I liked Sanders' brief discussion of Josephus' value. He notes that Josephus had two principal themes: the revolt was caused by corrupt Roman administrators, and by Jewish brigands. I can understand why Josephus would emphasize the latter (to lessen the guilt of most of the Jews), but not the former. Despite noting that ancient historians invented speeches to show off their own oratory, Sanders seems to take Eleazar's eloquence as evidence that he was not simply a "brigand." Perhaps that is true of the Sicarii at Masada, who seem to have had some religious motives, but some of the factions in Jerusalem seem to have had little religious convictions, and are appropriately described as criminals.

Sanders defends his decision not to treat apocalyptism separately: "Jews did not have to choose between apocalyptism and worship in the temple, or between apocalyptism and the Pharisaic interpretation of sabbath law" (p.8). Eschatological speculations crossed party lines (though I doubt that the aristocratic Sadducees, not believing in a resurrection, had any apocalyptism).

Sanders describes two major differences between his book and most others: 1) "The Pharisees did not control Palestine, and [2] that the Mishnah does not necessarily describe general practice" (p.11). This makes sense, for the Pharisees couldn't control what most people did, and, as he says, the Mishnah is an ideal and may not even reflect what the Pharisees themselves did. I look forward to reading his discussion of whether the Pharisees controlled Palestine.

I like his emphasis on the common man. Most writers focus on the influential upper strata of society, but the real test of their influence is an examination of the common practice. I suspect that Sanders will expose me to both ends of the spectrum. Although some of the elite did become Christians, it seems that the bulk of Jesus' audience were the common people; it is appropriate to see what we know about them.

Sanders gives a concise historical overview of various periods, commenting on events that created religious controversy. Some Jews were willing to fight everyone, some only to defend the temple, some only to defend the correct family in the high priesthood. They varied on what tenets were "essential" to Jewish life. "Each successive step of Hasmonean success satisfied the goals of some and charged the fears of others" (p.19). Parties differed on Hellenization, law, high priesthood, and military control. But what caused schisms - why did the school of Shammai separate themselves from Sadducees but not Hillelites? Cohen's answer was inadequate; Sanders doesn't seem to address it.

It was interesting that Simon was called a "high priest for ever" (p.22); it indicates that there was nothing necessarily unique about Psalm 110:4.

Sanders' conjectural origin of the Sadducee party is plausible but not entirely convincing; as he says, it's better than the other ideas. Same with the Pharisees. The diagram on page 28 is a useful summary; I am curious about the "other pious," which I suppose he will discuss in chapter 20.

Sanders continues his historical overview but adds little of religious relevance.

Sanders offers evidence that Palestine was not continually seething with rebellion. "During the Roman period, tension rose and fell; it did not steadily mount" (p.40). "Foreign rule was not judge bad by everyone all the time.... Josephus argues strongly that the majority of the Jews were prepared to be obedient to Rome [just as they had been to Persia etc.]" (p.41). Yet for many, the political questions were inextricably linked to religious matters, and that complicated matters. Religious fanaticism would cause some to side with irreligious nationalists; equally strong fanaticism might cause others to avoid the irreligious. The mix of motives led to instability.

"There was a world-wide feeling of solidarity among Jews" (p.47). I accept that, but I also wonder how many dropped out. Even in Palestine, some Jews became so Hellenized that they became idolaters. In the Diaspora, I would think such apostates would marry Gentiles and later generations would eventually lose awareness of any Jewish ancestry. Today, many Jews are nonobservant or nearly so; I wonder how common that was back then.

"As a religion, [Judaism] was not strange because it included sacrifices, but because it included ethical, family and civil law as well.... In the Greco-Roman world ethics were discussed by philosophers but were not, as a rule, thought to have divine sanction" (p.50). Paraphrasing Josephus (p.51), religion was not a part of good behavior, but rather good behavior was part of religion.

It was interesting that Jews in both western and eastern Diaspora paid temple tax. Thus some priests, supported from abroad, were extremely rich. But it surprises me than some priests were very poor; he didn't seem to adequately explain that.

Much of this chapter was a detailed description of the temple, trying to harmonize various descriptions. He defends the accuracy of Josephus in particular. Most of the measurements seem interesting but irrelevant.

