One of the things I appreciate about working with Ra’anan Boustan is that no assumption is safe from questioning. In his courses, you have to define what you mean by words or phrases like “Hellenism,” “anti-Semitism,” “the parting of the ways,” and of course, “Judaism.” Consensus is no excuse.
This is why I sit up and take notice whenever Boustan delineates a topic in explicit categories. I love to fly amidst complicated whirlwinds of nuance, but at the end of the day, I need some solid footing so I don’t get too dizzy. Yesterday, he offered one such footing: four basic views found in scholarship regarding Second Temple Judaism. Here goes:
- There is one “normative” Judaism. This older view posits that there is a clear orthodoxy in Second Temple Judaism and there are those who do not accept that orthodoxy. To come up with this “normative” orthodoxy, these scholars have homogenized the messages of the Rabbis, then retrojected that homogenized vision back into the Second Temple period, thus establishing an anachronistic orthodoxy. [Incidentally, and this is my own comment here, this pitfall often occurs outside scholarship. Watch out for it, Rob Bell fans.]
- There are (too?) many “Judaisms”. As a corrective to the earlier view, this approach sees a multiplicity of microformations of Judaism in the Second Temple period, each of which are represented by separate texts. Here we are speaking particularly of Neusner, who I believe coined the term “Judaisms”. One potential problem, however, is that this view takes every text as having its own community and worldview, borrowing a similar approach from New Testament studies (i.e., the Johannine community, the Matthean community, etc.). That is, this view helpfully corrects the monolithic and anachronistic “normative Judaism” approach, but it may simply have too many Judaisms.
- There are basically two major streams of Judaism. In this view, we have the existence of variety, but each of the major streams are relatively homogeneous. For instance, there might be an Enochic stream and a Mosaic stream. Enochic literature is seen at its core as “non-Torah-centered” and not centered on the Jerusalem cult. Boustan cited Gabriele Boccaccini here, who emphasizes distinction and coherence in his treatment of Second Temple Judaism. Boustan himself admitted to skepticism of reified boundaries between major streams. I have not yet closely read Boccaccini myself.
- There exists a variegated Jewish society. In this view, we see tensions between multiple different standpoints. We do not have a single totality of views, nor is Jewish society factured into a million pieces, nor is it two big streams. Our textual evidence comes from a small elite group, fractured by a range of interests with changing alliances over time. Boustan finds himself in this camp, along with others we read for this week’s seminar session, Martha Himmelfarb and Annette Reed (Reed and Boustan both worked under Himmelfarb at Princeton). Boustan suggests that the field of Second Temple studies needs to incorporate some of the insights of social history here. Further, we need to pay attention not only to abstract ideas, but to practices that bound people together (e.g., the common practice throughout the Judean heartland of pilgrimage to the Temple).
One scholar who defies these categories to some extent is E. P. Sanders. Sanders is a kind of “neo-holist,” arguing a common Judaism, but bases it upon beliefs rather than practices. Sanders, of course, has been interested in correcting trends in NT scholarship that have depicted Judaism as legalistic–hence, the emphasis on belief rather than practice.
What do you think? Are there other scholars that fit well into these categories? Scholars who don’t? Are there additional categories not mentioned here that might be helpful? Should this qualify for IVP’s “four views” series? 
