| Because our goal is general cultural information and not rabbinic biography, we have focused on the latter. 3E. Conclusions Onés methodology must reflect onés objectives: in establishing a critical minimum of historical data, Neusner " s approach appears the best. But if one must draw from the widest possible range of sources to provide plausible historical reconstructions otherwise impossible–a task Neusner probably would not endorse but which historians of the period must often undertake–more of the evidence must be admitted. Neusner " s claim, «What we cannot show, we do not know» 1615 works with a minimalist objective; for our objective, the better principle is, «Some evidence is better than no evidence,» even if some evidence is less than certain. While none of these arguments or observations constitutes proof that any particular materials are early, it is meant to answer in advance criticisms raised for our use of rabbinic literature alongside other sources to reconstruct the milieu in which John wrote. This defense is perhaps most significant, though at the same time weakest, where our only evidence is rabbinic, as in the case of the controversy with the minim (below). At such points, rabbinic data may not reflect a direct continuity with the Fourth Gospel " s milieu; it does, however, provide the only objective control we have for reconstructing elements of that milieu for which we have no other evidence. Conflict with the Synagogue We must understand not only the general cultural milieu but the particular Sitz im Leben, or life-setting, of the Fourth Gospel if we are to uncover the factors influencing John " s selection and editing of his sources, and so understand the points he is making in the context of his own milieu. 1616 That John would expect his original audience to hear the book in their shared social context is probably safe to assume and implicit within the genre. 1617 The general cultural framework is much easier to reconstruct, but as well as possible we should seek to reconstruct the situation as wel1. |
| 1557 Neusner, Traditions, 3:4. In Legend, 5–6, he argues that disciples in Babylonian materials sometimes assumed their attributions were right, but the following generation knew better; but his appeal to later traditionaries against the earlier ones seems counter to his normal methodology. 1558 E.g., " Abot R. Nat. 24 A (although we admittedly somewhat circularly assume in this case the correctness of its attribution to Elisha ben Abuyah!); cf. p. Ter. 8for the Amoraic period. Baraitot in Amoraic texts are naturally less dependable than sources in Tannaitic collections, but «our rabbis» seems to have normally served as shorthand for R. Judah ha-Nasi and his court (p. Git. 7:3, §1; Nid. 3:4, §3). 1561 E.g., Neusner, Traditions, 3:147, 163. The unbroken chains of tradition back to Moses (m. «Abot 1:1; »Abot R. Nat. 1 A; 1, §2 B) are certainly late and probably influenced by Hellenistic models (Culpepper, School 185); the view that «pairs» always had to represent opposing positions ( " Abot R. Nat. 22, §46 B) is also questionable, though rabbinic dialectic certainly developed in these terms. 1562 He does argue in a later work (Neusner, New Testament) that one cannot base a case on what one cannot prove to be early, but this view of the burden of proof is a minimalist methodological presupposition, not specifically required by his data and not generally followed by classicists when earlier resources prove limited (cf., e.g., Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, ix). 1565 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 166–73; idem, Judaism, 496 n. 11, argues that some of the anonymous material is early because it is presupposed in Pharisaic debates. Hauptman, «Sugya,» thinks that these passages are late but may contain a Tannaitic stratum. Some Amoraim believed that anonymous material from Akibás disciples like Meir could be safely assumed to be Akibás (p. Ber. 2:1, §4). 1566 Especially if earlier written sources attribute them to post-first-century rabbis; cf. the introduction of Judah Goldin in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, xxi. |
