Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:46:00.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pharisaic Paradosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

A. I. Baumgarten
A. I. Baumgarten
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Bar Ilan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When historical reconstruction of the nature of a person or a group is carried out under ideal circumstances, we should have two kinds of evidence: we should know the self description of the subject, and be able to compare this self description with the way the subject was seen by others. These two types of evidence give historians the perspective which should allow them to draw a wellrounded portrait of the nature of their subject. When viewed in this light, the problems presented in attempting a historical reconstruction of the nature of the Pharisees before 70 CE make this case a classic example of the problems of historical work. Virtually no documents have survived that come from the Pharisees themselves. We know them as seen by Josephus (who claimed to have been and to be a Pharisee, but who in fact shows little indication of Pharisaic belief or practice in his life or writings), as they appeared to the authors of the gospels, or as seen in the hindsight of their heirs, the rabbis. Thanks to Qumran texts we may learn how the Pharisees were viewed by members of a competing group. Paul claimed to have once been a Pharisee, but was writing his letters as a Christian. The first type of evidence discussed above is thus almost entirely lacking; the second is available in abundance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 63 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I stress “almost,” because I would agree with numerous scholars who consider Megillat Taʾanît Pharisaic—the Aramaic Megillah only, not necessarily the Hebrew commentary—but this text is so enigmatic as to be almost useless. On m. ʾAbot I see below, n. 16.

2 See, e.g., Neusner, Jacob, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (New York: Ktav, 1979).Google Scholar

3 Baumgarten, Albert I., “The Name of the Pharisees,” JBL 102 (1983) 411–28.Google Scholar

4 Hippolytus writes of the Essenes as having paradoseis (Ref. 9.23.1). On the relationship between Hippolytus' account of the sects and the account in Bell. 2.8.2–12 § 119–61 see Smith, Morton, “The Descriptions of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena,” HUCA 29 (1958) 273–313;Google ScholarBurchard, Christoph, “Zur Nebenüberlieferung von Josephus' Bericht über die Essener Bell. 2.119–161 bei Hippolyt, Porphyrius, Josippus, Niketas Chroniates und anderen,” in Betz, Otto, Haacken, K., and Hengel, Martin, eds., Josephus-Studien, Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament: Otto Michel … gewidmet (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 78–81Google Scholar; idem, “Die Essener bei Hippolyt,” JSJ 8 (1977) 1–41;Google ScholarBaumgarten, Albert I., “Josephus and Hippolytus on the Pharisees,” HUCA 55 (1984) 1–25.Google Scholar

The Sadducees also observed regulations that went beyond what was written in the Pentateuch. We do not know how to reconcile these practices with their rejection of Pharisaic paradosis. For two attempts cf. Lauterbach, Jacob Zallel, Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1951) 31–39Google Scholar, and Urbach, Ephraim E., “The Derasha as a basis for Halacha and the Problem of the Soferim,” Tarbiẓ 27 (1957/1958) 180–81Google Scholar (in Hebrew). Each of these solutions has attracted support among scholars. Thus Schürer, Emil (The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ [ed. Black, Matthew et al.; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–1979] 2Google Scholar. 408 n. 22) follows Lauterbach; Baumgarten, Joseph M. (“The Unwritten Law in the Pre-Rabbinic Period,” JSJ 3 [1972] 20–21)Google Scholar follows Urbach. Cf. Moyne, Jean Le, Les Sadducéens (Paris: Gabalda, 1972) 372–79.Google Scholar

One other important point remains uncertain: how did the Pharisees reach the conclusions embodied in the paradosis ? That is, was their paradosis based on interpretation of the Bible? For a discussion of this and related questions see Urbach, “Derasha,” 166–71.

5 For a recent discussion of this important episode see Levine, L. I., “The Political Struggle between Pharisees and Sadducees in the Hasmonean Period,” in Oppenheimer, A., Rappaport, U., and Stern, M., eds., Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, A. Schalit Memorial Volume (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1980) 61–83 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

6 On Josephus' pro-Pharisaic tendencies in Antiquitates see Smith, Morton, “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in Davis, Moshe, ed., Israel: Its Role in Civilization (New York: Harper & Row, 1956) 75–76.Google Scholar

7 See Blenkinsopp, Joseph, “Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second Temple History,” in Sanders, E. P., Baumgarten, A. I., and Mendelson, A., eds., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition Volume Two: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period (London: SCM, 1981) 1–26Google Scholar; Moshe David Herr, “Oral Law,” Enc Jud 12 (1972) 1441; idem, “Continuum in the Chain of Torah Transmission,” Zion 44 (1979) 43–56 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

