CONFIRMING THAT TRADITION OF THE ELDERS (PARADOSIS) REFERS TO AN ORAL BODY OF LAW (MASORET)

Transcription

1 NOTES ET MÉLANGES Herbert W. BASSER Queen s University, Canada CONFIRMING THAT TRADITION OF THE ELDERS (PARADOSIS) REFERS TO AN ORAL BODY OF LAW (MASORET) Why do your disciples break the Tradition of the Elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread! (Matthew 15:2) For the Pharisees, in fact all the Jews, will not eat unless they wash their hands ritually, keeping the Tradition of the Elders. (Mark 7:3) The Pharisaic paradosis [legal materials of Pharisaic tradition called Tradition (paradosis) of the Elders ] is mentioned in Matthew 15:1-2 and Mark 7:3. 1 Mark s Gospel tells us Pharisees and all Jews obeyed this teaching while Matthew ascribes it just to the usages of Scribes and Pharisees. I wonder if Mark s source has an addition after Pharisees, (if all Jews is original then why bother mentioning Pharisees who are also Jews?) or perhaps he added it himself since he adds explanatory material here, or did another hand after Mark gloss it? While the matter of Mark s reading is curious my immediate focus here is to establish the use of paradosis as the equivalent of the Hebrew masoret. 2 Then, on evidence independent of any connection to legal usage, we will discover that this Hebrew term (in general) can refer to anything relayed by word of mouth through a chain of narrators. We will conclude that most likely the shared narrative behind Matthew and Mark have some body of 1. For Greek eta I use e and for omega I use o. 2. See A. I. BAUMGARTEN, The Pharisaic Paradosis, Harvard Theological Review, 80 (1987), pp Revue des études juives, 171 (1-2), janvier-juin 2012, pp doi: /REJ

2 174 TRADITION OF THE ELDERS legal materials in mind, a body of tradition that was passed down orally through a succession of narrators. Mason was not certain if the sense of paradosis could actually be shown to refer to an oral chain of tradition. I will attempt to provide that demonstration. 3 In Talmudic jurisprudence there are two major divisions for sources of Jewish law. The first is the written Torah, understood to have been dictated to Moses for all time. Over the generations these writings were subjected to various interpretive procedures that both justified contemporary practices and allowed for new practices to take root. In different places and different times differing interpretations grew but in the main there was enough consistency and general supervision of the process so that a definitive Jewish culture was shaped. We have little knowledge of the particulars of this culture in early periods. Yet, concerning the first century before the Christian Era we have reliable knowledge of certain schisms that developed over the particulars of the interpretations of the Mosaic code. The two major groups were called Pharisees and Sadducees but there were other groups also such as the Qumran sectarians. The second source of Jewish law is that which is now known as the oral tradition although this does not seem to have been its original name. This body of legislation contains two types of rulings. First, those said to be handed down from Moses and not recorded in writing and which are no less binding than the written tradition. Second, rulings enacted over time by scribes and judges, not said to have been handed down by Moses, and practiced scrupulously by Pharisaic Jews but rejected by others. This second category of law (and perhaps the first also) appears to have been known in the first century (if not earlier) as the Tradition of the Elders or Tradition of the Fathers and then later as the Repeated Law [over successive generations], 4 which is to say that these laws were passed down by teachers along with the written laws of Moses. These rules seem to have been accepted by Jesus (or why would anyone fuss with him over specifics if he completely rejected all these traditions) with certain exceptions in certain circumstances and many of which exceptions were likely debated even before Jesus time See S. MASON, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study, Leiden, 2001, pp , who has a lively discussion of Josephus usage of paradosis and the scholars who have speculated upon its meaning. He notes that from Josephus words it is impossible to discern if the form of the pharisaic tradition of the fathers was oral or written. 4. That is, Mishnah. 5. The style, structure and vocabulary of the Jesus arguments in Gospel Sabbath debates mirror the details of scribal laws now recorded in Talmudic literature.

