Talk:Pharisees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Pharisees is part of WikiProject Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:

Contents

[edit] NT views on Pharisees

I have no objection to a section on NT views of the Pharisees, but it should be presented in an NPOV style and should not dominate the article. I have removed the following; I think what remains is a workable stub Slrubenstein

In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses(Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). Paul, when brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6-8; 26:4, 5).
There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt. 12:39; 16:1-4).
From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people.
NPOV would seem to suggest saying that the 'New Testament' implies that the Pharisaical views were self-righteous and prideful. Some of the above comments (all three unsigned), in speaking of "our lord," hardly seem neutral. OtherDave 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a good deal of material. I hope others can add more. In general, I think the article could be improved by four more elements: first, more information on historical source materials (e.g. Josephus). Second, a review of scholarly debates over who the Pharisees were (e.g. Louis Finkelstein's view, and those of his detractors). Third, more specifics on Pharisee theology and jurisprudence -- what really were their innovations? Finally, we could revisit the section on the NT depiction of the Pharisees -- we could say more about recent historical scholarship on debates and conflicts between Pharisees and early Christians (post 70), and perhaps Talmudic views of Jesus, such as they are. Slrubenstein

Good work on improving the article, Slrubenstein. However I would like to add some suggestions.:

  • Perhaps the article should list significant scholars/rabbis of the time who can be seen as representatives of it. Figures as Hillel the Elder and Shammai who formed different schools of thought seem to have had a lasting influence in Rabbinic Judaism. Examining its formation without even mentioning them sounds similar to discussing Western Philosophy without adressing the influence of Platon and Aristoteles.
  • Historical source materials should probably include surviving extracts from rabbinic scriptures. The texts might represent their authors better than later evaluations of them.
  • Recent scholarly debates and their conclusions would be useful. But we should perhaps examine older or even outdated interpretations suggested by scholars active in previous centuries. Just to give some historical perspective on the subject.
  • The NT depiction of the Pharisees seems to focus too much on the Gospels. Acts of the Apostles features the relation between the early Christians and their contemporaries more prominently, arguably making it a better source for our subject of interest. User:Dimadick
Thanks -- and good points. If you are up to it, why not just start adding stuff? My only concern would be the structure of the article. I think a history of scholarly debates on the Pharisees should be in its own section (at the top or bottom of the article -- I am not sure what would be best). I don't think that there should be too much stuff on Hillel and Shammai (which could end up being a distraction) but there should definitely be links to these articles. Likewise, some more primary texts (but I think it is important to be selective, and contextualize texts), and some discussion of Acts. I am close to the limits of my own knowledge so I hope you will contribute to the article. Slrubenstein

Great article overall, but it seems to me that the section on "Pharisees and Christianity" might be a little unbalanced. The bulk of the section is devoted to arguments that the depiction of the Pharisess in the NT don't jive with what we would expect based on other sources, and that the whole deal could have been fabricated to win converts. Only one or two sentences give a vague description of Jesus' conflict with the Pharisees. Perhaps more specifics? betakate 19:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think that what you suggest would be more appropriate to an article on Jesus or Christianity. There is good reason to think that the NT accounts are not very good sources on the Pharisees, although certainly they provide good evidence of what early Christians thought of the Pharisees. But if you want to add a couple of concrete examples, I can't argue with that. I do however think it would be important — if we are using the NT accounts as evidence of Phariseic positions — to see if there is any independent corroboration that these were Phariseic views. Lacking corroboration we could still include the information you suggest, but whther there is or is not independent corroboration would be important information. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The Pharisees may have a role in the Christian world-view which is different from how either religious Jews, or academic scholars, might understand them. I have no problem presenting Christian religious doctrines about the Pharisees as long as they are clearly labeled as such, attributed, and placed in an appropriate section, so as not to be confused with either traditional Jewish (or Reform Jewish) or historians' perspectives. It's not uncommon for one religion to portray another as something of a straw character embodying a false view to which the "true" view is then compared, and Christianity seems to have chosen the Pharisees for this sort of treatment. I would certainly personally disagree with the way Christianity has historically portrayed the Pharisees, and certainly wouldn't want language like the above written as historical narration, but if it accurately represents Christian doctrine about the Pharisees, it belongs. Similarly, the Pharisees have a significant (and doctrinally-tinted) role in traditional religious Judaism which generally sees them in a positive light, and as representing more of continuity with the past than an academic historical perspective might perceive. (This is not the only Jewish perspective, for example, early in the history of Reform Judaism Reform rabbis also viewed them very negatively, although this perspective has been softened). These views also needs to be represented. The academic historical view also shouldn't generally be presented as fact or in narrator's voice, it should be presented as the view of identified academic historians. --Shirahadasha 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hasidim

"were one of the successor groups of the Hasidim (the "pious"), an anti-Hellenic movement that formed in the time of the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes"

Something isn't accurate about the Hasidim, but I'm not sure what. I know there was a lot of anti-Hellenic reponse in the time of Antiochus Epipanes, but I've never heard of a group called Hasidim arising in that time. The Hasidim I've heard about arose in the middle ages, and in the article that is linked to here that is the group that is referred to.

  • Were there two groups called Hasidim? (need a new article and a disambiguation page?)
  • Did an earlier group from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes called Hasidim influence the origins of the Hasidim in the middle ages? (need a comment on the Hasidim page about this?)
  • Did the author of this article get the wrong name for this group that predated the Pharisees?

As it stands now, this article makes a statement about the Hasidim that disagrees with the article about the Hasidim.

