Comments on: Questing for the Pharisees: a review

By: doug

doug — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:31:33 +0000

I guess Saldarini’s book Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees is a significant partner in the debate, and I’d also recommend the relevant sections in John Meier’s Marginal Jew, Vol III Companions and Competitors. But I’m no expert.

By: ari

ari — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:56:49 +0000

Sorry to write so much. I was just interested in what other people who have read the book think. Would you recommend any other books about the Pharisees?

By: doug

doug — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:06:52 +0000

It is, of course, hard to know whether Paul includes interpretative tradition within his conception of the Law. To some extent, he must, in the same way when a Protestant says “The Bible says” they are usually including the tradition of interpretation they were taught, rather than simply the fruits of their own study. But he certainly does see some ancestral traditions as worth specific mention, although what he means by those, or includes with them, is anyone’s guess.

You don’t seem to have your own blog, but why not start one?

By: Ari

Ari — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:54:29 +0000

Thanks for replying. If they believed that there were traditions about the interpretation of the written Law, they must have believed that these traditions are the original and definitive interpretations, otherwise they lack authority. On the other hand, it is possible they believed that the oral tradition were not part of the written Law but were obligatory anyway as the practices of their ancestors, not necessarily hailing back to Moses. Neusner’s essay seems to imply that this was the case. Also Mason’s essay on Josephus seems to point out in one place that the Pharisees believed that they had ‘traditions from their ancestors’ as opposed to traditions from Moses. The logic is that, probably, if those traditions were believed to have been received from Moses, Josephus would mention that more grandiose claim.
I think the Pharisees had both interpretations of the written Law and ancestral traditions, and then they somehow tried to incorporate the ancestral traditions into the interpretations of the written Law to justify the authority of those ancestral traditions. Neusner says himself that every group at that time used some set of interpretations along with the scriptures. So the existence of interpretive traditions are pretty much a given. The question is did they include what later became known as the Oral Law or were they distinct from ancestral traditions that later became known as the Oral Law. I think this is where Neusner disagrees with Sanders. If those Pharisaic ancestral traditions were seen as part of the Mosaic corpus why would Paul pride himself with them more than with the rest?

By: doug

doug — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:34:07 +0000

I don’t think, myself that there’s enough evidence to state definitively that Pharisees of the first-century even believed in an oral law as a separate entity, rather than a set of oral traditions about the interpretation of the written Law

By: Ari

Ari — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 01:57:34 +0000

I read the book but am still confused as to the bottom line about Oral Law: did the Pharisees believe that the Oral Law came from Moses or not? Any thoughts?
Thanks.

By: doug

doug — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:01:41 +0000

I’d like to thank Prof Chilton for commenting, however tersely. I would submit though that a bare statement contradicting the major opening argument of the book needs more than a footnote (p170 n53) saying, with no reference to Mason’s argument, “this is an issue I detail further in Rabbi Paul“. As for this being superficial, I don’t know how deep anyone expects what is explicitly called a “brief description” to be. And as for it being tendentious, well above all given that Chilton as co-editor indulged Neusner’s personal blast at Sanders, the words “pot, “kettle” and “black” come to mind. I still think that my main point stands, this book is remarkably silent about reconstructing Paul’s Pharasaic convictions, and that remains a gaping hole.

By: Bruce Chilton

Bruce Chilton — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:19:43 +0000

Readers interested in Paul and his background as a Pharisee, which is in fact the pivot of one of the articles mentioned, might pursue the theme in “Rabbi Paul. An intellectual biography” (Doubleday, 2004). The issue of Josephus’ attitude toward the Pharisees, a matter on which I do not fully agree with Steve Mason, is explored in “The Temple of Jesus” (Penn State University Press, 1992). These works are clearly cited in the volume, along with many others. The review is superficial and tendentious.