Schnabel EJ Pharisees NIDB IV 2009 485-496

PHARISEES fair´uh-see [Farisai=oi Pharisaioi]. The Greek term occurs for the first time in the NT(ninety-nine times) and is also used by Josephus (forty-four times). The term is not found in otherearly Jewish texts, or in the writings of Greco-Roman authors who refer to the Jews. Later referencesare found in noncanonical Christian texts (Gospel of Thomas, Oxyrhynchus Papyri) and in the writingsof the church fathers of the 2nd cent. (Justin, Hippolytus, Hegesippus) and later (Origen, Eusebius).The Hebrew term (perushim My#$iw%rp;%) is not attested before ca. 200 CE, when it is used in the Mishnah(m. Hag. 2:4-7; m. Sotah 3:4; m. Toh. 4.12; m. Yad. 4:6-8).

Terminology and MeaningA.Sources

Josephus1.Qumran texts2.Other early Jewish texts3.New Testament4.Rabbinic texts5.

B.

HistoryOrigins and identity1.Historical developments2.Influence in Jewish society3.

C.

Theology and PietyObservance of the law1.The tradition of the elders2.Belief in divine providence3.Belief in a future resurrection4.Messianic and apocalyptic expectations5.Other beliefs6.

D.

Pharisees in the New Testament. The Pharisees and Jesus

The conflicts regarding the Sabbatha.Fasting and divorceb.Tithing and ritual purityc.The leaven of the Phariseesd.The Pharisees’ critique of Jesuse.Jesus’ critique of the Phariseesf.

1.

The Pharisees and the early Christians2.

E.

Bibliography

A. Terminology and MeaningThe Greek word Pharisaioi is the transcription of the Aramaic word perishaya) ()yF#a$yrIp%;, plural of the

passive participle perish [#$rIp%;]; that means “separated,” or “distinguished”; see Dan 5:28 ). TheAramaic word is never used for a group that corresponds to the Pharisees, who occur in later Hebrewtexts consistently as perushim and perushin (Ny#$iw%rp;%). It appears that the Aramaic designation wasreplaced at the end of the 2nd or at the beginning of the 3rd cent. CE by the Hebrew term perushim.Origen still knew the Aramaic designation when he wrote of those set apart in his commentary on John3:1 (Comm. Jo. 3.1).

It should be noted that the meaning of perushim and perushin in the rabbinic literature is not uniform;the terms refer to the Pharisees who were active before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE (m.Yad. 4:6-8; b. B. Bat. 115b), and also to scrupulous religious eccentrics (t. Sotah 15:11-12; b. B. Bat.60b).

The meaning of the Aramaic/Hebrew root parash (#$rAp%f) means 1) “to separate, to distinguish” (in theQumran texts and in rabbinic literature), both in a positive sense (e.g., to separate from impure things,m. Sotah 9:15) and in a negative sense (e.g., to separate from the community, m. Avot 2:4), and 2) “toexplain” (consistently in the OT, e.g., Lev 24:12 ; Num 15:34 ; Ezra 4:18 ; Neh 8:8 ; Esth 4:7; 10:2 ;Prov 23:32 ; Ezek 34:12 ). In the rabbinic literature, both meanings “to separate” and “to explain” are

PHARISEES http://localhost:49152/NXT/gateway.dll/NIDB/nidb/nidb_volume_4/nidb...

1 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

p. 486

duhaimej

Note

Unmarked définie par duhaimej

attested.As a result of this dual meaning, two suggestions have been made for explaining the party term

Pharisee : 1) the traditional explanation understands the Pharisees as “the separated ones” or“separatists”; 2) some interpret the term Pharisees as “the (precise) explainers (of the holyScriptures).” With regard to the first explanation, which seems the more plausible one, the questionarises whether this is a positive self-designation or a derogatory label used by others. Moreover, it isnot immediately clear from what or from whom the people thus designated separated. The usage ofthe term in the various sources suggests that the designation Pharisees was used very early as aderogatory description, perhaps on account of this group’s separation from the Maccabean resistancemovement (1 Macc 7:12-13 ). By the 1st cent. CE the term seems to have had a positive meaning andwas thus used as the designation of a major Jewish movement; both Paul and Josephus use the termin their self-description. It appears that the term was largely dropped after 70 CE when the traditionalparty affiliations had lost their significance and when scribal Pharisaism came to represent the entireJewish people.

The term Pharisee is never defined in the sources. A Pharisee is a person who calls himself aPharisee (as do Paul, Phil 3:5 ; Acts 23:6 ; and Josephus, Life 12), or who is called a Pharisee byothers (see Luke 7:36-40 [Simon]; John 3:1 [Nicodemus]; Acts 5:34 [Gamaliel]; Josephus, Ant. 15.3[Pollion]; Ant. 18.4 [Zadok, the cofounder of the Zealots]; Life 190 [Simon ben Gamaliel]). In in-groupdiscussions such as those of the rabbis in the rabbinic literature, the characterization as a Phariseewould provide no relevant information about the individual and is thus usually omitted, with affiliationsto a certain school (Hillel or Shammai) being more pertinent. The designation Pharisee appears to beonly necessary when a person’s standing within Judaism needed clarification in terms of one’s closeaffinity to a strict mode of living as a pious and law-abiding Jewish person. Pharisees have aparticular relationship with the Jewish law (Torah), which explains why the term Pharisee can be usedas a synonym for the term scribe. The Pharisees are repeatedly described as people who transmit,preserve, and develop the tradition of the law in its written and oral form. Their understanding oftradition evidently was nonexclusive, which explains their interest in Jesus: they are prepared to listento Jesus as long as he can demonstrate the continuity between his teaching and the Torah tradition.

B. SourcesThe main sources for a description of the Pharisees are the writings of Josephus, the NT, several

Qumran texts, other early Jewish writings, and later rabbinic texts.

1. JosephusIn three of his four writings, Josephus includes what is often characterized as idealized portrayals

of the three “philosophies” of Judaism, i.e., the ESSENES, the SADDUCEES, and the Pharisees. InJ.W. 2.162-66 he describes the Pharisees as affirming the significance of fate for human affairs andthe immortality of the soul, while the Sadducees deny both positions. In Ant. 13.171-73 the Phariseesstand between the Sadducees who affirm free will and the Essenes who affirm fate, as they relatesome matters to fate and others to free will. In Ant. 18.11-23, in addition to the disputes about fateand immortality, Josephus portrays the Pharisees as having their own traditions in addition to the holyScriptures, while the Sadducees accept only the authority of the biblical laws. In Life 10-12 Josephusbriefly describes again the three “philosophical schools” of Judaism, in each of which he receivedtraining (see JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS).

In his historical narratives, the Pharisees are the only movement that plays an ongoing role.Josephus introduces them somewhat abruptly in the context of a brief sketch of the main Jewishgroups during the time of the Maccabean Jonathan, who was high priest from 152-143 BCE (Ant.13.171-72). They are the dominant party in Jewish society (Ant. 13.288, 298, 401-2; 17.41; 18.15-16;J.W. 2.162), but they are troublemakers from the time of the Hasmoneans (J.W. 1.110-14; Ant.13.288-98, 399-400, 410-17) to Herod the Great (Ant. 17.41-45) and to Josephus’ own time (Life190-96).

Unfortunately, Josephus provides hardly any information about the piety of the Pharisees, abouttheir activities in the synagogues and in the schools, or about their involvement in the priestly circlesand in the Temple. He writes for a non-Jewish audience and describes the various Jewish groups inPalestine in the context of Greek-Roman parameters.


2 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

p. 487

2. Qumran textsSeveral Jewish texts, which were discovered in Qumran, are regarded as providing clues for the

history and the teachings of the Pharisees. Several texts refer to a group whose members theydescribe as drshy hkhlqwt (twqlxh y#$rd, “Seekers After Smooth Things”), which are generallyidentified as Pharisees (CD I, 18-19; 4Q169 3-4 I 2, 7; III, 3, 6-7). This phrase represents a critique ofthe Pharisees’ interpretation of the law, which is said to be “smooth,” i.e., seductive: they teach a wayof life that is agreeable to the masses. The author of the Nahum Pesher (4Q169) distinguishes twomajor groups, Ephraim and Manasseh, corresponding to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, viewedfrom the “outside” by a third group, the Qumran people. A relevant text is the HALAKHIC LETTER,written between 159-152 BCE, a document purportedly sent by the leaders of the Qumran communityto the leaders of the priestly circles in Jerusalem outlining some twenty laws. The priests who stayedin Jerusalem (and who accepted the new political order) are made responsible for allowing legalrulings to be practiced that contradict the teachings of the “sons of Zadok.” Most scholars identify the“they”-group with the Pharisees or their forerunners who at that time exercised authority over theTemple and who have the support of the people. This early text already portrays the three majordivisions within Judaism: the Qumran community (which may represent the Essenes), the priestlyaristocracy in Jerusalem (Sadducees), and a non-priestly group that enjoys popularity among thepeople (the Pharisees or their forerunners).

3. Other early Jewish textsSeveral writings that were written between 150 BCE and 70/100 CE have been linked with the

Pharisees. The apocryphal book 1 Maccabees has been linked with Pharisaic circles, althoughattempts to identify a Pharisaic author have not be successful. The pseud-epigraphical text Psalms ofSolomon (see SOLOMON, PSALMS OF) is usually regarded as representing an authentic Pharisaictext: some psalms contrast the terms we and they ; parts of the priesthood (1:7-8; 8:9-12) and theinhabitants of Jerusalem (2:3, 13) are criticized; the deeds of the righteous are contrasted with thedeeds of sinners (3:6-12; 12-16); and resurrection is promised to those who fear God (3:16). Thelives of the prophets, a text that is concerned with the origins of the prophets and their graves(compare Matt 23 .29; Luke 11:47 ), has been ascribed to an author who belonged to the Pharisaic-scribal milieu. The Scroll of Fasting (Megillat Taanit), which some date to the time before 70 CE, liststhirty-five days of joy during which fasting is prohibited; fourteen days remember events during theMaccabean revolt between 164-108 BCE, four days remember “victories” over the Sadducees duringthe early reign of Salome Alexandra (76-67 BCE), nine days remember successes in the resistanceagainst Roman policies between 26-66/67 CE.

The Liber antiquitarum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) and the Ezra Apocalypse (4 Ezra) representPharisaism in its final phase as emerging rabbinic Judaism. The author of the Pseudo-Philo formulatesthe traditional Pharisaic program under the new conditions that pertain in Palestine after thedestruction of the Temple (L.A.B. 27:14). The author of 4 Ezra places his hopes for the Jewish nationin a more consistent adherence to the law.

4. New TestamentThe term Pharisaioi occurs ninety-nine times in the NT: in all four Gospels (Matt 30 ; Mark 12 ; Luke

27 ; John 19 [also in the non-Johannine pericope John 8:3 ]), in Acts (9), and once in one of Paul’sletters (Phil 3:5 ). The plural is used 86 times. The Pharisees are often mentioned in connection withanother group.

The phrase “Pharisees and Sadducees” occurs in Matt 3:7; 16:1, 6, 11, 12 (the par. texts in Markand Luke mentioned here only the Pharisees). Disputes between Pharisees and Sadducees arementioned in Matt 22:34 and in Acts 23:6-8 . A similar phrase is “the high priests and the Pharisees,”as the high priestly aristocracy can be regarded as mostly Sadducean (compare Acts 4:1; 5:17 ); thephrase occurs at the beginning and at the end of Matthew’s passion narrative (Matt 21:45; 27:62 ;see also John 7:32, 45; 11:47, 57; 18:3 ).

The Pharisees are more frequently grouped with the SCRIBEs. We find the following phrases: “thescribes of the Pharisees” (Mark 2:16 ; Acts 23:9 ); “the Pharisees and their scribes” (Luke 5:30 ); “thePharisees and the scribes” (Matt 15:1 ; Mark 7:1, 5 ; Luke 15:2 ); “the scribes and the Pharisees”(Matt 5:20; 12:38; 23:2, 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29 ; Luke 5:21; 6:7; 11:53 ; John 8:3 ); “the Phariseesand the teachers of the law” (Luke 5:17 ; compare Acts 5:34 ); “the Pharisees and the lawyers” (Luke


3 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

7:30 ; compare 14:3; also 11:43, 45-46, 52). The Pharisees are also mentioned in connection with theHerodians (Matt 22:15-16 ; Mark 3:6; 12:13 ).

The Pharisees are described as having disciples (students) (Matt 22:15-16 ; Mark 2:18 ; Luke 5:33). They understand themselves to be disciples of Moses (Matt 23:2 ; John 9:28 ; see also 9:13,15-16, 40: John regards the “Jews” in 9:18, 22, 28 as essentially identical with the Pharisees). Themain context in which the writers of the Gospels mention the Pharisees is the conflict between Jesusand the Pharisees regarding the Sabbath commandment; other disputes concern fasting, tithing, andritual purity (§E2).

The portrayal that is implicit in the Gospel accounts agrees with Josephus with regard to theassumption that the Pharisees were the most prominent and influential group in Palestinian Jewish life.For Josephus, the Pharisees are the most precise interpreters of the law, and in the Gospels theyappear as scrupulous in their observance of the law, in particular concerning the Sabbath observance,tithing, and purity laws. At the same time, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees despite his high regard forthem, charging them of hypocrisy (Matt 23:2-3 ); Josephus’ critique of the Pharisees focuses on theirpolitical role, accusing them of deceit and subversion (e.g., Life 216, 245, 301-3).