8 On the Sadducees, see above n. 4. Eusebius writes of Hegesippus noting the use the latter made of material coming from the unwritten tradition of the Jews (Hist. eccl. 4.22.8). This is an enigmatic text because it is not clear whether these traditions are Pharisaic. Moreover, Eusebius has been cited as proof that the Mishnah was not written in Hegesippus's day, but this interpretation ignores two points: (1) Hegesippus is cited as drawing on the paradosis, not the deuterōsis (see below n. 10); (2) Hegesippus may mean no more than that these traditions were not written down in the law of Moses, rather than not written down anywhere. On the latter point see Epstein, Jacob Nahum, Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964) 697 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

9 I would not call the supra-biblical observances of non-rabbinic groups their “Oral Law” (cf. Herr, “Oral Law,” 1441). In my view, oral law is a specific term for the way in which the rabbis understood the relationship between the written Torah and the supra-biblical legislation they accepted. I believe it anachronistic and potentially misleading to use the rabbinic term for other (earlier) groups.

10 As might be expected, the Church Fathers follow the lead of the gospels in attacking the paradosis. See Weiss, H. F., “Φαρισαῖος,” TDNT 9 (1974) 47–48Google Scholar. The norm among the Church Fathers is well represented by the following passages: Just. Dial. 38; Clem. Al. Strom. 6.7.59.2; Iren. Adv. haer. 4.12.1; Hipp. Comm. in Dan. 4:20; Ptolemy Ad Floram 4.11–12; Orig. Comm. in Matt. 15:1–2; 23:16–22; Eus. Comm. in lsa. 22:10; Jerome Comm. in Matt. 22:23. The harshest attack on the paradosis I have seen is contained in the extracts from Nazoraean interpretations quoted by Jerome in his Commentary on Isaiah. See these extracts as collected by Klijn, Albert F. J. and Reinink, G. J., Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 220–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On these passages see further Klijn, Albert F. J., “Jerome's Quotations from a Nazoraean Interpretation of Isaiah,” RechSR 60 (1972) 249–55.Google Scholar Note that in fourth-century sources beginning with Eusebius, a new term enters the discussion, deuterōsis. In addition to the passages from Eusebius and Jerome in the preceding paragraph, see Eus. Praep. Ev. 12.4.2; Epiph. Pan. 33.9.2–4. See esp. Jerome's comment in Epistle 121: traditiones Pharisaeorum … quos hodie vocant deuteroseis. On the meaning of deuterōsis see the basic discussions in Juster, Jean, Les Juifs dans l'empire Romaine (2 vols.; Paris: Geuthner, 1914) 1Google Scholar, 372–73 n. 6; Epstein, Text, 673–76. The change in term employed by Christians must reflect a change in terminology by Jews. See further below n. 16. Cf. Juster, Juifs, 1. 375 n. 3, who equates paradosis and deuterōsis. (I plan a future study on the significance of the change in terminology.)

One partial exception to the unfavorable attitude towards the paradosis is represented by the Pseudo-Clementines, on which see Weiss, “Φαρισαῖος,” 48. Note, however, as observed by Weiss, that the objective of the Pseudo-Clementines was to claim that their community was not merely the true Israel but also the true Pharisees. This explains the strange ambivalence towards the Pharisaic paradosis one finds in the Pseudo-Clementines.

A notable exception to the attitude of the Church Fathers towards the Pharisees is Hipp. Ref. 9.28.3. The Pharisees there follow the “ancient tradition” (⋯ρχαίαν παράδοσιν). This contradicts not only the usual views expressed by the Church Fathers but Hippolytus' own derogatory comments on the paradosis (Comm. in Dan. 4:20). Indeed, the entire notice on the Pharisees in Ref. 9.28 inclines significantly in their favor on precisely the points concerning which the Pharisees were attacked in the New Testament and Patristic literature. These facts deserve an important place in attempts to determine the literary relationship between the section in Hipp. Ref. 9 and Josephus. See my paper cited above n. 4.

Christians would adopt paradosis as a positive term for their own traditions. This process can already be seen in Paul (1 Cor 11:2) and in deutero-Pauline literature (2 Thess 2:15). There are numerous examples in later Christian literature.

