From: IN%"IOUDAIOS@YORKVM1.BITNET" "First Century Judaism Discussion Forum" 23-FEB-1994 20:27:48.22 To: IN%"SMCGINN@jcvaxa" "Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D." CC: Subj: RE: Jews by birth in the synagogue Return-path: IOUDAIOS <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:IOUDAIOS@YORKVM1.BITNET> Received: from JNET-DAEMON by jcvaxa (PMDF #12352) id <01H98KPNSU4K90MVJF@jcvaxa>; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 20:27 EST Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by JCVAXA with Jnet id 6819 for SMCGINN@JCVAXA; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 20:27 EST Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5541; Wed, 23 Feb 1994 20:26:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 18:37:31 EST From: Marianne Sawicki Subject: RE: Jews by birth in the synagogue In-reply-to: Message of Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:37:04 -0500 from Sender: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum To: "Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D." Reply-to: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum Message-id: <01H98KPNSU4K90MVJF@jcvaxa> Sigrid Peterson asks whether legislation establishing Jewish identity through matrilinear descent isn't relatively late, stemming from the time of Judah ha-Nasi. Actually there is evidence that both the legislation and the underlying custom are much older than the Mishnah. Stuart S. Miller points out that 2nd-century Sepphoreans remember "old 'archei" where one went to check out the maternal lineage of prospective brides for at least four generations back. (See _Studies in the History and Traditions of i Sepphoris_, Brill 1984, p.47; also ch 3-4 generally.) Miller argues: since these archives no longer exist in the 2nd century, and since they would have had to be maintained for at least four generations, this institution and the practice (among some castes) of verifying the purity of the matri- line go back before 70. (I've oversimplified his very careful argument, and I urge anyone interested in ancient kinship to take a look at it.) Descent is not the same thing as inheritance. Jews inherited property patrilinearly, father to son. (This contrasted with Greek practice, where property went to all children equally, so that wealth was lost to other patrilines when daughters married. Greeks had economic incentive to expose infant daughters; Jews did not.) But to retain the caste status of the patriline, brides with "the right stuff" were needed; i.e., brides whose mothers, maternal grandmothers, etc. also were born and bred within the rules. The son of a priest is not automatically a priest, unless he has the right kind of mother, grandmother, etc. (Indeed, he may not even be a Jew--we are talking about socially constructed realities in that time and place, of course.) Certifying caste was a rhetorical performance; they didn't use DNA testing like us. Even if the bride was OK at betrothal, the children's status couldn't be settled once and for all, but remained vulnerable to challenge if the mother appeared to be the kind of person who might misbehave (by adultery, concealing menstrual status, etc.) Why does this matter? Because some castes have a right to receive tithes, which can generate considerable wealth. So kinship strategy has economic significance in Eretz Israel. Less so elsewhere, I think. Sigrid points out that non-Jews (converts, proselytes) were welcome at the synagogues in the Diaspora, and those buildings were enlarged faster than the birthrate would account for. Could the "welcome mat" at the synagogue be a cultural borrowing from the Greek polis? P.S.: I did not write this just to get Herb Basser involved in the list again; but I'm eager to know how it sounds to him. Marianne Sawicki, University of Kentucky sawmill@ukcc.uky.edu