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.)John2 wrote: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?
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