Difference between revisions of "Pharisees"

<p> From perishin Aramaic, perashim , "separated." To which Paul alludes, Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:15, "separated unto the gospel of God"; once "separated" unto legal self righteousness. In contrast to "mingling" with [[Grecian]] and other heathen customs, which [[Antiochus]] [[Epiphanes]] partially effected, breaking down the barrier of God's law which separated [[Israel]] from pagandom, however refined. The [[Pharisees]] were successors of the [[Assideans]] or Chasidim, i.e. godly men "voluntarily devoted unto the law." On the return from [[Babylon]] the [[Jews]] became more exclusive than ever. In Antiochus' time this narrowness became intensified in opposition to the rationalistic compromises of many. The [[Sadducees]] succeeded to the latter, the Pharisees to the former (1 [[Maccabees]] 1:13-15; 1 Maccabees 1:41-49; 1 Maccabees 1:62-63; 1 Maccabees 2:42; 1 Maccabees 7:13-17; 2 Maccabees 14:6-38). They "resolved fully not to eat any unclean thing, choosing rather to die that they might not be defiled: and profame the holy covenant." in opposition to the Hellenizing faction. </p> <p> So the beginning of the Pharisees was patriotism and faithfulness to the covenant. Jesus, the meek and loving One, so wholly free from harsh judgments, denounces with unusual severity their hypocrisy as a class. (Matthew 15:7-8; Matthew 23:5; Matthew 23:13-33), their ostentatious phylacteries and hems, their real love of preeminence; their pretended long prayers, while covetously defrauding the widow. They by their "traditions" made God's word of none effect; opposed bitterly the Lord Jesus, compassed His death, provoking Him to some "hasty words" (apostomatizein ) which they might catch at and accuse Him; and hired [[Judas]] to betray Him; "strained out gnats, while swallowing camels" (image from filtrating wine); painfully punctilious about legal trifles and casuistries, while reckless of truth, righteousness, and the fear of God; cleansing the exterior man while full of iniquity within, like "whited sepulchres" (Mark 7:6-13; Luke 11:42-44; Luke 11:53-54; Luke 16:14-15); lading men with grievous burdens, while themselves not touching them with one of their fingers. (See CORBAN.) </p> <p> Paul's remembrance of his former bondage as a rigid [[Pharisee]] produced that reaction in his mind, upon his embracing the gospel, that led to his uncompromising maintenance, under the Spirit of God, of [[Christian]] liberty and justification by faith only, in opposition to the yoke of ceremonialism and the righteousness which is of the law (Galatians 4; 5). The [[Mishna]] or "second law," the first portion of the Talmud, is a digest of [[Jewish]] traditions and ritual, put in writing by rabbi Jehudah the [[Holy]] in the second century. The [[Gemara]] is a "supplement," or commentary on it; it is twofold, that of [[Jerusalem]] not later than the first half of the fourth century, and that of Babylon A.D. 500. The Mishna has six divisions (on seeds, feasts, women's marriage, etc., decreases and compacts, holy things, clean and unclean), and an introduction on blessings. [[Hillel]] and [[Shammai]] were leaders of two schools of the Pharisees, differing on slight points; the Mishna refers to both (living before Christ) and to Hillel's grandson, Paul's' teacher, Gamaliel. </p> <p> An undesigned coincidence confirming genuineness is the fact that throughout the [[Gospels]] hostility to [[Christianity]] shows itself mainly from the Pharisees; but throughout Acts from the Sadducees. [[Doubtless]] because after Christ's resurrection the resurrection of the dead was a leading doctrine of Christians, which it was not before (Mark 9:10; Acts 1:22; Acts 2:32; Acts 4:10; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:40). The Pharisees therefore regarded [[Christians]] in this as their allies against the Sadducees, and so the less opposed Christianity (John 11:57; John 18:3; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:17; Acts 23:6-9). The Mishna lays down the fundamental principle of the Pharisees. "Moses received the oral law from Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and these to the prophets, and these to the men of the great synagogue" (Ρirke Αboth ("The Sayings of the [Jewish] Fathers"), 1). The absence of directions for prayer, and of mention of a future life, in the [[Pentateuch]] probably gave a pretext for the figment of a traditional oral law. </p> <p> The great synagogue said, "make a fence for the law," i.e. carry the prohibitions beyond the written law to protect men from temptations to sin; so Exodus 23:19 was by oral law made further to mean that no flesh was to be mixed with milk for food. The oral law defined the time before which in the evening a Jew must repeat the Shema, i.e. "Hear [[O]] Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord," etc. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9.) So it defines the kind of wick and oil to be used for lighting the lamps which every Jew must burn on the [[Sabbath]] eve. An egg laid on a festival may be eaten according to the school of Shammai, but not according to that of Hillel; for [[Jehovah]] says in Exodus 16:5, "on the sixth day they shall prepare that which, they bring in," therefore one must not prepare for the Sabbath on a feast day nor for a feast day on the Sabbath. An egg laid on a feast following the Sabbath was "prepared" the day before, and so involves a breach of the Sabbath (!); and though all feasts do not immediately follow the Sabbath yet "as a fence to the law" an egg laid on any feast must not be eaten. </p> <p> Contrast Micah 6:8. A member of the society of Pharisees was called chaber; those not members were called "the people of the land"; compare John 7:49, "this people who knoweth not the law are cursed"; also the Pharisee standing and praying with himself, self righteous and despising the publican (Luke 18:9-14). Isaiah (Isaiah 65:5) foretells their characteristic formalism, pride of sanctimony, and hypocritical exclusiveness (Judges 1:18). Their scrupulous