3 TRADITION OF THE ELDERS 175 Regarding these rules again there was disagreement between the two parties of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In the first century Josephus records this most major controversy over the very viability of the second law : What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have handed down to the people a great many laws by succession (diadoxes) 6 from the Fathers which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those laws to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe [laws] from the Tradition of the Fathers; (paradoseos ton patiron) and concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them (Ant. 13:297). The word that interests us here is paradosis or handed down tradition. Paul (Galatians 1:14) speaks of having been steadfast in the Traditions (paradoseon) of my Fathers (patrikon). Both Paul and Josephus know about a tradition handed down through Fathers which is not written in the Torah. Mason points out that this tradition may or may not have been in written form. Of particular note to us is the following observation. The Tradition of the Fathers is in Matthew s Gospel, 15:2 and in Mark 7:3 where it is called the Tradition (paradosin) of the Elders (presbuteron). Elders and Fathers are equivalent terms in these designations and this notice provides some indication we speak of oral traditions. These two words, father, (patera) and elder (presbuterous) are found in LXX Deut. 32:7 and translates Hebrew aß and zaqen: Ask your father (aßikha) and he shall relate to you, your elders (z qene y kha), and they shall tell you. What is suggestive here is that the words father (patera) and elders (presbuterous) are in parallel as are their activities of relating [Hebrew: yaggid] and telling [Hebrew: y omru]. Relate and tell as activities of fathers and elders suggest that they taught orally. This suggestion is not gratuitous. When the Talmud (b. Shabb. 23a) discusses the biblical warrants for obedience to enactments in the oral tradition it cites two verses from Deuteronomy. The first is Deut. 32:7 which refers to fathers and elders relating and telling as we have just seen. The second verse, which also mentions relating and telling, is Deut. 17:9-12: [Go to the priests, who are Levites, and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the Lord will choose. Be careful to do everything they direct you to do.] Act according to the law they teach you and the decisions they tell (y omru) you. Do not turn aside from what they relate 6. Most likely equivalent to Hebrew mesorah.

4 176 TRADITION OF THE ELDERS (yaggidu) to you, to the right or to the left. The same verbs are used in what is clearly oral communication. If the terminology of Tradition of Fathers and Tradition of Elders stems from Deut. 32:7 there is some evidence to believe we are speaking of an oral tradition. According to b. Îullin 106a, Abbaye in the fourth century was asked the source for referring to the custom of everyone washing their hands (extending to all their own rule that Priests must do so when consuming their gifted terumah loaves) before eating everyday bread as a commandment. He cites the idea that the term commandment refers to the commandment to obey the words of the Sages and this rule was said in Matthew 15:2 to belong to the paradosis of the Elders. We will soon demonstrate from the Yerushalmi (Talmud of the Land of Israel) reading, that commandment here in fact refers to a commandment in the Torah. And we will find strong reason to think Abbaye s warrant comes from Deut. 17:12 which mentions listening to the instruction of authorized teachers and judges. First, we note a gloss in Midrash Tanna im (to Deut. 17:12) that tells us this verse serves as biblical warrant to obey laws, decrees, and customs that Sages enact. Second, and this is key, we will discover that b. Yeß. 20a has a similar response by Abbaye who notes the extension of incest laws to secondary relatives are authorized by the commandment to obey the words of the Sages. Now it is just here that we can shed light on Abbaye s assertion for it can be demonstrated that this assertion is not just a Babylonian idea but also one from the Land of Israel, likely much before the time of Abbaye (4 th c.). Y. Yeß. 2:4 has this very expression when discussing the authority of the Scribes to order such decrees: It is a commandment from the Torah to obey the words of the Sages. 7 The words of Abbaye reflect a truncated version 7. Professor Ranon Katzoff argues that the custom of hand-washing before consuming bread was ancient and known widely in the first century. He finds that t. Ber. 4.3 (allowing wine for the ritual according to Rabbi Eliezer) and other sources are confirmed, in minute detail, as early in PETRONIUS, The Satyricon 34. He sent me his publication (and I thank him for his kindnesses), The Laws of Rabbi Eliezer in Ancient Rome, in D. GOLINKIN et al. eds., Torah Lishma: Essays in Jewish Studies in Honor of Professor Shamma Friedman, Jerusalem, 2007, pp (Hebrew). The somewhat loose end in the argument is that it hinges on an unknown is a Jewish connection the only explanation for washing hands before meals or after urinating even if there are some peculiar details in common? Since he makes fun of Jewish circumcision how likely is it that he knowingly borrows a Jewish rite without any comment? Since the Gospels make it clear such rituals are uniquely Jewish (Mark) or pharisaic (Matthew) and they find the ritual peculiar and external- a way of mocking pharisaic hypocrisy it is not likely anyone else did it. If they did, the polemic loses all its credibility in the Gospels. That argument I should think enhances the conclusion significantly. It is still a puzzlement why the details line up and perhaps there is a missing step somewhere-maybe a manual of table manners citing various dining practices in Rome that Petronius used or something like that. The weakness is that the phenomenon of the literary connection is strong,

