The Pharisees - a review of Kent Yinger's new book, The Pharisees their history, character and New Testament portrait
This book is well
researched and makes many excellent points. A more positive and nuanced view of
Pharisees is a real need in the churches today! The title of a recent and no
doubt worthy evangelical book, “Christian Pharisees”, highlights this!
In general, however,
the book does suffer from an under-utilization of Talmudic material, and from an
inadequate interaction with the very real criticisms of Jesus.
While stating that
he is a critical non-minimalist re sources, it is a great pity that he did not
make more use of the Talmud and Midrash Rabbah to flesh out his portrait of the
Pharisees. Clearly, some elements of the surviving Sadducees and
Essenes were incorporated into Rabbinic Judaism after the 66-73AD war with
Rome, but given that the Pharisees were already the most popular party, the one
the people listened to, that their leader escaped from Jerusalem to continue
their work, and that the war destroyed the base of the Sadducees, the Temple,
while the synagogues survived, and given their self-conscious
self-identification with the earlier Pharisees (Sages), continuity not
discontinuity with Pharisaism was the over-riding reality of the transition
from pre-war to post-war Judaism.
Much of the
problem seems to stem from the limited usage of the word Pharisee in these
works. “Pharisee” (separated one) was a derogatory term most commonly used by
their opponents and probably by the population at large (Derogatory nicknames
were common parlance at the time, and not taken too seriously. The Essenes
appear to have been referred to as “Herodians” during the Herodian era as they
approved of the cessation of the Maccabean high priesthood and were favored in
turn by Herod and his successors.) Pharisees called themselves “the Sages of
Israel”. No Sage is designated as a Pharisee in Talmudic literature. The term
is however found in the Talmud, both on the lips of their opponents (eg by
Sadducees in debates with them in both Yoma 19b and Niddah 33b) and also where the Sages address their own failings.
See for example the 7 woes of the Pharisees, Jer. Berakhot 9, 14b. (see
also p175). Curiously, these
negative connotations did not transfer when it was transliterated into Greek, with
both Josephus and Paul using it Greek in positive situations, and again
attesting to its widespread usage within Jewish society in Israel.
Other references to the Pharisees are also not given
the attention they deserve.
Concerning his footnote 3 on p51, when the writers of
the Essene Damascus Covenant (written pre-66, i.e. during the time of the
Pharisees) refer to their opponents as builders of the wall (“the builders of
the wall... are caught in fornication” DC 4:19) they are interacting with the
word play between builders and sons, a word play clearly both current and
recognized when they wrote, and also expressed in the Talmud, showing again the
close links between the Pharisees and the Talmudic sages. Equally, this point
of linkage is anything but trivial!
This concept of building a fence around the Torah (and Israel) is
central to Rabbinic Judaism – chapter 1, verse one of the Mishna; MAKE A FENCE
ROUND THE TORAH. Likewise, in the Talmud, in Berakot. 64a., the Sages refer to
their disciples as the builders, thereby linking the two ideas of the Mishna
into one, on the basis of the word play between בָּנַיְ and בֹּנֵי re Isaiah 54:13; “R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hanina: The disciples of the wise
increase peace in the world, as it says, And all thy children shall be taught
of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children. Read not
banayik [thy children] but bonayik [thy builders].” That this reasoning
was present both pre-war (DSS) and post-war (Mishna) again bears witness to the
overwhelming continuity between them.
More generally, to
understand the world of the Pharisees, 2 central facts are needed.
1.
Bedrock
is the Babylonian destruction of the state/temple 500 years earlier. This drove
home the reality of God and that he punished sin. Now, the righteous remnant
were supposed, in the public’s understanding, to serve as a conduit to the
restored, righteous post-exilic nation.
2.
The less-than-ideal nature of the
post-exilic community fundamentally challenged this worldview. This
discontinuity between the historic remnant and the godly remnant created a
crisis of identity, between the individual’s loyalty to and identification with
the community the “all Israel” which was so fundamental to the doctrine, and
the individuality/sectarian identity required by Isaiah and the godly remnant
motif. Individuals had to pursue godliness, and yet be loyal to a community
that did not live up to its eschatological promise. The sharpest charge
levelled against the Pharisees was that in their striving for personal
godliness, they separated themselves from “am Yisrael”. This charge is
encapsulated in their popular moniker.
The powerful and contradictory impulses this unleashed
were not resolved until 90 AD.
This tension is evidenced in the increasingly
sectarian writings of the intertestamental period, as different Jewish
movements try to claim for themselves the identity both of the “true” remnant,
and “all Israel”. This is true of the Essenes, the communities of 1 Enoch,
Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Pharisees, and followers of “the Way”.
It is this tension that creates the society of the New Testament. Note also
that these different groups relied on their interpretation of the Law to
justify their claims.
With this society in general wanting to please God,
the parties that form are religious sects/denominations, each majoring on
differing ways of how that should be done. How do we please God? The four main
Jewish sects/answers were;
The Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and the
Zealots (not technically a sect).
The Pharisees majored on obedience as the way to God.
They were all about obeying the Law given by God to Moses. They were middle
class, centred in the Synagogues throughout the villages, and were trying to
teach the masses what the Law required. As part of this, they vigorously
promoted public education and the establishment of schools throughout Israel.
They did so during the Hasmonean time, where the Jerusalem Talmud records
Simeon ben Shetah, who was president of the Sanhedrin during the reigns of
Alexander and Salome, ordained that “children go to school,” and again while
the Romans ruled. Of this, we read; “Joshua ben Gamala came and ordained that
teachers of young children should be appointed in each district and each town
and that children should enter school at the age of six or seven.” Girls also
had some education, and we read of several women who were renowned for their
scholarship. Josephus multiple times says that it was the Pharisees who had the
greatest impact on the people and describes them as “the leading sect”. See “The Jewish People in the First Century, Volume 2”, by
Shmuel Safrai, David Stern, David Flusser, 946-948. I was therefore puzzled by
Professor Yinger’s dismissal of education during the time of the Pharisees with
the brief comment that during their time, there were “no public schools or
mandatory education” p47. There is also the curious comment on p185 (also p40)
which affirm the resurrection as a Pharisaic belief (quoting from Josephus,
Mark and Acts), then questions if there is any linkage between this and the
same belief found in rabbinic texts, and finally states that is a
Hellenistically influenced belief, at odds with their earlier anti-Hellenistic,
Maccabean roots. This seems unnecessary, given that Jesus finds the
resurrection in the Torah, and 2 Maccabees (7:14, 12:43) also stresses it.
Sadly, people being people, all of these groups
suffered from the corruption of their ideals.
Obedience too easily became legalism, even to making
up of your own rules, and self-righteousness. Sacrifice shrivelled to ritual
and politics. Purity became exclusion, and freedom became unrestrained
violence.
Now, while the
Sadducees had distinct beliefs, if you focus on these, you miss the point. They
were aristocrats, focused on political power (described in the DSS as “those
who rule over Israel”). The problem was that it was the priests with their
aristocratic allies who had ruled Judea from the time of Ezra. So the
priesthood had to embrace secular power, only to find that secular concerns
increasingly dominated them – one of the reasons they denied the resurrection –
they were taking their eyes off God! Jesus told them "You are in error
because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
There was a reason why God did not give the priesthood and the kingship to the
one tribe, and why the people were longing for the son of David!
The Pharisees on
the other hand were a lay grouping who derived their authority from their
leaning. They also willingly acknowledged the importance of the priests and the
Temple. So, another simplified way of looking at it is that Pharisees were
religious, focused on God, Sadducees were political, focused on power, the
Essenes liked a social gospel (still profoundly religious), and the Zealots
were revolutionaries (focused on power through violence).
But the best of
the Pharisees were indeed focused on God. Compare the Sadducean High Priest’s
reply in John 11:48-50, a purely political/pragmatic judgement, with a
“Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the
people” (to quote Acts 5:34) “Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their
purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able
to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
(Acts 5:38-39) a profoundly religious response.
Now, the vast majority of Jews did not belong to any
particular party (there were about 6,000 Pharisees, 4,000 Essenes). Equally,
you could change parties as you saw fit. The Jewish historian Josephus was born
a Sadducee, became an Essene in his wild, rebellious years and ended up a
Pharisee. People in general looked at the different sects quite closely and
drew their own conclusions. “I like the way the Essenes do charity, the
Sadducees are a bit stuck up, but honestly, the ones I like best are those
Pharisees. In the villages, teaching the people. It’s a lot of work, but they
are what a Jew really should be, if I had to choose, I’d probably join them.
