Pharisees Part One: Historical Reconstruction

See the full Pharisees forum here:
https://www.ancientjewreview.com/read/2022/3/21/the-pharisees-an-sbl-2021-review-forum

The conference on the Pharisees that was held in Rome in May 2019 and the volume emanating from it are a much needed and a great contribution to any attempts at overcoming antisemitism in churches and societies today. To bring together scholars of diverse disciplines relevant for studying the sources of the time period when the group of people known under the name ‘Pharisees’ or other labels, to produce such a rich state of the art research volume is a highly significant achievement.

For the sake of this forum (and in the context of the Enoch Seminar SBL session), I will be focusing especially (though not exclusively) on the first portion of the volume.

Before discussing some aspects of these chapters I would like to congratulate and moreover thank, the organizers of the conference, the editors of the volume and all the contributors, for this great piece of work. As is possibly to be expected, the volume does not present us with a uniform image of these people most often referred to as Pharisees. One of the key insights that I am drawing generally from this volume is that we know rather little that can be historically verified. This leads to great caution in talking about any specific characteristics of ‘real’ people. This is not to deny that some things can be asserted even historically.  Historical Jesus research has come to the conclusion that the historical person cannot be grasped, but narratives about him can be located within the Jewish traditions and contexts of his time, leading to important insights. A similar conclusion can be assumed concerning the group who  are supposed to represent his key opponents. They have come to prominence in the Christian dominated world as precisely that: they were perceived to be the villains in the story/movie about the hero Jesus, and since these villains happened to be Jewish, the contemporary Jewish neighbors were identified in a  linear way with these villains of the Jesus story, a script to be enacted and re-enacted again and again over the centuries. The fact that the respective stereotypes were drawn from the interpretation of New Testament narratives and continue to fuel contemporary antisemitism renders the churches not only of the past, but of today, responsible. The images that impact the perception of Jewish neighbors today, are transmitted in subtle ways not only, but also by Christians, although often not intentionally. But even to transmit false images about the neighbor unintentionally renders one responsible for ones actions.  This volume is a beginning, as the editors note, “we hope that as a handbook this work will provide a good start.” It does indeed and it is to be hoped that the ball set rolling will be picked up widely within academia and outside it. 

The volume commences with situating the Pharisees in early Judaism, with attention to terminology and the designation and the origins of this enigmatic group. Craig Morrison (‘Interpreting the Name ‘Pharisee,’ pages 3-19 ) gives Christians in some cases the benefit of the doubt as being unaware of the impact of their use of the term and image of Pharisees. The question needs to be asked whether an etymological explanation of the name Pharisee can be achieved, and if so, what the value of such a linguistic explanation would be. Does it contribute to the understanding of who the Pharisees were, say anything about their characteristics? With recent linguistics, Morrison emphasizes that a name has no inherent meaning. Names are referential and vocative. With reference to James Barr’s critique of attempts at drawing meaning from etymological derivations, Morrison cautions against the “etymologizing of the name ‘Pharisee’ to arrive at an image of the historical Pharisees.”

He presents an overview of Lexica, Encyclopedias, and Bible Dictionaries of the 19th century, which with a few exceptions tried to draw the meaning of the group Pharisees from their etymological analysis, emphasizing a notion of separateness. Some early Lexica avoided this and merely listed Pharisees separately as referring to a distinct Jewish group.

Overall Morrison sees a tendency in Lexica, Encyclopedia, and Dictionaries to move away from attributing etymological meaning to the term and derive characteristics of the group so labelled from this. So, a shift from certainty to uncertainty concerning the meaning of the term can be observed. It has become evident that etymological explanations of meaning should be discarded and the Pharisees considered in the literary context where they are mentioned. This is what this handbook does in an exemplary way. The Pharisees need to be analyzed in the DSS texts, in Josephus, etc, the New Testament, Tannaitic literature, later rabbinic literature. The name as such does not contribute anything specific to our understanding of the Pharisees and the prejudices carried on with the name should be vanquished similar to Juliet leaving behind the prejudices about Romeo who happened to carry the name Montague. This is a fitting first chapter to this volume – a clear and convincing argument – getting one ready to dive into the wealth of what is to come!

Searching for Origins

Next Vasile Babota (‘In Search of the Origins of the Pharisees,’ pages 23-40) analyzes whether there are connections between the Sadducees and Pharisees, looking as far back as Ezra. Those arguing that we might determine the origin of the Sadducees together with the origin of the Pharisees would make them mutually dependent on each other. This position, as Babota demonstrates, means to base the origin of two groups of uncertain origin on each others’ emergence. Josephus, due to the mere fact of mentioning Pharisees a few times, (not as prominently as often assumed, as Mason’s contribution clearly demonstrates) is considered a firm source – however, what Babota concludes from his thorough analysis is that we can only determine that Pharisees were an active force from the first century BCE. Concerning the DSS the initial issue concerns the label…there are no “Pharisees,” but the seekers or interpreters of smooth things (dorshe hahalaqot) and possibly Ephraim. Babota (and Noam later in her article) argues from his survey of a number of pesharim naming either Ephraim or “interpreters of smooth things” that cumulatively it can be assumed with some degree of certainty that these do actually refer to the group also named Pharisees. The question arises why they are not mentioned in 1  Maccabees since all the evidence points to the existence of Pharisees certainly in the 1st century BCE. Babota consider this possibly to be a kind of damnatio memoriae on the part of the author of 1 Maccabees, reflecting current political conflict. Despite some evidence of their historical relevance around 1st century BCE and CE, no more precise dating can be ascertained, least of all any indication of the Pharisees’ actual origins. The dating of origin question has to remain open and thus cannot shed light on specific characteristics or the identity of this group. This conclusion complements the one of Morrison in chapter 1, and should caution further against any clear identification of characteristics of the Pharisees based on their name and origin.

In his chapter, Eric M. Meyers (‘Purity Concerns and Common Judaism in Light of Archaeology,’ pages 41-50) takes James F.Strange’s list of Pharisaic concerns to consider potential Pharisaic imprints in material culture in the period between 100BCE-200CE. He notes that there is an obvious concern for purity during the period, but the question is whether this a particularly Pharisaic concern and whether there is any evidence that would confirm that. According to Strange’s list table fellowship, ritual immersion, ritual baths, hand washing, resurrection or belief in afterlife, and synagogues are the characteristics that might have left traces in material culture in the form of small chalk stone vessels, large chalk stone vessel, miqva’ot, ossuaries, and synagogue buildings. Meyers assesses earlier interpretations of findings of small chalk stone vessels as indications of Pharisaic influence. He concludes that these, as well as ossuaries and miqva’ot, are so wide spread that any conclusion beyond that these are evidence for Jewish homes or the presence of Jews or a Jewish settlement are unwarranted. The same applies to ossuaries – belief in afterlife and resurrection were widespread and not only Pharisaic. Concerning synagogues and also phylacteries – they do correspond to what are believed to be Pharisaic concerns. The reading and interpretation of scripture is evidenced in the Theodosius inscription. But this is far from specifically Pharisaic since again the Theodosius inscription mentions Vettenos a priest as being the archisynagogos. No inscription has been found that refers to Pharisees in relation to synagogues or other buildings. Also, as far as material evidence is concerned, specifically Pharisaic influence cannot be found. The claim that purity concerns were specifically Pharisaic cannot be confirmed via material evidence. What can be found is evidence for common Judaism, that involved daily purity practices. My added note here is to ask whether this commonality in diversity would provide a normal forum for discussions and disputes among those who live in common diversity or diverse commonality. Based on this commonality would not debates about this or that aspect of a specific practice, as seems to be evident in a number of the texts, be normal rather than exceptional ?

These chapters that deal with research into etymology, the question of origins, and material culture about the Pharisees all conclude, that despite earlier assumptions that this would be the way to find historical evidence, that the particular search is either not warranted (etymology), only confirms the existence of Pharisees but not any trajectory of their origins, and that no material trace can be allocated to Pharisees. Thus, these approaches do not contribute anything specific about Pharisees. They however demonstrate that a name does not reveal meaning, the question for origin also does not indicate any so called original or true characteristics, and material culture confirms that Jewish people at the time generally adhered to or were concerned about purity issues. Nothing more but also nothing less. These research trajectories are valuable – although in a negative sense, in that they alert us to what we cannot know or ascertain.

