Jacob Neusner - Critical Assessment of Neusner's Work

Critical Assessment of Neusner's Work

Although he is highly influential, Neusner has been criticized by scholars in his field of study. This summarizes the published studies that are critical of Neusner's work. Some scholars are critical of Neusner's methodology, and assert that many of his arguments are circular or attempt to prove "negative assumptions" from a lack of evidence (e.g., Cohen, Evans, Maccoby, Poirier, Sanders). Others are critical of Neusner's reading and interpretations of Rabbinic texts, finding that his account is forced and inaccurate (e.g., Cohen, Evans, Maccoby, Poirier and in detail, Zuesse).

One methodological and historical critique of Neusner is by E. P. Sanders. In his earliest work, Neusner had argued that the most credible evidence showed that the Second Commonwealth Pharisees were a sectarian group centered on "table fellowship" and ritual food purity practices, and less interested in wider Jewish values or social issues. Zeitlin and Maccoby challenged this account. Sanders proposed that many of Neusner's interpretations of Pharisaic discussions and rulings were questionable (e.g., Neusner concludes that 67% of the debates between Pharisaic "houses" dealt with ritual food purity; Sanders concludes that less than 1% do—see Sanders, p. 177).

Some scholars have questioned Neusner's grasp of Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic. Probably the most famous and biting criticism came from Saul Lieberman.