THE NATURE OF THE CHAIN OF TRADITION
Since the chain of tradition from Moses to the sages of the first few centuries, C.E. dominates and organizes the first part of ARN, we shall compare the several versions of the chain, suggest its original form and draw inferences about its purpose from its development and from comparison with other examples of this genre.1 The chain of tradition is set forth in four different versions. The most familiar is PA, ch. 1 and the beginning of ch. 2. ARNB quotes the chain as a whole from Moses down to the Men of the Great Assembly; then it cites the chain lemma by lemma with commentary. The links in the first part of the chain from Moses to the Men of the Great Assembly differ in the two recitals. In ARNA the chain is not quoted as a whole, but rather cited and explained link by link. The following chart shows the variations schematically.
Structure and Development of the Chain
The first half of the chain of tradition, down to the Men of the Great Assembly, contains seven members in ARNA and ARNB, (chain as a whole), nine members in ARNB (lemmas) and five members in PA. Since Eli and Samuel occur only in ARNB, it seems likely that they were added. (See a more full discussion in ch. 4.) PA alone lacks the judges and Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; since PA, ch. 1, has added Gamaliel and Simeon after Hillel and Shammai and then closed the chapter with an inclusion (see ch. 2 above), it is likely that two names were dropped when two were added. The other two lists have seven members. The number seven is common in Rabbinic lists and groups. PA, ch. 1, has fourteen names, twice seven. L. Finkelstein has claimed that the chain of tradition originally contained fourteen names, a traditional number for such a list. The chain of tradition would go from Moses to the last pair, Hillel and Shammai; Eli and Samuel were added later in ARNB (lemmas) and PA, ch. 1, was modified to include two later Princes of the second century. This hypothesis must await the end of this chapter for its final testing. For the present, we may note that there is some data to support the number seven and also fourteen and that several other particulars must be examined before any original form of the chain may achieve probability.
PA with its list of five initial recipients of Torah down to the Men of the Great Assembly has a loose parallel in the Iliad (2:102 ff.) where the scepter of rulership, fashioned by Hephaistus, is given by Zeus to Hermes who passes it on to Pelops, who in turn passes it on to Atreus, and he to Thyestes and he to Agamemnon. The recital of the group of five is followed by a speech of Agamemnon (a functional parallel to the saying of the Men of the Great Assembly). H. Fischel points out that this passage was a popular example in several rhetorical handbooks and may have had an indirect influence on the ordering of the chain in PA.2 Fischel’s hypothesis is weak because the contexts and the exact purposes of the two passages are different. The Iliad passage is an aside in a narrative; the chain in PA dominates the first part of the collection of sayings. The Iliad’s chain establishes conventional political authority; the chain in PA establishes teaching authority and the veracity of a tradition and school. Groups of five are common in the next section where Johanan ben Zakkai has five disciples. It may be that a common culture has slightly influenced the editor’s sense of propriety; more likely, the number five emerged in the editing of the whole of PA, ch. 1.
The verb used to indicate that the tradition has moved from one link in the chain to another varies at the beginning of the chain, from Moses to the Men of the Great Assembly. PA and ARNB say that the Torah was “passed on” (msr); ARNA says that each member of the chain “received” or “took over” (qbl) the Torah. From Antigonus of Soko on all versions use “received, took over” and all use it of Moses receiving Torah from God. The reason for the variation in terminology is not clear. Finkelstein has suggested that “received” is original and has a more general connotation: these figures were among the recipients of the tradition, but not the only ones to receive it. “Passed on” is exclusive, indicating that the tradition was passed on only to the next person(s) in the chain. According to Finkelstein the change to “passed on” occured in the second century in an attempt to exclude the priests from authority.3 This interpretation of the verbs seems strained. Fischel points out that both verbs are used in Greco-Roman examples of the sorites and that “passed on” is the more usual verb because it leads to a more simple pattern: A to B, B to C, C to D, etc. “Received, took over” leads to the more complex pattern: B from A,4 C from B, D from C, etc. The more complex pattern prevails in the chain of tradition and its dominance may have been initiated by the first link, that Moses received the Torah from God. This passive construction is required since God is not handing on something he received, but initiating the chain. A desire for consistency probably led to the final removal of “passed on” in ARNA.