Jdavidb 19:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that Hasidim refer to a medieval group -- and perhaps this does need a disambiguation page. Although I have been working on this article, the reference to Hasidim was in the original stub (written by someone else). Also, I have seen historians of the post-exilic/hellenic period refer to anti-hellinists as "Hasidim," although these are secondary sources. I am pretty sure that the chapter on this period, in Schwartzes Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People, used the term this way. Slrubenstein

Would it be more accurate to create a disambiguation page for the anti-Hellenist Hasidim, or to just change the term to anti-Hellinists? Jdavidb 20:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know the secondary sources that use "Hasidim" this way are reliable; thus, we should keep the term. However, perhaps we should wait a few days. I have made a lot of changes to this article over the past week, and have tried to use current and reliable sources. However there may be people out there who are actually well-versed in the primary sources and may be able to respond to your concern more accurately than I (and may raise other issues about my revisions); maybe we should wait a bit and give others a chance. In general, I see no harm in creating a disambiguation page. But there is no article on Hasidim in this sense, and I am not sure there should be a disambiguation page until there is a separate article. Frankly, I am not prepared to write even a stub. Perhaps for the moment an additional sentence to the current Hasidim page would suffice. We could also delink this reference. Slrubenstein

C.E. is a silly term to use rather than A.D. It's not like Christians insist on the days of the week or month names being changed. (they're all mostly named in honour of ancient gods).

Zoney 18:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You may believe it is silly; many do not. In fact, most Jews use C.E. and consciously prefer the term over A.D. -- why is the Jewish preference silly, and the Christian one not? In any event, what is important is that it is a convention among many scholars, including many scholars (Jewish and non-Jewish alike) of the Second Temple and Rabbinic eras. Slrubenstein

Mark 2:1-12

The passage in scripture where Jesus is accused of blasphemy by the 'Pharisees' (my Bible only says 'teachers of the law'), after forgiving a paralysed man's sin, is not critical of 'Pharisees'. In fact their response is not a bit surprising. If I cause someone injury, only they can forgive me. Sin is against God, so only He can forgive it. So by forgiving someone their sins, Jesus was implying He was God. Thus the logic and reason behind the accusation of the 'Pharisees' . It's not some kind of deliberate maliciousness on the part of the 'Pharisees', and is not portrayed as such.

Zoney 18:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We could argue over whether or not the passage is "critical" of the Pharisees -- if we presume the NT to be right, then the Pharisees are wrong, and that seems like a criticism to me. But the heart of the issue is that this is a distortion of the Pharisees. It was common for healers to act as channels for God. A scroll from the Qumran community (the Prayer of Nabonides) describes a healer "pardoning the sins" of a sick man. Moreover, the construction in the Qumran scroll is in the active voice; the passage in Mark is in the passive voice -- a more cautious construction that leaves room for one to infer that it was God, not Jesus, who pardoned the sin. Among the Pharisees themselves there were sages who healed in the same manner as Jesus -- Hanina ben Dosa, mentioned in Mishnah Berachot, for example. It just doesn't make sense that the Pharisees would have accused Jesus of blasphemy, for doing something that was common at the time and recognized by the Pharisees as legitimate. Whoever wrote this passage was either unfamiliar with the Pharisees, or was writing for an audience that would be unfamiliar with the Pharsiees. Slrubenstein


guy, no offense, but if i cant tell what the hell a Pharisee is in a nutshell by the time I have finished the second sentence, then you aint done your job. anti-hellenic movement? what the fuck are you talking about ? please write an introduction for people who dont study ancient culture 24 hours a day.

no offense taken, but it is a work in progress on a complicated topic. Anyway, I did some revising. I'd appreciate more feedback. If you can be more specific, we can be more helpful. Slrubenstein


Some scholars believe that those passages of the New Testament that present a caricature of the Pharisees were not written during Jesus' lifetime

Huh? Who believes that any passage of the New Testament was written during Jesus' lifetime? Josh Cherry 21:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent point. Jayjg 23:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, some people do -- but really, this is a tangential and trivial point. Nevertheless, perhaps we can figure out a better way to phrase this? The point is not that the NT was written during or after Jesus' life time but rather that these specific stories are anachronistic and may have been invented long after Jesus was crucified, at a time when Rabbis and Christians became serious opponents. But we need to say this in a way that is NPOV. Slrubenstein

[edit] Duplicate content: pharisee , pharisees!

Duplicate content: pharisee , pharisees!

There are two articles, but actually the contents diverges a great deal. This article synthesizes the views of a number of historians. The Pharisee article has much more midrashic and Talmudic text and references. I have mixed feelings. I feel that much of that content is valuable, but a little misleading the way it is presented. Most of the texts it cites come from the Rabbinic period. It is true that there is an important link from Phariseism to Rabbinic Judaism, but historians distinguish between the two. Thus, much of that article is anachronistic -- it takes views that may not have been written down until the fifth century CE and implies that people believed them during the first century BCE. Also, midrashim and the Talmud reflect Rabbinic beliefs -- the result is a lack of neutrality. The Saducees are described only from the point of view of the Pharisees or Rabbis (very negatively); the Pharisees are described only from the point of view of the Rabbis (very positively). There are som errors -- the synagogue for example did become the main center of Rabbinic activity. But there is more an more archeological evidence that synagogues developed independently of the pharisees.
Perhaps some of the material in that article could go in this one. Otherwise, I suggest someone rewrite that article as "Rabbinic Ideology" or something like that. Slrubenstein

[edit] Merged

Pharisee was merged to, and now also redirects to, here, at Pharisees. Thank you. IZAK 11:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] my clean-up

