But how is that different from the differing halakhot of the Shammaites and Hillelites in Eruvin 13b, i.e., "Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel"?Perhaps the rabbanites knew something of what the Pharisees thought or believed but often times they didn't - as the example of what to do when the Passover fell on a Sabbath indicates.
The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
semiopen wrote:
I agree with the decent probability part and reform movement part. The Pharisees (and Jewish Christians, and well, I guess everyone who survived) had to "reform" themselves after 70 CE. Were post-70 CE Jewish Christians the same as pre-70 CE Jewish Christians? Sort of, but there was evolution, and had to be given the circumstances, and, I suppose, there naturally would have been even if Jerusalem wasn't destroyed.
To me it boils down to who preserved the teachings of the Pharisees? Rabbinic Jews.
I had to look up "jejune."It seems like a decent probability that the Rabbis got the mythical oral tradition idea from the Pharisees. However, to go from that and give the Pharisees credit for the Rabbinic Tradition is jejune, to paraphrase Neusner ... I might be wrong, but was under the impression that there is a general consensus that the Rabbinic Tradition was a reform movement ...
I agree with the decent probability part and reform movement part. The Pharisees (and Jewish Christians, and well, I guess everyone who survived) had to "reform" themselves after 70 CE. Were post-70 CE Jewish Christians the same as pre-70 CE Jewish Christians? Sort of, but there was evolution, and had to be given the circumstances, and, I suppose, there naturally would have been even if Jerusalem wasn't destroyed.
To me it boils down to who preserved the teachings of the Pharisees? Rabbinic Jews.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
But that's only because you have a vested interest in the matter. You want the Jewish tradition to have survived - somehow, somewhere. But all the evidence points the other way. Judaism was different before the destruction. There is no reasonable justification to equate the rabbinic tradition with the Pharisees and an abundance of reasons to suggest otherwise. My guess is that you are Jewish and fell a need to believe in perpetuating this nonsense. Liberate your mind and simply give in to the evidence. Whatever claim Judaism had before the destruction (a weak claim IMHO) to being the 'true Israelite' tradition the rabbinic tradition isn't that tradition.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
I did too.
Gabriele Boccaccini - Roots of Rabbinic Judaism https://www.amazon.com/Roots-Rabbinic-J ... 786&sr=1-2
From the introduction -
He considers the Pharisaic tradition... an analogous diachronic line of thought links Rabbinic Judaism back to Zadokite Judaism through the mediation of the Pharisaic movement.
The integration of Daniel into the canon and its influence on Zadokite Judaism is real important....a post-Maccabean variant of the Zadokite system.
From the Summary and Conclusion -
He doesn't make clear the exact role the Pharisees played in this continuum, doesn't really mention them after the beginning of the book.It is certainly with great caution that one may label Daniel as the first protorabbinic text.
This seems like pretty deep shit to me - probably I should look up "analogous diachronic."
Anyway, my interpretation is that the Pharisees stabilized the situation without really introducing much that was new except for the genius invention of the oral Torah myth.
Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
I did a little homework last night to refresh my memory on this issue and I think Cohen makes some good points. On page 155 of From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, he says regarding M. Yad. 4:6-7 (https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Yadayim.4.6?lang=bi):
He echoes this on page 158:This passage (as well as related ones) illustrates the rabbinic perspectives on the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The position attributed to the Pharisees is always that of the rabbis themselves. In these debates the Pharisees are always the victors, the Sadducees always the losers.
Josephus knew Gamaliel and says he was a Pharisee in Life 191 (echoed in Acts 5:34):In the debates with the Sadducees and the Boethusians, the Pharisees represent the position that the rabbis themselves accept as correct. To some extent, therefore, the rabbis identify themselves with the Pharisees of second temple times. This identification is confirmed by implicit evidence (the rabbis of the Mishnah have many features in common with the Pharisees described by Josephus and the New Testament) and by the prominence in both traditions of Gamaliel and his son.
As this webpage notes:This Simon [son of Gamaliel] was of the city of Jerusalem, and of a very noble family of the sect of the Pharisees, which are supposed to excel others in the accurate knowledge of the laws of their country. He was a man of great wisdom and reason, and capable of restoring public affairs by his prudence, when they were in an ill posture. He was also an old friend and companion of John; but at that time he had a difference with me.