It’s just a shame they act like they are better than the rest of us.” While the
Pharisees neither built nor led synagogues, the synagogue was their natural
meeting place, see 45, fn39.
This popularity carried with it its own problems. When
society is hungering after God, and also divided into different sects, then
people seeking not God but public approval will likewise join the most popular
group. The hypocrisy of some Pharisees is thus understood - in a divided
society, where a few are recognized as being more religious than the rest, and
are honoured for it, it is not surprising that hypocrites will be attracted to
such status and join such groups. That is, hypocrisy was not intrinsic to
Pharisaism, but is explained by their popularity within a divided, religious
society. This makes Jesus’ criticisms even more relevant to the divided
churches of today. It is of interest that the Pharisees themselves recognized
such problems, four of the “woes of the Pharisees” in the Talmud deal with
hypocrisy, and that with the triumph of Rabbinic Judaism (90AD), the standards
became normative, and the problem died down. Even anti-Jewish polemics of the
second century did not accuse the Jews then living of the charge. See D.
Flusser, 1989: 27-30. See also M. Weinfeld, “The Jewish Roots of Matthew’s
Vitriol”, Bible Review 13-5 (1997)
31.
Seeking popularity also feeds directly into the charge
in Matthew 27:18, that it was out of envy that he was handed over. (See
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews 13:402 for another example of Pharisees acting
out of envy.)
To dismiss as hyperbole Jesus’ criticisms of the
Pharisees (e.g., p159) therefore goes against the available evidence. It also
attacks the truthfulness, mercy and love of the Son of God. Professor Yinger
rightly dismisses the view that such criticism is not original to Jesus (p159,
161), but is wrong when he says such language was invective, not historical
description. We are continually told the masses loved what he said, attacking
the most popular party falsely would not achieve that. His harsh criticisms rang
true to the masses.
While the Pharisees had many excellent qualities, they
did also have specific faults, and Jesus well describes these as a warning to
both them and to others who might otherwise have followed into this error.
Thankfully, many did heed this warning and believe in Jesus. In Acts,
non-believing Pharisees are always viewed in a positive light, and Paul was
able to use the strengths of his Pharisaic training in his writings to the
church at Corinth (see Tomson, “Paul
and the Jewish Law”).
A Pharisaic protest over the death of James, the
brother of Jesus?
Professor Yinger rightly highlights the importance of akribeia/precision
within Josephus descriptions of the Pharisees. He also mentions on p44 Josephus
view that they were “naturally lenient in the matter of punishment.” In a book
with the honourable aim of improving their image within gentile Christian
circles, it was therefore a surprise that he did not explore the possibility
that it was the Pharisees who protested to Agrippa II re the death of James,
the brother of Jesus. The possibility is highly to their credit, and Christians
especially would benefit from being aware of it.
James, while known for his personal devotion to the
Law, was instrumental in admitting gentiles into the church without first
requiring that they become Jews (Acts 15). He was later killed by the High
Priest Ananus II on the charge of having “violated the Law”. What is more,
Josephus records that those in the city who were regarded as “most mild and as
precise as regards the Law” (Josephus, Jewish
Antiquities, 20. 200-202.), were distressed by this and sent to King
Agrippa II, this being one of the triggers of the Jewish War. (The “most
notable” Pharisees opposed the war, p25, 43.)
The identity of those “most mild / and as precise as
regards the Law” is not given, but the second phrase is used three times by
Josephus to describe the Pharisees and highlighted by Professor Yinger. Josephus
also contrasts the mildness of the Pharisees in John Hyrcanus’ day with that of
the Sadducees, and elsewhere says they are known for their leniency re
punishments. The combination here, and lack of designation “Pharisee”, may well
point to the Pharisees still known for their mildness, the minority Beit
Hillel. (Beit Shammai also aligned more with the Sadducees at this time of
drift to war.) James in any event died, either for the perceived Lawlessness of
his community (unlikely, see Acts 21:20), or for his decision “opposing the
Law” as regards gentiles at the Jerusalem Council - to the surprise and anger
of Beit Shammai, who also killed Hillelites for defending gentile rights
(Josephus makes it clear that his death had been desired for some time). It is
quite possible therefore, that James died because of his defence of gentile
freedoms at the Council of Jerusalem, and that at least some Pharisees were so
distressed by this that they risked war with Rome to protest the act.
Professor Yinger is to be commended for his good
intentions, and also cautioned re several important concerns.
