211
murder of an 'am hanrcts: under certain circum- stances permissible, and declares that tlio hatred of the 'am haarcts is greater than that of the Gentiles against Israel.
(i) Their attitude to the Gentiles. — As we have noted above, at one time a missionary propafianda was carried on among (iontiles. Manifestly this was in o|)i)osition to tlie I'harisaii- tendency to- wards exclusiveness, and it was the latter that conquered. The increasing restivene.ss under the Roman domination which culminated in the great war was a decisive factor in this struggle of prin- ciples. Probably a short time before the fall of the city eighteen points of diti'erence between the schools of Hillel and Shanimai, all dealing with relations with Gentiles, were decided in favour of the Shammaists, the more rigid school. One of the decisions forbade the learning of Greek (Mislina, Shabb. xiii. 6 ; see H. Graetz, Geschichtcder Jnden, Berlin, 1S56, Eng. tr., ii. [London, 1891] 131 fl.). We may take it that this ended all missionary enterprise, and that after the fall of the city the exclu.sive tendency reigned supreme.
5. Pharisaism and Christianity. — In saying what was the attitude of Pharisees to Christianity, we are in danger of arguing from isolated and there- fore perhaps exceptional cases. In the Gospels we find that while Jesus carries on a sharp polemic against the class. He has friendly relations with individuals (6.17. Simon the Pharisee), and that, on the other hand, certain of the Phai'isees {e.q. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) were friendly towards Him. Arguing from the known tendency of the Pharisees to be moderate in judgment, and from the delinite illustrations of it which we have ( Ac 534ff. .239)^ ,yg joay hold that as far as the persecutions in .Jerusalem are concerned, the main responsibility at least does not lie on the Pharisees. On the other hand, in the case of Stephen we know that Saul the Pharisee 'was consenting unto his death ' (8'). Saul also on his own confession was specially strong in urging persecution (26-'"" ; cf. 8'). And outside Palestine it cannot be doubted that the Pharisee scribes were instigators of popular tumults against Christians.
When we remember that the Pharisees with all their faults were the leaders of Jewish piety, and the orthodox theologians, it is clear that it is difficult to overestimate the part they played in preparing the way for Christianity. St. Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, and what would Christianity have been but for him? It was tlie Pharisees who settled the OT canon, and the Chris- tian Church accepted it. Pharisees developed the Messianic hope, distinguished the Church from the State, taught a religion tliat was independent of priests and Temple, developed doctrines of im- mortality, resurrection, and judgment to come, that with only little modilication passed into Chris- tian theology. The best of the Pharisees under- stood the inwardness of the Law as Jesus taught it, and some of His most characteristic sayings are to be found in almost identical form in the sayings of the Rabbis. The missionary propaganda did in- calculable service in preparing for that of the Church. The Pharisaism of the best period, when it was a progressive, democratic, missionary move- ment, became the inheritance of Christianity.
Pharisaism, or something very like it in its de- generate form, was imported into the Church by Jewish Christians (see Ebionism). St. Paul is meritorious not more as the Apostle of the Gentiles than by the fact that he, a former Pharisee, saw so clearly the danger of this incipient neo-Pharisa- ism with its exclusiveness and ' desire to be under the law,' and combated it so successfully. While the statement in the JE (ix. 665) that in the Gospels the word ' Pharisee ' has been substituted
for an original 'Sadducee' in the denunciations of Jesus is to be mentioned only as a curiosity, ac- cording to the evidence we possess, it has to be said tliat the Church paid back with interest the persecutions and calumnies she suliered from tlio Jews. How .soon this anti-Judaism began, and to what extent if any it is pre.sent in the NT writings, are problems that require investigation.
LlTERATCRR.^ — The only authorities aro the Gospels, Acts, and .Toaophiis (paHsaj,'es rcferrefi to above). From a mass of Rab. binical writing's, a few details may l>e gathered wiiich add little to our knowledge. Works on the Pharisees and Sadducees are niniierous. We need refer the reader only to E. Schiirer, IIJP n. ii. (Ediidmrgh, 188.1] H. ; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Books of the Apocrypha, their Origin, Teaching, and Contents, London, 1914 ; W. Bousset, Die ReUglon des Jiutenlutns iin neatest. Zeitatter, Berlin, 1903; also to articles in IJDIl, DCG, EDi, JE, Elirn. "w. D. NiVKN.
PHENICE.— See Phcenicia, Phcenix.
PHILADELPHIA (*tXtt5A0eto, T WH -fa).— Philadelphia w;is called after its fotmder. King Attains II. Philadelphus of Perganios (L5!)-188 B.C.), whose surname marked his atl'ection for his brother and predecessor, Eumenes ir. Philadel- phia occupied a strong and commanding position in the valley of the Cogamus, an allluent of the Hermus, at the N.E. base of Mt. Tmolus (Boz Dagh), where Lydia, Phrygia, and Mysia met. Northward and eastward from the city stretched a great volcanic plateau, the Katakekaumene or ' Burnt Region' — called also the Decapolis — whose famous vintages were one of Philadelphia's chief sources of revenue. The important trade-route from Smyrna (83 miles west) branched at Phil- adelphia, one branch going N.E. through Phrygia and the other S.E to the citiesof the Lycus Valley. The city was founded for the spread of the Greek language and culture in Lydia and Phrygia, but it made little impression upon the old deep-rooted Anatolian nature-religion.