5. Rabbinic textsReferences to perushim and perushin in the Mishnah, the Tosefta, in the Babylonian and the

Jerusalem Talmuds, and in the Tannaitic midrashim have traditionally been interpreted as references tothe Pharisees, particularly in passages that recount legal debates with a group called tsaddiqim(Myqiyd@Ica) or tsaddiqin (Nyqiyd@Ica). As the earliest of these rabbinic sources, the Mishnah, was compilednearly 200 years after Jesus, scholars are much more hesitant today to use rabbinic debates asevidence for reconstructing the positions of the Pharisees in the 1st cent. Two problems need to beaddressed if this material can be used with some confidence for a portrayal of the historicalPharisees. First, not all references to perushim and to tsaddiqim are automatically a reference to thePharisees and the Sadducees: the former term is sometimes used for extreme ascetics or evenheretics, while the latter term seems to have been substituted for the original word minim (MynIymi),which means “heretics.” Second, the individual rabbinic traditions have to be carefully weighed interms of their historical authenticity. References to “the sages” or “the scribes” can no longer beidentified with the Pharisees. These problems notwithstanding, texts such as m. Yad. 4:6-8 are usuallyaccepted as reflecting debates about ritual purity and impurity and the transmission of uncleannessbetween the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

C. HistoryAs the sources for the Pharisees are scant, it is impossible to be certain about their origins and the

various phases of their history. The following picture emerges from a cautious evaluation of the extantevidence.

1. Origins and identityThe hellenization program of Jewish aristocratic and priestly circles in Jerusalem in the 2nd cent.

BCE threatened to undermine the existence of traditional Judaism. Two main parties led the resistanceagainst the Jewish leadership who had secured the support of the Syrian king Antiochus IVEpiphanes: the priestly clan of the Hasmoneans, i.e., Matthathias and his son Judas Maccabeus andhis brothers (1 Macc 2:1-28 ), and the party of the Hasideans (see HASIDIM) with their ties to thescribes (1 Macc 7:12-13 ). They were supported by Jews “who were seeking righteousness andjustice” (1 Macc 2:29 ). The struggle, which eventually evolved into military confrontations, was drivenprimarily by religious motives: the Hasmonean resistance insisted on holding firm to the monotheisticworship of Yahweh, to the exclusive offering of sacrifices to Yahweh, to the food laws stipulated in theholy Scriptures, to circumcision, and the observance of the Sabbath and of the festivals.

After the initial successes, the anti-Hellenistic coalition dissolved quickly. As the victory over KingAntiochus was attributed to God’s favor on account of the pious Jews’ faithfulness to keep thecommandments and their willingness to suffer martyrdom, a debate ensued over how the Jewishpeople as a whole should comply with the law, not only in the cult in the Temple in Jerusalem but alsoin the private life of every individual. It is in this context that Josephus introduces the three Jewish“schools” of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes (Ant. 13.171-72) during the time ofJonathan Maccabeus (160-143 BCE). The Halakhic Letter, written ca. 159-152 BCE, confronts


4 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

p. 488

Jonathan, who is about to assume the high priesthood or has recently done so, with the alternative toeither abandon the particular temple reform that had been introduced when the Temple wasrededicated and thus side with the priestly elite of the sons of Zadok, or to accommodate to thosewho currently hold the authority over the Temple and who enjoy the support of the majority of thepeoples. The verb for “separation” (parash) occurs in Halakhic Letter (4Q397 14-21 7-9). The namePharisee, which seems to have been coined at this time, involved initially a dispute about who couldlegitimately call himself “a separated one.” As it was HELLENISM, which had threatened the religiousidentity of Israel, the separation that the term alludes to should be understood as a separation from allpagan practices.

The Pharisees thus arose between 160-140 BCE from the scribes and the Hasideans as theproponents of the consistent necessity to study Scripture, to apply it to everyday matters, to follow thecommandments as a nation (in the Temple) and as individuals (in one’s private life), and to cultivatethe tradition of the law and its interpretation and application. The Pharisaic movement thus continuesthe tradition of the Deuteronomistic view of history: obedience to God’s will as revealed in the lawbrings salvation and blessing, whereas disobedience leads to exile. The Temple represented the idealmodel of purity and holiness (see TEMPLE, JERUSALEM). If the legal observance was to be ascomprehensive as possible, additional tradition besides the written Torah needed to be developed. Ifthe nation could live in a state of purity analogous to the purity of the Temple, the latter would beeffectively protected and thus God’s salvation and blessing maintained. Many scholars detect in thegoal to expand the holiness of the Temple to the entire life of all Jews in Israel a “democratization” ofthe piety of the Temple, which can be explained in terms of the influence of the individualism ofHellenistic culture, expressed in the Pharisaic movement as a personal decision for a particular formof piety. It is obvious, at any rate, that Pharisaism did not separate a Jew from the nation (as anexclusive “sect” would do); rather, it sought to help people become truly Jewish.

2. Historical developmentsThe Pharisees initially worked together with the HASMONEANS to address the many practical

problems that had been introduced when the Hellenizers had outlawed the Torah as a whole, such asproperty rights of refugees, compensation for damages, amnesty, calendar adjustments, and otherquestions of TORAH observance. Conflict ensued when John Hyrcanus I (134-104 BCE) wanted toinstitutionalize the combination of the high priestly office with the political and military leadership of thenation (see Josephus, Ant. 13.288-98). The Pharisees evidently hoped that the normalization of thepolitical and military affairs would allow the Hasmoneans to give up the high priestly office; in therabbinic literature, this episode is linked with Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE), perhaps because heis regarded by the rabbis as evildoer par excellence, while the initially pro-Pharisaic John Hyrcanus isnot regarded that negatively (compare b. Qidd. 66a). Josephus relates that the Sadducees, now themore influential group, sought to reverse the legal practices that the Pharisees had introduced. ThePharisees, however, continued to enjoy the support of the large majority of the people, while theSadducees’ influence was limited to the wealthy (Ant. 13.296, 298).

This bifurcation of the nation caused several years of civil war (93-88 BCE) during the reign ofAlexander Jannaeus during which thousands were killed (J.W. 1.88-92; Ant. 13.372-76). Manysupporters of the Pharisaic opposition were forced to leave the country, and many were executed bythe Jewish king. On his deathbed he advised his wife to make peace with the Pharisees and to grantthem participation in the political affairs (Ant. 13.399-404), as they would be able to dispose the nationfavorably toward her since the people trusted them (13.402). It is no coincidence that Josephus, in hisolder work, introduces the Pharisees in connection with Queen Salome Alexandra (76-67 BCE), KingAlexander’s widow (J.W. 1.110-14; see the par. account in Ant. 13.399-423). He describes thePharisees as particularly diligent in observing the laws (J.W. 1.110), and he comments that whileQueen Salome was in power that the Pharisees held authority (Ant. 13.409). The Phariseesproceeded to exact revenge on their adversaries, which eventually prompted the queen to providesafe havens for the supporters of her late husband. When Salome died, the Sadducees evidentlyfavored her son Aristobulus II (69-63 BCE), while the Pharisees seem to have supported JohnHyrcanus II (high priest 76-67 and 63-41 BCE, r. 47-41 BCE).

