Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
After the destruction of the second temple in 70 C.E. the rabbis gathered in
Yavneh and launched the process which yielded the Mishnah approximately
one hundred years later. Most modern scholars see these rabbis as Pharisees
triumphant who define "orthodoxyexpel Christians and other heretics, and
purge the canon of "dangerous" books. Th evidence for this reconstruction
is inadequate. In all likelihood most of the rabbis were Pharisees, but there is
no indication that the rabbis o f the Yavnean period were motivated by a
Pharisaic self-consciousness (contrast the Babylonian Talmud and the medie-
val polemics against the Karaites) or were dominated by an exclusivistic ethic.
In contrast the major goal of the Yavnen rabbis seems to have been not the
expulsion of those with whom they disagreed but the cessation of sectarian-
ism and the creation of a society which tolerated, even encouraged, vigorous
debate among members of the fold. T h e Mishnah is the first work of Jewish
antiquity which ascribes conflicting legal opinions to named individuals who,
in spite of their disagreements, belong to the same fraternity. This mutual
tolerance is the enduring legacy of Yavneh.
27
28 SHA YE J . D. COHEN [2]
her gods and of the impotence of Israel and her God, and the failure of
apocalyptic dreams and prophecies; the economic difficulties caused by
the massive destruction and confiscation of Judean land and property;
and the social difficulties caused by the massacre or enslavement of
enormous numbers of people and the loss of the central institutions of
the state. These difficulties certainly were sufficiently severe and suffi-
ciently numerous to constitute a "crisis," "trauma," or "catastrophe,"
terms frequently encountered in the modern discussions of this topic,
but not all Jews of the first century felt the trauma in the same way or
treated all elements of the catastrophe equally. T h e air of crisis which
pervades the apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra is conspicuously absent
from tannaitic literature, even those dicta ascribed to Yavnean figures.
T h e point of the legend about Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and
Vespasian is that rabbinic life ought to continue as before, the Jews sub-
servient to foreign rule and occupied with the study of the law. No crisis
here. And even the apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra do not treat all the
items on the above list. For example, neither seer is concerned about the
cessation of the sacrificial cult or about the destruction of the temple per se.
In this essay my theme is the end of Jewish sectarianism. Although no
ancient text discusses the ultimate fate of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and
Essenes, I shall argue that their disappearance, as well as the disappear-
ance of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, is a consequence of the
destruction of the temple. According to the usual view, sectarianism
ceased when the Pharisees, gathered at Yavneh, ejected all those who
were not members of their own party. Christians were excommunicated,
the biblical canon was purged of works written in Greek and apocalyptic
in style, and the gates were closed on the outside world, both Jewish and
non-Jewish. Functioning in a "crisis" atmosphere, the rabbis of Yavneh
were motivated by an exclusivistic ethic; their goal was to define ortho-
doxy and to rid Judaism of all those who would not conform to it. In this
interpretation the "synod" of Yavneh becomes a prfiguration of the
church council of Nicea (325 C.E.): one party triumphs and ousts its com-
petitors. I n addition, we a r e told, the Sadducees, Essenes, and,
presumably, all other sects, conveniently rolled over and died, thereby
facilitating Pharisaic victory. T h e Sadducees, bereft of the temple, were
bereft of their livelihood and power base. T h e Essenes perished in the
great war against the sons of darkness. 2
(2) See, e.g., G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (3 vols.;
Cambridge: Harvard University, 1927), 1.85-86; W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on
the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964) 259-86; J. Neusner, "The Formation
o f Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh (Jamnia) from A.D. 7 0 to 100,"Aufstieg und Niedergang der
[3] THE SIGNIFICANCE OF YAVNEH 29
arate from the majority, i.e., it must be relatively small and dominated
by a sense of "otherness." T h e separation can be physical (the members
of the sect flee to the desert) or merely ideological (the members live
"among," but not "with, their non-sectarian neighbors). It must claim
exclusive possession of the truth. Only its authority figures are authentic
and only its teachings are true. Only its members are true Jews,
Christians, or Muslims. It validates its claims internally, i.e., it authenti-
cates itself by a revelation or tradition unknown to outsiders. A sect usu-
ally has a ceremony of admission (or "conversion") by which it clearly
distinguishes members from non-members. Members are righteous,
pure, and destined for eternal bliss; non-members are wicked, impure,
and destined for eternal damnation.4 We may assume that there were
many such sects on the Judean landscape during the last centuries of the
second temple period, although only two sects are well documented: the
Essenes (the group which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls) and the Chris-
5
tians.
