(published in Jerusalem Perspective, 2007 )
Summary
When Jesus is asked to justify allowing his disciples to pluck and eat corn on a Sabbath, he appears to reply with an irrelevant story. If we assume that the Pharisees are complaining about the disciples performing labour on a Sabbath, it is irrelevant to answer them with the story about David feeding his men on the Bread of the Presence, because this story does not relate to performing any labour. Another problem lies in the fact that there are no rabbinic traditions which forbid performing the labour of preparing a handful of food on a Sabbath, and there are specific rulings which permit this amount of labour (though no more). These difficulties are eased in Matthew and Mark who append other comments by Jesus which appear to be more relevant, but this still leaves the problem that Jesus’ first reply appears to ignore the issue at hand.
A comparison of some old traditions within rabbinic legal collections indicates that the real issue was not Sabbath labour, but eating untithed food. Tithing could not be performed on a Sabbath, so freshly harvested food still contained the Heave Offering which only priests were allowed to eat. If this is the case, the story of David allowing his men to eat food only permitted to priests, would be an appropriate and irrefutable reply.
Rabbinic laws in the early first century
It is extremely difficult to isolate the rabbinic traditions which date back to the early first century. Although rabbinic literature contains many traditions which are stated in the names of rabbis from this time period, scholars have been understandably wary of simply accepting that these are accurate. Later rabbis may have tried to give traditions a false antiquity by ascribing them to famous people in the past, and genuine traditions may have been passed down in an unreliable and inaccurate way.
Such concerns are still insurmountable problems for much of early Jewish literature, especially the Targums (i.e. Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament) and aggadic literature (i.e. commentaries and collections used for sermon material) . But the situation is more hopeful for halakhic literature (i.e. collections summarising courthouse rulings and debates) thanks to the voluminous and detailed work of several scholars, notably Jacob Neusner. They have analysed the legal traditions in relation to each other, and thereby built up a chronological picture of the development of each branch of case law. By this means we can now see which laws depend on the previous existence of which other laws. This indicates which traditions are earlier or later relative to each other. When these results are compared with the dates of specific individuals to whom rulings have been attributed, we find a good correlation. This suggests that the attributions, which scholars had been rightly sceptical about, are likely to be largely accurate – though this conclusion can only be applied to the legal traditions in halakhic material. I am currently in the process of applying this kind of analysis to the huge corpus of surviving rabbinic halakhic traditions, in order to produce a corpus of rabbinic traditions which originated before 70 ce, published as Traditions of the Rabbis in the Era of the New Testament (TRENT) (Eerdmans 2004-).[1]
The traditions which we need to consult in order to understand this debate between Jesus and the Pharisees are halakhic, so there is a better chance that they are datable. The detailed discussions justifying dating of each individual tradition presented in this paper will appear in the relevant sections of TRENT volumes 2A & 2B, though they are outlined here. Most of the traditions referred to in this article are anonymous or originate in a ‘School’ debate. The anonymous traditions can sometimes be dated by comparison with other debates which are dependant on them and are therefore later, or by internal developments within the traditions themselves. The ‘School’ debates between Hillelites and Shammaites can mostly be dated before 70 ce because the Shammaites virtually disappeared after 70 ce. However, these traditions continued to be developed, so it is always important to pare back the tradition to its original core. This is made possible by the fact that they were preserved in a restricted set of forms which is usually preserved intact within the traditions.
Laws about food preparation on the Sabbath
During the early first century there was a huge development of halakhah in subjects concerning the Sabbath. In Torah ‘labour’ was prohibited on the Sabbath (Exod.20.10f; Deut.5.14), but there was no definition of ‘labour’ except by examples: gathering and cooking food (Exod.16.23-29; Num.15.32), lighting fires (Exod.35.3), and “going out of your place” (Exod.16.29). Nehemiah later reinforced the Sabbath laws by prohibiting buying and selling (Neh.10.31).