tithing (Matthew 23:23; Luke 18:12) was based on the Mishna, "he who undertakes to be trustworthy (a pharisaic phrase) tithes whatever he eats, sells, buys, and does not eat and drink with the people of the land." The produce (tithes) reserved for the [[Levites]] and priests was "holy," and for anyone. else to eat it was deadly sin. So the Pharisee took all pains to know that his purchases had been duly tithed, and therefore shrank from "eating with" (Matthew 9:11) those whose food might not be so. The treatise Cholin in the Mishna lays down a regulation as to "clean and unclean" (Leviticus 20:25; Leviticus 22:4-7; Numbers 19:20) which severs the Jews socially from other peoples; "anything slaughtered by a pagan is unfit to be eaten, like the carcass of an animal that died of itself, and pollutes him who carries it." </p> <p> An orthodox Jew still may not eat meat of any animal unless killed by a Jewish butcher; the latter searches for a blemish, and attaches to the approved a leaden seal stamped kashar , "lawful." (Disraeli, Genius. of Judaism.) The Mishna abounds in precepts illustrating Colossians 2:21, "touch not, taste not, handle not" (contrast Matthew 15:11). Also it (6:480) has a separate treatise on washing of hands (Υadayim ). [[Translated]] Mark 7:8, "except they wash their hands with the fist" (pugmee ); the Mishna ordaining to pour water over the dosed hands raised so that it should flow down to the elbows, and then over the arms so as to flow over the fingers. Jesus, to confute the notion of its having moral value, did not wash before eating (Luke 11:37-40). [[Josephus]] (Ant. 18:1, section 3, 13:10, section 5) says the Pharisees lived frugally, like the Stoics, and hence had so much weight with the multitude that if they said aught against the king or the high-priest it was immediately believed, whereas the Sadducees could gain only the rich. </p> <p> The defect in the Pharisees which Christ stigmatized by the parable of the two debtors was not immorality but want of love, from unconsciousness of forgiveness or of the need of it. Christ recognizes Simon's superiority to the woman in the relative amounts of sin needing forgiveness, but shows both were on a level in inability to cancel their sin as a debt. Had he realized this, he would not have thought Jesus no prophet for suffering her to touch Him with her kisses of adoring love for His forgiveness of her, realized by her (Luke 7:36-50; Luke 15:2). Tradition set aside moral duties, as a child's to his parents by" Corban"; a debtor's to his creditors by the Mishna treatise, Avodah [[Zarah]] (1:1) which forbade payment to a pagan three days before any pagan festival; a man's duty of humanity to his fellow man by the Avodah Zarah (2:1) which forbids a [[Hebrew]] midwife assisting a pagan mother in childbirth (contrast Leviticus 19:18; Luke 10:27-29). </p> <p> [[Juvenal]] (14:102-104) alleges a Jew would not show the road or a spring to a traveler of a different creed. Josephus (B.J. 2:8, section 14; 3:8, section 5; Ant. 18:1, section 3) says: "the Pharisees say that the soul of good men only passes over into another body, while the soul of bad men is chastised by eternal punishment." Compare Matthew 14:2; John 9:2, "who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" compare John 9:34, "thou wast altogether born in sins." The rabbis believed in the pre-existence of souls. The Jews' question merely took for granted that some sin had caused the blindness, without defining whose sin, "this man" or (as that is out of the question) "his parents." </p> <p> Paul: regarded the Pharisees as holding our view of the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6-8). The phrase "the world to come" (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; compare Isaiah 65:17-22; Isaiah 26:19) often occurs in the Mishna (Avoth, 2:7; 4:16): this world may be likened to a courtyard in comparison of the world to come, therefore prepare thyself in the antechamber that thou mayest enter into the dining room"; "those born are doomed to die, the dead to live, and the quick to be judged," etc. (3:16) But the actions to be so judged were in reference to the ceremonial points as much as the moral duties. The [[Essenes]] apparently recognized [[Providence]] as overruling everything (Matthew 6:25-34; Matthew 10:29-30). The Sadducees, the wealthy aristocrats, originally in political and practical dealings with the [[Syrians]] relied more on worldly prudence, the Pharisees more insisted on considerations of legal righteousness, leaving events to God. </p> <p> The Pharisees were notorious for proselytizing zeal (Matthew 23:15), and seem to have been the first who regularly organized missions for conversions (compare Josephus, Ant. 20:2, section 3): The synagogues in the various cities of the world, as well as of Judaea, were thus by the proselytizing spirit of the Pharisees imbued with a thirst for inquiry, and were prepared for the gospel ministered by the apostles, and especially Paul, a Hebrew in race, a Pharisee by training, a Greek in language, and a [[Roman]] citizen in birth and privilege. In many respects their doctrine was right, so that Christ desires conformity to their precepts as from "Moses' seat," but not to their practice (Matthew 23:2-3). But while pressing the letter of the law they ignored the spirit (Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 5:38; Matthew 5:31-32). Among even the Pharisees some accepted the truth, [[Nicodemus]] and [[Joseph]] of Arimathea, and John 12:42 and Acts 15:5. </p>

