sign in sign up
<<
Home , Babylonian captivity

2 The — Power and Purity

Introduction Pharisees were, it would be a gross simpli- Perhaps no other religious group played a fication, if not a distortion of the truth, to greater role in the life of Jesus and the early characterize Jesus’ ministry as simply “anti- 1 church than the Pharisees. Some form of Pharisaic.” His vision and agenda cannot the word “Pharisee(s)” appears eighty-eight be defined as a simple counterpoint to the times in the Gospels, eight times in the book Pharisees. Furthermore, leading Pharisees of of Acts, and once in the Epistles, making the time, such as Nicodemus and Gamaliel a total of ninety-seven occurrences in the (John 3:1–9; 7:50; 19:39; Acts 5:34–39), did not New Testament (UBS4). As prominent as the oppose Jesus, and other Pharisees came to identify with the early Christians (Acts 15:5). During prayer Orthodox wear traditional Even so, key aspects of the gospel are set prayer shawls and tephillim, small boxes con- taining verses from Deuteronomy 6, tied to the forth in dialogue with the Pharisees. For forehead and hands. example, Jesus was frequently in conflict with some Pharisees concerning the proper inter- pretation of the law of (Matt 15:1–21). Even Jesus’ fundamental understanding of God appears radically at odds with that of many Pharisees (Matt 16:6–12; Luke 14:3–35, John 4:1; 11:46–57). Such differences spill over into the birth and development of the early church as well. Acts 15:1–5 indicates that the early church’s decision to welcome uncircumcised as full members of the community was nearly overturned by some Pharisees. In one way or another, an intense concern with Jewish ethnicity and cultic ritual on the part of some Pharisees plagued the early church throughout the apostolic period (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1–5; Gal. 2:1–15; Phil. 3:2–3). 1 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian : A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 44.

50 THE PHARISEES—POWER AND PURITY In the end, however, the course of the church to sift out of the Qumran literature, the only was not to be directed along Pharisaic lines sources we have concerning the Pharisees are (Acts 15:13–29). those of , the writings of the New The extent to which the Pharisees defined Testament, and the traditions of the .3 Judaism prior to 70 c.e. is a point of debate Since the presentation of the Pharisees in each among scholars. The very survival of the of these sources is determined by its literary Pharisees after the destruction of the temple context, the scholar must proceed with cau- is also open to question, even though the early tion.4 The historical continuity between the rabbis claim the Pharisees as their progeni- sources is not completely demonstrable, and so tors and purport to preserve their teachings drawing direct parallels between the sources in the .2 Since these teachings sur- raises questions. vive to this day and form an integral part of Perhaps the best way to proceed is along modern Judaism, the identity and influence phenomenological lines that seek to iden- of the Pharisees are a critical issue for both tify a common portrait arising out of sys- Jewish and Christian scholars. One cannot temic patterns inherent to the sources. The understand the person and work of Jesus, the Maccabees, Josephus, the New Testament, story of the early church, and the continued and the early rabbis speak of an identifiable development of Judaism without a group of Jews who are zealous for the written thorough knowledge of the Pharisees. Torah and the “traditions of the fathers” and at times have considerable influence in the The Origin of the Pharisees religious and political affairs of the Jews (1 A critical question that has engaged scholars Macc 2:27–30, 42–43; Ant. 13.297–298; Mark of Judaism and those studying 7:3–5; m. ’Abot 1:1–18). early Christianity concerns the precise identity At points in this long history, covering and origin of the Pharisees. When did this sig- 3 Josephus claims to have explored all three nificant group in Judaism arise, and what were major sects in Judaism (the Sadducees, the Phari- the factors that contributed to its emergence? sees, and the Essenes) and decided to become a Pharisee (Life 1.10–12). He mentions the Phari- The issue is fraught with problems because of sees twenty times, often in conjunction with the the nature of the sources. Apart from a few chief priests and always as politically, socially, and allusions in Maccabees and what we are able religiously influential. On the relationship of the Pharisees to the chief priests, see Urban C. Von 2 The order of reception as related by the early Wahlde, “The Relationships between Pharisees rabbis is as follows: God revealed the written and Chief Priests: Some Observations on the Texts and to Moses. The oral teachings were in Matthew, John, and Josephus,” NTS 42 (1996): preserved by the “fathers” and inherited by the 506–22. Pharisees. After the destruction of the temple in 4 Among scholars who question the accounts 70 c.e., the traditions were preserved by the early of the Pharisees in Josephus, the New Testament, rabbis and finally codified in theM ishnah (ca. 200 and the are E. P. Sanders, Jesus c.e.). The Babylonian and Palestinian (ca. and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); and J. 400–600 c.e.) are massive commentaries on earlier Sievers, “Who Were the Pharisees?” in Hillel and teachings of the rabbis found in the Mishnah. The Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious self-designated successors of the Pharisees are Leaders (ed. James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. known as the Tannaim, and their writings are called Johns; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 135–55. Among the Tannaitic literature. For detailed presentations those who express more confidence in the reports on the order of reception, see Samson H. Levey, of Josephus and the rabbis are Jacob Neusner, From “Neusner’s Purities—Monumental Masterpiece of Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Juda- Mishnaic Learning: An Essay-Review of Jacob Neus- ism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973); ner’s A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities (22 idem, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Volumes),” Journal of the Academy of Religion 46 before 70 (3 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999); (1978): 338, 342; and Lawrence H. Schiffman, “New and Ellis Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution: The Phari- Light on the Pharisees: Insights from the Dead Sea sees’ Search for the Kingdom Within (Nashville: Scrolls,” BRev (1992): 30, 33. Abingdon, 1978), esp. 27.

