Studia Judaica 87. Berlin: Boston: De Gruyter, 2020.
Very seldom does a book come across one’s desk that is as captivating as it is novel, and additionally so, seems like it may not meet such descriptions. Benjamin D. Gordon’s Land and Temple is indeed one of those books. “Captivating” is perhaps not a word one would think of describing a book with such a title as this, but Gordon presents to us a fascinating work that we probably wouldn’t think we really needed to read but are glad we did. To begin, Gordon probes a lacuna of scholarship that extends into a variety of different topics across an assortment of disciplines and areas of history. His bibliography is quite impressive (pp. 232–268), his writing clear and captivating, and he even ties in a New Testament application at the end (chapter seven) which is probably not expected by any reader. All in all, Gordon masterfully handles his topic and presents, at least in my view, a work which deserves a place in all reference (and personal) libraries. As most things should be, it is simply an enjoyable (unexpectedly so) read, and Gordon carries the reader along well throughout the process. A well-structured monologue is always to be desired, and a task to be admired when executed properly and intriguingly.
Land and Temple is a revision of Gordon’s 2013 PhD dissertation completed at Duke University under advisor Eric Meyers. As Gordon writes, “Initially the project was to be about the settlement patterns of Judean priests—where and how they lived outside of Jerusalem, and how their presence impacted village life” and evolved into the specific, current form (Acknowledgements, V). Gordon (hereafter G) structures the book into seven chapters: (1) ‘Introduction’, (2) ‘Field Consecrations in Leviticus 27’, (3) ‘The Sacred Reserve of Yahweh in Ezekiel’s Temple Vision’, (4) ‘Hellenistic Rulers, Jewish Temples, and Sacred Land’, (5) ‘Field Consecrations in the Late Second Temple Period’, (6) ‘Herem Property and Landholding by Priests in the Late Second Temple Period’, and (7) ‘An Allusion to a Sacred Tree in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.’
In chapter one, G introduces us into the focus of his study and the need for it, along with a helpful overview of sacred land in the ancient world, whereby many ancient cult temples had attached land, buildings, herds, etc. for funding and replenishing of supplies for the cult (pp.11–19). The latter half of the chapter contains both the relevant scholarship and the structure of the book. Following his introduction, G spends chapter two covering Leviticus 27 and, particularly, field consecration. An interesting section of his book lies here where G argues for a 50-shekel “valuation benchmark” (pp.38–43) which results in a fascinating solution for the contentious human valuation in Lev 27.3–7 (pp.51–56). In my view, this is where the very heart of the book lies and establishes its worth. On these points, G spends the rest of chapter two arguing, as he writes, that Lev 27 “regulates a secured lending operation run by the priests of Yahweh. According to the laws of the chapter, persons in need of credit could have appealed to the deity and pledged to him a property—whether slave, animal, building, or field—to secure the loan. This pledge was hypothecary in nature, meaning that the possessory rights remained with the debtor” (p.81). Essentially, the Temple in Jerusalem operated, through the redemption framework, as a type of loan-system for both larger loans (property) and smaller loans (movables), particularly for harvests. These loans would be repaid with the Jubilee in mind, with a 20% markup according to the Temple’s holy shekel weight being 20% lighter than the common shekel, which G demonstrates well. This is a fascinating development in and of itself and shows a practical purpose behind the Temple system for Israel—one which, too, encouraged Israel’s financial wellbeing and prevented its inhabitants from seeking loans outside of the nation. As a type of circumvention around anti-usury and interest commandments in the Torah, this is an interesting development and solid proposal.
