¹ M. Abot, I. 1; Abot de-R. Nathan versions I & II, chapter 1, ed. Schechter, 1b (English translation in Goldin, Judah, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan [New Haven, 1955], 4ff)Google Scholar.

² Baba Batra 15a.

³ Abot de-R. Nathan, version I, chapter i, ed. Schechter, 1b. (But see ibid. note 22; also Goldin, op. cit., 176, n.22).

⁴ Ber. 33a.

⁵ Yer. Sheḳ. V, 1, 48c.

⁶ See Ryle, H. E., The Canon of the O. T. (London, 1914), 250–83Google Scholar, who summarizes most medieval and modern views.

⁷ Englander, H., HUCA (1925), 145–66Google Scholar; Bickermann, E., Revue Biblique 55 (1948), 397–402Google Scholar; Gutman, Y., ha-Shilo'ah 21 (1909–1910), 313fGoogle Scholar.

⁸ In a forthcoming work on the Men of the Great Synagogue, I discuss these points in detail. An abbreviated form of that work will constitute a chapter in the fourth volume of the World History of the Jews.

⁹ Krochmal, N., Kitbe R. N. Krochmal, ed. Rawidowitz, S. (2nd ed., Waltham, 1961), 62ft., 121, 128ff.Google Scholar; Levy, S., MGWJ 4(1855), 301–08Google Scholar; Herzfeld, L., Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I (Leipzig, 1863), 380–95Google Scholar; Sachs, S., Zeitschrift d. religiösen Interessen des Judenthums 2(1845), 301–12Google Scholar; Hoffman, D., Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 10(1883), 45–63Google Scholar; Krauss, S., JQR, O. S. 10 (1898), 347–77Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Loew, L., Gesammelte Schriften (Szegedin, 1889), I, 399–499Google Scholar; Zeitlin, S., Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 2(1930–1931), 69–81Google Scholar; idem, Ner Maʻarabi 2(1925), 137–42Google Scholar; L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees, II, 576–77; idem, JBL 59(1940), 455ff.; S. B. Hoenig, The Great Sanhedrin, 33.

¹¹ Finkelstein, L., Ha-Perushim we-Anshe Keneset ha-Gedolah (N.Y., 5700–1950), 31–38, 51ffGoogle Scholar.

¹² Ezra 10:7,8,16. It was also called simply “Kahal” (= community), Ezra 10:12; and “Golah” (= exile), ibid. 10:6. The references in Ezra (10:13, etc.) and Nehemiah (8:1ff.) to “people” (ʻAm) are not to the entire Jewish population, but, as the context indicates, to “the community.”

¹³ Ezra 10:16.

¹⁴ Ezra 10:14; Nehemiah 10:1; 11:1ff.

¹⁵ Nehemiah 8:7,9,11; 9:4ft.

¹⁶ Megillah, 17b; Yer. Ber. II, 4, 4d.

¹⁷ Ruth Rabbah IV, 5; Yer. Meg. I, 7, 70d. Elsewhere (see note 8) I explain my reason for regarding these traditions as genuine.

¹⁸ Seder ‘Olam Rabba, chapter 6, p. 70 (ed. B. Ratner, Wilno, 1894–97). Cf., however, Urbach, Tarbiẓ 17 (5706–1946), 2; Y. Kaufman, Toledot ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit, IV, 1, 379, n.2.

¹⁹ Tos. Soṭah XIII, 2, 318; Soṭah 48b; Yoma 9b; Sank, 11a; Abot de-R. Nathan, version I, chapter 1, p. 2 (ed. Schechter; Engl. transl. by Goldin, p. 4.).

²⁰ R. Marcus (JBL 51 [1952], 2O7f.) argues that in Philo's description of the Essenes the term ὅμιλοσ (which is the Greek equivalent of Yaḥad) serves to identify both the order as a whole and its local communities. Marcus' conclusion is supported by the text of the Serek ha-Yaḥad (Megillat ha-Serakim VI, ed. Haberman, 65–66) and elsewhere. This is also the view of J. Licht, Megillat ha-Serakim (Jerusalem, 5725–1965), 9, 14. However, Cross has shown that Yaḥad 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 Mahanot, Camps (Cross, F. M. Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran, 2nd ed. [Garden City, N.Y., 1961], 79f. and notes)Google Scholar.

²¹ M. 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., 230ft.

²³ The Zadokite Documents, ed. Rabin, Ch., 2nd rev. ed. (Oxford, 1958), X, 4ff., 49Google Scholar; Megillot Midbar Yehudah, ed. A. M. Haberman, 84.

²⁴ Ed. Haberman, ibid., 65ff.; ed. Burrows (The Dead Sea Scrolls), 378–84; ed. Dupont Sommer (The Essene Writings from Qumran, trans, from French), 85ff. See especially note 1 (ed. Gaster, p. 49, however, renders rabbim as “publicly”).

²⁵ Lieberman, S., JBL 71(1952), 199–206, especially 201, 203Google Scholar.

²⁶ See Mantel, H., Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge, Mass.), 30Google Scholar, end of note 175; 96–98.

²⁷ See above, note 8. The Gospels (Matt. 10:17, 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. 10:17; 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.

²⁸ Finkelstein, op. tit., 53–54.

²⁹ Berliner, A., Targum Onkelos (Berlin, 1884), II, 224–25Google Scholar.

³⁰ See Sperber, A., The Bible in Aramaic (Leiden, 1956)Google Scholar, on Ex. 21:24 (124); Deut. 19:21 (324). See also discussion in Mantel, H., Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), 261fGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Lev. 4:13, etc. See Mantel, op. cit., 45, n, 257.

³² See A. Sperbek, op. cit., on Ex. 16:1–2 (115), Ex. 16:22 (117); Nu. 21:34 (246), Nu. 16:2 (249).

^32a See Cross, op. cit., 79.

^32b Qp Nah. 3:7. See Flusser, D., Molad 19(1961), 457Google Scholar.

³³ H. Lichtenstein, Die Fastenrolle (reprinted from HUCA 8–9 [1931–32] [342–43]), 86f.

³⁴ Lichtenstein, op. cit. (297–98), 41f.; see, especially, Hoffman, D., Magazin 10(1883), 57fGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Ant. XIII, 16, 1–2, 405–09.

³⁶ For literature on the Hellenistic societies, see especially Poland, F., Geschichte des Griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig, 1909)Google Scholar.

³⁷ Philo, Legatio ad1 Gaium 40, 311; Josephus, Ant. XIV, 257–60; Digest XLVII, 22. See Schuerer, E., Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes, III (4th ed., Leipzig, 1909), 97ff.Google Scholar (Eng. transl., A History of the Jewish People, 2nd Division, vol. II [1898], 252ff.). Further discussion and bibliography, see Smallwood, E. M., Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden, 1961), 205f., 236fGoogle Scholar. Baumgarten, J. (JBL 77 [1958], 244–57Google Scholar) supposes that the ḥaburah was simply “a society for the strict observance of ritual cleanliness.” He overlooks the fact that the ḥaburah was merely the highest subdivision of the Keneset or Pharisaic society. Before joining the ḥaburah as a Ḥaber, 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 difference 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 Ḥaber and the Perushi is evident from the fact that both regard the clothes of an ʻAm 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 Ḥeber ha-ʻIr, 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).

^37a Koffmahn, E., Biblica 42(1961), 433–42Google Scholar and ibid. 44(1963), 46–61, points out that Yaḥad 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.

³⁸ Tod, M. N., Sidelights on Greek History (Oxford, 1932), 71ffGoogle Scholar. For further references, see Westermann, W. L., The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18(1932), 19Google Scholar.

³⁹ Poland, op. cit., 23ff., 77; see also Nicolò, M. San, Aegyptische Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer (Münich, 1913), I, 18ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Tod, op. cit., 80f.

⁴¹ Poland, op. cit., 79, 256.

⁴² II Kings, 22:14.