<p> ''''' far´i ''''' - ''''' sēz ''''' ( פּרוּשׁים , <i> ''''' perūshı̄m ''''' </i> ; Φαρισαῖοι , <i> ''''' Pharisaı́oi ''''' </i> ): </p> <p> 1. Name and General Character </p> <p> 2. [[Authorities]] - J osephus - N ew Testament - T almud </p> <p> I. History Of The [[Sect]] </p> <p> 1. Associated at First with Hasmoneans, but Later Abandon Them </p> <p> 2. [[Change]] of Name </p> <p> 3. Later Fortunes of the Sect </p> <p> 4. In New Testament Times </p> <p> 5. In Post-apostolic Times </p> <p> II. [[Doctrines]] Of The Pharisees </p> <p> 1. Josephus's Statements Colored by Greek Ideas </p> <p> 2. [[Conditional]] Reincarnation </p> <p> 3. New Testament [[Presentation]] of Pharisaic Doctrines - A ngels and Spirits - R esurrection </p> <p> 4. Traditions [[Added]] to the Law </p> <p> 5. Traditional Interpretations of the Law by Pharisees (Sabbath, etc.) </p> <p> 6. Close Students of the Text of Scripture </p> <p> (1) Messianic Hopes </p> <p> (2) [[Almsgiving]] </p> <p> III. [[Organization]] Of The Pharisaic Party </p> <p> The Chabherim - P harisaic Brotherhoods </p> <p> IV. Character Of The Pharisees </p> <p> 1. Pharisees and People of the Land </p> <p> 2. [[Arrogance]] toward Other Jews </p> <p> 3. Regulations for the Chabher </p> <p> 4. The New Testament Account </p> <p> (1) Their Scrupulosity </p> <p> (2) Their [[Hypocrisy]] </p> <p> 5. Talmudic Classification of the Pharisees </p> <p> V. Our Lord 'S Relation To The Pharisees </p> <p> 1. Pharisaic Attempts to [[Gain]] Christ Over </p> <p> 2. Reasons for Pharisaic [[Hatred]] of Christ </p> <p> 3. our Lord's Denunciation of the Pharisees </p> <p> [[Literature]] </p> 1. Name and General Character: <p> A prominent sect of the Jews. The earliest notice of them in Josephus occurs in connection with Jonathan, the high priest. Immediately after the account of the embassy to the Lacedaemonians, there is subjoined (Josephus, <i> Ant. </i> , Xiii , v, 9) an account of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, therefore implying that then and in this connection they had been prominent, although no notice of any of these parties is to be found that confirms that view. Later (XIII, x, 5), the Pharisees are represented as envious of the success of John Hyrcanus; Eleazar, one of them, insults him at his own table. From the fact that earlier in the history the Assideans occupy a similar place to that occupied later by the Pharisees, it may be deduced that the two parties are in a measure one. See [[Hasidaeans]]; [[Asmoneans]] . It would seem that not only the Pharisees, but also the Essenes, were derived from the Assideans or <i> ''''' ḥăṣı̄dhı̄m ''''' </i> . </p> 2. Authorities - J osephus - N ew Testament - T almud: <p> In considering the characteristics and doctrines of the Pharisees we are in some difficulty from the nature of our authorities. The writers of the New Testament assume generally that the character and tenets of the Pharisees are well known to their readers, and only lay stress on the points in which they were in antagonism to our Lord and His followers. The evidence of Josephus, a contemporary and himself a Pharisee, is lessened in value by the fact that he modified his accounts of his people to suit the taste of his Roman masters. The Pharisees, with him, are a philosophic sect, and not an active political party. Their Messianic hopes are not so much as mentioned. Although the [[Talmud]] was written, both Mishna and Gemara, by the descendants of the Pharisees, the fact that the Gemara, from which most of our information is derived, is so late renders the evidence deduced from Talmudic statements of little value. Even the Mishna, which came into being only a century after the fall of the Jewish state, shows traces of exaggeration and modification of facts. Still, taking these deficiencies into consideration, we may make a fairly consistent picture of the sect. The name means "separatists," from פּרשׁ , <i> ''''' pārash ''''' </i> , "to separate" - those who carefully kept themselves from any legal contamination, distinguishing themselves by their care in such matters from the common people, the <i> ''''' ‛am ''''' </i> <i> ''''' hā ''''' </i> - <i> ''''' 'ārec ''''' </i> , who had fewer scruples. Like the Puritans in [[England]] during the 17th century, and the [[Presbyterians]] in [[Scotland]] during the same period, the Pharisees, although primarily a religious party, became ere long energetically political. They were a closely organized society, all the members of which called each other <i> ''''' ḥăbhērı̄m ''''' </i> , "neighbors"; this added to the power they had through their influence with the people. </p> I. History of the Sect. <p> The Assideans ( <i> ''''' ḥăṣı̄dhı̄m ''''' </i> ) were at first the most active supporters of Judas Maccabeus in his struggle for religious freedom. A portion of them rather than fight retired to the desert to escape the tyranny of Epiphanes ( 1 Maccabees 2:27 f). The followers of these in later days became the Essenes. When Judas Maccabeus cleansed the temple and rededicated it with many sacrifices, it is not expressly said, either in the Books of Maccabees or by Josephus, that he acted as high priest, but the probability is that he did so. This would be a shock to the Assidean purists, as Judas, though a priest, was not a Zadokite; but his actions would be tolerated at that time on account of the imminent necessity for the work of reconsecration and the eminent services of Judas himself and his family. </p> <p> <b> 1. Associated at First with Hasmoneans, but Later Abandon Them: </b> </p> <p> When [[Bacchides]] appeared against Jerusalem with [[Alcimus]] in his camp, this feeling against Judas took shape in receiving the treacherous Alcimus into Jerusalem and acknowledging him as high priest, a line of action which soon showed that it was fraught with disaster, as Alcimus murdered many of the people. They had to betake themselves anew to Judas, but this desertion was the beginning of a separating gulf which deepened when he made a treaty with the idolatrous Romans. As is not infrequently the case with religious zealots, their valor was associated with a mystic fanaticism. The very idea of alliance with heathen powers was hateful to them, so when Judas began to treat with Rome they deserted him, and he sustained the crushing defeat of Eleasa. [[Believing]] themselves the saints of God and therefore His peculiar treasure, they regarded any association with the heathen as faithlessness to Yahweh. Their attitude was much that of the Fifth Monarchy men in the time of Cromwell, still more that of the [[Cameronians]] in Scotland at the [[Revolution]] of 1688 who, because [[William]] of Orange was not a "covenanted" king, would have none of him. As the later Hasmoneans became more involved in worldly politics, they became more and more alienated from the strict Assideans, yet the successors of Judas Maccabeus retained their connection with the party in a lukewarm fashion, while the Sadducean sect was gaining in influence. </p> <p> About this time the change of name seems to have been effected. They began to be called Pharisees, <i> ''''' perūshı̄m ''''' </i> , instead of <i> ''''' ḥăṣı̄dhı̄m ''''' </i> - "separatists" instead of saints. A parallel instance is to be found in the religious history of England. </p> <p> <b> 2. Change of Name: </b> </p> <p> The Puritans of the 17th century became in the 19th "Non-conformists." The earliest instance of the Pharisees' intervening in history is that referred to in Josephus ( <i> Ant. </i> , Xiii , x, 5), where Eleazar, a Pharisee, demanded that John Hyrcanus should lay down the high-priesthood because his mother had been a captive, thus insinuating that he - H yrcanus - was no true son of Aaron, but the bastard of some nameless heathen to whom his mother had surrendered herself. This unforgivable insult to himself and to the memory of his mother led Hyrcanus to break with the Pharisaic party definitely. He seems to have left them severely alone. </p> <p> <b> 3. Later Fortunes of the Sect: </b> </p> <p> The sons of Hyrcanus, especially Alexander Janneus, expressed their hostility in a more active way. Alexander crucified as many as 800 of the Pharisaic party, a proceeding that seems to intimate overt acts of hostility on their part which prompted this action. His whole policy was the aggrandizement of the Jewish state, but his ambition was greater than his military abilities. His repeated failures and defeats confirmed the Pharisees in their opposition to him on religious grounds. He scandalized them by calling himself king, although not of the Davidic line, and further still by adopting the heathen name "Alexander," and having it stamped in Greek characters on his coins. Although a high priest was forbidden to marry a widow, he married the widow of his brother. Still further, he incurred their opposition by abandoning the Pharisaic tradition as to the way in which the libation water was poured out. They retaliated by rousing his people against him and conspiring with the [[Syrian]] king. On his deathbed he advised his wife, [[Alexandra]] Salome, who succeeded him on the throne, to make peace with the Pharisees. This she did by throwing herself entirely into their hands. On her death a struggle for the possession of the throne and the high-priesthood began between her two sons, John Hyrcanus 2 and [[Aristobulus]] II. The latter, the more able and energetic, had the support of the Sadducees; the former, the elder of the two brothers, had that of the Pharisees. In the first phase of the conflict, Hyrcanus was defeated and compelled to make a disadvantageous peace with his brother, but, urged by Antipater, the Idumean, he called in Aretas, who inclined the balance at once to the side of Hyrcanus. The Romans were appealed to and they also, moved partly by the astuteness of Antipater, favored Hyrcanus. All this resulted ultimately in the supremacy of the Herodians, who through their subservience to Rome became inimical to the Pharisees and rivals of the Sadducees. </p> <p> <b> 4. In New Testament Times: </b> </p> <p> When the New Testament records open, the Pharisees, who have supreme influence among the people, are also strong, though not predominant, in the Sanhedrin. The Herodians and Sadducees, the one by their alliance with the Rom authorities, and the other by their inherited skill in political intrigue, held the reins of government. If we might believe the Talmudic representation, the Pharisees were in the immense majority in the Sanhedrin; the <i> ''''' nāsı̄' ''''' </i> , or president, and the <i> ''''' 'abh ''''' </i> - <i> ''''' bēth ''''' </i> - <i> ''''' dı̄n ''''' </i> , or vice-president, both were Pharisees. This, however, is to be put to the credit of Talmudic imagination, the relation of which to facts is of the most distant kind. </p> <p> Recently Buchler ( <i> Das grosse Synedrion in Jerusalem </i> ) has attempted to harmonize these Talmudic fables with the aspect of things appearing in the New Testament and Josephus. He assumes that there were two Sanhedrins, one civil, having to do with matters of government, in which the Sadducees were overwhelmingly predominant, and the other scholastic, in which the Pharisees were equally predominant - the one the [[Senate]] of the nation, like the Senate of the United States, the other the Senate of a university, let us say, of Jerusalem. Although followed by Rabbi Lauterbach in the <i> Jewish Encyclopedia </i> , this attempt cannot be regarded as successful. There is no evidence for this dual Sanhedrin either in the New Testament or Josephus, on the one hand, or in the Talmud on the other. </p> <p> [[Outside]] the Sanhedrin the Pharisees are ubiquitous, in Jerusalem, in Galilee, in [[Peraea]] and in the Decapolis, always coming in contact with Jesus. The attempts made by certain recent Jewish writers to exonerate them from the guilt of the condemnation of our Lord has no foundation; it is contradicted by the New Testament records, and the attitude of the Talmud to Jesus. </p> <p> The Pharisees appear in the Book of Acts to be in a latent way favorers of the apostles as against the high-priestly party. The personal influence of Gamaliel, which seems commanding, was exercised in their favor. The anti-Christian zeal of Saul the Tarsian, though a Pharisee, may have been to some extent the result of the personal feelings which led him to perpetuate the relations of the earlier period when the two sects were united in common antagonism to the teaching of Christ. He, a Pharisee, offered himself to be employed by the Sadducean high priest (Acts 9:1 , Acts 9:2 ) to carry on the work of persecution in Damascus. In this action Saul appears to have been in opposition to a large section of the