Chapter three is spent on Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Eze 40–48) which G sees the concern being “the sanctification of space” emphasizing holiness and “proximity to the divine” (p.85). In the Vision, an ideal for future priesthood land and activities is drawn up, one which is distanced from the Iron Age establishments. Here, the priesthood is envisioned as entirely dependent upon “the prince and the people” (p.100) and reflects something much different than surrounding nations, perhaps largely due to the Persian economical activity in the region of post-exilic Judaea. G’s main thrust here is the idealistic “collectivization” the Vision expects, quite different than how the Temple functioned. “Rather than having the priests managing Yahweh’s wealth in a productive way, inserting credit into the local economy or cultivating fields sacred to the deity, the Temple Vision extricates the priests from the countryside entirely…This model also extricates priests from everyday interactions with the laity and wipes away the potentially unwieldy, burdensome, or even debasing transactions with benefactors or debtors” (p.115). An idealistic, and I may add eschatological, expectation indeed.
In chapter four, G turns his focus to the temple economic systems of Israel’s neighbors in the Hellenistic period (pp.117–119) which leads to an extensive discussion of the disputed and contentious temple at Leontopolis in Egypt. G provides a succinct and thorough treatment on the situation there, particularly with the temple being situated on previously pagan cultic land and Josephus’s polemical statements against its establishment and existence (pp. 120–130). This discussion ties in the Hasmonean period, the refusal of desiring any type of support from non-Jews, if at least in theological ideal, and the general situation of temple-support in the STP period. This chapter may feel out-of-place, but it most likely reflects the lack of substantial data for G to extrapolate and yet serves an important role in seeing how G’s topic carried over into the Hellenistic period of the STP. Moving to chapter five, G transitions to the late STP and the nature of field consecrations. Looking at the Damascus Document, G seeks to elucidate the situation of land and his topic via the writings at Qumran. In Qumran, field consecration takes a polemical edge against the hypothetical and/or historical corruptions of the practices described in chapters one and two by both the priesthood and people. Here, G shows that the added fifth was regarded as a punishment—or, rather, “penalty”—for the process which “should not have happen-ed in the first place” (p.179). Viewing the change from preexilic to STP practices “by the second century BCE, Judeans were interpreting Lev 27 as regulations on gifts to the deity, fields included, rather than on loans from him” (p.180), a noteworthy development, or de-escalation from original practices. A noteworthy aspect of this chapter is G’s showing that the Temple and its priesthood quickly departed from depending on consecrated land income and moved mostly toward support from the shekel tax and donations in the form of cash and movables, instead.
Moving to chapter six, G begins to reach the applied results of his study in viewing dedicated property and landholding by late STP priests. G considers the Qumran text 4Q251 in relation to the herem practice in Lev 27 and the “continuation of the practice in the late Second Temple period” (p.183). The discussion thereof (pp.184–202) is concerned with the priests’ right to own land and possess land given to the Temple, pulling together (one of) G’s main points in the work of land sacralization and ownership by the Levitical priests. As the Qumran text depicts, land ownership by the priesthood was a practice maintained throughout the late STP but that there was considerable polemic and unease surrounding their ability to reappropriate land dedicated to the Temple along with movables and general donations. This is to be expected in light of corruptions but “Irrespective of the circumstances behind landed gifts to priests, real estate could have been held communally within priestly clans, in a manner resembling the Levitical pasturelands of the Iron Age” (p.198), with the communal, separated-from-the-Temple funds and holdings being attested to (p.199). Summarizing, G adds that “One noteworthy concern of 4Q251 is to assert the priests’ claim to herem as their private property—a claim backed by scripture but apparently ignored or reinterpreted by some who were donating such property to the Temple” (p.203) and that “the sanctity of herem be maintained even after it moved into the domain of the priest,” ensuring that “Dedications of herem fields to priests would have supplemented their income from temple service and any other land-holdings in their possession” (p.204). He adds a final word that, as he discussed in chapter three on Ezekiel’s Temple Vision, “The biblical ideal of a landless priesthood subsisting on the offerings of the period continued to be far from the reality in the late Second Temple Period” (ibid.) which had much to do with the priests’ emerging status in civic and judicial life in the period (p.197) with many added benefits by way of these positions.
