Editing Jacob Neusner (section)

== Critical assessment of Neusner's work ==
Neusner's original adoption of [[form criticism]] to the rabbinic texts proved highly influential both in North American and European studies of early Jewish and Christian texts. His later detailed studies of Mishnaic law lack the densely footnoted historical approach characteristic of his earlier work. As a result, these works, focusing on literary form, tend to ignore contemporary external sources and modern scholarship dealing with these issues. The irony was that his approach adopted the analytic methodology developed by Christian scholars for the [[New Testament]], while denying there was any relationship between the Judeo-Christian corpus and rabbinic works, the latter being treated as isolates detached from their broader historical contexts.<ref>Peter J. Tomson,  [https://books.google.com/books?id=z1mHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA501&lpg=PA501 ''Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries,'']  [[Mohr Siebeck]], 2019   {{isbn|978-3-161-54619-8}} pp.504-505.</ref>

A number of scholars in his field of study were critical of this phase in his work.<ref name="Cohen">Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Jacob Neusner, Mishnah and Counter-Rabbinics," Conservative Judaism, Vol.37(1) Fall 1983 p. 48-63</ref><ref name="Evans">Craig A. Evans, "Mishna and Messiah 'In Context'," Journal of Biblical Literature, (JBL), 112/2 1993, p. 267-289</ref><ref name="Lieberman's Review" /><ref name="Maccoby">Hyam Maccoby, "Jacob Neusner's Mishnah," Midstream, 30/5 May 1984 p. 24-32</ref><ref name="Maccoby2">Hyam Maccoby, "Neusner and the Red Cow," Journal for the Study of Judaism (JSJ), 21 1990, p. 60-75.</ref><ref name="Poirier">John C. Poirier, "Jacob Neusner, the Mishnah and Ventriloquism," The Jewish Quarterly Review, LXXXVII Nos.1-2, July–October 1996, p. 61-78</ref><ref name="Sanders">*E.P.Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. Philadelphia, 1990.</ref><ref name="Zeitlin">Solomon Zeitlin, "A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai. A Specimen of Modern Jewish Scholarship," Jewish Quarterly Review, 62, 1972, p. 145-155.</ref><ref name="Zeitlin2">Solomon Zeitlin, "Spurious Interpretations of Rabbinic Sources in the Studies of the Pharisees and Pharisaim," Jewish Quarterly Review, 62, 1974, p. 122-135.</ref><ref name="Zeusse">Evan M. Zuesse, "The Rabbinic Treatment of 'Others' (Criminals, Gentiles) according to Jacob Neusner," Review of Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. VII, 2004, p. 191-229</ref><ref name="Zeusse2">Evan M. Zuesse, "Phenomenology of Judaism," in: Encyclopaedia of Judaism, ed. J. Neusner, A. Avery-Peck, and W.S. Green, 2nd Edition Leiden: Brill, 2005 Vol.III, p. 1968-1986. (Offers an alternative to Neusner's theory of "Judaisms.")</ref>

Some were critical of his methodology, and asserted that many of his arguments were circular or attempts to prove "negative assumptions" from a lack of evidence,<ref name="Cohen"/><ref name="Evans"/><ref name="Maccoby"/><ref name="Poirier"/><ref name="Sanders"/> while others concentrated on Neusner's reading and interpretations of Rabbinic texts, finding that his account was forced and inaccurate.<ref name="Maccoby2"/><ref name="Zeusse"/><ref name="Zeusse2"/>

Neusner's view that the [[Second Temple period|Second Commonwealth Pharisees]] were a sectarian group centered on "table fellowship" and ritual food purity practices, and lacked interest in wider Jewish moral values or social issues, has been criticized by [[E. P. Sanders]],<ref name="Sanders"/>  [[Solomon Zeitlin]]<ref name="Zeitlin"/> and [[Hyam Maccoby]].<ref name="Maccoby"/>

Some scholars questioned Neusner's grasp of Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Meacham |first=Tirẓah |date=1986 |editor-last=Neusner |editor-first=Jacob |title=Neusner's "Talmud of the Land of Israel" |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1454451 |journal=The Jewish Quarterly Review |volume=77 |issue=1 |pages=74–81 |doi=10.2307/1454451 |jstor=1454451 |issn=0021-6682}}</ref> The most famous and biting criticism came from one of Neusner's former teachers, [[Saul Lieberman]], about Neusner's translation of the [[Jerusalem Talmud]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Smith |first=Dinitia |date=2005-04-13 |title=Scholar of Judaism, Professional Provocateur |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/books/scholar-of-judaism-professional-provocateur.html |access-date=2023-11-09 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> Lieberman wrote, in an article circulated before his death and then published posthumously: "...one begins to doubt the credibility of the translator [Neusner].  And indeed after a superficial perusal of the translation, the reader is stunned by the translator's ignorance of rabbinic Hebrew, of Aramaic grammar, and above all of the subject matter with which he deals."<ref>Saul Lieberman, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/602175 A Tragedy or a Comedy?]" ''Journal of the American Oriental Society'', Vol.104(2) April/June 1984, p. 315.</ref> Ending his review, Lieberman states "I conclude with a clear conscience: The right place for [Neusner's] English translation is the waste basket" while at the same time qualifying that "[i]n fairness to the translator I must add that his various essays on Jewish topics are meritorious. They abound in brilliant insights and intelligent questions." Lieberman highlights his criticism as being of Neusner's "ignorance of the original languages," which Lieberman claims even Neusner was originally "well aware of" inasmuch as he had previously relied on responsible English renderings of rabbinic sources, e.g., [[Soncino Press]], before later choosing to create his own renderings of rabbinic texts.<ref>Saul Lieberman, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/602175 A Tragedy or a Comedy?]" ''Journal of the American Oriental Society'', Vol.104(2) April/June 1984, p. 319.</ref> Lieberman's views were seconded by [[Morton Smith]], another teacher who resented Neusner's criticism of his views that Jesus was a homosexual magician.<ref>Aaron W. Hughes, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Fr2SDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA192 ''Jacob Neusner:An American Jewish Iconoclast,''] [[New York University Press]] {{isbn|978-1-479-88585-5}} 2016 pp.61-62,193-196</ref>

Neusner thought Lieberman's approach reflected the closed mentality of a yeshiva-based education that lacked familiarity with modern formal textual-critical techniques, and he eventually got round to replying to Lieberman's charges by writing in turn an equally scathing monograph entitled: ''Why There Never Was a Talmud of Caesarea: Saul Lieberman’s Mistakes'' (1994). In it he attributed to Lieberman 'obvious errors of method, blunders in logic' and argued that Lieberman's work showed a systematic inability to accomplish critical research.<ref>Hughes, ibid pp.192-193</ref>