Pharisaic party. The bitter disputes which he and the other younger Pharisees had carried on with Stephen had possibly influenced him. </p> <p> <b> 5. In Post-Apostolic Times: </b> </p> <p> When Paul, the Christian apostle, was brought before the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, the Pharisaic party were numerous in the Council, if they did not even form the majority, and they readily became his defenders against the Sadducees. </p> <p> From Josephus we learn that with the outbreak of the war with the Romans the Pharisees were thrust into the background by the more fanatical Zealots, Simon ben Gioras and John of [[Gischala]] ( <i> Bj </i> , V, i). The truth behind the Talmudic statements that [[Gamaliel]] removed the Sanhedrin to [[Jabneh]] and that [[Johanan]] ben Zakkai successfully entreated [[Vespasian]] to spare the scholars of that city is that the Pharisees in considerable numbers made peace with the Romans. In the Mishna we have the evidence of their later labors when the Sanhedrin was removed from Jabneh, ultimately to [[Tiberias]] in Galilee. There under the guidance of Jehuda <i> ''''' ha ''''' </i> - <i> ''''' ḳadhosh ''''' </i> ("the Holy") the Mishna was reduced to writing. It may thus be said that Judaism became Pharisaism, and the history of the Jews became that of the Pharisees. In this later period the opposition to Christianity sprang up anew and became embittered, as may be seen in the Talmudic fables concerning Jesus. </p> II. Doctrines of the Pharisees. <p> <b> 1. Josephus' Statements Colored by Greek Ideas: </b> </p> <p> The account given of the doctrines of the Pharisees by Josephus is clearly influenced by his desire to parallel the Jewish sects with the Greek philosophical schools. He directs especial attention to the Pharisaic opinion as to fate and free will, since on this point the Stoic and Epicurean sects differed very emphatically. He regards the Pharisaic position as mid-way between that of the Sadducees, who denied fate altogether and made human freedom absolute, and that of the Essenes that "all things are left in the hand of God." He says "The Pharisees ascribe all things to fate and God, yet allow that to do what is right or the contrary is principally in man's own power, although fate cooperates in every action." It is to be noted that Josephus, in giving this statement of views, identifies "fate" with "God," a process that is more plausible in connection with the Latin <i> fatum </i> , "something decreed," than in relation to the impersonal <i> ''''' moı́ra ''''' </i> , or <i> ''''' heimarménē ''''' </i> , of the Greeks. As Josephus wrote in Greek and used only the second of these terms, he had no philological inducement to make the identification; the reason must have been the matter of fact. In other words, he shows that the Pharisees believed in a personal God whose will was providence. </p> <p> <b> 2. Conditional Reincarnation: </b> </p> <p> In connection with this was their doctrine of a future life of rewards and punishments. The phrase which Josephus uses is a peculiar one: "They think that every soul is immortal; only the souls of good men will pass into another body, but the souls of the evil shall suffer everlasting punishment" ( <i> ''''' aidı́ā ''''' </i> <i> ''''' timōrı́ā ''''' </i> <i> ''''' kolázesthai ''''' </i> ). From this it has been deduced that the Pharisees held the transmigration of souls. In our opinion this is a mistake. We believe that really it is an attempt of Josephus to state the doctrine of the resurrection of the body in a way that would not shock Hellenic ideas. The Greek contempt for the body made the idea of the resurrection abhorrent, and in this, as in most philosophical matters, the Romans followed the Greeks. It would seem that Josephus regarded the Pharisees as maintaining that this resurrection applied only to the righteous. Still even this restriction, though certainly the natural interpretation, is not absolutely necessary. This is confirmed by the corresponding section in the <i> [[Antiquities]] </i> (XVIII, i, 3): "They also believe ... that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life, and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again." Josephus also declares the Pharisees to be very attentive students of the law of God: "they interpret the law with careful exactitude." </p> <p> <b> 3. New Testament Presentation of Pharisaic Doctrines - A ngels And </b> </p> <p> Spirits - R esurrection: </p> <p> Nothing in the Gospels or the Acts at all militates against any part of this representation, but there is much to fill it out. They believed in angels and spirits (Acts 23:8 ). From the connection it is probable that the present activity of such beings was the question in the mind of the writer. In that same sentence belief in the resurrection is ascribed to the Pharisees. </p> <p> <b> 4. Traditions Added to the Law: </b> </p> <p> Another point is that to the bare letter of the Law they added traditions. While the existence of these traditions is referred to in Gospels, too little is said to enable us to grasp their nature and extent (Matthew 15:2 ff; Matthew 16:5 ff; Mk 7:1-23). The evangelists only recorded these traditional glosses when they conflicted with the teaching of Christ and were therefore denounced by Him. We find them exemplified in the Mishna. The Pharisaic theory of tradition was that these additions to the written law and interpretations of it had been given by Moses to the elders and by them had been transmitted orally down through the ages. The classical passage in the Mishna is to be found in <i> '''''Pirḳe'''''' </i> <i> '''''Ābhōth''''' </i> : "Moses received the (oral) Law from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets and the prophets to the men of the great synagogue." Additions to these traditions were made by prophets by direct inspiration, or by interpretation of the words of the written Law. All this mass, as related above, was reduced to writing by Jehuda <i> '''''ha''''' </i> - <i> '''''Ḳādhōsh''''' </i> in Tiberias, probably about the end of the 2nd century