The censure which Jewish scholars have unanimously passed onDie Re-
ligion des Judentumsis that the author uses as his primary sources al-
most exclusively the writings commonly called Apocrypha and Pseud-
epigrapha, with an especial penchant for the apocalypses; and only
secondarily, and almost casually the writings which represent the ac-
knowledged and authoritative teachings of the school and the more
popular instruction of the synagogue. This is much as if one should de-
scribe early Christianity using indiscriminately for his principal sources
the Apocryphal Gospels and Acts, the Apocalypses of John and Peter,
and the Clementine literature. (Moore 1921: 243)While acknowledging the problem of the date of the rabbinic material,
Moore insisted: “it is clear that the author ought not to have called his
bookDie Religion des Judentums,for the sources from which his represen-
tation is drawn are those to which, so far as we know, Judaism never con-
ceded any authority, while he discredits and largely ignores those which it
has always regarded as normative” (244).
But as F. C. Porter pointed out in his review of Moore’s own master-
work (Moore 1927-1930), “When Moore speaks of the sources which Juda-
ism has always regarded as authentic, he means ‘always’ from the third
centurya.d.onward....Wastherethennoother type of Judaism in the
time of Christ that may claim such names as ‘normative,’ ‘normal,’ ‘ortho-
dox’?” (Porter 1928; cf. Neusner 1981: 9). More fundamentally, one might
question whether notions of normativity are appropriate to a discussion
of the history of a religion at all. As Jacob Neusner, with all due apprecia-
tion for Moore’s goodwill, pointed out: “Moore’s is to begin with not
really a work in the history of religions at all....Hisresearch is into the-
ology. It is organized in theological categories, not differentiated by his-
torical periods at all” (Neusner 1981: 7). Neusner was no less critical of
Jewish scholarship at the beginning of the twentieth century. The attempt
to draw a direct line from the Hebrew Bible to a “normative” Judaism de-
fined by the rabbis was an anachronism, motivated by apologetics
(Neusner 1984: 101; Wiese 2005: 213).
The mantle of Moore was taken up half a century later by E. P. San-
ders, with some qualifications. Sanders recognizes that the tannaitic liter-
ature (i.e., literature traditionally ascribed to the period between 70 and
200 c.e.) cannot be assumed to provide “an accurate picture of Judaism
or even of Pharisaism in the time of Jesus and Paul, although it would be
surprising if there were no connection” (Sanders 1977: 60). He also recog-6john j. collinsEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:03:47 PM