Search Results

This chapter focuses upon conceptions of written and oral tradition ascribed to the Pharisees, an important group in Second Temple Judean society. It surveys the key sources of knowledge about Pharisees: some scattered references in the pesher literature of the Dead Sea scrolls, complex narratives found in the historical writings of Flavius Josephus, the writings of the Apostle Paul, Gospel narratives of Jewish opposition to Jesus, and the classical rabbinic writings from the Mishnah to the Babylonian Talmud. The chapter concludes that Pharisees of the first century c.e. almost certainly believed themselves to possess an ancient “ancestral tradition” of a text‐interpretive character. But there is no evidence that they linked the authority of this tradition to exclusively oral forms of transmission.

The new tendency of the Sadducees to appeal to Scripture for practical guidance caused a cultural and religious chain reaction. This chapter deals with the issue of the authority of the holy text versus traditional religious norms, delving into the Second Temple period. It explores the disputes and mutual agreements between Pharisaic and Sadducee-priestly halakhic systems in order to enable a detailed description and analysis of the changes that took place from that time onward. It explains the old traditions in accordance with their biblical origins. The exegetical techniques used in these explanations turned into creative tools, and new norms that resulted from the reading of Scripture were introduced, authorized by rewriting the Pentateuch in accordance with them. Due to the fact that any direct evidence for the Pharisees' legal tradition is not available, the inquiry is based on several methodological assumptions and involves some serious difficulties. While the sectarians left a relatively large textual inheritance of their literary creation, all present day knowledge of the Pharisaic halakhah stems from indirect sources. These include the writings of Flavius Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, the references to the Pharisees and their halakhah in the New Testament, rabbinical traditions concerning their forefathers' halakhah, and of course, what the scrolls themselves testify concerning the sectarians' rivals.

This chapter begins with a discussion of Josephus’s descriptions of disputes between Pharisees and Sadducees regarding the authority of scripture and tradition. Again, Josephus’s testimony is found to be reasonably commensurate with external evidence. The discussion then expands to a consideration of Josephus’s treatment of the Essene view. Granting that Josephus is less clear about the Essenes’ view of legal authority, there is sufficient reason to question one current trend in scholarship, which elides the Sadducean view with the Qumranic/Essene one. The second half of the chapter reviews Josephus’s discussions of changes to legal practice, including the creation of new festivals such as Purim and Hunukkah, and the Maccabean decision to fight on the Sabbath. It is argued that Josephus’s own approach to law is roughly in line with the Pharisaic he has described: Josephus accepts the authority of scripture and tradition, but opposes changes imposed by illegitimate leaders or that were put in place without the people’s consent. It is observed that Josephus does not accept the authority of post-Mosaic prophetic legislation—which curiously puts Josephus at odds with the Dead Sea sect.

Mark’s Jesus picks up on John the Baptist’s ministry of preaching repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark has Jesus submit to baptism by John without any apparent concern for how this might appear to subordinate Jesus to John, or to make Jesus appear that he is being baptized for forgiveness of sin in the same way as others who come to John for baptism. Jesus claims the power to forgive sins (2:1–12), much to the objection of the scribes and Pharisees whom Mark places in opposition to Jesus’s ministry. Mark also presents Jesus’s death as a ransom for many (10:45).

In attempting to characterize Second Temple legends of the Hasmoneans, the concluding chapter identifies several distinct genres: fragments from Aramaic chronicles, priestly temple legends, Pharisaic legends, and theodicean legends explaining the fall of the Hasmonean dynasty. The chapter then examines, by generation, how Josephus on the one hand, and the rabbis on the other, reworked these embedded stories. The Josephan treatment aimed to reduce the hostility of the early traditions toward the Hasmoneans by imposing a contrasting accusatory framework that blames the Pharisees and justifies the Hasmonean ruler. The rabbinic treatment of the last three generations exemplifies the processes of rabbinization and the creation of archetypal figures. With respect to the first generation, the deliberate erasure of Judas Maccabeus’s name from the tradition of Nicanor’s defeat indicates that they chose to celebrate the Hasmonean victory but concealed its protagonists, the Maccabees, simply because no way was found to bring them into the rabbinic camp.