AD. Jehuda was born, it is said, 135 AD, and died somewhere about 220 AD. </p> <p> The related doctrines of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment with its consequent eternal rewards and punishments formed a portion and a valuable portion of this tradition. </p> <p> <b> 5. Traditional Interpretations of the Law by Pharisees (Sabbath, Etc.): </b> </p> <p> Less valuable, at times burdensome and hurtful, were the minute refinements they introduced into the Law. Sometimes the ingenuity of the Pharisaic doctors was directed to lighten the burden of the precept as in regard to the Sabbath. Thus a person was permitted to go much farther than a Sabbath day's journey if at some time previous he had deposited, within the legal Sabbath day's journey of the place he wished to reach, bread and water; this point was now to be regarded as the limit of his house, and consequently from this all distances were to be ceremonially reckoned ( <i> Jewish Encyclopedia </i> , under the word "Erub"): The great defect of Pharisaism was that it made sin so purely external. An act was right or wrong according as some external condition was present or absent; thus there was a difference in bestowing alms on the Sabbath whether the beggar put his hand within the door of the donor or the donor stretched his hand beyond his own threshold, as may be seen in the first Mishna in the Tractate <i> ''''' Shabbāth ''''' </i> . A man did not break the Sabbath rest of his ass, though he rode on it, and hence did not break the Sabbath law, but if he carried a switch with which to expedite the pace of the beast he was guilty, because he had laid a burden upon it. </p> <p> <b> 6. Close Students of the Text of Scripture: </b> </p> <p> Along with these traditions and traditional interpretations, the Pharisees were close students of the sacred text. On the turn of a sentence they suspended many decisions. So much so, that it is said of them later the Text of that they suspended mountains from hairs. This is especially the case with regard to the Sabbath law with its burdensome minutiae. At the same time there was care as to the actual wording of the text of the Law; this has a bearing on textual criticism, even to the present day. A specimen of Pharisaic exegesis which Paul turns against their followers as an <i> argumentum ad hominem </i> may be seen in Galatians 3:16 : "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." </p> (1) Messianic Hopes. <p> It is also to be said for them, that they maintained the Messianic hopes of the nation when their rivals were ready to sacrifice everything to the Romans, in order to gain greater political influence for themselves. Their imagination ran riot in the pictures they drew of these future times, but still they aided the faith of the people who were thus in a position to listen to the claims of Christ. They were led by Rabbi Aqiba in the reign of Hadrian to accept Bar-Cochba about a century after they had rejected Jesus. They were fanatical in their obedience to the Law as they understood it, and died under untold tortures rather than transgress. </p> (2) Almsgiving. <p> They elevated almsgiving into an equivalent for righteousness. This gave poverty a very different place from what it had in [[Greece]] or among the Romans. [[Learning]] was honored, although its possessors might be very poor. The story of the early life of Hillel brings this out. He is represented as being so poor as to be unable sometimes to pay the small daily fee which admitted pupils to the rabbinic school, and when this happened, in his eagerness for the Law, he is reported to have listened on the roof to the words of the teachers. This is probably not historically true, but it exhibits the Pharisaic ideal. </p> III. Organization of the Pharisaic Party. <p> We have no distinct account of this organization, either in the Gospels, in Josephus, or in the Talmud. But the close relationship which the members of the sect sustained to each other, their habit of united action as exhibited in the narratives of the New Testament and of Josephus are thus most naturally explained. The Talmudic account of the <i> ''''' ḥăbhē̄rı̄m ''''' </i> affords confirmation of this. These were persons who primarily associated for the study of the Law and for the better observance of its precepts. No one was admitted to these <i> ''''' ḥăbhūrōth ''''' </i> without taking an oath of fidelity to the society and a promise of strict observance of Levitical precepts. </p> <p> <b> The Chabherim - P harisaic Brotherhoods: </b> </p> <p> One of the elements of their promise has to be noted. The <i> ''''' ḥābhēr ''''' </i> promised not to pay <i> ''''' ma‛ăsrōth ''''' </i> , "tithe," or <i> ''''' terūmāh ''''' </i> , "heave offering," to a priest who was not a <i> ''''' ḥābhēr ''''' </i> . They were only permitted to take this oath when their associates in the brotherhood certified to their character. Even then the candidate had to pass through a period of probation of 30 days, according to the "house of Hillel," of a year, according to the "house of Shammai." This latter element, being quite <i> more Talmudico </i> , may be regarded as doubtful. Association with any not belonging to the Pharisaic society was put under numerous restrictions. It is at least not improbable that when the lawyer in Luke 10:29 demanded "Who is my neighbor?" he was minded to restrict the instances of the command in Leviticus 19:18 to those who were, like himself, Pharisees. A society which thus had brotherhoods all over Palestine and was separated from the rest of the community would naturally wield formidable power when their claims were supported by the esteem of the people at large. It is to be observed that to be a <i> '''''ḥābhēr''''' </i> was a purely personal thing, not heritable like priesthood, and women as well as men might be members. In this the Pharisees were like the Christians. In another matter also there was a resemblance between them and the followers of Jesus; they, unlike the Sadducees, were eager to make proselytes. "Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte" (Matthew 