5 TRADITION OF THE ELDERS 177 of the Yerushalmi s phrase and refer to a biblical commandment that makes it mandatory to obey the scribal tradition. And so, as a matter of course, both official commentaries to the Yerushalmi (Talmud of the Land of Israel) independently tell us that the biblical verse that commands such obedience must be Deut. 17:12. These observations allow us to see the Talmud s scribal tradition is closely related to first century (including the Gospel s references to hand-washing) paradosis. We can now investigate this relationship more extensively than has been done up to the present. When the Mishnah, the repeated law of the Sages, speaks of traditions handed down through a succession of generations it uses the term tradition in their hands from their fathers (m. Sheq. 6:1). The word for tradition here is masoret and the verb msr is also used to speak of passing down Torah from one generation to the next (m. Aßot 1:1). We can confirm that Hebrew masoret was rendered in Greek as paradosis and that this understanding of the word masoret extended into the Middle Ages and beyond, as proven by the following quotation:ezek. 20:37: I will have you pass beneath the rod, and I will bring you [to the Land] by the masoret of the covenant. We look at two identical renditions of the word masoret: 1) Theodotion (2 nd c in Origen s Hexapla to Ezek. 20:37): passed-down tradition (paradosis) 8 and 2) Rashi (11 th c in his commentary to Ezek. 20:37): the tradition (masoret) I passed down to you. Although there are other notions of what masoret might mean in Ezekiel we now confirm the Greek paradosis can translate Hebrew masoret, a tradition passed down through generations. Since we can show that masoret means orally passed down tradition, but cannot show it ever means a written tradition we can posit that paradosis will mean the same unless it is qualified to mean something else. Hebrew masoret seems to mean only passed-down orally. while the genetic connection it is very weak. If we knew there was a genre of cultural dining manuals for hosts even that in itself would be of help to show how the Jewish masoret zeqenim ( Tradition of the Elders ) ritual ended up in a Latin satire. On the other hand, see D. BOYARIN, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Philadelphia, 2004, p. 252, n. 125 who thinks for the talmudic Rabbis the practice was seen as new, frail and quasi-sectarian. Again, to my mind the Rabbis gave their seal of approval to an ancient Jewish custom of the Pharisees, which the pious had long practiced scrupulously. Katzoff wrote me to consider, b. Sotah 4b, where Boyarin finds the rabbis fraught over hand-washing, there is, in the second half of the page, fraught denunciation of adultery. Shall we say, then, that the prohibition on adultery is a recent innovation or that hand-washing is as ancient as the Decalogue? Indeed, for me, it is clear that the washing of the hands had been treated haphazardly by some Jews and so the Rabbis diligently enforced its practice. 8. Alternatively we find: shut-in : desmios in Aquila (like in an iron collar. ) or its equivalent dia kloiou in Symmachus.

6 178 TRADITION OF THE ELDERS The following demonstration is of some weight. We find in Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael two statements that are related. When Exod. 19:4 ( You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles wings and brought you to myself. ) is analyzed in the midrash there is a stress that seeing cannot be doubted and so is more reliable than simply hearing things second hand which is always open to some doubt. The same midrash in Yitro BaÌodesh unit 9 explains unit 2. Unit 2 remarks not by a masoret did I tell you but You yourselves have seen, while unit 9 explains this unit in detail: There is a difference between what people see and what others narrate (masiìin) to him for when others narrate it to him sometimes his heart is divided but here you yourselves have seen. Masoret then is a tradition orally passed down. One further reading in rabbinic literature will draw us back to the pharisaic paradosis with greater certainty if we are to accept this reading as authentic: The Sadducees say that there is tradition (masoret) in the hands of the Pharisees to afflict themselves. (ARN version A 5 [reading of Arukh s.v. Beitus]). M. Sotah 3:4 (in the form of m. Aßot type teachings) 9 ends with a list of pretenders and its final words are makkot perushim which the Talmuds (b. Sotah 22b, and y. Sotah 3:4 and 5:5 expand into 7 types of Pharisaic pretensions. They note how there were those who show (present tense) off their piety and so give Pharisees bad press). The Mishnah itself must refer to those who afflict themselves pretending to be Pharisees. So ARN 5 which claims real Pharisees afflict themselves (but no mention here of showing off) is confirmed in Mishnah Sotah 3:4. The Sotah text is (Rabbi Yehoshua, 2 nd c.) giving the impression that Pharisees were alive and well at that point. An interesting story (b. Ber. 27b) of Rabbi Yehoshua s charcoal-dirty face and his inner piety and learning satirizes his insistence that the inner person and the outer person must match. 10 The world of the Gospels and the world of the rabbis are in agreement about the generally poor image of the Pharisees and also the existence of a particular pharisaic masoret. The convergence of data lends weight to the idea that the masoret, tradition, received by first century Pharisees was orally transmitted and that the Sadducees indeed had divided hearts about its legitimacy and made light of it Those who mislead the world are the fool feigning piety, the wicked one feigning perceptiveness, a woman feigning abstinence, and the feigned afflictions of Pharisees. 10. See the full discussion in H. BASSER, In the Margins of the Midrash: Sifre Ha azinu Texts, Commentaries, and Reflections, Atlanta, 1990, p See further, H. BASSER, Yona and Gruber on the Usages of Masoret, Review of Rabbinic Judaism 10, 2 (2007), pp ; Review of Rabbinic Judaism 11, 2 (2008), pp ,