There used to be two articles: Pharisees and Pharisee. I contributed heavily to one, the other was taken from an older edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia. The person who did the merge obviously did his or her best, but I had three problems with it. First, there was much duplication, and while I admire the mergers desire not to delete content, it was unnecessary duplication. Second, the Jewish Encyclopedia article was written in an archaic style. My third objection is the most serious one. The JE's account of the Pharisees relied heavily on the Mishnah and Talmud, as well as Tosefta and Midrashim. The problem is, the Mishnah is a highly partisan source, and the Talmud compiled so late as to be useless as an historical source for Second Temple Judaism. First, the priests and Saducees did not leave historical records, and it is simply wrong to accept the Rabbinic account as historically accurate. Second, Jacob Neusner and other historians have pointed out several times that part of the beauty of the Talmud is that scholars in fifth century Babylonia still argued over how to make sacrifices in the Temple, or what laws to apply to agriculture — despite the fact that they did not live in Palestine, and that the Temple had been destroyed long ago. Even Mishnaic law cannot be accepted as an authoritative source for how sacrifices were performed. Much of the JE article cited the Talmud for examples of what the Pharisees believed, said, and did. The Talmud and midrashim present an idealized and anachronistic view of the Pharisees that cannot be taken at face value. I know that many Orthodox Jews will disagree with this. But this is an NPOV document on a historical matter and we need to be judicious in our use of sources written down much, much, later. I did in fact incorporate whatever I could from the JE article, including several Biblical and Midrashic citations. However, if we are going to rely primarily on Midrashim and the Talmud as sources for what people thought and did, that belongs in an article on Rabbinic Judaism, not the Pharisees. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my recent cut (of Abulafia's work)

A, I have no major objection to what you added to this article (although it would be stronger if it cited contemporary historians as sources). I cut it because it pertains to Rabbinic Judaism, not the Pharisees. I know there is a strong connection, which indeed the Pharisees article makes clear (I hope). But I think most material on the Rabbinic period (all the Amoraim, and many of the Tanaim) belongs in the article on Rabbinic Judaism. I did make a minor change here, to acknowledge your point (that exilarchs were not necessarily rabbis), and I moved the material you wrote, and I cut, to Talk: Rabbinic Judaism and hope you will find a sensible way to incorporate your material into that article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: the cut of my material

The comment about the Exilarchs not "necessarily being rabbis" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the material I posted and of the history of the period of the Amoraim. As I stated, some of the Exilarchs, such as Mar Zutra, were rabbis. Even Neusner would not deny that. I never said that all or even most were Rabbis. However, the Exilarchs did ratify the appointment of the heads of the academies. Please quote scholars who differ from this opinion and primary sources that support them.

As for the Patriarchs empowered by Rome, all of them, from Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi to Rabbi Gamliel IV, were Rabbbis who headed the Sanhedrin. No scholar could deny that either.

Essentially, your quote from Neusner is highly misleading without any responsible context and violates NPOV.

To delete the material I posted while keeping Neusner's opinions (which pertain to the Tannaim and Amoraim) on the pretext that my material belongs in "Rabbinic Judaism" is a farce.

Yous how an absence of good faith that is unproductive. My reasons for removing the material are legitimate and stand. That does not mean that I oppose any changes to this particular section of the article, and I am sure you can do it without two full paragraphs. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Jesus and the Pharisees

"According to the New Testament, Pharisees wanted to punish Jesus for healing a man's withered hand on the Sabbath, but there is no Rabbinic rule according to which Jesus had violated the Sabbath." If someone has a better grasp of halakha than me, and can point out my error I'd be grateful, but I'd always assumed that the difficulty here was Makeh B'Patish (irreversible physical action that transforms or immediately completes an object) on Shabbat, and this would certainly qualify. As such, many Christians may misunderstand the Pharisees objection, but it is halakhically speaking valid for them to have one. unixslug 19:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think there is some debate — at least in the time of the Amoraim, which is all that is relevant here — as to what Makeh B'Patish means. For some it means finishing any work (or, more specifically, the "finishing touch") but literally it refers to smoothing a rock or striking metal against an anvil. Would the Pharisees in 30 CE have applied this to healing a withered hand? Do you have any more evidence? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Excerpts from Jesus and Judaism by E. P. Sanders:

"I shall deal with these points of law, about which Jesus is depicted as coming into direct conflict with the Pharisees, with extreme economy. Some scholars have found in Jesus' supposed violation of the laws of Sabbath and food the clue to the conflict which resulted in his death (as, in fact, is proposed by Mark 3.6). More, though finding here no fatal conflict, have seen these points of law as defining Jesus' conflict with his contemporaries. Opinions range from this extreme all the way to another: there is no direct violation of the law at all, or none worth much attention. In this case, one of the extremes must be judged to be correct: the second one."

" We must then note that this means that debates with the Pharisees recede in importance. I am one of a growing number of scholars who doubt that there were any substantial points of opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees (that is, with the Pharisees in particular, as distinct from the rest of Jewish Palestine). Again, a negative cannot be proved. But all the scenes of debate between Jesus and the Pharisees have more than a slight air of artificiality. We consider this question further in the next chapter. Bultmann and many others have pointed out the unrealistic ('imaginary') character of the scenes. Just *how* incredible many of them are, however, seems not to be realized by many. Harvey, for example, seriously discusses the story narrated in Mark 2.23-26 as representing a real *event* in which Jesus transgressed the law by allowing his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath. Similarly he seems to think that Pharisees really did go to Galilee in order to inspect Jesus' disciples' hands (Mark 7.2). In the latter case, and also in discussing Mark 2.18, Harvey does not note that it is not Jesus who is said to have been accused, but his disciples. In taking the stories at face value he also seems to deny what he had just accepted as an 'assured result' of form criticism, namely, that the conflict stories were composed in the light of debates between Christianity and Judaism. The extraordinary unrealistic settings of many of the conflict stories should be realized: Pharisees did not organize themselves into groups to spend their Sabbaths in Galilean cornfields in the hope of catching someone transgressing (Mark 2.23f), nor is it credible that scribes and Pharisees made a special trip to Galilee from Jerusalem to inspect Jesus' disciples' hands (Mark 7.1f). Surely stories such as these should not be read as describing actual debates between Jesus and others."

