- Historical Conclusions
- Chapter
- Brown Judaic Studies
- pp. 135-142
-
- View Citation
- Additional Information
HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS
Like most of early Rabbinic literature, ARN resists historical analysis. It is not the work of one author, though it has a certain unity and purpose and shows the influence of coherent organization at some stages of its development. It does not identify itself by time and place nor does it state its origin within a named group. Any information about it must be deduced from our analysis of the text and thus will remain very hypothetical. Within these limits some observations may serve as a beginning. ARN offers little evidence for its place of composition.1 Scholars have suggested dates from the first to ninth centuries,2 but the Rabbinic tradition has been so thoroughly edited that it is hard to identify original compositions in order to assign them a date. We shall suggest the second and third centuries as the period when the greater part of ARN took shape. ARN offers the best evidence for its social milieu, namely the Rabbinic school; its message and main thrust are directed toward the scholastic life.
Social Setting
ARN presumes a school as its setting. By setting we mean the social structures and cultural conditions which surround and influence the genesis of a literary work and especially the thought world presumed by it. Evidence for the connection between ARN and the Rabbinic school has been offered previously in ch. 6 as well as at appropriate points in other chapters. The strong emphasis on study and associated topics marks out ARN as a school document rather than an address to society at large (though it has served that function, too). The chain of tradition, the stories of the founders of Rabbinic Judaism, the rules for teaching, learning and studying, the rules governing relationships among masters and disciples, exhortations to friendship and fellowship and the high honor accorded the learned all point to a scholastic setting. This school serves as the center of Judaism because all is centered on Torah and Torah is directly from God.
The Rabbinic school is not a single institution, though one might identify Johanan ben Zakkai’s school at Jamnia as the original Rabbinic school. Mention is made of individual Rabbis having schools and disciples in the late first century and beyond; many statements in the Babylonian Talmud describe vigorous and varied scholastic activites in Babylon.3 Talmudic and midrashic passages frequently affirm that exegesis and study are highly valued and that scholarship is the ideal response to Torah. The set of attitudes and the pattern of behavior which underlie these passages resulted in a rich and diverse tradition which retained an essential unity. Though these many teachers and students spread over the Near East in Tannaitic and Amoraic times, they constitute one school of thought and one intellectual tradition among the many found in the Roman and Sassanian Empires.
One might still argue that ARN addresses all Jews whatever their life situation. Especially ARNB which has more emphasis on works and less emphasis on study than ARNA4 speaks of many themes and virtues common to the whole of Judaism. Study itself is a virtue for all of Judaism, and knowledge of Torah has been highly esteemed for centuries in Jewish history. Yet even in medieval and early modern times for which we have ample data, the ideal of devotion to Talmudic study was reality for only a minority. Though the ideal Jew devotes his whole effort to study, according to some of the sayings in ARN and Rabbinic literature, obviously other tasks must be done and other temperaments satisfied. The students of Torah live within a whole community and, according to the Rabbinic view, they have chosen the best path for keeping the precepts of Torah and they approximate most closely the ideal of fidelity to God through Torah. The overwhelming stress on Torah, study and a community of scholars and teachers in ARN shows that it derived from and was addressed to the school and its devotees. These specialized scholars necessarily become a separate class and must be supported by community funds, though ample evidence indicates that whether a scholar should support himself or devote full time to study was a subject of lively debate. The stories about Akiba’s early poverty and Eliezer’s early affluence (ARNA, ch. 6 and ARNB, chs. 12-13) show that the Rabbis desired students from all classes. (See also ARNA, ch. 3 and ARNB, ch. 4.) Though the ideas and ideals expressed in ARN are important to the whole Jewish community and realizable by all to a limited extent, these ideas and ideals are most immediately addressed to those directly associated with the Rabbinic school.
The study house as an institution for both study and prayer is mentioned several times in each version of ARN.5 This institution is presumed rather than described because ARN is more interested in the act of study than in the context in which it occurs. ARN does presume a social context for study in its instructions to find a teacher and a companion for study, but it does not elaborate on the institutions which might have facilitated that communal effort.