11 I omit from this discussion a number of questions concerning the paradosis which, while much discussed, do not seem susceptible to definite answers, e.g., what is the precise relationship between paradosis and oral law? was either the paradosis or oral law written down? As to the content of the paradosis, our clearest hints come from the New Testament. Washing of hands, the impurity of vessels and qorban (on which see further below n. 33) were all in the paradosis. Origen adds that it is a paradosis of the scribes that Elijah will precede the Messiah (Comm. in Matt. 17:1–2 ). Jerome ascribes a similar tradition to the Pharisees (Comm. in Matt. 17:10). This testimony is difficult to evaluate as it may be based on New Testament verses such as Matt 17:10 and Mark 9:11 rather than direct Jewish tradition. Epiphanius cites a version of Luke 11:42 that differs from our text, according to which the laws of tithes were included in the paradosis (Pan. 42.11.15; Refut. 26). Epiphanius's testimony, however, is weak evidence on which to build. To my knowledge, no other witness to the text of Luke 11:42 offers this reading, and it is best explained as an inaccurate quotation from memory. According to Ps.-Clem. Recog. 1.50.1, beliefs concerning the Messiah were included in the paradosis..

12 Gould, Ezra P., The Gospel According to St. Mark (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896) 127.Google Scholar

13 See Büchsel, Friedrich, “παράδοσις,” TDNT 2 (1964) 172.Google Scholar Cf. Str-B 1 (1922) 691–94: paradosis is translated both and .Google Scholar

14 Mśr and qbl are counterparts in rabbinic usage. See Bacher, Wilhelm, Die Exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur (2 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905) 1. 165.Google Scholar

15 See Field, Fredericus, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1871–1874) 2. 820. The verse in Ezekiel is an old difficulty. See the discussion in Z. Ben Hayyim, “Massorah and Masoret,” Leś 21 (5717) 283 (in Hebrew) and the literature cited there, n. 5.Google Scholar

16 Concerning the document at the core of m. ʾAbot 1, see the recent discussion by Herr, “Continuum,” 48–51. Note that the core of m. ʾAbot 1 is Pharisaic, but literary analysis has shown that the core underwent substantial revision before becoming the text of m. ʾAbot 1 as we know it now. In that sense, even m. ʾAbot 1 does not qualify as a Pharisaic document in which the Pharisees are speaking in their own voice. Mśr and qbl continued to have these technical meanings in rabbinic literature, although the technical sense of the former became attenuated. On mśr see m. Šeqal. 6:1; t. Bek 1.12 (ed. Zuckermandel 535); t. ʿArak. 5.16 (ed. Zuckermandel 550); t. ʿEd. 3.4 (ed. Zuckermandel 459); t. Yoma 2.7 (ed. Lieberman 233). See also Mek. Baḥodeš 2.1 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin 207). On the loss of the technical sense, especially by the noun , see Bacher, Terminologie, 1. 106–8. M. ʾAbot 3:13 (Parma A, Lowe) poses a special problem. In the Kaufmann MS this phrase appears as . The same reading is found in the Geniza frg. published by Katsch, Abraham I., Ginze Mishnah (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1970) 111.Google Scholar The existence of two traditions was already known to Nathan of Rome, Aruch Completum (ed. Kohut, G. A.; 8 vols.; Vienna: Menorah, 1926) 6. 14 (in Hebrew). On the meaning of the phrase see Bacher, Terminologie, 1. 108. Cf. Str-B 1. 693. On the root mśr in Qumran see Ben Hayyim, “Massorah,” 288–90.Google Scholar On the root qbl in rabbinic sources see, e.g., m. Peʾa 2:6; m. ‘Ed. 1:6; t. Pesah. 4.14 (ed. Lieberman 165); y. Pesah. 6.1.33a. The noun , especially in the phrase has a specific restricted meaning in rabbinic sources and always refers to the non-Pentateuchal portions of the Bible. See, e.g., m. Taʿan. 2:1, and the discussion in Bacher, Terminologie, 1. 165–66. This restricted use of the noun is unusual. Torczyner proposed revocalizing the noun and understanding it , “(words of) rebuke” (Thesaurus totius hebraitatis [15 vols.; Jerusalem: Ben Yehuda, 1948–59] 11. 5702–3, n. 2). This brilliant hypothesis is supported by appeal to ʾAbot R. Nat. B chap. 42 (ed. Schechter 117) where Lev 26:6 is apparently called . Note, however, that the reference may be to Ezek 34:25, as proposed by Saldarini, Anthony J., The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan B (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finkelstein, Louis (“Introductory Study to Pirke Abot,” JBL 57 [1938] 48–49)Google Scholar has suggested that since qbl is omitted in ʾAbot R. Nat. B chap. 23 (ed. Schechter 47) it was therefore added in ʾAbot R. Nat. A chap. 12 (ed. Schechter 48) under the influence of m. ʾAbot 1. Furthermore, the term was originally missing in m. ʾAbot 1, and was not part of the original Pharisaic list. Compare, however, ʾAbot R. Nat. B chap. 16 (ed. Schechter 35) where the phrase is omitted from MS Vatican 303 by homoioteleuton, but included in MS Parma 327. (See Saldarini, Fathers, 141 n. 1.) Perhaps ʾAbot R. Nat. B chap. 23 is to be explained similarly. Another possibility is to explain the omission of qbl as being due to the influence of m. Hag. 2:2. Either of these solutions seems preferable to Finkelstein's hypothesis which necessitates our conceiving the old Pharisaic document in m. ʾAbot 1 as a verbless list of names.

17 To the best of my knowledge, this form is unique in rabbinic sources; the usual form is . The existence of this form poses a difficulty to the proposal of Ben Hayyim (“Massorah,” 283–84) according to which was first invented in the post-Talmudic period and had a restricted meaning—the Massorah (surrounding the written text of the Bible). The preservation of this rare form in MSS of ʾAbot R. Nat. A would be further evidence for the conclusion that these MSS are all of the same family (see below n. 19; on variant readings for this passage see the same note). Note that in the version of this passage quoted by Nathan of Rome (Aruch 2.88) has been replaced by the more familiar .

18 On this phrase see further Herr, Moshe David, “Who were the Baethusians?” Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: Studies in the Talmud, Halacha and Midrash (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1981) 12–13Google Scholar (in Hebrew). Note, however, that in all the examples cited by Herr is followed by the name of an individual in the singular. As such, these analogies are not that close to . Several better analogies exist, such as in Mek. R. Sim. Exod 18:27 (ed. Epstein-Melammed 135); and in Gen. Rab. 98.8 (ed. Theodor-Albeck 1259, according to the reading of MS Vatican 30). On the meaning of this phrase see Klein, S., “A Genealogical Scroll Found in Jerusalem,” Zion 4 (1939) 36–38Google Scholar, 177 (in Hebrew). Perhaps in m. ʿArak 2:4 (according to the better MSS: Kaufmann, Parma A, Lowe, Vatican 119, Munich 95) is to be explained as a family name, as proposed by Klein, “Geneaological Scroll,” 35 n. 24. See further idem, “Investigation of Names,” Leš 1 (5688) 348 (in Hebrew). Klein admits ignorance concerning the meaning of in that same mishnah. Finally, there is , t. Yebam. 1.10 concerning which see ibid.

Note, however, that even these examples are not totally analogous to . The latter was definitely not a family name, while all the examples cited in the preceding paragraph may have been (and probably were) family names. For that reason another possibility for understanding must be considered. Perhaps is to be understood as equivalent to , a meaning it can sometimes have. See further Asher, M. Bar, Mishna Codex Parma “B”, Introduction (Jerusalem: Makor, 1971) 14Google Scholar. On this understanding of the phrase as a whole should be translated: “It is a tradition among the Pharisees.” Cf. also the version of Nathan of Rome (Aruch 2.88): .

19 I quote the text according to the reading of the first printed edition, Venice, 1550 (= note that for this and other Mss I follow the sigla as in Finkelstein, Louis, Introduction to the Treatises ʾAbot and ʾAbot of Rabbi Nathan [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950] 1 [in Hebrew]).Google Scholar There are minor variants in Mss and (the latter now lost and only known from Schechter's citations). Compare the reading adopted by Schechter.

A different version is found in MS R*25 of the Jewish Theological Seminary (= Ms, in Finkelstein's sigla).

In comparing the versions of and I would first note that in is definitely more difficult than of Next, the phrase might have fallen out of the tradition of because of the influence of . That is, by a kind of homoioteleuton the following process may have taken place: . Alternately, the reading in may not be the result of error but may represent the French tradition of ʾAbot deRabbi Nathan A. On this aspect of MS see Finkelstein, Introduction, 139–53.

20 In their use in post-Talmudic literature, the two terms did not have equivalent meanings. See above n. 17.

21 If the reading of is adopted (above n. 19) the conclusion that this attack comes from Sadducaean quarters is obvious. Finkelstein's suggestion (Introduction, 35–36) that this passage is an actual quotation from a Sadducaean text goes further than the evidence permits. I wonder whether the Sadducees would have used terms such as “this world” and “the world to come.” Perhaps these are Pharisaic or even rabbinic terms.

22 The passage in Josephus is difficult and has been the subject of much scholarly discussion. Urbach's suggestion (above n. 4) to unite this passage with information in b. Qidd. 66a (according to a variant reading in ʾAggādôt ha-Talmûd) seems almost too brilliant to be true. It also contradicts the sense of Josephus's remarks in context. See further the literature cited above n. 4.

23 It is unclear whether this Sadducaean attack is directed against a specific tradition or the tradition as a whole.

24 See Herr, “Baethusians,” 10, esp. n. 68. Cf. also the account of Sadducaean doctrine in Ps.-Clem. Recog. 1.53–54, on which see Le Moyne, Sadducéens, 147–48 and Isser, Stanley J., The Dositheans (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 54–55.Google Scholar

25 The connection between this attack and paradosis was seen particularly well by Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays, 26 n. 6.

26 See Marcus's remarks in the LCL edition of Antiquitates. See also Alon, Gedaliahu, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977) 41Google Scholar n. 61; Schürer, History, 2. 383 n. 1; Schwartz, D., “Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees,” JSJ 14 (1983) 157–71.Google Scholar I should like to thank Dr. Schwartz for allowing me to consult the typescript of this paper prior to its appearing in print.

27 See further Baumgarten, “Name of the Pharisees,” 414.

28 The meaning of προσποιεῖν has been missed. Marcus translates it “to claim,” but the verb usually means to claim something to which one is not entitled, i.e., to pretend. See the examples in LSJ and BAG, s.v. Note also the old Latin translation: simulantium.

29 On the Pharisees and see Flusser, David, “Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in Pesher Nahum,” in Dorman, M., Safrai, S., and Stern, M., eds., Essays in Jewish History and Philology in Memory of Gedaliahu Alon (Jerusalem: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1970) 136–37 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar See also Baumgarten, “Name of the Pharisees,” 421 n. 42.

30 On in the writings of the sect see 1QS 1 7; 5 4; 7 19; 9 10; CD 3 5; 3 10; 8 7–8. See further Licht, Jacob, The Thanksgiving Scroll (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1957) 93 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

31 In Col 2:8 a paradosis is attacked as human. There is, however, a double uncertainty: (1) Colossians is deutero-Pauline; (2) more significantly, although Judaizers are mentioned in Col 2:16, there is no guarantee that these Judaizers were Pharisees, or that the paradosis was theirs.

32 Nicolaus accuses the Pharisees of pretension (see the discussion of προσποιεῖν,, above n. 28) pride (μέγα φρονεῖν,, which I take in an unfavorable sense, as in Rev 13:5), and love of money (their prophecies are motivated by their desire to help someone who gave them financial aid): On the Pharisees as hypocrites cf. Matt 22:18; 23:13–16 and par. See also 1QH 4 14: . On Pharisaic pride cf. Matt 23:5 and par. On Pharisaic love of money cf. Matt 23:25 and Luke 16:14.

33 Perhaps these various charges were first made by Sadducees: they do fit the Sadducaean viewpoint as we know it. I.e., the Sadducees could well have maintained that only what was in the Bible was divine, hence the Pharisaic tradition could not be divine and had to be a human invention. At any rate, as we know these charges in the gospels (whatever their origins may have been), they are commonplaces. For a discussion of Jesus’ countercharge against the Pharisees concerning qorban see Baumgarten, Albert I., “Korban and the Pharisaic Paradosis,” in Elias Bickerman Memorial Volume, JANES 16–17 (1984/1985)—forthcoming.Google Scholar

34 See Bickerman, Elias, “La Chaîne de la tradition pharisienne,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1976–1980) 2. 259–69.Google Scholar

35 The attacks of the on the members of the Qumran sect are well attested in Qumran literature. See 1QH 2 32, 35; 4 9 and the discussion in Licht, Thanksgiving Scroll, 73. Are the Pharisees and their attacks responsible for the defections lamented in 1QH 5 20–39 and CD 20 11–13, 25?

36 See Maimonides, , Commentary on the Mishnah (trans. Kapah, I.; 7 vols.; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1963–1968) 1. 29 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar For a summary of scholarship see Herr, “Continuum,” 47. n. 29, to which add Loeb, Isidore, “Notes sur le chapitre premier des Pirké Abot,” REJ 19 (1889) 188–92.Google Scholar Cf. Bickerman, “Chaîne,” 261. See also below n. 44.

37 See Ben Hayyim, “Massorah,” 284–85.

38 Note, e.g., the well-known Talmudic phrase referring to the written text of the Bible (as opposed to the oral-reading tradition). Note also that paradosis can refer to the written text of the Bible, as in the passages cited above n. 4.

39 To make their traditions priestly would have been going further than plausible; family traditions might seem more believable. On competition between Pharisees and priests see the discussion and literature in Herr, “Continuum,” 44–48.

40 See, e.g., 1 Macc 14:28, and Josephus Ant. 13.16.4 § 428. For further discussion of the sources see Schürer, History, 2. 200–203; S. Safrai, “Jewish Self Government,” in idem and Stern, M., eds., The Jewish People in the First Century (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973–1976) 1. 379–82Google Scholar; Jeremias, Joachim, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London: SCM, 1969) 222–32Google Scholar; Goldstein, Jonathan A., I Maccabees (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976) 356–57.Google Scholar For the basic insight see Elias Bickerman, “La Charte séleucide de Jérusalem,” in Studies 2. 81–82.

41 The Pharisees attempted to graft great figures of the past onto their line. See the inclusion of Simon the Righteous and Antigonus of Socho in the Pharisaic list in m. ʾAbot 1. See the literature and discussion in Elias Bickerman, “The Maxim of Antigonus of Socho,” in Studies, 2. 284–89.

42 The heading of chap. 44 in one Geniza MS of Ben Sira is . In some Greek Mss the chapter has the heading . The authenticity of this heading is questionable. It is missing in the Syriac versions, and may be missing in the Ben Sira scroll from Masada. See Yadin, Yigael, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965) 34Google Scholar; Charles, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1913) 1. 479.Google Scholar Since there is good reason to question the authenticity of the heading, I have based my argument on Sir 44:1, concerning whose authenticity there is no doubt.

43 On the function of an ʾab at Qumran see 1QH 7:20.

44 Neusner, Jacob (Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 [3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971] 1. 18–20)Google Scholar correctly notes that m.ʾAbot 1 is straining somehow to cover the large gap between the Yosi's and Moses.

45 See Herford, R. Travers, ed. and trans., Pirke Aboth (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1930) 3–4Google Scholar; Strack, Hermann L., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1945) 253 n. 14.Google Scholar

46 Segal, Moshe Zvi, Sefer Ben Sira Hashalem (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1972) 303 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

47 One might add y. Šabb. 9.3.12a, to be emended on the basis of comparison with the other passages cited, as suggested by Kosovsky, Moshe, Concordance to the Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1979) 16 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

48 Neusner, Jacob (History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities [23 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1974–1979] 19. 28) translates, “early fathers.”Google Scholar

49 See above n. 10.

50 See Baumgarten, “Name of the Pharisees,” 426 nn. 70 and 71 and the literature cited therein.

51 Le Moyne, Sadducéens, 147–50; Isser, Dositheans, 54–55.

52 Cf. m. ʾAbot 1. For a further discussion of the Pharisaic claim and its results see Baumgarten, Albert I., “The Torah as a Public Document in Judaism,” Studies in Religion 14 (1985) 23–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 Josephus Vita 2 § 11.

54 Cohen, Shaye J. D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 106–7.Google Scholar Note, however, that topoi derive their effectiveness from the believability of events they narrate.

55 4QpNah 2 8–9; 3 3–8. See further Flusser, “Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes,” 150–52. On the identity of see above n. 29.

56 See further Baumgarten, “Name of the Pharisees,” 420–22. I believe there was a limited number of individuals to whom membership in any of the parties or sects would have appealed. This belief is supported by our information concerning the numbers of Pharisees and Essenes. Even if these numbers are incorrect by one hundred percent, and even if one doubles them to take into account members of other groups, the results still yield very few members for so large a pool of population.

57 Part of this article was delivered as a lecture at the Department of Jewish History, Haifa University, Haifa, Israel. Another part was presented under the auspices of the Department of Hebrew Language, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. I would like to thank my hosts at both institutions, Professors David Goodblatt and Uriel Rappaport of Haifa, and Professor Moshe Bar Asher in Jerusalem, for the opportunities to discuss my work and to benefit from questions and criticism.

When Ms readings are cited I have used microfilms at the Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem, Israel. Research for this article was carried out while on a Sabbatical Leave Fellowship in Jerusalem, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.