" The stories of healing on the Sabbath (the Man with the Withered Hand, Matt. 12.9-14 || Mark 3.1-6 || Luke 6.6-11; the Woman with a Spirit of Infirmity, Luke 13.10-17; the Healing of a Woman with Dropsy, Luke 14.1-6) also reveal no instance in which Jesus transgressed the Sabbath law. The matter is quite simple: no work was performed. If Jesus had had to remove a rock which was crushing a man's hand, there would have been a legal principle at issue: was the man's life in danger, or could the work have waited for the sun to set? But the laying on of hands (Luke 13.13) is not work, and no physical action of any kind is reported in the other stories."

" The disciples did not gain the impression that the Mosaic dispensation was valueless and had already passed away. I think that we can rely on Acts as showing that they felt that the temple was a fit place of worship (e.g. Acts 3.1; 21.23-26). They may have thought that it was doomed, but not that it was impure or had already been superseded. We have again and again returned to the fact that nothing which Jesus said or did which bore on the law led his disciples after his death to disregard it. This great fact, which overrides all others, sets a definite limit to what can be said about Jesus and the law. I wish, however, to call attention to a curious aspect of the fact. Even when we know or have good reason to believe that we have a saying which touches on the law and which goes back to Jesus, we can also tell that the saying did not entirely determine early Christian behaviour and attitude. The saying on divorce is secure and is attested to by Paul - who quotes it, attributes it to the Lord, and proceeds to give his own rules independently. These neither spring from nor totally agree with the saying attributed to 'the Lord' (1Cor. 7.10-16). The saying to let the dead bury the dead seems to have had no repercussion at all. It is unlike anything known from early Christianity, and this helps support its authenticity; but it also means that it was without influence. The Jesus of Matt. 15.4 || Mark 7.10 and of Matt. 19.19 and parr. repeats the commandment to honour father and mother as if it is to be accepted without reservation. If one or other of these sayings, as well as Matt. 8.21f., is authentic, we would have to conclude that one nuances the other: Even though in Matt. 8.21f. Jesus says something which seems clearly to imply disregard of the commandment, his acceptance of it elsewhere shows that this was not his intention. In any case, the disciples did not take the saying in Matt. 8.21f. and par. as permission to disobey the law."

" It is only the action and saying against the temple which had ascertainable results: probably the crucifixion as well as Stephen's speech. We gather, however, that the action was not construed to mean, and probably did not mean, that Jesus objected to the sacrifices instituted by God. Stephen appears to have taken a more negative stance than did Jesus. Jesus himself looked to a new age, and therefore he viewed the institutions of this age as not final, and in that sense not adequate. He was not, however, a reformer. We find no criticism of the law which would allow us to speak of his opposing or rejecting it."

[edit] Paul

Jayjg recently deleted an addition, raising source issues. It struck me, too to be the product of "original research." But I want to make a slightly different point. Paul wrote many things. This article is not the place to detail all the things Paul wrote, or to review all the different interpretations historians have had concerning Paul's attitude towards the Pharisees and Phariseic/Rabbinic Judaism. I think the article summarizes the dominant view. I suggest that any editor who wants to add all the nuances and complexities do so in the Paul article, and make sure there are adequate links from this article to that one. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The point of the paragraph is not to detail anything Paul wrote. First of all, it is a summary based on original sources which are cited, and this summary is consistent with the majority of secondary sources. (See the "Early Life", "Consultation with the apostles" and "Paul as inclusionist" sections of the Paul of Tarsus article, for example.) Secondly, this paragraph is focused specifically on Paul's identification as a Pharisee, and how that colors Jewish-Christian interaction in the first century. Paul wrote that the Law of Moses was good, even glorious, but that Christ was superior in glory (2 Corinthians 3). Paul of Tarsus is second only to Jesus in establishing the core of Christian belief. His writings form the largest portion of New Testament Scripture, and excluding his perspective toward his roots as a Pharisee would be a glaring omission in any discussion of Pharisees and Christianity. Why is this so important? Because some people have a stake in portraying a stereotype of Christianity that condemns Judaism as evil. The message of Paul of Tarsus is clear among biblical scholarship: Paul declared Judaism to be good, and backed it up by his own ritual practice, but he said Christianity is better. (Paul also said that the practices of Judaism were not normative for Gentile Christians, and he had very harsh words for those who said so. It is worth mentioning for context/background that Paul instructed his disciple Timothy to be circumcized because he had Jewish roots, but he insisted that Titus not be circumcized because he was a Gentile. But I would agree with Slrubenstein that those details stray from the specific subject at hand, and are topics for another article.)Gandalf2000 20:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the sentence "(Paul also said that the practices of Judaism were not normative for Gentile Christians, and he had very harsh words for those who said so." although I do not think it is relevant to this article, as no Jew has ever contested this to my knowledge (I imagine it was an issue for early Christians especially gentile Christians). I also happen to agree with the sentence "Paul declared Judaism to be good, and backed it up by his own ritual practice, but he said Christianity is better." Of course, my personal feelings, like Gandalf200s, are simply irrelevant as articles are not the place for us editors to express our views. However, if Galndalf2000 is correct that "Because some people have a stake in portraying a stereotype of Christianity that condemns Judaism as evil" then we must all tread very carefully around Wikipedia: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: No original research policies. That is, we should include the claim that "some people portray Christianity as condemning Judaism as evil" IF this relates to Pharisaic Judaism in particular and IF we can provide a source (thus complying with NOR) and THEN we should include the claim that "Pauls declared Judaism to be good" in order to provide NPOV compliance, and also provide a source for this claim to comply with NOR. I do not believe that a quote from the Christian Bible itself will be an adequate source. Paul wrote a lot, but being dead cannot speak up for himself; so what we have here is a debate over different interpretations today, of what of Paul's stance was two thousand years ago. Best to provide well-recognized or widely accepted secondary sources for each interpretation. I am sure the consequence will be a stronger article that is more informative and compliant with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this engaging dialogue. Regarding the source material, the information cited comes from the Acts of the Apostles, which is the only contemporary history of first century Christianity. As a historical record, it is less disputed and less subject to various interpretations than the epistles (letters), and its accuracy is far less disputed than the gospel accounts. In other words, one could find other secondary sources, but they would simply be retreading the historical account found in Acts. Did you read the cited passages? If so, I expect you will find the summary is hardly controversial. Nevertheless, in the interest of collegiality, I will provide additional sources. Regarding the relationship between Pharisees and Christianity, a comment by F.F. Bruce, a leader in Pauline studies, sheds further light on the subject: "A Sadducee could not become a Christian without abandoning a distinctive theological tenant of his party; a Pharisee could become a Christian and remain a Pharisee--in the apostolic age, at least." F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 428. This comment provides insight into Paul’s trial before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30—23:35). Less noteworthy support for this thesis are found in the following which were obtained with a quick Google search: Paul the Pharisee by Brad H. Young, Ph.D. and Paul the Pharisee by Dean Wheelock. Since I haven't vetted these articles, my natural preference is to let the historical accounts speak for themselves. Gandalf2000 03:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I have added back in the Paul of Tarsus section, paying more attention to citations and good scholarship. Improvements are certainly welcome. I'm not sure I put the references in there correctly, so help from someone who knows how to clean up citations would be appreciated. Thanks. Gandalf2000 17:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[edit] Also a critique of imbalance in this section of Pharisees and Christianity.

