 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, while others concentrated on Neusner's reading and interpretations of Rabbinic texts, finding that his account was forced and inaccurate.Neusner's view that the Second Commonwealth Pharisees were a sectarian group centered on "table fellowship" and ritual food purity practices, and his lack of interest in wider Jewish values or social issues, has been criticized by E. P. Sanders, Solomon Zeitlin and Hyam Maccoby.Some scholars questioned Neusner's grasp of Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic.