nizes that Jewish literature from this period, including the tannaitic liter-
ature, is very varied. Yet he argues that “a common pattern can be dis-
cerned which underlies otherwise disparate parts of tannaitic literature”
(Sanders 1977: 70), which he describes as “covenantal nomism.” The Law
must be seen in the context of election and covenant. It provides for a
means of atonement, so that the covenantal relationship can be reestab-
lished or maintained. All who are maintained in the covenant will be
saved. Salvation, then, does not depend on purely individual observance
of the Law. Sanders finds this pattern not only in tannaitic literature but
also in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha, with the
single exception of4 Ezra(Sanders 1977: 422-23). He concludes that his
study “lends no support to those who have urged that apocalypticism and
legalism constitute substantially different religious types or streams in the
Judaism of the period” (Sanders 1977: 423) and denies that apocalypticism
constituted a distinct type of religion (Sanders 1992: 8). The case for the
compatibility of concern for the Law with apocalyptic beliefs finds strong
support in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In Sanders’s view, “covenantal nomism does not cover the entirety of
Jewish theology, much less the entirety of Judaism” (Sanders 1992: 262). It
is nonetheless an aspect of “common” or “normal” Judaism. Mindful of
the criticism directed at Moore, Sanders is careful to qualify the word
“normative”: “whatever we find to have been normal was based on internal
assent and was ‘normative’ only to the degree that it was backed up by
common opinion — which has a good deal of coercive power, but which
allows individuals who strongly dissent to break away” (Sanders 1992: 47).
The pillars of common Judaism were the belief in one God, the Scriptures,
especially the Torah, and the Temple. Within a common framework, con-
siderable variation was possible. Sanders’s approach is focused on practice
rather than belief. Even when he draws his data from Josephus or other
Second Temple sources, the kinds of issues on which he focuses are gener-
ally similar to those that predominate in the Mishnah. Apocalyptic specu-
lations about the heavens or the end of history tell us little about the au-
thors’ daily observances.
Sanders’s portrait of common Judaism is less vulnerable to critique
than Moore’s normative Judaism, and it enjoys wide acceptance (see, e.g.,
Goodman 2002: 38). It does not deny that diversity existed but places the
emphasis on what all (or at least most) Jews had in common. One could
also place more emphasis on diversity with equal validity. The other end of
the spectrum from Sanders is occupied by Jacob Neusner, who insists on7Early Judaism in Modern ScholarshipEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:03:48 PM