Talk:Pharisees/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Christians and Pharisees

Since the length issue is not of concern to others, new topic: the Pharisees and Christians section seems to be a strong defense of the Pharisees against a perceived Christian attack, rather than a description of the issues. I did a little bit of cleanup and re-writing in this section to balance it out more, but it seems that the whole section needs a general rewrite to explain some modern day perceptions of Pharisees that have been influenced by Christian writings and why this might be so. Sourced explanations of those who believe this to be inaccurate and why would certainly be appropriate, but not as a general tone of the whole section. Thoughts? Soonercary (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have worked on this article a lot, but did not write the passages you edited. For what it is worth, I think your edits thus far are fine - the result is definitely more NPOV and better-written. The only thing I could counsel you bear in mind is (1) almost all contemporary Jews see themselves as the heirs of the Pharisees and identify strongly with the Pharisees, and (2) there is a good deal of historical research that challenges a literal reading of the NT account of Pharisees. As long as NT accounts are presented as (1) definitely a Christian POV and (2) one which many historians (yes, a different POV) believe was written some time after the fact, I will probably have no problem with any further edits of your sthat are in the spirit of the ones you just made. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The example of Jesus healing the paralytic is weak. Jesus told the man, "Your sins are forgiven" and the Pharisees questioned his authority to do that. While the tradition may have linked healing with forgiveness, it's unlikely that others routinely forgave sins of their own authority. Instead of inferring forgiveness from the objective evidence of healing, in this case Jesus explicitly forgave the man's sins, and it's not surprising that they accused him of blasphemy. He then performed healing as evidence of his authority to forgive.--FusionDude (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no historical evidence to support. It is unlikely Jesus ever told anyone that their sins were forgiven since (1) most of what is now considered Jewish law did not exist at the time, and (2) what law that did exist was not obeyed by the majority of Jews and (3) what laws Jews did observe, were easy to find forgivance for if they broke the law. There is evidence from Rabbinic texts of many people who cured the ill by casting out demons and thus rendering them pure, and the Rabbis never condemned any of these men for blasphemy; waht they did was not considered blasphemy. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Very little detailed historical evidence comes down to us outside of the NT bible. Josesphus provides some insight (and other contemporaries to a lesser degree), but not to a level that would satisfy this discussion. In the "Great Commission" Jesus sent his disciples forth to make disciples "all the nations," because he had all "authority in Heaven and on Earth." He drove out demons on his own authority and believers drove them out with his name. One may not believe these supernatural claims, but central to Jesus teachings was his authority. Therefore, it seems very likely that Jesus would have been forgiving sins by his own authority. According to the NT bible (also could be inferred by Josephus' writings), his claims to divinity were a major source of friction between him and the Teachers of Religion during his time.

NPOV dispute [Pharisees and Christianity]

Few points I dispute.... 1) In The Epistle to the Romans, by Leon Morris it is asserted that the shift in power from the Jewish Christian to the Gentile Christian (then minority) occured due to the temporary explusion of Jews from Rome by Emp. Cladius. 2) The NT Bible is clear that Christ's word was first for the Jews then the rest of world. 3) It also seems to be a stretch to assert that Christ was being rejected by Jews because he was simply restating a common teaching by the Pharisees. (See discussion in paragraph above) It seems more likely that his claims to divinity and therefore his moral authority was being doubted. Based on his claim to authority he was mediating a new deal with Jews (and also humanity) and thereby radically changing the Jewish faith. Most mainstream Jewish counter claims (that I've seen) to Christianity are basen on their belief that Christ did not fulfil God's promisses (e.g. Elijah did not return). Because of disputed facts and assertions noted, the conclusion that was made do not present a Neutral Point of View. It also seems inconsistent with the heading of the article; it seems somewhat arguementative to present an Anti-Christian perspective in a section that should present the relationship of Pharisees to Christians. I recommend the few paragraph be removed or rewritten to describe the Christian and Pharisees relationship. Finally, it should be made clear that the "dispute" is not over miracles or the wonders of Jesus, but over whether or not he was whom he claimed to be. His claim to be Messiah and The Son of God is the central issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.173.254 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time that I've used wikipedia discussion, so forgive me if it's not the right format for how I present my posts. As for my most recent edit, I changed it from "Romans over Jews" to "their ideologies over the Pharisees'" because I haven't seen that the NT depicts Jesus as being sympathetic to Romans over Jewish people. I know that there are those who disagree with my belief, but I'd rather not get into any lengthy debate over the issue. However, I'd be happy if someone could offer a better alternative than mine which might not use such generalizations about the NT's view while satisfying most users. Thank-you. Michinobu zoned (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Michinobu_zoned

