Talk:Pharisees

Karaite Judaism

The last section is pretty much copy and pasted from a sectarian Karaite website. It should either be deleted or opinions should be offered about how Rabbinic Jews see Karaites. Allow me to share some of these views: Karaites are anti-intellectual wannabee Sadducees who while incorporating older traditions are not Sadducees and were established long after said Sadducees were dead. The reasons for this are firstly because there Biblical canon is to my knowledge exactly the same as ours and we Rabbinic Jews find this odd because we would assume that they would use at least some of the Apocrypha in making there decisions even if they are not the direct word of G-d (a Karaite can correct this assumption if they like). Secondly if G-d had put all of the minutia of instructions regarding laws in Bible then we wouldn't have this problem but the Bible would be unwieldy he gave the minutia to humans to pass down and that is what he did. The Karaites do the same as it is impossible to interpret Deuteronomy 12:21 any other way (though they try to). In any case you could add these rebuttals to the bottom of the page, or get rid of the Karaite criticism section all together since this is not a forum that should be used for arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.217.173 (talk) 21:01, 2014 November 7 (UTC)

Role of the Pharisees, and their Relationship with the Romans

Given that the primary reason the Pharisees are notable is their role in the crucifixion of Christ, I think the Article would be improved by giving additional information about what their role was at the time of the crucifixion. As I understand it, the Pharisees were "local governors" and the Romans were an "Occupying force" who's primary purpose for being there was the collection of taxes, and the Romans used the local administrative infrastructure of the Pharisees in order to collect them. Which was one reason why both the Pharisees and the Romans were resented by the local population. It makes no sense to me to present the Pharisees as a standalone element outside of their historical context, with no mention of their role in the primary reason why they are noteworthy.2605:6000:6FC0:25:70F7:DBF:A3F2:E86D (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You understand incorrectly. Pharisees were one of several Jewish religious movements at the time, somewhat similar to Catholics and Protestants today. That is their main significance. Ar2332 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup. And, it is likely that many of the early Jewish Christians were Pharisees. At least one, the apostle Paul is known to have been, and he used Pharisee doctrine as argument supporting the Christians' beliefs (namely, the belief in resurrection of the dead, which was part of the Pharisee belief system). Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Terminology about "Testaments"

The terms "New Testament" and "Old Testament" are just a Christian POV. They should be replaced by neutral terms such as "Christian Bible" or "Christian Scriptures", and "Hebrew Bible" or "Hebrew Scriptures". Dori1951 (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Upharsin

Is Pharisee a cognate of [MENE, MENE, TEKEL,] UPHARSIN"? If so, should it be mentioned? --Error (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Precedence

The first historical mention of the Pharisees and their beliefs comes in the four gospels and the Book of Acts,[...]

A later historical mention of the Pharisees comes from the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus (37–100 CE)

Are we sure that the gospels and acts precede Josephus? I was under the impression that the dates of the gospels are uncertain and different for each of the work? Should the article be made less definitive? "An early historical mention", "Another historical mention"? --Error (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

unclear as to first conflict

Intro:

• Conflicts between Pharisees and Sadducees took place in the context of much broader and longstanding social and religious conflicts among Jews, made worse by the Roman conquest.
• Another conflict was cultural, between those who favored Hellenization (the Sadducees) and those who resisted it (the Pharisees)
• A third was juridico-religious, between those who emphasized the importance of the Second Temple with its rites and services, and those who emphasized the importance of other Mosaic Laws.

The 2nd bullet "another conflict" is phrased as if being the 2nd conflict mentioned.

But what is the first conflict mentioned?

The first bullet does not appear to discuss a particular conflict but rather presents and overview of the contexts in which multiple conflicts take place.

So it seems like "another conflict was cultural" should be rephrased something like "there were also cultural conflicts, one such being between ..." although I'm not sure I understand the specific differences between "cultural" and "social", are they not synonymous?

Given that "juridico-religious" seems like it could be viewed as at least a partial subset of "religious conflicts" it also seems like it would be an example of bullet one, rather than "a third (an) other". WakandaQT (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

See the section on this same talk page titled "Second Paragraph, Second Sentence."

It is my impression that the Sadducees were descended from those who revolted against the Seleucids and who OPPOSED Hellenization. Itinerantlife (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Second Paragraph, Second Sentence

As of December 15, 2022, the second sentence of the second paragraph claims that the Sadducees supported Hellenization. My understanding (which may be wrong) is that the Sadducees began as those who agreed with the Hasmoneans. The Hasmoneans came to power as a result of the revolt against the Selucids. This revolt began in opposition to Hellenization and to the policies of Antiochus IV.

My impression has always been that the Sadducees remained opposed to Hellenization as long as they existed as a group. Itinerantlife (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)