51 peoples of the new testament world more than three hundred years, these pious are set forth in 1 Macc 2:24–26 (cf. also 3:1–9). are explicitly described as “Pharisees.” In Here we read that these zealous Jews fought other places such persons are called the for their lives and the law (1 Macc 3:21). Hasidim (“pious ones”) or the Haberim (“the Like-minded Hasidim were among those fellowship”). Scholars are sharply divided who rallied to the Maccabean cause (1 Macc over whether all of these groups represent 2:27–30, 42–43). It is not impossible that the Pharisees, some stage in the development these Hasidim were the precursors to the of the Pharisees, or distinct groups that have Pharisees. In Ant. 13.171 Josephus speaks of no inherent connection to each other. the Pharisees in conjunction with Despite the various expressions, a general the Hasmonean (ca. 142 b.c.e.; cf. Ant. 13.166, profile seems to emerge that is compatible 174). He also talks of the “sect” (Gk. hairesis) with what we know of the Pharisees as set of the Pharisees and states that they existed forth in the New Testament. It is suggest- by the time of Hyrcanus (135–105 b.c.e.). He ed here that this common portrait of the records the conflict between the Pharisees Pharisees is derived from Judaism’s struggle and wherein incited to preserve a single religious heritage in the Pharisees to force Hyrcanus to give the midst of one national trauma after up the high priesthood (Ant. 13.288–300). another. For example, after the destruction In addition, if 4QpNah speaks against the of the temple, the rabbinic council at Yavneh Pharisees from a Sadducean point of view, (70–125 c.e.) was dedicated to retrieving and then this would mean that both groups were consolidating the elements the participants well established during the Hasmonean peri- felt best defined their vision of Judaism. In od.6 These texts show that the Pharisees were preserving the traditions of the Pharisees as in place during the time of the Hasmoneans they saw it, the rabbis present a profile that and possibly as early as the Maccabean is in many points complementary to what we revolt. find in the Gospels and Josephus. “Josephus, The emergence of such a major religious the New Testament, and the Tannaitic party within probably did not occur Literature, though focusing on the Pharisees overnight. Indeed, the religious, political, and with different lenses, were looking at the social factors that ultimately gave rise to the identical object.”5 Whether they were in fact Pharisees may have already been in place as all looking at “the identical object” may be early as the Babylonian captivity. The threat questioned, but there is some consensus to Israel and her identity became most acute among these sources concerning the ideals during this period. It appears that in an and praxis of the Pharisees. effort to counter the religious and cultural It is possible that what may be called proto- syncretism of the time, some Jews embarked Pharisees emerged upon the scene at the on a radical campaign of separation from beginning of the Hasmonean era, near the everything and everyone that did not pro- end of the Maccabean period. First Maccabees mote their view of the people of God. The 2:15 indicates that the zeal of Mattathias drive to be separate seems to have intensified sparked the popular Jewish revolt against during the time of and Nehemiah, about Antiochus Epiphanes in about 168 b.c.e. The 458 b.c.e. (cf. Ezra 6:1–12; 7:10–28). Their agenda and methods of the Maccabean revolt campaign of radical separation may have 5 rivkin, A Hidden Revolution, 183. Cf. also 6 lawrence H. Schiffman, “Pharisees and Sad- Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient ducees in Pesher Nahum,” in Minah le-Nahum Judaism: The Haskell Lectures, 1972–1973 (SJLA 1; (JSOTSup 154; Sheffield,E ng.: Sheffield Academic Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), 65. Press, 1993), 272.

