ish identity — not supplanted by the Book or disavowed by those who
dwelled afar. It appears again and again in the texts of Second Temple au-
thors as a symbol of the highest appeal. Yet this tenacious devotion did not
entail a widespread desire to pull up stakes and return to the fatherland.
Jews reminded themselves and others every year of their commitment
to Jerusalem. The reminder came in the form of a tithe paid to the Temple
annually by Jews all over the Mediterranean. The ritualistic offering car-
ried deep significance as a bonding device. That fact is vividly illustrated
by an episode in the mid 60sb.c.e.A Roman governor of the province of
Asia (essentially northwestern Asia Minor) banned the sending of gold by
the Jews of the region to Jerusalem. This was part of a broader Roman pol-
icy and did not apply to Jews alone. But the solidarity of Jewish reaction
was impressive. Word got back in great haste to the Jewish community in
Rome. Demonstrations mobilized and strong pressure mounted on the
Roman government by Jews in the city expressing concern in unequivocal
terms for their compatriots abroad. The event underscores the importance
of Jewish commitment to provide funds annually to the Temple from Italy
and from all the provinces of the Roman Empire. Clearly the plight of
Asian Jews who were prevented from making their contributions had pow-
erful resonance among fellow Jews far off in Rome. The latter expressed
their sentiments in no uncertain terms. Jerusalem and the Temple re-
mained emblematic of their common purpose across the Mediterranean.
References to the gravity of the tithe abound. Josephus proudly ob-
serves that the donations came from Jews all over Asia and Europe, indeed
from everywhere in the world, for countless years. When local authorities
interfered with that activity, Jews would send up a howl to Rome — and
usually get satisfaction. Areas beyond the reach of Roman power also
tithed consistently. Jewish communities in Babylon and other satrapies
under Parthian dominion sent representatives every year over difficult ter-
rain and dangerous highways to deposit their contributions in the Temple.
The value of paying homage to Jerusalem was undiminished. That annual
act of obeisance constituted a repeated display of affection and allegiance,
visible evidence of the unbroken attachment of the Diaspora to the center.
The remittance, however, did not imply that Jews viewed the Diaspora
as no more than a temporary exile to be terminated by an ingathering in
Jerusalem. Indeed, it implied the reverse. The yearly contribution pro-
claimed that the Diaspora could endure indefinitely — and quite satisfac-
torily. The communities abroad had successfully entrenched themselves;
they were now mainstays of the center. Their fierce commitment to the114erich s. gruenEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:03:56 PM