The sages are not presented as civil authorities or as influential citizens in community affairs, but as intellectual leaders. Analogies with rhetors and sophists in the Greco-Roman world and data from the Babylonian Talmud suggest that some Rabbis probably fulfilled community leadership functions. Yet even the Princes, who are the climax of the chain of tradition in PA, are given a minor place in ARN, except in ARNA, ch. 18 where Judah the Prince is paralleled to Johanan ben Zakkai. No stress is put on their authority or social position. Study and a community of scholars, not institutionalized authorities, form the heart of Judaism according to ARN.
Similarly, ARN does not associate the Rabbis with world affairs. The story of Johanan ben Zakkai’s escape from Jerusalem to found the school at Jamnia treats the war with Rome neutrally. Though Akiba appears often in ARN, not a word is said about the tradition that Akiba supported Bar Kosiba in the second war against Rome.6 In fact, the foreign empire is generally treated with indifference and politics as something to avoid. At the other extreme, ARN also mentions the family sparingly and always subordinates it to the study of Torah, as is clear in the stories of Akiba’s devotion to Torah to the detriment of his wife and family (ARNA, ch. 6; ARNB, ch. 12). ARN is single minded in its focus on the life of study.
Place
Consideration of the intellectual and social setting of ARN raises the question of the geographical origins of the two versions. The milieu reflected in the texts is Palestinian. Virtually all the sages are Tannaim; Jerusalem and Galilee are prominent and the temporal setting is the first two centuries, C.E. The larger setting is the Roman Empire, not the Parthian or later Sassanian spheres of influence. ARNB mentions Babylon in four places but Babylon is seen from the outside.7 Neither version is very closely tied to the Babylonian Talmud in such a way that a Babylonian origin would be called for (see the previous chapter). Consequently, the traditions in both versions and probably the early forms of both versions belong to Palestine. This does not deny that later additions and editions were produced elsewhere.
The existence of two versions invites speculation concerning the two places or groups which produced them. Neither version manifests a connection with a specific part of Palestine, that is, Judea, Galilee, Caesarea, etc. Nor can the attitudes or interests of a Rabbinic sub-group or specific sage be discerned controlling the thrust of either version.
Date
ARN tells us nothing about its date directly nor does any external evidence fix the time of origin. ARNB, ch. 19 contains three stories, two of which also occur in the Sheiltot of Rab Ahai Gaon who flourished in the middle of the eighth century.8 The Sheiltot has the stories as recounted in ARNB and not as recounted in b. Shabbat 127b where variants of the three stories occur in the same order as in ARNB. From this we can conclude that the Sheiltot probably quotes ARNB. This provides us with an upper limit of about 700 C.E. for the existence of ARNB but it does not help us decide on its time of origin.
Since PA relates closely to ARN and since it may be dated partly by the formation of the Mishna, we shall first conclude what is possible about PA before proposing dates for ARN. The Mishna took its present shape at the end of the first and beginning of the second centuries, C.E. J.N. Epstein has pointed out that the text of the Mishna continued to evolve after this period, but it attained substantial form at the end of the second century under Rabbi Judah the Prince.9 A. Guttmann has argued however that Tractate Abot was later added to the Mishna. As evidence he cites its lack of a Tosefta, the failure of the Talmud to quote it and Medieval evidence for Abot’s different positions among the tractates of the Mishna.10 Since the earliest citations of Abot come from the fourth generation Amoraim, Guttmann suggests 300 as the date of composition of Abot. But Guttmann’s evidence is all external, late, or from silence. PA is a unique tractate in the Mishna and as such could be expected to lack a Tosefta. This cannot provide us with a date for PA. Lack of citations in the Talmud may be by chance. The end of the second, beginning of the third century remains the most reasonable time for the redaction of PA and its inclusion in the Mishna. Naturally, some additions were made, such as Judah the Prince himself and his son at the beginning of ch. 2. The redaction of PA by Judah the Prince is further supported by the end of ch. 1 where Gamaliel and Simeon ben Gamaliel are added after Hillel, without the technical statement that they received the Torah. Also, Johanan ben Zakkai, who is said to have received the Torah, is out of sequence in the middle of ch. 2 and almost certainly has been displaced to that position by Judah the Prince who wanted to create a direct line of authority from Moses to himself through the pairs and then the Princely line.11 That Judah the Prince proceeded in this way can be seen by a comparison with both versions of ARN which lack the Princes in the chain of tradition.
