Reading: Pharisees (ISBE Article)

LITERATURE

1. Name and General Character:

A prominent sect of the Jews. The earliest notice of them in Josephus occurs in connection with
Jonathan, the high priest. Immediately after the account of the embassy to the Lacedaemonians,
there is subjoined (Josephus, Ant. , XIII , v, 9) an account of the Pharisees, Sadducees and
Essenes, therefore implying that then and in this connection they had been prominent. Later (XIII, x,
5), the Pharisees are represented as envious of the success of John Hyrcanus; Eleazar, one of
them, insults him at his own table. From the fact that earlier in the history the Assideans/Hasideans
occupy a similar place to that occupied later by the Pharisees, it may be deduced that the two
parties are in a measure one. It would seem that not only the Pharisees, but also the Essenes, were
derived from the Hasideans or ḥăṣı̄ dhı̄ m: "the pious" or "the saints".

2. Authorities - Josephus - New Testament - Talmud:

In considering the characteristics and doctrines of the Pharisees we are in some difficulty from the
nature of our authorities. The writers of the New Testament assume generally that the character
and tenets of the Pharisees are well known to their readers, and only lay stress on the points in
which they were in antagonism to our Lord and His followers. The evidence of Josephus, a
contemporary and himself a Pharisee, is lessened in value by the fact that he modified his accounts
of his people to suit the taste of his Roman masters. The Pharisees, with him, are a philosophic
sect, and not an active political party. Their Messianic hopes are not so much as mentioned.
Although the Talmud was written, both Mishna and Gemara, by the descendants of the Pharisees,
the fact that the Gemara, from which most of our information is derived, is so late renders the
evidence deduced from Talmudic statements of little value. Even the Mishna, which came into being
only a century after the fall of the Jewish state, shows traces of exaggeration and modification of
facts. Still, taking these deficiencies into consideration, we may make a fairly consistent picture of
the sect. The name means "separatists," from ‫ ּפרׁש‬, pārash , "to separate" - those who carefully
kept themselves from any legal contamination, distinguishing themselves by their care in such
matters from the common people, the ‛am hā - 'ārec , who had fewer scruples. Like the Puritans in
England during the 17th century, and the Presbyterians in Scotland during the same period,
the Pharisees, although primarily a religious party, became ere long energetically political. They
were a closely organized society, all the members of which called each other ḥăbhērı̄ m ,
"neighbors"; this added to the power they had through their influence with the people.

I. History of the Sect.

The Hasideans (ḥăṣı̄ dhı̄ m) were at first the most active supporters of Judas Maccabeus in his
struggle for religious freedom. A portion of them rather than fight retired to the desert to escape the
tyranny of Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 2:27f). The followers of these in later days became the
Essenes. When Judas Maccabeus cleansed the temple and rededicated it with many sacrifices, it is
not expressly said, either in the Books of Maccabees or by Josephus, that he acted as high priest,
but the probability is that he did so. This would be a shock to the Hasidean purists, as Judas,
though a priest, was not a Zadokite; but his actions would be tolerated at that time on account of the
imminent necessity for the work of reconsecration and the eminent services of Judas himself and
his family.
1. Associated at First with Hasmoneans, but Later Abandoned Them:
When Bacchides appeared against Jerusalem with Alcimus in his camp, this feeling against Judas
took shape in receiving the treacherous Alcimus into Jerusalem and acknowledging him as high
priest, a line of action which soon showed that it was fraught with disaster, as Alcimus murdered
many of the people. They had to betake themselves anew to Judas, but this desertion was the
beginning of a separating gulf which deepened when he made a treaty with the idolatrous Romans.
As is not infrequently the case with religious zealots, their valor was associated with a mystic
fanaticism. The very idea of alliance with heathen powers was hateful to them, so when Judas
made a treaty with Rome in 161 BC they deserted him, and he sustained the crushing defeat of
Eleasa. Believing themselves the saints of God and therefore His peculiar treasure, they regarded
any association with the heathen as faithlessness to Yahweh. As the later Hasmoneans became
more involved in worldly politics, they became more and more alienated from the strict Hasideans,
yet the successors of Judas Maccabeus retained their connection with the party in a lukewarm
fashion, while the Sadducean sect was gaining in influence.
2. Change of Name:
About this time the change of name seems to have been effected. They began to be
called Pharisees, perūshı̄ m , instead of ḥăṣı̄ dhı̄ m - "separatists" instead of saints. A parallel
instance is to be found in the religious history of England. The Puritans of the 17th century became
in the 19th "Non-conformists." The earliest instance of the Pharisees' intervening in history is that
referred to in Josephus (Ant. , XIII , x, 5), where Eleazar, a Pharisee, demanded that John Hyrcanus
should lay down the high-priesthood because his mother had been a captive, thus insinuating that
he - Hyrcanus - was no true son of Aaron, but the bastard of some nameless heathen to whom his
mother had surrendered herself. This unforgivable insult to himself and to the memory of his mother
led Hyrcanus to break with the Pharisaic party definitely. He seems to have left them severely
alone.
3. Later Fortunes of the Sect:
The sons of Hyrcanus, especially Alexander Janneus, expressed their hostility in a more active way.
Alexander crucified as many as 800 of the Pharisaic party, a proceeding that seems to intimate
overt acts of hostility on their part which prompted this action. His whole policy was the
aggrandizement of the Jewish state, but his ambition was greater than his military abilities. His
repeated failures and defeats confirmed the Pharisees in their opposition to him on religious
grounds. He scandalized them by calling himself king, although not of the Davidic line, and further
still by adopting the heathen name "Alexander," and having it stamped in Greek characters on his
coins. Although a high priest was forbidden to marry a widow, he married the widow of his brother.
Still further, he incurred their opposition by abandoning the Pharisaic tradition as to the way in
which the libation water was poured out. They retaliated by rousing his people against him and
conspiring with the Syrian king. On his deathbed he advised his wife, Alexandra Salome, who
succeeded him on the throne, to make peace with the Pharisees. This she did by throwing herself
entirely into their hands. On her death a struggle for the possession of the throne and the high-
priesthood began between her two sons, John Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. The latter, the more
able and energetic, had the support of the Sadducees; the former, the elder of the two brothers, had
that of the Pharisees. In the first phase of the conflict, Hyrcanus was defeated and compelled to
make a disadvantageous peace with his brother, but, urged by Antipater, the Idumean, he called in
Aretas, who inclined the balance at once to the side of Hyrcanus. The Romans were appealed to
and they also, moved partly by the astuteness of Antipater, favored Hyrcanus. All this resulted
ultimately in the supremacy of the Herodians, who through their subservience to Rome became
inimical to the Pharisees and rivals of the Sadducees.
4. In New Testament Times:
When the New Testament records open, the Pharisees, who have supreme influence among the
people, are also strong, though not predominant, in the Sanhedrin. The Herodians and Sadducees,
the one by their alliance with the Roman authorities, and the other by their inherited skill in political
intrigue, held the reins of government.

