Mentioned 91x in the Gospels alone (and another 10x in the rest of the NT), the Pharisees are more often referred to as a social group than any others, and it is easy to think that we know them well. When they are spoken of in the Gospels, they most often appear as arrogant and in opposition to Jesus. This can be deceiving, and it does us good to be reminded that, like all social groups, there are Pharisees and there are Pharisees. And, as Donald Cook (see Resources below) has so clearly indicated, the Gospels portraiture of them are also highly nuanced. In fact scholars admit that we, in fact, know rather little about them. A balanced summary about them, however, is provided by S. Westerholm:
The Pharisees appear . . . as a distinct party in Judaism of the late Second Temple period, with their own vision of what Israel's standing as God's covenant people entailed. Characteristic of the Pharisaic position was their adherence to a body of traditional material (Gk paradosis) handed down "from the fathers," which defined correct behaviour in a number of ways and which represented both an interpretation of and a supplement to Pentateuchal Law. In the Gospels Pharisees are generally (though not quite universally) depicted as opponents of Jesus, critical of his behavior, hostile in their questions, malicious in their deliberations. In turn, their piety is attacked as hypocritical, their spiritual leadership i declared bankrupt, and they are charged with leading the nation to its doom. Through all the polemic the significant role played by the Pharisees in Jewish life in first-century Palestine is apparent. (DJG, 609.)
The historical origin of the Pharisees is a matter of debate. Apart from the NT, where what can be learned about them, the only other ancient sources about them are Josephus and the rabbinic literature. Both sources are, however, also problematic. Josephus claimed to have studied the various schools of Jewish philosophies of his days (which included also the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Zealots) and decided to embrace the school of the Pharisees. According to Josephus, the Pharisees— possibly with roots among the hasidim—first appeared and gained influence with the people and with John Hyrcanus in the 2nd Cent BC. However, they broke with John when he turned to the Sadducees for help. The relationship deteriorated so poorly that, in the reign of Alexander Janneaus (John's successor), the Pharisees turned to the Seleucid ruler of Syria, Demetrius III, for help. On his triumph, Alexander had 800 of them crucified. On his deathbed, however, Alexander advised his wife, Alexandra Salome, to count their support, which she did. And that was how the Pharisees came to dominate the Sanhedrin. But it did not take them long to learn an important lesson, i.e., spiritual ends cannot be achieved by political means, for they bore the blunt of opposition from the rule of the Herods, to the point that, unpon the death of Herod the Great, they actually applied to the Romans for direct Roman rule. As a whole they sided with the Romans when the First Jewish Revolt broke out in 66 AD. For this, they were favoured when one of their leaders (Johanan ben Zakkai) sought permission from Vespasian to establish a rabbinic center at Jamnia.
(But Josephus' is historically problematic for three reasons. First, his impartiality. While no writer is ever totally free from presuppositions and personal interest, Josephus was writing to justify his (some would say) 'tracherous' behaviour, moving from being a Jewish rebel (and under suspiscious circumstances) to a defender of the Roman offence against his own people. Secondly, his accounts often conflict with one aonther, making his own historical credibility an issue. Thirdly, Josephus's writings have often been edited by early Chrisitians writers who saw him a useful ally in their defence of their faith against attacks from Judaism.)
By the end of the 1st Cent AD, the Sadducees had disappeared. The Zealots were badly beaten by the Romans and proven to lack any credibility as a result of the failed Second Jewish Revolt. This left only the Pharisees, whose teachings became the basis for later rabbinic Judaism.
As we have noted earlier it is easy to form a poor opinion of the Pharisees from a cursory reading of the Gospels. This is true at an individual as well as at an institutional level, and over the centuries the Christian church have deepened this prejudice by the un-critical use of Jewish sources from later times and projected that picture back into the times of Jesus as if no development not taken place in the interim. The Pharisees are most prominent in their opposition to Jesus in the Gospels, but they are not the only ones who opposed Jesus's teachings. And not all Pharisees are hypocrites. Nicodemus was a Pharisee (Jn 3:1). Like him, many Pharisees—given their rather formalized teaching—probably struggled to understand Jesus. People who care deeply about their beliefs and standing before God are usually the most vocal and, therefore, most visible. That Jesus saw a considerable number of them, as persons, and some of their practices (such as the Corban), may be hypocritical does not leave us free from the responsibility of treating each incident in the NT concerning the Pharisees on its own terms and to understand what is asserted with that context. 'One size fits all' may be useful when buying a tee-shirt; it is an odious principle for seeking the truth. Jesus had no hesitation accepting the invitation to dinner from Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:36-50), neither should we refuse the invitation to take another look at them.
The origin of the name is also a matter of debate. Some scholars suggest that it derived from the Hebrew word perushim, 'separatists,' but it cannot be determined if this was a label given to them or one they gave themselves, and if the former, if it was used perjoratively. Others have suggested that it derived from paroshim, 'specifiers,' i.e., those who are scrupulous in their observances of God's laws (which is the portrait of them that quickly emerges from any reading of the Gospels). What seems clear from all these, however, is that the Pharisees were considered to be widely respected for their piety and passion about the laws of God and wielded wide influence in Palestinian Jewish society.
RESOURCES :
D. R. de Lacey, "In Search of a Pharise," Tyndale Bulletin 43.2 (1992): 353-372. Pdf N
©ALBERITH
310821lch