Hillel prevailed not because of his exegesis but his citation of rabbinic opinion

[Eoghan]

There is in some quarters a view that the NT adopts a Pharisaic outlook on exegesis. Similarities there may be in vocabulary but Jesus amazed those at the Temple because He taught as one with authority (i.e. in His own name - or perhaps better from scripture rather than tradition.)

I was intrigued in Noel Weeks book - "The Sufficiency of Scripture" p187 that when Hillel came closest to exposition his view ultimately prevailed because he could cite the rabbis who agreed with him.

Anyone know of the incidence that this alludes to? (The footnote suggests Neusner Vol 1 pp 246 ff - means nothing to me, even assuming I had access to a decent library.)

I just think it neatly sums up the rabbinic looking to tradition and rabbinic authority of NT Pharisees. It also indicates the bridge Saul had to cross in accepting Christian hermeneutic of scripture as the ultimate authority and not rabbinic tradition.

 

[Peairtach]

Well the Talmud is slightly bigger than the Tanakh:

View attachment 2269

At this time the oral law hadn't been codified and written down in this way, but why should they consult what God had said in the Tanakh, when they had such a volume of "divinely authoritative" man made additions?

 

[Eoghan]

I found this page interesting in discussing the Pharisaic community What you never knew about the Pharisees (can't speak for the rest of the website). We should be wary of reading back into the Pharisees of the NT the opinions of rabbinic Judaism after 70AD as Noel Weeks points out.