These examples were extended in rabbinic traditions to a list of 39 categories of labour (m.Shab.7.2). This list is probably very old because it does not include some categories of prohibited Sabbath labour which became very important during the early first century, such as carrying, lifting, tying, lighting the Sabbath lamp, cultic acts, healing and tithing. The number 39 was probably perceived to be significant because it was the number of times someone was flogged (m.Makk.3.10; already established in NT times, cf. 2Cor.11.24). Flogging was the default punishment for breaking the law when Scripture was silent on the form of punishment, and perhaps also as a replacement for the punishment of extirpation. Therefore it was probably used for punishing any Sabbath breaking for which a sin-offering was not suitable – i.e. deliberate Sabbath breaking (m.Makk.3.15). This made the number 39 an ideal basis for a memorable list of ways in which the Sabbath law could be broken. This connection might explain why the list did not grow beyond a total of 39 categories even when new categories of labour had been identified.
The list of 39 starts with activities involved with making bread. They are organised as a chronological list starting with growing the seed and ending with making the bread: “sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, cleansing, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking”. When the disciples helped themselves to corn, it was clear that they were carrying out some of these activities. All three Gospels say that the disciples “plucked” the corn (τίλλω, Mt.12.1// Mk.2.23// Lk.6.1) which would have been regarded as contravening the third category of labour in the 39, i.e. “reaping”. Matthew and Mark state merely that they then ate the corn, though Luke adds the obvious implication that they also “rubbed them in their hands” (Lk.6.1), which contravened the fifth and sixth categories of labour – “threshing” and “cleansing” (i.e. the separation of non-edible portions – cf. m.Betz.1.8).
The disciples were therefore clearly performing activities which were classified as ‘labour’, but were they performing enough ‘labour’ to contravene the Sabbath law? The early rabbis defined the amount of food which contravened the Sabbath labour law as the amount in a beggar’s bowl (m.Shab.1.1), or a mouthful (m.Shab.7.4–8.7, 9.5-7) or the volume of a dried fig in a basket (m.Shab.9.7). However, none of the rulings which define these amounts can be dated to before 70 ce, except possibly the first, and they all relate to how much could be carried rather than how much could be prepared for eating.
With regard to the labour involved in preparing food we have some very clear guidelines which almost certainly date back to the first century, because they originate in disputes between Schools of Hillelites and Shammaites. The demise of the Shammaites during the destruction of the Temple means that we can be relatively sure that any disputes between these Schools originated before that disaster. However, the rabbinic community continued to debate these disputes, so we have to be careful to trace the internal history of the traditions which have survived.
The clearest set of rulings does not actually refer to these Schools, but appears to be based on a School dispute:
He who rubs ears [of corn] on the Eve of a Sabbath [coinciding with a High Festival Day]:
He may blow [on them] from hand to hand, and eat [it immediately],
though not [put them] in a basket or bowl.
He who rubs ears [of corn] on the Eve of a High Festival Day:
He may blow [on them and put them] in a basket or bowl,
though not on a board or a with sifter or a with sieve,
like the [normal] way one does on an ordinary [day].
He who rubs [ears of corn] after nightfall [i.e. the beginning] of Sabbath:
He may blow them from hand to hand and eat [it immediately],
though not [put them] in a basket or bowl.
(Tosephta Betzah 1.20 [1.13b in some eds])
The last of these rulings indicates that one may prepare a handful of corn without breaking the Sabbath law prohibiting labour. This means that the disciples would have been permitted to prepare and eat corn as described in the Gospels. So why did the Pharisees complain about this? The solution might be found in the fact that different groups of Pharisees before 70 ce had different opinions on this matter, so we need to look at the differences between the Hillelites and the Shammaites and possibly other Schools.
Among the surviving disputes between Hillelites and Shammaites are a pair concerning the preparation of a handful of food on a Sabbath. The record of these disputes includes language and subject matter that is very similar to this anonymous tradition at t.Betzah 1.20.[2] It is therefore possible that t.Betzah 1.20 was developed from these two earlier disputes, perhaps together with a related dispute which is now lost. The first of these related School disputes concerns whether a store of harvested pulses can be cleansed (i.e. by removing pods and other inedible portions from it), on a High Festival day (a Yom Tov – called miqreé qodesh ‘holy convocations’ in Torah). On High Festival Days all labour is forbidden, as it is on a Sabbath, with the exception of labour needed to prepare food for the day (Ex.12.16; cf. m.Betz.5.2).
He who cleanses pulses on a High Festival Day:
The School of Shammai say: He may cleanse the food and eat [it immediately].
