The Shared Table Archive
Second Temple Judaism

Pharisees and the Oral Law: What the Sources Claim

The Shared Table Archive · Updated 2026-10-10 · 7 min read
Pharisees and the Oral Law: What the Sources Claim
In briefIn first-century sources, the Pharisees kept ancestral traditions not written in the laws of Moses. Josephus says they handed down observances "by succession from their fathers," which the Sadducees refused to treat as binding, and the Gospels call them "the tradition of the elders." The term "oral Torah," and the claim that it came from Sinai alongside the written Torah, appears in later rabbinic literature such as the Babylonian Talmud. The ideas are related but not identical.
Contents

Did the Pharisees really have an "oral law"?

The first-century sources say the Pharisees kept ancestral traditions that were not written in the laws of Moses, and that the Sadducees refused to treat those traditions as binding. Josephus describes them that way, and the Gospels call them "the tradition of the elders." The phrase "oral Torah," with its claim that a second, unwritten Torah came from Sinai alongside the written one, belongs to later rabbinic literature. The two ideas are related, but they are not the same claim.

The popular summary, that the Pharisees "added to the Torah," compresses three bodies of evidence with different dates and purposes into one accusation. Read separately, they show a Jewish movement arguing about how a written law should be lived, and a later rabbinic tradition explaining why such interpretation carries authority. For the wider portrait of the movement, see Who Were the Pharisees?.

What does Josephus say about the Pharisees' traditions?

Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian who wrote in Greek after the war with Rome, gives the clearest statement. In Antiquities 13.10.6, in William Whiston's translation, he writes that "the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses." The Sadducees, he continues, "reject them" and say "that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word," but "are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our fore-fathers."

What the source actually says is narrower than what is usually claimed for it. "Not written in the laws of Moses" tells us where these observances are not found. Josephus does not say they were oral, secret, or revealed at Sinai. He frames the disagreement as a dispute over what is obligatory, and he ties it to social reach: the Sadducees "are able to persuade none but the rich," while "the Pharisees have the multitude on their side."

The same book shows these traditions as a matter of public policy. In Josephus's account of the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus, Hyrcanus is persuaded to "leave the party of the Pharisees, and abolish the decrees they had imposed on the people." Later, in Antiquities 13.16.2, Queen Alexandra "restored again those practices which the Pharisees had introduced, according to the traditions of their fore-fathers, which her father-in-law, Hyrcanus, had abrogated." These were practices a government could enforce or cancel.

Josephus returns to the theme elsewhere. In Antiquities 18.1.3 the Pharisees "pay a respect to such as are in years" and are not "so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced," while in 18.1.4 the Sadducees "do not regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them." In the Jewish War 2.8.14 the Pharisees are "esteemed most skilful in the exact explication of their laws." Together these passages pair careful interpretation of the written law with loyalty to inherited practice.

What does "the tradition of the elders" mean in the Gospels?

The phrase comes from a dispute over washing hands before meals. In Mark 7, the narrator adds an explanatory aside: "the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands," "thus observing the tradition of the elders." The Pharisees and scribes then ask, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders but eat with defiled hands?" The NRSVUE notes that the meaning of the Greek describing how hands were washed is uncertain. Matthew's parallel is shorter: "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?" (Matthew 15:2).

Jesus's reply in Mark sharpens the issue into authority: "You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition." His example is a vow. If someone declares that the support a parent might have received is "Corban" (that is, an offering), "then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother," which Mark presents as "nullifying the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on."

Three cautions keep this passage in proportion. First, Mark's own aside says "all the Jews" washed, so the Gospel does not present handwashing as a Pharisaic peculiarity. Second, the reply is itself an interpretation of Torah: it argues from the commandment to honour parents, so the conflict is between two readings, not between interpretation and none. Third, a Gospel is advocating for one side of the argument, so a historical reading treats it as evidence of a dispute rather than a neutral description of Pharisaic practice. The site's guide to reading the disputes in context works through that method in more detail.

Did Paul use the same language?

Paul, who describes himself in Philippians 3:5 as "as to the law, a Pharisee," writes in Galatians 1:14 that he was "far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors." Galatians does not link those traditions to Pharisaism by name, so the connection is a reasonable inference rather than a statement. It is still telling that a self-described Pharisee spoke of ancestral traditions without calling them oral or a second Torah.

