Following the on-going debate on the subject, I stumbled on this:
"..Avot and Avot de Rabbi Nathan offer first a list of the 'Zugot"-"pairs" up to Hillel and Shammai, all of whom are interconnected back to Moses by the reception and transmission of the Torah. There is a break after Hillel and Shammai; after them, only Yohanan ben Zakkai is described in the same language of tradition (qibbel-massar), while the appended list of patriarchs and the enumeration of the other rabbis does not employ this typical terminology. This illustrates the desire to link Yohanan with the "pairs", i.e. to connect the rabbinic with the Pharisaic tradition." ( introduction to the Talmud and Midrash-H.L.Strack, Gunter Stemberger, P. 4).
I discussed it with a "prominent" anti-missionary, he said that there is an answer to this but never provided one.
I wonder if anyone has some thoughts or comments?
Thanks for posting this quote. In my judgment it provides evidence for both angles:
ReplyDelete- On one hand, the Rabbis did seek to link themselves to the tradition of the Pharisees.
- On the other hand, the fact that there was a need for such a desire shows that there was a distinction between the two groups. This distinction is supported by the break in terminology Stemberger points out.
it's important to point out that the Rabbis didn't just desire to link themselves to the Pharisees, as if they saw the Pharisees were the original leaders of Israel. Rather, they sought to link their tradition to Moses and to the Sinai event itself. Including the Pharisees in that list shows that the Rabbis saw the tradition as passing through the Pharisees--they were the transmitters of the tradition at that particular junction in time.
Yahnatan,
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you had a chance to read Shaye Cohen's essay titled : "The significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the end of Jewish sectarianism?"
Cohen states among others, that the major contribution of Yavneh to Jeiwsh history is the creation of a society which tolerates disputes without producing sects.
IMHO, rabbinism is a sect, and a large one at that....And since we do not have any other data than rabbinic writings, it is hard to come to clear conclusion.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI've only read Cohen secondhand (Derek has several posts which reference him extensively). Where can I find said essay?
Yahnatan
Yahnatan,
ReplyDeleteI cannot find it on line. I have a printed copy. Maybe I can scan the pages to you, if you can give me an e-mail address to send it to.
Just emailed you through your Google profile...
ReplyDelete