Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§9.3 The Historical Context
these misperceptions has been shattered in English-speaking scholarship particularly
by Sanders, 51 the second by Neusner in his careful layering of the traditions
to expose those which can be traced back to the first century with the greatest
confidence. 52 The further questions prompted by Sanders and Neusner have provided
much of the agenda for subsequent debate.
Of ongoing issues, the most fundamental is whether we know enough
about the Pharisees to draw a rounded picture of them. As we have learned more
about Second Temple Judaism, the more it has become apparent that we know
less about the Pharisees than we previously took for granted; 53 though to know
that we know less is still to know more! In similar vein, Sanders may be justified
in objecting to Neusner's use only of attributed rabbinic traditions to inform his
picture of Pharisaic debates. But Sanders is himself open to criticism for bracketing
out the evidence of the Gospels. And more should certainly be made of Paul,
the only self-attested Pharisee writing in the pre-70 period. 54 Even though the
testimony of the rabbinic traditions is at best confusing, we can still sketch in
several distinctive and characteristic features.
A second main bone of contention is the importance of purity for the Pharisees,
and whether they were primarily a purity sect. Sanders objects to Neusner's
strong emphasis on this feature, though he concedes a good deal of key ground
while disputing its significance. 55 But he forgets that where particular religious
practices are integral to a group's identity, even 'minor gestures' can become
make or break points of division. 56 And more weight should surely be given to
51. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism; also Jesus and Judaism, index 'Pharisees';
also Judaism.
52. Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions; also Politics to Piety; also Judaism.
53. See particularly J. Sievers, 'Who Were the Pharisees?', in Charlesworth and Johns,
eds., Hillel and Jesus 137-55; he points out, e.g., that 'rabbinic literature never identifies any
named individual as a Pharisee' (139). Given the complexities of the Quest reviewed above
(Part One), Keek's cautionary reminder should be pondered: 'the quest of the historical Pharisee
is even more complex and controversial than the quest of the historical Jesus' (Who Is Jesus?
34).
54. See J. D. G. Dunn, 'Pharisees, Sinners and Jesus', in J. Neusner, et al., eds., The Social
World of Formative Christianity and Judaism, H. C. Kee FS (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988)
264-89, reprinted in my Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London:
SPCK, 1990) 61-86 (here 67-69); Saldarini, Pharisees ch.7, though any deduction from Paul's
life to the effect of Pharisaic influence in Syria and Cilicia (137) is very dubious (see further below
Vol. 2).
55. E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM,
1990) ch. 3; also Judaism, particularly 431-40 ('minor gestures' — Jewish Law 232, 235; Judaism
440). For Neusner's own reply see his 'Mr Maccoby's Red Cow, Mr Sanders's Pharisees —
and Mine', JSS 23 (1991) 81-98; also 'Mr. Sanders's Pharisees and Mine', BBR 2 (1992) 143-69.
56. As Kraft and Nickelsburg note: 'In such instances, differences in interpretation and
disputes about law are raised to the level of absolute truth and falsehood and have as their con-
267