Pleae look at this talk page - more recent talk is always at the bottom. That is why I did not see your talk. That is why I am relocating your talk to where people will see it. It is not a matter of belief. We never ever put our own beliefs into articles. It is about reporting what a verifiable source says. The paragraph in question provides the source, a book by Fredricksen, and then provides an account of what she argues. You cannot remove a properly sourced view from an article just because you do not like it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Afterlife?

There is one mention of the Pharisees belief in the afterlife, above, but none in the article. I found a reference. Is this wrong? Has modern Jewish thought rejected this? Doesn't seem to be discussed in the article. Shouldn't it be? Student7 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think a reference from a book published by an academic press, or an established Jewish press like berman or Ktav, would be better than the web, as web-sources (like wikipedia) usually leave out a lot. You are correct, and this article does currently state, "Only one chapter of the Mishnah deals with theological issues; it asserts that three kinds of people will have no share in "the world to come:" those who deny the resurrection of the dead, those who deny the divinity of the Torah, and Epicureans (who deny divine supervision of human affairs)." No historian questions the fact that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead in the messianic period. But the point of the paragraph of this article which is also a point most historians would agree with, is that the pharisees were not especially theologically oriented. "Theology" as such is a concept explicitly created and developed by European Christians and while there have been works of Jewish theology (often directly in response to - and thus influenced by - Greek or Christian thought), mos studies of Rabbinic thought emphasize a discourse that contrasts with "theology." When Rambam came out with his 13 principles of faith (which are universally, if often superficially, accepted by Jews today), many rabbis excommunicated him. Jews in general are not that interested in dogma, and I think one can make a pretty good argument that Jews are not that interested in the aftelife. They certainly are not nearly as interested in the afterlife as Christians are. I have a personal opinion about this: the covenant is between God and the Jewish people. And the Jewish people are eternal. It doesn't matter whether any individual Jew dies, the Jewish nation continues to exist and so the covenant with God continues to exist. This is why Jewish parents are so obsessed with their children - if the children abandon Judaism or do not have children of their own, that breaks the covenant. You could say, children are to Jews what heaven is to Christians. This is why Jews say say Kaddish if their children convert to another religion or marry a non-Jew - these acts break the covenant that the nation has with God. And this is why the Holocaust was so traumatic 9this is not my argument, it is Fackenheim's) - the Nazis threatened extermination of the Jewish nation- this would be the end of the covenant too. So it is threats to national survival that matter, not individual death as such. As long as the nation survives, Jews live. This is expressed in an extremely popular little ditty, "Am yisroal chai," the people of Israel live. Yes, the Pharisees believed in an individual aftelife in the form of the resurrection of the dead ... but even for them and the rabbis who followed, I think that the continued existence of the Jewish nation was more important to them, more meaningful, and took up more thought, and emotions, than individual death/afterlife. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that the emphasis then was on practical application of religion, not theology. Still, Paul of Taursus, believed to be Jewish, must have had a theological background from someplace to be able to write the epistles attributed to him. While maybe not full-blown "theology" per se, they are much above the cant that has come down to us from the era. But no European. I don't get the impression that he was Greek influenced prior to his travels.

