Pharisees
The Pharisees party representing the religious views, practices, and hopes of the some part of the Jewish people in the time of the Second Temple and in opposition to the priestly Sadducees. They were accordingly scrupulous observers of the Law as interpreted by the Soferim, or Scribes, in accordance with tradition. No true estimate of the character of the Pharisees can be obtained from the New Testament writings, which take a polemical attitude toward them, nor from Josephus, who, writing for Roman readers and in view of the Messianic expectations of the Pharisees, represents the latter as a philosophical sect. “Perisha, Perushim” denotes “one who separates himself,” or keeps away from persons or things impure, in order to attain the degree of holiness and righteousness required in those who would commune with God. The Pharisees formed a league or brotherhood of their own (”Haburah“), admitting only those who, in the presence of three members, pledged themselves to the strict observance of Levitical purity, to the avoidance of closer association with what they call the ‘Am ha-Aretz (literally = the country’s people; metaphorically = the ignorant and careless boor), to the scrupulous payment of tithes and other imposts due to the priest, the Levite, and the poor, and to a conscientious regard for vows and for other people’s property. They called their members “Haberim” (brothers), while they passed under the name of “Perishaya,” or “Perushim.” Though originally identical with the Hasidim, they reserved the title of “Hasid” for former generations (”Hasidim ha-rishonim“; see Essenes), retaining, however, the name “Perishut” as their watchword from the time of the Maccabean contest (see II Maccabees 14:37; comp. verse 3). Yet, while the more rigorous ones withdrew from political life after the death of Judas Maccabeus, refused to recognize the Hasmonean high priests and kings as legitimate rulers of the Temple and of the state, and, as Essenes, formed a brotherhood of their own, the majority took a less antagonistic attitude toward the Maccabean dynasty, who, like Phinehas, their “father,” had obtained their title by zeal for God (I Maccabees 2 :54); and they finally succeeded in infusing their own views and principles into the political and religious life of the people.
Doctrines of the Pharisees
The aim and object of the Law, according to Pharisaic principles, are the training of man to a full realization of his responsibility to God and to the consecration of life by the performance of its manifold duties: the one is called “‘ol malkut shamayim” (the yoke of God’s Kingship) and the other “‘ol hamitzvot” (the yoke of His commandments). Every morning and evening the Jew takes both upon himself when reciting the “Shema’”. “The Torah preaches: Take upon yourselves the yoke of God’s Kingdom; let the fear of God be your judge and arbiter, and deal with one another according to the dictates of love” . So says Josephus: “For the Jewish lawgiver all virtues are parts of religion” The acceptance of God’s Kingship implies acceptance of His commandments also, both such as are dictated by reason and the human conscience and such as are special decrees of God as Ruler. It means a perfect heart that fears the very thought of sin, the avoidance of sin from love of God, the fulfillment of His commandments without expectation of, the avoidance of any impure thought or any act that may lead to sin. The acceptance of God’s Kingship implies also recognition of His just dealing with man, and a thankful attitude, even in misfortune. God’s Kingship, first proclaimed by Abraham and accepted by Israel, shall be universally recognized in the future.
The Charge of Hypocrisy
Nothing could have been more disgustful to the genuine Pharisee than Hypocrisy. “Whatever good a man does he should do it for the glory of God.” Nicodemus is blamed for having given of his wealth to the poor in an ostentatious manner. An evil action may be justified where the motive is a good one. Still, the very air of sanctity surrounding the life of the Pharisees often led to abuses. Alexander Janneus (Yanai) warned his wife not against the Pharisees, his declared enemies, but against “the chameleon- or hyena- (”Tzebo’im”) – like hypocrites who act like Zimri (nightingale) a and claim the reward of Phinehas:”. An ancient baraita enumerates seven classes of Pharisees, of which five consist of either eccentric fools or hypocrites:
1. the shoulder Pharisee,” who wears, as it were, his good actions ostentatiously upon his shoulder;
2. “the wait-a-little Pharisee,” who ever says, “Wait a little, until I have performed the good act awaiting me”;
3. “the bruised Pharisee,” who in order to avoid looking at a woman runs against the wall so as to bruise himself and bleed;
4. “the pestle Pharisee,” who walks with head down like the pestle in the mortar;
5. “the ever-reckoning Pharisee,” who says, “Let me know what good I may do to counteract my neglect”;
6. “the God-fearing Pharisee,” after the manner of Job;
7. “the God-loving Pharisee,” after the manner of Abraham
R. Joshua b. Hananiah, at the beginning of the second century, calls eccentric Pharisees “destroyers of the world”, and the term “Pharisaic plagues” is frequently used by the leaders of the time.