And the School of Hillel say: He may cleanse [it] in the [normal] way
in his lap in a basket or bowl, though not on a board or a with sifter or a with sieve.
(Mishnah Betzah 1.8)
This ruling indicates that the Shammaites were willing to allow this work to be done, but only if it was for eating immediately and not for cooking or storing – i.e. a snack rather than a meal.[3] The Hillelites allowed the work to be done on enough produce for the whole household to eat as a meal that day, but they did not allow you to use tools which could process a large quantity, because this implied preparation for eating on subsequent days also. The Hillelites were therefore following the normal rule that you could do any labour needed for preparing meals which would be eaten on that High Festival Day. The Shammaites on the other hand said that you should only do work on a High Festival Day which could not be done in advance – and cleansing pods could clearly be done in advance unless it was for an unexpected meal like a snack.
The second related School dispute concerns sorting Arum roots which had already been harvested and had been stored in a hole in the ground (as was customary – cf. m.Shebi.5.2).:
A hole [in the ground for storing] Arum [roots],
[from which] he selects the largest and leaves the smallest:
[If he keeps them] within his hand, he is exempt [from tithing].
[If he puts them] on the ground or in a receptacle, he is obligated [to tithe].
R. Simeon b. Eleazar said:
The School of Shammai and the School of Hillel were not divided
concerning the selection [of Arum] on the ground,
that he who [did this was] exempt [from tithing],
or concerning selection [of Arum] in a receptacle,
that he who [did this was] liable [for tithing].
Concerning what were they divided?
Concerning the selection in the hand,
for which the School of Shammai obligate [tithing]
and the School of Hillel exempt [tithing].
(Tosephta Maaserot 3.10 [3.11 in some eds])
Here the actual School dispute has been lost, but the Simeon b. Eleazar (late 2nd C) referred to it in a way that enables us to infer its original wording. The original School dispute was presumably something like:
He who selects the largest Aram roots from [storage in] a hole:
The School of Shammai say: He may select in his hand and not eat [it]
The School of Hillel say: He may select in his hand and eat [it immediately].
[He may select it] in the [normal] way on the ground, but not [select it] in a utensil.
Whereas in the previous tradition about pulses, the Hillelites allowed a whole bowl of pulses to be processed, in the tradition about Arum they only allowed a handful (i.e. a snack) to be processed. And whereas the Shammaites allowed a snack of pulses to be eaten, they did not allow any Arum to be eaten. These differences are not explained, but the reason for them presumably lies in one of the differences between the two situations. The differences are that the pulses were fully harvested and were being cleansed on a High Festival Day, while the Arum was partially harvested and were being sorted on a Sabbath. There are therefore three differences: fully harvested or partially harvested; cleansed or sorted; and on a High Festival day or on a Sabbath.
We might expect that the most significant of these differences is the last one, because regulations were generally more strict on a Sabbath. This principle is the basis of m.Betz.5.2: “All these [acts which are liable] on a High Festival Day, it is needless to say [they are also liable] on the Sabbath.”.[4] Based on this, we might conclude that whereas Hillelites would allow Jesus’ disciples to process and eat a handful of corn on a Sabbath, the Shammaites would allow them to process it, but not to eat any. This implies that the Pharisees were complaining not about the plucking, but about the eating of the plucked corn. If so, this would explain why Matthew felt the need to add the rather obvious phrase “and to eat” (Mt.12.1). It also helps to explain why Jesus responded with a story about David allowing his men to eat what was forbidden. However, the fact that things are stricter on a Sabbath does not explain why the Shammaites allowed the preparation of food but did not allow it to be eaten.
There is a possible link between the Sabbath and the Showbread, because there was a Jewish tradition that this was eaten by the priests on the Sabbath.[5] However, there is nothing in the story of David to indicate that his men arrived just as the new Bread of the Presence became available, or anything else to indicate that this occurred on a Sabbath. The emphasis of the story was that they ate something which only the priests were allowed to eat. It is therefore strange that Jesus would try to convince the Pharisees to allow snacks of corn on a Sabbath by referring to this story.
In order to understand the reasoning behind the Shammaite ruling, and the reason for Jesus’ reply, we to understand the rabbinic laws on tithing, and on food which was permitted for only priests to eat.
Laws about food tithing on the Sabbath
The tithing laws of the Torah are multifarious and complex, and rabbinic regulations are even more detailed because they deal with many situations not specified in Torah. The main tithes in Torah and rabbinic Judaism were:
1) The Heave Offering (terumah, literally ‘elevation’) – a nominal amount (usually assumed to be 1/50th) that belonged to the priests.
2) The First Tithe (maaser rishon) – a tenth that belonged to the Levites, though in rabbinic Judaism this was given to the priests.
3) The Second Title (maaser sheni) – a second tenth that had to be spent on festivals in Jerusalem or given to the poor every third year
During Temple times, the Heave Offering was removed as soon as food was harvested and put in a container (m.Pea.1.6) but the First and Second tithes were frequently not removed till just before food was cooked or eaten. There were a few conscientious vendors who could be trusted to tithe the food before they sold it (m.Dem.2.2), but pious Jews treated all food they bought as ‘doubtfully tithed food’ (demai). Their doubts concerned only whether or not the First and Second tithe had been removed, because even the strictest rabbis never expressed any doubt that the Heave Offering had been removed.
It could be confidently assumed that every Israelite performed this Heave Offering tithing, and even Samaritans were trusted to do this (cf. m.Ter.3.9). The Heave Offering tithe was universally observed because everyone realised how serious this was. The penalty for eating food which contained First or Second Tithe was to pay back the tithe plus one fifth, but the penalty for eating food which contained Heave Offering was death, which was assumed to be enacted by God (m.Bik.2.1; m.Hal.3.1).[6]
The only time when tithing was not considered essential was when eating a ‘snack’ (aray), which was normally defined as a handful of food. Although all pious Jews removed the First and Second tithe before eating food that they had grown themselves, and many of them also tithed food that they had bought (just in case it had not been tithed), even assiduous tithers were relaxed about eating a snack even from food which was known to be untithed.[7] This was probably based on the law that an ox may eat from the grain which it treads out (Deut.25.4), which implied that other workers could also eat a snack from food before it was due for tithing (cf. m.Maas.2.7; 3.2).
The concept of snacks was only important on Sabbaths and High Festival Days because on any other day you could easily tithe food for yourself just before you ate it, but discarding some of the food and saying a prayer of tithing (m.Dem.5.1-2; 7.1). Although Heave Offerings and First Tithes should be given to a priest, small quantities could simply be thrown aside or destroyed to make sure no-one accidentally ate it (cf. m.Hal.4.8). But on a Sabbath or a High Festival Day this was impossible because tithing was considered to be labour, and therefore prohibited (m.Betz.5.2).
There is a difference between the Hillelites and Shammaites rules on snacks which is not spelled out, but which is implicit in their various rulings. The Hillelites applied the concept of snacks to food from which Heave Offering had not yet been removed, but the Shammaites considered that even snacks were not exempt from the Heave Offering tithe.[8] Therefore the Shammaites allowed snacking from newly harvested food which was already in a container (such as the pulses) because the Heave Offering would have been removed as soon as it was put into the container, but they do not allow snacking from newly harvested food which had not yet been put into a container (such as the Arum roots or plucked corn). The Hillelites, on the other hand, allowed snacks from any of these foods but on a Sabbath or High Festival Day they would not allow anyone to put these foods into container for the first time, because this would mean they would have to tithe its Heave Offering.
This explains why the Shammaites did not allow any snacks in the tradition about Arum roots on a Sabbath (t.Maas.3.10, above). These roots were partially harvested – they had been dug up then buried together in the ground to keep them fresh – so no Heave Offering had been offered because this did not fall due till they were collected and measured. The Shammaites did not allow even the smallest amount of the Arum roots to be eaten on the Sabbath – not because they disallowed the work of sorting a snack, but because they disallowed the eating of food which contained some Heave Offering which was due. The Hillelites allowed a snack from the Arum roots, though only so long as the roots were not collected into a container, because as soon as this happened they became liable for tithing.
The dispute with Jesus
We can now see more clearly what was behind the Pharisees’ dispute with Jesus concerning plucking corn on a Sabbath. The Pharisees who complained were presumably Shammaites, because Hillelites allowed the plucking, preparation and eating of a handful of corn. The Shammaites allowed a handful of corn to be plucked and prepared but this could not be eaten because the food contained a tiny amount of Heave Offering, and no tithing was allowed on a Sabbath. If the disciples ate the corn, they would also eat some Heave Offering which was only allowed to be eaten by priests.