But still, one of the tenets was afterlife, as you have mentioned, however it may have become ignored in later years in Jewish thought. This is not about influencing modern Jewish thought, but what the Pharisees actually believed in, whatever it was, at whatever level it was at, right? Student7 (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The second and third sentences of my prior post say pretty much all that needs to be said. Jews today consider themselves, if they are observant, to be followers of the Pharisees. And they are much more concerned with practice than belief. I am sure that most Jews would say they believe in an afterlife. I also think most of them would say they give it very little thought. I believe in evolution. It even has very clear practical impacts on my life. But I spend little time thinking about that, too. As for Paul, which seems to bring up a separate issue - well, I would imagine that he like all Jews of his time were Greek influenced. There are rabbis in the Mishnah with Greek names. Philo of Alexandria was certainly Greek influenced. But it seems to me that as much as Paul was influenced by Plato, he saw himself as doing midrash in at least several of the epistles. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Literalism

1 - "Sadducees rejected the Pharisaic tenet of an oral Torah, and created new interpretations based on a literal understanding of verses" This is only half the story. According to some scholars (Geiger - Urschrift.. - disputed by Bernard Revel in his diss. - but there must be newer sources by now), the Sadducees were following an older Halacha whereas the Pharises were willing to innovate

2 - "An example of this differing approach is the interpretation of, "an eye for an eye". The Pharisaic understanding was that the value of an eye was to be sought by the perpetrator rather than actually removing his eye too. In the Sadducees' view the law was to be taken literally. " - The source for the Pharisees is easy - Bava Kamma ch. 8, for the Sadducees I only have the NEJ sv Sadducees.

3 - An excellent quote from Lauterbach I'd like to add -

"The theological struggle between the two parties, as J.Z. Lauterbach puts it (Rabbinic Essays, 23–162), was actually a struggle between two concepts of God. The Sadducees sought to bring God down to man. Their God was anthropomorphic and the worship offered him was like homage paid a human king or ruler. The Pharisees, on the other hand, sought to raise man to divine heights and to bring him nearer to a spiritual and transcendent God."Wolf2191 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think all this is included in your quotes from Neusner. So I'll just add the sources in 2.Wolf2191 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable but on a related note it looks like you have good material for developing the Saducees article! Maybe you can use this to help improve that one! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

- This section still seems biased and comes of as a defense of the Pharisees. IMO, all statements of Jesus being a Pharisee be removed except for suggesting the theory of Jesus being a Pharisee and start a new article or link to a section on Jesus' theoretical denominations. Also of importance, is not to try to argue what the laws of the Pharisees were, but the actual cultural practice of the Pharisees at the time (e.g., the culture of the Pharisees rather than their theology). The section should be more balanced. mark the history, make citations where possible and present both sides in a fair manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehel (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Any significant view from a notable source can go in. If you have relevant content taken from books or articles by leading historians of this time and place that you wish to add, please do so! But if something is a view held by a significant person, published in a notable source, we cannot remove it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See alsos

There are a bunch of "see alsos" sprinkled in the text. These either need to be worked into the text in a normal fashion, or they need to be listed in the "See also" section. The current arrangement is not smooth editing. Student7 (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, although I only counted a few and hopefully it won't take much to make them fit as you propose. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Requests for citation

I placed several request for citation tags in the Pharisees and Christianity section. This was not to disparage the statements, since it appears there are potentially relevant sources quoted earlier on this talk page that could back them up. I was not familiar enough with those sources to do it myself. Without quoting reputable sources, however, the statements in question appear very POV since they generally express their points very categorically. So while the tags make things a little messy for now, I think finding the sources would greatly improve the section.