Outside the Sanhedrin the Pharisees are ubiquitous (seen everywhere), in Jerusalem, in
Galilee, in Peraea and in the Decapolis, always coming in contact with Jesus. The
word "Pharisees" occurs 84 times in the New Testament (in the ESV; in some
versions it is slightly less and in some it is slightly more), with the majority occurring
in the four gospels and only five in the book of Acts. The word "Pharisee" occurs
10-12 times in the New Testament.
The Pharisees appear in the book of Acts to be in a latent way favorers of the apostles as against
the high-priestly party. The personal influence of Gamaliel, which seems commanding, was
exercised in their favor (Acts 5:33-40). The anti-Christian zeal of Saul the Tarsian, though a
Pharisee, may have been to some extent the result of the personal feelings which led him to
perpetuate the relations of the earlier period when the two sects were united in common
antagonism to the teaching of Christ. He, a Pharisee, offered himself to be employed by the
Sadducean high priest (Acts 9:1,2) to carry on the work of persecution in Damascus. In this action
Saul appears to have been in opposition to a large section of the Pharisaic party. The bitter
disputes which he and the other younger Pharisees had carried on with Stephen had possibly
influenced him.
5. In Post-Apostolic Times:
When Paul, the Christian apostle, was brought before the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, the Pharisaic
party were numerous in the Council, if they did not even form the majority, and they readily became
his defenders against the Sadducees.
From Josephus we learn that with the outbreak of the war with the Romans the Pharisees were
thrust into the background by the more fanatical Zealots, Simon ben Gioras and John of Gischala
(BJ , V, i). The truth behind the Talmudic statements that Gamaliel removed the Sanhedrin to
Jabneh and that Johanan ben Zakkai successfully entreated Vespasian to spare the scholars of
that city is that the Pharisees in considerable numbers made peace with the Romans. In the Mishna
we have the evidence of their later labors when the Sanhedrin was removed from Jabneh,
ultimately to Tiberias in Galilee. There under the guidance of Jehuda ha - ḳadhosh ("the Holy") the
Mishna was reduced to writing. It may thus be said that Judaism became Pharisaism, and the
history of the Jews became that of the Pharisees. In this later period the opposition to Christianity
sprang up anew and became embittered, as may be seen in the Talmudic accounts concerning
Jesus.

II. Doctrines of the Pharisees.

1. Josephus' Statements Colored by Greek Ideas:
The account given of the doctrines of the Pharisees by Josephus is clearly influenced by his desire
to parallel the Jewish sects with the Greek philosophical schools. He directs especial attention to
the Pharisaic opinion as to fate and free will, since on this point the Stoic and Epicurean sects
differed very emphatically. He regards the Pharisaic position as mid-way between that of the
Sadducees, who denied fate altogether and made human freedom absolute, and that of the
Essenes that "all things are left in the hand of God." He says, "The Pharisees ascribe all things to
fate and God, yet allow that to do what is right or the contrary is principally in man's own power,
although fate cooperates in every action." It is to be noted that Josephus, in giving this statement of
views, identifies "fate" with "God," a process that is more plausible in connection with the
Latin fatum , "something decreed," than in relation to the impersonal moı́ra , or heimarménē , of the
Greeks. As Josephus wrote in Greek and used only the second of these terms, he had no
philological inducement to make the identification; the reason must have been the matter of fact. In
other words, he shows that the Pharisees believed in a personal God whose will was providence.
2. Conditional Reincarnation:
In connection with this was their doctrine of a future life of rewards and punishments. The phrase
which Josephus uses is a peculiar one: "They think that every soul is immortal; only the souls of
good men will pass into another body, but the souls of the evil shall suffer everlasting punishment"
(aidı́ā timōrı́ā kolázesthai). From this it has been deduced that the Pharisees held the
transmigration of souls. In our opinion this is a mistake. We believe that really it is an attempt of
Josephus to state the doctrine of the resurrection of the body in a way that would not shock Hellenic
ideas. The Greek contempt for the body made the idea of the resurrection abhorrent, and in this, as
in most philosophical matters, the Romans followed the Greeks. It would seem that Josephus
regarded the Pharisees as maintaining that this resurrection applied only to the righteous. Still even
this restriction, though certainly the natural interpretation, is not absolutely necessary. This is
confirmed by the corresponding section in the Antiquities (XVIII, i, 3): "They also believe ... that
under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or
viciously in this life, and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former
shall have power to revive and live again." Josephus also declares the Pharisees to be very
attentive students of the law of God: "they interpret the law with careful exactitude."
3. New Testament Presentation of Pharisaic Doctrines - Angels And Spirits - Resurrection:
Nothing in the Gospels or the Acts at all militates against any part of this representation, but there is
much to fill it out. They believed in angels and spirits (Acts 23:8). From the connection it is probable
that the present activity of such beings was the question in the mind of the writer. In that same
sentence belief in the resurrection is ascribed to the Pharisees.
4. Traditions Added to the Law:
Another point is that to the bare letter of the Law they added traditions. While the existence of these
traditions is referred to in the Gospels, too little is said to enable us to grasp their nature and extent
(Matthew 15:2 ff; Matthew 16:5 ff; Mk 7:1-23). The evangelists only recorded these traditional
glosses when they conflicted with the teaching of Christ and were therefore denounced by Him. We
find them exemplified in the Mishna. The Pharisaic theory of tradition was that these additions to the
written law and interpretations of it had been given by Moses to the elders and by them had been
transmitted orally down through the ages. The classical passage in the Mishna is to be found
in Pirḳe' Ābhōth : "Moses received the (oral) Law from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua and Joshua
to the elders, and the elders to the prophets and the prophets to the men of the great synagogue."
Additions to these traditions were made by prophets by direct inspiration, or by interpretation of the
words of the written Law. All this mass, as related above, was reduced to writing by Jehuda ha -
Ḳādhōsh in Tiberias, probably about the end of the 2nd century AD. Jehuda was born, it is said, 135
AD, and died somewhere about 220 AD.
The related doctrines of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the final
judgment with its consequent eternal rewards and punishments formed a valuable portion of this
tradition.
5. Traditional Interpretations of the Law by Pharisees (Sabbath, Etc.):
Less valuable, at times burdensome and hurtful, were the minute refinements they introduced into
the Law. Sometimes the ingenuity of the Pharisaic doctors was directed to lighten the burden of the
precept as in regard to the Sabbath. Thus a person was permitted to go much farther than a
Sabbath day's journey if at some time previous he had deposited, within the legal Sabbath day's
journey of the place he wished to reach, bread and water; this point was now to be regarded as the
limit of his house, and consequently from this all distances were to be ceremonially reckoned
(Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word "Erub"): The great defect of Pharisaism was that it made sin
so purely external. An act was right or wrong according as some external condition was present or
absent; thus there was a difference in bestowing alms on the Sabbath whether the beggar put his
hand within the door of the donor or the donor stretched his hand beyond his own threshold, as may
be seen in the first Mishna in the Tractate Shabbāth. A man did not break the Sabbath rest of his
ass, though he rode on it, and hence did not break the Sabbath law, but if he carried a switch with
which to expedite the pace of the beast he was guilty, because he had laid a burden upon it.
6. Close Students of the Text of Scripture:
Along with these traditions and traditional interpretations, the Pharisees were close students of the
sacred text. On the turn of a sentence they suspended many decisions. So much so, that it is said
of them later through the text of that they suspended mountains from hairs. This is especially the
case with regard to the Sabbath law with its burdensome minutiae. At the same time there was care
as to the actual wording of the text of the Law; this has a bearing on textual criticism, even to the
present day. A specimen of Pharisaic exegesis which Paul turns against their followers as
an argumentum ad hominem may be seen in Galatians 3:16 : "He saith not, And to seeds, as of
many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

(1) Messianic Hopes.

It is also to be said for them, that they maintained the Messianic hopes of the nation when their
rivals were ready to sacrifice everything to the Romans, in order to gain greater political influence
for themselves. Their imagination ran riot in the pictures they drew of these future times, but still
they aided the faith of the people who were thus in a position to listen to the claims of Christ. They
were led by Rabbi Aqiba in the reign of Hadrian to accept Bar-Cochba about a century after they
had rejected Jesus. They were fanatical in their obedience to the Law as they understood it, and
died under untold tortures rather than transgress.

(2) Almsgiving.
They elevated almsgiving into an equivalent for righteousness. This gave poverty a very different
place from what it had in Greece or among the Romans. Learning was honored, although its
possessors might be very poor. The story of the early life of Hillel brings this out. He is represented
as being so poor as to be unable sometimes to pay the small daily fee which admitted pupils to the
rabbinic school, and when this happened, in his eagerness for the Law, he is reported to have
listened on the roof to the words of the teachers. This may not be historically true, but it exhibits the
Pharisaic ideal.

III. Organization of the Pharisaic Party.

We have no distinct account of this organization, either in the Gospels, in Josephus, or in the
Talmud. But the close relationship which the members of the sect sustained to each other, their
habit of united action as exhibited in the narratives of the New Testament and of Josephus are thus
most naturally explained. The Talmudic account of the ḥăbhē̄rı̄ m affords confirmation of this. These
were persons who primarily associated for the study of the Law and for the better observance of its
precepts. No one was admitted to these ḥăbhūrōth without taking an oath of fidelity to the society
and a promise of strict observance of Levitical precepts.
The Chabherim - Pharisaic Brotherhoods:
One of the elements of their promise has to be noted. The ḥābhēr promised not to pay ma‛ăsrōth,
"tithe," or terūmāh, "heave offering," to a priest who was not a ḥābhēr. They were only permitted to
take this oath when their associates in the brotherhood certified to their character. Even then the
candidate had to pass through a period of probation of 30 days, according to the "house of Hillel," of
a year, according to the "house of Shammai." Association with any not belonging to the Pharisaic
society was put under numerous restrictions. It is at least not improbable that when the lawyer in
Luke 10:29 demanded "Who is my neighbor?" he was minded to restrict the instances of the
command in Leviticus 19:18 to those who were, like himself, Pharisees. A society which thus had
brotherhoods all over Palestine and was separated from the rest of the community would naturally
wield formidable power when their claims were supported by the esteem of the people at large. It is
to be observed that to be a ḥābhēr was a purely personal thing, not heritable like priesthood, and
women as well as men might be members. In this the Pharisees were like the Christians. In another
matter also there was a resemblance between them and the followers of Jesus; they, unlike the
Sadducees, were eager to make proselytes. "Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte"
(Matthew 23:15). Many members of Roman society, especially women, were proselytes, as, for
instance, Poppea Sabina.

IV. Character of the Pharisees.

1. Pharisees and People of the Land:
Because the ideal of the Pharisees was high, and because they reverenced learning and character
above wealth and civil rank they had a tendency to despise those who did not agree with them. We
see traces of this in the Gospels; thus John 7:49 : "This multitude that knoweth not the law are
accursed." The distinction between the Pharisees, the Puritans and the ‛am hā -'ārec, "the people of
the land," began with the distinction that had to be kept between the Jews and the Gentiles who had
entered the land as colonists or intruders. These would, during the Babylonian captivity, almost
certainly speak Western Aramaic, and would certainly be heathen and indulge in heathen practices.
They were "the people of the land" whom the returning exiles found in possession of Judea.
2. Arrogance Toward Other Jews:
Mingled with them were the few Jews that had neither been killed nor deported by the Babylonians,
nor carried down into Egypt by Johanan, the son of Kareah. As they had conformed in a large
measure to the habits of their heathen neighbors and intermarried with them, the stricter Jews, as
Ezra and Nehemiah, regarded them as under the same condemnation as the heathen, and shrank
from association with them. During the time of our Lord's life on earth the name was practically
restricted to the ignorant Jews whose conformity to the law was on a broader scale than that of
the Pharisees. Some have, however, dated the invention of the name later in the days of the
Maccabean struggle, when the ceremonial precepts of the Law could with difficulty be observed.
Those who were less careful of these were regarded as ‛am hā - 'ārec.
3. Regulations for the Chabher:
The distinction as exhibited in the Talmud shows an arrogance on the part of the
Pharisaic ḥābhēr that must have been galling to those who, though Jews as much as
the Pharisees, were not purists like them. A ḥābhēr, that is a Pharisee, might not eat at the table of
a man whose wife was of the ‛am hā -'ārec, even though her husband might be a Pharisee. If he
would be a full ḥābhēr, a Pharisee must not sell to any of the ‛am hā - 'ārec anything that might
readily be made unclean. If a woman of the ‛am hā -'ārec was left alone in a room, all that she could
touch without moving from her place was unclean.
4. The New Testament Account;

(1) Their Scrupulosity.

We find traces of this scrupulosity in the Gospels. The special way in which the ceremonial sanctity
of the Pharisees exhibited itself was in tithing, hence the reference to their tithing "mint and anise
and cummin" (Matthew 23:23). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, one of the things
that the Pharisee plumes himself on is that he gives tithes of all he possesses (Luke 18:12). He is
an example of the Pharisaic arrogance of those "who trusted in themselves that they were righteous
and set all others at nought." Their claiming the first seats in feasts and synagogues (Matthew 23:6)
was an evidence of the same spirit.

(2) Their Hypocrisy.

Closely akin to this is the hypocrisy of which the Pharisees were accused by our Lord. When we call
them "hypocrites," we must go back to the primary meaning of the word. They were essentially
"actors," poseurs. Good men, whose character and spiritual force have impressed themselves on
their generation, have often peculiarities of manner and tone which are easily imitated. The very
respect in which they are held by their disciples leads those who respect them to adopt
unconsciously their mannerisms of voice and deportment. A later generation unconsciously
imitates, "acts the part." In a time when religion is persecuted, as in the days of Antiochus
Epiphanes, or despised as it was in the Hellenizing times which preceded and succeeded, it would
be the duty of religious men not to hide their convictions. The tendency to carry on this public
manifestation of religious acts after it had ceased to be protest would be necessarily great. The fact
that they gained credit by praying at street corners when the hour of prayer came, and would have
lost credit with the people had they not done so, was not recognized by them as lessening the
moral worth of the action. Those who, having lived in the period of persecution and contempt,
survived in that when religion was held in respect would maintain their earlier practice without
any arriere-pensee. The succeeding generation, in continuing the practice, consciously "acted."
They were poseurs. Their hypocrisy was none the less real that it was reached by unconscious
stages. Hypocrisy was a new sin, a sin only possible in a spiritual religion, a religion in which
morality and worship were closely related. Heathenism, which lay in sacrifices and ceremonies by
which the gods could be bribed, or cajoled into favors, had a purely casual connection with morality;
its worship was entirely a thing of externals, of acting, "posing." Consequently, a man did not by the
most careful attention to the ceremonies of religion produce any presumption in favor of his
trustworthiness. There was thus no sinister motive to prompt to religion. The prophets had
denounced the insincerity of worship, but even they did not denounce hypocrisy, i.e. religion used
as a cloak to hide treachery or dishonesty. Religion had become more spiritual, the connection
between morality and worship more intimate by reason of the persecution of the Seleucids.
5. Talmudic Classification of the Pharisees:
The Talmud to some extent confirms the representation of the Gospels. There were said to be
seven classes of Pharisees: (1) the "shoulder" Pharisee, who wears his good deeds on his
shoulders and obeys the precept of the Law, not from principle, but from expediency; (2) the "wait-
a-little" Pharisee, who begs for time in order to perform a meritorious action; (3) the "bleeding"
Pharisee, who in his eagerness to avoid looking on a woman shuts his eyes and so bruises himself
to bleeding by stumbling against a wall; (4) the "painted" Pharisee, who advertises his holiness lest
any one should touch him so that he should be defiled; (5) the "reckoning" Pharisee, who is always
saying "What duty must I do to balance any unpalatable duty which I have neglected?"; (6) the
"fearing" Pharisee, whose relation to God is one merely of trembling awe; (7) the Pharisee from
"love." In all but the last there was an element of "acting," of hypocrisy. It is to be noted that the
Talmud denounces ostentation; but unconsciously that root of the error lies in the externality of their
righteousness; it commands an avoidance of ostentation which involves equal "posing."

V. Our Lord's Relationship to the Pharisees.

1. Pharisaic Attempts to Gain Christ over:
The attitude of the Pharisees to Jesus, to begin with, was, as had been their attitude to John,
critical. They sent representatives to watch His doings and His sayings and report. They seem to
have regarded it as possible that He might unite Himself with them, although, as we think, His
affinities rather lay with the Essenes. Gradually their criticism became opposition. This opposition
grew in intensity as He disregarded their interpretations of the Sabbatic law, ridiculed their
refinements of the law of tithes and the distinctions they introduced into the validity of oaths, and
denounced their insincere posing. At first there seems to have been an effort to cajole Him into
compliance with their plans. If some of the Pharisees tempted Him to use language which would
compromise Him with the people or with the Roman authorities, others invited Him to their tables,
which was going far upon the part of a Pharisee toward one not a ḥābhēr. Even when He hung on
the cross, the taunt with which they greeted Him may have had something of longing, lingering
hope in it: "If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe
him" (Matthew 27:42 King James Version). If He would only give them that sign, then they would
acknowledge Him to be the Messiah.
2. Reasons for Pharisaic Hatred of Christ:
The opposition of the Pharisees to Jesus was intensified by another reason. They were the
democratic party; their whole power lay in the reputation they had with the people for piety. Our
Lord denounced them as hypocrites; moreover He had secured a deeper popularity than theirs. At
length when cajolery failed to win Him and astute questioning failed to destroy His popularity, they
combined with their opponents, the Sadducees, against Him as against a common enemy.
3. Our Lord's Denunciation of the Pharisees:
On the other hand, Jesus denounced the Pharisees more than He denounced any other class of
the people. This seems strange when we remember that the main body of the religious people,
those who looked for the Messiah, belonged to the Pharisees, and His teaching and theirs had a
strong external resemblance. It was this external resemblance, united as it was with a profound
spiritual difference, which made it incumbent on Jesus to mark Himself off from them. All
righteousness with them was external, it lay in meats and drinks and divers washings, in tithing of
mint, anise and cummin. He placed religion on a different footing, removed it into another region.
With Him it was the heart that must be right with God, not merely the external actions; not only the
outside of the cup and platter was to be cleansed, but the inside first of all. It is to be noted that, as
observed above, the Pharisees were less antagonistic to the apostles when their Lord had left
them. The after-history of Pharisaism has justified Our Lord's condemnation.

Literature.
Histories of Israel:
Ewald, V, 365 ff, English translation; Herzfeld, III, 354 ff; Jost, I, 197 ff; Gratz, V, 91 ff; Derenbourg,
75-78,117-44,452-54; Holtzmann, II, 124 ff; Renan, V, 42 ff; Stanley, III, 376 ff; Cornill, 145 ff,
English translation; Schurer, II, ii, 4 ff, English translation ( GJV 4 , II. 447 ff); Kuenen, III, 233 ff. ET.
Life and Times of Christ:
Hausrath, I, 135 ff, English translation; Edersheim, I, 310 ff; Lange, I, 302 ff, English translation;
Farrar, II. 494 ff; Geikie, II, 223. ff; Keim, I, 250 ff; Thomson. Books Which Influenced our Lord , 50
ff; Weiss. I, 285 ff. English translation; de Pressense, 116 ff.
Articles in Encyclopedias, Bible Dictionaries, Lexicons, Etc.:
Ersch and Gruber, Allg. Eric (Daniel); Winer, Realworterbuch ; Herzog, RE, edition 1 (Reuss),
editions 2,3 (Sieffert); Hamburger, Realenic .; Smith's DB (Twisleton); Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical
Lit . (Ginsburg); HDB (Eaton); Encyclopedia Biblica (Cowley. Prince); Schenkel, Bibel-
Lexicon (Hausrath); Jew Encyclopedia (Kohler); Temple Dict. of the Bible (Christie);
Hastings, DCG(Hugh Scott, Mitchell).
Monographs:
Wellhausen, Montet, Geiger, Baneth, Muller, Hanne, Davaine, Herford; Weber, System der
altsynagogen Palestinischen Theologie , 10 ff, 44 ff; Keil, Biblical Archaeology , II, 1680; Ryle and
James, Psalms of Solomon . 44 ff; Nicolas. Doctrines religieuses des juifs , 48 ff.

Bibliography Information
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. Entry for 'Pharisees'. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1915.

Reading: Sadducees (ISBE Article)

Introductory.
1. Name: Rival Etymologies. Probably from Zadok the High Priest:
The Talmud form suggests derivation from the name of their founder, but the form in the New
Testament and Josephus would imply connection with the verb "to be righteous." The probability is,
that the name is derived from some person named "Zadok." The most prominent Zadok in history
was the Davidic high priest (2 Samuel 8:17; 2 Samuel 15:24; 1 Kings 1:35), from whom all
succeeding high priests claimed to descend. It is in harmony with this, that in the New Testament
the Sadducees are the party to whom the high priests belonged. On the authority of 'Ābhōth de -
Rabbı̄ Nathān (circa 1000 AD) another Zadok is asserted to be he from whom
the Sadducees received their name. He was a disciple of Antigonus of Socho (circa 250 BC) who
taught that love to God should be absolutely disinterested (Pirḳē 'Ābhōth , i. 3). 'Ābhōth de -
Rabbı̄ Nathān 's account of the derivation of the Sadduceanism from this teaching is purely an
imaginary deduction (Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers2 , 112). The majority of
authoritative writers prefer to derive the name from Zadok, the colleague of Abiathar, the
contemporary of David.
2. Authorities: New Testament, Josephus, Talmud (Primary), Church Fathers
Our main authorities for the teaching of the Sadducees are the New Testament and Josephus.
According to the former, the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body, and did not believe in
angels or spirits (Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8). More can be learned from Josephus, but his evidence
is to be received with caution, as he was a Pharisee and, moreover, had the idea that
the Sadducees were to be paralleled with the Epicureans. The Talmud is late. Before even the
Mishna was committed to writing (circa 200 AD) the Sadducees had ceased to exist; before the
Gemara was completed (circa 700 AD) every valid tradition of their opinions must have vanished.
Further, the Talmud is Pharisaic. The Fathers, Origen, Hippolytus, Epiphanius and Jerome, have
derived their information from late Pharisaic sources.
II. Origin and History.
1. Early Notices in Josephus: Alleged Relation to Differences Between Prophets and Priests:
Josephus describes the Sadducees along with the contemporary sects, the Pharisees and the
Essenes (Josephus, Ant. , XIII , v, 9; X, 6 2; XVIII , i, 4,5; BJ , II, viii, 14). His earliest notice of them
is after his account of the treaties of Jonathan with the Romans and the Lacedemonians. He
indicates his belief that the parties were ancient; but if so, they must have formerly had other
names. It has been suggested that the earlier form of the conflict between the Sadducees and
Pharisees was opposition between the priests and the prophets. This, however, is not tenable; in
the Southern Kingdom there was no such opposition; whatever the state of matters in the Northern
Kingdom, it could have had no influence on opinion in Judea and Galilee in the time of our Lord. By
others the rivalry is supposed to be inherited from that between the scribes and the priests, but
Ezra, the earliest scribe, in the later sense of the term, was a priest with strong sacerdotal
sympathies.
2. Tendencies of Sadducees Toward Hellenism as Causing Rise of Hasidhim:
Probably the priestly party only gradually crystallized into the sect of the Sadducees. After the return
from the exile, the high priest drew to himself all powers, civil and religious. To the Persian
authorities he was as the king of the Jews. The high priest and those about him were the persons
who had to do with the heathen supreme government and the heathen nationalities around; this
association would tend to lessen their religious fervor, and, by reaction, this roused the zeal of a
section of the people for the law. With the Greek domination the power of the high priests at home
was increased, but they became still more subservient to their heathen masters, and were the
leaders in the Hellenizing movement. They took no part in the Maccabean struggle, which was
mainly supported by their opponents the ḥăṣı̄ dhı̄ m, as they were called (the Hasideans of 1
Maccabees 2:42 , etc.). When the ḥăṣı̄ dhı̄ m, having lost sympathy with the Maccabeans, sought to
reconcile themselves to the priestly party, Alcimus, the legitimate high priest, by his treachery and
cruelty soon renewed the breach. The Hasmoneans then were confirmed in the high-priesthood, but
were only lukewarmly supported by the ḥăṣı̄ dhı̄ m.
3. Favored by Janneus: Put in the Background by Alexandra Salome:
The division between the Hasmoneans and the ḥăṣı̄ dhı̄ m, or, as they were now called, Pharisees,
culminated in the insult offered by Eleazar to John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest
(Josephus, Ant., XIII , x, 5). Alexander Janneus, the son of Hyrcanus, became a violent partisan of
the Sadducees, and crucified large numbers of the Pharisees. Toward the end of his life he fell out
of sympathy with the Sadducees, and on his deathbed recommended his wife Alexandra Salome,
who as guardian to his sons succeeded him, to favor the Pharisees, which she did. In the conflict
between her two sons, John Hyrcanus 2 and Aristobulus II, the Sadducees took the side of
Aristobulus, the younger and abler brother. So long as the contest was between Jews, the
Sadducean candidate prevailed. When the Romans were called in, they gave the advantage to
Hyrcanus.
4. From a Political group, Became also a Religious Party:
Thrown into the background by the overthrow of their candidate for the high-priesthood, they soon
regained their influence. They allied themselves with the Herodians who had supported Hyrcanus,
but were subservient to Rome. Though they were not theological at first, they became so, to defend
their policy against the attacks of the Pharisees.
5. Fear Roman Interference if Jesus' Messianic Claims Are Recognized:
The Sadducees at first regarded the struggle between our Lord and the Pharisees as a matter with
which they had no concern. It was not until our Lord claimed to be the Messiah, and the excitement
of the people consequent on this proved likely to draw the attention of the Roman authorities, that
they intervened. Should Tiberius learn that there was widespread among the Jews the belief in the
coming of a Jewish king who was to rule the world, and that one had appeared who claimed to be
this Messiah, very soon would the quasi-independence enjoyed by the Jews be taken from them,
and with this the influence of the Sadducees would depart. An oligarchy is proverbially sensitive to
anything that threatens its stability; a priesthood is unmeasured in its vindictiveness; and
the Sadducees were a priestly oligarchy. Hence, it is not surprising that only the death of Jesus
would satisfy them.
6. Sadducees Antagonistic to the Apostles: Pharisees More Favorable:
After the resurrection, the Pharisees became less hostile to the followers of Christ; but
the Sadducees maintained their attitude of suspicion and hatred (Acts 4:1). Although a Pharisee, it
was as agent of the Sadducean high priest that Paul persecuted the believers.
The Sadducees gained complete ascendancy in the Sanhedrin, and later, under the leadership of
Annas, or as he is sometimes called by Josephus, Ananus, the high priest, they put James the
brother of our Lord to death (Josephus, Ant. , XX, ix, 1) with many others, presumably Christians.
The Pharisees were against these proceedings; and even sent messengers to meet Albinus who
