Talk:Pharisees

NT views on Pharisees

I have no objection to a section on NT views of the Pharisees, but it should be presented in an NPOV style and should not dominate the article. I have removed the following; I think what remains is a workable stub Slrubenstein

In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses(Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). Paul, when brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6-8; 26:4, 5).

There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt. 12:39; 16:1-4).

From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people.

NPOV would seem to suggest saying that the 'New Testament' implies that the Pharisaical views were self-righteous and prideful. Some of the above comments (all three unsigned), in speaking of "our lord," hardly seem neutral. OtherDave 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a good deal of material. I hope others can add more. In general, I think the article could be improved by four more elements: first, more information on historical source materials (e.g. Josephus). Second, a review of scholarly debates over who the Pharisees were (e.g. Louis Finkelstein's view, and those of his detractors). Third, more specifics on Pharisee theology and jurisprudence -- what really were their innovations? Finally, we could revisit the section on the NT depiction of the Pharisees -- we could say more about recent historical scholarship on debates and conflicts between Pharisees and early Christians (post 70), and perhaps Talmudic views of Jesus, such as they are. Slrubenstein

Good work on improving the article, Slrubenstein. However I would like to add some suggestions.:

• Perhaps the article should list significant scholars/rabbis of the time who can be seen as representatives of it. Figures as Hillel the Elder and Shammai who formed different schools of thought seem to have had a lasting influence in Rabbinic Judaism. Examining its formation without even mentioning them sounds similar to discussing Western Philosophy without adressing the influence of Platon and Aristoteles.
• Historical source materials should probably include surviving extracts from rabbinic scriptures. The texts might represent their authors better than later evaluations of them.
• Recent scholarly debates and their conclusions would be useful. But we should perhaps examine older or even outdated interpretations suggested by scholars active in previous centuries. Just to give some historical perspective on the subject.
• The NT depiction of the Pharisees seems to focus too much on the Gospels. Acts of the Apostles features the relation between the early Christians and their contemporaries more prominently, arguably making it a better source for our subject of interest. User:Dimadick

Thanks -- and good points. If you are up to it, why not just start adding stuff? My only concern would be the structure of the article. I think a history of scholarly debates on the Pharisees should be in its own section (at the top or bottom of the article -- I am not sure what would be best). I don't think that there should be too much stuff on Hillel and Shammai (which could end up being a distraction) but there should definitely be links to these articles. Likewise, some more primary texts (but I think it is important to be selective, and contextualize texts), and some discussion of Acts. I am close to the limits of my own knowledge so I hope you will contribute to the article. Slrubenstein

Great article overall, but it seems to me that the section on "Pharisees and Christianity" might be a little unbalanced. The bulk of the section is devoted to arguments that the depiction of the Pharisess in the NT don't jive with what we would expect based on other sources, and that the whole deal could have been fabricated to win converts. Only one or two sentences give a vague description of Jesus' conflict with the Pharisees. Perhaps more specifics? betakate 19:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think that what you suggest would be more appropriate to an article on Jesus or Christianity. There is good reason to think that the NT accounts are not very good sources on the Pharisees, although certainly they provide good evidence of what early Christians thought of the Pharisees. But if you want to add a couple of concrete examples, I can't argue with that. I do however think it would be important — if we are using the NT accounts as evidence of Phariseic positions — to see if there is any independent corroboration that these were Phariseic views. Lacking corroboration we could still include the information you suggest, but whther there is or is not independent corroboration would be important information. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The Pharisees may have a role in the Christian world-view which is different from how either religious Jews, or academic scholars, might understand them. I have no problem presenting Christian religious doctrines about the Pharisees as long as they are clearly labeled as such, attributed, and placed in an appropriate section, so as not to be confused with either traditional Jewish (or Reform Jewish) or historians' perspectives. It's not uncommon for one religion to portray another as something of a straw character embodying a false view to which the "true" view is then compared, and Christianity seems to have chosen the Pharisees for this sort of treatment. I would certainly personally disagree with the way Christianity has historically portrayed the Pharisees, and certainly wouldn't want language like the above written as historical narration, but if it accurately represents Christian doctrine about the Pharisees, it belongs. Similarly, the Pharisees have a significant (and doctrinally-tinted) role in traditional religious Judaism which generally sees them in a positive light, and as representing more of continuity with the past than an academic historical perspective might perceive. (This is not the only Jewish perspective, for example, early in the history of Reform Judaism Reform rabbis also viewed them very negatively, although this perspective has been softened). These views also needs to be represented. The academic historical view also shouldn't generally be presented as fact or in narrator's voice, it should be presented as the view of identified academic historians. --Shirahadasha 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hasidim