I think fundamentally that it is quite well done as argument from a Jewish perspective, but without any deep understanding of Christian or Jewish scholarship IMHO. From a Christian perspective many things should be assumed by the author that obviously are not present: most notably that St. Paul was responsible for the deaths of many Christians before he had his famous conversion! He is not the one to hold up as an example of Pharisean virtue! And from a Jewish perspective the section ignores that this was still the period of coercive Judaism before the destruction of the 2nd temple, when the Romans were willing to be brutal and favor deals with those it had set in power in order to manage rebellions and freelance "kings." Let me amplify this critique of Jewish scholarship: the section is written as if Jesus had lived at a later time when Judaism was Rabbinical and not centralized -- which I believe is a complete reversal of history. It is also enlightening in its opposite because Christianity took the opposite tack as Judaism, going from a natural authority to coersion under Roman dominance by the 300's! Thus, it should be legitimately noted, all dogma of that Church has in effect stripped away the natural authority of the early Christian message, while the Jews only determined theirs after their secular power had been removed (and what does this say for centuries of persecution and power?)

Thus (back to Christianity) Jesus was ahead of that game, and the split that occured was a combination of mis-timing, and a path of diversification that became Universal Christianity; primarily through a conscious adaptation of other cultures, a' la Hellenism, which was Christianity's other influence at the time. --Xgenei 02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this your point: Judaism was built more on coercion and Christianity on persuasion before the 2nd temple was destroyed, and the opposite was the case by the 300s -- at least more so than the article indicates? That's quite a statement, perhaps controversial. Do you have sources? If you can get past WP:NOR, and if it directly ties to the topic of the Pharisees, it may shed light on the discrepancy of accounts, specifically on how later perspectives color the interpretation of history.--Gandalf2000 03:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you have it. Also accurate about a general error of perception of time, as if time flowed backward (possible only for angels). There is a ton of data. I'm not sure, but I appreciate your comments. -- John Meghly Xgenei 06:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


The statement that this was a "coercive" period in Jewish history is highly debatable. It is true that the Romans were coercive in the application of certain laws and taxes, and that they supported the Temple hierarchy in return for their support of Roman rule. But does this mean that all Jews were forced to believe the same things, and follow the same ritual practices? All of the historical evidence is to the contrary, that there was a great deal of heterogeneity in Jewish belief and practice. This is hardly "coercive Judaism." As to Paul killing many Christians, I am not sure what the historical facts are. Do we have any sources ther than the NT? In any event, Xgenei's error is to use the phrase "the author." No wikipedia articles have one author, many people have had a hand in this. Also, while there may be an argument for including a "Christian" point of view and a "Jewish" point of view (as if there were only one of each!) the article itself is supposed to maintain a neautral point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not wish to offend you or Judaism. Please excuse me. This was also my first post. --Xgenei 06:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation

Many, including some scholars have distinguished the Saducees as a sect that interpreted the Torah literally, whereas the Pharisees interpreted the Torah liberally. This contrast is a distortion. This passage goes on to discuss that use of oral law as the true difference, but oral law is just the method used to interpret Torah liberally. This or any other method of liberal interpretation still meet the same goal; we're artificially making a distinction. It is perfectly reasonable for scholars to come to this refuted conclusion. Djbell 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC:

Well, I think the view expressed here comes from Neusner, I will have to check. I know that one of the references points to the Pharisees as interpreting the Troah literally, when it says that the Children of Israel are to be a nation of priests. I also know that there are sources that state that the Oral Law was revealed at Sinai (Wikipedia cannot endorse this view as true, but it can state that it is true that some people believe this to be true). They do not see the Oral law as a body of interpretation in the same sense, say, that all the essays at the end of a Norton critical edition of a classic novel, are "interpretations." When most people today say something is an "interpretation," they mean that it is a meaning that a reader gives to a text, whether or not it is shared by the author of the text. I believe that the Rabbis generally believed that their "interpretations" were inherent in the text and communicated by its author and thus reflect the meaning of the author. That is a big difference. If you do not agree, or if you think there is something more nuanced going on here, by all means tell us and provide your sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xian POV of what is Pharisaic: Insulting?