Were the Pharisees a sect? Many scholars argue that they were a
party, a movement, an elite, or an order, but not a sect, because they did
not claim exclusive possession of the truth and did not read their oppo-
nents out of the people and soteriology of Israel. In this conception a
Pharisee would have been recognizable in a crowd of ancient Jews, but
he would have been a member of the crowd. H e saw himself, and the
Jews saw him, as their leader. 6 Some scholars, however, reject this
interpretation, which takes at face value the data of Josephus and the
New Testament about the Pharisees' power and prestige. Emphasizing
the prominence of purity laws and priestly tithes in Pharisaic piety, the
inherent implausibility of any single group leading the variegated reli-
gious life of ancient Jewry, and the rabbinic evidence for pre-rabbinic
(4) My definition is inspired by the numerous works o f Bryan Wilson, especially his
Patterns of Sectarianism (London: Heinemann, 1967). See too K. Rudolph, "Wesen und
Struktur der Sekte," Kairos 21 (1979) 2 4 1 - 2 5 4 and F. Dexinger, "Die Sektenproblematik im
Judentum," Kairos 21 (1979) 273287. Other elements are frequently added to a definition
o f sect, but my definition includes the essentials.
(5) For a recent study o f the sectarian nature o f early Christianity, see T.L. Donaldson,
"Moses Typology and the Sectarian Nature o f Early Christian Anti-Judaism" Journal for the
Study of New Testament 12 (1981) 27-52. Josephus speaks o f three haireseis but the number is
a topos in the historiography o f the philosophical schools and cannot be pressed; cf.
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 4.67. T h e Talmud refers to "24 groups o f here-
tics" at the time o f the destruction o f the (second?) temple (Yer. Sanhdrin 10.6 29c); this
number too is typological, but it is greater than three.
(6) See for example E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1
977) 1 5 2 1 5 6 (especially 156 n. 52) and 425-426, and Ellis Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1978). I regret the tone, but not the content, o f my review o f Rivkin
in Journal of Biblical Literature 9 9 (1980) 627629.
[5] THE SIGNIFICANCE OF YAVNEH 3 1
SECTARIANISM IN T H E RABBINIC P E R I O D
Rabbinic Evidence
Rabbinic literature has occasional references to various sects: Pharisees,
Sadducees, Boethusians, Hemerobaptists, Samaritans, and, perhaps,
others. 9 Most of these references do not locate these groups in any spe-
ciflc period, but those which do, invariably place them during the second
temple period, not after 70 C.E. Wicked Sadducean (Boethusian) high
priests serve in the temple and are confronted by the Pharisees or the
Sages or Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. No rabbi, including Yohanan ben
Zakkai, is ever called a Pharisee (a point to which we shall return below),
and no rabbi after Yohanan ben Zakkai is ever brought into contact with
a Sadducee or a Boethusian. Only one text seems to break this pattern:
A. Sadducean women, as long as they are accustomed to follow the
ways of their ancestors, have the same status [with regard to
menstrual purity] as Cuthean [i.e. Samaritan] women. When
they have separated themselves [from their ancestral ways] to
follow the ways of Israel, they have the same status as Israel.
B. R. Yosi says, "They always have the same status as Israel unless
they separate themselves to follow the ways of their ancestors"
(Mishnah Niddah 4:2).
In this mishnah R. Yosi argues that Sadducean women can be assumed
to follow the rabbinic laws of menstruation unless we know specifically to
the contrary that they follow Sadducean traditions. R. Yosi's anonymous
disputant (the tanna qamma) supports the opposite point of view. Does
this debate refer to Sadducean women of the mishnaic period (mid-
second century) or to ancient times?10 T h e former interpretation is
assumed by a baratta quoted by the Babylonian Talmud ad loc. T h e text
narrates a story about a Sadducee and a high priest, and concludes with
the words of the wife of the Sadducee:
(9) A full collection and analysis o f all such rabbinic statements (with their textualvari-
ants) is a desideratum. For the purposes o f this essay a useful article is J. Lightstone, "Sad-
ducees versus Pharisees: T h e Tannaitic Sources," Christianity, Judaism, and other Greco-
Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith, ed. J. Neusner (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 3.20617.
T h e best discussion o f the term minim is R. Kimelman, "Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack o f
Evidence for an anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity," Jewish and Christian Self-
Definition II: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period, e d . .P. Sanders et al.
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 226-44, e s P 228-32.