That the purity laws had become stricter was interesting. "The ideas of holiness and separation...informed the entire arrangement of the temple and its rites" (p.70). Only priests were allowed to build, whereas ordinary Jews built the first temple. Gentiles were excluded, whereas they were originally allowed. No matter what the reason, barriers, including social barriers, were becoming more prominent than access to God. Due to the influence of the temple especially on Palestinian Jews, it seems that the destruction of the temple would have been good for Jewish Christians, helping them reorient their relations with Gentiles and women. The destruction of the temple would have eliminated the importance of purity laws.

The estimate of number of priests is guesswork. "It is possible that there was also a change of shifts after the morning sacrifice" (p.78); later he seems to assume that the changes in shifts were fact. Of course, no one else's guess is better; it simply illustrates the problems in ascertaining numbers, even when an ancient source gives us some figures.

He defends the legitimacy of the sale of sacrificial animals on the temple platform; he describes John's account of the temple cleansing as "improbable" (p.88), especially due to its mention of cattle. I don't know what to make of that. John is admittedly polemic against Jews, but the other Gospel writers also describe a temple cleansing, presumably in a way that contemporary readers would agree with. Something unjust was going on, even if it wasn't the priests' fault. The sacrificial system itself was not exploitative, at least not any more so than pagan religions, but even a good system can be misused. Perhaps the problem was the elitism of the Pharisees or an emphasis on physical ritual at the expense of internal attitude. (On p.185, he says that "the phrase `den of robbers' does not prove that priests cheated," but he does not offer his own explanation; perhaps it is in his book Jesus and Judaism.)

The excursus on priestly vestments was an interesting analysis of evidence from various sources (with a favorable lean toward Josephus' accuracy). I found it interesting that priests worked barefoot (p.94) and that they wore wool mixed with linen (pp.95-96), a mixture prohibited in Deut. 22:11. Presumably the prohibition against mixed fabrics was for religious reasons, just as people were forbidden to make incense with a holy formula.

Josephus is again accepted as the best source. In much of the description of the Judaism of this period, the primary argument is about Josephus' accuracy. This illustrates the importance of reading Josephus himself first so I know what the modern writers are discussing.

"The Bible does not specify the precise purpose of most of the community sacrifices" (p.105). It was simply taken for granted that sacrifices were part of worship. The people who felt thankful probably viewed it as thanksgiving; people who felt guilt probably viewed it as atonement.

"Sin" offerings were used for purification after childbirth; "the ancient Hebrew term reflects a conception of `sin' as `deviation from the norm' " (p.108). I know there are many terms for sin; the nuance is probably important in some cases.

The "peace" offering is nicely termed a welfare offering (following the LXX); it seems that the shared banquet represented peace and friendship among those who ate together, a desire for such good conditions to continue among them.

I liked his explanation of peoples' likely emotional response to a sacrifice: not one of revulsion, but of joy in anticipation of a feast, much like rural slaughterings of not-so-long ago. But it was also an act of worship: "The act was surrounded by mystery and awe...the majesty of the physical setting, the physical acts...these guaranteed the meaningfulness and awesomeness of the moment" (pp.115-116).

I think he made a small mistake when he said "in a large edifice like the temple the sun's progress was easy to mark by noting which part of the wall it was over" (p.116). Actually, the sun's progress would be marked not by looking up, but by looking down. The temple, surrounded by walls with gates, made a large sundial.

A last note of interest was the pollution in the Kidron, the sediment sold to farmers as fertilizer (p.118). What did they do before the aqueduct was built?

Sanders briefly describes common occupations. Little here was notable except that grinding grain took about three hours a day. "Grain constituted over fifty percent of the average person's total caloric intake, followed by legumes (e.g. lentils), olive oil, and fruit, especially dried figs" (p.129).

Surviving art shows clothing and hair styles. But Sanders does not address whether art is a skewed sample; I would suspect that art leaned toward the wealthy and the more Hellenized Jews.

The estimate of Judean population again illustrates the problem of working with ancient numbers. "Few aspects of ancient history are as uncertain as numbers" (p.128).

Sanders reads between the lines to infer that some Jews sacrificed Passover lambs even when not at the temple, presumably without causing enough controversy to be recorded directly (pp.133-134). Even Palestinian Jews attended only "one of the three festivals each year. The requirement to attend three times each year was either ignored or evaded by exegesis" (p.130).

Sanders summarizes what seems to be one of his main points: "Some scholars suppose that common people were `in general lukewarm about religion', but few generalizations could be less true.... Loyalty to the community was inseparable from loyalty to the deity who called it into being.... Atheism was almost unknown in the ancient world.... The adherence of most Jews to the national religion cannot be doubted. It repeatedly led to difficulties with the rest of the world" (pp.144-145). The people were probably lukewarm about Jewish sects, but not about worshipping God.

Priests advocated 14 tithes in a seven-year period; Pharisees only 12. Josephus, who was both priest and Pharisee, advocated 14. This was an agricultural tithe, so no tithe would be paid in the seventh year, in which the land rested. But how did nonagricultural workers tithe - or did they? Sanders is silent on the question. Did day laborers have to tithe, or only landowners? What about fishermen or potters or merchants? Sanders presents this chapter as if it were almost mathematically precise, but he lacks precision.

The Levites were to get 9 percent and the priests 1 percent. But there weren't very many nonpriestly Levites. "In the second temple period there were relatively few" (p.78). Does this mean that the Levites were to be very rich and the priests poor? I suspect that there is something missing. Perhaps the high priest and his family got the 1 percent, and the other 9 percent was divided among both priests and Levites. Josephus reported two cases in which the high priests took the entire 10 percent, shortchanging the priests [not Levites] (p.149) (Perhaps the Pharisees called the second tithe the Levites' portion, since it was to be shared with Levites, and some commoners were unfaithful about second tithe.)

Another confusing portion of the book, again dealing with priest/Levite distribution, is whether some people withheld the 9 percent. "Most scholars miss the fact that the relevant passages assume that the ordinary people gave the priests their part; it was the Levites' share...which was imperiled" (p.150). But on p.430, he notes some question whether the commoners had paid even the 1 percent: "When one receives demai-produce, one should reserve and not eat only the `heave offering of the tithe', that is, the priests' tenth of the Levites' tenth." That is, they wouldn't eat it because they doubted whether it had been paid properly. I think Sanders is trying to defend the religious faithfulness of the common people, but p.430 preserves a scrap of evidence against it. Probably many were faithful and many were not.

Sanders, with some plausibility, tries to show that the common people were not taxed to death. They, and everyone else in the ancient world, paid both civil and religious taxes for centuries. One problem for the people, I suppose, was that tithes were automatically reduced in bad years, but taxes were not. What bankrupted the people were the extraordinary burdens, not the regular taxes (p.161). "We should not claim to have proved the hypothesis that the country was impoverished when we point out that there were insurgents. There were poor people and there were rebels; some people were doubtless both" (p.165).

Sanders makes some mathematical errors in calculating the total tax burden. First, he calculates "poor tithe" on 90 percent of the income. He subtracted the first tithe before figuring the second tithe, but he cites no support in text or precedent. Also, he divides the "poor tithe" by three, presumably because it was paid only every third year. That is true, but it does not mean that a third was paid each year. Using Sanders' figures, in some years poor tithe would have been 45 or 50 drachmas rather than the 15 he cites. So Sanders' estimate of the worst possible year is off. To recalculate Sanders' "worst possible case," we tally:

first tithe        50 drachmas
poor tithe        45 (or 50)
heave offering     9
temple tax          2
1st-born son     20
1st-born donkey 6
Roman taxes 62½

TOTAL 197, about 40 percent

In other years, the tax would come to 123 drachmas or 25 percent. Additional costs would ensue for sacrifices. Grant, Horsely, Borg, etc. may have exaggerated the tax load, but Sanders is making just as many errors in minimizing it.

One further question for Sanders: He says that "second tithe counted as festival and holiday money, and it was probably not felt to be a tax" (p.167). I am sure that the people would not have spent that much on festivals if it had not been commanded; it also seems reasonable that some would have resented the amount specified and shortchanged it, since they didn't keep every festival. If they weren't trusted to pay the Levites' 9 percent, they probably couldn't be trusted to save a full 10 percent for festival use.