When Judea was incorporated into the sphere of influence of Rome by Pompey in 63 BCE (heimprisoned Aristobulus II and accepted John Hyrcanus II as high priest), the Pharisees continued topush for the legal/political enactment of their agenda of a holy people living according to the revealed


5 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

duhaimej

Note

duhaimej

Note

p. 489

will of God. Some see Josephus’ remarks in Ant. 14.41 as evidence for the Pharisees’ belief thatPompey’s intervention in the affairs of Judea represented God’s judgment over the Hasmoneanleaders who were descended from priests but who had aspired to be kings as well, turning the Jewsinto a slaves. The Pharisees thus did not reject the foreign rule of the Romans, at least initially.

The only period for which Josephus provides more information is the reign of Herod I (40/37-4 BCE).When Herod had consolidated his rule over Judea and proceeded to punish his opponents, putting todeath the members of the (Sadducean) Sanhedrin, Josephus singles out the Pharisee Pollion and hisdisciple Samaias who were spared for being honored by Herod for their previous support (Ant.15.3-4). When they refused to swear the oath of allegiance with which Herod later hoped to securethe loyalty of the people, they were not punished, as were the others who refused (Ant. 15.370). InAnt. 17.41-45 Josephus relates that Herod punished 6,000 Pharisees with a fine when they refused totake the oath by which he made the people affirm their loyalty to the Roman emperor and to the king’sgovernment, and that he killed those of the Pharisees who (in his opinion) had corrupted some of thepeople at his court. The two sophistai (sofistai\) of J.W. 1.648-55 (Ant. 17.149-67), Judas son ofSepphoraeus and Matthias son of Margalus, whom Josephus characterizes as being recognized fortheir knowledge of the law (J.W. 1.648), whose regular lectures in Jerusalem on the laws attracted alarge following of students, are often regarded as Pharisees, even though Josephus describes themmerely as Torah experts or scribes. If they were indeed Pharisees, a conclusion that is made plausibleon account of their popular reputation, this episode is highly instructive for their combination ofpolitical goals and religious zeal: they think that they can take advantage of Herod’s declining healthand increasing despondency, they exhort their students and followers to avenge God’s honor bytearing down the golden eagle over the temple gate that contradicted the ban on any iconographicrepresentation of living beings, and they affirm that martyrdom and eternal bliss is preferable toignorance and contravention of God’s laws. The two rabbis and the forty young men who had begun tochop off the golden eagle were ordered by Herod to be burned alive.

According to the (later) rabbinic sources, the Pharisees were divided into the school of Hillel andthe school of Shammai (see HILLEL THE ELDER, HOUSE OF HILLEL; SHAMAI THE ELDER). Thelegal opinions of Hillel and his followers were regularly more lenient than those of Shammai; theyappeared to have taken into account the economic and social needs of the people and sought to findwhat they considered to be realistic expectations for ordinary Jews to observe the law.

Also according to the rabbinic sources, the Pharisees were organized in “fellowships” orcooperatives (khevrah [hrFb;xe]; see m. Demai 2:3; 6:6, 9, 12; m. Toh. 7:4; b. Bek. 30b). The khavarim(MyrIbfxj; e.g., t. Demat 2:2) are described as Jews who banded together to eat their food in conditionsof ritual purity, which was required of the priests in the Temple when they consumed holy offerings.Some suggest that the khavarim should be identified with the Pharisees; others think they were asubgroup of the Pharisees, or a group that overlapped with Pharisaic concerns, or a different group ofpious Jews altogether. As neither Josephus nor the NT refers to the khavarim, certainty is impossible.It seems to be clear, however, that there was no formal “membership” in the Pharisaic movement: itseems that a Jew regarded himself as a Pharisee, or was regarded as a Pharisee by others, if hefollowed the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law in everyday life. The possibility cannot be excluded,however, that there existed circles and schools in the Pharisaic movement that had clearly identifiableorganizational structures (as apparently existed in the Essene movement).

Josephus provides further information on the Pharisees in connection with their attempts to containthe effects of the rebellion against Roman rule after 66 CE (J.W. 2.411). The willingness tocompromise and to have politically realistic dealings with the Romans and with their Herodian vassalrulers secured for the Pharisees their continued influence in the period after 70 CE when the Pharisaicmovement became the intellectual, spiritual, and political establishment of rabbinic Judaism.

3. Influence in Jewish societySome scholars reduce the role of the Pharisees in Jewish society in contrast to the witness of

Josephus (Neusner), some increase the role of the Sadducees as the dominant group in both politicaland religious matters, also in contrast to the witness of Josephus (Sanders), and some maintain thatJosephus’ threefold division of Judaism (not including the later Zealots) is a misleading simplificationthat does not do justice to the numerous “Judaisms” in the Second Temple period (Boccaccini).

Some scholars have attempted to provide a sociological description of the Pharisees as beingstrongly represented in the “retainer class” of Judean society, i.e., the low-level government officials


6 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

p. 490

and educators on whom the aristocratic class depended (Saldarini). If correct, the Pharisees certainlywould have had access to power, albeit somewhat indirectly.

Attempts to describe multiple Jewish “sects” based on the interpretation of individual literary textsdo not appear to be fruitful. As both Josephus and Halakhic Letter provide evidence for the division ofJudaism into three major religious movements, with the Pharisees described as the group with themost widespread support (J.W. 2.162: they hold the position of the leading school [hairesis ai(/resij]), apicture that is at least indirectly confirmed by the NT texts (which do not mention the Essenes,however), there seems to be no good reason to substantially revise the traditional picture of SecondTemple Judaism (Deines).

Paul’s autobiographical statement in Phil 3:5 (compare Gal 1:14 ; Acts 22:3; 26:5 ) confirms theexistence of the Pharisees in the second half of the 1st cent. Josephus’ autobiographical comment inLife 12 also attests to the importance and popularity of the Pharisees in the 1st cent. Josephus doesnot claim that he “joined” the Pharisees but that he largely agreed with their tradition and their way oflife. The fact that Josephus has practically nothing to relate about the Pharisees during the rule of theRoman prefects and procurators in the 1st cent. CE should not be taken as an indication that thePharisees were left “out in the cold.” Josephus has not written annals in which he records the eventsof each successive year.

The influence of the Pharisees among the Jewish population in Judea and in Galilee may explainthe sudden appearance of numerous water pools for immersion for the removal of ritual impurity (seeMIQVAH, MIQVEH), as well as the appearance of stone vessels and the reburial in ossuaries(presupposing belief in the resurrection of the body) since the middle of the 1st cent. BCE. There is noarchaeological or literary evidence that links these practices with priestly (or Sadducean) circles.