| Only when we possess sufficient samples to conclude that the addition is consistently later does the argument move from somewhat probable to very probable. Nor are all arguments advanced for the late composition of certain elements as logical as they might first appear. Most of Neusner " s general conclusions in The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70 are sound, but some of his arguments there are open to question. For instance, some inconsistencies that he attributes to sloppy redaction 1607 could instead be a mark of antiquity and lack of tampering. Similarly, while Hillel and other early figures first become central in Ushan material, 1608 this need not indicate that the traditions that first appear then were fabricated then. Could a new desire for continuity with the past have led to this emphasis in Ushan material, drawing on general popular stories that had not been counted worthy of specifically rabbinic transmission in the Yavnean period? Further, in some of Neusner " s own Synopses, earlier traditions are sometimes fuller in crucial points of the outline of what is recorded than later ones. 1609 And some of his suggestions, like those of other form critics, are reasonable but by their very nature necessarily speculative; if we mistrust reconstructed texts, how much more should we be cautious in our historical reconstructions that contradict the only complete account we have before us? 1610 Of course, it is not only arguments for the earliest possible date of traditions, but also those for their terminus ad quem (the latest possible date) that remain uncertain; this reinforces the degree to which work in this area must remain hypothetical, as some observations from The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70 may illustrate. Whereas Neusner suspects that the Shammaites are accorded the rhetorically superior position of a final word in many pericopae because they still maintained some power during the editing of the Houses-material, 1611 such a conclusion need not (though may) follow. |
| But while Neusner is right that later rabbis stylized earlier traditions and that we do not have access to the ipsissima verba of pre-70 sages, 1561 this is hardly the same as implying that we have no pre-70 ethical or legal tradition, a thesis this monumental work on the Pharisees does not actually argue. 1562 As of this book " s writing there are North Americans alive today who remember firsthand accounts of slavery from their own grandparents. A band of religious scholars concerned with passing on and practice of oral traditions could certainly have done so, even if our extant sources for those traditions are far later than their own sources. Josephus informs us, after all, of the importance Pharisees placed on traditions passed down from their predecessors. While this hardly precludes innovations in sayings material (and such innovations demonstrably occurred, as Neusner in particular has shown), it does suggest some measure of continuity in method and practice, especially where the literature reveals customs or general cultural perspectives. The very popularity of the Pharisees among the people (Josephus Ant. 13.298) may suggest that they more frequently reflect mainstream popular Judean thought than their competitors. 1563 In this earlier work Neusner thinks that a rabbi generally quoted traditions in the name of his authority for that tradition when he could do so, except where it was simply widely understood that a certain authority (e.g., Judah ha-Nasi) or collection always depended on a particular source. He thinks that most other anonymous material derives from a rabbís own reasoning, but allows that he may have forgotten where he heard it, have heard it from a nonauthoritative (perhaps nonrabbinic) source, or had a special reason for omitting the name. 1564 (Others hold different views on some of the anonymous materia1.) 1565 To these qualifications we might add one that is most important for our work: some views may have become such common rabbinic or broader Jewish tradition that they required no specific authority " s name beside them. |