Sanders' main point seems to be that the religion was not burdensome. "Financial hardship has more often than not been the fate of small farmers" throughout the world; hardship for Jewish farmers was not due to their religion. Of course not, if the people could withhold 90 percent of their tithe without penalty. "Even the Pharisees did not regard it as a transgression to eat the Levites' portion" (p.150). Perhaps it was not a transgression to ignore the second tithe for festivals, either.

The people ignored the requirements through exegesis (p.130) and ignored part of the required tithes (p.150). So we find out that the religion was not burdensome if the people ignored the burdensome parts.

Sanders defends the position that priests served as scribes and as teachers of the law. They were not disinterested in the people nor despised by them. His arguments seem valid.

"Josephus was not a creative theologian, and profundity is lacking. His theology is simple and straightforward; the grace of God is one of its prominent themes. The human response should be thanksgiving. It is almost certain that Josephus learned this theology in school, as part of his training for the priesthood" (p.187). Christianity's emphasis on grace was not a total departure from Jewish thought. Sanders at times seems to be writing an apologetic for Judaism. Perhaps it needs it.

"The temple service never suffered from neglect, and its rites were meticulously observed. This, in turn, implies the devotion of the priesthood and, in fact, of Jews generally." I would agree with the general piety of the ordinary priests, but I am skeptical about the aristocratic ones. Weren't some of the high priests involved in palace intrigues and purchasing offices?

"In paganism...the rules and rituals were difficult, and to many, bewildering.... Judaism, by comparison, was simple and straightforward [in sacrificial ritual].... Judaism's most distinctive point, however, was the extension of divine law to all the areas of life" (pp.190-191). I feel that Sanders is presenting the case a little unfairly here. Because religion extended into all areas of life, Judaism's rituals did become difficult and bewildering. Presumably the Pharisees and Essenes convinced many people that true piety was difficult to achieve. At least the commoners admired their piety and must have felt that their own was a bit lacking. Just like pagan laymen did, Jewish commoners left the details up to the experts. As Sanders described, they might confess their sin to the priest to find out what kind of sacrifice was appropriate. Lay people could study the law for themselves, and some laymen did become experts, but most did not. For many, religion was part of culture, not conviction.

It is interesting that the law was commonly divided in two - piety to God and justice to neighbor - although they were intertwined and overlapping.

"Ancient Christians did not criticize non-Christian Jews for engaging in temple worship, but rather for not accepting the death of Christ as the true atoning sacrifice" (p.195). Interesting, and relevant to the Christian community in Jerusalem, and Paul's participation. "Matthew 23.5 criticizes the Pharisees for making their tefillin (called `phylacteries' in Greek) too broad, but not for wearing them, which shows that others wore them as well" (p.196).

The discussion of common practice was interesting; I liked Sanders' criterion for determining was common: things taken for granted, a priori assumed in an argument.

The 18 benedictions were instructive. Sanders notes that they evidence "synagogal shaping," by which he seems to mean adaptation for communal rather than individual use. But I suspect that they also evidence post-Temple adaptation. The emphasis on forgiveness based on repentance may have come from the impossibility of sacrifices; it would be interesting to see more evidence whether the benedictions reflect thought or emphasis during temple times. Dead Sea Scrolls, written by people also cut off from the temple, may have been shaped from a similar bias. The Scrolls "greatly emphasized the inability of humans to be righteous [was this in reaction to Pharisaic emphasis?] and...dwelt on the mercy and righteousness of God" (p.206). Since they could not sacrifice, they had no other choice but to emphasize mercy. (Sanders gives more evidence on p.253.)

Sanders takes 1 Cor 14:26 to reflect common practice, but I doubt it. Paul was correcting the Corinthians, not affirming their practices. He pointed them toward greater order in their meetings, but I don't think his instructions are meant to reflect the ideal. "It is probable...that it did not cross Paul's mind that the congregation might sing a hymn in unison" (p.208). But didn't people sing in unison in the temple? It seems like it could have crossed Paul's mind, and could have been early Christian practice.

Sanders gives evidence that common people kept the Sabbath and the Sabbatical year.

Sanders notes that Josephus thought someone with corpse-impurity would need to sacrifice two lambs. Note 15, page 520, also notes that Josephus, perhaps all priests, required more sacrifice that the Bible specified on another matter, too. This would add to the cost of the religion that Sanders has tried to minimize. "It may be that the non-biblical law, cited by Josephus as if it were a Mosaic decree [presumably taken for granted], was a priestly rule that constituted an extra tax on pilgrims" (p.219).