At the very least I think it can be said that Rabbinic Jews tended to agree with the Pharisees.Gamaliel is described by Josephus as coming from a "very illustrious" family (The Life of Josephus, 190-191). Indeed, he was the grandson of the great rabbi Hillel the Elder, who founded the most lenient version of Pharisaism. Gamaliel became Hillel’s successor, leading the Pharisaic movement, which was most lenient school of thought in Palestinian Judaism. These things made him very popular with the people, which translated into even greater influence within the Sanhedrin. In fact, Rabbinic Literature describes Gamaliel as being given the honorary title “the Elder” like his grandfather before him (Mishnah Sotah 9:15) and was the first of only seven men in all history to have bestowed upon him the title Rabban (“our master,” as opposed to the more common Rabbi (“my master”). Although all Pharisees were held in high esteem, Gamaliel was even more so.
https://penews.org/features/who-was-gamaliel
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
How can you be this obtuse? It's like starting out thinking that chocolate is better than vanilla and then picking out historical 'witnesses' which support the superiority of chocolate to support your own idiosyncratic 'faith' that chocolate is 'better' than vanilla. Ok you're Jewish. I get that. Unlike most members of a religious tradition you've actually looked at the situation at the beginning of your tradition. It's a mess. But to give yourself some comfort you've decided to basically accept uncritically the claims of continuity which emerge from the Mishnah. That's not cool because it defies any sort of critical test for plausibility.
All that we know for certain is that the rabbanites THOUGHT or wanted to make it seem as if they were a continuation of the Pharisees. Why that is or whether or not that's true is up for debate. But that's the only 'fact' here. As I said many times most groups don't want to present themselves as what they are - made up shit. So there has to be a continuity. At its grossest or most vulgar it's like white supremacists think that they are connected with the Nazis in Germany but aren't German, don't speak German etc. Or black consciousness movements are undoubtedly of African ancestry but don't have any real connection usually with an actual living African culture. American Italians for the most part no longer speak Italian and come from ancestors of what northern Italians call terrone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrone but claim Leonardo and the Renaissance belong to them.
The scenario that has emerged in the field with respect to the origins of the rabbinic tradition is clearly that 'something' might have connected it to the Pharisees but no serious scholar buys into the 'continuation' claims of the Mishnah. You need only to look at the Bar Kochba revolt and see the frequent allusion to 'proselytes' in the religion. Massive numbers of converts were being made in the period between the two wars. What the nature of this conversion was, who was making the converts, how 'Jewish' they were both in terms of 'quality' and 'quantity' of observances is unclear.
But the idea that we simply let the rabbanites define who they were (i.e. 'a continuation of the Pharisees') is ludicrous when the Mishnah itself betrays itself as an ecumenical document. There were a plurality of interpretations and wherever there are a plurality of interpretations there can't be the right answer or a clear understanding of what 'the right answer' was. If the Jews of the late second century were a continuation of the Pharisaic tradition the Mishnah would never have been developed. In fact the Mishnah proves they no longer knew what the right answer or right tradition was.
All that we know for certain is that the rabbanites THOUGHT or wanted to make it seem as if they were a continuation of the Pharisees. Why that is or whether or not that's true is up for debate. But that's the only 'fact' here. As I said many times most groups don't want to present themselves as what they are - made up shit. So there has to be a continuity. At its grossest or most vulgar it's like white supremacists think that they are connected with the Nazis in Germany but aren't German, don't speak German etc. Or black consciousness movements are undoubtedly of African ancestry but don't have any real connection usually with an actual living African culture. American Italians for the most part no longer speak Italian and come from ancestors of what northern Italians call terrone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrone but claim Leonardo and the Renaissance belong to them.
The scenario that has emerged in the field with respect to the origins of the rabbinic tradition is clearly that 'something' might have connected it to the Pharisees but no serious scholar buys into the 'continuation' claims of the Mishnah. You need only to look at the Bar Kochba revolt and see the frequent allusion to 'proselytes' in the religion. Massive numbers of converts were being made in the period between the two wars. What the nature of this conversion was, who was making the converts, how 'Jewish' they were both in terms of 'quality' and 'quantity' of observances is unclear.
But the idea that we simply let the rabbanites define who they were (i.e. 'a continuation of the Pharisees') is ludicrous when the Mishnah itself betrays itself as an ecumenical document. There were a plurality of interpretations and wherever there are a plurality of interpretations there can't be the right answer or a clear understanding of what 'the right answer' was. If the Jews of the late second century were a continuation of the Pharisaic tradition the Mishnah would never have been developed. In fact the Mishnah proves they no longer knew what the right answer or right tradition was.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 2865
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
It is possible that the plurality of witnesses involves the idea that what Rabbi X said is worth preserving, whether or not it represents the majority position. The idea would be that the disputes of Rabbis are in and of themselves part of Torah.
Andrew Criddle
Andrew Criddle
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
But still, either there is a right answer, either you have the truth or you don't. You don't see this in Marqeh and Philo leaders of their respective communities.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 2865
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
Talmud Eruvin says about the disputes between the House of Hillel and the House of ShammaiSecret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:39 pm But still, either there is a right answer, either you have the truth or you don't. You don't see this in Marqeh and Philo leaders of their respective communities.
Andrew CriddleA heavenly voice declared: "The words of both schools are the words of the living God, but the law follows the rulings of the school of Hillel."
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition
There's a reassuring historical narrative.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote