Was Paul a Pharisee?

[andrewcriddle]

Andrew,

I appreciate your clarification. Though I did get this impression over the course of our conversation, initially I was responding to your statement that "Maccoby assumes that rabbinic argument in the Mishnah and later texts is Pharisaic. This is not necessarily true."

As far as Maccoby goes, while you think his arguments are "problematic due to his dependence on post-Mishnaic material," it's at least understandable if he did think that they were representative of what the Pharisees taught, given his exposure to Rabbinic Judaism and its idea that the Oral Torah (Mishnah and all) derived in whole from Sinai. I don't know what his level of religious observance may have been, but I reckon he could have been influenced by this idea given this background (not to defend the veracity of it).

I took a quick look at what is available on googlebooks of In Quest of the Historical Pharisees by Neusner and Chilton, but did not see what in it pertains to your contention that it is "less clear how far the types of argument and exegesis characteristic of the Mishnah and other rabbinic texts were characteristic of 1st century CE Pharisees."

I'm not saying there can't be something to your contention, but can you give me a specific example from this book (or from any other source) that illustrates this?

The sort of argument I'm making can be found online in Neusner's Introduction to Judaism pps 157-163 (The Mishnah is something new but is based heavily on both pre 70 CE pharisaic traditions and pre 70 CE scribal traditions which are not necessarily the same as the pharisaic traditions.)

One of the reasons I mentioned Quest of the Historical Pharisees is that it has an interesting section comparing Paul's teaching to early traditions about the Pharisees.

Andrew Criddle

[John2]

Andrew,

Thank you for the references. I took another look at "In Quest" and also a fair look at Neusner's "An Introduction to Judaism," and made some notes. from what I've read, both books give me the impression that the authors see a connection between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism.

For example, in "An Intro," Neusner writes that while post-70 CE Judaism was "more than the sum of its parts" (Pharisaism and scribism):

"The remarkable congruity between the Pharisaic view ... and the circumstances prevailing after the destruction of the Temple in 70 accounts for the success of the Judaism to which the Pharisees made a major contribution ... the Mishnah's system inherited important components from the Pharisaism of the period before 70" (pg. 161).

He also notes that "four of the [six] divisions of the Mishnah are devoted to purity laws, tithing, laws for the conduct of sacrifice in the Temple cult, and the way in which the sacrifices are carried out at festivals" (pg. 166) and that "a sizable proportion of the Mishnah deals with matters to which the [post-70] sages had no material access or practical knowledge at the time of their work ... This [Mishnaic] system speaks of king, priest, Temple, and court. It was not ... the Jews ... but the Romans who conducted the government i the time in which the second-century authorities did their work. Well over half the document speaks of cult, Temple, government and priesthood" (pg. 169).

This indicates that most of the laws in the Mishnah stem from issues from the pre- 70 time of the Pharisees. This is what I took from my intitial read of "An Intro," anyway.

"In Quest" is something I've read a few chapters of before our conversation began, but on since re-reading what is available of the rest on googlebooks, I noted that it says, while it is uncertain judging from Paul's letters who his teacher may have been, "there are affinities between Paul's teaching in his letters to views of Gamaliel as articulated in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmud ... We infer that within some topics Paul's argumentation was analagous with Gamaliel's" (pg. 210), and that, "If we review Paul's concerns through the lens of Gamaliel's halakha, we discover a resonance between the two ... that is as striking as the shared traditions that the gospels sometimes evince with rabbinic documents" (pg. 217)..

It also mentions "the growing influence of the Pharisees after 70 CE" (pg. 170).

I noted in a previous comment that Paul's position on rulers in Romans 13 is similar to the later Talmudic idea that "the law of the state is law."

So I'm still not seeing what in these books (or any source) indicates how post-70 rabbinic arguments significantly differed from those of the the Pharisees.

[John2]

Andrew,

I noticed that Neusner writes in another book (Understanding the Talmud) that, "the facts of the Mishnaic law remain facts in the Talmud. They are rarely revised or drastically reshaped into something different from what, to the naked eye, their plain meaning appears to be. I cannot point to a single passage in which, as the goal of their exegetical work, the Talmud's sages seem to wish to set aside a statement of the Mishnah, or otherwise drastically twist it out of its original form or meaning" (pg. 49).

Additionally, of the Mishnah's 63 tractates, only 37 have any commentary in the Babylonian Talmud (and the Jerusalem Talmud has only a few more). That means 26 tractates of the Talmud consist only of the Mishnah (which Neusner says had "inherited important components from the Pharisaism of the period before 70").

I don't doubt, given the differences in language, time and geographic locations, that there was evolution in thought between the time of the Pharisees and the rabbis of the Talmud. There may consequently be significant differences in their styles of arguments and exegesis that I am unaware of because I'm not a Talmudic scholar. I'm only saying that the references you've shown me so far have given me the opposite impression.

[andrewcriddle]

One important difference between Pharisaic traditions and the Mishnah, is that a large part of the Mishnah deals with principles of law. How civil and criminal cases are decided, how laws are enforced etc. Very little of this can be linked to Pharisaic tradition (although a good deal of it is probably pre-70 CE).

Another issue is that Pharisaic tradition was originally practical rules about how to lead a holy life. Many of these rules could not be carried out after the destruction of the temple. (After Bar Kochba the compilers of the Mishnah had no expectation of the temple being rebuilt any time soon.) In the Mishnah these rules (e.g. about temple sacrifice) are elaborated and discussed in detail, and it becomes part of the rabbinic tradition that the study of these rituals is a holy activity in itself, even though the rituals can no longer be carried out.

The Mishnah is deeply concerned with detailed discussion of intent the way in which the intention of an Israelite when performing an act or ritual validates or invalidates the act or ritual. This emphasis is almost certainly post 70 CE.

Some specific Pharisaic traditions about ritual purity (e.g. concerning the use of the ashes of the red cow) have become more lax in the Mishnah as part of constructing a code for all Israel.

None of this denies the importance of Pharisaic tradiyion as a source for the Mishnah, but I hope it illustrates how the Mishnah is not just a more detailed form of Pharisaic tradition.

Andrew Criddle

[Stephan Huller]

Very good post

[John2]

Andrew,

Well, I essentially agree with you. I don't think everything in the Mishnah was handed down to the post-70 rabbis by the Pharisees. The Mishnah simply supports the idea that there was some kind of connection between the two sects, and the references you gave also seem to support this idea.

And I appreciate that the Mishnah may bear the stamp of post-70 CE realities and concerns given that it was compiled by post-70 rabbis.

At the same time, as far as I can tell, the only sources that actually preserve Pharisaic arguments (besides perhaps Josephus and the NT), so that they can be compared with rabbinic writings, are rabbinic writings. That there were post-70 developments in argument and exegesis seems like a natural enough idea to me, I just haven't seen how this is illustrated in the references you've given, is all.

[John2]

Andrew,

I'm enjoying our discussion, and feel like we are generally in agreement, but at the same time I feel like we are circling around each other. It's not that I'm arguing against your contentions so much as needing to see the evidence for them.

For example, you wrote:

"Some specific Pharisaic traditions about ritual purity (e.g. concerning the use of the ashes of the red cow) have become more lax in the Mishnah as part of constructing a code for all Israel."

Where are these Pharisaic tradtions about ritual purity If they're not in the Mishnah? If they are in the Mishnah, then I'm wondering if I'm missing something that indicates that its red heifer laws are more lax than those of the Pharisees.

And what sources indicate that other Pharisaic laws were altered by post-70 rabbis in the Mishnah?

I'm not challenging, just wondering, and I apologize if I'm only being dense.

Regarding the book "In Quest," I noticed that chapter 17 (pg. 409) looks like it might support your contentions, but unfortunately it cuts off on googlebooks before I can tell for sure. If you have the book, maybe something from this chapter might help me appreciate your point of view more.