⁴³ See Rost, L., Die Vorstufen von Kirche und Synagoge im A.T. (Stuttgart, 1938), 61–64Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ I. H. Weiss, Dor I (1924 ed.), 49–50; Zer-Kavod, M., Bet Mikra 15 (5723–1963), 5–8Google Scholar; Herford, R. T., The Pharisees (N.Y. 1924), 18–21Google Scholar; L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees, I, 263f.

^44a The large scale immigration to Egypt, the commerce with Egypt (see V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum, vol. I, 1–2; V. A. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization [Phila., Pa., 1961], 272–73) and the penetration of Hellenistic individualism (Ant. XII, 4,10,224) must have contributed to the undermining of the prestige of the heads of the fathers' houses.

⁴⁵ See above, note 8. Westermann, W. L., The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18(1932), 16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 19, supposes that among Jews no synodoi existed because 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.

⁴⁶ Poland, op. cit., 8ff., 152; Tod, op. cit., 74–76.

⁴⁷ Poland, op. cit., 160f.; Nock, A. D., etc., HTR 29(1936), 72Google Scholar. The Egyptian clubs exercised great influence over those of Asia Minor. Poland, op. cit., 128, 218, 361, 524.

⁴⁸ See Tcherikover, V. A. and Fuks, A., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), vol. I, 2, especially note 3Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Poland, op. cit., 128f.

⁵⁰ See Jastrow, A Dictionary, 650; A. Kohut, ʻAruk ha-Shalem, vol. IV, 258–60; J. Levy, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim, etc., II, 355f.

⁵¹ Poland, op. cit., 53.

⁵² For a discussion of this point, see Büchler, A., Der galiläische ʻAm ha-'Ares (Vienna, 1906), 9ffGoogle Scholar. (Heb. ʻAm ha-'Areẓ ha-Galili, transl. Y. Eldad [Jerusalem, 1964], 15); Lieberman, art. cit., 201f., 206c.; Rabin, , Qumran Studies (Oxford, 1957) 1–21Google Scholar; J. Neusner, HTR 53(1960), 125–42. Lieberman shows the antiquity of the rules of the Ḥaburah (art. cit., 204f.) which tallies with our theory that the Keneset (a cognate term for Ḥaburah) goes back to pre-Maccabean times.

⁵³ M. Demai II, 3; Tos. Demai II, 2, p. 47; ed. Lieberman, 68. For a bibliography 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 Zeitlin, S., The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State (Philadelphia, 1962), 10f.Google Scholar; Finkelstein, L., The Pharisees, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia, 1962), 76Google Scholar.

Lieberman's correction (Tosefta Ki-Feshuṭah, Zeraʻim I, 210) of Tos. Demai II, 2 from “ha-Meḳabel” to “u-MeḲabel” 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 Ḥaber at once (ibid., 209). In either version the Tosefta first enumerates the four things with which the Ḥaber obligates himself, as follows:

(1) He will not give Terumah to an ʻAm ha-'Aretz;

(2) nor tithes to an ʻAm ha-'Aretz; and

(3) he will not fix foods requiring levitical purity in the company of the ʻAm ha-'Aretz. These three prohibitions are based on the suspicion that the ʻAm ha-'Aretz will defile the produce. In principle, then, these prohibitions are identical to the first two prohibitions which the Haber assumes according to the Mishnah (Demai II, 3) “that he will not sell to an ʻAm ha-'Aretz foodstuffs that are (1) wet or (2) dry,” for the latter will defile them. The Tosefta concludes with the assumption of the Ḥaber (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 ʻAm 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 a Ḥaber assumes four obligations; the specifications of these obligations, however, were not uniform. Moreover, it seems that these 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 (1) from what he eats, (2) from what he sells and (3) from what he buys (to sell again).”

The superior status of the Ḥaber is illustrated by the fact that R. Judah's permission to be the guest of an ʻAm ha-'Aretz applies only to the Ne'eman, but not to the Haber. The versions of the Tosefta which do not follow Lieberman's corrections place the Haber first because of his superior position, for the ʻaber represents the final stage of the ascent.

⁵⁴ M. Demai II, 2; Tos. Demai II, 2, 47; ed. Lieberman, Seder Zeraʻim, 68f.

