In Defense of Israel: The Soteriological Function of the Advocate in Early Judaism and Rabbinic Literature

How the text traditions of early Judaism and rabbinic literature integrated Greek and Roman representations of advocacy with longstanding Jewish traditions of intercessory speakers constitutes the overarching focus of the present study. The limited scholarly discussion of advocates in early Judaism likely derives from similar research shortages in the closely related sphere of intercessory speech. In early Jewish texts, the act of speaking on behalf of an individual or group often involved a legally oriented form of intercessory appeal. It follows, therefore, that this specialized form of intervention would receive even less scholarly attention than the broader subject of intercession itself. Turning to rabbinic literature, scholars have focused largely on the rabbis’ opposition to supporting speakers for hire, generally as an important means of distinguishing between Jewish inquisitorial and Roman adversarial courtroom procedure. There has been minimal distinction, however, between the terms, synēgoros (συνήγορος/סניגור), paraklētos (παράκλητοςפרקליט/), patron (פטרון/pātrōnus) andʿōrēḵ dīn (עורך דין) in discussions of the meaning and function of a supporting speaker in rabbinic writings. Nor has a satisfactory treatment of rabbinic advocates appeared in relation to late ancient Jewish soteriology, specifically concerning theological principles of election, expiation, covenant preservation, redemption from exile, and eschatology. Finally, an abundant amount of scholarship has addressed the intercessory attributes of the law court prayer pattern, a formula of human appeal to the divine spanning from biblical through rabbinic literature. This begs the question of why such an important liturgical performance has not been considered more closely in relation to late ancient Jewish representations of supporting speech. These considerations form the basis for the current thesis, which argues that late ancient Jewish constructions of advocacy, reflecting a tension between ancient biblical and later Greek and Roman traditions, performed a soteriological function, both in the post-temple theatre of expiatory performance as well as in the religiously constructed divine courtroom. Furthermore, when advocates appear as intercessors through formal speech in late Second Temple and rabbinic texts, they frequently act to preserve Israel’s election in both the present and in the world to come, a move deemed requisite in light of Israel’s limited ability to be vindicated through her own merit. The collapsing of time common to several cases of rabbinic supporting speech indicates the strong eschatological component characteristic of intercessory advocacy. Whether the eschatological orientation is realized, inaugurated, or imminently urgent, the advocate speaks on behalf of an Israel whose salvation in the world to come cannot fully materialize through the accumulation of divine merits. The looming presence of crisis reveals a broken relationship between Israel and her God where unilateral divine intervention, at times orchestrated by a supporting speaker, remains the surest path to corporate deliverance. Adopting a soteriological approach to the question of advocacy in early Judaism and rabbinic literature helps to nuance certain preconceptions and overgeneralizations regarding late ancient Jewish approaches to law and salvation. A great portion of rabbinic discourse, for example, involves the presentation of a legal tradition or scriptural text, each of which initiates both exegetical interpretations and legal-theological discussions. In the case of halakhic principles, discussions aiming to determine the correct legal opinion have an underlying motive of preserving a community in proper relationship with their God, where righteous behaviors ensure the ongoing election of Israel in both the present world and the restoration to come. Yet rabbinic theology, like its biblical and Second Temple predecessors, understood the limits of human action and provided safeguards for moments where halakhic observance proved insufficient for staving off divine condemnation or imminent crises. Acknowledging the soteriological aspects of advocacy, therefore, yields two immediate takeaways First, the number of narratives where advocacy confronts the uncertain and at times tenuous nature of Israel’s existence reveals that late ancient Jewish advocacy occurs quite frequently within the imaginary divine courtroom. Recent scholarship attune to this phenomenon has emphasized the rhetorical skills employed in such occurrences of supporting speech; yet scholars often overlook the soteriological motives presupposing these forms of argumentation. Absent of the core principles of ancient Jewish salvation doctrine, the crafting of advanced arguments before God loses its substantive meaning. Second, the unilateral actions undertaken by God and mediated by the advocate demonstrate the limitations on human merit within rabbinic teachings. This challenges the preconceptions of antinomian thinkers, who have characterized rabbinic theology as overly legalistic and over reliant on human action as a means to salvation