Biblical definition

And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." (Mark 9:1)

And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'" (Mark 4:11-12)

Historical context

The people of Judea existed under imperial occupation since the 6^th century BCE.

The brief interlude under the Hasmonean Dynasty 2^nd--1^st century BCE, while initially celebrated did not generate much enthusiasm among the populace.

Returning Judeans (from Babylon, c. 539 BCE and later) look forward to laying claim to land and (political) authority over it.

They wanted the kingdom "restored."

But without material power (having no military or a "billion dollars") the community could only legitimate its claim on the basis of religion.

Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the Israelites. (Ex. 19:5-6)

Using the language of empire, all land was attributed to being property of Yahweh, who as the only god/ruler could give the land to whomever he desired as reward or compensation for service (the Persian emperors were well known for doing this).

In short, restoration as a pillar of monotheism refers to the desire that land and authority over it will be attained by the monotheistic community.

But the Judeans waited under the Persian Empire (c. 539-331 BCE), the Greek Empire (331-164 BCE), and the Roman Empire (67 BCE--634 CE).

Judean groups

According to Josephus, there were four primary groups within the Judean community: Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots.

In the past, scholars have assumed that the Pharisees were the de facto leaders of the Judean territory.

Josephus suggests that both the Sadducees and Pharisees had political influence. The Sadducees under John Hyrcanus, and the Pharisees under Salome Alexandra and subsequent Hasmonean and then Roman rulers.

Schwartz, however, argues that the Pharisees did not constitute a single group.

Rather, the term may have been a pejorative used by Josephus (and others) to refer to Judean community and religious leaders who shared similar attitudes regarding how the community should navigate its relationship with the imperial power.

In rabbinic Hebrew, the word parush (pl. perushim), whose literal meaning is "separatist," often is used with a negative valence. ... Occasionally the word appears with the meaning "pietist" without negative overtones. In other passages, however, perushim is used as the name of a group, the group that Josephus and the New Testament call Pharisees.

The categorical designation fell out of "style" after 70 CE and beginning of the Diaspora in which many Judeans (but not all) were driven out of Judaea.

The community focused in turn on emerging Jewish patriarchs, who helped set the cultural norms in their cities.

But as Schwartz points out, many of the cities (as a consequence of their patriarchs) adopted aspects of "pagan" public life.

This resulted in an intensifying struggle within Jewish communities: could one be a Jew and assimilate? Did that mean giving up on hopes in restoration? Or must one draw clear boundaries between member and nonmember?

• Interpreting the law in that manner created a common object and idea ("pagan" Rome) against which to define the contours of Judean/Jewish community. (This same strategy can also be seen in early Christianity.)

[A] rabbinic or protorabbinic movement consisting largely of former Pharisaic and/or priestly scribes, judges, and teachers began to take shape after the Destruction. (Schwartz)

• Rabbis responded, in the absence of political and material power, by focusing their interpretations of torah on fetishes (pagan gods and other acts and objects of "worship") and outsiders.

But the rabbis were not the de facto authorities. That this was the case, suggests that Judean/Jewish communities were still divided into sects and were devoid of any central doctrine, ideology or group.

This fracture would increase the importance of the torah as a central, shared symbol that could regulate the broad boundaries of the community.

Failed revolts, faltering dreams

The number of failed revolts by members of the Judean community against its imperial overlord led to dissatisfaction with and attrition from Judaism (Schwartz)

Failure and subsequent dissatisfaction would result in more intensive strategies of self-preservation.

Some Judean Revolts:

• Judah Maccabee (164 BCE): temporary
• Jesus (30 CE): if a revolt, never got of the ground
• Zealot uprising (66-70 CE): First Great Revolt, ended catastrophically
• Egyptian diaspora (113-115 CE): Judean community was wiped out (also included communities in Cyprus and modern-day Libya)
• Simon bar Kokhba (132-135 CE): Second Great Revolt, ended in defeat and with the Romans renaming Judaea.

Due to internal and external pressures to assert the importance of preserving Judean identity, rabbis and other Judean/Jewish leaders focused on the centrality of the torah and the community's obligation to it.

Their interpretations (as preserved in the Mishnah and other texts) tended to emphasize maintaining clear boundaries.

The torah, which could move with the community, became a central symbol of the community. Leaders of the community tended to maintain that all law was "religious" law.

Around 200 CE, rabbis began to broaden their judicial activity to include issues like civil law.

This seems to reflect a focus on controlling external forces acting upon the community--a method to preserve stability.

This movement also coincides with the increasing civil influence that Jewish patriarch enjoyed--the patriarchs adopted the imperial model in their households. Schwartz describes them as "miniature Roman empires."

In many respects, then, the livelihood of Judaism rested upon patriarchal desire for civil, political influence and authority.

The rabbis, on the other hand, did not control anything but could lend influence among the people.