It is such types of Pharisees that Jesus had in view when hurling his scathing words of condemnation against the Pharisees, whom he denounced as “hypocrites,” calling them “offspring of vipers” (”hyenas”; see tzebu’im); “whited sepulchers which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones”; “blind guides,” “which strain out the gnat and swallow the camel” He himself tells his disciples to do as the Scribes and “Pharisees who sit on Moses’ seat bid them do”; but he blames them for not acting in the right spirit, for wearing large phylacteries and tzitzit, and for pretentiousness in many other things. Exactly so are hypocrites censured in the Midrash, wearing tefillin and tzitzit, they harbor evil intentions in their breasts. Otherwise the Pharisees appear as friends of Jesus (Luke 7:37, 13: 31) and of the early Christians (Acts 5 :38, 23 :9). Owing, however, to the hostile attitude taken toward the Pharisaic schools by Pauline Christianity, especially in the time of the emperor Hadrian, “Pharisees” was inserted in the Gospels wherever the high priests and Sadducees or Herodians were originally mentioned as the persecutors of Jesus (see New Testament), and a false impression, which still prevails in Christian circles and among all Christian writers, was created concerning the Pharisees.
History of the Pharisees
It is difficult to state at what time the Pharisees, as a party, arose. Josephus first mentions them in connection with Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabeus. Under John Hyrcanus (135-105) they appear as a powerful party opposing the Sadducean proclivities of the king, who had formerly been a disciple of theirs, though the story as told by Josephus is unhistorical. The Hasmonean dynasty, with its worldly ambitions and aspirations, met with little support from the Pharisees, whose aim was the maintenance of a religious spirit in accordance with their interpretation of the Law. Under Alexander Janneus (104-78) the conflict between the people, siding with the Pharisees and the king became bitter and ended in cruel carnage. Under his widow, Salome (Shelomith) Alexandra (78-69), the Pharisees, led by Simeon ben Shetah, came to power; they obtained seats in the Sanhedrin, and that time was afterward regarded as the golden age, full of the blessing of heaven. But the bloody vengeance they took upon the Sadducees led to a terrible reaction, and under Aristobulus (69-63) the Sadducees regained their power. Amidst the bitter struggle that ensued, the Pharisees appeared before Pompey asking him to interfere and restore the old priesthood while abolishing the royalty of the Hasmonean altogether. The Pharisees regarded the defilement of the Temple by Pompey as a divine punishment of Sadducean misrule. After the national independence had been lost, the Pharisees gained in influence while the star of the Sadducees waned. Herod found his chief opponents among the latter, and so he put the leaders of the Sanhedrin to death while endeavoring by a milder treatment to win the favor of the leaders of the Pharisees, who, though they refused to take the oath of allegiance, were otherwise friendly to him. Only when he provoked their indignation by his heathen proclivities did the Pharisees become his enemies and fall victims (4 BC) to his bloodthirstiness. But the family of Boethus, whom Herod had raised to the high-priesthood, revived the spirit of the Sadducees, and thenceforth the Pharisees again had them as antagonists; still, they no longer possessed their former power, as the people always sided with the Pharisees. In King Agrippa (41-44) the Pharisees had a supporter and friend, and with the destruction of the Temple the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees. Henceforth Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition. Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future. True, it gave the Jewish religion a legalistic tendency and made “separatism” its chief characteristic; yet only thus were the pure monotheistic faith, the ethical ideal, and the intellectual and spiritual character of the Jew preserved in the midst of the downfall of the old world and the deluge of barbarism which swept over the medieval world.