⁵⁵ Tos. Demai II, 11, 48; ed. Lieberman, 70 (see his notes ad loc. 34, 35; also Tosefta ki-Feshuṭah I, 214 f.) ; Bek. 30b.

⁵⁶ Yer. Demai II, 3, 23a. For the correct version, see Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshuṭah I, 215. Our conclusion concerning the obligations of the Ne'emanim and Kenafayim is based on an analysis of the Yerushalmi. “R. Yiẓḥaḳ b. Eleazar said: The Kenafayim refrain from actual contact with impurity, and the Ṭohorot avoid Hesseṭ. R. Mana said: the Kenafayim refrain from both contact and Hesseṭ, and the Ṭohorot 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. YiẓḤaḳ maintained that those Kenafayim who refrained from Hesseṭ went beyond the requirement of the grade, while R. Mana held those who did not refrain from Hesseṭ failed in their full obligation as Kenafayim. On the other hand, both Amoraim took it for granted that the Ṭohorot did not partake of doubtful tithes, and R. YiẓḤaḳ thought it superfluous to refer to this obligation. R. Mana merely emphasized that abstention from doubtful tithes was the sole obligation of Ṭohorot.

There remains only one question. If the avoidance of doubtful tithes was, according to R. Mana, the only obligation of Ṭohorot, what correspondence is there

between this restraint and the name of the grade — Ṭohorot — which usually means ritual purity? Perhaps Ṭohorot here refers to permitted food, just as a “clean animal” signifies a permissible animal (cf. M. Terumot X, 8; M. Ḥullin IV, 3; M.Bek.l, 2).

A more likely explanation is that the title Ṭohorot for Ne'emanim stems from Temple days when restraint from Hesseṭ was not yet practiced by the Kenafayim. It was only after the Destruction that the rules of the Pharisees became the universal Halakah, that the Kenafayim — or a portion of them — refrained also from Hesseṭ. 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.

⁵⁷ See Yerushalmi in previous note and Lieberman, ibid.; also, H. Albeck, Sinai 54(5724–1964), Book 1–2, p. 19.

⁵⁸ M. Zabim III, 2.

⁵⁹ M. Ḥagigah II, 7.

⁶⁰ 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.).

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. Ḥanok was excommunicated for making light of this practice (M. ʻEduyot V. 6), showing that it was generally observed.

⁶² M. Bek. V, 5.

⁶³ M. Ḥag, II, 7.

⁶⁴ See note 56. Even if it were certain that the ʻAm 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.

⁶⁵ See M. Miḳwa'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. Ṭohorot III, 6). Ḥazaḳah assumes the status quo, see Ḥullin 10b-11a. See A. J. Unterman, Sinai, ibid., pp. 4–10. (On the juridical aspects of Ḥazaḳah, see Z. Warhaftig, Ha-Ḥazaḳah be-Mishpaṭ ha-ʻIbri [Jerusalem, 5724–1964].)

⁶⁶ See M. ʻEduyot VIII, 4 (“he who touches a corpse becomes unclean”). See Albeck, Seder Neziḳin, ad. loc., 316.

⁶⁷ 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 6,000 as heads of families. See Tos. Demai II, 14, p. 48 (ed. Lieberman, op. cit., 71).

⁶⁸ Tos. Demai II, 14, p. 48 (ed. Lieberman, 71).

⁶⁹ See Poland, op. cit., 53.

⁷⁰ The members of a Nabataean association were entitled Ḥaber. Cantineau, J., Le Nabatéen, II, Lexique (Paris, 1932), 93Google Scholar.

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, 1, 3, 15; especially Bell. J. II, 8, 14, 166.

⁷³ M. Demai VI, 9; M. Shebi. V, 9 (= M. Giṭṭin V, 9) ; M. Ḥag. II, 4; M. Ṭohorot VII, 4; etc.; see also Yeb. 14b.

⁷⁴ Tos. Meg. IV (III), 15, p. 226; ed. Lieberman (Seder Moʻed), 357. Semaḥot XII, 5, ed. Higger, 195.