| 1612 In that work he argues that Judah ha-Nasi must have accepted the collection in the already-redacted form in which it came to him, 1613 but why would Judah not have redacted it further? That Judah did not bring the Hillelites out on top suggests that he was conservative with regard to the tradition; but the collection on which he depends may have been equally conservative in that matter. It would be far from the mark to suggest that such questions reflect poorly on Neusner " s voluminous contribution to the field–regardless how one may pick at particular details, his case for the progressive development of the tradition is difficult to dispute. Further, his translations (which despite detractors on details are generally reliable) made more feasible the breadth of rabbinic citations in this commentary among others. Nor should Neusner himself be faulted for many NT scholars abandoning the use of rabbinic sources: in many cases they did so because he properly eliminated their previous dependence on Strack-Billerbeck. But the current debate should not rule out the use of rabbinic literature alongside other sources for reconstructing early Judaism; while approached with caution, the material need not all be treated with the occasional absolute skepticism, and more often dismissal, to which it has been subjected in current research on early Christianity. Even a total disjunction of thought after the destruction of the temple in 70 would not rule out the utility of post-70 sources for understanding Johannine thought over two decades after 70; and the rabbinic movement probably preserved and developed many aspects of one strand of pre-70 piety. In the end, Neusner is right that «What we cannot show, we do not know»; 1614 nevertheless, much of what we cannot refute we also do not know to be false, and it stands a likelier chance of containing evidence than mere guesswork would. Thus onés methodology must reflect onés objective: to find the certain core or a broader range of uncertain but possible data. |
| 1510 Some scholars suggest that some Essenes survived as late as the eighth century, influencing the Karaite sect (Negoïtsa, «Essenes»; Bardtke, «Erwägungen»), a suggestion possibly supported by the parallels between the two groups (Ginsberg, «Scrolls,» 81; Fritsch, Community, 86–89; Kahle, «Karaites»; Wieder, «Sectaries»), although the old view that the documents may have been written by fifth- or sixth-century Karaites (defended as recently as Hoenig, «Fantasies») can no longer be seriously maintained. 1513 See Josephus War 4.159; and esp. Life 190–192. Some contend that Gamaliel II controlled much land in Yavneh (cf. comments on m. B. Mesi c a 5:8). 1514 In contrast to earlier, under Salome Alexandra (Josephus War 1.110–113; Ant. 13.399–405). Neusner, «Pharisees,» rightly argues that their political involvement effectively ended (with individual exceptions like Simeon ben Gamaliel) in the first century b.C.E. 1515 Sanders, Judaism, 388–402, 458–90. Josephus " s few statements that could be interpreted otherwise probably reflect his own social situation (see Sanders, Judaism, 410–11; cf. 11,488–89). 1516 Except during Agrippa Ís reign, the aristocracy answered to the Roman governor; but because he lived in Caesarea most of the year the municipal aristocracy would have exercised considerable power, provided they expressed it in deference to Rome. 1517 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 128–29; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 101. For fuller evidence that the Pharisees did not control Palestine in the time of Jesus, see Sanders, Figure, 388–402, 458–90. Later texts frequently contrast their views with those of the Sadducees (e.g., t. Hag. 3:35; Yoma 1:8; b. B. Bat. 115b; Nid. 33b; Sukkah 48b), with whom they undoubtedly vied for influence (cf. Acts 23:6–9; Josephus Ant. 13.297). 1518 Smith, Magician, 29, 50 is too skeptica1. Even Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 312–13, probably explains away too much evidence (the Gospels, some rabbinic, and some Josephus texts) about Pharisaic presence in the Sanhédrin. For their prominence, cf. Cohen, Maccabees, 163; cf. Neusner, Beginning, 45–61; Mason, «Dominance.» They were probably more influential than Josephus allows in the War (where he apparently wishes to exculpate them from influence in the revolt) but less powerful than many modern scholars have supposed on the basis of his Antiquities; see further Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 195–96; idem, Figure, 410–11, 488–89; though cf. differently Mason, Josephus and NT, 140–43; idem, Pharisees; Williams, «Smith.» |