(10) T h e context seems to favor the former interpretation since this Mishnah is pre-
ceded by a ruling concerning the menstrual status o f Samaritan women and is followed by
a ruling concerning the menstrual status o f gentile women. If the three mishnayot are a
unit, they all refer to matters o f contemporary concern. But are they a unit? T h e y differ in
style. R. Yosi frequently reports antiquarian lore about the second temple period; see, e.g.,
Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:7 and Yoma 6:3; Tosefta Hagigah 2:9. T h e parallel anecdote
in Tosefta Pesahim 3:20 is also chronologically ambiguous.
[7] THE SIGNIFICANCE OF YAVNEH 33
Patristic Evidence
Numerous Christian fathers preserve in various forms a list of Jewish
"heresies." Many aspects of these lists are obscure but this is not the place
for a full collection and analysis of the material.13 T h e crucial point for
us is that most of these authors, beginning with Hegesippus (mid-second
century), state that they are describing the sects of long ago, presumably
of the period of the New Testament. Epiphanius, for example, says
explicitly that these Jewish sects, including the Pharisees, no longer exist
in his day (see the appendix below). T h e only important exception to
this pattern is Justin:
For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but
who do not admit this [the resurrection], and venture to blaspheme
the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
. . . do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he
would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or
the similar sects of Genistai, Meristai, Galilaioi, Hellenianoi,
Pharisaioi, and Baptistai, are Jews . . . but are [only] called Jews
and children of Abraham, confessing God with the lips, as God
himself declared [Isa. 29:13], but the heart was far from him. But I
and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are
assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead . . . (Dialogue
with Trypho 80.4-5). 14
Eager to forestall an argument against resurrection from the opinions of
various Christian sects, Justin denies that these so-called Christians
really are Christians, since only those who are "orthodox" (Justin uses
the term orthognomon) like Justin himself deserve that appellation.
(13) M. Simon, "Les sectes juives d'aprs les tmoignages patristiques,"Studia Patristica
/ , ed. . Aland and F.L. Cross (Texte und Untersuchungen 63; Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
1
957) 526-39; M. Black, "The Patristic Accounts o f Jewish Sectarianism," Bulletin of the
John Rylands Library 41 (195859) 285303; S.J. Isser, The Dositheans (Leiden: Brill, 1976)
1114; S.P. Brock, "Some Syriac Accounts o f the Jewish Sects," A Tribute to Arthur Vbus:
Studies in Early Christian Literature, ed. R.H. Fischer (Chicago: Lutheran School o f
Theology, 1977) 265-76. Hippolytus' account o f the Essenes has been the subject o f many
special studies, notably C. Burchard, "Zur Nebenberlieferung von Josephus' Bericht ber
die Essener (Bell 2, 119-161) bei Hippolyt, Porphyrius, Josippus, Niketas Choniates und
anderen," Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus . . . O. Michel . . . gewidmet, ed. O.
Betz et. al. (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & *Ruprecht, 1974) 7 7 - 9 6 and "Die Essener bei
Hippolyt," Journal for the Study of Judaism 8 (1977) 1-41 (with bibliography).
(14) T h e translation is that o f the Ante-Nicene Fathers, slightly modified.
[9] THE SIGNIFICANCE OF YAVNEH 35
Similarly, Justin argues, sectarian Jews like the Genistai et al. really are
not Jews although they are generally called Jews. 15 Since the first part of
the passage refers to contemporary Christian sects, may we conclude
that, according to Justin at least, Jewish sectarianism too was flourishing
in the second century? Not necessarily. Justin is interested in ideology,
not sociology. His point about the relationship of orthodoxy to heresy
makes sense even if some or all of the Jewish sects listed did not exist in
his own time. Furthermore, the implicit reference to Jewish "orthodoxy"
the first time such a concept is applied to Judaism indicates that
Jewish sectarianism, even if all seven groups still existed in the second
century, was no longer what it had been in the first century. I shall argue
below that this passage reflects the rabbinic ideology of the Yavnean
period: there is one "orthodox" Judaism which, while tolerating disputes
within the fold (a point not discussed by Justin here), has no room for
any g r o u p even Pharisees which maintains a sectarian self-
definition. 16 T h e rabbis called such groups minim, a term apparently
reflected in Justin's Genistai and Meristai.17 Perhaps the other five
groups also existed in Justin's time,, but in his view they clearly were
inconsequential.
O n the basis of both the rabbinic and the patristic evidence, I con-
elude that 70 C.E. was a major transition point in Jewish sectarianism.
