Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §9.3
tation of Torah, 68 'the traditions of their fathers', 69 the so-called 'oral law'. 70
Here it is important to recall that the Pharisees were not a uniform, far less monolithic,
party. Most famous at the time of Jesus were the many disputes on points
of halakhic detail between the 'schools' of Hillel and Shammai, remembered respectively
for the mildness and the severity of their rulings. 71 To acknowledge
this is to make no concession to the old accusation of Pharisaic 'legalism', since
Pharisees were characteristically more flexible in their rulings than Qumran, and
the Hillelites more lenient in their rulings on divorce than Jesus (§14.4e). At the
same time, their devotion to Torah is not open to question. Consequently, it is no
great surprise that the Judaism which survived the disaster of 70 CE, the Judaism
most closely related to the Pharisees, was a Judaism of rabbi, Torah, and
Halakhah.
(2) Little can be said of the Sadducees because of the paucity of evidence.
72 They are usually thought to have differed from the Pharisees by rejecting
the 'oral law' (on the basis of Ant. 13.297 and 18.17), though a minority of
commentators see the basic issue separating Sadducee from Pharisee as that,
once again, of purity. 73 A considerable overlap is also generally assumed between
the Sadducees and the aristocratic families from whom the high priests
68. 'Halakhah', from the Hebrew root Mk, 'to walk', refers individually and collectively
to the rules/rulings (derived from the written Torah) which determine how individuals should
act ('walk') in particular situations — in effect, case law. See further G. G. Porton, 'Halakah',
ABD 3.26-27; S. Safrai, 'Halakha', in Safrai, ed., Literature of the Sages 121-209.
69. E.g., Ant. 13.297, 408; 17.41; Life 198; Mark 7.3, 5; Gal. 1.14.
70. On the oral law see again Hengel and Deines, 'Sanders' Judaism' 17-39; also
S. Safrai, 'Oral Tora', in Safrai, ed., Literature of the Sages 35-119; discussion also in H. L.
Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (ET San Francisco:
HarperCollins, 1991) 35-49 (with bibliography). On the Pharisaic distinctives see further
Meier, Marginal Jew 3.313-30.
71. See, e.g., Schürer, History 2.363-66, with bibliography (n. 29) and reference to the
Mishnaic passages which mention differences between the two schools (n. 39); Hengel and
Deines, 'Sanders' Judaism' 39-41. There was also probably disagreement on the level of political
involvement thought to be appropriate, whether to cooperate with the Roman authorities or
to oppose them (M. Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul [London: SCM, 1991] 44-45). Crossan and
Reed think 'it was probably the Hillelite Pharisees who instigated theoretically and organised
practically' the nonviolent but martyrdom-ready resistance described by Josephus in War
2.169-74, 185-203 and Ant. 18.55-59, 261-309 (Excavating Jesus 143-45).
72. Bibliography in Meier, Marginal Jew 3.444.
73. G. G. Porton, ABD 5.892-93. 'In the Mishnah and Tosefta most of the disputes between
the Sadducees and Pharisees (and others) concern interpretations of the laws of ritual purity'
(Saldarini, Pharisees 233). See also Meier, Marginal Jew 3.399-406, who points out that
the Sadducees must have had their own halakhah and suggests that, in contrast to the Pharisees,
the Sadducees were content to defend and observe their special traditions 'without claiming
that their special traditions were obligatory for all Jews'.
270