| 1920 P. Ros Hal 4:6, §1. That halakic customs varied is clear (e.g., p. Ketub. 4:14, §1, following m. Ketub. 4:14; p. Ned. 2:4, §3). 1924 Urban dwellers could despise them as uneducated rural dwellers, especially if from less respectable regions (Aelian Farmers 20, Phaedrias to Sthenon, end). 1927 Technically he was from Gamala across the Jordan (Josephus Ant. 18.4; Witherington. Christology, 88–89). 1929 Zeitlin, «Galileans»; Loftus, «Note»; cf. idem, «Revolts» (though he may be correct about continuing Hasmonean sympathies). 1936 Goodman, State, 120; Horsley, Galilee, 251. Freyne, «Ethos,» argues for some limited trade connections but notes that this does not indicate a cultural or religious continuum. 1937 Finley, Economy, 123–49; Meeks, Moral World, 38; Lee, «Unrest,» 128; MacMullen, Relations 15, 30, 32; cf. idem, Enemies, 163–91; e.g., Longus 2.22; Cicero Rose. Amer. 14.39; Philostratus Viz soph. 2.5.573. In Palestine, cf. Applebaum, «Life,» 663–64; Neusner, Beginning, 24–25; m. Meg. 1:3; p. Meg. 1:3. 1941 In Matthew and Mark, Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee; skipping this, Luke-Acts, the focus of which is particularly urban, reports the establishment of the apostolic church in Jerusalem. Contrast Goulder, Matthew, 141, who speculates that Peter, James, and John remained in Jerusalem when the others returned to Galilee, providing two independent traditions. 1943 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 56–57; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 292; Neusner, Crisis, 38. This does not mean that no Pharisees may have been Galilean; see Horsley, Galilee, 150–52, 256; Witherington, Christology, 66; perhaps Eleazar in Josephus Ant. 20.43. 1944 Freyne, «Relations»; Freyne, Galilee, 178–90 (the exception being Sepphoris, Josephus Life 348–349). 1950 Cf. Meeks, Prophet-King, 41. Geyser, «Israel,» relates the anti-Judean polemic of the Gospel to its special interest in Diaspora Jewry " s restoration to the land. 1952 Compare how many Germans rallied around Luther, the local scholar, when the pope condemned his writings (cf., e.g., Chadwick, Reformation, 47,61). |
| Not all the material that some form-critical and source-critical methods would exclude as necessarily early is necessarily late. For instance, one cannot always assume that Amoraic reports of Tannaitic traditions are Amoraic compositions. The Mishnah and Tosefta hardly report all the traditions; they have their own Tendenz and their editors would have had their own favorite collections and sayings. But plenty of other Tannaitic traditions may have been preserved in collections and oral traditions no longer extant; while these may thus surface in our extant literature only in the Amoraic period, the traditions may be earlier. 1578 Neusner " s Synoptic charts on the Pharisees clearly do bring into question why so many of these traditions surface only later, and he is surely right that the tradition grew in time. His data make clear that sayings and stories preserved in later materials are at least often (and probably very often) later inventions. 3D. Difficulties in Tradition Criticism Neusner and others have sought to provide criteria for evaluating the dating of respective traditions and eliminating later accretions. This enterprise is important, but necessarily involves some ambiguity. For instance, if two versions of a pericope exist, it need not follow that all the details of a generally dependent version are not original, 1606 although such could be (and probably often was) the case. This principle may be demonstrated by a more familiar Synoptic problem; Matthew and Luke may independently add a detail to a Markan account, sometimes suggesting an earlier common tradition which Mark at some points also followed ( Mark 3:26–27 vs. Matt 12:28; Luke 11:20). In other words, a secondary account might weave other data into the main source it followed, without the data necessarily being fabricated or late. Or could not rabbinic texts, which tend to be stated concisely, allude to larger stories in the communal memory, the way partial citations of Scripture seem to have functioned in rabbinic texts? Minimalist methodology naturally excludes the «could be»; but in seeking only what is assured such methodology will necessarily exclude some data that are genuine and cohere with our broader picture. |