Perhaps some sects, aside from the Samaritans and Christianizing Jews,
(15) "Confessing God with the lips" (cheilesin homologountas) is probably a pun o n the
name Jew which was commonly taken to mean "confessor. For this etymology in Philo, see
the passages listed by J.W. Earp in volume 10 o f the Loeb Philo (Cambridge: Harvard,
1
962) 357 note a. For the Fathers see N . D e Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1976) 32 n. 29.
(16) Modern scholars have been disturbed by the presence o f Pharisees in Justin's list.
Harnack, emphasizing that the manuscript tradition o f the Dialogue omits the kai between
Pharisees and Baptists and that Justin identifies the Pharisees with the didaskaloi o f his own
time, argues that a copyist added Pharisees to Justin's list ("Judentum . . . in Justins Dialog
mit Trypho," Texte und Untersuchungen 39,1 [1913] 5758). But it is more likely that a kai
has fallen out (or was taken out by a scribe bothered by Harnack's problem) than that Phar-
isees has fallen in. Nor does Justin identify the Pharisees with the d1daskaloi\ see n. 7 0
below. Black, "Patristic Accounts," 288-89, also omits kai and appeals to a movement o f
"baptizing Pharisees." Simon, "Sectes juives," 5 2 9 - 3 1 , argues that Justin is writing from a
Christian perspective. These suggestions result from the failure to study the connections
between Pharisees and rabbis. This objection does not apply to P. Sigal, "An Inquiry into
Aspects o f Judaism in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho," Abr-Nahrain 18 (1978-1979) 74-100,
esp. 8 2 - 8 6 and 94, but Sigal is convinced that the rabbis are not the descendants o f the
Pharisees (see below). Aside from this error Sigal contributes little that is novel. L.W.
Barnard, Justin Martyr His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967)
5 0 - 5 1 , does not advance the discussion.
(17) Isser, "Dositheans," 14 n. 19, quoting D. Gershenson and G. Quispel, "Meristae,"
Vigiliae Christianae 12 (1958) 1926; Simon, "Sectes juives," 533-35
3 6 SHA YE J . D. COHEN [10]
lingered on for a while, but Jewish society from the end of the first cen-
tury until the rise of the Karaites, was not torn by sectarian divisions.
This conclusion cannot be upset by a lone baratta and by an elusive
passage of Justin.
Virtually all modern scholars agree that the rabbis of the Mishnah are
closely related to the Pharisees. Some assume that the two groups are
identical in all but nomenclature, while others admit that the relation-
ship is more complex. 1 8 T h e evidence f o r the Pharisaic-rabbinic
connection, however, is rarely discussed. Here is a brief analysis.19
1. Josephus and the New Testament refer to eleven namedindividu-
als who are called Pharisees or who are said to lead a Pharisaic life.20
Two, perhaps three, of these recur in the rabbinic chain of tradition of
D
Avot 1 (where, of course, they are not called Pharisees). But if the Phar-
isees Gamaliel, Simon ben Gamaliel, and, perhaps, Pollio, were claimed
by the rabbis as their own, does this prove that the rabbis generally were
Pharisees or the descendants of Pharisees? Obviously not. T h e same list
also claims Simon the righteous, a high priest of the hellenistic period,
not to mention Moses himself. This list "rabbinizes" history. Perhaps
(18) That Pharisees and Rabbis cannot be simply equated is a point well made by San-
ders 6 0 - 6 2 . In Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago: University o f Chicago, 1981)
7 0 - 7 1 , Neusner retracts the work o f a lifetime and admits to uncertainty whether the
Pharisees were a sect o r not and whether they were the group which produced the Mish-
nah. Before reaching this agnostic conclusion Neusner had suggested that Rabbinism is the
outgrowth o f Pharisaism and Scribism (a suggestion first made by the Nazarenes in the
fourth century [n. 71 below]); see his "Formation" (n. 2 above); Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (2 vols.;
Leiden: Brill, 1973), 2.298-307; "Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism: A Clarification," Early Rab-
binic Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 5 0 - 7 0 . A few scholars doubt the Pharisaic-Rabbinic con-
nection altogether. See J . Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1973) and P. Sigal, The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism I: The Foundation of
Judaism from Biblical Origins to the Sixth Century AD (2 vols.; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980),
1
377-413 a n d 2.1-23.