Two peculiarities associated with Simeon the Just and the first pair, Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Johanan could indicate some dislocation in the chain. Simeon the Just is not said to have received; the text merely says that he was “among the last of the Great Assembly.” Since the previous sentence already said that the Men of the Great Assembly had received Torah, it is not strictly necessary to repeat that statement for Simeon who is one of them. The first pair, who follow Antigonus of Soko, are said to have received (Torah) from them. Some have suggested that Simeon and Antigonus are later insertions and that the first pair originally followed the Men of the Great Assembly.5 However, “from them” is so stylized a phrase that it may have worked its way into this position even though it was not appropriate.
The next problem in sequence occurs in the transition to the last pair, Shammai and Hillel, as recounted in ARNB. The last sentence of the chapter on Shemaiah and Abtalyon (ch. 22) is a transition to Shammai and Hillel: “Hillel and Menahem did not differ; Menahem went forth and Shammai entered.” This same sentence is found in m. Hag. 2:2 and it may have been added to ARNB from there.6 (It is not found in PA and ARNA.) Menahem remains an unknown figure and his reasons for going forth are not given. Some suggest that he is the Essene who predicted Herod’s reign;7 others identify him with Menahem ben Juda8 or Menahem ben Signai of m. Eduyyot 7:8.9 All identifications must grapple with supposed reasons for his going forth and hypotheses about what he went forth from. The Talmuds offer a variety of opinions.10 Most connect Menahem’s going out with Pharisaic disputes over leadership of their assembly (Sanhedrin). Since we have only this one sentence, on which all theories are based, no certainty can be reached. The Rabbis traced their communal ancestry most directly back to Hillel and the disputes between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. It may be that the editor of ARNB was puzzled by the mention of Menahem in the Mishna and wanted to include anyone relevant to this crucial period in the chain of tradition. Thus, Menahem was included, but not identified.
ARNB contains two further pecularities in the transition to the last pair: there is no introductory formula saying that Shammai and Hillel “took over from them” and Shammai’s saying precedes Hillel’s, contrary to the order in PA and ARNA. The former is probably an error in transmission and the latter has been explained in ch. 4: the order may be original; the editor wanted Hillel in the climatic final position; and Hillel leads smoothly into the introduction of Johanan ben Zakkai at Hillel’s deathbed in ch. 28.
In all three sources Johanan ben Zakkai is said to have received the Torah, but only in ARNA, ch. 14 is this statement in proper sequence. PA has displaced Johanan to the middle of ch. 2, after the princes (see ch. 2 above) and ARNB, ch. 31 has added the statement that Johanan “received” after the main body of Johanan materials. Johanan is the last person of whom the technical term “received” is used. He may have been added by Rabbinic authorities who opposed the growing power of the hereditary princes in the second century. However the princes eventually dominated and Rabbi Judah the Prince, editor of the Mishna, removed Johanan from proper sequence in PA, ch. 1 and placed him in ch. 2. A slight displacement also occurred in ARNB, chs. 28-31. This solution assumes that Johanan ben Zakkai was added to an organized chain of tradition during the second century. If the chain dates from the organization of the Mishna in the early third century, then both versions of ARN may have reorganized the chain of tradition to place Johanan ben Zakkai in proper chronological order, contrary to the order in the Mishna.
Rabbi Judah the Prince extended the chain of tradition in PA by adding Gamaliel and Simeon his son after the last pair, Hillel and Shammai. The technical term “receive” is not used but the sequence of names and the final saying (1:18) which recalls Simeon’s saying at the beginning of the chapter implies that the chain continues through ch. 1. Third century authorities added Judah the Prince, himself, (2:1) and his son Gamaliel III (2:2-4a). The extension of the chain at the end of ch. 1 is confused by the sequence Rabban Gamaliel (1:16), Simeon his son (1:17) and Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel (1:18). Finkelstein argued that Gamaliel II was dropped because of the controversy surrounding his leadership and his supposed Shammaitic tendencies.11 But Gamaliel’s supposed Shammaitic tendencies are very controversial and Judah the Prince would have been likely to emphasize his authoritative approach to leadership. D. Hoffmann held that Gamaliel II is meant12 and if this position is correct, then there is a gap between Hillel and Gamaliel II as well as mention of two Simeon’s together or the citation of one under two titles. It is probably impossible to determine who is meant. The literary structure of PA, ch. 1 shows that the two Simeon’s in 1:17-18 are understood as one and that the final saying is so placed because it forms an inclusion with 1:2. This, along with the identity of names in the four generations of leaders (Gamaliel and Simeon twice each, suggest that the editors of PA are not concerned with filling up the centuries With exact genealogies, but with naming the famous figures associated with Torah.
