Pharisees

FARISEI. — In Greek Φαρισαῖοι, from the Aramaic רְשִׁיעַי, a plural adjective meaning “divided,” “separated.” It seems that by this name the f. were designated by their adversaries, since they called themselves “companions” or “holy ones.”

I. HISTORY

Flavius Josephus states that they, together with the Sadducees and the Essenes, had very ancient origins, although he mentions them for the first time in the time of Jonathan Maccabee (161–143 B.C.). In reality, the origin of the two opposing currents of the Pharisees and the Sadducees must be sought in the period when Hellenism spread; it may therefore be traced back almost to the time of Ezra. Hellenism introduced into Judaism independence of thought and laxity of morals, undermining its religious spirit and fidelity to tradition. The first to yield opportunistically to the new ideas were the aristocratic classes, chiefly among them the families of the high priesthood (v. SADDUCHI), while, by way of reaction, an opposing current arose of those “who separated themselves from the ‘peoples of the lands’ for the law of God … who came to promise and swear that they would walk in the law of God … to observe and do all the commandments of Yahweh” (Neh. 10:28 ff.). This testimony may be regarded as marking the beginning of the Pharisaic current, without, however, allowing the conclusion that at that time it constituted a genuine faction. Such, on the other hand, were the Ḥasideans (ἀσιδαῖοι) in the early days of the Maccabees, that is, the “pious” (Heb. ḥăsîdîm), who in fact were substantially identical with the later Pharisees. They constituted the principal force on which the Maccabees could rely for the liberation of the people from foreign rule (cf. I Mach. 2:42; 7:12; II Mach. 14:6). But the Hasmoneans, descendants of the Maccabees, soon found themselves in opposition to the Pharisees, the successors of the Ḥasideans. The tension between the two currents began under Jonathan, when, in 153, he obtained the high priesthood from Demetrius, king of Syria. John Hyrcanus, son of Simon and formerly a disciple of the Pharisees, decisively broke with them and joined the Sadducean current. His son, King Alexander Jannaeus, fiercely persecuted the Pharisees; but, as he was near death, he recommended to his wife, Queen Alexandra (who reigned for nine years after her husband’s death), that she come to an understanding with the Pharisees in order to win the favor of the people, among whom they wielded great influence. In the struggles between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, the Pharisees took the side of the former.

In the subsequent period, down to the catastrophe of A.D. 70, the two currents continued their activities: the Sadducees dominated the Temple and political life, whereas the Pharisees increasingly won the favor of the people, especially through the work of the doctors of the Law, or scribes, who overwhelmingly belonged to their sect. The people, in fact, tended to see in the Pharisees the genuine defenders of their traditions and, consequently, of their nationality and independence. The Pharisees alone survived the catastrophe of 70, and from then on Judaism was shaped according to the principles of Pharisaism.

II. DOCTRINE

Arising in opposition to the spread of Hellenistic innovations, so contrary to the Jewish spirit, the f. understood that the most effective weapon in this struggle was the defense of the tradition and customs of the people: this “tradition” had to be canonized, developed, and assigned a value equal to, perhaps even higher than, that of the Tórāh itself, which lent itself too readily to being interpreted in favor of those sympathetic to Hellenism (“it is worse to go against the words of the scribes than against the words of the Tórāh”; Sanhedrīn, XI, 3). This “tradition of the fathers,” πατέρων διαδοχή, imposed as an inviolable norm, was to preserve genuine Judaism from every degeneration, while maintaining intact the Jewish national spirit. Pharisaism devoted itself to this task, pushing its normative legislation to extremes; this legislation concerned three principal matters: legal purity, the payment of tithes, and Sabbath rest. The meticulousness reached in these matters is well known, extending even to the famous dispute as to whether it was lawful to eat an egg laid by a hen on the Sabbath. Jesus called this “tradition” διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων (Mt. 15, 9; Mc. 7, 7) and said of the f.: “You transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition” (Mt. 15, 3, 6; Mc. 7, 9). This attitude won the f. the goodwill of the people, who, even in religious and liturgical controversies, always followed their opinion. They dominated the masses, and in the Sanhedrin (v.), although they were in the minority, their will often prevailed because it was supported by popular favor. From the doctrinal standpoint, the f., in opposition to the Sadducees, upheld the resurrection of the flesh and a certain reconciliation between divine and human action, in the sense that the former cooperates with and assists the latter. In their judgments they were inclined to clemency, contrary to the severity of the Sadducees. They also disagreed with the Sadducees in liturgical matters, for example, in determining the day of the offering of the sheaf and, consequently, the day of Pentecost, as well as concerning certain ceremonies at the feast of the hippōr and of Tabernacles, and even the hour of the sacrifice of the paschal lamb. That the f. constituted a closed class, a kind of corporation, may be inferred from the names by which they are designated: συναγορῆ (used to indicate the Hasideans, I Mach. 2, 42), συντάγμα (Flavius Josephus, Bell. Iud., I, 110); and also from the fact that they called one another “companions,” ḥābherīm, while “company,” ḥābherīth, was the name of their sect. Flavius Josephus puts their number at approximately 5,000 in the time of King Alexander Jannaeus (Antiq. Iud., XIII, 383), and at more than 6,000 in the time of Herod the Great (Antiq. Iud., XVII, 42). Anyone who was not a f., whether a member of the high clergy or of the lowest plebs, belonged to the profane people of the land and was regarded with contempt by the f., who were convinced that they alone were the defenders of the Law and of tradition. That not all the f. were of good faith is suggested by the Talmud, which enumerates seven types of Pharisees, of whom only the last deserves praise (Sōpāh, 22 b, bar.). Jesus inveighed severely against the f., and chapter 23 of Matthew is a formal accusation against them. Nevertheless, Jesus was referring more to their practical conduct than to their doctrines, since he said concerning them: “The scribes and the f. sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore, whatever they tell you, do and observe, but do not act according to their works” (Mt. 23, 2, 3).

Giuseppe Ricciotti