Where does the phrase "oral Torah" come from?

From rabbinic literature, which took shape after the Temple's destruction in 70 CE. The Mishnah, commonly dated around 200 CE, opens its tractate Avot with a chain of transmission: "Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua," then to the Elders, the Prophets and the Men of the Great Assembly, who taught, among other things, to "make a safety fence around the Torah." The mishnah itself says "Torah," not "oral Torah"; later rabbinic tradition reads the chain as carrying the unwritten teaching along with the written text.

The explicit two-Torah formula appears in the Babylonian Talmud, compiled centuries later. In Shabbat 31a, a would-be convert asks Shammai how many Torahs there are and is told two, the Written and the Oral. He replies, "I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah." Hillel accepts him, teaches him the alphabet one day, reverses the letters the next, and concludes: "Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral [Torah] too." The story is set in Hillel and Shammai's generation but told by a much later work, so it shows how the rabbis framed the idea, not a transcript.

There is real continuity. Both phrases describe inherited interpretation treated as binding beside the written Torah, and both are rejected by people who insist on the written text alone. The site's article on what continued from the Pharisees to rabbinic Judaism traces that line.

There is also a real difference. The first-century sources describe ancestral customs and decrees. The rabbinic sources make a theological claim: a second Torah, given at Sinai, passed down through a named chain. Whether first-century Pharisees already held that Sinai claim is not settled by the passages above. Some older scholarship stated it plainly: Kaufmann Kohler's Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Pharisees says they "claimed prophetic or Mosaic authority for their interpretation." That may be right, but the first-century passages quoted here do not say it, so it belongs in the column marked inference.

Why did the Sadducees reject the principle?

On Josephus's account, the Sadducees held that only observances "in the written word" were obligatory, and they did "not regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them." Josephus reports this position from outside; he does not quote a Sadducean text explaining it. Their reasons can only be inferred.

One point is often missed. Rejecting the Pharisees' traditions is not the same as rejecting interpretation. Any group that applies a written law to daily life has to decide what its words cover, and Josephus says the Sadducees counted it a virtue to dispute with their teachers. Their disagreement with the Pharisees concerned whose inherited rulings bind, not whether the text needs reading. For how the groups compared on other questions, see Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.

Did the Pharisees "add" to the Torah?

The verb carries a verdict before the evidence is heard. As Josephus reports it, the Pharisees transmitted observances received "by succession from their fathers" and their opponents considered them non-binding; calling that "adding" means taking a side in the first-century argument. The Mishnah's image of a "fence around the Torah" suggests one way later rabbinic tradition understood such rulings: as safeguards built around the commandments, which is a different thing from claiming to rewrite them. That reading is this site's editorial judgement, not a statement the mishnah makes.

How can you check a claim about Pharisaic oral law?

Sources

FAQ

What is the "tradition of the elders" in Mark 7?

In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, "the tradition of the elders" is the inherited practice the Pharisees cite when they ask why Jesus's disciples eat without washing their hands. Mark's narrator says "the Pharisees, and all the Jews" washed before eating. The passage records a dispute about whether such tradition can stand beside the commandment, told from the side of a Gospel arguing for Jesus.

Does Josephus say the Pharisees' traditions were oral?

No. In Antiquities 13.10.6 Josephus says the Pharisees delivered observances "by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses," and that the Sadducees rejected them. That tells us where the observances were not found. He does not call them oral, secret or revealed at Sinai; that framing belongs to later rabbinic literature.

Where does the term "oral Torah" first appear?

The two-Torah idea is a rabbinic formulation. The Mishnah's tractate Avot, commonly dated around 200 CE, gives a chain of transmission from Moses at Sinai but says only "Torah." The Babylonian Talmud, compiled centuries later, states the formula outright in Shabbat 31a, where Shammai tells a would-be convert there are two Torahs, the Written and the Oral.

Why did the Sadducees reject the Pharisees' traditions?

Josephus reports that the Sadducees treated only observances "in the written word" as obligatory and did not regard anything besides what the law enjoins. He describes the position from outside and quotes no Sadducean text explaining it, so their reasons must be inferred. Rejecting Pharisaic tradition was not the same as rejecting interpretation of the written law.