23:15 ). Many members of Roman society, especially women, were proselytes, as, for instance, Poppea Sabina. </p> IV. Character of the Pharisees. <p> <b> 1. Pharisees and People of the Land: </b> </p> <p> Because the ideal of the Pharisees was high, and because they reverenced learning and character above wealth and civil rank they had a tendency to despise those who did not agree with them. We see traces of this in the Gospels; thus John 7:49 : "This multitude that knoweth not the law are accursed." The distinction between the Pharisees, the Puritans and the <i> '''''‛am''''' </i> <i> '''''hā''''' </i> - <i> ''''''ārec''''' </i> , "the people of the land," began with the distinction that had to be kept between the Jews and the Gentiles who had entered the land as colonists or intruders. These would, during the [[Babylonian]] captivity, almost certainly speak Western Aramaic, and would certainly be heathen and indulge in heathen practices. They were "the people of the land" whom the returning exiles found in possession of Judea. </p> <p> <b> 2. Arrogance Toward Other Jews: </b> </p> <p> [[Mingled]] with them were the few Jews that had neither been killed nor deported by the Babylonians, nor carried down into [[Egypt]] by Johanan, the son of Kareah. As they had conformed in a large measure to the habits of their heathen neighbors and intermarried with them, the stricter Jews, as Ezra and Nehemiah, regarded them as under the same condemnation as the heathen, and shrank from association with them. During the time of our Lord's life on earth the name was practically restricted to the ignorant Jews whose conformity to the law was on a broader scale than that of the Pharisees. Some have, however, dated the invention of the name later in the days of the Maccabean struggle, when the ceremonial precepts of the Law could with difficulty be observed. Those who were less careful of these were regarded as <i> ''''' ‛am ''''' </i> <i> ''''' hā ''''' </i> - <i> ''''' 'ārec ''''' </i> . </p> <p> <b> 3. Regulations for the Chabher: </b> </p> <p> The distinction as exhibited in the Talmud shows an arrogance on the part of the Pharisaic <i> ''''' ḥābhēr ''''' </i> that must have been galling to those who, though Jews as much as the Pharisees, were not Puritans like them. A <i> ''''' ḥābhēr ''''' </i> , that is a Pharisee, might not eat at the table of a man whose wife was of the <i> ''''' ‛am ''''' </i> <i> ''''' hā ''''' </i> - <i> ''''' 'ārec ''''' </i> , even though her husband might be a Pharisee. If he would be a full <i> ''''' ḥābhēr ''''' </i> , a Pharisee must not sell to any of the <i> ''''' ‛am ''''' </i> <i> ''''' hā ''''' </i> - <i> ''''' 'ārec ''''' </i> anything that might readily be made unclean. If a woman of the <i> ''''' ‛am ''''' </i> <i> ''''' hā ''''' </i> - <i> ''''' 'ārec ''''' </i> was left alone in a room, all that she could touch without moving from her place was unclean. We must, however, bear in mind that the evidence for this is Talmudic, and therefore of but limited historical value. </p> <p> <b> 4. The New Testament Account; </b> </p> (1) Their Scrupulosity. <p> We find traces of this scrupulosity in the Gospels. The special way in which the ceremonial sanctity of the Pharisees exhibited itself was in tithing, hence the reference to their tithing "mint and anise and cummin" (Matthew 23:23 ). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, one of the things that the Pharisee plumes himself on is that he gives tithes of all he possesses (Luke 18:12 ). He is an example of the Pharisaic arrogance of those "who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and set all others at nought." Their claiming the first seats in feasts and synagogues (Matthew 23:6 ) was an evidence of the same spirit. </p> (2) Their Hypocrisy. <p> Closely akin to this is the hypocrisy of which the Pharisees were accused by our Lord. When we call them "hypocrites," we must go back to the primary meaning of the word. They were essentially "actors," <i> poseurs </i> . [[Good]] men, whose character and spiritual force have impressed themselves on their generation, have often peculiarities of manner and tone which are easily imitated. The very respect in which they are held by their disciples leads those who respect them to adopt unconsciously their mannerisms of voice and deportment. A later generation unconsciously imitates, "acts the part." In a time when religion is persecuted, as in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, or despised as it was in the Hellenizing times which preceded and succeeded, it would be the duty of religious men not to hide their convictions. The tendency to carry on this public manifestation of religious acts after it had ceased to be protest would be necessarily great. The fact that they gained credit by praying at street corners when the hour of prayer came, and would have lost credit with the people had they not done so, was not recognized by them as lessening the moral worth of the action. Those who, having lived in the period of persecution and contempt, survived in that when religion was held in respect would maintain their earlier practice without any <i> arriere-pensee </i> . The succeeding generation, in continuing the practice, consciously "acted." They were <i> poseurs </i> . Their hypocrisy was none the less real that it was reached by unconscious stages. Hypocrisy was a new sin, a sin only possible in a spiritual religion, a religion in which morality and worship were closely related. Heathenism, which lay in sacrifices and ceremonies by which the gods could be bribed, or cajoled into favors, had a purely casual connection with morality; its worship was entirely a thing of externals, of acting, "posing." Consequently, a man did not by the most careful attention to the ceremonies of religion produce any presumption in favor of his trustworthiness. There was thus no sinister motive to prompt to religion. The prophets had denounced the insincerity of worship, but even they did not denounce hypocrisy, i.e. religion used as a cloak to hide treachery or