Food purity rules must have been confusing: "Not everyone kept the same impurities away from the priesthood; not everyone started handling the priests' food in purity at the same point in the food chain.... People who say that the Pharisees handled all food in purity have not paid attention to the realities of life" (p.221). "Some people used water that other people considered invalid" (p.227). Sanders describes many variances in purity rules.

"Some scholars, possibly thinking of our own day, have proposed that most Jews were `lukewarm'. Few statements could less adequately reflect the impression gained from reading ancient literature, whether Jewish, Christian or pagan" (p.238). This is a frequently repeated theme of this book, and an acknowledgement of why this book is needed.

"Coinage bearing graven images - both of people and of pagan deities [even in the temple!] - circulated in Palestine (cf. Mark 12.13-17), but these images did not lead to riots. As is always the case, those who followed the Bible literally had to decide when to do so.... Lesser ones were allowed to pass, and some images were not regarded as offenses at all" (p.243). Here again, Sanders is showing that many people found it too burdensome to keep the ideals of the Law. They were religious, but not zealous.

The section on reward and punishment was one of the most interesting so far. "When Christian scholars discuss Judaism they usually think of reward and punishment as `soteriology'.... God counts deeds and saves those who have more good deeds than bad. Repentance serves to eliminate only one evil action, and thus it is the same as a good work.... This is a gross perversion of the evidence" (p.272). God wiped out sins by punishment: "In theological language, suffering and death atone" (p.273). If the wicked didn't suffer in this life, they would in the next: "One should worry about not suffering in this world, since it might mean that punishment was still in store." Even those who will be saved could be lightly punished in the afterlife, says Sanders, citing 1 Cor 4:4f (p.274).

Since the righteous often suffer in this world, an afterlife could set things straight, an idea that seems associated with apocalyptism. But Sanders does "not propose what in our period it was common to transfer reward and punishment to the world to come. On the contrary, most Jews [i.e., conventional wisdom] seem to have accepted the view of Deuteronomy, that God's justice is administered in this world" (p.274).

But salvation (independent of reward or punishment) "depended on being in the covenant" (p.274). "God saves according to his mercy...but rewards and punishes according to his justice" (p.275). The correlation between the saved and those who have good works is "not `works righteousness', but only common sense.... It would be preposterous to think that people who loved God and wished to be members of the covenant in good standing would not try to keep his law - at least most of them most of the time.... Fundamental to Jewish piety was the view that God's grace [election] preceded the requirement of obedience [covenant]" (p.275). These things ring true. Judaism had more grace than I was aware of.

I expected this chapter to be primarily about the afterlife, but much of it was on this-life national aspirations. That probably illustrates the potential problems of approaching another religion with a Christian frame of reference and terms. We think primarily in terms of individuals; many ancients seem to have thought primarily in terms of group continuity.

Sanders makes a good case for not calling all insurgents Zealots. "Josephus wanted to isolate rebels, and he did this in part by relegating them to a separate `philosophy' " (p.282). Not all rebels had the same motives. Some probably had socio-economic motives with cloak of religious zealotry for support; others were probably primarily religious in motive cooperating with socio-economic rebels to achieve a desired end result. Rebels probably spanned the spectrum; there was room for wide diversity of thought. The aristocrats likewise were of mixed motives.

"The expectation of a messiah was not the rule" (p.295). This ran contrary to what I had heard before, yet it seems true. It does justice to the varying notions of what the messiah would be: There was no fixed notion partly because even the notion of a messiah was not fixed. It was speculative but not heretical.

Regarding the afterlife, opinion is not clear as to whether Jews believed in immortality or resurrection. "We are left knowing [merely] that Jews...believed in an afterlife and in individual reward and punishment.... What is much clearer is the widespread hope of a new age [in apocalyptic terms?] on this earth" (p.303).

Pages 306ff have some excellent temple drawings. But there is sloppy attribution for them. Note 20, page 499 suggests that they are from Busink, but I'm not sure.

Little can confidently be said about Sadducees as a religious school of thought; more information is available for the broader category of aristocrats and chief priests.