In both versions of ARN some of the princes listed in PA can be found but not in sequence after Hillel or Johanan ben Zakkai. They are cited after the treatment of the early sages (Akabya ben Mahalaleel et al.) and before the four who entered the garden (Ben Zoma et al.)13 In each case the sayings are part of a thematic group of sayings: seven sayings on Torah make up ch. 22 of ARNA and ten sayings or groups of sayings, mostly on Torah, conclude ch. 32 of ARNB. In each case the princes end a chapter and the treatment of the collection of sayings by early sages.
ARNB mixes up the references to Gamaliel II and III and repeats Judah the Prince twice because it inaccurately follows the chain of tradition as it was expanded in PA. (See also ch. 7 below.) ARNA has only Gamaliel and Simeon his son (PA 1:16-17) without the second Simeon saying which closes PA, ch. 1. ARNA seems to have these two sayings as originally positioned in the tradition. The later editors of ARNA did not add the sayings by Rabbi and his son (PA 2:1-4a), perhaps because the sayings heavily emphasize works, contrary to ARNA’s greater emphasis on Torah. Rabbi is included in ARNA by being given his own chapter (18) after the treatment of Johanan ben Zakkai and his disciples, but ARNA does not continue the formal chain of tradition beyond Johanan ben Zakkai. Judah the Prince is parallel to him, but the final editors preserved no clear sequence. ARNB has Johanan, the early sages, Gamaliel, Simeon and Judah the Prince in a loose sequence and one could argue that the formal chain of tradition is being continued. But the lack of any repetitive phrases or clear structure to indicate this makes it a weak hypothesis. ARNB collects the number of sayings of late first and second century sages in these chapters and they do form a very loose sequence, but the addition of PA 2:1-4a in the name of Gamaliel and Judah the Prince seems to be influenced by PA in the third century. The editor who originally organized these materials continued the spirit of the chain by quoting early and authoritative teachers, but he did not formally continue the chain of tradition.
The Genre of the Chain of Tradition
The preceding detailed study of the chain of tradition has shown its literary sources and structure and something about its development. For its nature and purpose to become fully clear we must examine parallel lists and structures, especially in Greco-Roman literature, and try to understand the larger genre of which the chain of tradition is an example. Much of the evidence has been gathered by E. Bickerman and more recently by H. Fischel.14 Some recent work on genealogy will also be reviewed.
During the Hellenistic period and well into the Roman period lists of founders of philosophical schools and the succeeding generations of disciples and heads of the schools were common. Diogenes Laertius organized his Lives of Eminent Philosophers (early third century, C.E.) by schools of philosophy and then by a succession of masters and disciples. Bickerman suggests that the Rabbinic chain of tradition was precisely to establish and validate the origins of the Schools of Hillel and Shammai as similar to Hellenistic schools of philosophy, all of which encompassed a way of life.15 As early as the second century, B.C.E. Sotion had composed a list of the “Succession of the Philosophers.” Suidas noted two centuries later that Epicurus had fourteen successors and other authors used these lists. Lists of other officials were also common. In the second century, C.E. Sextus Pomponius compiled a succession of Roman jurists which included pairs, as in the Rabbinic chain of tradition.16 Celsus compiled a succession of physicians as part of his encylopedic summary of medical and other knowledge.17
Lists of religious officials were also common. Bickerman notes that successions of priests, who were the hereditary guardians of tradition, were kept in Egypt, Babylon and Persia, as well as in the Bible (1 Chr. 24--25). Eupolemus (2 Cen., B.C.E.) as quoted in Eusebius, has what appears to be the beginning of a chain of prophets: “Moses prophesied forty years; then Jesus, the son of Nave, thirty years, and he lived 110 years, and pitched the holy Tabernacle in Silo. And afterwards Samuel rose up as a prophet. . . . “18 Eusebius’ account continues with the history of Israel. We may infer that Eupolemus had produced a longer list of prophets, but we are not certain.
The structure of these chains of tradition are part of a larger rhetorical and literary device, the sorites (climax, gradatio), popular during the first two centuries, C.E. Fischel divides the sorites into six major groups, with the chains of tradition part of a group called transmissional sorites.19 The presence and popularity of this form in the larger Greco-Roman world provides a natural background for the Rabbinic chain of tradition. More remote analogues may be found in genealogies and king lists, common for millenia in the Near East. Though the chain of tradition differs significantly from genealogies both formally and functionally, they overlap in that both are lists of persons over several generations who have a significant relationship to one another and whose relationship is of functional importance to the community. We shall examine selected results of two recent studies of genealogies by Marshall D. Johnson and Robert R. Wilson.20 Wilson has used recent anthropological studies to understand the form and function of oral and written Near Eastern genealogies in their origins and development. A linear genealogy covers one line of descent through several generations. Most Biblical genealogies are of this type (p. 198) and the chain of tradition is analogous in structure to this type of genealogy. Most linear genealogies are nine to twelve, or at most ten to fourteen, generations deep. The genealogy will sometimes stop with an intermediate founding ancestor or skip older generations back to the founder (pp. 21-26) . Long lists, like the king lists in genealogical form, serve to anchor in the past a claim to power, authority or status.(p.26). Similarly, the chain of tradition is of the same length, treats older generations by groups until it gets back to Moses and Joshua and anchors its claim to authority in God and the Torah he gave to Moses on Sinai.
Johnson subjects Biblical genealogies and especially the New Testament genealogies of Jesus to detailed analysis. Finkelstein has suggested that the chain of tradition originally had fourteen links, just like the (three) groups of fourteen in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (1:1-17).21 The fourteen are Moses, Joshua, the Elders, the Judges, the Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi and the Men of the Great Assembly (7); Simeon the Just, Antigonus of Soko and the five pairs ending with Hillel and Shammai (7). Finkelstein contends that Eli and Samuel were dropped from the list in PA and ARNA and that in PA the Judges and Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi were dropped so that Gamaliel and Simeon his son could be added and the number fourteen preserved. Johnson points out that the number fourteen is not explicitly mentioned in the Rabbinic sources, in contrast to Matthew, and the variations in the lists indicate that the number fourteen was not significant for the editors (pp. 205-206). Johnson is correct for the texts which are before us in that all have variations and additions to the hypothetical original. The best case can be made for PA, ch. 1 which has fourteen links to the chain and is closed with an inclusion (1:2 and 1:18). ARNA has Johanan ben Zakkai in sequence and ARNB has Eli and Samuel in its chain.
Groups of seven and fourteen can be found in Biblical genealogies: Gen. 4:17-24 has seven generations before the flood, a tradition also found in Mesopotamian materials.22 Both Finkelstein and Johnson (without knowledge of Finkelstein) cite 1 Chr. 5:29-41 where twenty-three high priests are listed.23 The first group in this list comprises fourteen priests ending with Johanan, who was the first to serve in Solomon’s Temple. The second part of the list extends to the Exile. Finkelstein appends Neh. 12:10-11 with six high priests during the exile, ending with Jaddua to form a list of twenty-nine. Finkelstein suggests that Jaddua begins a new era and so we have two groups of fourteen: Exodus to Temple and Temple to Exile. Finkelstein’s scheme, which combines two lists, is strained. Though there is schematization in the Bible, Matthew and PA-ARN, only in Matthew is the number fourteen explicitly stated. It is, however, possible and even probable that Rabbinic writers could have arranged groups of seven in the two halves of the chain at various stages of its development.
In all the materials compared here, lists are important and have functions in the community. Groupings within the lists can be important, but rigid numbers are often not adhered to. As Wilson notes of oral genealogies, they remain fluid and responsive 24 to community needs.24 Even in literary form both Biblical and Rabbinic materials underwent adjustments according to historical developments and community needs. Only Matthew turned a genealogy into an enumeration form with a set number of items.