⁷⁵ Geiger, , Urschrijt (Breslau, 1857), 121–26Google Scholar (Heb. Hamiḳra we-Targumow [Jerusalem, 81–82]).

⁷⁶ See Mantel, op. cit., 86–88.

⁷⁷ See Mantel, op. cit., 266. The Talmudic reference to an early custom of drinking a cup of wine at the funerary meals, in honor of both the Rosh and Ḥazan ha-Keneset (Ket. 8b; Semaḥot XIV, 14, ed. Higger, 209), recalls the report that the members of the synodoi who participated in the funeral were rewarded with a jug of wine each. Poland, op. cit., 508.

⁷⁸ M. Pes. VII, 12; M. ʻErubin III, 6.

⁷⁹ Poland, op. cit., 56, 78.

⁸⁰ M. Bekorot V, 5; M. Zabim III, 2.

⁸¹ Kasovsky, C. Y., Ozar Leshon ha-Mishnah (Jerusalem, 1956), I, 388Google Scholar; also Jastrow, A Dictionary, 82; Kohut, ʻAruk ha-Shalem, I, 121.

⁸² See Max Radest, The Legislation of the Greeks and Romans on Corporations (Columbia University), 14, 23. The city of Athens is called ʻἈθηναῖοι.

⁸³ Poland, op. cit., 8ff., 25, 64, 77, 78–79; also οῖ σὺν, οῖ περὶ (ibid, 77).

⁸⁴ Poland, op. cit., 77.

⁸⁵ Poland, op. cit., 337, 368; A. D. Nock, art. cit., 75; see F. H. Colson, Philo (Loeb Classical Library), IX, 536.

⁸⁶ Poland, op. cit., 355ff., 361. See also Nock, art. cit., 43.

⁸⁷ M. Yoma VII, 1; M. Soṭah, VII, 7–8. The terms “Rabbi” and “Rosh” appear later as titles of presidents of trade guilds. R. Eleazar b. Perafa (2nd cent.) claimed that he was not a scholar but a “Rabbi of the weavers” (A.Z. 17b). Simeon b. Lakish (3rd cent.) was the “Rabbi” of gladiators (BM. 84a). Ben Shela was “Rosh” of the butchers in Sepphoris (Tos. Ḥullin III, 2, p. 504). For the existence of professional guilds in Palestine in the post-Destruction era, see G. Allon, Toledot ha-Yehudim I, 103–06.

⁸⁸ Mark 5:22, 35, 38; Luke 13:14; Acts 13:15, 18:8, 17. See Liddell-Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. ἀρχισυνάγωγος; Arndt-Gingrich, , A Greek-English Lexicon of the N.T. (London-Chicago, 1957), 112Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ See Liddell-Scott, 1872; Arndt-Gingrich S.V. ὑπηρέτης, 850; Holmes, B. T., JBL 54(1935). 63–69Google Scholar; Nock, art. cit., 79f.

⁹⁰ M. Yoma III, 1; M. Soṭah VII, 7–8; M. Makkot III, 2.

⁹¹ Acts 13:5; M. Yoma VII, 1; M. Soṭah VII, 7–8.

⁹² M. Makkot III, 12; 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.

⁹³ Poland, op. cit., 383.

⁹⁴ Matt. 23:1–8; Luke, 11:43. See Arndt-Gingrich, γραμματεύς, 164f. There was only one “seat of Moses” in each synagogue. E. L. Sukenik, Tarbiẓ 1(5690–1930), 145.

⁹⁵ Tiḳḳune Soferim, etc. See Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (N.Y., 1950), 28ff.

⁹⁶ Sanh. 87a.

⁹⁷ M. ʻOrlah III, 9; M. Yeb. II, 4; IX, 3.

⁹⁸ See Lieberman, op. cit., 27. The Alexandrian grammateis, unlike the Soferim, were tightly organized in a σύνοδος. 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.

⁹⁹ Poland, op. cit., 399.