"It might be thought that the office [of high priest] fell into disrepute. On the other [hand], it is clear that successive high priests maintained not only power but also influence with the masses. Conceivably, both things could be true simultaneously" (p.321). "The high priests was expected by the secular power to be in control and not to let things get out of hand" (p.322). One high priest was corrupt; another was highly praised. "Some aristocrats, both priest and lay, could pass the most rigorous test of loyalty [during the siege of Jerusalem] and were not suspected of being self-serving" (p.329).

Citing the calendar, Sanders shows that the Sadducees did not limit themselves to the Pentateuch. "It may be that they had their own body of additional rules and rejected only those that the Pharisees called `the traditions of the fathers'. This possibility is supported by rabbinic references to a Sadducean book of decrees" (p.335).

Sanders plausibly defends the aristocrats from charges of widespread corruption. "There is no reason to think that the members of Jerusalem's oligarchy were worse than the wealthy of other cities.... That rich people were wicked seems not to have been what average first-century Jews thought" (p.338).

"Both the aristocrats and the Pharisees...need to be saved from misinterpretation, while this is not true of the Essenes" (p.341). Much of this chapter is descriptive and evoked no reaction. I would wonder, though, whether grape juice could be kept without it fermenting (Vermes and Schiffman say the sectarians drank grape juice). I also wonder how the 364-day calendar was kept from seasonal shift. His suspicion that Zadokite priests became scarce through celibacy was also interesting (p.364f).

The Essenes were obsessed with purity rules, although they had no biblical solution for corpse impurity. Moreover, they envisioned a Jerusalem that was perfectly pure, but yet men might have nocturnal emissions in it. So what was the point of it all? Like other Jews, their views about the afterlife were so vague that we don't know whether it was immorality or resurrection.

The simultaneous teaching of predestination and freewill is interesting, and related to grace and works, which they also held simultaneously.

Sanders has much to say about the Pharisees, to correct two errors. In this chapter he corrects the error that the Pharisees were the most influential group. I enjoyed the argument. He sketches the history of the Pharisees to make this main point: "As long as the Jewish state endured the Pharisees never again came close to the kind of power that they exercised during the reign of Salome Alexandra" (p.383). "For the most part, Roman authority was channelled through the high priest and his allies and friends" (p.388). These statements foreshadow Sanders' conclusions in chapter 21.

Sanders' detective work on Josephus' accuracy is again interesting, tracing his favorable comments about the Pharisees to Nicolaus, Herod's courtier. "These passages...show that Herod's true supporters distrusted the Pharisees.... Not a single story in Josephus can serve to back up the remarkable generalizations" (p.393).

"The Pharisees' lack of power...is confirmed by the accounts of Jesus' trial in all four gospels and...in the early chapters of Acts" (p.394). I hadn't thought about it before. Jesus criticized the Pharisees, but it was the aristocrats who put him to death. Perhaps [my thoughts, not Sanders'] the Pharisees were willing to continue polemic debate, but the aristocrats, responsible for maintaining order, feared that Jesus would lead another messianic mob and cause trouble. They seemed particularly upset about fears that Jesus was anti-temple; this could explain why the people wanted Jesus crucified. The economy of Jerusalem depended on the temple.

Sanders seems to side with the scholars who view Christianity's break with Judaism as primarily creedal (Jesus is divine) rather than based on teaching. I suspect that both may be involved, but the creedal theory rings true. Some of Paul's theology seems to stem from the question: Why did a divine have to die? On the road to Damascus, Paul became convinced that Jesus was divine. That necessitated changes in understanding atonement, forgiveness, faith, etc. in a chain reaction.

Sanders concludes that the Pharisees were middle class: "neither leisured nor destitute" (p.405). They were not champions of the poor. "The modern notion of class antagonism does not provide a good basis for understanding first-century Judaism" (p.406). I would suspect that the poor might envy the rich but not resent them; the assumption would be that the rich were rich because God wanted them to be.

Sanders almost implies that the Sicarii were Pharisees, at least in theology, differing only in their willingness to rebel (p.408) - a tendency found also in Pharisees at other times.

In this chapter Sanders corrects misconceptions about Pharisaic theology.

I am surprised that Sanders rejects Neusner's three-volume work. "The entire job needs to be done again" (p.414). Perhaps so, but is it likely to be done? It seems like Neusner ought to be given more credit for pioneering the task. "This remains the best single body of evidence, but as yet it has been inadequately studied and utilized" (p.414).

