Deconstructing the Pharisees

[Pavel Mosko]

I was going to have a thread called something like "Christian Tropes and the Meta-gospel", but I thought it would be too abstract and metaphysical for most folks. Tropes are story telling devices and conventions. Tropes are a lot of fun to use for analyzing pieces of fiction, and sometimes they have other applications (They frequently appear in the news we watch on TV etc.) Anyway I thought the best way to introduce the topic of tropes for use in discussions here is to start with something specific, and I've been planning on doing something on the pharisees for a long time.

When people talk about the Pharisees, preach on them etc. the above figure is always what seems to come to mind. The above figure is Dastardly Whiplash the prototypical villain of melodrama.

"In personality, he is a one-dimensional, over-the-top, openly evil villain of limited intelligence who comes up with (sometimes absurdly) elaborate schemes for the hero to foil — kidnapping a helpless female and tying her up to either a railroad track or a Conveyor Belt o' Doom, in an attempt to coerce her into "marrying" him or relinquishing the deed to her property, is the old standard. He can usually be expected to go to great lengths to cheat at things he could easily win legitimately, For the Evulz of course."


Dastardly Whiplash - TV Tropes


So what do you think?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Am I correct in understanding that the
Pharisees were originally Essenes that were given political power by the Romans to keep the Jews in order... or is this a myth?

 

[Endeavourer]

Actually the Pharisees were those at the top of the church food chain, and highly respected. They were the "godliest" of them all.

They had positions of respect and reverence similar to that seen today of John Piper, Jack Hyles, James MacDonald, Doug Wilson, Emerson Eggerich, etc etc.

Today we see them as the villains they were; but their contemporaries thought they exhibited the height of "godliness".

 

[public hermit]

I think you're right. The Pharisees often come across as one dimensional. But, pace John 12:42, many religious leaders believed in Jesus. And, of course, there is Paul. And, "Pharisee" has itself become a trope for those who rely on works instead of grace.

 

[Dave-W]

Am I correct in understanding that the
Pharisees were originally Essenes that were given political power by the Romans to keep the Jews in order... or is this a myth?

Myth. The Pharisees formed after the events of the Maccabees. The Maccabean decedents (priests) became a series of kings and very quickly got corrupted. They stopped teaching Torah. (bible) so a group of non-priests called separatists (prushim - pharisees) started setting up synagogues to teach the common men the Bible. The Essenes probably formed around the same time (no one is quite sure) but they pulled out of the system altogether. The Priests (Sadducees) were in league with Rome but the Pharisees had a tentative connection to the Zealots - freedom fighters/terrorists who were trying to throw off Roman rule.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When people talk about the Pharisees, preach on them etc. the above figure is always what seems to come to mind.

I don't think so. Usually it is about religious figures who are in charge of a denomination or a congregation, dressed in get-ups that may cost thousands of dollars, or maybe only hundreds, with a hundred dollar hair cut, sometimes a hundred thousand dollar car, million dollar house, and "smooth words" of deception with a smile all the time. Or perhaps a more stern, sober look, backed up with decades of schooling, and centuries of doctrines .... but a life not at all like Jesus....
They may be or are "accepted" by and lifted up/ honored/ by society at large, or by small assemblies or groups, or whoever they have been able (seemingly without too much difficulty) to continue to deceive and to lead astray also.

They often have impeccable credentials, the kind the world likes and God disdains,
and people exlaim or are in awe at their great knowledge and education... (even though it is opposed to Christ Jesus).

 

[Dave-W]

Actually the Pharisees were those at the top of the church food chain, and highly respected. They were the "godliest" of them all.

They had positions of respect and reverence similar to that seen today of John Piper, Jack Hyles, James MacDonald, Doug Wilson, Emerson Eggerich, etc etc.

Today we see them as the villains they were; but their contemporaries thought they exhibited the height of "godliness".

Indeed. They were the fundamentalists of their day. There were 2 main camps - the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel.

Those 2 rabbis were in the later first century bc (and possibly still alive when our Lord visited the Temple at age 12) and both set up schools to train Pharisees. They were best friends and disagreed on over 100 points of doctrine (that we know of). Shammai was much more legalistic than Hillel.

From the Gospel accounts, it seems our Lord had the most trouble from the Shammai Pharisees. Paul was from the school of Hillel. (Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson)

 

[timewerx]

Not all Pharisees were evil though.

Not even remotely as evil as Paul (when he used to be a Pharisee fanatic).

Some were even nice. Their main problem was blinded to the truth due to senseless fear of having an open mind. This problem is still endemic today. We haven't changed/improved much from the Pharisees.

 

[Endeavourer]

When my husband was converted he was influenced by and joined a highly legalistic independent fundamentalist baptist church (not all IFBs are like this; they are independent groups). Looking back he would consider himself quite a Pharisee back in those days.