52 THE PHARISEES—POWER AND PURITY planted the seeds that eventually germinated the emergence and development of the and grew into the sect of the Pharisees.7 Pharisees concerns Israel’s understanding and practice of the law after the exile.9 The The Babylonian Captivity and the one thing that the ravages of war could not Emergence of the Pharisees take from the Jews was their devotion to the In 597 b.c.e. Nebuchadnezzar, king of the law of Moses. In a way that cannot be easily Babylonians, overran Judea and captured quantified, in the aftermath of the captivity, . His plan was to reduce Israel to the law of Moses came to serve for many Jews a slave state. To this end he destroyed the as the tangible substitute for all that they temple, confiscating the sacred vessels (Jer had lost. To some degree this was the case 28:1–6), and carried away the most talented among the Pharisees. Jews to , including and . This intense focus on the law also became Nebuchadnezzar had no need for the “poor- the hallmark of Ezra and Nehemiah. For est people of the land,” those who “work the them, strict observance of the law became vineyards and fields,” and so they were left to the definitive sign that distinguished the fend for themselves in the midst of a ravaged true from those who had no place in nation (2 Kgs 25:12; Jer 52:16). The Jews were the commonwealth of Israel (Ezra 9:4; Neh devastated politically, socially, and religiously. 8:3, 18; 9:3). It appears that at this time the They needed a rallying point that could hold proper observance of the Sabbath, circumci- the people and their faith together. sion, and purity regulations took on a promi- This quest in response to nence as never before (Jer 17:19–27; Isa of captivity may well have generated ideals, 56:1–8; 58:13–14; Ezek 4:12–15; 22:26). This values, and practices that eventually gave rise extraordinary focus on religious code and to the Pharisees. The crisis of the exile likely ritual could have been a seminal factor in the forced Israel to adopt strategies for survival birth and development of the Pharisees. that led to the formation of various groups, the Pharisees included. Thus postexilic Israel Ezra, Nehemiah, may have entered into an extraordinary and Incipient Pharisaism period of “creativity” in ensuring the future In 538 b.c.e. King Cyrus of the Persians 8 of the nation. For Israel, the choices were decreed that the Jews were to be allowed to to adapt or die. The status quo had to be return to their ancestral homeland and to abandoned. Israel would have to embrace rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1–6; 6:1–5; 2 Chr radically new ways of seeing itself, its God, 36:20–23; cf. also Herodotus, Hist. 1.191–192). and its religion. The Golah lists of Ezra and Nehemiah grant One hypothesis that may help to explain insight here. “Golah” means “exile” and the 7 Regarding Ezra and Nehemiah, Lester L. “sons of the Golah” refers to the Jews who Grabbe states, “The attitudes and perspectives returned from the Babylonian captivity to exemplified in the Ezra–Nehemiah reforms, if not the reforms themselves, became an important resettle in Israel. These lists speak of several part of the later religious identity of the Jews” waves of emigrants who made the journey, (“Triumph of the Pious or Failure of the Xeno- phobes? The Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms and Their not one mass exodus (Ezra 2:1–70; Neh Nachgeschichte,” in Jewish Local Patriotism and 7:4–73).The total number of these immi- Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period [ed. Siân Jones and Sarah Pearce; Sheffield, Eng.: grants is subject to debate. Both Ezra and SheffieldA cademic Press, 1998], 50). 9 Jacob Neusner, “Exile and Return as the 8 Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A History of Judaism,” in James M. Scott, ed., Exile: Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century , Jewish, and Christian Conceptions b.c.. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 6. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 224.

53 peoples of the new testament world Nehemiah number 42,360 returnees, not role in the is succinctly including more than 7,000 “menservants and summarized in the words of Ezra 7:10: “For maidservants” (Ezra 2:64–65; Neh 7:66–67). Ezra had devoted himself to the study and This incremental return of the Jews from observance of the law of the Lord, and to the exile created conditions that could have set teaching its decrees and laws in Israel.” Even the stage for the development of the Pharisees. Artaxerxes, after recanting his earlier decree Some of the earliest returnees of the Golah (cf. 4:18–22), describes Ezra as “the priest, began to intermarry with the ‘am ha-’arets, or a teacher of the Law of the God of heaven” “peoples of the land” (n r s v ), the residents of (7:12). He officially empowered Ezra to teach (Ezra 9:1–5). The latter groups were “the laws of your God” (7:25) to the people. In Jews and half-Jews whom the Babylonians this way, the king thoroughly endorsed the did not think it worthy to carry into exile. The exegetical prowess of Ezra. prophet describes the ‘am ha-’arets: “I This is a copy of the letter King Artaxerxes thought, ‘These are only the poor; they are fool- had given to Ezra the priest and teacher, ish, for they do not know the way of the Lord, a man learned in matters concerning the the requirements of their God’ ” (Jer 5:4). Such commands and decrees of the Lord for persons had been without civil or spiritual Israel: Artaxerxes, king of kings, To Ezra leadership for over a generation. In the absence the priest, a teacher of the Law of the of such leadership, the presence of religious God of heaven: Greetings. (7:11–12) and ethnic syncretism is understandable. Some The intensification of the Torah’s impor- of the earliest returnees from the exile began tance, as described above, found a ready adopting the syncretistic religious practices and willing advocate in Ezra. He enacted of the ‘am ha-’arets and the (Exod reforms that set in motion theological trends 34:16; Deut 7:1–4).10 Fensham speaks of a that would come to define the Judaism of “double threat” consisting of the disillusion his day. His reforms, which were affirmed of the racial identity of the Jews as a distinct and enforced by Nehemiah, provided fertile people and the corruption of cardinal religious ground for the growth of various religious principles that defined Judaism at the time.11 groups, those who were zealous for the law In this context, Ezra and Nehemiah did not and for the “traditions of the fathers.” As view proper ceremonial protocol and the main- noted, it is quite probable that one of these tenance of ethnic purity as matters of personal groups was the Pharisees. choice. Rather, for them, strict observance of Ezra’s arrival in the holy land was not a the law was the only way that Israel could pre- happy one. From his perspective, compro- serve its identity as a distinct people and thus mise and apostasy were everywhere. In the procure a future. midst of religious dereliction and surround- ed by Samaritans, ‘am ha-’arets, and the “sons Ezra “the Scribe” and the Pharisees of the Golah” who had joined league with Ezra served as a pivotal figure for reinstat- ing “normative Judaism” among the people them, Ezra was confronted with the single most vexing question for many Jews even to once he arrived in Israel in 458 b.c.e. His this day: “Who are the people of God?” 10 Hyam Maccoby, “Holiness and Purity: The Holy People in Leviticus and Ezra–Nehemiah,” in John F. Ezra’s answer to this question reveals the A. Sawyer, ed., Reading Leviticus: A Conversation true significance of the Golah lists set forth with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227; Sheffield, Eng.: in Ezra 8:1–14. For Ezra, the lists serve as Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 161. 11 F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and rosters authenticating who are the true “sons Nehemiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 17–18. of the Exile” and who are not. In particular,

