Pharisees

From the anti-Hellenistic Jewish movement of the Hasidae ("Hasidim" = "pious"), which had arisen during the Seleucid ruler ­Antiochos IV Epiphanes (175 B.C. -164 B.C.), various Jewish groups emerged. In the first century of our era, the historian Flavius Josephus names, besides the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and resistance groups (Zealots, Sicarii) as (philosophical) schools (haíresis), similar to Acts 5:17 EU and 26:5. This was connected with a political and practical importance. Later movements were primitive Christianity-also called a school in Acts 24:5, 14 EU and 28:22-and the Therapeutae in Egypt. An alleged sectarianism of Jewish society, especially of the 1st century AD, is contradicted today. E. P. Sanders emphasizes unifying religious ideas and practices of a "common Judaism." In addition, common views of ancestry and history, area of residence, language, or laws of the people of the Judeans must be brought into view. Nor did most Jews belong to any particular grouping.

During their existence, the Pharisees defined themselves primarily as opposition to the Sadducees. The Sadducees represented the conservative, priestly-aristocratic upper class, the Pharisees found their followers among the broad masses of the people. Conflicts existed over the view of the relationship between rich and poor and the acceptance or rejection of a Hellenization of Jewish society. Religious differences concerned the evaluation of the temple, which according to the Pharisaic view was subordinate to the Torah and the prophets.

The position and beliefs of the Pharisees developed in the course of their existence and can therefore best be traced by their historical development. Written records exist only from later times; in particular Hillel the Elder and Shammai from the 1st century of our era are known for their commentaries, among others on charity.

In the New Testament the Pharisees appear partly as opponents of Jesus of Nazareth, but mainly as his most important discussion partners, (Acts 4:1ff EU Acts 5:17ff. EU, Mk 12:38-39 EU, Lk 20:45-46 EU, Mt 23:1-39 EU). According to Hyam Maccoby (2007) the historical Jesus was close to or even a part of the Pharisaic movement.

According to the New Testament, the Pharisees overemphasized the observance of purity laws, while Jesus gave priority to the love of God and neighbor. He was partly harshly critical of the fact that the Pharisees, who also saw themselves as a social-religious elite, fulfilled the exact wording of the law and looked to its strict observance, but did not heed the meaning behind the laws: "Therefore I say to you: Unless your righteousness is far greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 5:20 EU) Because of this hypocrisy attributed to the Pharisees, the word Pharisee took on a meaning as a swear word in German usage.

Critics who place the origin of the New Testament after the break between Judaism and Christianity assume a distorted representation of the Pharisees, who had become the dominant Jewish direction at the time of the origin of those writings. They point out that Jesus held Pharisaic positions of the school of Hillel (charity) or that of Shammai (on divorce). His view of an afterlife, they say, is also to be found among the Pharisees. Also the address Rabbuni (= master, teacher) shows Jesus to be in the Pharisaic tradition. According to this, the surviving disputes are rather to be seen as Talmud-typical discussions of Jewish dispute culture, which later writers understood as deeper conflicts or interpreted them propagandistically.

Others see the New Testament portrayal of the Pharisees as a caricature. Jesus' declaration that a healed man is now forgiven of his sins follows the Pharisaic view of that time; a condemnation of Jesus as a blasphemer because of his declaration contradicts the historical picture of the Pharisees. Also Jesus' healing on the Sabbath, condemned in the New Testament by Pharisees, does not violate any of the known rabbinical rules (see also the "Mishneh Torah" of Maimonides, Shabath 2-3). Likewise, the Pharisees' rejection of Jesus' message to the social fringes (beggars, tax collectors) seems to contradict the rabbinic tradition, which also teaches forgiveness for all. A close comparison shows that many of Jesus' teachings are in harmony with those of the Pharisees.

The reason for a negative assessment of the Pharisees may have been the turn of the Christian mission from the Jews to the Gentiles. Here a negative representation of the Jews - since about the year 70 represented by the Pharisees - was advantageous. Christianity saw itself as the completion of Judaism's expectation of salvation and thus as something new, which also clearly distinguished itself from Judaism.

According to the account of Acts Paul himself was a Pharisee (Acts 23,6 EU). Even after he turned to the new way he emphasized his affiliation to the people of the Judeans (Acts 24,14-19 EU), the loyalty to traditional rites and especially the Pharisaic idea of a resurrection. Conversely, Pharisees seem to have had sympathies for the "school of the Nazoreans" before the separation (Acts 15:5; 23:7-9).