The date of some of the materials in PA can be ascertained. Johanan was probably added to the chain of tradition in the second century, the last person of whom it could be said, “He received” the Torah.12 ARNA, ch. 14 places Johanan immediately after Hillel and Shammai and begins with the formula that he received Torah. ARNB, ch. 28 places Johanan after Hillel, but it is not until an independent collection of Johanan sayings in ch. 31 that Johanan is said to have received Torah. The variations in location argue that Johanan was added to an already existing chain which had ended with Hillel and Shammai. The use of the technical expression “received” for him in contrast to Gamaliel and Simeon suggests that he was added to the chain of tradition before they were added at the end of the second century.
Some other sayings in the chain of tradition and Johanan materials suggest a second century date, or earlier. Abba Saul, who lived in the mid-second century, makes a comment on the relative merits of Johanan’s disciples in PA 2:8. Since Saul knew this mishna, it must have existed at his time or before. The saying of Simeon the Just that the world stands on Torah, Temple service and acts of loving kindness, seems to have had a meaning prior to the destruction of the temple which was midrashically adjusted after 70.13 The saying of the Men of the Great Assembly, to be deliberate in judgment, raise many disciples and make a hedge, is seen by L. Finkelstein as an early instruction to judges which was later adapted to the needs of the Rabbis and their students.14 J. Goldin understands the original saying to be a further elaboration of Qoh. 12:12 which discourages writing books and encourages oral tradition.15 Though both interpretations are speculative, they do suggest that the saying has a long and complex history of interpretation, some of it antedating the formation of the Mishna. Finally, E. Bickerman has demonstrated the original meaning of the saying of Antigonus of Soko in an earlier Hellenistic context where slaves could be provided with sustenance by their masters or left to fend for themselves. When the word prs was no longer understood as a slave’s living allowance, it came to mean reward or compensation, its present meaning in PA.16
Similarly, some sayings of the early sages and the four who entered the garden contain hints that they were collected in the first and second centuries. Akabya’s saying is an odd series of questions which later generations saw as suspicious or dangerous. Simeon ben Eleazar, a late second century sage, already comments on it. The four who entered the garden are early second century figures and since Elisha ben Abuyah, the apostate, was shunned by later generations, his presence here, without invective and as author of a saying argues that the grouping of the four together was retained because it was early and fixed. Though PA clearly underwent development before and after it was joined to the Mishna, its structure and sayings provide enough evidence to say that it took shape during the second century.
The two versions of ARN have a close relationship to PA and the similarities and differences between them and PA argue that they too were developing parallel to and in interaction with PA. As was pointed out in the previous chapter, ARN is not a commentary on the Mishna Tractate Abot, but on a different version, presumably earlier or contemporary with it. It is likely that a commentary generated in its entirety after the formation of the Mishna would have followed the Mishna Tractate Abot. Since the two versions of ARN are independent of and parallel to Tractate Abot, it is probable that all three variations on the tradition developed contemporaneously in the second century.17 The tradition was fluid and probably oral, although written versions or parts are not excluded. The chain of tradition and materials concerning Johanan ben Zakkai and his disciples were probably joined to one another in the early or mid second century and the major components of the commentary, found in both versions, were probably in place. Whether the section on the early sages was part of the whole at this early stage is unknown; likewise, it is impossible to say anything about the enumeration sayings.