54 MONARCHY PERIOD

An Orthodox Bar at Jerusalem's Western Wall. Note the Torah case and tephillim. 55 peoples of the new testament world those rejected by Ezra and Nehemiah (cf. message was literally repeated in Nehemiah’s 10:18–44; Neh 13:23–29) were Jews who “have reforms as well. It may well be that this not kept themselves separate” but have pol- theme of religious separation established the luted the land by intermarrying with non- paradigm for the emergence of the Pharisees, Jews (Ezra 9:1–2, 10–12).12 The priests and or “separated ones.” Levites were included among this number (9:1; 10:18–44). The horror and dejection of Nehemiah Continues the Campaign Ezra on this score are set forth in 9:3–15. He Nehemiah’s abhorrence for racial impurity tears his garments, pulls out the hair of his and neglect of the law was equal to that of head and beard, and falls prostrate before Ezra, if not more so (Neh 13:1–3). He records the Lord (9:3–5; cf. also 2 Sam 13:19; Isa that the law was read aloud from daybreak 50:6). He cries out that the whole land is “pol- until noon on the first day, and then “day luted” (Ezra 9:11; cf. also Deut 4:5; Lev 18:25; after day” (8:3, 18; 9:3). Upon hearing the 20:1–27) and repeatedly speaks about a holy reading of the law, Nehemiah notes that the “” (Ezra 9:8, 13, 15). people were grief-stricken at their failure To correct what he viewed as unfaithful- and neglect of God’s word (8:9). The read- ness to , Ezra enacted a program of ing of the law leads to a separation from all ethno-religious reformation, made known to foreigners and that which is unclean (9:2). the people by way of a scathing sermon deliv- A binding oath, strengthened by a curse, is ered in a pouring rain (Ezra 10:10–17). Ezra made in order to separate from the heathen would require that all who had intermarried and obey the law of God (10:28–30). The with Gentiles take a binding oath before God separation from all foreigners at the hearing (10:2–4). As the rain poured down, Ezra arrived of the law of Moses is stated again in 13:3. In at the critical point of his message, saying that obedience to the law, the feast of booths was those who wanted to be included in the cov- renewed (8:13–18), buying and selling on the enant had to “separate” themselves from their Sabbath was prohibited, and the observance wives and children (10:11).13 Anyone who did of the Sabbath’s year rest was again required not report for the examination of their racial (10:31; 13:15–22). The temple cult, together purity would have their homes and posses- with the proper protocol for priests and sac- sions confiscated (10:8–9). Furthermore, such rifices, were enforced (10:32–36; 13:10–14). persons would be excommunicated from the The paying of to the priests and Levites commonwealth of Israel (10:1–7). Those who was to be observed (10:37–39). Priestly cor- were deemed to be racially impure were to be ruption in the temple was dealt with, and duly noted in print (Ezra 10:18–44). the temple precincts were purified (13:4–9). The theme of separation inherent in Ezra’s But the worst , in the view of 12 Maccoby notes that the syncretists whom Ezra encountered were a group, larger in number and Nehemiah also, was the marrying of foreign more powerful than the returning exiles, who wives, the children of whom could not even threatened the existence of Judaism and mono- speak Hebrew (13:23–24). Nehemiah cursed theistic religion (“Holiness and Purity,” 170). them, beat them, and pulled out their hair, 13 The word for “separate” is Heb. badal (ld/b;;), used again in Neh 9:2. The “Sons of the Golah” forcing them to take a binding oath or suffer are described in Ezra 6:21 and 10:16 using Heb. the wrath of God (13:25–31). nivdal (lD:b]nI), a different form of the same word. Hugo Mantel judges these words to be concep- In contrast to those who had succumbed tually synonymous with Heb. parash (vr/p;), “to to religious syncretism and racial impurity, separate,” and Perushim, the “separated ones” or “Pharisees” (“The Dichotomy of Judaism during the “sons of the Golah” are described as those the Second Temple,” HUCA 44/1 [1973]: 55). who have “separated themselves” from for-

56 THE PHARISEES—POWER AND PURITY eign wives and the abominations that these in Lev 11:1–46. In these ways, the Jews could marriages represent. They had separated “distinguish” (cf. Lev 11:47) their identity themselves “from the unclean practices of from all others.15 their neighbors” (Ezra 6:21; 10:16). Like those who failed to report for examina- The Theology of “Separation” and tion of their racial purity, those who did not the Emergence of the Pharisees separate themselves would be cursed, have The “sons of the Golah” in Ezra and Nehemiah their property confiscated, and then would and the Pharisees of a later period under- be excommunicated from the commonwealth stood holiness as separation. For them, the of Israel, with their names noted in print answer to the question “Who is a true Jew?” (Ezra 9:1, 10:8). Those who submitted to the was drawn from, for example, Lev 20: 22–26: reforms and separated themselves “from all Keep all my decrees and laws and follow foreigners” (lit. “peoples of the land”) accord- them, so that the land where I am bring- ing to the law were again noted in print (Neh ing you to live may not vomit you out. 9:1–2; 10:28). The mixed multitude was to be 23You must not live according to the “excluded” (n i v ) or “separated” (n r s v ) from the customs of the nations I am going to ethnically pure and obedient (Neh 13:3). drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24But I The Theological Platform of Ezra said to you, “You will possess their land; and Nehemiah I will give it to you as an inheritance, a Ezra and Nehemiah provided a definitive land flowing with milk and honey.” I am answer to the question “Who are the people the Lord your God, who has set you apart of God?” From their perspective, the issue from the nations. 25You must therefore was resolved by setting forth two stringent make a distinction between clean and criteria: racial purity and the strict obse- unclean animals and between unclean vance of the law. Their goal was to preserve and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves the identity of Israel in the aftermath of by any animal or bird or anything that captivity and to clarify the boundary mark- moves along the ground—those which I ers that enhance this identity.14 Some of have set apart as unclean for you. 26You the returnees deduced that if the captiv- are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, ity came because of a lack of racial purity am holy, and I have set you apart from and adherence to the law, then security the nations to be my own. in the land would be granted on the basis As noted, the reforms of Ezra–Nehemiah of ethnicity and religious purity (Jer 7:7; are concerned with the proper observance 30:1–10). Indeed, it was concluded that the of Jewish festivals, tithing, and purity. The former would be a natural result of the same concerns are high on the agenda of the latter. Restoration would come through holi- Pharisees (Matt 12:1–5; 23:23; Mark 3:1–6; ness (separation, Deut 14:21) both in one’s 7:1–3; Luke 11:42). Ezra and Nehemiah also saw bloodline and in one’s behavior. The primary these ritual aspects of the law as binding upon means for actualizing this kind of separation all the people, not just upon the priests while consisted of the purity regulations set forth in the temple. The Pharisees may have also 14 “The survival of a minority as a group depends understood the Jews as a “kingdom of priests” on their success in creating a social community with (Exod 19:6) and may well have believed that social boundaries” (Daniel Smith, The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian 15 Here again the Hebrew word badal is em- Exile [Bloomington, Ind.: Meyer-Stone, 1989], 64). ployed, as it was in Ezra and Nehemiah.

