2. General position of Pharisees in the 1st cent. A.D. — In this article we confine ourselves to the period from the times of Christ to the close of the 1st century. For the previous history of Pharis- aism and the development and character of its tenets and practices, tlie reader must consult SDB and DCG. At the opening of our period we find the Pharisees noted for piety, learning, and strict observance of the Law. They were held in high esteem among the people (Jos. Ant. Xlll. x. 5, 6, XVII. ii. 4). Almost up to this point, indeed, they might be regarded as a people's party, the cham- pions of popular rights against the aristocratic Sadducees. They were the party of progress,
Against the Sadducees they represented a living faith, and their theologyjfctjis simply orthodox Jewish doctrine. They prelKted a religion for the people and conducted a missionary propaganda (Mt 23"^). At this time they had little direct political power, though they held some seats in the Sanhedrin (Ac 5^ 23"). But such was their influence with the people that the ruling Sadducees were largely amenable to their advice (Jos. Ant. XVIII. i. 4). Passionately devoted to the Law as they were, they interpreted and applied it in a more tolerant, generous sense than the Sadducees (Ant. XIII. X. 6, XX. ix. 1). No doubt it was among the Pharisees that the best type of Jewish character and piety was found. But in the Gospels
it is clear that the Pharisees, the popular party, were drawing themselves apart into a new aris- tocrac-y, and that the l^arty of progress had become rigidly conservative. Every one of their own in- terpretations of the Law was stereotyped. Their traditions were regarded with greater veneration than the original Law. In the accumulated mass of precepts all sense of proportion was lost. All true spirituality was in danger of sufibcation under the coiiiiilex of ritual and ccieiiiunial.
3. Pharisees and foreign domination. — Pharisa- ism attained its fullest development while there was a mere semblance of national indejiendencc, and nearly all civil power had passed from the Jews. No doubt this circumstance was of consider- able importance in enabling pious Jews to distin- guish between a Church and a nation (see Ijous.set, Religion des Judcntuins, p. 62 f.). How the Phari- sees regarded the rule of Herod and the Romans it is difficult to judge. On their attitude to Ilerod two different views will be found in HDB iii. 827 and Bousset [op. cit. p. 62 f.) respectively. The statement in the former that they abhorred Herod is too dogmatic (see Jos. Ant. XV. i. 1). Probably we should say that, while they were not enamoured of the rule of Herod, they submitted to it as a necessary evil. As to their attitude to Rome, matters are even less clear. We know that they discussed whether tribute should be paid (Mt 22""-). Further, the party of the Zealots who agitated for the overthrow of Roman power were an oti'-shoot from the Pharisees. Though Josephus is desirous of representing them as a distinct party, he is com- pelled to admit this (Ant. XVIII. i. 1, 6 ; BJ II. viii. 1 ). We may take it that certain of the Pharisees favoured political action, others deprecated it. The former were the Zealots, who were responsible for stirring up the great revolt which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, and involved the dis- appearance of the last shreds of Jewish national independence.
i. Effects of the Fall of Jernsalem. — This catastrophe, so calamitous in itself, came to the Pharisees, as to Jewish Christians, really as an emancipation. If the Church was henceforth free from serious Jewish persecution, and the distrac- tion of Judaizing propaganda, the Pharisees were free of their conflict with the Sadducees, who dis- appeared with Temple and priesthood. The Jews ceased to be politically a nation, but in reality they had ceased to be that long before. Judaism as a Church, a religious system, was not seriously affected by the loss of the Temple. For long the
firiests as a class had been declining in favour. For ong the real centre of religious life had been not the Temple but the Synagogue. Many influences had conspired to produce this result, but we cannot discuss them here (see Bousset, op. cit. p. 97 ff.). It was the great service of Pharisaism to Judaism that it liad so developed Jewish piety that the loss of the Temple was more of a relief than a disaster. The Pharisees set themselves more diligently than ever to the development of the Law. In two particulars the fall of the city seemed to harden ]?harisaic tendencies.
(a) Their attitude to the common people. — We noted how even in the time of Christ the Pharisee looked down upon the 'o.m haarets. Piety to the Pharisee was associated with culture. The peo]ile who knew not the Law were accursed (Jn 7'"). This tendency towards an exclusiveness of culture increased, and the breach widened between the Pharisee and the 'am haarets. The dealings of the Pharisee with the 'am haarets were as strictly limited and carefully regulated as his dealings with the Gentiles. Bousset (op. cit. p. 167) quotes a dictum of a certain Rabbi Eleazar, which forbids all transactions with the 'am haarets, makes the
PHARISEES
PHILADELPHIA