Gordon, Benjamin D. Land and Temple: Field Sacralization and the Agrarian Priesthood of Second Temple Judaism. SJ 87. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020.
This book contributes to our understanding of the economy of ancient Judea by examining the Jerusalem Temple’s role as an economic point of stability for an agricultural populace. While studies of the economy in Palestine during Tannaitic and Amoraic periods have a great quantity of textual evidence to draw upon, including but not limited to rabbinic sources, there is much less material available from the Second Temple period available for such an analysis. As such, Gordon’s work attempts to examine a wide range of both textual and archaeological evidence in order to flesh out our knowledge of the Jerusalem Temple economy. Gordon’s introduction suggests that his primary focus will be an examination of the involvement of the Judean priesthood in agricultural ownership and cultivation. However, much of the material discussed diverges from this to explore the wider temple economy in Jerusalem, such as recorded benefactions made to the Jerusalem Temple and its priesthood. No singular thesis is proposed, but important connections are drawn, including between the topics of Levitical regulations for land ownership, gardens attached to Jewish sacred structures in Egypt, and Judahite stone weights—even if these connections are often tenuous. In some way, approaching an all-encompassing theme like “economy” while simultaneously trying to limit the discussion to elements related specifically to the Jerusalem Temple achieves few tangible and overarching conclusions, but the book does succeed in providing many new insights into a wide range of discussions. The volume is therefore of great use to scholars and students in many related sub-fields of biblical studies, ancient history and archaeology.
Beyond an economic analysis, Gordon’s methodology further draws attention to the process of “sacred place-making”.[1] His argument is that processes such as field sacralisation attest to personal practices which established spiritual, spatial connections between farmers and the divine. As such, the volume engages in many ongoing discussions about the constitution of “religious life” in Second Temple period Judea, and ancient Judaism’s relationship with the Jerusalem Temple. The through-lines of the work include the various methods of consecrating property or goods to the Jerusalem Temple, debates over the ways in which the priesthood or even the Jerusalem Temple itself could own such property and goods, and the slow accumulation of power and wealth in the institution itself. The book concludes with the information that the key resources of the Jerusalem Temple economy included three kinds of sacred land: dedications of land as debt security; land which sustained the Jerusalem Temple itself; and land given as herem.
The remains of the Jerusalem Temple economy are either lost or were never substantial to begin with. For much of its existence, the so-called Second Temple in Jerusalem served a small community in its immediate vicinity. Until the expansion of the Hasmonean state, the territories which raised funds for the Jerusalem Temple were small. We have no trace of any archival records, nor inscribed donor lists, and no documentary evidence which relates to the various amounts of materials donated to the Jerusalem Temple until centuries after the fact.[2] As Gordon rightly observes, the material contained in many of the contemporary texts is less interested in the specifics of the temple[JS(DoT+RF1] economy, but often engages in other theological, political or ideological discourses, which may or may not relate to actual practice. It is often impossible to know if we are presented with regulations which were followed in cultic practice, or if these texts were reacting against what was done. For example, while Gordon may demonstrate that the Temple Vision in Ezekiel critiques a set of arrangements that are analogous to those regulated in Leviticus, we cannot say whether either of these regulations or ideologies were adopted.[3] As Lester Grabbe points out in his summary of the temple economy, beyond the bare fact of a tithing system, we are faced with contradictions and a multitude of conceptions concerning the process of funding the priesthood throughout texts in the Hebrew Bible and later Jewish literature of the Second Temple period.[4]
As mentioned above, Gordon’s conclusions are drawn in part from the implications of the regulations in Leviticus and sustained through other evidence offered in the rest of the book. Documents discussed later, such as the Damascus Document and 4Q251, each rework material known from the Torah.[5] As such, chapter two carries much of the weight of the argument, as it establishes the areas of agricultural production that the Jerusalem Temple appears to have been engaged in according to Leviticus 27. It establishes that at least during the time of the composition of the text, efforts were made to create a system by which the Jerusalem Temple and priesthood could facilitate economic recovery and even prosperity by functioning as a stable source of loans. The material in chapter three (on the Temple Vision in Ezekiel), while interesting, provides little direct support for the agricultural ownership of the priests. Instead, the text’s critical and polemic stance, which distinguishes between the holy and non-holy, attests to the bare fact that the Jerusalem Temple and its priesthood likely depended on the transfer of agricultural ownership, or having land temporarily dedicated to the cult, if only because the Temple Vision is so opposed to this arrangement. The priesthood is meant to have its own pastureland, keeping sacrificial animals separate from those belonging to the people.