57 peoples of the new testament world tithing and purity were required of all.16 those who were also in a state of purity.20 Thus, as in the case of Ezra and Nehemiah, The Haberim may even be the same group we see in the Pharisees the creation of as the Pharisees. In summary, the Pharisees boundary markers that, from their perspec- represented a religious reformation dedicat- tive, clarify the identity of the true people of ed to the preservation of the “true Israel” by God. Even though the word “Pharisee” would an intensification of the written Torah and a not be found in the literature for at least disciplined practice of the oral Torah. These another three hundred years, the ideological elements may have been in place many years framework for the sect was already in place before the Pharisees arose as a distinct sect soon after the exile. The inauguration of in Israel. Alexander the Great’s campaign of helleni- The Programmatic Agenda zation (323 b.c.e.), together with Antiochus of the Pharisees Epiphanes’ grotesque interpretation thereof As was the case with Ezra–Nehemiah, the goal (ca. 190 b.c.e.), could have increased such ten- of the Pharisees was to ensure the survival dencies toward separation by way of purity.17 of Israel in the midst of religious compro- As the Hasmoneans acquired more of the mise and political threat. Their method was Hellenistic practices they originally sought through an intensive observance of the Torah to destroy, some of these “separatists” fled and halakhah, that is, “tradition of the elders” to the mountains to escape the pollution of (Matt 15:1–3; cf. Gal 1:14). The Pharisees 18 Jerusalem. Others, however, chose to live may have viewed these “two ” as of within society, forming “islands of holiness” equal authority and binding upon all.21 This or, as Schürer regards the Pharisees, an essential link between the Torah and “the ecclesiola in ecclesia (lit. “a little church in the traditions” clarifies the broad appeal of the 19 church”). They may have been the Haberim Pharisees. Josephus notes that the Pharisees (“the fellowship”), partaking of the special handed “the teachings” to the people, indicat- haburah, or “fellowship meal,” only with ing that the Pharisees believed the traditions 16 Whether the Pharisees required everyone to of the fathers were applicable to all. Josephus follow the purity laws prescribed for the priests is also consistently emphasizes that the senti- a matter of debate. Josephus indicates that they lived somewhat of an ascetic lifestyle and deliv- ments of the people lay with the Pharisees ered many teachings of the fathers to the people 20 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 186. But Sanders (Ant. 13.297; 18.12). Sanders does not believe that doubts that the Haberim were identical to the purity was a special concern of the Pharisees or Pharisees (p. 187). For a contrasting view, see that the Pharisees expected all to be in a state of Jacob Neusner, First Century Judaism in Crisis: purity. He concedes, however, “that the Pharisees ben Zakkai and the Renaissance of the tried to have their views of the law carry the day” Torah (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985), 35. (Jesus and Judaism, 188; cf. also 182–86). 21 It is this kind of extension of the Torah that 17 Magen Broshi and Eshel, “The Greek was vehemently rejected by the writer of 4QpNah. King Is Antiochus IV (4QHistorical Text=4Q248),” In this fragment from Qumran, the author berates JJS 48 (1997): 122. those who develop (dWml]t/), or expanded 18 Philip Sigal, From the Origins to the Separa- applications of the Torah. Sanders and Neusner tion of Christianity (part 1 of The Foundations of see no evidence that the Pharisees viewed the Judaism from Biblical Origins to the Sixth Century oral and written Torah as of equal authority. a.d.; vol. 1 of The Emergence of Contemporary Such a view was held only by later rabbis (cf. E. Judaism; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980), 327. Cf. also P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mish- Schiffman, “New Light on the Pharisees,” 54. nah [London: SCM, 1990], 123; and Neusner, The 19 Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees, 1:2–3). in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135) (rev. For contrasting positions, see Rivkin, A Hidden and ed. Geza Vermes, Furgus Millar, and Mat- Revolution, 184; and Martin Hengel and Roland thew Black; 3 vols. in 4; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Deines, “E. P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism,’ Jesus, 1973–1987), 2:396. and the Pharisees,” JTS 46 (1995): 18–19.

58 THE PHARISEES—POWER AND PURITY

A section from one of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered at Qumran.

and not with the Sadducees (Ant. 13.297–298, b.c.e.23 According to Josephus, the power of 408–409; 18.15, 17; J.W. 2.162). the Pharisees waxed and waned according to The extent of Pharisaic influence on first- whoever was in power at the time. Alexander century Judaism cannot be determined with Jannaeus (104–78 b.c.e.) crucified eight hun- certainty. If the dorshe halaqot, that is, “those dred Pharisees who took part in a rebellion, who seek smooth things (or ‘easy interpre- ostensibly because they were representatives tations’),” refers to the Pharisees, then the of the populace arrayed against him (Ant. Qumran covenanters felt that the teach- 13.379–38;3; J.W. 1.96–98). Yet by the time of Alexandra (76–67 b.c.e.), the Pharisees were ings of the Pharisees had been extended to enjoying an extraordinary resurgence in kings, princes, priests, the people, proselytes, power. Josephus claims that during her reign cities, and clans (cf. 4QpNah 3–4.7).22 And the Pharisees were the real power behind the if the “the builders of the wall” cited in throne, empowered by the queen to follow CD 4:19–20; 8:12–13, 18 also refers to the their practices and the traditions of their Pharisees, then their presence and influence fathers and to bind and loose subjects at will extended well back into the second century (Ant. 13.405–410; J.W. 1.111) The Gospels also 22 The Dead Sea Scrolls make a pun by equat- represent the Pharisees as having access to ing the halakhoth (“teachings”), perhaps of the and influence on both Jewish and Roman of the Pharisees, with halaqoth (“lies”). Sand- ers, however, notes that the Pharisees were a rulers of the day (Matt 27:62; Mark 12:13; relatively small sect of limited influence and in John 7:32, 45; 11:45). no way represented common Judaism of the first century (Jewish Law, 115). For an opposing view, 23 The Tannaitic material of the rabbis (post-200 see Schiffman, “New Light on the Pharisees,” 31, c.e.) identifies the “builders of the wall” with the 54; and “Pharisees and Sadducees,” 281–83. Pharisees (cf. m. ’Abot 1:1).