The current version "Jews today (who ascribe to Pharisaic Judaism) typically find this insulting if not anti-Semitic" misses the point and is POV (and not the one of a Pharisaic Jew). Jews find in this Xian view of Pharisaism one typical trait of insult/antisemitism which they find otherwise in the Gospel. Ascribing hypocrisy to Pharisaism can only be insulting to Jews if Jews would have consideration for the opinion of the ones who condemn this hypocritical obsession. Jews (who ascribe to Pharisaic Judaism) only find in this a common trait of Xian views, trait which they condemn otherwise. It is not this view of Pharisees as hypocrites (or even that this term is synonymous in Western languages) which is viewed as insulting to Jews (the Talmud does not speak differently of obsession to "man-made" rules, as self criticism), it is the identification of Jews in general with this hypocrisy (i.e. Jews=Pharisees=Hypocrites). This triple identification is proper to the Gospel and its message... at least this is the POV of Pharisaic Jews ... which is what the statement is all about. hasofer 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Second, Jews find it insulting whether you like that fact or not. Third, what does "a trait of the gospel" mean? Adding it seems only to degrade the quality of the writing, without saying anything.Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You're miles off. Obviously myself, as a rabbi, I find insulting whathever the awen gilayon says... but that is not the point. It is not that you are not sure what I am trying to say, it is that you are not even considering it. If only you were just asking instead: ela may it lakh lemeimar. Next time, I guess.
I think you misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia, which is not to present our own views. See Wikipedia:No original research. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you did not read what I wrote. For once, you dis-understand the nature of Wikipedia. As a "Pharisaic Jew", I expressed what is our POV on the subject. This sentence was supposed to express the POV of "Pharisaic Jews". Your POV is different and you wish to impose it using the saintly ideal of eliminating POVs, even when this very sentence was supposed to give a POV. As I already said, next time just ask: ela may it lakh lemeimar. Please re-see WP:DR. hasofer 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Jew, I do not find the description of modern Judaism as a descendant of Pharisaism to be even mildly insulting. What who considers to be an insult tho is irrelevant unless we can find verifiable noteworthy citable sources: anything else, when we're talking about opinions especially, falls dangerously close to, if not directly under the rubric of original research. Tomertalk 14:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Second. The fact is that Rabbinic Judaism is a direct decendant from Pharisitic Judaism. They way that Pharisitic Judaism is portrayed in the NT is a mishmash of various dejective opinions, but the Pharisees are the legitimate ancestors of most modern Jewery. It's not an insult, it's just a fact. SF2K1 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claim about Karaism

The article presently states that the Qara'im are not descendants of Pharisaism, but that is not even remotely true. The hallmarks of Pharisaism were acceptance of the belief in the afterlife and in the Inspiration of the Nevi'im and Kthuvim, both of which are accepted as fundamental principles by the Qara'im. I have, therefore, removed this libel. The statement is, however, true of the Samaritans, whom I have inserted into the "exception" clause instead. (relevant link) Cheers, Tomertalk 10:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