7 TRADITION OF THE ELDERS 179 It now remains to show that the principal Pharisees known to Josephus Vita and to the Book of Acts are also known as major authorities in the traditions of the Mishnah. It would be reasonable to assume that the great teacher mentioned in Acts 5:34 ( But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. ) is the father of the Simon mentioned in Vita 38 ( He then sent to Jerusalem, to Simon, the son of Gamaliel This Simon 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. ) And both Simon and his father are mentioned in Talmudic literature. B. Shabb. 115a 12 refers to him and b. Sanh. 11b refers to his grandson Gamaliel the President of the Academy of Yavneh. The traditions handed down by this latter Gamaliel and by his son, Simeon, form the backbone of the teachings of the Sages. It would be reasonable to see a genetic connection of the paradosis of the Fathers in Josephus and the New Testament with the Oral (and scribal) Law of Talmudic rabbis. It is arguable that many, if not all, of the leading Sages known as tanna im stand in direct succession, familial and intellectual, from the Pharisaic teachers of the first century. And as we have seen, the Talmuds consider Pharisees to be a group within their own society. If what I have said here flies in the face of current modern scholarship, so be it. Albert I. Baumgarten in a discussion of the Pseudo-Clementines takes note of two words: paradosis and kanon. 13 While he identifies the two I do not think they are precisely identical since the author uses two designations. At any rate, Baumgarten notes that the Pharisees are said to have inherited from Moses both judicial authority, through their identity with the 70 elders, and a body of laws and or hermeneutical rules. The rules, kanon (= Heb. middah = Aram. mekhilta) amount to what we now call midrash which is used to reconcile contradictions in Scriptures. In this I agree with Baumgarten. The passed down tradition, paradosis, to my mind but not to Baumgarten s, best refers in this work to a body of oral laws passed down from the Elders of generations to supplement and give force to the written law as Baumgarten himself had argued in an earlier piece. (above n. 3) In other words, the and their response, S. YONA, M. GRUBER, Once Again Masoret in Ezekiel And in Rabbinic Literature: A Response to Professor Basser, ibid. 11, 2 (2008), pp I do not believe they have dealt sufficiently with the substance of my position. 12. Cf t. Shabb. 13: Literary Evidence for Jewish Christianity in the Galilee, in ed. L. Levine, The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York, 1992, pp

8 180 TRADITION OF THE ELDERS author is alluding to materials and methods we know as midrash and mishnah. Chaim Milikowsky noted that Josephus (Ant. 20:264-66) himself claimed expertise in these enterprises. 14 But even without these lengthy arguments, paradosis in the Gospels was assumed to refer to Oral Traditions passed down through the ages. 15 Ellis Rivkin asserted the following definition in his discussion of Paul s zeal for it (Galatians 1:13-14): Paradosis of the fathers is the technical term that Josephus (Ant. 13:296-7, 408) and the Gospels (Mark 7:3, 5, 8; Matthew 15:2, 3, 6) use to refer to the oral law of the Pharisees in contradistinction to the written law. 16 For those like Mason who require further proof of this assertion the above demonstration will demand attention. 17 Herbert W. BASSER basserh@queensu.ca 14. Josephus between Rabbinic Culture and Hellenistic Historiography, in ed. J. L. KUGEL, Shem in the Tents of Japhet, Leiden, 2002, (Journal for the Study of Judaism, Suppl. Ser. 74), pp Epiphanius (Panarion Haer. 5.2) says paradosis is deuterosis, i.e. Mishnah and was transmitted by repetition from Moses to later teachers. Also see Rashi s note to b. Erußin 5a (s.v. naqtinan) who refers to knowledge passed to us through the masoret from our fathers, the minhag from our Rabbis. Both Rashi and Epiphanius see that paradosis, masoret, was the backbone of Rabbinic teaching. 16. Paul s Jewish Odyssey, Judaism 38, 2 (1989), pp I thank Prof. D. Schwartz of the Hebrew University for commenting on the entire article.