Timeline for Who were the Pharisees?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2023 at 15:16 | comment | added | Dan Fefferman | I would not say the Pharisees controlled the Sanhedrin "only rarely." | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 14, 2014 at 15:09 | comment | added | J. C. Salomon | Regarding the use of the term perushim, Pharisees, my personal conjecture: Josephus implies that was the term in use at the time. The Talmud was written some centuries later at which point the libelous definition might have taken root, so that word was avoided. Alternatively, the term might have been used as a political identifier both for the Rabbis and for the unlearned folk who followed them, so a more narrowly-defined word (chaver, a “fellow” of the study-hall) was used instead. | |
| Aug 14, 2014 at 15:02 | comment | added | J. C. Salomon | @BruceJames, this discussion touches strongly on my answer; note that I’ve added links to the Soncino translation of Sotah 22b there. I’ll disagree with you on the value of that translation: while being far more difficult to read, it preserves the “feel” of the Aramaic original quite well. | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 17:36 | comment | added | Bruce James | BTW, I recognize that the translation of the Talmud you are using is the Soncino; but there is a reason why the Soncino is publicly available on-line now -- it is not highly respected unlike the new Schottenstein edition of the Talmud published by Art Scroll (which you have to pay for). The Soncino is a poor translation in many places and often unreadable. The Gemara is written like telegrams, using few words and requiring more analysis and contextual study. That's why the margins of the Aramaic version are filled with commentaries. | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 17:33 | comment | added | Bruce James | When the rabbis want to teach the personal attributes appropriate to one of their own, they would use the word "chaver" -- literally "friend", but in context, someone you can trust. There are numerous quotations scattered through the Talmud that explain how to recognize a chaver. Also, a study partner is called a chavruso. | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 17:29 | comment | added | Bruce James | The Pharisees had a merit-based system. As one learned more, and could accurately recite the law as taught by previous teachers, and were themselves righteous, they would literally move up and up row by row in the Academy. Moral set backs would literally send one to the back rows. Rabbi Meir, for example, had the greatest learning, but his personal judgment at times was dodgey, and he was never given a position of leadership. | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 17:25 | comment | added | Bruce James | I had to pull out Sotah, to see what's really on the page. The original Aramaic uses the word perush which can mean Pharisee but not in this context. In this context, the rabbis (real Pharisees) are talking about seven kinds of ascetics (phony Pharisees) who want the honor of being a Pharisee but don't have the credentials. I've studied Talmud for years and all of the tractates, and I can't recall perush being used by the rabbis themselves as a self-describer. In Sotah they are clearly openly critical of these perushim, which further leads me to say it is not self-descriptive. (MORE) | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 16:55 | comment | added | Frank Luke | @BruceJames, so where do the descriptions of hypocritical pharisees come from in Sota 22b? | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 16:31 | comment | added | Bruce James | Frank, I assume from your bio that you are studying the Mishna and Gemara. You probably have noticed that these sources are brutally honest about the personalities of many of the rabbis (Rabbi Meir in particular). Yet, I see nothing resembling in these writings that in any way resemble their descriptions in the NT (which in almost all cases never names an individual Pharisee known to history). The exception is the praise for Rabban Gamliel in Acts, which closely resembles his description in the Mishna. | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 15:05 | comment | added | Frank Luke | @BruceJames, some of Jesus' interactions with Pharisees are positive and some are negative. The Talmud (Sota 22b) says there were 7 types of Pharisees, and most of those types were negative (definitely 5, maybe 6). Some read the God Quaker as negative, others as positive). Some of those types certainly are hypocrites: the shoulder wants his good deeds to be seen, the bruised closes his eyes to keep from seeing women (and thus be tempted) and walks into walls, the humpback walks in false humility. | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 14:44 | comment | added | Bruce James | Another example of how the NT seems to mischaracterize the Pharisees is in Matt. where Jesus instructs his followers to follow the teachings of the Pharisees to the letter, but to not do as they do. Had the sentence stopped there, it would have been a quotation of Jewish law, which teaches that one cannot learn law by watching individuals b/c they may have a special circumstance to be stricter or lenient at that moment. Bava Basra 130b-131a. The clause stating the Pharisees are hypocrites seems to undermine the force of Jesus' teaching, and implies it was a subsequent change in the text. | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 14:31 | comment | added | Bruce James | IMHO, some of the NT accusations against the Pharisees belong more properly to the Sadduccees. The Sadduccees did not believe in life after death, or punishment after death. They were entrenched in the Temple service and their members frequently bribed their way to become High Priest. In the final 100 years of the Temple, many were high priests, and barely lived a year after their appointment. Babl. Tal. Yoma 8b-9a (suggesting short life span because of their sins). Note all of the Gospels hold the trial of Jesus at the home of the High Priest, not at the Sanhedrin. | |
| Jun 27, 2013 at 19:31 | vote | accept | Frank Luke | ||
| Jun 20, 2013 at 18:45 | history | edited | Frank Luke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1705 characters in body
|
| Jun 20, 2013 at 16:44 | history | answered | Frank Luke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |