I. The Pharisees

I. THE PHARISEES
The Pharisees were simply those who were specially exact about the interpretation and observance of the law, hence they were the rigidly legal, who spared themselves no pains and privations in its punctual fulfilment. “They were considered to interpret the law with accuracy.”[1439] “They valued themselves upon their accurate interpretation of the law of their fathers.”[1440] “They renounce the enjoyments of life and in nothing surrender themselves to comfort.”[1441] Hence they were those, who seriously and consistently strove to carry out in practice the ideal of a legal life set up by the scribes. And this is to say, that they were the classic representatives of that tendency, which the internal development of Israel altogether adopted during the post-exilian period. What applies to this in general applies in a specific manner to the Pharisaic party. It was the germ proper, which was distinguished from the rest of the mass only by its greater strictness and consistency. Hence the law, in that maturity of complication which had been given to it by the labours of the scribes during the course of centuries, was the basis of all its efforts. To carry this out in every point was the beginning and end of all its endeavours. Hence all that has been said above (§ 25. III.) on the development of Jewish law by the labours of the scribes, and all that will be adduced farther on (§ 28) on the nature of Jewish legaliam, serves to characterize Pharisaism. The legalism there described is just the Pharisaic. But as Pharisaism rests upon the foundation of the law as developed by the scribes, so did it also in its turn govern the farther development of Jewish law. When the Pharisaic party had once been formed as such, all the more famous scribes, at least all those who influenced the future development, proceeded from its midst. There were indeed Sadducean scribes. But their work has left no trace behind it in history. All the influential scribes belonged to the Pharisaic party. This may be assumed as self-evident, and is confirmed by the fact, that in the few cases in which the party position of the scribes is named, they are as a rule designated as Pharisees.[1442]
[1439] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14: οἱ δοκοῦντες μετʼ ἀκριβείας ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόμιμα Vita, 38: οἵ περὶ τὰ πάτρια νόμιμα δοκοῦσι τῶν ἄλλων ἀκριβείᾳ διαφέρειν Comp. Acts 22:3; Acts 26:5; Php_3:5.
[1440] Antt. xvii. 2. 4: ἐπʼ ἐξακριβώσει μέγα φρονοῦν τοῦ πατρίου νόμου.
[1441] Antt. xviii. 1. 3: τὴν δίαιταν ἐξευτελίζουσιν, οὐδὲν εἰς τὸ μαλακώτερον ἐνδιδόντες.
[1442] Antt. xv. 1. 1: Πωλίων ὁ Φαρισαῖος καὶ Σαμέας ὁ τούτου μαθητής·. Also Antt. xv. 10. 4. Acts 5:34 : τὶς ἐν τῳ συνεδρίῳ Φαρισαῖος ὀνόματι Γαμαλιήλ. Joseph. Vita, 38: ό δὲ Σίμων οἷτος ἦν πόλεως μὲν Ἱεροσολύμων, γένους δὲ σφόδρα λαμπροῦ, τῆς δὲ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσεως.
After what has been said, it is self-evident, that the Pharisees would declare not only the written Thorah, but also the “oral law” developed by the scribes as binding. This whole multitude of enactments now passed as the correct exposition and further development of the written Thorah. Zeal for the one implied zeal for the other. Hence it is expressly said in Josephus, “The Pharisees have imposed upon the people many laws taken from the tradition of the fathers (ἐκ πατέρων διαδοχῆς), which are not written in the law of Moses.[1443] When John Hyrcanus forsook the Pharisees, he abolished the laws which they had introduced κατὰ τὴν πατρῴαν παράδοσιν, and at the restoration under Alexandra they were re-enacted.[1444] In the New Testament also testimony is given to the estimation in which the Pharisees held the παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων (Mark 7:3; Matthew 15:2). That the same standpoint with regard to this παράδοσις was represented by the entire body of Jewish Rabbinism has already been shown (vol, i. p. 334 sq.). The Halacha or traditional law, as developed and settled by the labours of the scribes, was declared to be as legally binding as the written Thorah. R. Eleasar of Modein said: He who interprets Scripture in opposition to tradition (שֶׁלּאֹ כַהֲלָכָה) has no part in the world to come.[1445] Among the reasons for which the tempest of war bursts upon the country, are named among others, “People who interpret Scripture in opposition to tradition” (שֶׁלּאֹ כַהֲלָכָה).[1446] The traditional interpretation and the traditional law are thus declared absolutely binding. And it is consequently but consistent when deviation from these is declared even more culpable than deviation from the written Thorah. It is more culpable to teach contrary to the precepts of the scribes, than contrary to the Thorah itself.”[1447] If the traditional interpretation is binding, it is in fact this and not the written law which decides in the last instance. Nor is anything else than this established Pharisaic principle of tradition meant by the rhetorical expression of Josephus, that the Pharisees do not allow themselves to oppose the injunctions of those who precede them in age.[1448] Certainly there is infinitely more insight in these words of Josephus, than in the assertion of Geiger, that Pharisaism is “the principle of progressive development,” and that Protestantism is only “the full reflection of Pharisaism.”[1449]
[1443] Antt. xiii. 10. 6.
[1444] Antt. xiii. 16. 2.
[1445] Aboth iii. 11.
[1446] Aboth v. 8.
[1447] Sanhedrin xi. 3.
[1448] Antt. xviii. 1. 3.
[1449] Geiger, Sadducäer und Pharisäer (separate reprint), p. 35.
As in its position towards the law, so too in its religious and dogmatic views does Pharisaism simply represent the orthodox standpoint of later Judaism. In this respect the following points are brought forward, some from the New Testament, some from Josephus, as characteristic of the Pharisees in contradistinction to the Sadducees.
1. The Pharisees teach “that every soul is imperishable, but that only those of the righteous pass into another body, while those of the wicked are, on the contrary, punished with eternal torment”;[1450] or, as it is said in another passage, “they hold the belief that an immortal strength belongs to souls, and that there are beneath the earth punishments and rewards for those (souls), who in life devoted themselves to virtue or vileness, and that eternal imprisonment is appointed for the latter, but the possibility of returning to life for the former.”[1451] The Sadducees, on the other hand, say that there is no resurrection (μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν, Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:8; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8; comp. 4:1, 2). “They deny the continuance of the soul and the punishments and rewards of the world below.”[1452] “According to their teaching, souls perish together with bodies.”[1453] What is here represented in a philosophizing style as the doctrine of the Pharisees, is merely the Jewish doctrine of retribution and resurrection, already testified by the Book of Daniel (Daniel 12:2), by all subsequent Jewish literature, and also by the New Testament, as the common possession of genuine Judaism. The righteous will rise to life eternal in the glory of the Messianic kingdom, but the unrighteous will be punished with eternal torment. Nor is the essence of this faith the mere opinion of a philosophical school with respect to immortality, but that upon which depends the direct religious interest of the personal salvation of each individual. For this appears to be guaranteed only on the assumption of a resurrection of, the body. Hence so great weight is laid upon this, that in the Mishna it is even said, that he who says, that the resurrection of the dead is not to be inferred from the law, has no part in the world to come.[1454] The Sadducees, by denying the resurrection and immortality in general, renounced at the same time the entire Messianic hope, at least in that form which later Judaism had given it. And it was they and not the Pharisees who—from the stand point of later Judaism—represented a sectarian opinion.
[1450] Bell. Jud. ii. 8.14. That Josephus does not intend by this to ascribe to the Pharisees the doctrine of the transmigration of souls is proved by the passage following.
[1451] Antt. xviii. 1. 3.
[1452] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14.
[1453] Antt. xviii. 1. 4.
[1454] Sanhedrin x. 1.
2. The Pharisees also taught the existence of angels and spirits, while the Sadducees denied them (Acts 23:8). This statement of the Acts, though not confirmed by other testimony, is nevertheless thoroughly trustworthy, as in entire accordance with the picture which we elsewhere obtain of the two parties. That in this respect also the Pharisees represented the general standpoint of later Judaism needs no proof.
3. Josephus ascribes also to Pharisees and Sadducees different views concerning Divine providence and human freedom. The Pharisees “make everything depend on fate and on God, and teach that the doing of good is indeed chiefly the affair of man, but that fate also co-operates in every transaction.”[1455] “They assert, that everything is accomplished by fate. They do not however deprive the human will of spontaneity, it having pleased God that there should be a mixture, and that to the will of fate should be added the human will with its virtue or baseness.”[1456] They say, that “some but not all things are the work of fate; some things depend on the will of man as to whether they are done or not.”[1457] The Sadducees deny fate entirely, and place God beyond the possibility of doing or providing anything evil. They say, that good and evil are at man’s choice, and the doing of the one or the other at his discretion.[1458] “They deny fate by asserting that it is nothing, and that human affairs are not brought to pass by its means. They ascribe on the contrary all to us, maintaining, that we are ourselves the cause of our prosperity, and that we also incur misfortune through our own folly.”[1459] At the first glance it seems very strange to meet with such philosophemes among the religious parties of Palestine, and the suspicion arises, that Josephus not only gave a philosophic colouring to religious views, according to his own fancy, but that without further ceremony he imputed philosophic theories to his countrymen; a suspicion which is increased when we also add his statements concerning the Essenes, whence results the systematic statement, that the Essenes taught an absolute fate, the Sadducees utterly denied fate, and the Pharisees struck out a middle path between the two. And to strengthen our suspicion still more, Josephus expressly assures us elsewhere, that the Pharisees corresponded to the Stoics, and the Essenes to the Pythagoreans.[1460] In fact the very expression εἱμαρμένη, which is utterly impossible to any Jewish consciousness, proves that we have at least to deal with a strongly Hellenized colouring of Jewish views. Still it is merely the garment which is borrowed from Greece. The matter itself is genuinely Jewish. For after all, what Josephus says, when once we strip off its Greek form, is nothing more than this, that according to the Pharisees everything that happens takes place through God’s providence, and that consequently in human actions also, whether good or bad, a co-operation of God is to be admitted. And this is a genuine Old Testament view. For, on the one hand, the strict comprehension of the idea of the Divine omnipotence leads to a conception of human actions, whether good or bad, as effected by God.[1461] On the other hand, the Old Testament lays quite as much emphasis on the moral responsibility of man; he himself incurs guilt and punishment if he acts wrongly, as he also gains merit and reward if he acts rightly. And for later Judaism the moral independence of man was a fundamental thought, a primary assumption of its zeal for the law and its hope for the future.[1462] Both lines of thought are genuinely Jewish. It is highly probable in itself, that the reflection of the learned and educated was directed towards the antinomy involved in them and sought to find a means of reconciling them. Nay, we have distinct testimony that this was the case, that Rabbinical Judaism did in fact make the problem of Divine Providence and human freedom the subject of its thought.[1463] This is not however to say, that the three possible standpoints, (1) absolute fate, (2) absolute freedom, (3) interposing inspection, were each represented in so systematic a manner as Josephus states by the three parties of Essenes, Sadducees and Pharisees. This systematizing is certainly the weakest point in the representation of Josephus. Still there may be a certain amount of truth in it. It may be, that in the view of the Essenes the Divine, in that of the Sadducees the human factor occupied the foreground. In any case the Pharisees embraccd with equal resolution both lines of thought: the Divine omnipotence and providence and human freedom and responsibility. That the one continued to exist beeide and notwithstanding the other is emphatically stated in a saying of Akiba: הַכֹּל צָפוּי וְהָרְשׁוּת נְתוּנָה “Every thing is beheld (by God), but freedom is given (to man).”[1464] Herein also the Pharisees represent not a sectarian opinion, but the correct standpoint of Judaism.
[1455] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14.
[1456] Antt. xviii. 1. 3. The above translation rests upon the reading τὸ θελῆσαν for τᾦ θελήσαντι adopted by Bekker.
[1457] Antt. xiii. 5. 9.
[1458] Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14. The reading τὸν θεὸν ἔξω τοῦ δρᾶν τι κακὸν ἢ μὴ δρᾶν (for ἢ ἐφορᾶν) τίθενται, still defended by Keim, i. 281, is quite a useless conjecture, which has been again abandoned by modern editors. The word ἐφορᾶν is, as Passow’s Lexicon already shows, the only technical expression in the whole Greek language for the divine supervision of the world, and indeed not only in the sense of inspicere, but also in that of prospicere, providere. The Hebrew צָפָה in the saying of Akiba, quoted farther on, corresponds with it.
[1459] Antt. xiii. 5. 9. On παρά, c. acc., meaning through, see Passow, ii 669b, above.
[1460] Vita, 2, fin.; Antt. xv. 10. 4.
[1461] In these words is the Old Testament view comprised in the excellent disquisition of De Visser, De daemonologie can het Oude Testament (Utrecht 1880), pp. 5-47. Comp. Theol. Litztg. 1881, col. 26.
[1462] Comp. e.g. Psalt. Salom. 9:7: ὁ θεὸς, τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκλογῇ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν, τοῦ ποιῆσαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀδικίαν ἐν ἔργοις χειρῶν ἡμῶν.
[1463] See especially, Hamburger, Real-Enc., Dir. ii. p. 102 sqq. (art. “Bestimmung”). Also Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. 111 sqq. Langen, Das Judenihum in Palästina, p. 381 sqq. The Apostle Panl is a proof of how much Jewish consciousness was occupied with the problem in question.
[1464] Aboth iii. 15. Derenbourg, p. 127, note, refers also to Sifre, § 53.
In politics too the standpoint of the Pharisees was the genuinely Jewish one of looking at political questions not from a political, but from a religious point of view. The Pharisees were by no means a “political” party, at least not directly. Their aim, viz. the strict carrying out of the law, was not political, but religious. So far as no obstruction was cast in the way of this, they could be content with any government. It was only when the secular power prevented the practice of the law in that strict manner which the Pharisees demanded, that they gathered together to oppose it, and then really became in a certain sense a political party, opposing even external resistance to external force. This took place not only at the time of the oppression by Antiochus Epiphanes, but also under the Jewish princes John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus, who opposed Pharisaic ordinances from their Sadducaean standpoint. On the other hand, the Pharisees had, under Alexander, who left the whole power in their hands, a leading position in the government, which however they used only for the carrying out of their religious demands. To politics as such they were always comparatively indifferent. It must however be admitted, that there were two different religious points of view, especially at the time when Israel was under heathen government or under government friendly to the heathen, from which to judge of the political situation, and that according as the one or the other was placed in the foreground, an opposite demeanour would be maintained towards it. The idea of the Divine Providence might be made the starting-point. Thence would result the thought, that the sway of the heathen over Israel was the will of God, that it was He who had given to the Gentiles power over His people to punish them for their transgressions, that this government of the Gentiles could last only so long as it was the will of God. Hence first of all this chastisement of God must be willingly submitted to; a heathen and moreover a harsh government must be willingly borne, if only the observance of the law was not thereby prevented. From this standpoint the Pharisees Polio and Sameas, e.g., exhorted their fellow-citizens to submit to the rule of Herod.[1465] In the time also of the great insurrection against the Romans, we see the chief Pharisees, like Simon the son of Gamaliel, at the head of that mediatizing party, who only joined in the insurrection because they were forced to do so, while they were in heart opposed to it.[1466] An entirely different result however was arrived at, when the thought of Israel’s election was placed in the foreground. Then the rule of the heathen over the people of God would appear as an abnormity whose abolition was by all means to be striven for. Israel must acknowledge no other king than God alone, and the ruler of the house of David, whom He anointed. The supremacy of the heathen was illegal and presumptuous. From this standpoint it was questionable, not merely whether obedience and payment of tribute to a heathen power was a duty, but whether it was lawful (Matthew 22:17 sqq.; Mark 12:14 sqq.; Luke 20:22 sqq.). From this standpoint, as it seems, the majority of the Pharisees refused to take the oath to Herod.[1467] It may be supposed that this was the specially popular standpoint, both with the people and the Pharisees. Indeed it must have been such, since every non-Pharisaic government, even when it did not prevent the practice of the law, involved a certain compromise of its free exercise. Hence it was a Pharisee, one Saddukos, who in conjunction with Judas of Galilee founded the revolutionary party of the Zealots.[1468] Indifferent then as Pharisaism at first was to politics, the revolutionary current, which in the time of Christ was continually increasing among the Jewish people, must be set to the account of its influence.
[1465] Antt. xiv. 9. 4, xv. 1. 1.
[1466] Com. on Simon, Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 9.
[1467] Antt. xv. 10. 4, xvii. 24.
[1468] Antt. xviii. 41; comp. i. 6.
The characteristics of Pharisaism hitherto described show no peculiarity by which it may be distinguished from post-exilian Judaism in general. So far as it is only regarded as an intellectual tendency, it is simply identical with that adopted by the Judaism of the post-exilian period, at least in its main branches and classic representatives. Still it formed a party within the nation, an ecclesiola in ecclesia. In one of the two passages in which Josephus, or rather his authority Nikolaus Damascenus, speaks of the refusal of the oath by the Pharisees, he designates them as a μόριόν τι Ἰουδαικῶν ἀνθρώπων, and states their number as six thousand.[1469] This leads us to infer a definite boundary of their circle. In the New Testament also and in Josephus the Pharisees evidently appear as a decided fraction of the people. In the same sense also must their name be explained. It is in Hebrew פְּרוּשִׁים,[1470] in Aramaic פְּרִישִׁין, stat. emphat. פְּרִישַׁיָּא, whence the Greek Φαρισαῖοι. That this literally means “the separated” is undoubted. The only question can be, to what to refer the term. Are they those who separate themselves from all uncleanness and all illegality, or those who separate themselves from certain persons? The first is spoken for by the circumstance, that in Rabbinic Hebrew also the substantives פְּרִישָׁה and פְּרִישׁוּת occur with the meaning “separation,” scil. from all uncleanness.[1471] But if only a separation from uncleanness, without any reference to persons, were intended, other positive epithets would have been more obvious (the “clean,” the “just,” the “pious,” or the like). Besides, a separation from uncleanness is at the same time a separation from unclean persons. If then the latter is in any case to be included, it seems obvious to derive the name from that “separation,” which took place in the time of Zerubbabel and then again in the time of Ezra, when Israel separated from the heathen dwelling in the land and from their uncleanness (Ezra 6:21; Ezra 9:1; Ezra 10:11; Nehemiah 9:2; Nehemiah 10:29). Wellhausen however is in the right when he objects to this, that this separation, to which all Israel then submitted, had about it nothing characteristic of the Pharisees.[1472] For the Pharisees must have their name from a separation, which the bulk of the nation did not undergo with them; in other words, from a separation made by them, in consequence of their stricter view of the notion of uncleanness, not only from the uncleanness of the heathen, but also from that with which, according to their view, a great portion of the people were affected. It was in this sense that they were called the separated or the separating, and they might have been so called from either praise or blame. They might so have called themselves, because they kept as far as possible from all uncleanness, and therefore also from contact with unclean persons. Or they might have been so named in a reproachful sense by their adversaries, as “the separatists,” who for the sake of their own special cleanness separated themselves from the bulk of the nation.[1473] The latter was certainly the original meaning of the name. For it is not probable that they gave it to themselves. Other positive self-designations would have been more obvious to them, and in fact they first appear in history under the name of חֲסִידִים (see below). Their adversaries however called them “the separatists.” This also explains why the name so seldom occurs in our oldest Rabbinical authority the Mishna; in the chief passage in the mouth of an adversary and only twice besides.[1474] The last-named fact certainly shows that the Pharisees on their part accepted the party name when once naturalized. And they might well do so, for from their standpoint the “separation” from which they obtained the name was one thoroughly praiseworthy and well-pleasing to God.
[1469] Antt. xvii. 2. 4.
[1470] Jadajim iv. 6-8; Chagiga ii. 7; Sota iii. 4.
[1471]a Sabim v. 1: לאחר פִּרִישִׁתוֹ ממטמאיו, “After he was separated from what defiled him.” Tohoroth iv. 12: טהרת פְּרִישׁוּת, “The cleanness of the separated life.” Sota ix. 15: “Since Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, there has been no more טָהֳרָה וּפְּרִישׁוּת. Aboth iii. 13: “R. Akiba said: Vows are a fence for the פְּרִישׁוּת” (i.e. they serve for its maintenance and preservation).
[1472] Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, p. 76 sqq.
[1473] This view, though intermingled with other points of view, is also the prevailing one in the explanations of the Fathers and the Rabbis. See Clem., Homil. xi. 28: οἵ εἰσιν ἀφωρισμένοι καὶ τὰ νόμιμα ὡς γραμματεῖς τῶν ἄλλων πλεῖον εἰδότες. Pseudo-Tertullian, adv. haer. c. 1: Pharisaeos, qui addita-menta quaedam legis adstruendo a Judaeis divisi sunt, unde etiam hoc accipere ipsum quod habent nomen digni fuerunt. Origenes, Comment. in Matthew 23:2 (Opp. ed. Lommatzsch, iv. 194): Qui autem majus aliquid profitentes dividunt se ipsos quasi meliores a multis, secundum hoc Pharisaei dicuntur, qui inter-pretantur divisi et segregati. Phares enim divisio appellatur. Idem, Comment. in Matthew 23:28 sqq. (Lommatzsch. iv. 219 sq.): Similiter Pharisaei sunt omnes qui justificant semetipsos, et dividunt se a caeteris dicentes: noli mihi appropriare, quoniam mundus sum. Interpretantur autem Pharisaei, secundum nomen Phares, divisi, qui se ipsos a caeteris diviserunt. Phares, autem dicitur hebraica lingua divisio. Idem, Comment. in Matthew 23:29 (Lommatzsch. iv. 233): Recte Pharisaei sunt appellati, id est praecisi, qui spiritualia prophetarum a corporali historia praeciderunt. Idem, Comment. in Joann. vol. vi. c. 13 (Lommatzsch, i. 210): Οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι, ἅτε κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα ὄντες διῃρημένοι τινὲς καὶ στασιώδεις. Idem, Comment. in Joann. vol. xiii. c. 54, fin. (Lommatzsch. ii. 113): Φαρισαίων δὲ τῶν ἀποδιῃρημένων καὶ τὴν θείαν ἑνότητα ἀπολωλεκότων· Φαρισαῖοι γὰρ ἑρμηνεύονται· οἱ διῃρημένοι. Epiphanius, haer. 16, 1: Ἐλέγοντο δὲ Φαρισαῖοι διὰ τὸ ἀφωρισμένους εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων, διὰ τὴν ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκείαν τὴν παρʼ αὐτοῖς νενομισμένην. Φάρες γὰρ κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραΐδα ἑρμηνεύεται ἀφορισμός. Hieronymus, contra Luciferianos, c. 23 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, ii. 197): Pharisaei a Judaeis divisi propter quasdam observationes superfluas nomen quoque a dissidio susceperunt (according to Pseudo-Tertullian, comp. below, note 89). Idem, Comment. in Matthew 22:23 (Vallarsi, vii. 1. 177): Pharisaei traditionum et observationum, quas illi δευτερώσεις vocant, juetitiam praeferebant, unde et divisi vocabantur a populo; Sadducaei autem, qui interpretantur justi, et ipsi vendicabant sibi quod non erant. Nathan ben Jehiel declares in the Aruch: פרוש הוא שפירש עצמו מכל טומאה ומן מאכל טמא ועם הארץ שאינו מדקדק במאכל, “A Parueh is one who separates himself from all uncleanness, and from unclean food, and from the people of the land, who are not careful what they eat.” For further testimony, see Buxtorf, Lex Chald. col. 1851 sq.; Drusius, De tribis sectis Judaeorum, lib. ii. c. 2; De Wette, Archäologie, p. 413.
[1474] The chief passage is Jadajim iv. 6-8; the two other passages, Chagiga ii. 7; Sota iii. 4.
If the name Perushim shows that the Pharisees appeared as “separatists” in the eyes of their adversaries, another name shows us their own view of their character and community. They called themselves merely Chaberim (חֲבֵרִים), “neighbours,” this term being, in the language of the Mishna and of ancient Rabbinical literature in general, exactly identical with that of Perushim. It is self-evident from the matter of the passages given above (vol. ii. p. 8), that a Chaber in them everywhere means one who strictly observes tke law, especially the laws relating to cleanness and uncleanness. And indeed the term comprises all those who do so, and therefore not merely those who are scholars by profession. For it is not the unlearned,[1475] but as the tenor of the passages shows, the bulk of those in whom no strict observance of the law can be assumed, the “people of the land” (עַם הָאָרֶץ),[1476] who form the contrast. Hence the usage of language of the Middle Ages, according to which a Chaber is a “colleague” of the Rabbis, a scholar, must not be imported into these passages of the Mishna.[1477] On the contrary, Chaber is in the latter any one who strictly observes the law, including the παραδόσεις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, and is thus identical with Pharisee.[1478] This gives us however a deeper insight of the self-estimation of Pharisaism. It so far stands on a level with the general Judaism of the post-exilian period, that to it also the population of Palestine is divided into two categories: (1) The congregation of Israel, i.e. the Chaberim, for חָבֵר means simply “neighbour,” fellow-countryman,[1479] and (2) the people dwelling in the land. In the eyes of Pharisaism however the former term is restricted to the circle of those, who strictly observe the law together with the entire παραδόσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. All besides are Am-haarez, and therefore do not belong to the true congregation of Israel. Consequently Pharisaism estimates itself as very specially the ecclesiola in ecclesia. Only the circle of the Pharisaic association represents the true Israel, who perfectly observe the law and have therefore a claim to the promises.[1480]
[1475] The unlearned is called, in contrast to the learned, הֶדיוֹט, ἰδιώτης, Rosh hashana ii. 8. The notion of the Chaber includes both the הֶדיוֹט and the חָכָם. See Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theo-logie, p. 122 sq.
[1476] Am-haarez is the people who dwell in the land, but do not belong to the community of Israel. The expression however is not used as a collective term only, but also to designate an individual, e.g. an Am-haarez (i.e. one of the people of the land). See in general, Demai i. 2, 3, ii. 2, 3, iii. 4, vi. 9, 12; Shebiith v. 9; Maaser theni iii. 3, iv. 6; Chagiga ii. 7; Gittin v. 9; Edujoth i. 14; Aboth ii. 5, iii. 10; Horajoth iii. 8; Kinnim iii. 6; Tohoroth iv. 5, vii. 1, 2, 4, 6, viii. 1, 2, 3, 5; Machshirin vi. 3; Tebul jom. iv. 5. Weber, System, pp. 42-44. Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien, p. 527 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 54-56 (article “Am-haarez”). The older literature in Jo. Christph. Wolf, Curae philol in Nov. Test. on John 7:49. See the expositors in general on John 7:49 (Lightfoot, Schöttgen, Wetzstein, Lampe, and others).
[1477] In this sense e.g. it is explained by Maimonides on Demai ii. 3: חבר נקרא תלמיד חכם וכן יקראו לתלמידי חכמים חברים. Elias Levita in the Tishbi, s.v., explains חבר by חבר הרב, “colleague of the Rabbi,” i.e. one who has indeed received the ordination of scholars, but is not yet a public teacher (see the passage e.g. in Ugolini, Thes. xxi. 907; Carpzov, Apparatus, p. 142). The majority of Christian scholars follow Elias Levita; see the list of them in Ursinus, Antiqultates Hebraicae, c. 8 (Ugolini, Thes. xxi. 907), and in Carpzov, Apparatus, p. 143. I bring forward only the following: Scaliger (Elenchus trihaeresii Serarii, c, 10), Buxtorf (Lex. Chald. s.v.), Otho (Lex. Rabbin, s.v.), Wagenseil (Sota, p. 1026 sq.), Vitringa (De synagoga vetere, lib. ii. c. 10, p. 571). This explanation however is in opposition to the Mishna and the older Rabbinical literature. Of course חבר may here too denote the colleagues (companions) of a scholar or a judge (e.g. Edujoth v. 7; Sanhedrin xi. 2). But where it is merely used as a terminus technicus, without statement of any special reference, it differs from חכם and תלמיד חכם, and denotes a wider circle than these. Comp. e.g. Kiddushin 33b (in Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. חכר): אתון חכימי ואנא חבר, “You are scholars, and I am only a Chaber.” Shabbath 11a: תחת גוי ולא תחת חבר תחת חבר ולא תחת תלמיד חכם, “Under a Gentile and not under a Chaber, under a Chaber and not under the pupil of a scholar” (the passage is already quoted in the Aruch, s.v. חבר, in explanation of this term; on its meaning, see Weber, System, p. 142). Bechoroth 30b: הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני ג׳ חברים ואפילו תלמיד חכם צריך לקבל כפני שלש חברים, “He who will take upon himself the decrees of the association (chaberuth) must do so in the presence of three chaberim; even if he is the pupil of a scholar, he must do it in the presence of three chaberim.”