| 1523 Cf., e.g., Sanders, Figure, 422–23; Kugel and Greer, Interpretation, 66; Cohen, Maccabees, 154–59, 227. Sanders, Judaism, 422–23, rightly points especially to the heritage in the schools of Hillel and Shammai, although the purported physical descent of Gamaliel from Hillel may reflect a later development. 1526 Suspicion of Jewish Christians» disloyalty, on grounds either of their linkage with Gentile Christians or of their flight from Jerusalem, seems less probable, given some degree of client relationship with Rome for the Yavneh elite. 1527 Tannaitic evidence allows that second-century Galilean villages still regulated their own affairs (t. B. Mesi c a 11in Goodman, State, 120). In the first century seven judges (presumably elders) decided cases for each city, assisted by Levites (Josephus Ant. 4.214–215; cf. 4.287; War 2.571). 1529 E.g., Groh, «Jews and Christians,» 87–89, including synagogues next to cemeteries and with paintings of uncircumcised nudes; cf. Meyers and Kraabel, «Iconography,» 189–90; Cohen, Maccabees, 223–24; Sanders, Judaism, 246; Horsley, Galilee, 98, 103–4. For synagogue zodiacs, often with Helios at the center, cf., e.g., Goodenough, Symbols, 1:266–67; 8:167–218; May, «Synagogues,» 9; Shanks, «Zodiac»; Hachlili, «Zodiac»; Meyers, «Setting.» 1535 For the history, see Urbach, Sages, 1:5–9; McNamara, Judaism, 161; Doeve, Hermeneutic, 197; Fisher, «Polemic»; and esp. Sanders, Paul, 33–59; Tyson, Approaches, 1–11; Heschel, «Anti-Semitism.» W. D. Davies has contended that the spirit of Pharisaism might be better captured in Pirke Aboth than in the halakic collections («Aboth,» 127). 1540 E.g., the frequent rabbinic discussion of the hermaphrodite, e.g., Sipra VDDen. pq. 18.31.2.1. 1541 Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 128. Neusner, New Testament, 115–17, questions Sanders " s appeal beyond the specific legal sources, but Sanders " s case makes sense of the broader available data if one does not follow Neusner " s methodology of historical minimalism. |
| 2422 Reim, Studien, 261; scholars typically find allusions to OT theophanic language in the formula (e.g., Gwynne, «Invisible Father»; Okorie, «Self-Revelation»). Developing themes would have been common practice; εξεργασα (elaboration) was a standard rhetorical exercise (Anderson, Glossary, 48–49). 2424 Wright, People of God, 341–42, noting the highly speculative nature of modern reconstructions of early Christianity. Burridge, Gospels, 256–58, argues from the Gospels» genre that their focus should be Jesus, not early Christian experience. 2425 Those who radically reject the canonical gospels as sources for historical information should at least admit that they are our only objective sources for reconstructing Jesus (as some classicists, noting some weaknesses of Livy, nevertheless recognize that he cannot be replaced; Foster, «Introduction,» xxxi). 2426 For history of modern Jesus research, see, e.g., Schweitzer, Quest; Thompson, Debate; Witherington, Quest. This research has often led to less rather than greater consensus (e.g., Crossan, Jesus, xxvii-xxviii; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:3,21–31; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 145). 2427 As Jacob Neusner points out, reductionist, nonsupernaturalist portraits of Jesus cannot suffice to explain the rise of Christianity (Neusner, New Testament, 184). 2428 E.g., Isa 9:7; Jer 23:5 . That the eschatological ruler would be a restoration after the Davidic rule had been cut off was suggested by preexilic prophets (Isa 11:1, the «stump» of Jesse; Amos 9:11). I take the Amos passage as authentic to Amos because of literary connections with the rest of the book (cf. also Asen, «Faith»; von Rad, Theology, 2:138; Soggin, Introduction, 244; Schedl, History, 4:167; other hopes in Williams, «Theology,» 403) against many scholars (Snaith, Amos, 49; Coote, Amos, 122; Ringgren, Religion, 10; Clements, Prophecy, 44). 2429 Pss. So1. 17.21; 4Q252 1 5.1–4; b. Sanh. 97b-98a; p. Sukkah 5:1, §7; Gen. Rab. 88:7; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; Tg. Jer 30:9 . See Fitzmyer, Essays, 113–26; Longenecker, Christology, 109–10; Kee, Community, 126, esp. on the DSS. Daly-Denton, «Shades of David,» sees David echoes in John " s Gospel, even though it mentions David only once (7:42; the case may be more persuasive in the Passion Narrative, recalling 2Sam 15–18 ). |
|
|