Positive
I loved the description that Pharisees “were not the
bad, hypocritical Jewish ‘other’, but serious pursuers of God and holiness.” P185.
Professor Yinger
rightly stresses that Jesus was faithful to the Law, keeping all of its
requirements p96, 98-99, 107, 110 “God told Israel to be concerned with
purity”, 118 (see Phil 2:8, Rom 5:18, Heb 5:8). That this needs to be said is
remarkable, but if Jesus had broken any of the Law (James 2:10) he would have
been disqualified from saving us. It is not simply a matter of Jesus having a
more relaxed purity praxis! Professor Yinger rightly commends Thiessen’s “Jesus
and the Forces of Death”.
Professor Yinger
is also right that Paul never ceased to be a Pharisee, p181-2. (See also Tomson
for more excellent work on this!)
Concerning Paul and Gamaliel, Professor
Yinger rightly rejects the arguments against the historicity of Acts 5. It
is of interest that both ben Zakkai (in Deuteronomy Rabbah 7:7) and Paul (Acts
14:15-17) are recorded as using the identical verses in the identical way when
being in a difficult situation with Gentiles. As both were students of
Gamaliel, this is unsurprising. Speaking to an educated audience, ben Zakkai
explains the exegesis behind them, while Paul adds an important note of
Messianic fulfilment. See The Expository Times, 108/12, p366-7.
Negative
Professor Yinger struggles with the central problem in
his book – in a work written to help Christians have a kinder, more nuanced
view of the Pharisees, what to do with the words of Jesus? Are they just 1st
century invective, exaggeration etc? The very thing he says we should not do??
Is he embarrassed by the words of his saviour? We need to take Jesus’ criticism
seriously. And this leads us to the central paradox/grief of the Pharisees.
1. They
were the best of Israel, but still they lacked the ability to attract the
masses. For all their good intentions, they were unable to satisfy the deep
spiritual needs of the people. Out of a population of over 1 million, only
6,000 were Pharisees. “When
he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and
helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36). The
Pharisees are both admired by the crowds and called Pharisees by the crowd –
those who do think they are better than the rest of us. And most tragic of all,
while trying so hard to please God and aid Israel (p33 makes the good point of
their emphasis being on “how do we preserve our people”, and this was
inseparable from “how do we obey God”), they fail to recognise the Son of God
walking in their midst.
2. It
is the paradox/tragedy of Simon (Luke 7:36), a Pharisee who ties to please God
and clean up his community, who presumably has opposed and tried to have driven
out a prostitute who lives by corrupting the youth, yet when Jesus visits their
village, it is she, not Simon who recognises him, even though Simon has invited
him for a meal. It is the agony of Paul when he writes that the Gentiles, who
were not seeking God have found him, while Israel who were seeking him with all
their might, have not (Romans 9:30-32).
They failed because they tried to seek him through
works. And they did so because the Law said those who do these things shall
live (Romans 10:5). Did the Law then deceive them? No! Jesus says “these things
you should have done”. The Law is perfect and true, but in the end incapable of
repairing a broken humanity. This does not mean it was a pointless diversion or
an exercise in futility, 1000 years of effort just to prove our depravity. Rather
(Romans 11), through Israel’s transgression salvation has both come to the
Gentiles and will eventually come to all Israel. While the Law made nothing
perfect, it did produce cultivated olive branches. This is a blessing! While
they need faith to be saved, “how
much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own
olive tree!” (Romans 11:24)
Professor Yinger fails to build a common ground
between the Pharisees and Jesus, by noting, for example, that all seven of
Hillel’s middot are also found in the New Testament and showing how Jesus’
reply to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:41-46 uses the 4th middah; shene
Ketuvim (two verses) to invite the
Pharisees to dialogue with him, a typically Pharisaic way of doing so.
Beyond all of
this, we need to see that Jesus was not abusing the Pharisees, that he was
accurately criticizing them both for their sakes and for the sakes of the
people, that both might turn and live. We can affirm the historicity of Jesus
words and see the heart and urgency behind them. The greatest truth to be found
on this topic in the New Testament is that Jesus loves the Jewish people and
loved the Pharisees. Our sermons need to reflect this.
In conclusion, Professor Yinger has written a mixed
work. It is to be hoped that its strengths may be enhanced, and its weaknesses
diminished in a future, much needed edition.