¹⁰⁰ Poland, op. cit., 152, 460; Nock, art. cit., 75. The Greek name for synagogue — συναγωγή — is found also as a general name for association. Poland, op. cit., 152–55. Some early churches, too, adopted this title. Ziebart, E., Das griechische Vereinswesen (Leipzig, 1896), 131Google Scholar, n.2.

¹⁰¹ Poland, op. cit., 460.

¹⁰² Ezek. 8:1ff.

¹⁰³ Ezra 10:10ff.

¹⁰⁴ Neh. 8:1ff.

¹⁰⁵ Meg. 17b; Yer. Ber. II, 4, 4d.

¹⁰⁶ See above, note 8.

¹⁰⁷ The Hellenistic associations had a social or dining hall, called ἀνδρών (see Nock, art. cit., 47f.; Poland, op. cit., 469). The room also served for various rites (Nock, art. cit., 47f.). According to Ant. XVI, 6, 2, 164, the synagogues in the Roman empire also contained a room, designated as ἀνδρών, 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).

¹⁰⁸ 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.

¹⁰⁹ Poland, op. cit., 268, 269, 399; Nock, art. cit., 46; Maas, E., Orpheus (Munich, 1895), 26Google Scholar (n. 2), 54, 84, 120.

¹¹⁰ See Philo, Legatio ad Gaium XL, 312. Geiger (Urschrift, 114; Heb., 82) supposes that the Ḥaburot used to have common meals. See, however, Mantel, Studies, 266–67. In the diaspora, there may have been common meals associated with the synagogues. Baron, S. W., The Jewish Community (Philadelphia, 1942), I, 95fGoogle Scholar.

¹¹¹ Poland, op. tit., 398ff.

¹¹² See Enẓiḳlopediah Talmudit III, 139–40; also, M. Taʻanit II, 5, and R. H. 24a.

¹¹³ Poland, op. tit., 74, 446; Nock, art. cit., 51; Boak, A. E. R., Transactions of the American Philological Association 68(1937), 212–20Google Scholar, and Michigan Papyri (Ann Arbor-London, 1944), vol. V, Part II, no.243, 90ffGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁴ See, e.g., The Book of Judith 4:6–8; 11:14. See also Zucker, Studien zur jüdischen Selbstverwaltung, 29; Grintz, Y. M., Sefer Yehudith (Jerusalem, 1957), 46Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ M. Makkot III, 12.

¹¹⁶ M. Makkot III, 10.

¹¹⁷ Deut. 25:3 (“by number forty”).

¹¹⁸ Deut. 25:1–3.

¹¹⁹ Ant. XIII, 10, 6,297.

¹²⁰ Tos. Makkot V (IV), 16, p.445. See also M. Makkot III, 1–9, and D. L. Dembitz, Jewish Encyclopedia, XI, 569f.

¹²¹ See Mantel, Studies, 96. The Amoraic exegesis (Makkot 22b) of Deut. 25:3, justifying the deviation from the Biblical forty stripes, is obviously not the source of the Halakah. Raba states distinctly that “while in the Torah scroll forty lashes are prescribed, the Rabbis came and reduced them by one.” R. Judah's view that forty stripes are administered (M. Makkot III, 10) probably represents the local custom in Usha, his residence, no doubt in the post-Hasmonean era.

¹²² Poland, op. cit., 448. For the Jewish rules of excommunication, see Mantel, op. cit., 225f. and 114–18. For a differing view on excommunication among the Pharisees, see Finkelstein, The Pharisees, I, 77f.

¹²³ Ezra 10:8 provides excommunication as part of the punishment of the confiscation and destruction of his property. See Batten, L. W., The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, I.C.C. (Edinburgh, 1913–1940), 342Google Scholar. According to Zer-Kavod, ad loc, 82f., excommunication here means that he is not considered a Jew.

¹²⁴ Boak, A. E. R., Michigan Papyri, vol. V, Papyri from Tebtunis, Part II (Ann Arbor, 1944), 90ff.Google ScholarNicoló, M. San, Ägyplisches Vereinswesen (Munich, 1915), 16–22Google Scholar. See, especially, Boak, , Proceedings of the American Philological Association 68(1937), 212–20Google Scholar. The nomoi regulated (i) the election of the president, (ii) dues, (iii) dates of meetings, (iv) conduct at meetings, (v) mutual assistance, (vi) funerals, and (vii) fines.