[1478] The identity of parush and chaber results chiefly from a comparison of Chagiga ii. 7 with Demai ii. 3 (see the passages above, vol. i. pp. 385, 386). In the first passage Am-haarez and Parusb, in the latter Am-haarez and Chaber are contrasted, and that in such wise, that in both passages the Am-haarez is the unclean, by whose garments the Parush and Chaber are respectively defiled. Evidently then the two latter are identical. Rightly therefore does Nathan ben Jehiel give to פרושים in the Aruch (s.v. פרוש, and indeed with a citation of the passage Chagiga ii. 7) the explanation: הן החברין האוכלין חוליהן בטהרה, “They are the Chaberim who eat their profane food in cleanness.” Comp. especially the excellent discussion of Guisius on Demai ii. 3 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, i. 83). Edzardus, Tractatus Talmudici Avoda Sara caput secundum (Hamburg 1710)1 pp. 531-534. Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae on Matthew 3:7 (Opp. ii. 271b). Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. i. 204. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie, pp. 42-46, 77. Meanings corresponding to the correct one are found in Levy, Chald. Wörterb. s.v. חברא. The same, Nenhebr. Wörterb. s.v. חבר. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 126-129 (article “Chaber”).
[1479] חבר may of course have in itself very different meanings. The above however is the only possible one in accordance with the usage of Old Testament language, when it is used in contrast to עם הארץ. חבר is undoubtedly used in this sense in Chullin xi. 2, where it stands it contrast with נָכְרִי (a foreigner); also in the passage quoted above (note 48) from Shabbath 11a, where it stands midway between גוי and תלמיד הכם.
[1480] The question “who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29) was therefore quite seriously intended. To Jewish consciousness it was in fact an important question, who was to be acknowledged as a Chaber.
And their demeanour practically agreed with this theoretical estimation. As an Israelite avoided as far as possible all contact with a heathen, lest he should thereby be defiled, so did the Pharisee avoid as far as possible contact with the non-Pharisee, because the latter was to him included in the notion of the unclean Am-haarez. “The garments of the Am-haarez are unclean for the Perushim.”[1481] “A Chaber does not go as a guest to an Am-haarez nor receive him as a guest within his walls.”[1482] “If the wife of a Chaber has left the wife of an Am-haarez grinding in her house, the house is unclean if the mill stops; if it goes on grinding, only unclean so far as she can reach by stretching out her hand,” etc.[1483] When then the Gospels relate, that the Pharisees found fault with the free intercourse of Jesus with “publicans and sinners,” and with His entering into their houses (Mark 2:14-17; Matthew 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32), this agrees exactly with the standpoint here described. The Pharisees did in fact “separate” from the people of the land, so far as to avoid close intercourse with them. Hence the name Perushim was rightly given them; nay, from their own standpoint they had no reason for rejecting it.
[1481] Chagiga ii. 7.
[1482] Demai ii. 3.
[1483] Tohoroth vii. 4. Compare the passages quoted in note 47.
This exclusiveness of Pharisaism certainly justifies the calling it an αἵρεσις, a sect, as is done both in the New Test. (Acts 15:5; Acts 26:5) and by Josephus. Nevertheless it remains the fact, that it was the legitimate and classic representative of post-exilian Judaism in general. It did but carry out with relentless energy the consequences of its principle. Those only are the true Israel who observe the law in the strictest manner. Since only the Pharisees did this in the full sense, they only were the true Israel, which was related to the remaining bulk of the people as these were to the heathen.