The frequent connection that is made between the Pharisees and the scribes (twenty-one times inthe NT) indicates that many (but certainly not all) scribes belonged to the Pharisaic movement. Whileonly people with the proper genealogy could attain the priesthood, everyone could aspire to become alaw expert. According to John 3:1 some members of the SANHEDRIN belonged to the circles of thePharisees (Nicodemus).

There is thus no reason to doubt the presence of Pharisees in Galilee or their connection with thelocal synagogues reported in the Gospels. The controversies between Jesus and the Pharisees are atestimony to the eminent role that the Pharisees played in Jewish society: as both Jesus and thePharisees focused on personal piety and on the proper interpretation and practice of the will of God, itwas inevitable that they would clash if there was no agreement.

D. Theology and PietySince we have no primary sources written explicitly by Pharisees, we are dependent on the

portrayals of non-Pharisees such as Josephus and the authors of the Gospels whose descriptions donot claim to be historically informative and objective but who write for their respective audiences.

1. Observance of the lawThe emphasis on the observance of the law is not a characteristic of the Pharisaic movement

alone: the Sadducees and the Essenes insisted on the need of following the law as well. However, thePharisees are singled out by Josephus as a group that accurately interpreted the law (J.W. 2.162)and as the Jewish group who was proud of its observance of ancestral customs approved by God(Ant. 17.41). The term akribeia (a)kri/beia; “conformity, exactness, precision”) describes the Pharisees’claim, acknowledged by Josephus, to accuracy, excellence, and precision in their interpretation andobservance of the law.

The biographical sketches of Paul in Acts 22:3 and 26:5 confirm this portrayal: according to Luke,Paul is proud of the fact that he was “brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly(kata akribeian kata_ a)kri/beian) according to our ancestral law,” and that he “belonged to the strictestparty (kata te4n akribestate4n hairesin kata_ th_n a)kribesta&thn ai#resin) of our religion and lived as aPharisee.”

The controversies between Jesus and the Pharisees over questions of the law (see §E2), regularlyinitiated by the Pharisees, confirm the centrality of the law and its correct interpretation for thePharisees. The disputes between perushim and tsadduqim about intricate details of the observance ofthe law found in the rabbinical sources support this picture.

It is important to note that the Pharisees were interested not only in the correct interpretation of the


7 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

p. 491

law but also in correct behavior. The zeal of Saul/Paul, the Pharisee who persecuted the churchasserting that “as to righteousness under the law” he was “blameless” (Phil 3:6 ), confirms that thezealous observance of the law and its commandments was a central element of the Pharisees’emphasis.

The Pharisees’ precision in the interpretation of the law and their zeal for the punctiliousobservance of the commandments should not be confused with uncaring harshness. Josephus assertscategorically that the Pharisees were lenient in punishing people for breaking the law (Ant. 13.294)and cites as an example that when a certain Jonathan, a Sadducee, suggests that Eleazar should beexecuted for having spoken insultingly of doubts concerning John Hyrcanus’ legitimacy, the Phariseesargue that he should merely be scourged and bound by chains. According to Acts 5:33-40 , “aPharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people”recommends leniency when the leading priests and other council members want to put the apostles todeath. The early rabbinic evidence again confirms this picture: in the disputes between perushim andtsadduqim about the details of the observance of the law, the Pharisees are more lenient.

2. The tradition of the eldersThe laws that the Pharisees interpreted with precision and followed with zeal included not only the

laws of the holy Scriptures but also the stipulations of the oral law, the tradition of the fathers (seeORAL LAW, ORAL TORAH; see Josephus, Ant. 13.297). The Sadducees rejected these traditionsthat were not written in the Law of Moses. During the reign of queen Salome, the Pharisees werepermitted to reintroduce their regulations (Ant. 13.408). Paul asserts in Gal 1:14 that he was “far morezealous for the traditions of my ancestors.” The term tradition (paradosis para&dosij) describesinstruction that has been handed down. Mark 7:3 describes the Pharisees as “observing the traditionof the elders” (compare Matt 15:2 ). In m. Avot 1:1 the tradition of the elders is traced from Moses viaJoshua and the prophets to individuals in more recent times; the second-to-last and the last pair ofteachers, all Pharisees (a fact that we know from other sources), are Hillel and Shammai andGAMALIEL I and his son Simeon I.

The sources of these traditions of the elders (or fathers) are according to Josephus the painstakinginterpretation of the law (J.W. 2.162), rational considerations (Ant. 18.12), and the example of earlierteachers (Ant. 18.12). It would be wrong to assume that the Pharisees created all of the traditions,which they taught and observed: they preserve, transmit, and recontextualize ancient traditions thatmay have pre-Pharisaic origins. We should also note that the Pharisees were not the only group thatpreserved traditions not directly taught in the written law: any Jewish group that would insist on thenormative relevance of the Torah for everyday life has to find practical solutions to new situationscreated by changing political and cultural circumstances.

These traditions of the fathers focused on at least the following areas: 1) purity rules concerningfood and vessels containing food and liquids (Matt 23:25-26 ; Mark 7:1-23 ); m. Or. 2:12; t. Abod. Zar.4:9); 2) purity rules concerning clean and unclean hands (Mark 7:1-5 ; m. Yad. 4:6); 3) purity rulesconcerning corpses and tombs (Matt 23:27-28 ; m. Yad. 4:7); 4) rules concerning the sanctity of theTemple and its cult (Matt 23:16-22 ; t. Hag. 3:35; m. Sheq. 6:1; Josephus, Ant. 18.15, 17); 5) tithingand the shares and dues of the priests (Matt 23:23 ; m. Peah 2:5-6; t. Sanh. 2:6); 6) observance ofthe SABBATH and of holy days, particularly as regards work and travel (Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6 ; Luke13:10-17; 14:1-6 ; John 5:1-18; 9:1-34 ; m. Rosh Hash. 2:5; m. Eruv. 6:2; see FEASTS AND FASTS);7) marriage and divorce (Mark 10:1-12 ; Luke 16:18 ; m. Yad. 4:8; m. Yebam. 16:7; m. Git. 4:2-3).

The devotion to the written law and to the traditions of the fathers explains why the scribes playedsuch an important role in the Pharisaic movement: Torah experts were needed both for the accurateinterpretation of the law and for the legitimate application of the meaning of biblical law to specific andoften novel situations in everyday life. Teaching the younger generation of law experts and also thepopulation at large were logical extensions of the Pharisees’ devotion to the law.

3. Belief in divine providenceJosephus ascribes to the Pharisees belief in the cooperation of providence and free will in human

affairs: they attributed everything to Fate (heimarmene4 ei9marme/nh) and God (J.W. 2.162-63; compareAnt. 13.172; 18.13). According to m. Avot 3:16, Rabbi Akiva spoke of free will as well. According toJosephus, the Pharisees’ position in this question stands between that of the Sadducees, who denyprovidence, and that of the Essenes, who trace all events to divine providence. The Pharisees


8 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

p. 492

rejected a deterministic worldview. They accepted both God’s gracious sovereignty and obedience byfree will. They thus propagated a view of morality and ethics in which human beings are responsiblefor their actions as their status before God is decisively impacted by their own will and by theiractions. The Pharisees emphasized the study of the law because people can and should know whatGod expects them to do in their everyday lives. Paul’s statement in Phil 2:12-13 implies a parallelunderstanding of this connection between divine providence and the free will of human beings: “workout your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both towill and to work for his good pleasure.”