I also reorganized the section since it seemed a little disjointed, and restated the New Testament account of Jesus healing and forgiving sins according to the biblical text. However, doing so seems to have messed up the point the original writer(s) of this paragraph wanted to make, so someone more familiar with historical Phariseism of the time may want to revisit this paragraph. - Nomadic Whitt (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need a citation to support the claim that Jews find it insulting to be described as arrogant and hypocrytical? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A citation would not be needed if the statement said that. As written, however, it says that Jews today in general are insulted by the etymology of the English word "pharisee" used as a synonym for "hypocrite" from the description of Pharisees made 2000 years ago in the Christian gospels. I'm not sure the majority of Jews today would connect the insult with modern Judaism, but I could be wrong. IMO you could probably avoid the need for a citation by saying "some" or "many" Jews today are insulted by the word (in what I think would be a totally acceptable use of a weasel word in this instance).

The phrase about anti-Semitism could also be considered unnecessarily inflammatory. This phrase should either be removed or be backed up by sources demonstrating a link between the New Testament description of Pharisees on present-day Christian attitudes toward Jews in general. But I would think many Christians today would not connect the Pharisees of 2000 years ago with Jews today, and so the descriptions generally don't lead to anti-Semitism. Speaking only for myself, for example, before I read this article, I had no idea that the Pharisees of that time had such an impact on Jewish history in general (and now being educated on the matter, I am still not moved toward anti-Semitism).

That is just my opinion. As a non-Jew, I'll refrain from making any changes to this statement myself.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look for a citation - normative Judaism today is pretty much Pharisaic Judaism, some of the details are different, like how long one waits between having eaten meat and when one can eat dairy - but would this kind of change have altered the Gospel portrait of the Pharisees? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the citations. That looks better. I rephrased the last sentence to clarify that it was the use of the word "pharisaical" that is considered anti-Semitic, since it could have been read that it was the New Testament account in general that was being considered anti-Semitic. That may be the case as well (some Jews considering the whole thing to be anti-Semitic), but that is argued (from both sides) in the very next paragraph.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is true that what is offensive is how the term "Pharisee" is used, and it doesn't matter who uses it that way. But the point is also that this usage - the identification of the Pharisees (rather than the Romans) as Jesus' oppressors and murderers, and the identification of Pharisees as arrogant, hypocritical, and overly strict legalists, has its origins in the Gospels. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian canon or the gospels themselves?

Again, I realize this is only a minor part of this article, but I think the paragraph regarding the contention that the late date of the formation of the Christian biblical canons argues for unreliablity of the New Testament's portrayal of the Pharisees of the time of Jesus needs some revision. I think the author means to question the particular gospel texts themselves and not when it was decided which texts would be included in the Christian bible. That is, I'm assuming that there weren't texts more favorable to the Pharisees that were left out of the canon, but I could be wrong. The contention that the gospel texts (written in the first century C.E.) represent anti-Jewish polemics should be the focus and not the formation of the canon in the 4th century. I feel the mention of the canon is misleading since it adds a couple hundred years into the timeline and refers to a time when the Christian church was much more removed from its Jewish roots. .--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The issue is not the selction of which Gospels, but rather modifications in the Gospels as they were transmitted, for example from before Paul led the Christian break from following Jewish law to after, or from before when the Christian community in Rome was largely Jewish, to later, when it was entirely Gentile (because of Roman persecutions against Jews). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The first mention of the Pharisees

The current article claims:

The first mention of the Pharisees is by the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, in a description of the "four schools of thought" (that is, sects, social groups, or movements) into which the Jews were divided in the 1st century CE.

Surely priority goes to that Pharisee -- and Christian convert -- Paul, whose boast of his Pharisaic background in his letter to the church at Philippi is 62 CE, antedating anything Josephus published. Dadofsam (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Yeah, the use of CE is understandable. It only seems silly if you haven't grown up in a situation where the world's standard calendar stems from a religion different from your own. And, by saying AD (in the year of our Lord) would violate your own faith since you'd be admitting that that religion's Lord was your own. Common Era or Christian Era is acceptable since it marks the time in which a common calendar system was established and marks when 'the Christian movement' began. Michinobu zoned (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Michinobu_zoned

---

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

Three problems with your statement:

1) Hanina ben Dosa was born 1 CE, after the time of Jesus.

2) Qumran Scrolls weren't discovered until 1947.

3) Qumran Scrolls belonged to the Essenes, who were a different faction from the Pharisees or Sadducees.

Although, what you said about those things were true, they really don't seem relevant to me. It is possible that the view of the Pharisees at the time of Jesus was different than it is now? What documentation is there which might show that the Pharisees condoned exorcisms? I'm not saying that there isn't, but I am wondering if there are any historical documents which might show that the Pharisees would've condoned performing exorcisms?

Additionally, I think that the blasphemy that the NT was stating that the Pharisees accused Jesus of, was that Jesus was God. Which is understandable, since most people would naturally assume that any guy coming off of the street and said he was God was either lying or crazy.

Even if the Pharisees did perform miracles themselves at the time (which they might have), the NT was not saying that the Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy by healing people but by saying he was God. Michinobu zoned (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)michinobu_zoned

---

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

To say that passages of the NT were not written during Jesus' lifetime sounds a little pre-critical (any serious scholar knows this) and misses the point. I think the point is that they were written after the events themselves -- that is, they were written in a period marked by strife between Rabbis and a budding Christian movement. It should be noted that they were possibly motivated by religious polemics. However, to maintain a NPOV, I don't think you can fairly say that they were "invented." Kyleddres (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to represent all notable views. If there is a notable view that they were invented, we need to include that view. If there is a notable view that they were motivated by religious polemics, we need to include that view. It doesn´t matter whether you (or I) consider a view fair or not. If it is notable, it should go in. Now, I happened to put a lot of work into this article but admit that it may not include all notable views and also that the views it does include are not always properly cited. I´d be glad if you or anyone else helped by adding additional notable views with proper citations, and, if possible, a context for such views (i.e. is this a view held mostly by theologians or historians? Is there a debate among historians?). If you are saying that the views expressed are not notable, that is one thing. But if you agree that they are notable, verifiable views but your opinion is they mss the point or are unfair ... sorry, that is not a reason to remove them. Can you expand on your thoughts by naming some of the sources/proponents of notable views you feel should be represented here? That would be a big step forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Chadisism started in the 18th century C.E. Although we do find this term used in tefilah (al hatzadikim v'al hachasidim) which stems from the period of Anshe Kineses Hagdolah, Chasidim as universally understood, applies to the 18th century period and later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.161.171 (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Origin of P'rushi

"The word Pharisees (lat. pharisæ|us, -i) comes from the Hebrew פרושים perushim from פרוש parush, meaning "set apart""

This claim is incorrect, and should be edited. The Greek word Pharisaios comes from the Hebrew word P'rushi, which comes from the verb l'parésh, which means "to explain." P'rushi means "explainer" as in "explainer of the Torah." This is precisely the function which the Rabbanim and their predecessors carried out. Far from setting themselves apart, the Pharisees were actively involved in trying to bring all of the people into observance.

The author is apparently confusing this with "P'rushim" which is used in the Talmud to speak of various types or groups who distinguish or cut themselves off from the whole of the people in one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.146.166 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, but someone would need to provide a source for this etymology (especially since the current one is sourced).--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oct 2009??? It doesn't look like anyone has responded to this in any way since Nomadic Whitt. I too would like to see a source for this. The "traditional" etymology has never settled well with me as in didn't really make logical sense (if you are imaginative and stretch logic, it does, halakah fences and all, but when a group gets named, stretching logic is not what normally happens). The etymology given by 72.17.146.166 (whoever that may have been) makes logical sense, very much so. Does anyone have a source on hand (I'm lazy right now, and if I go looking for it myself at this point in time, it'll likely be a day of chain-reaction research — one thing leads to another). — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