The Sadducees
Name from High Priest Zadok – given to the party representing views and practices of the Law and interests of Temple and priesthood directly opposite to those of the Pharisees. The singular form, “Zadduki” or Tzaduki is an adjective denoting “an adherent of the Bene Zadok, (or Tzadok)” the descendants of Zadok. The high priests who, tracing their pedigree back to Zadok, the chief of the priesthood in the days of David and Solomon (I Kings 1:34-35). They formed the Temple hierarchy all through the time of the First and Second Temples down to the days of Ben Sira. But who degenerated under the influence of Hellenism, especially during the rule of the Seleucides , when to be a follower of the priestly aristocracy was equivalent to being a worldly-minded Epicurean . The name, probably coined by the Hasidim as opponents of the Hellenists, became in the course of time a party name applied to all the aristocratic circles connected with the high priests by marriage and other social relations, as only the highest patrician families intermarried with the priests officiating at the Temple in Jerusalem. The Sadducees, says Josephus, have none but the rich on their side (”Ant.” xiii. 10, § 6). The party name was retained long after the Zadokite high priests had made way for the Hasmonean house and the very origin of the name had been forgotten. Nor is anything definite known about the political and religious views of the Sadducees except what is recorded by their opponents in the works of Josephus, in the Talmudic literature, and in the New Testament writings.
Legendary Origin - Josephus relates nothing concerning the origin of what he chooses to call the sect or philosophical school of the Sadducees. He knows only that the three “sects”—the Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees—dated back to “very ancient times”, which words, written from the point of view of King Herod’s days, necessarily point to a time prior to John Hyrcanus or the Maccabean war. Among the Rabbis the following legend circulated: Antigonus of Soko, successor of Simon the Just, the last of the “Men of the Great Assembly,” and consequently living at the time of the influx of Hellenistic ideas, taught the maxim, “Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of wages [lit. "a morsel"], but be rather like those who serve without thought of receiving wages” , whereupon two of his disciples, Zadok and Boethus, mistaking the high ethical purport of the maxim, arrived at the conclusion that there was no future retribution, saying, “What servant would work all day without obtaining his due reward in the evening?” Instantly they broke away from the Law and lived in great luxury, using many silver and gold vessels at their banquets; and they established schools which declared the enjoyment of this life to be the goal of man, at the same time pitying the Pharisees for their bitter privation in this world with no hope of another world to compensate them.
Their Views and Principles -The views and principles of the Sadducees may be summarized as follows:
1. Representing the nobility, power, and wealth (”Ant.” xviii. 1, § 4), they had centered their interests in political life, of which they were the chief rulers. Instead of sharing the ‘Messianic hopes of the Pharisees, who committed the future into the hand of God, they took the people’s destiny into their own hands, fighting or negotiating with the heathen nations just as they thought best, while having as their aim their own temporary welfare and worldly success. This is the meaning of what Josephus chooses to term their disbelief in fate and divine providence.
2. As the logical consequence of the preceding view, they would not accept the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection (Sanh. 90b; Mark xii. 12; Ber. ix. 5, “Minim”), which was a national rather than an individual hope. As to the immortality of the soul, they seem to have denied this as well (see Hippolytus, “Refutatio,” )
3. According to Josephus (ib. xiii. 10, § 6), they regarded only those observances as obligatory which are contained in the written word, and did not recognize those not written in the law of Moses and declared by the Pharisees to be derived from the traditions of the fathers. Instead of accepting the authority of the teachers, they considered it a virtue to dispute it by arguments.
4. According to Acts 23:8, they denied also the existence of angels and demons. This probably means that they did not believe in the Essene practice of incantation and conjuration in cases of disease, and were therefore not concerned with the Angelology and Demonology derived from Babylonia and Persia.