Sanders again returns to his phrase covenantal nomism (p.416). I don't know what he is gaining with this term; perhaps he is arguing against concepts I'm not aware of.

"Josephus attributes leniency to the Pharisees" (p.419), and this leniency is mentioned at other points by Sanders. But this leniency is relative to the Essenes and the priests; it might not be called lenient today. Their Sabbath rules don't seem lenient: "The Pharisees classified laying hands on the [sacrificial] animal's head as `work' " (p.425).

Sanders neatly proves that Pharisees did not really believe their oral traditions went back to Moses: "Often the academy continues to debate the issue after `Moses' has been quoted" (p.423). He less neatly, through silence of the literature, shows that they did not ostracize others (except when dining). "The only attitude toward the priests in the early layers of rabbinic literature is one of protection, support and respect.... The attitude towards the ordinary people...is notably non-polemical and non-judgemental" (pp.434-435).

"Christian scholars [sometimes]...imagine that the Pharisaic meal was sacred and that exclusion from it was a kind of excommunication.... It is incorrect to assume...that in the first century people thought that salvation depended on dining together.... Neither the Sadducees nor the Pharisees thought that, since they did not all eat the sabbath meal together, the members of the other party were excluded from Israel" (pp.441-442).

Were the Pharisees hypocritical? Not in the modern sense. "They were motivated by true religious devotion and the desire to serve God" (p.447). Some were perhaps obsessed with trivia, feeling self-righteous, but rabbinic literature in general "emphasizes the importance of right intention and pure motive, of acting in a spirit of love and humility" (p.447).

Sanders seems to be painting too rosy a picture. Surely there were social classes based on religiosity; surely the multitudinous purity rules had counterproductive social results; surely the pious elite looked down on the people of the land; surely their traditions did add burdens to some biblical laws, and exegete away others; surely it was right for Jesus to criticize them.

It was interesting that two literary works could not be tied to any religious party. Sanders says they "embody the underlying common theology, covenantal nomism" (p.457), as if they illustrated unity. I read them instead as illustrators of diversity. Covenantal nomism may be a significant core, but it seems that many variants were allowed. It was more chaotic than monolithic. The 364-day calendar, advocated by Essenes in Qumran, Essenes in cities, Jubilees, Enoch and presumably others, is a notable example. Various people may have been keeping Holy Days on different days, sacrificing Passover lambs away from the temple, etc., with nary a mention in the literature! We'd think it controversial; ancient writers seem to have paid little attention. Why? I suppose because they were used to that sort of variances. Jesus could take a doctrine here, and doctrine from there, advocate an idiosyncratic teaching on something else, and attract a following.

Sanders gathers his conclusions from various chapters and places them together. There were no surprises. The Mishna doesn't legislate practice - it may describe pre-existing practice, or a non-achieved ideal. It has to be evaluated. The assumptions seem more trustworthy than the legal opinions expressed in the debates.

The Sanhedrin was probably an ad hoc court with little power of its own. Real power was informal, done behind closed doors by aristocrats. "People who, because of birth, wealth, abilities, or position, were `leaders' often acted on their own or collaboratively to get things done, with no reference to a formal body.... These people did not become officials; they had no titles" (p.485). "Influence and control varied from time to time, from region to region, and from issue to issue" (p.490). That sounds like the real world.

Sanders speculates about why Judea was difficult to rule, and whether anyone could have done better. He ends by saying that he rather likes the high priests and the Pharisees, but not the other pietists. "Mostly, I like the ordinary people" (p.494). I have no reaction.

I prefer footnotes. Some of the endnotes were merely citations, but many were informative and added to the discussion. It is a nuisance to have to flip back and forth in the book, to have to keep two bookmarks.

The bibliography is a good resource in itself, though I note that he does not list Neusner's 43-volume work that he mentions on p.443. In his comments on histories of Judaism, I learned that Jews did not settle in Greece (p.553). That is relevant to Paul's churches in Greece (perhaps not Macedonia).

Last, his book does not have an index of subjects; this seems like an inexcusable weakness in a book that claims to be "the major resource for study of Palestinian Judaism...for years to come" (back cover). A subject index would certainly increase its usefulness as a reference work.