To Explain is more lakie Lhasbir; I think that the anon means something more like to interpret. it is logical, but as anyone who has studied historical linguistics knows, logical etymologies are often wrong. So who knows, maybe this one is right, but what we ned is some citations by reliable historians of the 2nt emple period and linguists. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hellenism

Paste of material about Hellenism, not strictly topical.Kaisershatner (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Near East had long been cosmopolitan, and was especially so during the Hellenistic period. Several languages were used, and the matter of the lingua franca is still subject of some debate. The Jews almost certainly spoke Aramaic among themselves. Greek was at least to some extent a trade language in the region, and indeed throughout the entire eastern portion of the Mediterranean. Thus, historian Shaye Cohen has observed that

All the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period, of both the diaspora and the land of Israel, were Hellenized, that is, were integral parts of the culture of the ancient world. Some varieties of Judaism were more hellenized than others, but none was an island unto itself. It is a mistake to imagine that the land of Palestine preserved a "pure" form of Judaism and that the diaspora was the home of adulterated or diluted forms of Judaism. The term "Hellenistic Judaism" makes sense, then, only as a chronological indicator for the period from Alexander the Great to the Macabees or perhaps to the Roman conquests of the first century BCE. As a descriptive term for a certain type of Judaism, however, it is meaningless because all the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period were "Hellenistic."

Jews had to grapple with the values of Hellenism and Hellenistic philosophy, which were often directly at odds with their own values and traditions. Bath houses were built in Jerusalem, for instance, and the gymnasium became a center of social, athletic, and intellectual life. Many Jews embraced these institutions, although Jews who did so were often looked down upon due to their circumcision, which some Gentiles viewed as an aesthetic defacement of the body. Many Jews lived in the Diaspora, and the Judean provinces of Judea, Samaria, and the Galilee were populated by many Gentiles (who often showed an interest in Judaism). Under such conditions, Jews had to confront a paradox in their own tradition: their God was the God of all, but their covenant with God — the commandments and laws through which this covenant took material and practical form — applied only to them. This tension between the universal and the particular in Judaism led to new interpretations, some of which were influenced by Hellenic thought and in response to Gentile interest in Judaism. Generally, the Jews accepted foreign rule when they were only required to pay tribute, and otherwise allowed to govern themselves internally. Nevertheless, Jews were divided between those favoring hellenization and those opposing it, and were divided over allegiance to the Ptolemies or Seleucids. When the High Priest Simon II died in 175 BCE, conflict broke out between supporters of his son Onias III (who opposed hellenization, and favored the Ptolemies) and his son Jason (who favored hellenization, and favored the Seleucids). A period of political intrigue followed, with priests such as Menelaus bribing the king to win the High Priesthood, and accusations of murder of competing contenders for the title. The result was a brief civil war. Huge numbers of Jews flocked to Jason's side.

Roman Judaea

Interesting content, not germane to article. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC) After Herod's death in 4 BC, various radical Jewish elements rose in revolt: Judas in the Galilee (or Judas of Galilee), whose followers tore down the Roman Eagle that had adorned the Temple; Simon in Perea, a former slave of Herod, who burned down the royal palace at Jericho, and Athronges in Judea, a shepherd who led a two-year rebellion. The Syrian legate Publius Quinctilius Varus took command of Judea, Samaria, and the Galilee, and immediately put down the uprisings, killing thousands of Jews by crucifixion and selling many into slavery. Rome quickly re-established governance and divided Herod's kingdom among his sons: Archelaus received the southern part of the territory (Judea and Samaria), Herod Antipas became tetrarch of the Galilee and the southern Transjordan (Peraea), and Philip received the northern Transjordan (Batanaea).