He read the book Wisdom Hunter by Randal Arthur, which opened his eyes to this phenomena in his circles, and within himself. He then read Extreme Righteousness by Tom Hovestol as he set off on his journey to extricate the Phariseaism within himself. It took over 20 years to finally, fully break away from the hold of legalistic churches. It was quite a journey for him.

I rejoice in my good fortune to reap the benefits of his journey. He is a wonderful man and an amazing husband.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Am I correct in understanding that the
Pharisees were originally Essenes that were given political power by the Romans to keep the Jews in order... or is this a myth?

You got it backwards the Essenes came out of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were not exact enough when it came to calculating the festival times for the Essenes, and they probably had other issues with them as well.

 

[JackRT]

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I think the polemics of the Gospels towards the Pharisees was deserved (directed largely against some bad apples), but by and large I see things very similarly and I'm glad you brought up Shammai etc since that is very relevant to the NT. Rather than seeing the Pharisees as some kind of typical villain, I see them a bit more sympathetically more like an anti-villain in some cases. I see them as a bit of a cautionary tale that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and "he who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster" etc. (There is more temptation to this sort of thing than what many folks would realize, while many people tend to see the pharisee label or concept mostly as a kind of a pejorative to describe other kinds of Christians whom they disagree with etc.)


"An Anti-Villain is the opposite of an Anti-Hero — a character with heroic goals, personality traits, and/or virtues who is ultimately the villain. Their desired ends are mostly good, but their means of getting there range from evil to undesirable. Alternatively, their goals may be selfish or have long-term consequences they don't care about, but they're good people who might even team up with the hero if their goals don't conflict."

Anti-Villain - TV Tropes

 

[timewerx]

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism.

You're most probably talking about the Hillel school of Pharisee. Some of Christian principles even come from Hillel School.

The strict sect is the Shammai School and the enemies of Christ were likely to be Shammai. Most of the nice Pharisees come from the Hillel School. It's very strange to note Paul came from Hillel school, but conducted himself like from Shammai.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You got it backwards the Essenes came out of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were not exact enough when it came to calculating the festival times for the Essenes, and they probably had other issues with them as well.

We see in Josephus that he states during the time of Jonathan Apphus, about the 2nd century BC, a disagreement between devout Jews occured over the Oral Torah - with the priestly group rejecting it being of Zadok (Sadducee) and the others that prided themselves on purity, becoming the Perushim or Pharisee. The Essenes are nowhere stated where they originated in our ancient texts, but described as being strict adherents of the Laws, so thus fall along with the Pharisees in this specific split of Second Temple Judaism. I've read it argued that both developed from groups of early Jews prior to this, that shunned intermarriage and Hellenism; so it is an open question if they descended from Phariseeism, or were a sort-of cousin of it, but certainly they agreed with the Pharisees on the Oral Torah.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

While we may use Pharisees as pantomime villains, we do meet righteous Pharisees in the Bible - notably Paul after conversion, Gamaliel, and Nicodemus. This trope says more about us, how the semantics of the word evolved amongst Christians, than about biblical depictions of the pharisees.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Exactly that was a point that I would get too eventually in a discussion that there were some folks like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arametha that didn't fit the usual conception. Possibly people more of the house of Hillel order of thinking.

 

[JackRT]

One famous legend tells about a gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism. This happened not infrequently, and this individual stated that he would accept Judaism only if a rabbi would teach him the entire Torah while he, the prospective convert, stood on one foot. First he went to Shammai, who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out of the house. The man did not give up and went to Hillel. This gentle sage accepted the challenge, and said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this—go and study it!"

 

[eleos1954]

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel.

Anything in the bible to support this?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

One famous legend tells about a gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism. This happened not infrequently, and this individual stated that he would accept Judaism only if a rabbi would teach him the entire Torah while he, the prospective convert, stood on one foot. First he went to Shammai, who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out of the house. The man did not give up and went to Hillel. This gentle sage accepted the challenge, and said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this—go and study it!"

Yes I love that story! What I also really like about it is that some people, Evangelicals especially of the Charismatic variety, often assume that Jesus made everything in the Gospels up on the spot (his teaching was based purely on his unique revelation knowledge etc.), while that story and a parallel saying in the Deutero-canonical books shows that Jesus preaching on "the Golden rule" was expanding on stuff out of the Jewish Tradition actually going back to a saying in the Pentateuch. It also shows how different the two rabbinic schools were in their philosophy and how that affected outsiders.

 

[JackRT]

Yes I love that story! What I also really like about it is that some people, Evangelicals especially of the Charismatic variety, often assume that Jesus made everything in the Gospels up on the spot (his teaching was based purely on his unique revelation knowledge etc.), while that story and a parallel saying in the Deutero-canonical books shows that Jesus preaching on "the Golden rule" was expanding on stuff out of the Jewish Tradition actually going back to a saying in the Pentateuch. It also shows how different the two rabbinic schools were in their philosophy and how that affected outsiders.

The more I study the Bible and history the more I realize how thoroughly Jewish Jesus was.