was coming to succeed Festus as governor to entreat him to remove Annas from the
highpriesthood.
7. The Fall of the Sadducean Party at Outbreak of the Jewish War:
With the outbreak of the Jewish war, the Sadducees with their allies the Herodians were driven into
the background by the Zealots, John of Gischala and Simon ben Gioras. Annas and Joshua, also
called high priest by Josephus, were both put to death by the Zealots and their Idumean allies
(Josephus, BJ , IV, v, 2). With the destruction of the temple and the fall of the Jewish state the
Sadducean party disappeared.
III. Doctrines of the Sadducees.
1. Laid Stress on Ceremonial Exactness:
As the sacerdotal party, the Sadducees laid great stress on the ceremonial of sacrifice, and rejected
the changes introduced by their opponents unless these found support in the words of the Law.
2. Disbelief in the Spiritual World, in a Resurrection, and in Providence: Their Materialism:
The most prominent doctrine of the Sadducees was the denial of the immortality of the soul and of
the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees believed that Moses had delivered these doctrines to
the elders, and that they had in turn handed them on to their successors. The Sadducees rejected
all these traditions. From Acts (Acts 23:8) we learn that they believed in neither "angel or spirit." As
appearances of angels are mentioned in the Law, it is difficult to harmonize their reverence for the
Law with this denial. They may have regarded these angelophanies as theophanies. Josephus
distinctly asserts ( Ant. , XVIII , i, 4) that the Sadducees believed that the soul dies with the body.
They deny, he says, divine providence (BJ , II, viii, 14). Their theology might be called "religion
within the limits of mere sensation."
3. Relation to Epicureanism:
It need hardly be said that there was no real connection between Sadduceanism and the doctrines
of Epicurus. There was a superficial resemblance which was purely accidental. Their favor for
Hellenism would give a color to this identification.
IV. Character of Sadducees.
1. Characterized as Rough and Boorish:
Josephus says that while the Pharisees have amiable manners and cultivate concord among all,
the Sadducees are "very boorish" (BJ , II, viii, 14). This want of manners is not a characteristic
usually associated with an aristocracy, or with supple diplomats, yet it suits what we find in the New
Testament. The cruel horseplay indulged in when our Lord was tried before the irregular meeting of
the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:67, Matthew 26:68 ), the shout of Ananias at the trial of Paul before the
same tribunal to "smite him on the mouth," show them to be rough and overbearing. What Josephus
relates of the conduct of Annas (or Ananus) in regard to James, above referred to, agrees with this.
Josephus, however, does not always speak in such condemnatory terms of Ananus - in
Josephus, Jewish Wars (IV, v, 2) he calls him "a man venerable and most just." Only the violence
which, as Josephus relates in the chapter immediately preceding that from which we have quoted,
Ananus resorted to against the Zealots better suits the earlier verdict of Josephus than the later. As
to their general character Josephus mentions that when the Sadducees became magistrates they
conformed their judgments to Pharisaic opinion, otherwise they would not have been tolerated
(Ant. , XVIII , i, 4).
2. Talmudic Account of the Sadducees:
As noted above, the Talmud account is untrustworthy, late and Pharisaic. The Gemara from which
most of the references are taken was not committed to writing till 7 centuries after Christ - when the
traditions concerning the Sadducees, such as had survived, had filtered through 20 generations of
Pharisaism. Despite this lengthened time and suspicious medium, there may be some truth in the
representations of the Talmudic rabbin. In Peṣāḥı̄ m 57a it is said, "Woe's me on account of the
house of Boothus, woe's me on account of their spears; woe's me on account of the house of
Hanun (Annas), woe's me on account of their serpent brood; woe's me on account of the house of
Kathros, woe's me on account of their pen; woe's me on account of the house of Ishmael ben
Phabi; woe's me on account of their fists. They are high priests and their sons are treasurers of the
temple, and their sons-in-law, assistant treasurers; and their servants beat the people with sticks."
As these are Sadducean names, this passage exhibits Pharisaic tradition as to the habits of
the Sadducees.
3. Relation to Temple and Worship a Heathenish One:
The Sadducean high priests made Hophni and Phinehas too much their models. Annas and his
sons had booths in the courts of the temple for the sale of sacrificial requisites, tables for money-
changers, as ordinary coins had to be changed into the shekels of the sanctuary. From all these the
priests of the high-priestly caste derived profit at the expense of desecrating the temple
(Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus , I, 371 ff). They did not, as did the Pharisees, pay spiritual
religion the homage of hypocrisy; they were frankly irreligious. While officials of religion, they were
devoid of its spirit. This, however, represents their last stage.
4. Sadducean Literature:
The favor for the memory of John Hyrcanus shown by the writer of 1 Maccabees (16:23,14) renders
probable Geiger's opinion that the author was a Sadducee. He shows the party in its best form: his
outlook on life is eminently sane, and his history is trustworthy. He has sympathy with the patriotism
of the Hasideans, but none with the religious scruples which led them to desert Judas Maccabeus.
That the writer of Ecclesiasticus from his silence as to the national expectation of a Messiah and the
hope of a future life was also a Sadducee, is almost certain.
V. Relation of Sadducees to Jesus.
1. Less Denounced by Jesus than the Pharisees:
As the doctrines and practices of the Sadducees were quite alien from the teaching of our Lord and
the conduct He enjoined, it is a problem why He did not denounce them more frequently than He
did. Indeed He never denounces the Sadducees except along with their opponents the Pharisees;
whereas He frequently denounces the Pharisees alone. As His position, both doctrinal and
practical, was much nearer that of the Pharisees, it was necessary that He should clearly mark
Himself off from them. There was not the same danger of His position being confused with that of
the Sadducees. Josephus informs us that the Sadducees had influence with the rich; Jesus drew
His adherents chiefly from the poor, from whom also the Pharisees drew. The latter opposed Him all
the more that He was sapping their source of strength; hence, He had to defend Himself against
them. Further, the Gospels mainly recount our Lord's ministry in Galilee, whereas
the Sadducees were chiefly to be found in Jerusalem and its neighborhood; hence, there may have
been severe denunciations of the Sadducees that have not come down to us.
2. Attitude of Sadducees to Jesus:
The Sadducees probably regarded Jesus as a harmless fanatic who by His denunciations was
weakening the influence of the Pharisees. Only when His claim to be the Messiah brought Him
within the sphere of practical politics did they desire to intervene. When they did determine to come
into conflict with Jesus, they promptly decreed His arrest and death; only the arrest was to be
secret, "lest a tumult arise among the people" (Matthew 26:5). In their direct encounter with our Lord
in regard to the resurrection (Matthew 22:25 ff; Mark 12:20 ff; Luke 20:29 ff), there is an element of
contempt implied in the illustration which they bring, as if till almost the end they failed to take Him
seriously.