Archelaus antagonized the Jews as his father had, and in 6 CE the emperor Augustus acceded to a delegation by placing Judea and Samaria under the indirect rule of a Roman procurator (or prefect), and the direct rule of a Roman-appointed high priest instead, see Iudaea province. During this period Judea and Galilee were effectively semi-autonomous client-states under Roman tribute. For the most part, Jews were willing to pay tribute, although they complained when it was excessive, and absolutely refused to allow a graven image in their Temple although some emperors considered imposing one. The primary tasks of the tetrarch and high priest were to collect tribute, convince the Romans not to interfere with the Temple, and ensure that the Jews not rebel.

In 57 BCE the Proconsul Cabineus established five regional synhedria (Sanhedrins, or councils) to regulate the internal affairs of the Jews. The Sanhedrinae was a legislative council of 71 elders chaired by the high priest, that interpreted Jewish law and adjudicated appeals, especially in ritual matters. Their specific composure and powers actually varied depending on Roman policy.

4 Sects and BCE?

The Sources section starts with a statement that there were — according to Josephus — the 1st century BCE was divided into 4 sects. However, Josephus actually describes (in both Wars and Antiquities) 3 sects in the 1st century BCE, but after the census revolt in 6 CE, a 4th sect arose, originally lead by Judas the Galilean. So, that should be 3 sects BCE, 4 sects CE. — al-Shimoni (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

From_Pharisees_to_Rabbis confusing at parts

In the section [[1]], one paragraph begins "After the destruction of the First Temple, Jews believed that God would forgive them and enable them to rebuild the Temple – an event that actually occurred within three generations. Would this happen again?" I can't make heads or tails of this. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just that it doesn't make a lot of sense to a lay person. Could someone who understands what is trying to be said please rewrite this in a more clear way? Sincere thanks. Wickedjacob (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is clear to me. o can you help me understand the source of unclarity? What do you think it means? Or, do you see two different equally plausible meanings? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

blog essays, rather than composing them in Wikipedia

Christians and Pharisees is a constructed essay to defend Pharisees from what they see as Christian infairness (and to argue veracity of the Scriptures). It's interesting and all, but it's OR. People should blog that stuff. Not write it up in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.150.236 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

it is supported by reliable secondary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dogma in Pharisees' Judaism

The second paragraph of the section The Pharisaic legacy | Free will and predestination consists mostly of statements about Josephus's motivations and about the role of theology and dogma in Second Temple(?) Judaism that are unsourced, debatable, overly broad in scope, and off-topic. Either the paragraph should be removed -- my own preference -- or the claims in it should be properly attributed to reliable sources, with dissenting opinions also acknowledged in an NPOV manner. In this regard it may be helpful to consult Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, by Solomon Schechter. It should also be made clear that, insofar as such claims are supportable, they apply only to the historical period being discussed. Statements about what "Judaism itself is" and about what factors "continue to define Judaism" will almost surely be controversial, and thus incompatible with NPOV, and they are also off-topic in an article on a historical subject. Davidhof (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. "Judaism is non-creedal" is a common idea, but in many ways it's either a myth or a strange use of words. If someone in the first century CE were to say, "I follow the religion of Israel, and I worship seventeen gods including Apollo and Dionysius," their fellow first-century Jews would have though this absurd. Therefore, first-century Judaism (the religion) was creedal in the sense that certain beliefs (such as worshipping seventeen gods) were incompatible with it. On the other hand, "non-creedal" can also mean "does not recite a specific creed word-for-word," in which case Judaism and many Protestants and Muslims are non-creedal. Or perhaps the writer means that being Jewish is not a religion but an ethnicity, and that's another debate.

The fact remains that all the extant sources that describe Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes in the first century CE refer to their beliefs. If a modern scholar wants to argue that all these sources are wrong, that's fine, but we would need to cite that scholar, and note it as a minority view. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Pharisee = Parsi = Persians?

