Torah in the Mouth.pdf

Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE - 400 CE
Jaffee, Martin S., Samuel and Althea Stroum Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Washington
Print publication date: 2001, Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003
Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-514067-5, doi:10.1093/0195140672.001.0001
(pateroan paradosin: Antiquities 13:408). The characterization of the Pharisees as diligent legal interpreters appears as well in Josephus'
well-known ethnography of the Essene, Sadducean, and Pharisaic “philosophies” (War, 2:162, Antiquities 18:12), while their “extremely
precise adherence to the ancestral heritage” (exakribosei mega pronoun tou patrioi ) during the Herodian period is noted at Antiquities
17:41.
In sum, the Josephan account of the Pharisaic text-interpretive tradition tells us about how the Pharisees proposed to disseminate its
legal norms, but nothing about literary substance or form. Josephus shows only that the Pharisees—whether vying for influence in the
courts of John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannaeus, Alexandra Salome, or Herod—pursued a single-minded effort to establish the results of
their own traditions of painstaking interpretation of ancestral law as the official program of the state. In this, of course, they are no different
from Josephus' Sadducees or the anonymous writer of the Qumranian “Halakhic Letter,” who, attempting to win the ear of a reigning
Hasmonean king with regard to a series of legal disputes affecting access to the Temple, begs him to “reflect upon all this and pray for
Him to correct/ your counsel and to remove from you evil plans and the promptings of Belial/ so that you may rejoice at the end of time,
as you discover that some of our words are true” (4QMMT C:28–30). 41
The Rabbinic Literature
Turning now to the rabbinic representations of Pharisaic tradition, we recall the earlier caveat against assuming too readily a simple
preservation of Pharisaic materials in rabbinic sources. At the same time, it is only fair to acknowledge a few stubborn facts that suggest
some sort of key link between the Pharisees and the later rabbinic Sages. One is the matter of Gamaliel, mentioned in Acts 5:34–42 as a
Pharisaic leader and in Acts 22:3 as Paul's guide to Pharisaic teachings. A “Rabban Gamaliel the Elder” 42 figures prominently in rabbinic
literature as an early first-century Sage, a skeptic regarding priestly (perhaps Sadducean) observance of purity regulations (T. Avodah
Zarah 3:10), and an influential transmitter of ancient tradition. So here is one Second Temple period Sage who is recalled outside of the
rabbinic tradition as a Pharisee and whose image in rabbinic tradition fits the profile of a Pharisee—a person expert in an ancestral legal
tradition who distances himself from the official Temple priesthood. 43
Further tantalizing correspondences between figures valorized in rabbinic tradition as leading Sages and identified outside of that tradition
as Pharisees are supplied by Josephus. The “Simon, son of Gamaliel” mentioned by Josephus as “a native of Jerusalem, of a very
illustrious family, and of the sect of the Pharisees, who have the reputation of being unrivalled experts in their country's laws” (Life 190
–191) is surely identical to the Sage known in rabbinic tradition as Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel. There he is recalled as a figure in the mid-
first-century succession of leadership who, on at least one occasion, acknowledged his opposition to Sadducean practices regarding laws
of the Sabbath rest (M. Eruvin 6:2). 44 While he is not explicitly identified in rabbinic sources as a Pharisee, the memory of his conflict with
a Sadducee supports the clear Josephan claim about his party affiliation.
Second, but less compelling, is Josephus' reference to the Pharisees Pollion and Samaias (Antiquities 15:370–371), who came into
conflict with Herod. It is tantalizing
end p.52
to see here garbled references to the shadowy “pair,” Shemaiah and Avtalion, mentioned in M. Avot 1:10, or perhaps to the famous first-
century shapers of rabbinic legal tradition Hillel and Shammai, whom M. Avot 1:12 names as having received the traditions of Shemaiah
and Avtalion. All of these figures overlap with the Herodian period, and there is an undeniable euphony of names. Nevertheless, Neusner's
judgment is probably wisest: “efforts to fill in the gaps by identifying Shemaiah and Avtalion with Pollion the Pharisee and his disciple
Samaias of Josephus . . . have little in their favor, apart from the approximate similarity of the names of Shamaiah and Samaias.” 45
It is beyond serious doubt, then, that there was some participation of Pharisees in the shaping of what ultimately became second- and
third-century rabbinism. But this participation does not of itself give us much confidence that rabbinic traditions offer reliable pictures of
any aspect of Pharisaism. This difficulty is particularly true regarding the authority of tradition, which played such a crucial role in the
promulgation and spread of rabbinic teaching from the third century and onward. At issue is not merely the historical difficulty of attempting
to describe the pre-70 forms of ideas and institutions first attested in rabbinic texts of the third century and later; there is also the very
basic question of names. A crucial problem in using the rabbinic literature for insight into any aspect of pre-70 Pharisaism is that it is
rarely clear which, if any, of the various coherent groups mentioned in these sources are in fact identical to the Pharisees we met in
Josephus or the early Christian writings. 46
In rabbinic literature, the most common collective term for figures perceived as members of the rabbinic community of learning is the
Hebrew word “Sages” ( kmym). When referring to the pre-70 forbears of the rabbinic movement of the second to sixth centuries, this term
dominates as well. 47 The only text, for example, that explicitly identifies Pharisees (prwšym) as kmym is a passage, cited as a
Tannaitic tradition, appearing for the first time in the Babylonian Talmud in the mouth of the fourth-century Pumbeditan Sage Abbaye (B.
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003 - 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details
see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/privacy_policy.html).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 20 September 2011