Another interesting element of Gordon’s discussion is his innovative and convincing reading of the additional fifth charge for the redemption of consecrated land. The existence of two different sheqel standards, a holy and a common sheqel, suggests that the standards were constructed in such a way that land could be used to secure a loan for farmers with a fifth of the value interest rate. They then could redeem their land at the valuation price but in a different sheqel standard. They then would pay a higher price to redeem the property, but the number of sheqels would remain the same. Gordon suggests that this avoids the need to explicitly collect interest as the dedicator of the land is paid ten (holy sheqels) for the land and pays back ten (common) sheqels to redeem it. The interest rate was concealed in the difference between these two standards. Leviticus 27 then outlines a process by which the Jerusalem Temple would have acted as a source of stability for its dependents through offering a manageable loan system, while simultaneously providing the Jerusalem Temple a source of income.[6]
In chapter three, Gordon offers a novel reading of Ezekiel 45:4, where the Masoretic Text records וּמִקְדָּשׁ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ (“and a holy area for the sanctuary”). He suggests that this “originally” perhaps read as וּמִגְרָשׁ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ (“and a pastureland for the sanctuary”), supported by the Targum’s meaning of “ascent” and the use of pastureland in Ezekiel 45:2. The motivation behind this Masoretic amendment is suggested to have been a discomfort with any potential pagan associations that a sacred pastureland may have had. However, Gordon’s suggestions of a kind of vorlage for this rendition based on the LXX and Targum translations do not provide a clear basis for this argument, and the change to “holy area” cannot be dated. I find this particular rereading to be an interesting possibility, but am not personally convinced that this was the case.
Additional but undiscussed factors which may have expanded Gordon’s analysis include purity conceptions around agricultural production. Josephus makes the claim that the Jews preferred pure oil made by other Jews, over oil produced by Gentiles (Antiquities 12.119–120). This meant that during the First Jewish War, John of Gischala could sell oil at a very high price due to its perceived value (Life 74–76). Here the spheres of personal observance and agricultural production are closely linked, although such considerations are perhaps beyond the scope of this book. Furthermore, the changes made to the Jerusalem Temple cult and structure under the Hasmonean and Herodian authorities would have made for a helpful addendum.[7]
Scholars of ancient Near Eastern economies will gain something from this volume, as will those who work on the Judean priesthood during the Second Temple period. This book is a particularly valuable resource for students. It contains nice introductions to a wide variety of literature and the historical contexts of many of our ancient sources. Overall, the work lends itself towards many different discussions, but it is likely that insights will be drawn from the discrete discussions themselves rather than a single clear argument derived from the whole volume. In many ways, scholarship needs more works like this, which offer contained conclusions about multiple topics.
Joseph Scales recently defended his PhD in Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham. His research focuses on the connection between ancient Galilean perceptions of space and religious identity by drawing on literary and archaeological evidence from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE. His twitter handle is @josephdscales
[1] Gordon, 7-11.
[2] As lamented by Jack Pastor, “Josephus as a Source for Economic History: Problems and Approaches,” in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, ed. Zuleika Rodgers, JSJSup 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 334–346, pointing out the many pitfalls in using even a historical narrative to arrive at the facts of an ancient economy. His attempted approach shows how economic data might be arrived at, but only after careful historical analysis.
[3] It is worth noting that this is no less true of the material used by later studies like Ze’ev Safrai’s, who often uses details from the Mishnah, Tosefta and Talmuds to uncover some of the passing information provided. See Ze’ev Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine (London: Routledge, 1994).
[4] Lester L. Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge, 2000), 137–138.
[5] See the summaries in Liora Goldman, “Damascus Document (D),” 303–306 and Vered Noam, “Halakhah,” 393–401 in T&T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. George J. Brooke, Charlotte Hempel, Michael DeVries and Drew Longacre (London: T&T Clark, 2018).
[6] Gordon credits Joshua Sosin with this suggestion.
[7] Including Kenneth Atkinson, A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond, Jewish and Christian Texts 23 (London: T&T Clark, 2016); Vasile Babota, The Institution of the Hasmonean High-Priesthood, JSJSup 165 (Leiden, Brill, 2014); Maria Brutti, The Development of the High Priesthood during the pre-Hasmonean Period, JSJSup 108 (Leiden: Brill, 2006); Eyal Regev, The Hasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity, JAJSup 10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).