Finally, in chapter seven, G looks at Paul’s famous olive tree allegory in Romans 11 and how his study contributes to the significance of it. Here Paul demonstrates his knowledge and application of G’s explored history of consecration in “establishing the principle of extended or transferrable sanctity” (p.224). His discussion is linked with the question over the sanctity of a tree on herem, consecrated land, oftentimes in consideration of the tree in question growing over onto non-consecrated land. G spends some time going over the relevant traditions and discussions in biblical and tannaitic literature (pp. 207–212) and writes that, for Paul’s use in Rom 11.16b of the root and branches being holy, “The maxim that a holy root sanctifies the branches is one way to articulate—in the view of typically rabbinic style of casuistic discourse—that all outgrowths and byproducts of sacred real estate became sanctified by virtue of their association with the consecration, as illustrated in the Mishnah through the cases of fruit that grows on a tree and crops in a field” (p.213). Discussing more details in this conversation, G notes the following: “Agricultural products of consecrated properties are sacred because their consecration—the rabbis held—was meant to set aside those very products for sacred purposes. In other words, the root sanctifies the branches not because holiness transfers by touch between the two but because future outgrowths and byproducts were intended to be part of the original endowment” (p.218). G’s arguments enrich a reading of Paul and, set against the well-known practice of grafting and the later metaphorical use in Jewish literature, such as Ruth and Naomi being vine-grafted onto Israel (p.222) furthers the significance of both what Paul was saying, for Gentiles, and further demonstrates the Jewish and biblical tradition of Gentilic inclusion.
The most important contribution this brings is likely unnoticed by most but important. Here we find a link across the Jewish tradition. G echoes the similar hesitancy with rabbi-nic material in chapter five: “While it is clear that early rabbinic texts are the outcome of a long oral tradition of rulings on sacred law, and that they include some older priestly halakhic traditions, separating out inherited from invented tradition is a difficult task and it is not the objective of the following discussion” (p.149). Here, via Paul, we have a link to at least one rabbinic element of interpretation which validates the tannaitic literature’s witness. I find this quite fascinating as it presents a noteworthy, and totally unexpected, contribution to the larger question of genuineness in the rabbinic views. While that topic remains ambiguous, G’s findings here present implications far beyond his immediate fo-cus and are a welcome addition to that specific conversation. In Paul we find (limited) proof of agricultural consecrations prior to the Mishnah, a deeper appreciation of his “rhetorical artistry” and “a vital piece of evidence among rare pre-Mishnaic attestations” (p.224). Moving to his Summary and Conclusions, G outlines well, and draws together, his findings throughout the work. One well-summarizing detail immediately related to his thesis is found in p.226: “The Hebrew Bible knows virtually nothing of temple land. The pasturelands of the Levitical settlements and herem land are both holdings of indi-vidual priests or clans of priests, not the incorporated assets of a temple administration.” When land was consecrated to God, this land would become the property of the priests and would be seen, in a way, as their portion to supplement their temple service income. The development of the shekel tax and cash / movables donations served as the primary income for the Temple, which is evidenced to have had a significant amount of money in its treasuries throughout history—one such example of this is the surprising and mind-boggling estimates and records of the Temple treasury’s wealth (p.172).
Unsuspectingly within Land and Temple is a treasury of sources and snippets on biblical law, ANE and Mediterranean land and cult details, and a plethora of details thrown in on pre- and post-exilic Judaea. G gives us a journey through a largely unexplored area of biblical studies that marks his work out as an equally informative as it is enjoyable read. I would recommend it to any student of the Word and history and expect the work to find itself cited in many capacities as well as cementing itself as the authoritative resource for this lacuna of scholarship G has elucidated on in beautiful fashion. All in all, the book was easy to follow, exceptionally structured and written, succinct yet thorough in all of its endeavors, and fascinating in the topic and execution of its investigation. Coming in at 231 pages it is by no means a massive read, but exports a good amount of information between its covers. As is to be expected with De Gruyter, the binding and print quality is on par with what any buyer would want and the book held up well to being taken in and out of a backpack as this served as my “walking read” for the month.