[andrewcriddle]

Andrew,

I'm enjoying our discussion, and feel like we are generally in agreement, but at the same time I feel like we are circling around each other. It's not that I'm arguing against your contentions so much as needing to see the evidence for them.

For example, you wrote:

"Some specific Pharisaic traditions about ritual purity (e.g. concerning the use of the ashes of the red cow) have become more lax in the Mishnah as part of constructing a code for all Israel."

Where are these Pharisaic tradtions about ritual purity If they're not in the Mishnah? If they are in the Mishnah, then I'm wondering if I'm missing something that indicates that its red heifer laws are more lax than those of the Pharisees.

And what sources indicate that other Pharisaic laws were altered by post-70 rabbis in the Mishnah?

I'm not challenging, just wondering, and I apologize if I'm only being dense.

Regarding the book "In Quest," I noticed that chapter 17 (pg. 409) looks like it might support your contentions, but unfortunately it cuts off on googlebooks before I can tell for sure. If you have the book, maybe something from this chapter might help me appreciate your point of view more.

I'm afraid I've mislaid for the moment my copy of "In Quest..."

About ritual purity and the red heifer: One can only distinguish early (quite likely Pharisaic) traditions in the Mishnah from later traditions (non-Pharisaic) on the basis of attributions of sayings to named sages and the internal logic of the Mishnaic discussion. In principle the Mishnah provides the evidence to do this, but issues such as the accuracy of attribution make this controversial in practice. The following analysis is based on Neusner.

In the early traditions of Mishnah Parah (the treatise about the red heifer) and some late traditions there is an emphasis upon the extreme degree of purity necessary for this ritual. However, some later traditions are much laxer e.g Chapter 5:1

HE WHO BRINGS THE EARTHEN VESSEL FOR THE SIN-OFFERING1 MUST
PERFORM IMMERSION,2 AND SPEND THE NIGHT3 BY THE FURNACE.4 R. JUDAH
RULED: HE MAY ALSO BRING IT FROM THE HOUSE5 AND IT IS VALID,6 FOR ALL ARE
DEEMED TRUSTWORTHY IN REGARD TO THE SIN-OFFERING,7

with explanatory nots to the translation

(6) Even if the potter is an ‘am-ha-arez who is usually careless in matters of uncleanness.
(7) This was a special provision intended to prevent the ‘am ha-arez class from preparing separate red cows for themselves

(these notes are based on the discussion in the Tosefta, a slightly post-Mishnaic expansion of the Mishnah .)

I.E. the original emphasis on extreme purity has been relaxed to avoid division among the Jewish community.

Andrew Criddle

[John2]

Andrew,

Thank you for the response and the link.

So let's say that some (discernably) pre-70 Pharisaic laws were amended by Rabbi Judah or other post-70 rabbis. I don't see how that would make Rabbinic Judaism any less "Pharisaic" (in spirit, anyway).

Consider that, while the pre-70 schools of Hillel and Shammai had differences of opinion on Pharisaic laws, both schools were Pharisaic, and the Talmud even says that both of their opinions were "the word of the living God," even if those of the school of Hillel tended to prevail (Erubin 13b), and that "when the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied who had not served [their teachers] sufficiently, dissentions increased in Israel and the Torah became like two Toroth" (Sotah 47b).

So my impression is that an amendment of an aspect of the pre-70 Pharisaic laws concerning the red heifer ashes by post-70 rabbis is less of a difference in opinion than the schools of Hillel and Shammai tended to generally have about Pharisaic laws, yet both those schools were unquestionably Pharisaic. I think the only difference between (at least Mishnah-era) Rabbinic Judaism and the Pharisees is time. Time went on, circumstances changed, and arguments and laws evolved. It's essentially only a matter of semantics whether you call the earlier version Pharisaism and the later one Rabbinic Judaism.