4. Belief in a future resurrectionThe Pharisees believed that every good soul would pass into another body, while the bad souls

would be punished forever (Josephus, J.W. 2.163). This belief distinguishes them from the Sadduceeswho believed that the soul perishes when people die (J.W. 2.165; compare Matt 22:23-33 ; Mark12:18-27 ; Luke 20:27-40 ; Acts 23:8 ; compare 26:5-7), and from the Essenes who believed(according to Josephus) in the immortality of the soul but not in the resurrection of the body. Theformulation in Mark 12:18 (“And there came to him the Sadducees, who say that there is noresurrection”) seems to imply that the position of the Sadducees concerning resurrection differed frommost, if not all, other Jews or Jewish groups (see RESURRECTION, EARLY JEWISH).

5. Messianic and apocalyptic expectationsThe Pharisees seem to have championed various messianic and apocalyptic expectations, which

cannot be reconstructed from the extant sources with any degree of precision. Josephus relatesevents at the court of Herod I that evidently involved messianic hopes that were stoked by Pharisees(Ant. 17.43-45). Some Pharisees responded to John the Baptist’s prophetic preaching and wanted tobe baptized (Matt 3:7 ). The Pharisees’ question when the kingdom of God was coming (Luke 17:20 )and the discussion about the identity of the Messiah as Son of David (and Son of God) betweenJesus and the Pharisees (Matt 22:41-46 ; the par. texts Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44 refer toscribes) confirm their interest in messianic beliefs (see MESSIAH, JEWISH). Josephus claims that theZEALOTs followed the teachings of the Pharisees, with the exception of their love for freedom (Ant.18.23), and that one of their founders was a Pharisee named Zaddok (Ant. 18.4, 9-10). If these claimsare correct, the militant messianic ideas of the Zealot movement confirm the Pharisees’ interest inmessianic expectations. Moreover, when we take into consideration passages such as Pss. Sol.17-18, granting that the Psalms of Solomon may reflect Pharisaic influence (if not authorship), theevidence seems to allow the conclusion that some Pharisaic circles expected the coming of themessiah in the near future. In view of their conviction that God’s providence is linked with humanaction, some Pharisees were (eventually) willing to take specific action to make the messianickingdom of God a reality. The zealous efforts to accomplish consistent holiness and ritual purity ineveryday life may have played a role in this context as well (compare the words of Rabbi Phineas [m.Sotah 9.15], who links purity and holiness with the arrival of the resurrection of the dead).

6. Other beliefsThe Pharisees believed in the possibility of prophecy, which some of them practiced (Ant. 14.176

[according to Ant. 15.3, Samaias was the disciple of a Pharisee]; 15.4; 17.41-45; compare J.W.3.352-54 for Josephus’ prophetic dreams concerning the impending fate of the Jews and the destiniesof the Roman generals). The Pharisees believe in the existence of angels and spirits, which theSadducees deny (Acts 23:8 ). They believed in civil disobedience and they were willing to die for theirbasic convictions if they had come to the conclusion that the Jewish king or the Roman emperor actedin contravention of God’s revealed will (Ant. 14.172-74; 15.3-4, 368-70; 17.42). They practiced asimple lifestyle; they despised luxury (Ant. 18.12; compare Luke 16:14 ). It has often been assumedon the basis of Matt 23:15 that they engaged in missionary outreach, but this has been questioned(see MISSIONS; PROSELYTE).

E. Pharisees in the New TestamentOf the ninety-nine references to the Pharisees in the NT, eighty-nine are found in the four Gospels,

while nine occur in the Acts of the Apostles; there is one reference in Paul’s letters (Phil 3:5 ).


9 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

p. 493

1. The Pharisees and JesusThe conversations between Jesus and the Pharisees, which are without exception initiated by the

latter, focus on questions of proper behavior: fasting, working on the Sabbath, tithing, and ritual purity.Jesus is presented as debating with and being talked about by the Pharisees in multiple sources andforms, so much so that scholars who are rather skeptical concerning the historical reliability of gospelmaterial accept that Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees was a regular occurrence during hisministry. Some have questioned whether Mark’s theological schema, which keeps Jesus in Galileeand away from Jerusalem (apart from the final week), and which forces him to place the interactionwith the Pharisees in Galilee, corresponds to historical fact, arguing that the picture presented in theGospel of John and in the Acts of the Apostles, where the Pharisees are placed in and aroundJerusalem, might be closer to the truth. Some scholars regard the more frequent references to thePharisees in Matthew and Luke as a multiplication of stage props, with Matthew presenting thePharisees as Jesus’ opponents par excellence, while Luke’s characterization and utilization of thePharisees is less hostile. Such interpretations are invariably linked with the reconstructed picture ofthe Pharisees that the individual interpreter finds most convincing. As there is no consensusconcerning the political and legal influence or concerning the religious beliefs of the historicalPharisees, it is not surprising that some scholars find the portrayal of the Pharisees in the Gospelsless problematic, if not more or less historically authentic and plausible.

a. The conflicts regarding the Sabbath. Repeated controversies between the Pharisees and Jesusconcerning the observance of the SABBATH are reported by all four Gospels (Matt 12:1-8 / Mark2:23-28 / Luke 6:1-5 ; Matt 12:9-14 / Mark 3:1-6 / Luke 6:6-11 ; Luke 14:1-6 ; John 9:1-41 ). Theobservance of the Sabbath was indeed a serious matter since it represented not only a confessionalact that spoke of devotion to God but, together with circumcision, a fundamental characteristic ofJewish faith and life that distinguished Jews from pagans. Jesus’ healing activity on the Sabbath wasa deliberately provocative act (a person born blind can certainly wait one more day before beinghealed). All activities on the day of the Sabbath that could be construed as the “work” that the lawprohibited were to be avoided, unless extenuating circumstances as defined by the experts of the lawcould be found to legitimate the activity. The Pharisees and (their) scribes found Jesus’ behavior inviolation of this principle. Jesus does not respond to the Pharisees’ critique with a discussion aboutthe correct interpretation of “work.” He does not argue that, e.g., a healing does not constitute “work.”Rather, he insists that doing good can never be wrong on the Sabbath (Mark 3:4 ), that compassion isa better guide to proper behavior than stipulations derived by scribes through exegetical-legaldiscussions (Matt 12:10-11 ), and that God’s intentions for the Sabbath are distorted when his originalpurposes that were meant to benefit people are ignored (Mark 2:27 ). What is at stake in thesedebates is the question whether Jesus has the authority to interpret God’s will in a manner that differsfrom the scribal exegesis of the Pharisees.

