on
forty stripes are administered (M. Makkot III, io) probab
custom in Usha, his residence, no doubt in the post-Hasmo
12 POLAND, op. cit., 448. For the Jewish rules of excomm
op. cit., 225f. and 114-18. For a differing view on excom
Pharisees, see FINKELSTEIN, The Pharisees, I, 77f.
123 Ezra xo:8 provides excommunication as part of the p
fiscation and destruction of his property. See L. W. BATTE
Nehemiah, I.C.C. (Edinburgh, 1913-1940), 342. According
82f., excommunication here means that he is not considere
12'A. E. R. BOAK, Michigan Papyri, vol. V, Papyri f
(Ann Arbor, 1944), 9off. M. SAN NICOL6, Agyptisches
1915), 16-22. See, especially, BOAK, Proceedings of the
Association 68(1937), 212-2o0. The nomoi regulated (i) th
dent, (ii) dues, (iii) dates of meetings, (iv) conduct at
assistance, (vi) funerals, and (vii) fines.
' (de3Ko2 = "I consent"). See BOAK, Michigan Papyri
Tebtunis, Part II, 91, 95.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 89

An excellent list of such rules of the

in the Serek ha-Yakad or Megillat h
Scroll).126 The Pharisaic rules of co
have come down to us in the Tosefta
the Mishnah and the Abot de-R. Natha
and the Babli.130 The candidate is s
(ha-Mekabel 'al 'A zmo) to be a 1Habe
im, and Lieberman has shown that t
oath. 31

(11) Judicial Independence

Another case of parallelism is the judicial independence of the
association. The nomoi contain a clause imposing a fine for haling
a fellow-member into court for any action associated with the
synodos.132 As for the Keneset, we have the testimony of both
the Mishnah 133 and the Gospels ~34 that it inflicted flagellation.

(i2) Anshe Keneset ka-Gedolak

In conclusion, the analogy with the Hellenistic synodoi offers
us a new clue to the definition and the constituency of the Great
Synagogue. The Hellenistic societies were wont to form cartels
or unions and federations of professional, city or regional associa-
tions.135 There was a central, ruling body, consisting of delegates
from the branches, headed by a president.136 A famous ex-
ample of a federation of social clubs is the one which existed in
m A. M. HABERMAN, Megillot Midbur Yehudah (Israel, 1959), 66, lines 13-23
(RABIN, Qumran Studies [Oxford, I957], 1, followed by translation); M. BUR-
ROWS, The Dead Sea Scrolls (N.Y., I955), 379; H. GASTER, The Dead Sea Scriptures
(N.Y., 1956), 5of.; A. DUPONT-SOMMER, The Essene Writings from Qumran
(Cleveland-New York, I960), 86f.
m Tos. Demai II, 47-49; ed. LIEBERMAN, Zera'im, 68-73.
' M. Demai II, 2-3; Abot de-R. Nathan, ch. 40, p. 132 (ed. SCHECHTER; ed.
J. GOLDIN, English, I72).
' Yer. Demai II, 2-3, 22d-23a.
15 Bek. 3ob-3Ia.
' LIEBERMAN, JBL 7I(1952), 200.
' BOAK, op. cit., 94, and art. cit., 217; NOCK, art. cit., 53, n. I7. On the juristic
competence of the gilds, see M. SAN NICOILX in the H. Swobodo Festschrift,
e7rL-V.LjALoJ (1927), 255-99.
" M. Makkot III, 12.
'"Matt. Io:I7, 23:24; Mark 13:9; Acts 22:19. See above, n.27. The early
Christians, too, objected to taking cases to official courts. I Cor. 6:Iff.
x POLAND, op. cit., 78-80, 124f., I57, 167, 275.
M POLAND, Op. cit., 79.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Alexandria in the days of Philo, which was pre

notorious anti-Semite, Isidorus.137 Such federa
sal among Egyptian settlers everywhere,138 pre
the Egyptian officials, soldiers and merchants
in Palestine during the Ptolemean era.
The suggestion lies at hand that the Kenese
a federation of the various branches of the Ken
ing to the Hellenistic "associations of associatio
o-vvo'ov..39 Like the latter, the Keneset ha
consisted of delegates from the branches an
president. Since Bene Keneset designated the
of the association, it would seem that Anshe K
signified the leaders or delegates of the branche
There is no record of a president of the Ke
Without offering a definite suggestion we sha
two facts as basis for further investigation.
the Pharisaic Sanhedrin, beginning with the Zu
to bear the title Nasi.141 Second, the head of a
in Piraeus also bore the title Nasi, according
covered there.142 A further consideration i
Qumran sect bore the name Nesi ha-'Edah.l42
that the sect inherited the title from the pre-
tion of the Great Keneset, rather than that it
from the Pharisees. The combination of th
amount to a proof that the presidency of th
in the pre-Maccabean era also bore the title Na
the possibility.

" In Flaccum XVII, 136. See F. H. COLsoN, Loeb Class

536.
13 POLAND, op. cit., 79.
"~POLAND, op. cit., 167. Sometimes it was called Tb KOLJUV 0rov^ Odciaov.
140 See Yer. Meg. III, 2, 74a for this usage of Bene ha-'Ir. (The Talmudic usage
of Anshe is not consistent.) Yet this need not be conclusive, since Bene Bathyra
(Pes. 61a) are also called Zikne Bathyra (Yer. Pes. VI, I, 33a). The distinction
between Bene and Anshe being thus tenuous, it should still be valid when both
terms are applied to members of the same group.
1"1 M. Hag. II, 2. For the reliability of this tradition, see MANTEL, op. Cit., Iff.
142 See POLAND, op. cit., 375, based on Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum I.
114, dated 96 B.C.E.
142a Nesi Kol ha-'Edah in Megillat Bene Or, 5:1 (ed. HABERMAN, 98), Megillat
Berit Damesek, 7:20 (ed. HABERMAN, 81). I owe this reference to Professor F. M.
Cross.

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE 91

In summing up, the points of resemblan

and the Hellenistic synodoi are not of uni
would they of themselves be decisive.14
together that we must take note. Our a
been drawn to two facts: namely, that the
equivalent of u-tvo8o0, and that the Kene
at a time when the entire Mediterranean
religious and social associations, and w
the Egyptians in Palestine followed suit
becomes hard to resist the conclusion that forces of influence
were operating.
Nevertheless, the influence on the Keneset was largely re-
stricted to formal and organizational aspects. The primary task
of the Keneset ha-Gedolah was to continue the work of Ezra in
fostering and spreading the study and practice of the Oral Law.
The saying of the Men of the Great Synagogue: "Set up many
disciples" is an extension of Ezra's public meetings for prayer
and study. Finally, the synodoi which began as purely religious
associations assumed an increasingly social character.44 The
repeated emphases of the nomoi on proper conduct and sobriety
at the meetings 145 bear out the distinction which Philo drew
between the rilvo8o& and the houses of the Keneset:

"These gatherings (that is, in the synagogues), he said, were not

based on drunkenness and carousing to promote conspiracy and so to
do grave injury to the cause of peace, but were schools of temperance
and justice." 146
1s I. LEvy, La Ligende de Pythagore de Grace en Palestine (Paris, 1927), 236-
63, points out a list of parallelisms between the Pythagoreans and the Pharisees
(236-63) and the Essenes (264-93). But IAvy is unaware that the grades system
among the Pythagoreans was a later development, so that he is guilty of anachron-
ism. See K. VON FRITZ, PW, XXIV, 220-22.
The organization of the early Christians, "The Sect of the Nazarenes" (see
H. A. WOLFsoN, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers [Cambridge, Mass., 2nd ed.,
1964], 1-3), also had points of resemblance to that of the Synodoi.
It should be pointed out that none of the Jewish sects were "academic" soci-
eties, as J. NEUSNER (A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai [Leiden, 1962], 68,
n. 3) suggests. Unlike the Alexandrian grammarians (WILAMOWITZ, art. cit., 264),
they were dedicated to pious living, which included intensive study of the Torah.
14 BOAK, art. cit., 216; WESTERMANN, art. cit., 27.
1 BOAK, art. cit., 217; IDEM, op. Cit., 92f., 94; NOCK, art. cit., 40-42; TOD, op.
cit., 88-91.
'"Legatio ad Gaium XL, 312 (LCL, Philo, X, 157). See, also, In Flaccum
XVII, 136-37 (LCL, Philo, IX, 377).

This content downloaded from

193.225.26.253 on Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:53:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms