ut not all, are the work of fate; with regard to some events, it is in man’s power whether they happen or not. It is altogether improbable that the Pharisees spoke of ‘fate’; but the Psalms of Solomon bear witness to the substantial accuracy of Josephus’ statements. ‘Verily as for man— his portion is laid in the balance before Thee— he addeth not thereto nor increaseth contrary to Thy judgment, O God’ (5%). “Ὁ God, our works are in our choice, yea, in the power of our own soul; to do either righteousness or iniquity in the works of our hands. Whoso doeth righteousness layeth up for himself life at the Lorp’s hand: and whoso doeth wickedness is guilty of his own soul
* Ryle and James, op. cit. lil. ff.; Hiihn, Die messia: techen Welesagungen des teraclitisch-fadicchen Volker 91 ff. 1a
to destroy it’ (91.9)." The Pharisees believed in the omnipotence and providence of God, and therefore held that in human actions, good or bad, a co operation of God must be assumed. At the same time they insisted upon the freedom of man’s
ower of choice, and upon man’s responsibility. The Sadducees denied ‘ fate’ altogether, and 8 man the absolute master of his own destiny.
(6) Their separation from the mass A the people, their distinctive ‘Pharisaism.’ On all the above- mentioned points the Pharisees simply held what was common to later orthodox Judaism. But all our sources present them to us as a distinct party within the people, an ecclesiola in ecclesia.t This is implied also in the name that they bore. The name, Φαρισαῖοι, is derived from the Aramaic 19), stat. emphat. 375, and denotes ‘the separated ones.’ hether this name was given them by their adversaries (Schiirer, Montet, Edersheim) or adopted by themselves, } it connoted something more specific than the separation from the Gentiles, which, since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, was characteristic of all who would be genuine Jews It referred to their separation from the great mass of even their orthodox fellow-countrymen. The latter, however willing, were unable to observe strictly the minute prescriptions of the law as to foods and levitical purity; they were consequently unclean in the eyes of the Pharisees, who, in order to avoid all risk of being defiled, held aloof, as far as possible, from all intercourse with them. ‘Parush is one who separates himself from all uncleanness and from unclean food and from the people of the land, who are not scrupulous in the matter of food’ (Nathan ben Jechiel). The Phari- sees were thus the Separatists or Purists. The name, however, that they gave themselves was hiabértm (0729 ‘associates’), a name which also shows that they formed among themselves a close fellowship. A habér is one who, whether learned or unlearned, scrupulously observes the law, written and oral, more especially in respect of levitical purity, tithes, and all other religious dues. Ac- cording to the OT view each Israelite was the haber (7) of the other; the Pharisee acknowledged as his habér only him who scrupulously observed the law. These scrupulous observers of the law, and these alone, were the Adbérim, the genuine Israelites. The rest of the pene were simply the ‘am ha-arez, the people of the land, common persons, the vulgar herd. In the Books of Ezr (91 107») and Neh (107-*) this name was given to the heathen and half-heathen inhabitants of Pales- tine as distinguished from the Jews; as used by the Pharisees, it designated the mass of the people as distinguished from themselves, the real Israelites, the Israel according to the spirit.§
They were naturally unable to separate them- selves entirely from ‘the people of the land,’ and had therefore to draw up precise rules regulating their intercourse with them. ‘The f haber
* See Sir 1114: ‘Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches are from the Lord’ (cf. 337-15); 1511: ‘Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell. . ., it is He that caused me toerr... (The Lord) left man in the hand of his own counsel. If thou wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments; and to perform faithfulness is of thine own good pleasure. He hath set fire and water before thee; thou shalt stretch forth thy hand unto whichsoever thou wilt. Before man is life and death; and whichsoever he liketh, it shall be given him.’
+ According to Josephus (Ant. xvu. ii. 4) they numbered above 6000 in the time of Herod.
t Wellhausen (op. cit. 289) says it was a title of honour and called attention, not so much to their separation, as to their eminent piety.
§ The above paragraph summarizes Schiirer, GJ V8 ii. 396-403, & very full and lucid account of the matter; cf. also Weber, Jiidische Theologie, etc., 42-46; Edersheim, i. 311f. Schiirer remarks that the question, Who is my neighbour? (Lk 1029), waa & very important question to a Jew. The habér of a Rabbi was a Rabbi; the Aaber of a priest was a priest; the haber of am Israelite was an Israelite.
828
some leading Pharisees did not approve of their excesses (BJ IV. iii. 9); but he is forced to admit that it was a Pharisee, named Zadok, who along with Judas Galilzeus formed that party, and that the notions they held were those of the Pharisees (Ant. xvul.i. 1. 6, οἵ. BJ πι. viii. 1). The Zealots were the party of political action, and simply carried out the Pharisaic principles to their logical conclusion.