dishonesty. Religion had become more spiritual, the connection between morality and worship more intimate by reason of the persecution of the Seleucids. </p> <p> <b> 5. Talmudic Classification of the Pharisees: </b> </p> <p> The Talmud to some extent confirms the representation of the Gospels. There were said to be seven classes of Pharisees: (1) the "shoulder" Pharisee, who wears his good deeds on his shoulders and obeys the precept of the Law, not from principle, but from expediency; (2) the "wait-a-little" Pharisee, who begs for time in order to perform a meritorious action; (3) the "bleeding" Pharisee, who in his eagerness to avoid looking on a woman shuts his eyes and so bruises himself to bleeding by stumbling against a wall; (4) the "painted" Pharisee, who advertises his holiness lest any one should touch him so that he should be defiled; (5) the "reckoning" Pharisee, who is always saying "What duty must I do to balance any unpalatable duty which I have neglected?"; (6) the "fearing" Pharisee, whose relation to God is one merely of trembling awe; (7) the Pharisee from "love." In all but the last there was an element of "acting," of hypocrisy. It is to be noted that the Talmud denounces ostentation; but unconsciously that root of the error lies in the externality of their righteousness; it commands an avoidance of ostentation which involves equal "posing." </p> V. Our Lord's Relationship to the Pharisees. <p> <b> 1. Pharisaic Attempts to Gain Christ over: </b> </p> <p> The attitude of the Pharisees to Jesus, to begin with, was, as had been their attitude to John, critical. They sent representatives to watch His doings and His sayings and report. They seem to have regarded it as possible that He might unite Himself with them, although, as we think, His affinities rather lay with the Essenes. Gradually their criticism became opposition. This opposition grew in intensity as He disregarded their interpretations of the Sabbatic law, ridiculed their refinements of the law of tithes and the distinctions they introduced into the validity of oaths, and denounced their insincere posing. At first there seems to have been an effort to cajole Him into compliance with their plans. If some of the Pharisees tempted Him to use language which would compromise Him with the people or with the Rom authorities, others invited Him to their tables, which was going far upon the part of a Pharisee toward one not a <i> ''''' ḥābhēr ''''' </i> . Even when He hung on the cross, the taunt with which they greeted Him may have had something of longing, lingering hope in it: "If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him" ( Matthew 27:42 King James Version). If He would only give them that sign, then they would acknowledge Him to be the Messiah. </p> <p> <b> 2. Reasons for Pharisaic Hatred of Christ: </b> </p> <p> The opposition of the Pharisees to Jesus was intensified by another reason. They were the democratic party; their whole power lay in the reputation they had with the people for piety. our Lord denounced them as hypocrites; moreover He had secured a deeper popularity than theirs. At length when cajolery failed to win Him and astute questioning failed to destroy His popularity, they combined with their opponents, the Sadducees, against Him as against a common enemy. </p> <p> <b> 3. Our Lord's Denunciation of the Pharisees: </b> </p> <p> On the other hand, Jesus denounced the Pharisees more than He denounced any other class of the people. This seems strange when we remember that the main body of the religious people, those who looked for the Messiah, belonged to the Pharisees, and His teaching and theirs had a strong external resemblance. It was this external resemblance, united as it was with a profound spiritual difference, which made it incumbent on Jesus to mark Himself off from them. All righteousness with them was external, it lay in meats and drinks and divers washings, in tithing of mint, anise and cummin. He placed religion on a different footing, removed it into another region. With Him it was the heart that must be right with God, not merely the external actions; not only the outside of the cup and platter was to be cleansed, but the inside first of all. It is to be noted that, as observed above, the Pharisees were less antagonistic to the apostles when their Lord had left them. The after-history of Pharisaism has justified Our Lord's condemnation. </p> Literature. <p> <b> [[Histories]] of Israel: </b> </p> <p> Ewald, V, 365 ff, English translation; Herzfeld, III, 354 ff; Jost, I, 197 ff; Gratz, V, 91 ff; Derenbourg, 75-78,117-44,452-54; Holtzmann, II, 124 ff; Renan, V, 42 ff; Stanley, III, 376 ff; Cornill, 145 ff, English translation; Schurer, II, ii, 4 ff, English translation ( <i> Gjv 4 </i> , II. 447 ff); Kuenen, III, 233 ff. ET. </p> <p> <b> Life and Times of Christ: </b> </p> <p> Hausrath, I, 135 ff, English translation; Edersheim, I, 310 ff; Lange, I, 302 ff, English translation; Farrar, II. 494 ff; Geikie, II, 223. ff; Keim, I, 250 ff; Thomson. <i> Books Which Influenced our Lord </i> , 50 ff; Weiss. I, 285 ff. English translation; de Pressense, 116 ff. </p> <p> <b> Articles in Encyclopedias, [[Bible]] Dictionaries, Lexicons, Etc.: </b> </p> <p> Ersch and Gruber, <i> Allg. [[Eric]] </i> (Daniel); Winer, <i> Realworterbuch </i> ; Herzog, RE, edition 1 (Reuss), editions 2,3 (Sieffert); Hamburger, <i> Realenic </i> .; Smith's <i> Db </i> (Twisleton); Kitto's <i> Cyclopaedia of Biblical Lit </i> . (Ginsburg); <i> Hdb </i> (Eaton); <i> Encyclopedia Biblica </i> (Cowley. Prince); Schenkel, <i> Bibel-Lexicon </i> (Hausrath); <i> Jew Encyclopedia </i> (Kohler); <i> Temple Dict. of the Bible </i> (Christie); Hastings, <i> Dcg </i> (Hugh Scott, Mitchell). </p> <p> <b> Monographs: </b> </p> <p> Wellhausen, Montet, Geiger, Baneth, Muller, Hanne, Davaine, Herford; Weber, <i> System der altsynagogen Palestinischen Theologie </i> , 10 ff, 44 ff; Keil, <i> Biblical </i> <i> [[Archaeology]] </i> , II, 1680; Ryle and James, <i> Psalms of [[Solomon]] </i> . 44 ff; Nicolas. <i> Doctrines religieuses des juifs </i> , 48 ff. </p>