Not till after these general characteristics of Pharisaism had been discussed could the question concerning its origin arise and its history be briefly sketched. Viewed according to its essence, it is as old as legal Judaism in general. When once the accurate observance of the ceremonial law is regarded as the true essence of religious conduct, Pharisaism already exists in principle. It is another question however when it first appeared as a sect, as a fraction within the Jewish nation. And in this sense it cannot be traced farther back than to the time of the Maccabaean conflicts. In these the “pious” (οἱ Ἀσιδαῖοι, i.e. חֲסִידִים), who plainly formed a special fraction. within the people, also took part (1Ma_2:42; 1Ma_7:12 sqq.). They fought indeed on the side of Judas for the religion of their fathers, but they were not identical with the Maccabaean party.[1484] They evidently represented, as may be inferred from their name, that strictest party which upheld with special zeal the observance of the law. Hence they are the same party, whom we again meet with some decades later under the name of Pharisees. It appears that during the Greek period, when the chief priests and rulers of the people took up an increasingly lax attitude towards the law, they united themselves more closely into an association of such as made a duty of its most punctilious observance. When then the Maccabees raised the standard to fight for the faith of their fathers, these “pious” took part in the conflict, but only as long as the faith and the law were actually contended for. When, this was no longer the case, and the object of the contest became more and more the national independence, they seem to have retired. Hence we no longer hear of them under Jonathan and Simon. Not till John Hyrcanus do they again appear, and then under the name of “Pharisees,” no longer indeed on the side of the Maccabees, but in hostile opposition to them. The course of affairs had brought it to pass, that the priestly family of the Maccabees should found a political dynasty. The ancient high-priestly family had been supplanted. The Maccabees or Asmonaeans had entered into its political inheritance. But with this, tasks which were essentially political had devolved upon them. The chief matter in their eyes was no longer the carrying out of the law, but the maintenance and extension of their political power. The prosecution however of these political objects could not but more and more separate them from their old friends the “Chasidim” or “Perushim.” Not that they had apostatized from the law. But a secular policy was in itself scarcely reconcilable with that legal scrupulosity and carefulness which the Pharisees required. It was inevitable, that sooner or later there should be a breach between them and their two opposite pursuits. This breach occurred under John Hyrcanus. At the beginning of his government, he still adhered to the Pharisees, but afterwards renounced them and turned to the Sadducees. The occasion of the breach is related by Josephus in a legendary style.[1485] But the fact itself, that this change took place under Hyrcanus, is thoroughly authentic. And in consequence we henceforth find the Pharisees the opponents of the Asmonaean priest-princes. They were such not only under John Hyrcanus, but also under Aristobulus I, and especially Alexander Jannaeus. Under the latter, who as a fierce warrior entirely disregarded the interest of religion, it came even to open revolution. For six years Alexander Jannaeus with his mercenary troops was in conflict against the people led by the Pharisees.[1486] And what he at last attained was only the external intimidation, not the real subdual of his opponents. The stress laid upon religious interests by the Pharisees had won the bulk of the nation to their side. Hence it is no cause for surprise, that Alexandra for the sake of being at peace with her people abandoned the power to the Pharisees. Their victory was now complete, the whole conduct of internal affairs was in their hands. All the decrees of the Pharisees done away with by Hyrcanus were reintroduced, and they completely ruled the public life of the nation.[1487] And this continued in all essentials even during subsequent ages. Amidst all the changes of government; under Romans and Herodians, the Pharisees maintained their spiritual hegemony. Consistency with principle was on their side. And this consistency procured them the spiritual supremacy. It is true that the Sadducaean high priests were at the head of the Sanhedrin. But in fact the decisive influence upon public affairs was in the hands, not of the Sadducees, but of the Pharisees. They had the bulk of the nation as their ally,[1488] the women especially were in their hands.[1489] They had the greatest influence upon the congregations, so that all acts of public worship, prayers and sacrifices were performed according to their injunctions.[1490] Their sway over the masses was so absolute, that they could obtain a hearing, even when they said anything against the king or the high priest,[1491] consequently they were the most capable of counteracting the designs of the kings.[1492] Hence too the Sadducees in their official acts adhered to the demands of the Pharisees. because otherwise the multitude would not have tolerated them.[1493] This great influence actually exercised by the Pharisees is but the reverse side of the exclusive position which they took up. It was just because their requirements stretched so far, and because they only recognised as true Israelites those who observed them in their full strictness, that they had so imposing an effect upon the multitude, who recognised in these exemplary saints their own ideal and their legitimate leaders.
[1484] This has been well pointed out especially by Wellhausen (pp. 78-86), who rightly identifies the Chasidim with the Pharisees.
[1485] Antt. xiii. 10. 5-6.
[1486] Antt. xiii. 13. 5.
[1487] Antt. xiii. 16. 2.
[1488] Antt. xiii. 10. 6: τὸ πλῆθος σύμμαχον ἐχόντων.
[1489] Antt. xvii. 2. 4: οἷς ὑπῆκτο ἡ γυναικωνῖτις.
[1490] Antt. xviii. 1. 3: τοῖς δήμοις πιθανώτατοι τυγχάνουσι κ.τ.λ.
[1491] Antt. xiii. 10. 5.
[1492] Antt. xvii. 2. 4.
[1493] Antt. xviii. 1. 4.