Jesus replied by adducing the example of David when he allowed his men to eat the Bread of the Presence which was also only allowed to priests. The fact that this bread was traditionally eaten on the Sabbath made this story poignant, but the most important fact was that the Bread of the Presence was forbidden to non-priests (Lev.24.9), just like Heave Offerings. This is the fact which Jesus emphasised in his reply (“which it was not lawful for any but the priests to eat”, Mt.12.4// Mk.2.26// Mk.6.4).
All three gospels point out that the disciples were "plucking" the corn. This was important because it showed that this was newly harvested food, and not food which they had plucked and placed in a container on a previous day. If this had been the case, they would have tithed the Heave Offering at the time, so it would have been permitted as a snack on the Sabbath, even by the Shammaites.
Luke adds that the disciples also rubbed the grain which was equivalent to threshing it, and they presumably blew on it, which was equivalent to winnowing. All Jews at the time, so far as we know, permitted the labour of preparing a handful of food for immediate consumption (i.e. a snack), even on a Sabbath. They specifically allowed rubbing and blowing on a handful of corn on a Sabbath (t.Betz.1.20). However, Luke and Matthew specifically add that the disciples then ate the corn, which was not permitted by Shammaite Pharisees.
Luke and Matthew add other details which are not found in Mark. Luke is careful to point out that only “some” (τινὲς) of the Pharisees complained that this was not lawful (Lk.6.2). Matthew also appears to be aware that non-Shammaite Pharisees were not concerned about eating a snack, so he adds details which addressed other Pharisees. He addresses the general topic of doing work on the Sabbath by pointing out that priests work in the Temple (Mt.12.5), so that some things are more important than the Sabbath prohibition of labour.
All three gospels contain Jesus' emphasis that David broke the law of the Bread of the Presence, and Matthew points out that he did it for a reason – they were hungry (Mt.12.1). It was a well-known principle that even Sabbath laws could be broken if a life was in danger (it is assumed in early traditions in t.Shab.15.16; m.Shab.16.7; 18.3–19.1). One of the Scriptures later used to justify this was Lev.18.5, "he shall live by them" (i.e. the commandments), which was interpreted to mean that saving life was more important than keeping commandments.[9] In m.Yom.8.6 one is allowed to break the Sabbath law in the case of life-threatening hunger, but no-one would regard normal hunger as sufficient reason to override the Law. And yet, as Jesus pointed out, this is precisely what David did.
This example of David’s behaviour therefore allows Jesus to come to his startling conclusion: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mk.2.27).[10] This implies presuppositions which are opposite to those behind rabbinic reasoning. They reasoned that Sabbath laws could be broken if life was in danger, on the assumption that the Law is more important than anything except the preservation of life itself. Jesus points out that David assumed that the Law was given to help humans, and if it was more helpful to ignore it, then it was correct to do so. Therefore, instead of the purpose of man being to fulfil the commandments (the philosophy of the Pharisees), Jesus says that the purpose of the commandments are to help man. This conclusion is perfectly embodied in the phrase: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath".
In later generations, some rabbis would partially agree with this teaching. A similar saying is attributed to Simeon b. Menasia (end of 2nd C): “The Sabbath is handed over to you, and you are not handed over to the Sabbath” (Mekh.81, Shab.1), though he might have meant that: “the Sabbath is a precious gift, so we should not begrudge the difficulties in keeping it”. In Matthew the justification for work in general on a Sabbath is proved from the verse: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Mt.12.7 citing Hos.6.6), which was later used by Johanan b. Zakkai for a related purpose. When the ruined Temple was pointed out to him by a disparing rabbi, Johanan said: ““My son, be not grieved; we have another atonement as effective as this. And what is it? It is acts of loving-kindness, as it is said, For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice (Hos.6.6).” (ARN.A.4) But the overwhelming philosophy of the rabbis was that man was created to fulfil the law, and that this was his chief delight. During the first half of the first century, the Sabbath laws in particular were greatly expanded and carefully defined. A detailed ‘fence’ of extra rulings were added to ensure that no-one would accidentally break an actual law of the Sabbath, nor even appear to be doing so.[11]
Conclusions:
The debate between Jesus and the Pharisees about plucking and eating corn did not concern labour on the Sabbath but concerned eating food which was allowed only to priests. This specific matter was at the dispute was a difference between Hillelite and Shammaite teaching which forms the background of a handful of first century debates. Hillelites allowed the consumption of newly plucked food as a snack but Shammaites did not, because it contained a tiny portion of Heave Offering which could not be tithed on a Sabbath.