5. In regard to criminal jurisdiction they were so rigorous that the day on which their code was abolished by the Pharisaic Sanhedrin under Simeon ben Shetah’s leadership, during the reign of Salome Alexandra, was celebrated as a festival. They insisted on the literal execution of the law of retaliation: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” On the other hand, they would not inflict the death penalty on false witnesses in a case where capital punishment had been wrongfully carried out, unless the accused had been executed solely in consequence of the testimony of such witnesses.
6. They held the owner of a slave fully as responsible for the damage done by the latter as for that done by the owner’s ox or ass; whereas the Pharisees discriminated between reasonable and unreasonable beings.
Decline of Sadduceeism - Whether the Sadducees were less strict in regard to the state of impurity of woman in her periods, and what object they had in opposing the determination by the Pharisees of the appearance of the new moon, are not clear. Certain it is that in the time of the Tannaim the real issues between them and the Pharisees were forgotten, only scholastic controversies being recorded. In fact, as Josephus (”Ant.” xviii. 1, § 3) states in common with the Talmudic sources, the ruling members of the priesthood of later days were forced by public opinion to yield to the Pharisaic doctors of the Law, who stood so much higher in the people’s esteem. In the course of time the Sadducees themselves adopted without contradiction Pharisaic practices; it is stated that they did so in regard to the tefillin, and many other observances appear to have been accepted by them. With the destruction of the Temple and the state the Sadducees as a party no longer had an object for which to live. They disappear from history, though their views are partly maintained and echoed by the Samaritans, with whom they are frequently, and by the Karaites.
In Literature - The Book of Ecclesiastes in its original form, that is, before its Epicurean spirit had been toned down by interpolations, was probably written by a Sadducees in antagonism to the Hasidim. The Wisdom of Ben Sira, which, like Ecclesiastes and older Biblical writings, has no reference whatsoever to the belief in resurrection or immortality, is, according to Geiger, a product of Sadducean circles. This view is partly confirmed by the above-cited blessing of “the Sons of Zadok”. Also the first Book of Maccabees is, according to Geiger, the work of a Sadducees. Allusion to the Sadducees as “sinners” is found in the Psalms of Solomon (1: 1, 4:1-10); they are “severe in judgment” “yet themselves full of sin, of lust, and hypocrisy”; “men pleasers,” “yet full of evil desires”. Still more distinctly are the Sadducees described in the Book of Enoch as: “the men of unrighteousness who trust in their riches”; “sinners who transgress and pervert the eternal law.” Sadducees, if not in name, at least in their Epicurean views as opposed to the saints, are depicted also in the Book of Wisdom where the Hellenistic nobility, which occupied high positions likewise in Alexandria, is addressed. In the New Testament the Sadducees are mentioned in Matthew 3:7 and 16:1, 6, 11, where they are identical with the Herodians (Mark 12:13), that is, the Boethusians (Mark 12:18; Acts 4 :1, 5 – :17, 33:6-8). In John’s Gospel they simply figure as “the chief priests” (7: 23, 45; 9:47, 57; 13:3). In rabbinical literature careful discrimination must be made between the Tannaitic period and that of the Amoraim. The Mishnah and Baraita in the passages quoted above indicate at least a fair knowledge of the character and doctrines of the Sadducees, even though the names “Boethusians” and “Sadducees” occur promiscuously. In the Amoraic period the name “Zadduki” signifies simply “heretic,” exactly like the term “min” = “Gnostic”; in fact, copyists sometimes replaced, it may be intentionally, the word “min” by “Zadduki,” especially when Christian Gnostics were referred to. However, in many cases in which “Zaddukim” stands for “minim” in the later Talmud editions the change was due to censorship laws, as is shown by the fact that the manuscripts and older editions actually have the word “minim.”
The Sadducees disappeared around 70 BCE, after the destruction of the Second Temple. None of the writings of the Sadducees survived, so the little we know about them comes from their pharisaic opponents.