are you unaware of the the historical research on the great schism between Rabbinic and Karaitic Judaism? Are you unaware of Saadiah Gaon's arguments? I can find sources for these claims. I do not see any libel at all. No one is claiming Karaites are not Jews, or that they are bad Jews. Moreover, how many people today think Samaritans are Jews? Clearly there religion derives from the religion practiced in Israel/Judea, but Samaritans are not Jews. Your edit only distorts. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd apologize if I were sorry, SLR, but you're just plain wrong. Historical research indicates that the schism between Rabbinical and Karaite Judaism occurred between the 8th and 10th centuries, and not prior thereto. I am well-aware of Saadya Gaon's arguments against the Qara'im, some of which border on libelous themselves. I never claimed anyone was saying that the Qaraim aren't Jews, simply that the claim that the Qara'im are ideological descendants of the Tzduqim is erroneous in the extreme. The Kuthim do not practice Judaism according to any but the most liberal interpretation of that term, but the same can be said of the Reform. My edit did not distort anything, it, instead, reflects scholarship and reality. Your reversion to the previous version of the article, however, perpetuates falsehood. Respectfully, but in deepest protest, Tomertalk 12:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tomer, I know you are right about the 8-10th century schism. I have heard people claim that the Qara'im were in part remnents of the Saducees. I will look for a source, and if I cannot find one, then I apologize and abandon the claim. In the meantime (and I say this with respect, not hiostility) if you have sources that state either that (1) prior to the 8th century there were no Qara'im, or (2) that the Qara'im have their roots in Pharisaic Judaism, then go ahead and roll back my revert. If you are right I see two possibilities: the Qara'im have their roots in Pharisaic Judaism in which case that should be in the article but with a source, or (2) they have their origins in Rabbinic Judaism in which case there would be no need to mention them at all in this article. I still would not put in the Samaritins. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Karaites make the claim that they are somehow decended of Sadduceean principals, but this is baseless. They have at best supposed writings that they attribute to saudeceean ideas. http://www.karaite-korner.org/history.shtml Even says that the offical group of Karaite Judaism begins in the 9th century with no ideas on where such a people would have existed before (except that sadducees existed for a bit after the temple's destruction). They are an anti-rabbinic movement, not an independant one, and just as Reform Jews who reject the authority of traditional rabbinic thought but still counted as rabbinic, they too are in effect derrived of Rabbinic Judaism. They are not a new type of Judaism because they rename their leaders. SF2K1
I'd have to do some digging to source this, but everything I've read that wasn't openly apologetic or polemic regarding the formation of the Qaraim indicates that they developed out of opposition to the assertion that the Talmud is equally binding as Tanakh (not exclusively Torah, like the Sadducees nor Breishith-Bamidhbar, like the Kuthim). From what I recall, they didn't oppose the redaction of the Talmud, only the authority attributed thereto. As a result of their rejection of that authority, specifically the authority attributed to "rabbis", they had to rename their rabbis, which is why they're called chakhamim. The writings of their chakhams deal with many of the same questions as those addressed in various responsa, and are generally accepted as being authoritative, just as are rabbinical responsa in Rabbinic Judaism. They are, essentially, Rabbinic Jews who don't want to have anything to do with rabbanim.  :-\ Tomertalk 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
SpaceFalcon2001, if contemporary Karaites do claim to have their origins in the Saducees, then this article should state so. And if there are historians who have written that this claim is baseless, then the article should say so as well. But it is not up to us editors to declair claims as baseless or true. That violates both NPOV and NOR. TShilo12, you may well be right but I think we can both agree that what we need to do is draw on verifiable sources. Now, the link to the Saducees may be so tenuous as to merit discussion in the Karaite article and not here. But people have made links, however tenuous. I checked Marx and Margolis last night (admittedly, not the latest word on Jewish History, but a well-regarded history in its day). They do not claim that the Karaites are a group of Saducees who maintained their independence and identity after the destruction of the Temple. But they so say that even after the fall of the Temple and the rise of Pharaseic hegemony in the form of rabbinic Judaism, Saducean tendencies (I can't quote them because I do not have the book in front of me, but I think they use this word) persisted, and that when Amon ben David (again, if I remember correctly) lost his bid for Gaon, he went to the Sultan and declared that there were two branches of Judaism and each should have its own Gaon (an argument that would appeal to the Sultan as it echoed the schism between Shia and Sunni Muslims) - by the way, I believe this account supports TShilo's view - but Marx and Margolis go on to say that the resulting movement expressed Saducee views. Now, I am not saying that Marx and Margolis are right. But I am saying that they are a verifiable source and if we are going to get into this discussion in an article, we need to rely on verifiable sources. I don't see any reason why an article cannot say something like "some historians draw a connection between the Saducees and the Karaites, while others view the Karaites as an entirely 8th century phenomena" or something like that Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I rashly added something about the Karaites here, but it looks as though this matter has been discussed for a time. If someone wants to revert that's fine with me, but keep in mind I did write "possibly." Cheers. 172.133.49.139 17:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your addition is good, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pharisee Viewpoint

The Pharisees believed that rules of ritual purity (kashrut etc.) were applicable to the people as a whole and not just priests, and they sometimes opposed the ritual and political positions on various matters that many priests held, but they definitely believed in a priesthood with a distinct role. To say they believed "the people as a whole were to be like priests" puts a very distorting spin on things. It's a bit like characterizing a liberal view of judicial review as a belief that "justices should behave like legislators." It's not NPOV. --Shirahadasha 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV issue here is that the claim lacks a citation. In fact, this is a particular scholar's interpretation of the Pharisees. Like any factual claim, we should be clear about who claims this view of the Pharisees. i think it is Neusner but I do not have his books at hand. Can you wait a week or two so I can see if I can find the correct citation (then we would rewrite it, "According to Jacob neusner" or whomever, .... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The person presenting the Pharisee viewpoint clearly disagrees with it and I beleive the disagreement distorts the presentation. For example, the Pharisees believed that the people, not just the priests, were ALWAYS obligated to observe purity laws, etc. Only someone who disagreed with their beliefs could make a statement like "The people were to behave like priests" with respect to purity laws etc. Such a statement implicitly assumes that the Pharisees were incorrect, since from the Pharisee point of view there were plenty of differences between people and priests, but the purity laws simply weren't (with some exceptions) among them. The Pharisees didn't believe they were making a break from the past. They claimed to be following an unbroken oral tradition back to Mount Sinai. Thus describing the Pharisee viewpoint in terms of differences from a past that is presented as a neutral narrator's fact fundamentally contradicts (and hence does not accurately describe) that viewpoint. It's certainly reasonable to present their views in context, including historians' assessments of their accuracy. But the Pharisees made claims about the past, it is there view of history that should be presented as the "Pharisee Viewpoint" Historians' differing claims about the past, including discussion of breaks with the past, represent an outsider's view, not an insider's --Shirahadasha 03:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like your own interprestation. If so you know that you are forbidden to add it to the article. If it is not your interpretation but one found in a verifiable source, you can and should add it to the article with an appropriate citation. As to the remark which i still believe is from Neusner, as you know according to our policies that view should be represented in the article regardless of whether another source reject the view. This is not a question of two different views, insider versus outsider. This is a question of possibly multiple views, each of which should be identified clearly. It is a problem indeed that the view in the article ius not clearly ascribed, and I will as I said work on that soon. However, any other view of the Pharisees should also be clearly identified. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very explicit policy on this exact situation. It's the special NPOV religion policy and it's quite clear:

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.