"were one of the successor groups of the Hasidim (the "pious"), an anti-Hellenic movement that formed in the time of the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes"

Something isn't accurate about the Hasidim, but I'm not sure what. I know there was a lot of anti-Hellenic reponse in the time of Antiochus Epipanes, but I've never heard of a group called Hasidim arising in that time. The Hasidim I've heard about arose in the middle ages, and in the article that is linked to here that is the group that is referred to.

• Were there two groups called Hasidim? (need a new article and a disambiguation page?)
• Did an earlier group from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes called Hasidim influence the origins of the Hasidim in the middle ages? (need a comment on the Hasidim page about this?)
• Did the author of this article get the wrong name for this group that predated the Pharisees?

As it stands now, this article makes a statement about the Hasidim that disagrees with the article about the Hasidim.

Jdavidb 19:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that Hasidim refer to a medieval group -- and perhaps this does need a disambiguation page. Although I have been working on this article, the reference to Hasidim was in the original stub (written by someone else). Also, I have seen historians of the post-exilic/hellenic period refer to anti-hellinists as "Hasidim," although these are secondary sources. I am pretty sure that the chapter on this period, in Schwartzes Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People, used the term this way. Slrubenstein

Would it be more accurate to create a disambiguation page for the anti-Hellenist Hasidim, or to just change the term to anti-Hellinists? Jdavidb 20:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know the secondary sources that use "Hasidim" this way are reliable; thus, we should keep the term. However, perhaps we should wait a few days. I have made a lot of changes to this article over the past week, and have tried to use current and reliable sources. However there may be people out there who are actually well-versed in the primary sources and may be able to respond to your concern more accurately than I (and may raise other issues about my revisions); maybe we should wait a bit and give others a chance. In general, I see no harm in creating a disambiguation page. But there is no article on Hasidim in this sense, and I am not sure there should be a disambiguation page until there is a separate article. Frankly, I am not prepared to write even a stub. Perhaps for the moment an additional sentence to the current Hasidim page would suffice. We could also delink this reference. Slrubenstein

---

C.E. is a silly term to use rather than A.D. It's not like Christians insist on the days of the week or month names being changed. (they're all mostly named in honour of ancient gods).

Zoney 18:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You may believe it is silly; many do not. In fact, most Jews use C.E. and consciously prefer the term over A.D. -- why is the Jewish preference silly, and the Christian one not? In any event, what is important is that it is a convention among many scholars, including many scholars (Jewish and non-Jewish alike) of the Second Temple and Rabbinic eras. Slrubenstein

---

Mark 2:1-12

The passage in scripture where Jesus is accused of blasphemy by the 'Pharisees' (my Bible only says 'teachers of the law'), after forgiving a paralysed man's sin, is not critical of 'Pharisees'. In fact their response is not a bit surprising. If I cause someone injury, only they can forgive me. Sin is against God, so only He can forgive it. So by forgiving someone their sins, Jesus was implying He was God. Thus the logic and reason behind the accusation of the 'Pharisees' . It's not some kind of deliberate maliciousness on the part of the 'Pharisees', and is not portrayed as such.

Zoney 18:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We could argue over whether or not the passage is "critical" of the Pharisees -- if we presume the NT to be right, then the Pharisees are wrong, and that seems like a criticism to me. But the heart of the issue is that this is a distortion of the Pharisees. It was common for healers to act as channels for God. A scroll from the Qumran community (the Prayer of Nabonides) describes a healer "pardoning the sins" of a sick man. Moreover, the construction in the Qumran scroll is in the active voice; the passage in Mark is in the passive voice -- a more cautious construction that leaves room for one to infer that it was God, not Jesus, who pardoned the sin. Among the Pharisees themselves there were sages who healed in the same manner as Jesus -- Hanina ben Dosa, mentioned in Mishnah Berachot, for example. It just doesn't make sense that the Pharisees would have accused Jesus of blasphemy, for doing something that was common at the time and recognized by the Pharisees as legitimate. Whoever wrote this passage was either unfamiliar with the Pharisees, or was writing for an audience that would be unfamiliar with the Pharsiees. Slrubenstein