b. Fasting and divorce. According to Luke 18:12 , the Pharisees fasted twice a week; the fact thatJesus is asked why neither he nor his disciples are fasting, while both the Pharisees and the disciplesof John the Baptist practice fasting (Matt 9:14 ; Mark 2:18 ; Luke 5:33 ) confirms this practice (seealso the Scroll of Fasting [Megillat Taanit ], which lists thirty-five days of joy during which fasting isprohibited). According to Pss. Sol. 3.7-8, the fasting of the righteous atones for unknown sins. Jesus’critique of the Pharisees’ fasting (Matt 9:15-17 ; Mark 2:19-22 ; Luke 5:34-39 ) is thus directedagainst an important element of Jewish piety. Jesus does not condemn the practice of fasting assuch. Rather, he clarifies that the present time is a time for celebration, and people do not fast duringfestivals: as the “bridegroom” has arrived, the days of fasting have given way to seasons of joy andgladness and cheerful festivals (Zech 8:19 ). In Matt 6:16-18 Jesus criticizes the fasting practices ofsome people as external piety that is meant to impress onlookers rather than being a spiritualpracticed directed toward God (note that this text does not identify the “hypocrites” with thePharisees). See FAST, FASTING.

In the dispute concerning marriage and DIVORCE (Matt 19:1-9 ; Mark 10:1-12 ; Luke 16:18 ) Jesussides neither with the more lenient school of Hillel nor with the stricter school of Shammai as regardslegitimate grounds of divorce. Jesus grants that the law had allowed divorce on account of thehardness of heart of the people. Then he goes on to argue that people living in the last days for whichthe prophets had promised the exchange of hearts of stone for hearts of flesh (Ezek 11:19; 36:26 ),the time of God’s new covenant when he would write his law on people’s hearts (Jer 31:31-33 ) willlive like the people in the first days after the creation of the world, fulfilling again God’s intention of a


10 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

permanent union between one man and one woman in marriage (see MARRIAGE, NT; MARRIAGE,OT).

c. Tithing and ritual purity. In the context of the Pharisees’ program of the sanctification of everydaylife, the TITHE was important because it safeguarded the concern to eat only food that was cultivated,harvested, sold, and bought in compliance with the law (Lev 27:30 ; Deut 14:22-29 ). Jesus does notcriticize the Pharisees for tithing mint, dill, and cumin but for neglecting the weightier matters of justice,mercy, and faith (Matt 23:23 ; Luke 11:42 ; compare Luke 18:12 ). Similarly, the Pharisees concernedthemselves with the ritual purity of the containers and cooking pots in a household (Lev 11:32-35 ;Num 19:14-15 ) and with the cleanness of one’s hands, as this affected the purity of the food that ishandled, stored, and consumed (see CLEAN AND UNCLEAN; DIETARY LAWS). As Jesus addressesthese matters (Matt 15:1-20 //Mark 7:1-23 ; Matt 23:25-26 //Luke 11:37-44 ), his pronouncement that“there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are whatdefile” (Mark 7:15 ) stands out. Jesus does not enter into a discussion about different types of ritualdefilement or about the correct interpretation of the detailed regulations of Lev 11 specifying whichanimals could and could not be eaten by the people of God. Rather, Jesus establishes as a newprinciple, over against specific stipulations of the law that defilement comes from inside and not (or,rather, no longer) from the outside. Mark’s editorial comment (Mark 7:19 b) is the inevitable deductionboth from the principle (v. 15) and from its elaboration (vv. 18b-19a): Jesus declares that food is nolonger to be regarded as ritually unclean.

d. The leaven of the Pharisees. The only pronouncement of Jesus concerning the Pharisees that allthree Synoptic Gospels relate is a warning to “beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast ofHerod” (Mark 8:15 ; other manuscripts read “of the Herodians”). Matthew 16:6 has “the yeast of thePharisees and Sadducees,” while Luke 12:1 reads “the yeast of the Pharisees.” Matthew relates thispronouncement to the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt 16:12 ), while Luke regardsJesus’ warning as a reference to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Luke 12:1 ). Jesus’ warningconcerning the “yeast” (or leaven) of the Pharisees, a pronouncement that links them with theHerodians (Mark) and with the Sadducees (Matthew), can be understood in the context of thePharisees’ claim to be the sanctifying remnant (compare Rom 11:16 ) that takes the holiness andpurity required by the law to the entire Jewish population. If correct, the pronouncement criticizes thePharisees for their willingness to cooperate with Herod Antipas (or the Herodians more generally) andwith the Sadducees whose influence over the people constitutes an increasingly dangerous situationfor Jesus and his disciples, following the alliance of the Pharisees and the Herodians as early as Mark3:6 who plot Jesus’ removal (see HEROD, FAMILY).

e. The Pharisees’ critique of Jesus. Mark, and even more so Matthew, intends his readers tounderstand that Jesus’ approach to the observance of religious practices and to the interpretation ofScripture markedly differed from that of the Pharisees (Mark 2:24 ; Matt 9:11 ), that this differencebecame increasingly obvious in the course of Jesus’ public ministry (Mark 7:1-5; 8:11 ; Matt 12:2;15:1; 16:1 ), and that this was regarded as serious enough (Mark 12:13 ; Matt 12:24; 22:15 ; compareLuke 11:53-54 ) so that the Pharisees came to see it as a dangerous influence over the people thatneeded to be eliminated (Mark 3:6 ; Matt 12:14; 21:45-46; 27:62 ).

The Pharisees objected to Jesus’ attitude and practice concerning the Sabbath, tithing, ritual purity,and the washing of hands (see §E1a-c), matters that had a fundamental religious role for thePharisees: they believed that faithful observance of the law in these external matters indicateswhether a person seeks to do God’s will in areas that are hidden. The controversies between thePharisees and Jesus occur precisely in areas of external piety, in questions of HALAKHAH, in mattersof personal behavior.

From an early period onward, however, the Pharisees clashed with Jesus concerning thefundamental theological question of the origin of the power and authority that Jesus displayed in hishealing and exorcism ministry. According to Matt 12:24 , Pharisees declare Jesus’ EXORCISMs todepend on his using the power of BEELZEBUL, the “ruler of the demons.” In other words, they accusehim of being a sorcerer who invokes occult power. In Mark 3:22 it is a delegation of scribes fromJerusalem who make the same accusation (Mark 7:1 refers to a second delegation from Jerusalem,which consisted of Pharisees and some scribes). This discussion about Jesus’ authority to heal islinked with the question whether he has the authority to pronounce sins to be forgiven: according toLuke 5:21 , Pharisees and teachers of the law label Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness to beblasphemy, which is an ominous charge that is repeated in Jesus’ trial (Matt 26:65 ; Mark 14:64 ).