(19) T h e following argument is not worthy o f serious consideration: Since Josephus
lists only four sects, and since the rabbis obviously are not Sadducees, Essenes, or the
Fourth Philosophy, therefore the rabbis must be Pharisees. By the same logic sixteenth
century scholars concluded that Boethusians must be the Essenes since otherwise Josephus
omits the former and the rabbis omit the latter. Ignotum per ignotius.
(20) T h e eleven are: 1. Eleazar the Pharisee at the court o f John Hyrcanus (Josephus
Ant. 13.290 where the singular Pharisaios does not appear); 2. Pollion {Ant. 15.3 and 370;
his disciple is not called a Pharisee); 3. Saddoq, o n e o f the founders o f the Fourth Philoso-
phy {Ant. 18.4); 4. Nicodemus (John 3:1); 5. Gamaliel (Acts 5:34); 6. Paul (Philippians 3:5;
Acts 23:6 and 26:5); 7. Simon ben Gamaliel {Vita 191); 8 - 9 - 1 0 . Jonathan, Ananias, and
Jozaros, three priests sent to Galilee in 6 6 - 6 7 (Vita 197); 11. Josephus (Vita 12). Luke men-
tions three individual Pharisees, all unnamed (Luke 7:36-39; 11:3738; 18:10-11). New
Testament apocrypha and N a g Hammadi texts mention additional Pharisees.
[11] THE SIGNIFICANCE OF YAVNEH 37
period as the opponents of the Sadducees and the Boethusians. But the
link between the rabbis and the Pharisees is much more tenuous, appear-
ing only implicitly and only in the two passages which describe the five
disputes between the Pharisees and the Sadducees-Boethusians. T h e
tannaim never explicitly call themselves "Pharisees nor is any individual
rabbi ever called a Pharisee. Nor do they employ "Sadducee as a general
synonym for "reprobate" or "heretic. 30 Furthermore, in one of the
disputes between the Pharisees and the Sadducees Yohanan ben Zakkai
replies to the Sadducees as follows, "And is there no other argument we
can advance against the Pharisees except this?( Mishnah Yadayim 4:6),
which could be interpreted to indicate that Yohanan was a Sadducee (or,
at least, not a Pharisee).31 T h e tannaim use perushim with reference not
only to the Pharisees of old but also to contemporary "separatists or
"ascetics, whose conduct can be either condemned or approved. Either
way, these perushim have no connection with the Pharisees.32
In contrast to the tannaim who display little interest in establishing
themselves as Pharisees, the amoraim, especially the amoraim of
Babylonia, begin to see themselves more clearly as the descendants of
the Pharisees. Tos. Yoma 1:8, followed by Yer. Yoma 1:5 (39a), speaks
of the tension between the Boethusians and the sages; in Bab. Yoma 19b
the sages are replaced by the Pharisees. In Tos. Niddah Sadducean
women show their menstrual blood to the sages; in Bab. Niddah the
sages are identified with the Pharisees (see above).33 Similarly, in the
Babylonian version of the rift between Yannai the King and the
Pharisees, the latter are identified with the sages (Bab. Qiddushin 66a).
"Sadducee is used to designate a non-rabbinic Jew, much like the term
min (with which it is often confused ih the manuscripts).34 But even in
(30) At Mishnah Yadayim 4:8 the texts offer either Sadducee or min. Sifre, Num. 112 (p.
121 ed. Horovitz) interprets the phrase "for h e has abused the word o f the Lord" to mean
"this is a Sadducee," but many testimonia omit this from the text. I know o f n o other
tannaitic text which employs Sadducee as a synonym for heretic.
(31) I d o not think that this interpretation is correct. See D.Daube, "Three Notes Hav-
ing to d o with Johanan ben Zaccai "Journal of Theological Studies 11 (i960) 5356.
(32) C o n d e m n e d : Mishnah Sotah 3:4; T o s . Berakhot 3:25; T o s . Sotah 15:11.
Approved: Mishnah Hagigah 2:7; Tos. Shabbat 1:15. O n the different meanings o f the
word perushim, see Alexander Guttmann, Studies in Rabbinic Judaism (New York: Ktav,
1976) 2 0 6 - 2 3 = Rabbinic Judaism in the Making (Detroit: Wayne State, 1970) 161-75, and E.
Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees," Hebrew Union College Annual 4 0 - 4 1 (1969-70) 205-49.
(33) Lightstone, "Sadducees," 215, points o u t this shift. H e was anticipated by
Lieberman in his commentary to the Tosefta who in turn credits the observation to N .
Rabbinovicz.