Literary Evidence

Vered Noam (“Pharisaic Halakha as Emerging from 4QMMT,” pages 55-79) presents a detailed analysis of 4QMMT in order to find some clues to characteristics of the Pharisees – or they are called in the DSS “interpreters of smooth things.” The latter, together with Josephus and New Testament texts, attribute significant influence to the Pharisees, although in different ways. Whilst Noam sees Josephus and NT texts as presenting an ambiguous image of Pharisees, the DSS refute them entirely as they are considered to be halakhically wrong. The question Noam pursues is whether in these debates the DSS sectarians’ stance or that of the Pharisees is the innovative one. Often the Pharisees have been seen in the role of preserving ancestral tradition (e.g. Jos.in Ant 13.297, also 13.408 etc, cf also Gal 1.14, Mk 7.3, Mt 15.1-20); and at points the DSS sectarians present themselves as revolutionary innovators. This has been a discussion since the 19th century. Noam contributes to this debate in an innovative way by comparing halakhic discussions in the scrolls with rabbinic literature. This is a bold and challenging move that I cannot detail here. But it is highly interesting that as Noam notes, the practices criticized in 4QMMT (the test case for her endeavor) are among those that form part of the later rabbinic consensus. In some cases, the rabbis attribute their stance explicitly to Pharisees. Noam thus is sure that a discrepancy between a 4QMMT stance and a rabbinical stance represents an actual 2nd Temple controversy. In other cases, Noam finds that the stance rejected by 4QMMT actually is indeed an earlier tradition, in a certain case even a pre-Pentateuch tradition. Noam then analyzes two cases: rules concerning hides and the production of the ashes of the red heifer. In the case of the purity/impurity of hides, the rabbinic stance has close similarities to the one opposed (probably Pharisaic) by the sectarians. A comparison of the edict of Antiochus III (Jos Ant 12.145-146), which prohibits bringing to Jerusalem any impure animal corpses or their skins, with 4QMMT indicates the historicity of the DSS stance that argues a very similar case. The stance opposed is that of the rabbis, that is, the more lenient one (allowing animals for profane slaughter as well as hides of impure animals to be present in Jerusalem), This represents an innovation over the older stance also found in the edict of Antiochus III. To summarize, Vered Noam demonstrates that given that the opponents in 4QMMT are most frequently Pharisees, in some case the latters’ stance is conservative, but in significant other cases, such as concerning the purity of hides and the production of the ashes of the red heifer, the Pharisaic stance is seen as coinciding with the rabbinic one.  This is a fascinating detailed analysis that has the potential to contribute significantly to historical knowledge about the Pharisees and their connection with later Rabbinic sources.

Against a common assumption, Steve Mason (“Josephus’s Pharisees,” pages 80-111) first of all reminds us how insignificant and scattered Pharisees are in the works of Josephus. They do not seem relevant as far as Moses’ law is concerned, which Josephus considers to be sufficient guidance for the Jewish people (Ag Apion 1.37-43, 2.145-96). They are mainly mentioned together with Sadducees and Essenes and appear in three time periods: in the late Hasmonean, under King Herod, and in connection with Josephus’ half year in Galilee. Mason provides a helpful overview of earlier scholarship on the Pharisees, which was predominantly shaped by theological presuppositions, or with the term Mason uses, by “confessional” stances. This in his view only changed with the establishing of religious studies departments at North American universities, which in turn changed the readings and interpretations of Josephus and the perception of the Pharisees.