The names in ARN support its development during the second century. The names most frequently mentioned belong to sages active at Jamnia during the first generation of Tannaim: Eliezer, Joshua, Johanan ben Zakkai and their colleagues. Akiba, slightly later, is a prominent figure and then Judah the Prince at the end of the second century. Neusner has pointed out that the sages at Usha following the Bar Kosiba War produced many biographical and historical materials.18 This interest in founding sages of the Rabbinic school is consistent with the scholastic atmosphere of ARN pointed out in the previous chapter and in ch. 6. Members of a school tended to collect stories and examples connected to their founders and great teachers, both to establish the school’s authenticity and identity and to educate its students. This process continued in the third century with addition of materials connected with Judah the Prince, the key transitional figure to the Talmudic period.
Though we cannot know for certain when these texts were honed into present shape and fleshed out with digressions and additions, the third century is a likely time for substantial editing of the second century material. Under Judah the Prince Rabbinic Judaism had received a great degree of organization and expansion. Talmudic activity was beginning, centered around the Mishna. Midrashic collections were probably taking shape during the same time. The Rabbinic schools in Palestine and Babylon were strong and would have been interested in an ideological document like ARN. Neusner has shown that many of the biographical stories about Elizer ben Hyrcanus probably took shape in the third century. 19 M. Avi-Yonah calls the third century the century of haggadists.20 H. Fischel has pointed out that in Greco-Roman circles the third century was a time of collecting chriae about the philosophers and sages of that tradition.21 M. Avi-Yonah also suggests that the anit-government statements in ARNA, ch. 20 fit most easily into the third century when the annona became a regular tax in Palestine.22 Similarly, the description of famine in ARNA, ch. 27 could easily be set in the third century.23 Both these passages are found in ARNA only and seem to be expansions of the original commentary.
In arguing for the simultaneous development of PA and the two versions of ARN we have not tried to establish an original text or core. Since the tradition developed in an oral/literary culture, its form was not fixed and there was no Ur-text. When a saying occurs in all three texts, it is highly probable that that saying goes back to the beginning of the tradition. When a saying, story or exegesis is found in both versions of ARN and when it is central to a section, it is probable that the passage is relatively early in the tradition. But a list of all the materials common to both versions of ARN will not give us the original form of the tradition, oral or written, because some original or early element could have dropped out of one of the versions or some element common to both could have been added in one version and then added subsequently to the other due to the interaction of the two versions. We have suggested in previous chapters that certain digressions and comments may be additions, but these conclusions are based on context and the literary characteristics of the sections in question, not on their simple absence in one version.
The analysis of ARN in the previous chapters and the observations and arguments presented above suggest that PA and both versions of ARN began to take shape in the first half of the second century, C.E. and achieved substantially the form they have now at the end of the second century. Nevertheless, a significant number of stories, sayings and exegeses were integrated into the two versions during the third century. There is no clear pattern to the additions and we are often able only to surmise that there might have been additions in certain places. We can be certain that PA and ARN underwent a somewhat lengthy and complex development, but the exact course of that development and the precise decades in which it took place cannot be determined.
Saldarini, ARNB, pp. 12-16; Goldin, ARNA, xxi.
Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction.
See the previous chapter and Goldin, “Two Versions.”
See the indices in Goldin, ARNA and Saldarini, ARNB.
Schäfer, Studien, pp. 65-123, reviews all the texts.
Saldarini, ARNB, pp. 16-17. The passages are in chapters 27, 29, 43, 48.
Sheiltot, Shemot, section 42, p. 13.
See ch. 2 above and Saldarini, “The End of the Rabbinic Chain.”
Neusner, Pharisees, I, 19 suggests that Johanan was added by his own disciples.
Finkelstein, “The Maxim of the Anshe Keneset Ha-Gedolah.”
Goldin, “The End of Ecclesiastes.”
Bickerman, “The Maxim of Antigonus of Soko.”
Neusner, Pharisees, 3,282-286.
Fischel, “Story”, pp. 79 and 86.
Avi-Yonah, The Jews, p. 106. See the critique of Avi-Yonah’s characterization of the third century as a time of economic crisis by M.D. Goodman, in JJS.