HERODIANS (IBSE ARTICLE)

hē̇ - rō´di - anz ( Ἡρῳδιανοί , Hērōdianoı́ ): A party three times mentioned in the Gospels
(Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:13; Mark 3:6 ) as acting with the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus. They
were not a religious sect, but, as the name implies, a court or political party, supporters of the
dynasty of Herod. Nothing is known of them beyond what the Gospels state. Whatever their political
aims, they early perceived that Christ's pure and spiritual teaching on the kingdom of God was
irreconcilable with these, and that Christ's influence with the people was antagonistic to their
interests. Hence, in Galilee, on the occasion of the healing of the man with the withered hand, they
readily joined with the more powerful party of the Pharisees in plots to crush Jesus (Mark 3:6 ); and
again, in Jerusalem, in the last week of Christ's life, they renewed this alliance in the attempt to
entrap Jesus on the question of the tribute money (Matthew 22:16 ). The warning of Jesus to His
disciples to "beware of the leaven of Herod" (Mark 8:15 ) may have had reference to the insidious
spirit of this party.

Zealot; Zealots
zel´ut , zel´uts : Simon, one of the apostles, was called "the
Zealot"Ζηλωτής , Zēlōtḗs from ζηλόω , zēlóō "to rival," "emulate," "be jealous," "admire," "desire
greatly," Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13 , the King James Version "Zelotes"). In Matthew 10:4 and Mark
3:18 he is called "the Cananean" (so the Revised Version (British and American) correctly; not "the
Canaanite," as the King James Version says, following inferior manuscripts), ὁ
Καναναῖος , hoKananaı́os . From the time of the Maccabees there existed among the Jews a party
who professed great zeal for the observance of the "law." According to Josephus (BJ , IV, iii, 9; v, 1;
VII, viii, 1) they resorted to violence and assassination in their hatred of the foreigner. It is not
improbable that the "Assassins" of Acts 21:38 were identical, or at least closely associated, with this
body of "Zealots," to which we must conclude that Simon had belonged before he became one of
the Twelve.