He highlights that Josephus’ work, like any historical account, is driven by an agenda. Thus, from the marginal passages where Pharisees do occur, it is impossible to arrive at a historically accurate image of their place in Jewish society at the time. Given his audience, Josephus presents groups to his Roman readers in the vein of philosophical schools. In terms of his stance concerning the Law – Josephus depicts himself as a stringent observer, and the Pharisees have a reputation as exemplars of piety and as legal experts. Mason argues that Josephus never asserts their expertise, but only says that they are seen as such. This indicates that he disagrees with this perception, since he emphasizes that Moses gave priests (like himself) the authority to preserve and interpret the law (108). All of this renders it unlikely that Josephus identified as a Pharisee, argues Mason. When he embarked on a political career he had to take the Pharisees’ influence into account (Life12ff)– hence Mason does not see evidence for Josephus claiming to be a Pharisee, only that he had to defer to them. Nevertheless, in and through his few references, we can see some historical aspects. They seem popular, add extra-biblical traditions to guide their interpretation of the law, and they are precise in their interpretation and lenient when it comes to punishment. Mason here sees some overlap with the image of the Pharisees in NT texts. This is a challenging but convincing interpretation of Josephus’ stance concerning Pharisees – mainly a literary image, driven by Josephus’ literary agenda. However, the conclusion that Josephus image overlaps with that of the NT might be questioned on methodological grounds or due to some caution since we are so familiar with the NT image. In my view it would be preferrable to initially compare the emerging images foremost against the DSS evidence in the first place. The NT texts would be secondary sources to be considered.

With the caveat in mind concerning the historicity of Gospel narratives, Hermut Löhr (“Luke-Acts as a Source for the History of the Pharisees, pages 170-84) considers whether some historically plausible information might shine through the image of the Pharisees as presented by these theological narratives. He notes a difference in the image of Pharisees between the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. He views the overall picture of Jesus and the Pharisees in the Gospel as one of tension and to a certain extent hostility. In Acts he notes less tensions and no invectives against Pharisees. Some are even presented as sympathetic to the movement. Concerning the notable absence of Pharisees in the Lukan passion narrative, Löhr notes that this is actually following Mark – and does not mean that they were not involved. Luke’s narrative does not mention a specific involvement of other named groups either. This absence does not render them less hostile. To me this seems to downplay the fact that in the passion narrative chief priests and scribes together with leaders of the people seem to be the hostile actors – thus although not falling into the category of one of the named groups of Josephus; nevertheless, they are presented as specific groups. However, Löhr argues that the character development of Pharisees actually starts on an explicitly hostile note, (5.17-6.11), with the concluding note that the Lukan Pharisees debate how they might accuse him (6.7) or “what they might do to him” (6.11), equivalent to the Markk and Matthew debate of how they might destroy him. The fact that the Lukan Pharisees dine with Jesus is not seen as evidence of a more sympathetic picture – since in the end of Lk 7.36-50 Jesus criticizes the Pharisee who had invited him. These invitations, in Löhr’s view, historically do not indicate any kind of closeness between Jesus and Pharisees but rather that they operated in the same social sphere. Luke presents Pharisees in a stereotypical vein: they are hypocritical, greedy, wicked, grumbling, money lovers, all of which seem general tropes of villains in literature of antiquity. They are presented in the mouth of Jesus reflecting an inner-Jewish debate.  For such a debate at least some contact and common concerns must have existed.

Here I have some questions – Löhr focuses closely on the hostility of the Pharisees, but omits potential indications to ambivalence in the image of the Pharisees. Whilst this might not shed any light on historical Pharisees it might vary the literary function the Pharisees play in Luke – in accordance with the ambivalent response of Israel to the gospel message. I think the hostility should be placed rather in the narrative context of this ambivalence rather than merely in the side of hostility, as Robert Brawley has argued. This would also render the different image that Acts depicts more plausible. Löhr argues that this is mainly due to  the different setting of the narrative scenario moving now outside the Jewish realm into the gentile world and a focus on different characters, Jesus and Paul.  But I think this is not sufficient in terms of rationale. If we assume some connection between Luke and Acts (which I do), this I think is also found in the image and function of the Pharisees – hence the closeness, to the extent of becoming a Christ-followers is narratively more plausible with ambivalent Pharisees in the gospel. Whether this indicates a historical closeness is another matter.

The image of Pharisees in the Gospel of John is of another kind as demonstrated by Harold Attridge (“Pharisees in the Fourth Gospel and One Special Pharisee,” pages 185-98). Again the issue is less historicity than narrative function. They are part of the group of Jewish leaders that are hostile to Jesus. But different from the Synoptics, they have only one halakhic worry: Sabbath observance. They are not condemned as hypocrites but rather judged as blind. At later stages they seem to merge into THE opponents of Jesus, and become part of the ioudaioi. So they are less characteristic than in the Synoptics, the tensions are not specifically with Pharisees but with Ioudaioi (who ever they are…). It is thus intriguing that there are actually two named Pharisees, Nicodemus  and Joseph of Arimatiaa, with Nicodemus seeming to play quite a crucial role. Attridge wonders about the function of this sympathetic Pharisee in John given the rather minimal role they play otherwise in the gospel. Nicodemus is certainly depicted as ambiguous – and here I actually see a connection with what I see as an ambiguous image of Pharisees in Luke. For John and Acts one could be a Pharisee and sympathetic to the Christ movement. What emerges from John and Luke-Acts is the narrative image of Pharisees as hostile and ambivalent to Jesus and the movement.

Conclusion

By way of some concluding remarks, in terms of the historicity of the Pharisees, as we have seen especially in the first portion of the volume (chapters 1-5), it is difficult to find more than a few details, like relation and knowledge of the Law, political presence, some popularity. This should already lead us to caution.

Between Jesus, his followers, and Pharisees there seems to have been some commonality– at least this is narratively presupposed. As long as these debates in New Testament texts are considered to take place under the umbrella of Jewishness/Jewish traditions or as is formulated now almost as a catch phrase “within  Judaism,” they are framed by this wider symbolic universe and might find correctives from within this universe. Once these narratives of debates and their protagonists move outside, they become the arsenal from which antisemitism is fueled in Christian traditions. The hostile and ambivalent images are part of the canonical New Testament and they cannot be smoothed over or made into something they are not. But they do not represent plain historical reality – what we have seen in the historical chapters is highly relevant to bring this to the forefront. In as much as the gospel narratives are not historical narratives and no so-called Historical Jesus can emerge from our historical research, so also with other characters and especially the Pharisees. New Testament texts provide little material that allow us to arrive at historical conclusions. Historical research, however, can help to correct the stereotyped characters of the Gospel narratives. They are characters with a narrative purpose in the plot. As with historical Jesus research, historical Pharisee research is relevant as it contributes to understanding the controversies depicted in narrative form as what they are. The narratives should not form the basis for historical research, rather the other way around. Historical research should help to understand these literary characters.

However, the problem remains – as Amy-Jill Levine so eloquently has formulated (“Preaching and Teaching the Pharisees” pages 403-427).  This literary image of Pharisees has been conflated with Jews generally and been attributed to real people in the here and now of all centuries over and over again. The narratives have been read historically, as accurately real life people  – with all the horrific consequences emanating from this equation.  There is no easy way out of this. Ambivalent and hostile people called Pharisees are part of the gospel narratives. The least that can be done is highlight in New Testament interpretation that these images have to be read with caution and do not replicate historical facts but are narrative presentations of inter-Jewish disputes. Historical research contributes to locate such disputes within their first century contexts, within which they would have made sense to an audience. In order to be involved in a dispute there must be some common concerns. One need not transform Jesus into a Pharisee, but the fact that they are depicted as ambivalent (in my view ) in the Gospels and sympathetic in Acts, as well as the fact that Paul asserts that he is a Pharisee, points in that direction.

The question concerning the image of the Pharisees should be seen in conjunction with other problematic vilifying images of the “other” –  of “othering” processes that in many narratives of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament serve multiple functions of self-assertion. They too were enacted in real life  – as Cromwell’s slaughtering of the Irish in the 17th century demonstrates; or the fact that indigenous people were seen as Canaanites that had to be converted or slaughtered by Christian colonizers. How do we responsibly deal with these traditions in texts and traditions which are considered to be authoritative by respective communities? Since we do not live in an ideal world, struggles, and discrepancies are part of life. If the frame of commonality breaks, differences and debates can turn into lethal enmity.  

Maybe the paths we should try to find lead over the field of common ground, which can provide the basis for debates not always solved, and differences not always dissolved, but life sustained nevertheless.