This is the situation we have. The Pharisees, like many other adherents of traditional religions, saw their faith as eternal and nonhistorical. Professor Neusner's historical point of view, which defines their beliefs and practices in terms of differences from a past, obviously requires otherwise. Not an uncommon situation at all in religion, happens all the time. So we just do what the policy says to do in these cases. "NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of (the "Pharisee viewpoint") believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed, however, (etc.), modern historian (Professor Neusman) believes Z. Perfectly appropriate to give the modern critical historical viewpoint. It's just not what the Pharisees themselves believed, so it can't be called the "Pharisee viewpoint." One has to use inside sources for that. Of course modern historical scholars are highly appropriate for "outside", critical or interpretive, views. If you you just relabeled the section something like "Modern historians' views of the Pharisees" and not the "Pharisee viewpoint" this issue would go away. The issue would also go away if Pharisee beliefs and practices were simply stated without historical latticework, i.e. without references to claims that a past was otherwise. --Shirahadasha 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right about Neusner - I actually said this last week and I have added his name and when I can will add a new cistation. What you are not entirely right about is the relationship between NPOV and NOR. Neusner is making a claim about what most Pharisees believe. You are making a claim about what most Pharisees believed. If Neusn'er is a published source, we can add his claim with a citation. If your claim is your own and not published, we cannot add it. If your claim is shared/stated by a repubtable published source, we can add it, with the approipriate citation. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have a "legitimate" question...

First of all, I saw this while I was reading the article.

"The Pharisaic position is exemplified by the assertion that "A learned mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest." (A mamzer is an outcast child born of a forbidden relationship, such as adultery or incest;"

Last time I looked, didn't the torah state that a "bastard" (fatherless child) could not enter the temple for ten generations?

...Also, is not wisdom known by her children?

Since God is the giver of wisdom, will not He Himself teach the ignorant high priest?

Finally, you create confusion when you call an high priest "ignorant"; by who's standards is he ignorant? Is he ignorant by man's or by God's?

Obviously, it is by man's standards because a high priest couldn't AFFORD to be ignorant on God's duties; he was the one who offered the sacrifices for the people's sins.

If he made one mistake in the offering of the sacrifices, then God would strike him dead just like he did Aaron's sons.

I'll wager that a high priest would not care if a mere man called him ignorant because he answered to God--not man!

Let God do his own judging of a high priest's heart--and if he is found unworthy, then let him be struck by lightening and found dead in the tabernacle! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

Sorry, we're writing an encyclopedia article here, this is not the place to debate religious questions. --Shirahadasha 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] parts?

What is the basis for changing two Torahs to two parts of the Torah? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I raised the above question three weeks ago and no one responded. I provided ample time for a response. Since no one had a response, I reverted this edit. Now someone has reverted me. This is unfair. Use the talk pages to discuss changes. Can you provide me with a verifiable source that states that the Torah she baal peh and the Torah she biktav are two "parts" or two "halves?" Slrubenstein | Talk 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] resurrection

An anonymous editor deleted verifiable content. I restored it. In the edit summary the anonymous user stated that Josephus had been vandalized. That an editor believes this is not adequate reason to delete content. Instead, one should add that some scholars believe that this part of Josephus was forged. However, to do so one must name the scholars and provide the source. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel as "first prophet" claim

Is there any need for a parenthetical claim that Samuel was the first prophet? It's a highly debatable claim. The Book of Samuel isn't considered the first book of Neviim, Joshua is. Other prior figures such as Miriam, Joshua, and Deborah, are explicitly called "prophets" in the Bible. And traditional Judaism -- it's one of Maimonides' 13 principles of faith -- calls Moses a prophet. Thus, a claim that Samuel was the first prophet doesn't seem to be consistent either with the Biblical text or the point of view of traditional Judaism. It may be an article of faith of some Christian denominations (I don't know) or based on an academic definition of "prophet" that doesn't take Biblical statements of who is one at face value, but I see no reason to insert such this sort of proposition parenthetically in an article on another subject. This is an article on the Pharisees, and there's no need to bring up a dispute in a totally parenthetical subject. I suggest dropping the reference to Samuel as the first prophet entirely. The dispute, if there is one, can be discussed in the Samuel article. --Shirahadasha 04:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate your spelling out your reasons. Go ahead. (PS please sign your statements) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of pharisee

The opening sentence of the article gives the qal form of the Hebrew root pei-reish-shin, parash meaning to separte, as the source of the word Pharisee. However, this root changes its meaning in the piel form, peireish meaning to explain or the noun form peirush meaning explanation. This other form, aside from sounding closer to the Hebrew word peirushi gets at one of the defining characteristics of the Pharisees, that they accept an Oral Law which consists of interpretations of the Written Torah rather than rely solely on a literal understanding of the Written Torah. For instance, Lev. 19 includes a prohibition on putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person. A literal interpretation, as the Samaratans held by, would hold that this verse only prohibits placing a physical object in the path of a person who lacks the sense of sight. However, the Pharisees/Rabbis held that this also prohibited any action which would cause someone to figuratively trip due to something of which you are aware but which either is not readily apparent or of which the person might be unaware. 70.19.90.244 00:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Scott

The current etymology is that used in a number of history books. Citations are lacking, but I didn't think that would be a problem if the etymology is uncontroversial. If the etymology is controversial, I can put in citations. Similarly, the argument you present could be included in the article if you have a verifiable source - other wise, it violates our NOR policy. In short, I appreciate your comment. whether we can incorporate it into the article or not hinges on whether or not we can do so in a way that complies with the aforementioned policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/a/Talk%7EPharisees_e916.html"