ABSTRACT
As in the case of ancient Jewish literature, the central message stemming from rabbinic literature as a whole is the belief that ‘Israel’s holiness endures’; to put it in other words, the covenantal relationship between God and Israel is eternal. But before dealing with the rabbinic discussion of chosenness, it is important to highlight a distinction between the early (tannaitic) and late (amoraic) rabbinic writings. For these two sets of writings present the same belief in the holiness of the people of Israel, yet they do it in two different ways. While the amoraic writings of the fourth and fifth centuries are involved in an intense discussion and justification of the biblical notion of chosenness, the tannaitic writings of the second and third centuries display only an implicit recognition of it. As regards this, Jacob Neusner points to the fact that the Tannaim and Amoraim had differing experiences and, therefore, responded to different circumstances, which, consequently, influenced the nature of their receptions of the biblical notion of chosenness. Accordingly, as far as the mishnaic formulation is concerned, the recognition and retention of Israel’s holiness was presented in response to the catastrophic defeats of 70 and 135 CE, which led to the destruction of the Temple and also the collapse of the last Jewish hope for a national-religious restoration. In the Talmud and related writings, on the other hand, it was placed against the challenging presence of Christianity and the Christian version of chosenness, i.e. the rhetoric of ‘true Israel’.1 So, it is interesting, but not totally surprising that the strategy adopted in the tannaitic writings was a renewed acceptance of the holiness of Israel as an obvious fact. Indeed, in the Mishnah, in particular, the apologetic tone prevailing in the amoraic writings of the fourth and fifth centuries is completely absent. There is, instead, an incontestable commitment to the ‘sanctification’ of Israel; a sanctification which is expressed, not through the Temple and sacrifices in particular, but within the everyday life of the Jewish people, including the Temple cult. In other words, what the Tannaim did in the Mishnah is the transformation of Israel from a ‘political religious entity’, centred around the sanctity of the Temple, into an unquestionably and inherently ‘sacred community’ in its everyday life.2 So, the mishnaic system does not engage with the problematic questions embedded in the biblical presentation of election. Nor does the existence of Christianity have any bearing on the mishnaic world as framed by the Tannaim. They do not deal with the question as to ‘why is Israel
chosen by God?’ but, instead, affirm the fact that ‘Israel is chosen by God’. In this way, they suggest a harmonious picture of Israel (the mishnaic emphasis on order) and an unproblematic presentation of chosenness and holiness. This is presented mostly within a ritual (halakhah), instead of a theological (aggadah), framework and is based on the assumptions that ‘God stands for paradox’ and that ‘Strength comes through weakness’, namely that Israel endures as the holy people of God, despite destruction and defeat.3
