Re: [Megillot] The Rise of the Pharisees in Qumran texts

[RUSSELLGMIRKIN]

Greg,   Good to see someone who engages on details.  Here is the rabbinical data with a critical discussion.   m Abot 1.1-4 reads, "(1) Moses received the Torah from Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets handed it on to the men of the Great Assembly. (2) Simeon the Just was of the remnants of the Great Assembly. (3) Antigonus of Sokho received from Simeon the Just. (4) Yose b Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yose b Yohanan of Jerusalem received from them [sic]."   Critical notes.  Simeon the Just is identified (in several studies) with Simeon II (c. 200- c. 180 BCE), father of Onias III.  M. Hag. 2.2 and b. Shab. 14b omit (1)-(3) and there is an argument to be made that the chain of Pharisee tradition begins with (4).  Yose b Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yose b Yohanan of Jerusalem are uncontroversially dated to the 160s BCE, working back from the later sequence of "pairs" and based on the halachah of Yose b. Yo'ezer which reflects circumstances of that period.  The phrase "received from them" in (4) is problematic, since the preceding entry in (3) is a single individual Antigonus of Socho.  This has been explained in 3 ways.  (a) "Them" refers to both Simeon and Antigonus (doubtful).  (b) "Them" refers to an earlier pair that has dropped from the list (possible).  (c) Neusner's suggestion, "them" refers to the men of the Great Assembly, and (2)-(3) are interpolations (possible).   From the rabbinical data, we may take it as certain that the Pharisees emerged at least as early as the Maccabean War (terminus ad quem) and after the time of Simeon the Just (terminus a quo), here supplementing the shaky rabbinical tradition with the testimony of b. Sirach (c. 180 BCE), which completely lacks inner-Jewish polemics (except perhaps against the Enoch literature) or reference to sects and which prominently mentions Simeon the Just.  We may thus place the rise of the Pharisees in c. 180-165 BCE.  The mention of Antigonus of Socho as a Pharisee leader supports a date in the generation before (4).  Note that Talmudic tradition claimed the Sadducees were founded by two of his disciples, Sadoq and Boethus, further suggesting the schism with the Sadducees took place in his time.   There are several indications that the first generation of Pharisees were linked to the Hellenists.  A major indicator is the application of "smooth things" language to those Jews who collaborated with Antiochus IV in Dan. 11.  Another is the Greek name of Antigonus of Socho (the first such in rabbinical literature).  A third indicator is the Talmudic anecdote at Gen. R. 65:27 in which Yakim (thought by many, though not by Neusner, to be Alcimus) mocked his uncle Yose b. Yo'ezer of Seredah as the latter was being taken to be crucified.  Yose b. Yo'ezer was noted for his anti-Gentile halachah and it has been suggested that he was among the Hasidim envoys crucified by Bacchides and Alcimus reported in Maccabees.  This suggests a rift between Hellenizing Pharisees such as Alcimus and other Pharisees supporting the Maccabees such as Yose b. Yo'ezer.  The Pharisees who participated in the uprising likely repudiated the Hellenizing faction of Pharisees.  One such individual was certainly Menelaus, who was certainly a collaborator with Antiochus IV, and was included in the "smooth things" language of Daniel.  That Menelaus was succeeded by Alcimus, likely the nephew of the Pharisee leader Yose b. Yo'ezer, tends to support his being in the (repudiated Hellenist) Pharisee camp, and if Menelaus then his brother Simon the temple captain also, who was also famous as a collaborating traitor per Maccabees.  (This answers your question why these individuals are not claimed in Pharisee tradition.)   The purely historical case in favor of Simon the temple captain and Menelaus having been involved in the Pharisee schism is that (1) the time is what we would expect from rabbinical tradition + Sirach; (2) the "smooth things" language in Dan. 11 applicable foremost specifically to Menelaus; (3) their opposition to and eventual overthrow of the Oniad dynasty marks them as anti-Sadducees and presents a prima facie case for a schism with the Sadducee temple; (4) the alternative is that the Pharisee schism left no trace in historical sources, which seems highly implausible given the magnitude of this event.   These foundational arguments are based purely on rabbinical, historical, and biblical data.  Turning to the Qumran scrolls, I previously summarized references that associate the Man of Lies with the rise of the Seekers of Smooth Things.  The Qumran data regarding the Teacher of Righteousness, Man of Lies, and Wicked Priest systematically conform to what 2 Maccabees tells us about Onias III, Simon the temple captain, Menelaus, and the events involving these three individuals.  This convergent data leads to the interesting conclusion that the scrolls bear contemporary witness to the rise of the Pharisees during the Hellenistic Crisis.   Best regards, Russell Gmirkin Russell, I have been reading your scenario carefully and fail to follow you on two points: a) you cite the Onias III/Menalaus/Simon conflicts of I/II Macc. and say "this suggests" the Pharisees started in this context, first generation post-Simon II. However nothing in rabbinical tradition alludes to that dating directly. I am guessing your argument is that because a high priest (Simon II) is named, and then the other figures are not high priests, that that is when the Pharisees departed from the temple high priest as their leader? But then you seem to have the Pharisees favoring "Simon the temple captain" (and Menalaus?), who do control the temple? I don't follow your logic here. And even more importantly, b) you seem to imply that Menalaeus and Simon the temple captain were Pharisee leaders, the first Pharisee leaders when splitting from the Sadducees. But why then are Menalaeus and Simon the temple captain never mentioned favorably by the rabbis--when they are claiming names from this very time frame? Do you have a good explanation for this silence?