59 peoples of the new testament world The extent of Pharisaic influence, or at least forth in Lev 11 and 15, were understood to be the intent of their influence, may be reflected applicable to all of life. in the fundamental theological premises of But what did “purity” mean for the the sect. The Pharisees sought holiness within Pharisees? It had nothing to do with dirt or society as opposed to the reclusive practices of personal hygiene. Rather, it concerned the the Qumran community (1QS 8:13–16). The proper observance of religious rituals that movement seems to have taken the cue for its distinguished the “clean” from the “unclean” guiding principle from Exod 19:6: “You will be (Matt 15:1–20; Mark 7:1–23; Luke 11:37–40).26 for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. The concept of purity was also defined by the These are the words you are to speak to the proper observance of the Sabbath as pre- .” The words “kingdom,” “nation,” scribed by the teachings of the fathers (Matt and “Israelites” may allude to the comprehen- 12:10–14; Mark 3:1–6; Luke 6:7–10; 14:1–6). sive scope of the movement.24 Meticulous tithing of all things was also part In essence, then, the Pharisaic campaign was of a Pharisaic regimen (Matt 23:23–27; Luke one of laypersons for laypersons, appealing to 11:42). By the time of the codification of the the masses to take on the mandate of holiness Mishnah, nearly every aspect of life, whether within society (Lev 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7). In one was picking up a common nail or buying this regard Josephus refers to the Pharisees as a bushel of wheat, was subject to the rules the “people’s party,” outnumbering all major of purity (m. ‘Erub. 1:2, 6:2; m. Šabb. 1:4–9).27 sects and being the most scrupulous about the Indeed, the two largest portions of the rab- traditions (Ant. 13.298; 18.15, 17). According to binic traditions about the Pharisees prior to Josephus, the Pharisees represented six thou- 70 c.e. are entitled Teharot (“Purities”) and sand heads of households and had the power Qodashim (“Holy Things”).28 to oppose kings (Ant. 17.41–43).25 Josephus The “communal order” of the Pharisees was continues that even when the Sadducees held maintained through the sacramental empow- the upper hand in the temple, the chief priests ering of all of life, and as far as the later rab- still followed the dicta of the Pharisees, for binic traditions are concerned, this was par- they had the favor of the people (Ant. 18.17). ticularly the case regarding the eating of food According to Josephus, even some women (m. Tehar. . 1:1–3:4; 8:6–9:7; 10:1–8).29 Since of Israel seem to have identified with the the Gospels express purity concerns in refer- Pharisees (Ant. 17.41) 26 For an analysis of purity and its varied mean- It appears that their special understanding ings, see Mary Douglas, Implicit Meanings: Selected of “purity” drove the modus vivendi of the Essays in Anthropology (2d ed.; New York: Rout- ledge, 1999). Pharisees. Since the they did not withdraw 27 The entire sixth division of the Mishnah, from society, the purity regulations became entitled “Purities,” catalogues the myriad ways immensely important for them. As was the one can become impure and how one can attain a state of purity. Cf. Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: case with Ezra and Nehemiah, purity became A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University the determining factor that distinguished Press, 1988), 893–1138. them from the general populace. Therefore 28 For a list of rabbinic sayings concerning the cultic regulations, a majority of which are set clean and the unclean, see Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees, 3:120–121. 24 Marcus Borg, Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in Sanders charges that Neusner’s view is simply a the Teachings of Jesus (New York: Edwin Mellen, caricature and not representative of normative 1984), 57. Judaism in the first century (Jewish Law, 242). 25 For the influence of theP harisees among the 29 Neusner concludes that sixty-seven percent of aristocratic women of Israel, see Tal Ilan, “The At- the later rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees traction of Aristocratic Women to Pharisaism during relate wholly or in part to table fellowship (The the ,” HTR 88 (1995): 1–33. Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees, 3:297).

60 THE PHARISEES—POWER AND PURITY

“The Pharisees and Sadducees come to tempt Jesus” by J.-J. Tissot.

ence to common meals and the later rabbis Jesus and the Pharisees do not refer to any ritual gatherings of the In spite of the antipathy between Jesus and Pharisees about a common table, it appears the Pharisees so evident in the Gospels, that the Pharisees ate all of their meals in a they shared much in common. Indeed, they state of purity.30 If so, table fellowship for the could be described as theological liberals, Pharisees was not a matter only of nutrition for, unlike the Sadducees, who accepted only but of spiritual communion. For them, it may the Pentateuch as canonical, both Jesus and the Pharisees accepted all of the Hebrew well have meant acceptance before God. Scriptures, from Genesis to Malachi, as holy 30 Sanders rejects the notion that the Pharisees ate all meals in a state of purity. He contends that writ (Matt 7:12; 11:13; Luke 24:44; John 1:45). they only washed their hands with regard to food Jesus and the Pharisees also endorsed rela- sacrificed in the temple (Jewish Law, 163, 176). For tively late theological developments, such as an opposing view, see John C. Poirier, “Why Did the Pharisees Wash Their Hands?” JJS (1996): 217–33. belief in the physical resurrection of the dead