¹²⁵ (εὐδοκῶ = “I consent”). See Boak, Michigan Papyri, vol. V, Papyri from Tebtunis, Part II, 91, 95.

¹²⁶ Haberman, A. M., Megillot Midbur Yehudah (Israel, 1959), 66Google Scholar, lines 13–23 (Rabin, , Qumran Studies [Oxford, 1957], 1Google Scholar, followed by translation); Burrows, M., The Dead Sea Scrolls (N.Y., 1955), 379Google Scholar; Gaster, H., The Dead Sea Scriptures (N.Y., 1956), 50f.Google Scholar; Dupont-Sommer, A., The Essene Writings from Qumran (Cleveland-New York, 1960), 86fGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁷ Tos. Demai II, 47–49; ed. Lieberman, Zeraʻim, 68–73.

¹²⁸ M. Demai II, 2–3; Abot de-R. Nathan, ch. 40, p. 132 (ed. Schechter; ed. J. Goldin, English, 172).

¹²⁹ Yer. Demai II, 2–3, 22d-23a.

¹³⁰ Bek. 30b–31a.

¹³¹ Lieberman, , JBL 71(1952), 200Google Scholar.

¹³² Boak, op. cit., 94, and art. cit., 217; Nock, art. cit., 53, n. 17. On the juristic competence of the gilds, see Nicolo, M. San in the H. Swobodo Festschrift, πιτμβιον (1927), 255–99Google Scholar.

¹³³ M. Makkot 111, 12.

¹³⁴ Matt. 10:17, 23:24; Mark 13:9; Acts 22:19. See above, n.27. The early Christians, too, objected to taking cases to official courts. 1 Cor. 6: 1ff.

¹³⁵ Poland, op. cit., 78–80, 124f., 157, 167, 275.

¹³⁶ Poland, op. cit., 79.

¹³⁷ In Flaccum XVII, 136. See F. H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library, Philo IX, 536.

¹³⁸ Poland, op. cit., 79.

¹³⁹ Poland, op. cit., 167. Sometimes it was called τ κοινν το θισου.

¹⁴⁰ See Yer. Meg. III, 2, 74a for this usage of Bene ha-ʻIr. (The Talmudic usage of Anshe is not consistent.) Yet this need not be conclusive, since Bene Bathyra (Pes. 61a) are also called Ziḳne Bathyra (Yer. Pes. VI, 1, 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.

¹⁴¹ M. Ḥag. II, 2. For the reliability of this tradition, see Mantel, op. cit., 1ff.

¹⁴² See Poland, op. cit., 375, based on Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum I. 114, dated 96 B.C.E.

^142a Nesi Kol ha-ʻEdah 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.

¹⁴³ Lévy, I., La Ligende de Pythagore de Grèce en Palestine (Paris, 1927), 236–63Google Scholar, points out a list of parallelisms between the Pythagoreans and the Pharisees (236–63) and the Essenes (264–93). But Lévy is unaware that the grades system among the Pythagoreans was a later development, so that he is guilty of anachronism. See K. Von Fritz, PW, XXIV, 220–22.

The organization of the early Christians, “The Sect of the Nazarenes” (see Wolfson, H. A., The Philosophy of the Church Fathers [Cambridge, Mass., 2nd ed., 1964], 1–3Google Scholar), also had points of resemblance to that of the Synodoi.

It should be pointed out that none of the Jewish sects were “academic” societies, 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.

¹⁴⁴ Boak, art. cit., 216; Westermann, art. cit., 27.

¹⁴⁵ Boak, art. cit., 217; idem, op. cit., 92f., 94; Nock, art. cit., 40–42; Tod, op. cit., 88–91.

¹⁴⁶ Legatio ad Gaium XL, 312 (LCL, Philo, X, 157). See, also, In Flaccum XVII, 136–37 (LCL, Philo, IX, 377).