Does anyone know if the term Pharisee is a term given to them denoting their origin in Persia? eg: Parsi/Farsi -> Pharisee. WjtWeston (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

When a lengthy article about post-Exilic Judaism doesn't even mention the central influence of Zoroastrianism, would one expect it to mention that?2605:6000:1800:6D:FDFB:FA22:2078:2726 (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

From the lead "Pharisees (Latin pharisæus, -i; from Hebrew פְּרוּשִׁים pĕrûšîm, pl. of פָּרוּשׁ pārûš, meaning “set apart”, Qal passive participle of the verb פָּרָשׁ pārāš,[1][2] through Greek φαρισαῖος, -ου pharisaios[3])". Editor2020 (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There should at least be a mention of this alternative origin of the term! The meaning of Pharisee is still debated today by a number of religious thinkers: see Brian McLaren's book "The Last Word and the Word After That", Hannah M.G.Shapero's article "Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrystomath (talk • contribs) 08:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree — I am aware of a number of groups where this is quite debated or asserted. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Practically all scholars now agree that the name "Pharisee" derives from the Hebrew and Aramaic parush or persushi..." Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. The Westminster Press, 1987. P. 159. Shaye Cohen is currently at Harvard. He was a professor of mine back at the Jewish Theological Seminary, NY. There is absolutely no relationship with "Parsi/Farsi."--Jlapidus (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

/* Karaites and Pharisees */ added pov and self published tags

Upon further review I believe this final section should be removed. My reasoning is as follows: 1.this article is a historical article, if there is a movement in Judaism today that is styled after the Karaites, it belongs on a page about present day judaism. It has no interaction with the Pharisees. 2. I question the truthfulness of this section and the one website itso copypastaed from. Humanjf (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is in fact copypasted from another source, would not this be Plagiarism? Dimadick (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Truthful

Wow! Someone should erect a monument for this article and the following sentence:

"Outside of Jewish history and literature, Pharisees have been made notable by references in the New Testament to conflicts with John the Baptist[5] and with Jesus."--37.230.21.9 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pharisees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryid=429&rsid=478
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725052808/http://thesis.anu.edu.au/public/adt-ANU20030917.151913/ to http://thesis.anu.edu.au/public/adt-ANU20030917.151913/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Role of the Pharisees, and their Relationship with the Romans

Given that the primary reason the Pharisees are notable is their role in the crucifixion of Christ, I think the Article would be improved by giving additional information about what their role was at the time of the crucifixion. As I understand it, the Pharisees were "local governors" and the Romans were an "Occupying force" who's primary purpose for being there was the collection of taxes, and the Romans used the local administrative infrastructure of the Pharisees in order to collect them. Which was one reason why both the Pharisees and the Romans were resented by the local population. It makes no sense to me to present the Pharisees as a standalone element outside of their historical context, with no mention of their role in the primary reason why they are noteworthy.2605:6000:6FC0:25:70F7:DBF:A3F2:E86D (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You understand incorrectly. Pharisees were one of several Jewish religious movements at the time, somewhat similar to Catholics and Protestants today. That is their main significance. Ar2332 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup. And, it is likely that many of the early Jewish Christians were Pharisees. At least one, the apostle Paul is known to have been, and he used Pharisee doctrine as argument supporting the Christians' beliefs (namely, the belief in resurrection of the dead, which was part of the Pharisee belief system). Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Terminology about "Testaments"

The terms "New Testament" and "Old Testament" are just a Christian POV. They should be replaced by neutral terms such as "Christian Bible" or "Christian Scriptures", and "Hebrew Bible" or "Hebrew Scriptures". Dori1951 (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Upharsin

Is Pharisee a cognate of [MENE, MENE, TEKEL,] UPHARSIN"? If so, should it be mentioned? --Error (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Precedence

The first historical mention of the Pharisees and their beliefs comes in the four gospels and the Book of Acts,[...]

A later historical mention of the Pharisees comes from the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus (37–100 CE)

Are we sure that the gospels and acts precede Josephus? I was under the impression that the dates of the gospels are uncertain and different for each of the work? Should the article be made less definitive? "An early historical mention", "Another historical mention"? --Error (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)