61 peoples of the new testament world and in angels and demons (Matt 22:23–33; 27–28, 33–35). If the law was not the final Luke 20:27; Acts 23:6–10). Finally, and perhaps word for Jesus, the “tradition of the elders” most important, both Jesus and the Pharisees was an obstacle to communion with God did not withdraw from society, as was the case (Matt 15:2–6; Mark 7:2–13). Thus, for Jesus, the with Qumran. They both believed that it was Pharisees were the real polluting leaven that possible to live for God among the people. For the people had to watch out for (cf. Luke 12:1; all of these reasons, many Pharisees respected Exod 13:6–8). A very harsh indictment appears Jesus as a fellow teacher, often inviting him to in Luke 16:15, 18:9–14. Here the Pharisees who dinner to learn more about his views (Luke oppose Jesus are portrayed as self-justifying, 7:37; 11:37; 14:1). lovers of money who bar others from the king- Yet it is precisely in this context—that is, dom of God while not entering in themselves. within the context of table fellowship—that This extraordinary recasting of who God is the theological agenda of Jesus and that of and what God requires was religiously disrup- some of the Pharisees sharply diverged. At tive on a number of levels, so much so that table, what affects authentic communion with the Pharisees in league with the chief priests God became a defining issue between Jesus plotted Jesus’ destruction (John 7:45–52; 11:47; and some Pharisees of his day. Jesus’ deliberate 18:1–3). Even some of his first followers balked practice of dining with notorious sinners and at the radical implications of his theological outcasts was extremely disconcerting to the vision (Acts 11:3; 15:1–2, 6–11; Gal 2:11–15). Yet Pharisees of the Gospels (Matt 9:10–13; Mark just as Jesus dismantled the barrier between 2:15–17; Luke 5:30–39; 7:34; 15:1–2). The fact saint and sinner in Israel, his disciples came that he “broke bread” with such pariahs in the to understand that the ancient identifiers of name of God and promised them a place in the the circumcised and uncircumcised were no kingdom was tantamount to blasphemy for longer applicable (Gal 5:6; 6:15; Col 3:11). As these Pharisees. In addition, Jesus’ unwashed Jesus accepted sinners at table, his followers hands may have meant to them that he took came to believe that God justifies the ungodly defiled food into his body and thus polluted and that ethnic and social distinctions are his whole being (cf. Mark 7:1–23).31 In place of erased in Christ (Rom 4:5; Gal 3:28). the carefully crafted understanding of purity The Pharisees were swept up in the holo- held by the Pharisees, Jesus seemed indiffer- caust of 66 c.e. As the Romans demolished ent to the profane and polluting. For him, Jerusalem and the temple in 70 c.e., the reli- the law of Moses was an important guide but gious and political autonomy of the Pharisees not a definitive end to what may be known of came to an end. Their religious ideals and God. Jesus’ clarification of who the Father is teachings, however, may not have been extin- transcended the words of Moses (Matt 5:21–22, guished altogether. Their spirit and program 31 Poirier asserts that the Pharisees washed their may have continued in the life and practices hands before a meal because they did not want of the proto-rabbis, as attested by the early to defile their “inward parts,” a concern of many Diaspora Jews (“Why Did the Pharisees Wash Their rabbinic literature and the council at Yavneh. Hands?” 230–32). Indeed, the word “baptized” Thus the “separatists” may well have helped (ebaptisth¯e [ejbaptivsqh]) in Luke 11:38 may reflect in forming the rabbinic tradition, which in the Pharisaic practice of immersing the entire body in water before a meal (cf. Lev 15:16–17). If Jesus time laid the foundation for a significant ele- declined to enter the immersion pool as his host ment of Judaism that survives to this day.32 had done, the outrage would have been more intense. Cf. also Mason, “Chief Priests, Sadducees, 32 For the challenge of defining Judaism and its Pharisees, and ,” in The Book of Acts diverse expressions, see Jacob Neusner, Judaism: The in Its Palestinian Setting (ed. Richard Bauckham; Evidence of the Mishnah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 138. 1988), esp. 1, 22–24.

62 THE PHARISEES—POWER AND PURITY Summary have led to a kind of religious expression that In many respects, since ages past, the geopo- eventually evolved into the Pharisees. The litical landscape had proved inhospitable to birth of the “Great ” in the second the Jews. The threat of extinction was not a century b.c.e. may be evidence of this kind of remote possibility for them but a real even- 33 tuality that lay all too near at hand. Indeed, religious expression. These Jewish leaders the northern kingdom had been swallowed probably were reacting against factors they up in the shifting sands of time, and who deemed threatening to faith and practice as was to say that Judah’s hold on existence was they understood it. Their teachings and reli- more secure? gious expression may have constituted the Under such conditions, the purification germ out of which the Pharisees arose.34 and protection of Israel became paramount. Some strategies for survival took the route 33 According to Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah, the “Great Synogogue” or “Great As- of separation from all that is “unclean” sembly” was made up of those early Jewish rabbis and combined this with an intensification who had received the Torah from the prophets. of signifiers deemed to be authentically The first of these rabbis wasS imeon the Righteous, who in turn delivered the law of Moses to Antigo- Jewish. For example, the reforms of Ezra nos of Sokho (m. ’Abot 1:1–2; see n. 8 above). and Nehemiah understood purity in terms 34 For a plausible timeline tracing the historical of separation from ethnic uncleanness and and conceptual development from the time of Ezra–Nehemiah to that of the Pharisees in the first ritual defilement. It is possible that the fun- century, see Schiffman, “New Light on the Phari- damental Pharisaic principle of separation sees,” 54. For a list of the names of the rabbis who might have formed the earliest chain of Pharisaic was established at this time. Increased syn- tradition, see Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions cretism after the Ezra–Nehemiah revival may about the Pharisees, 1:22.

63