11 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

p. 494

According to Matt 27:62 and John 18:3 the Pharisees were involved (with the chief priests and thescribes) in having Jesus arrested and brought to trial before Pilate, where he is accused as a falseteacher who was trying to lead Israel astray.

The Gospels also know of positive encounters between Jesus and the Pharisees. Luke speaks ofrepeated invitations of Jesus by Pharisees (Luke 7:36-50; 11:37-52; 14:1-6 ) and of well-meantadvice that Pharisees give to Jesus (Luke 13:31 ). John 3:1-21 portrays NICODEMUS, a Phariseeand member of the Sanhedrin, as a sympathizer of Jesus (compare John 7:47-52 ).

f. Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees. Jesus accepts the fundamental concerns of the Phariseesabout matters of righteousness; note Matt 5:20 : “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceedsthat of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (compare Matt 23:1-3). His basic criticism focuses on the Pharisees’ emphasis on external piety as an indication of, andpathway to, internal piety (Matt 15:17-20 ; Mark 7:15 ). Jesus emphasizes that the most scrupulousand correct observance of the laws does not indicate, nor lead to, a person’s agreement with the willof God. Rather, it carries with it the tendency of arrogantly enjoying the applause of other people, ofseeking to please oneself rather than God, and thus of losing God in and through such acts of externalpiety (Luke 16:15; 18:14 ). The NT term for this phenomenon is hypocrisy (see HYPOCRISY,HYPOCRITE). The Pharisees already knew of the dangers of a merely external piety, which ishypocrisy (b. Sotah 22b).

Jesus’ woes against the hypocritical Pharisees (Matt 23:13-36 ; Luke 11:39-44 ) need to beunderstood in this context. 1) They represent an internal Jewish controversy rather than an arrogantand vicious dressing-down of Jews by Christians; unfortunately, later Christian tradition used thesepassages and made the term Pharisee in an unjustifiable pejorative fashion into a synonym forhypocrite. 2) Fiery denunciation was an established rhetorical tradition in internal Jewish debatessince the days of Amos and Hosea, and examples in Jewish texts of the Second: Jews with beliefs orbehavior that is regarded as aberrant are called hypocrites (Pss. Sol. 4:6-7; As. Mos. 7:5-10; 1QS IV,14; Philo, Embassy 25, 162; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.142-44), blind (Wis 2:21 ; 1 En. 90:7; Josephus,Ag. Ap. 2.142; J.W. 5.572), foolish or ignorant (Wis 13:1 ; Sir 50:26 ; 1 En. 98:3, 9; 1QHa IV, 8;Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.37, 255; J.W. 3.381; 5.417, 566; b. Yev. 63b), guilty of economic sins (Wis 2:10; Pss. Sol. 4:9-13, 20, 22; 1 En. 63:10; 94:6-8; As. Mos. 5:5; 7:5-7; 1QpHab VIII, 10-12), guilty ofsexual sins (Wis 14:22-28 ; Pss. Sol. 2:11-13; 4:4-5; 8:9-10; CD IV, 19-21; V 6-12; Josephus, J.W.5.402), unclean (1QpHab VIII, 13; Pss. Sol. 8:11-13, 22; T. Levi 16:1; As. Mos. 7:9-10; m. Nid. 4:1-2),snakes (Philo, Embassy 26, 166: Pss. Sol. 4:8), and destined for eschatological judgment (1QpHab X,12-13; XI, 14-15; 1QS II, 7-9; 1 En. 62:1-16; 94:9; 96:8; Pss. Sol. 14:9; T. Levi 15:2; m. Sanh. 10:1).Jesus’ accusation that the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law misses the point of God’s will, as theypursue their own advantage (Matt 23:23, 16-22 ; Mark 7:8-13 ) agrees with the critique of theQUMRAN community, who accuse the Pharisees of exchanging the Torah with khalaqoth (twOqlaxa,“smooth things”). 3) The denunciation of the Pharisees comes during the last week of Jesus’ life andministry, not at the beginning, the result of their rejection of Jesus as the messianic son of Man whopreached and established the coming of the kingdom of God. This connection is evident in the firstdenunciation of the Pharisees as hypocrites in Matt 23:13 : “You lock people out of the kingdom ofheaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them.” 4) The woesthus serve to delimit Jesus’ position that focused on the coming of the kingdom of God and on thechanges that this new reality is introducing both for the people and for the law, over against thedominant Jewish-Pharisaic position that focused on the law and its interpretation as a prerequisite forliving according to the will of God.

2. The Pharisees and the early ChristiansAccording to Acts 5:34 Gamaliel, a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin, was favorably disposed

toward the Christians, preventing the execution of the apostles (see also Acts 23:6-9 ). Luke reportsthat Pharisees had become followers of Jesus and demanded that the new converts from paganismshould be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses (Acts 15:5 ).

Josephus recounts that the Sadducean high priest Ananus II convened the Sanhedrin to indictJames, the brother of Jesus, for transgressing the law (Ant. 20.200). When James was executed(compare Acts 12:2 ), citizens “who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict inobservance of the law”—probably Pharisees—were offended, protested before King Agrippa II andbefore the Roman governor Albinus, with the result that Ananus was deposed (Ant. 20.201-3). It is


12 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

p. 495

unclear whether this incident attests to influential sympathizers with the Christians among thePharisees, or to the standing of James in the society of Jerusalem, or simply to the unbending senseof justice of the Pharisees.

Paul was a former Pharisee (Phil 3:5 ); his continuous interpretation of Scripture and its applicationto new situations reflects Pharisaic practice, albeit in the completely different theological context ofhis conviction that Jesus was the promised Messiah whose death and resurrection fulfilled the law andthe prophets and inaugurated the last days and the new covenant. His controversies with JewishChristians who demanded that Gentile Christians should be circumcised and told to submit to the lawwere, evidently, controversies with Christian Pharisees. Thus, both Jesus and Paul engage thedominant religious movement of their nation, with which they shared many convictions and manypractices. See JEWISH BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION; JUDAISM; RABBINIC LITERATURE.

Bibliography: Albert I. Baumgarten. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era (1997);Gabriele Boccaccini. Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. (1991); RolandDeines. Die Pharisäer (1997); Roland Deines. “The Pharisees between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘CommonJudaism’.” D. A. Carson, ed. Justification and Variegated Nomism I (2001) 443-504; Steve Mason.Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees (1991); Steve Mason. Josephus and the New Testament (1992,2003); John P. Meier. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol 3: Companions andCompetitors (2001); Jacob Neusner. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (1971);Anthony J. Saldarini. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (1988; 2001); E. P.Sanders. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (1992); Günter Stemberger. JewishContemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (1995); Gerd Theissen and AnnetteMerz. The Historical Jesus (1998).

ECKHARD J. SCHNABEL


13 sur 13 2013-04-17 17:56

duhaimej

Note

p. 496.

Documents

Schnabel EJ Pharisees NIDB IV 2009 485-496