It is not surprising that they would want to know where Jesus stood on this matter. The Pharisees who criticised Jesus’ disciples were presumably Shammaites, though Jesus’ response would have offended all Pharisees, including the Hillelites who at first might have thought Jesus agreed with their opinion. The internal Pharisee disputes which have been recorded are all concerned with how humans can fulfil the Law. But Jesus said that instead of creating humans to obey the Law, God created the Law to aid humans.
The response of Jesus was therefore exactly in line with the reasoning of the Pharisees when they criticised his disciples' actions. Jesus answered not only their specific objection but also their underlying presuppositions, leaving them little room for reply.
[1] See details at www.T-R-E-N-T.com
[2] A third School tradition which might appear to be relevant is m.Maas.4.2, but the context indicates that this concerns tithing for snacks performed after the Sabbath on food intended for the Sabbath.
[3] The concept of allowing incidental snacks without tithing was already regarded as an established ruling by the schools before 70 CE (m.Maas.4.2 // t.Maas.3.2) and by Johanan b. Zakkai and Eliezer b. Hyrcanus just after 70 CE (Yohanan b. Zakkai in t.Maas.2.1 and Eliezer b. Hyrcanus in m.Maas.2.4 // t.Maas.2.2; m.Maas.4.3).
[4] The tradition at m.Betz.5.2 is difficult to date, but this principle is presupposed through the whole tractate, including the School disputes, so it must date back at least to the early first century.
[5] In Lev.24.8 & 1Chr.9.32 the Bread of the Presence was to be changed every Sabbath, which is taken by Mishnah to imply that the previous week’s bread was divided and presumably eaten on a Sabbath – see.m.Men.11.7 cf. m.Suk.5.7f.
[6] The actual penalty was extirpation, which originally meant that you were “cut off from Israel”, which by rabbinic times was understood to mean that God would visit you with an early death - cf. y.Bik.2.1; b.MK.28a. W. Horbury finds this concept in various early sources (Sib.Or.3.259-61; Heb.2.2 with Heb.3.16f, 12.25; Heb.10.28; Philo Spec.2.253=46) – see “Extirpation and Excommunication”, Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985): 13-38, esp. p. 32.
[7] See m.Maas.1.5; 2.4; and some later traditions at m.Ter.9.7; m.Maas.1.7; m.Hal.3.1.
[8] This Shammaite opinion is related to the opinion of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (m.Maas.2.4), which may explain why the Jerusalem Talmud of this tractate considered Eliezer to be a Shammaite – cf. y.Betz.1.4.
[9] See b.Sanh.74a; y.Sanh.3.6, 21b; y.Shebi.4.2, 35a; t.Shab.15.17. There were three traditional exceptions: idolatry, incest and murder, and according to b.AZ.27b this was the text relied on by R. Ishmael when he said it was better that someone should die than to be healed in the name of Jesus (an example of idolatry).
[10] This saying is found only in Mark, but it is more likely that later it was removed by Matthew and Luke than that it was added by Mark. Luke and Matthew had a good reason to remove it because it implied that the following saying (“the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath”) is non-dominical – i.e. ‘son of man’ in that saying parallels “man” in the preceding saying, so that it means ‘an ordinary man’ as it does normally in Biblical Hebrew and in first century Aramaic. A good summary of this usage is presented by Maurice Casey in Aramaic sources of Mark's gospel, Society for New Testament studies monograph series; 102 (Cambridge: CUP, 1998): 111-121. The ‘dominical’ use (i.e. “Son of Man” as a title for Jesus) became the normal understanding of this phrase in the church, including in this saying.
[11] See for example m.Shab.6.1-4. The traditions from before 70 ce are listed and analysed in my Traditions of the Rabbis vol.2A (forthcoming).