(34) See Kasowski's concordance to the Babylonian Talmud, s.v. seduqi; in many o f the
passages there cited our vulgate texts read min. O n the phrase "something which [even] the
4 0 SHA YE J . D. COHEN [14]
these texts the identification with the Pharisees is not so strong as to pre-
vent the occasional use of perushim to indicate separatists whose conduct
puts them outside the rabbinic pale (Bab. Pesahim 70b) or hypocrites
who, like the Pharisees of the New Testament, feign an exaggerated
piety (Bab. Sotah 22b and Yer. Sotah 3:4 19a).35 T h e overall tendency is
even clearer in the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan and the Scholia
to the Scroll of Fasting (.Megillat Tcfanit). Both works are of uncertain
date but in all likelihood both are post-talmudic. T h e former describes
the rebellion of Sadoq and Boethus, the putative founders of the Saddu-
cees and Boethusians, against the Pharisees who are led by Antigonos of
Sokho, a link in the rabbinic chain of tradition; the latter attributes the
origin of various feast days to victories of the Pharisees or Sages over the
Boethusians and Sadducees. 36
In sum: at no point in antiquity did the rabbis clearly see themselves
either as Pharisees or as the descendants of Pharisees. In tannaitic texts
hostility to Sadducees and Boethusians is far more evident than is affin-
ity with the Pharisees; i.e., the definition of the rabbis' opponents is
clearer than is the self-definition of the rabbis themselves. This changes
somewhat in amoraic texts, but even here identification with the Phari-
sees is not all that frequent and perushim, is still used as a term of abuse.
T h e identification with the Pharisees is secure and central for the first
time only in an early medieval text, the scholia to the Scroll of Fasting.37
How can we explain the hesitation of the rabbis to identify themselves
with the Pharisees? We might have argued that the rabbis were not, in
fact, the descendants of the Pharisees, but this radical suggestion found-
ers on the inconclusive yet suggestive arguments surveyed above, espe-
cially those few rabbinic texts which d o allege an affinity between the
rabbis and the Pharisees. Hence we must conclude that the rabbis were
Sadducees acknowledge," see the Talmudic Encyclopedia 7 (Jerusalem, 1956) 1 - 4 (in
Hebrew).
(35) O n this list o f seven types o f Pharisees, see Guttmann, Studies 21113 = Rabbinic
Judaism, 165-67.
(36) Fathers According to R. Nathan A 5 = i o (p. 13b ed. Schechter) with my "A
Virgin Defiled: Some Rabbinic and Christian Views o f the Origins o f Heresy," Union Semi-
nary (Quarterly Review 3 6 (1980) 1-11; H.D. Mantel, "Megillat Tac anit and the Sects," Studies
in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel in Memory of Zvi Avneri, ed. A. Gilboa
(Haifa: University o f Haifa, 1970) 5 1 - 7 0 (in Hebrew). Not all versions o f the scholia refer
to the Sadducees and Boethusians; some even mention the Karaites. See Ido Hampel,
Megillat Taanit (PhD thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1976). See note 37.
(37) Perhaps it was only in polemic with the Karaites, whom the rabbinites identified
with the Sadducees, that the rabbis clearly identified themselves with the Pharisees. Later
medieval historians knew o f the Pharisaic-rabbinic connection (e.g., Yosippon, ibn Daud's
History of the Second Temple). For the patristic evidence bearing o n this question see the
appendix.
[15] THE SIGNIFICANCE OF YAVNEH 41
T H E T E M P L E AND SECTARIANISM
which would descend in the end of days but the earthly temple of
Jerusalem was the crucial point of sectarian self-definition before 70.
With the destruction of the temple the primary focal point of Jewish sec-
tarianism disappeared. True, the Christians and the Samaritans contin-
ued to define themselves vis--vis the Jerusalem temple and the cult,47
but this type of thinking was difficult to maintain unless other foci were
already in place; the Samaritans had Gerizim and the Christians had
Christ. For most Jews, however, sectarian self-definition ceased to make
sense after 70. T h e holiness of the Jerusalem temple, the legitimacy of
its priesthood, and the propriety of its rituals were no longer relevant
issues. T h e Yavnean rabbis were much interested in the laws of the tern-
pie and the cult (Neusner even suggests that mishnaic materials from the
period of 70-132 "revolve around the altar48 ( and this is not surprising.