Purpose
Most directly and immediately the chain of tradition establishes the legitimacy of the leaders of the Rabbinic and Pharisaic schools as successors to the leaders of Judaism back to its founder Moses. This leadership is centered around Torah, which was given to Moses on Sinai and passed on. Consequently, the prime duty of the members of the chain was to teach Torah accurately and effectively. The chain of tradition implies that the school of the Rabbis, that is, their teachings, thought, and way of life, stands at the center of Judaism and holds it together. In the tradition contained in PA and ARN Judaism is a school and the appeal is made to the listeners to become students of Torah. In this function, PA and ARN are similar to the Greco-Roman school literature which contains chains of tradition and other stories and sayings (to be explored further in ch. 6) which describe and stabilize a philosophical tradition. The schools, as will be seen in ch. 6, included a way of life and a claim to authority over its adherents lives based on continuity in teaching and leadership. This authority could extend farther than the confines of the school, since schools resembled other religious and social organizations in antiquity and often served several functions. Just as sophists often became leaders in society, it is likely that prominent Rabbis also became leaders in their cities and used their association with the tradition and Torah as a basis for more general leadership in Jewish society. The chain of tradition implicitly claims that the revelation given at Sinai is present and effective. The chain of tradition, like the genealogies and lists reviewed earlier, establishes stable relationships and continuity within Jewish society, even though its primary and first focus is on the Rabbinic school. Especially in PA, it is clear that the chain of tradition was used to legitimate the Prince’s power and authority as leader in Palestine during the late second and third centuries, just as king lists, lists of jurists and lists of priests did in other parts of the East. Though we cannot reconstruct all the uses to which the chain of tradition was put and relate them to the variations in its form found in PA and the two versions of ARN, we can know that it strongly suggests a school setting for its origin and the establishment of teaching authority as its purpose.
Scholars have spoken of literary or fixed oral sources which are taken over with little or no change, of traditions which developed and were used and of redaction which can produce a markedly different final product. For the most part it is impossible to discern what has happened in the background to PA. Comparison with the two versions of ARN, to be carried on in ch. 5-7 below will furnish some clues. For the present, a study of PA suggests that the chain of tradition extended as far as Hillel and Shammai and that about the time of the formation of the Mishna Gamaliel and Simeon his son were added at the end of ch. 1 to form a literary unit bounded by inclusion (1:2 and 18). Subsequently the line of the princes was added to at the beginning of ch. 2 with Rabbi Judah the Prince and Gamaliel his son.
See Saldarini, “The End of the Rabbinic Chain.”
Fischel, “The Uses of Sorites,” pp. 124-126.
Finkelstein, Mabo, p. 233, n. 16 and “Introductory Study,” pp. 48-49.
Fischel, “The Uses of Sorites,” pp. 125-126 and n. 18. Fischel notes that some Greco-Roman chains use a verb without a direct object to indicate what is being passed on.
H. Strack, Introduction, p. 107, and J. Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays, p. 196, n. 38.
Neusner, Pharisees, 1:184-185. Finkelstein classifies Menahem as a “conservative,” even though he is said to agree with Hillel (Akiba, p. 298).
Josephus, Antiquities, pp. 15, 10, 5; Derenbourg, Essai, pp. 464-465.
Josephus, War, pp. 2, 17, 8. Lieberman, Greek, 179-181 on the basis of Shir Ha-Shirim Zuta, end. See also J. Rosenthal, “The Identity of Menahem” (In Hebrew).
Hoenig, “Menahem” (in Hebrew).
b. Hagiga 16b and p. Hagiga 2:2 (77d).
Finkelstein, Mabo, p. 56; “Introductory Study,” p. 28.
Hoffman, Die erste Mischna, p. 26.
ARNA, end of ch. 22; ARNB, end of ch. 32.
Bikerman, “La Chaîne” and Fischel, “The Use of Sorites.”
Cohen, “Peculium,” p. 275 ff.; Fischel, “The Use of Sorites,” p. 127.
Celsus, Medical Art, Proem 8 under Tiberius.
Eusebius, Evangeliae Praeparationis, 9.30 (447a)
Fischel, “The Uses of Sorites,” pp. 119 and 124-129.
Johnson, The Purposes of the Biblical Genealogies and Wilson, Genealogy and History.
Finkelstein, Mabo, pp. 5-18 and “Introductory Study.”
Finkelstein, Mabo, pp. 9-10; Johnson, Genealogies pp. 190-191.