They expected the temple to be rebuilt shortly (in "seventy years") and
part of their sectarian legacy was interest in this legislation. But without
a functioning temple and priesthood, whose legitimacy would be the
(47) Tractate Kutim (end) declares simply, "When d o we take them [the Samaritans]
back? When they acknowledge the temple in Jerusalem." Church fathers imagine that they
have refuted Judaism when they have demonstrated the inadequacies o f the sacrificial cult.
See F.M. Young, "Temple Cult and Law i n Early Christianity, New Testament Studies 19
( 1 973) 3 2 5 - 3 3 8 and H.W. Nibley, "Christian Envy o f the Temple, Jewish Quarterly Review
5 0 (1959) 9 7 - 1 2 3 and 2 2 9 - 4 0 (somewhat speculative and inaccurate).
(48) Evidence 120-21 ; see too Method and Meaning 13353. Perhaps Neusner is right for
the Mishnah, but this characterization is incorrect for tannaitic materials as a whole.
4 6 SHA YE J . D. COHEN [17]
subject of dispute, the study of temple law did not produce sects. A sect
needs an evil reality against which to protest, rail, and define itself. T h e
tannaim, however, were looking not at the baneful present but at the
Utopian future. When they did define themselves they avoided putting
priests in their lineage and ascribing to themselves a priestly ideology. 49
T h e temple was not the sole o r primary source of rabbinic self-
definition, at least not in the Yavnean period. 50
T H E EMERGENCE OF INDIVIDUAL A U T H O R I T Y
scribes also spoke with collective voices. Seers of visions hid behind pseu-
donymity or anonymity. 53 But by defining themselves vis--vis the tern-
pie t h e sects had a special reason for their reliance on collective
authority, for who but a prophet could confront the temple and the
priesthood? Who but a prophet could pronounce the temple unclean
and the cult unwelcome in the eyes of God? Prophecy, however, was
dead. By whatever means the sects explained their origins, their funda-
mental claim to be the antithesis/supplement/equivalent of the temple
meant that the group derived its legitimacy from its status as a temple
community. Hence it always spoke as a community. But after 70 there
was no temple, no ultimate authority which only a community could
match. T h e individual, although not a prophet, could now emerge, since
he did not have to measure himself against the unapproachable pre-
cincts of the temple. 54
F R O M M O N I S M T O PLURALISM
was ready not to insist upon the rectitude of ("stand upon") his opinions.
T h e creation of the Mishnah could now begin.58
Were there any whose words were not the words of the living God? In
spite of the rabbinic hesitation, described above, to define the limits of
acceptable doctrine and practice, two categories of people could not be
incorporated into the Yavnean coalition: those who insisted upon a sec-
tarian self-identification, and those who refused to heed the will of the
majority. T h e former called themselves, or at least were distinctive
enough to be called by others, "Pharisees," "Sadducees," "Christians," or
whatever. All of these persistent sectarians were cursed in the birkat
haminim. This rabbinic ideology is reflected in Justin's discussion of the
Jewish sects: there are Jews, i.e., the "orthodox," and there are sects,
among them the Pharisees, who scarcely deserve the name Jew. These
sectarians were denounced, not excommunicated. As a result of this
effort to minimize sectarian self-identification, the rabbis did not see
themselves as Pharisees and showed little interest in their sectarian roots.
T h e second category includes those sages who did not accept the will of
the majority. Even an elastic society has limits. Aqavya ben Mehallalel
was excommunicated because he "stood upon," i.e., insisted on the recti-
tude of his opinion in the face of the opposition of the majority. 59
According to amoraic narratives R. Eliezer was excommunicated
because he would not accept the legal ruling of the majority, invoking
against it a heavenly voive and various miracles a dangerous prece-
dent (Bab. Bava Mesica 59b; Yer. Moced Qatan 3:1 [81c-d]; cf. Tos.
0
Eduyyot 2:1). T h e other side of the coin is illustrated by another
amoraic narrative which has R. Gamaliel deposed from the patriarchate
because he sought to impose his will on the sages. Even the authority of
the patriarch has limits when opposed by the majority (Bab. Berakhot
27b28a; Yer. Berakhot 4:1 [7c-d]). Whatever the truth of these amoraic
stories, they reflect the essential problem of the Yavnean period: the ere-
ation of the society which would tolerate, even foster, disputes and
(58) T h e tannaim themselves record that the Mishnah begins at Yavneh; see. Tos.
c
Eduyyot 1:1. For the citation o f majority and minority opinions see Mishnah c Eduyyot
1:4-5 Tos. c Eduyyot 1:4. Although the heavenly voice story does not appear in any
tannaitic document, a similar idea appears in Tos. Sotah 7:12. For an unglamorous view o f
the victory o f the Hilleltites, see Tos. Sukkah 2:3. T h e new ideal o f a sage willing to aban-
d o n his own views for the sake o f the majority appears clearly inTos. Shabbat 12:12 and
Yer. Berakhot 1.2 3a. See too Yer. Gittin 7.6 49a.
(59) Mishnah c Eduyyot 5:7; 5:6 is obscure. T h e incident probably took place at
Yavneh; see E.E. Urbach, The Sages (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971) 535 (Hebrew), and A.J.
Saldarmi, "The Adoption o f a Dissident: Akabya ben Mahalaleel in Rabbinic Tradition,"
Journal of Jewish Studies 3 3 (1982) 5 4 7 - 5 5 6 (who regards the date as uncertain).
5 0 SHA YE J . D. COHEN [24]
CONCLUSION
Jewish "schools of thought( haireseis) agreed with each other more than
they differed. Aware of the deleterious consequences of internecine
strife, the sages saw themselves as members of the same philosophical
school who could debate in friendly fashion the tenets of the school.64
A year or two before the church council of Nicea Constantine wrote
to Alexander and Arius, the leaders of the contending parties, and
asked them to realize that they were united by their shared beliefs more
than they were separated by their debate on the nature of the second
person of the Trinity. Let them behave like members of a philosophical
school who debate in civil fashion the doctrines of the school (Eusebius,
Life of Constantine 2.71). T h e council of Nicea ignored the emperor's
advice and expelled the Arians. T h e sages of Yavneh anticipated Con-
stan tine's suggestion. They created a society based on the doctrine that
conflicting disputants may each be advancing the words of the living
God.
APPENDIX
PHARISEES AND RABBIS IN T H E C H U R C H F A T H E R S 6 5
I argued above that rabbinic self-identification with the Pharisees is only
seldom attested in tannaitic literature, is somewhat more frequent in
amoraic materials, but does not become secure and determinative until
the early middle ages. As far as I have been able to determine, patristic
literature documents a similar development. T h e fathers of the second,
third, and fourth centuries do not identify contemporary Judaism with
Pharisaism. Tertullian, Cyprian, the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila,
and Aphrahat attempt to refute Judaism, but they either d o not mention
the Pharisees at all or mention them only in New Testament quotations.
Even Origen, who lived in Palestine and knew a great deal about
Judaism, does not refer to contemporary didaskaloi and sophoi as Phari-
sees.66 Epiphanius, that learned purveyor of information and misin
(64) O n the rabbis as philosophers and Yavneh as a philosophical school, see S.J.D.
Cohen, "Patriarchs and Scholarchs," Proceedings of the Amercan Academy for Jewish Research
4 8 (1981) 5 7 - 8 5 (with bibliography).
(65) T h e following abbreviations are used in this appendix: GCS = Die griechische
christliche Schriftsteller:; PG = Migne, Patrologia Graeca; PL = Patrologia Latina; CSEL = Cor-
pus Scnptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum; CChr = Corpus Christianorum Series Latina.
(66) D e Lange, Origen 3 4 - 3 5 , cannot hide the fact that when Origen speaks o f didaskaloi
and sophoi h e does not mention Pharisees, and when he speaks o f Pharisees he does not
mention didaskaloi and sophoi. D e Lange cites three passages to prove that Origen applies
Pharisees to "literalist, rabbinic Jews o f his own day," but all three passages refer to New
Testament times. T h e o n e passage in present tense (commentary o n John 3:1, GCS 4.510)
also does not describe contemporary times; it draws o n Josephus (see d e Lange 35 . 75).
52 SHA YE J . D. COHEN [26]
(71) Rabbis and Pharisees: d e Lange, Origen, 35 (e-g Epistola, 127.4 [PL 22.108g and
CSEL 56.148]). Deuteroseis: Epistola 121.10 (PL 22.1033-34 and CSEL 56.48-49). Commen-
tary o n Isa. 8:14: PL 24.119 and CChr 73.116; A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evi-
dence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 220-221 and A.F.J. Klijn, "Jerome's
Quotations from a Nazorean Interpretation o f Isaiah," Judo-Christianisme: Rcherches . . .
offertes... / . Danielou ( = Rcherches d e science religieuse 6 0 [1972]) 241-55, esp. 249-51.
I hope to return to this text elsewhere.
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder^)5 express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.