---

guy, no offense, but if i cant tell what the hell a Pharisee is in a nutshell by the time I have finished the second sentence, then you aint done your job. anti-hellenic movement? what the fuck are you talking about ? please write an introduction for people who dont study ancient culture 24 hours a day.

no offense taken, but it is a work in progress on a complicated topic. Anyway, I did some revising. I'd appreciate more feedback. If you can be more specific, we can be more helpful. Slrubenstein

---

Some scholars believe that those passages of the New Testament that present a caricature of the Pharisees were not written during Jesus' lifetime

Huh? Who believes that any passage of the New Testament was written during Jesus' lifetime? Josh Cherry 21:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent point. Jayjg 23:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, some people do -- but really, this is a tangential and trivial point. Nevertheless, perhaps we can figure out a better way to phrase this? The point is not that the NT was written during or after Jesus' life time but rather that these specific stories are anachronistic and may have been invented long after Jesus was crucified, at a time when Rabbis and Christians became serious opponents. But we need to say this in a way that is NPOV. Slrubenstein

To say that passages of the NT were not written during Jesus' lifetime sounds a little pre-critical (any serious scholar knows this) and misses the point. I think the point is that they were written after the events themselves -- that is, they were written in a period marked by strife between Rabbis and a budding Christian movement. It should be noted that they were possibly motivated by religious polemics. However, to maintain a NPOV, I don't think you can fairly say that they were "invented." Kyleddres (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to represent all notable views. If there is a notable view that they were invented, we need to include that view. If there is a notable view that they were motivated by religious polemics, we need to include that view. It doesn´t matter whether you (or I) consider a view fair or not. If it is notable, it should go in. Now, I happened to put a lot of work into this article but admit that it may not include all notable views and also that the views it does include are not always properly cited. I´d be glad if you or anyone else helped by adding additional notable views with proper citations, and, if possible, a context for such views (i.e. is this a view held mostly by theologians or historians? Is there a debate among historians?). If you are saying that the views expressed are not notable, that is one thing. But if you agree that they are notable, verifiable views but your opinion is they mss the point or are unfair ... sorry, that is not a reason to remove them. Can you expand on your thoughts by naming some of the sources/proponents of notable views you feel should be represented here? That would be a big step forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate content: pharisee , pharisees!

Duplicate content: pharisee , pharisees!

There are two articles, but actually the contents diverges a great deal. This article synthesizes the views of a number of historians. The Pharisee article has much more midrashic and Talmudic text and references. I have mixed feelings. I feel that much of that content is valuable, but a little misleading the way it is presented. Most of the texts it cites come from the Rabbinic period. It is true that there is an important link from Phariseism to Rabbinic Judaism, but historians distinguish between the two. Thus, much of that article is anachronistic -- it takes views that may not have been written down until the fifth century CE and implies that people believed them during the first century BCE. Also, midrashim and the Talmud reflect Rabbinic beliefs -- the result is a lack of neutrality. The Saducees are described only from the point of view of the Pharisees or Rabbis (very negatively); the Pharisees are described only from the point of view of the Rabbis (very positively). There are som errors -- the synagogue for example did become the main center of Rabbinic activity. But there is more an more archeological evidence that synagogues developed independently of the pharisees.

Perhaps some of the material in that article could go in this one. Otherwise, I suggest someone rewrite that article as "Rabbinic Ideology" or something like that. Slrubenstein

I agree with this, the article is very informative, but tends to be opinionated in the way it is presented —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.167.70.182 (talk) 19:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Merged

Pharisee was merged to, and now also redirects to, here, at Pharisees. Thank you. IZAK 11:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

my clean-up

There used to be two articles: Pharisees and Pharisee. I contributed heavily to one, the other was taken from an older edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia. The person who did the merge obviously did his or her best, but I had three problems with it. First, there was much duplication, and while I admire the mergers desire not to delete content, it was unnecessary duplication. Second, the Jewish Encyclopedia article was written in an archaic style. My third objection is the most serious one. The JE's account of the Pharisees relied heavily on the Mishnah and Talmud, as well as Tosefta and Midrashim. The problem is, the Mishnah is a highly partisan source, and the Talmud compiled so late as to be useless as an historical source for Second Temple Judaism. First, the priests and Saducees did not leave historical records, and it is simply wrong to accept the Rabbinic account as historically accurate. Second, Jacob Neusner and other historians have pointed out several times that part of the beauty of the Talmud is that scholars in fifth century Babylonia still argued over how to make sacrifices in the Temple, or what laws to apply to agriculture — despite the fact that they did not live in Palestine, and that the Temple had been destroyed long ago. Even Mishnaic law cannot be accepted as an authoritative source for how sacrifices were performed. Much of the JE article cited the Talmud for examples of what the Pharisees believed, said, and did. The Talmud and midrashim present an idealized and anachronistic view of the Pharisees that cannot be taken at face value. I know that many Orthodox Jews will disagree with this. But this is an NPOV document on a historical matter and we need to be judicious in our use of sources written down much, much, later. I did in fact incorporate whatever I could from the JE article, including several Biblical and Midrashic citations. However, if we are going to rely primarily on Midrashim and the Talmud as sources for what people thought and did, that belongs in an article on Rabbinic Judaism, not the Pharisees. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

my recent cut (of Abulafia's work)

A, I have no major objection to what you added to this article (although it would be stronger if it cited contemporary historians as sources). I cut it because it pertains to Rabbinic Judaism, not the Pharisees. I know there is a strong connection, which indeed the Pharisees article makes clear (I hope). But I think most material on the Rabbinic period (all the Amoraim, and many of the Tanaim) belongs in the article on Rabbinic Judaism. I did make a minor change here, to acknowledge your point (that exilarchs were not necessarily rabbis), and I moved the material you wrote, and I cut, to Talk: Rabbinic Judaism and hope you will find a sensible way to incorporate your material into that article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: the cut of my material

The comment about the Exilarchs not "necessarily being rabbis" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the material I posted and of the history of the period of the Amoraim. As I stated, some of the Exilarchs, such as Mar Zutra, were rabbis. Even Neusner would not deny that. I never said that all or even most were Rabbis. However, the Exilarchs did ratify the appointment of the heads of the academies. Please quote scholars who differ from this opinion and primary sources that support them.

As for the Patriarchs empowered by Rome, all of them, from Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi to Rabbi Gamliel IV, were Rabbbis who headed the Sanhedrin. No scholar could deny that either.

Essentially, your quote from Neusner is highly misleading without any responsible context and violates NPOV.

To delete the material I posted while keeping Neusner's opinions (which pertain to the Tannaim and Amoraim) on the pretext that my material belongs in "Rabbinic Judaism" is a farce.

Yous how an absence of good faith that is unproductive. My reasons for removing the material are legitimate and stand. That does not mean that I oppose any changes to this particular section of the article, and I am sure you can do it without two full paragraphs. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Jesus and the Pharisees

"According to the New Testament, Pharisees wanted to punish Jesus for healing a man's withered hand on the Sabbath, but there is no Rabbinic rule according to which Jesus had violated the Sabbath." If someone has a better grasp of halakha than me, and can point out my error I'd be grateful, but I'd always assumed that the difficulty here was Makeh B'Patish (irreversible physical action that transforms or immediately completes an object) on Shabbat, and this would certainly qualify. As such, many Christians may misunderstand the Pharisees objection, but it is halakhically speaking valid for them to have one. unixslug 19:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think there is some debate — at least in the time of the Amoraim, which is all that is relevant here — as to what Makeh B'Patish means. For some it means finishing any work (or, more specifically, the "finishing touch") but literally it refers to smoothing a rock or striking metal against an anvil. Would the Pharisees in 30 CE have applied this to healing a withered hand? Do you have any more evidence? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Excerpts from Jesus and Judaism by E. P. Sanders:

"I shall deal with these points of law, about which Jesus is depicted as coming into direct conflict with the Pharisees, with extreme economy. Some scholars have found in Jesus' supposed violation of the laws of Sabbath and food the clue to the conflict which resulted in his death (as, in fact, is proposed by Mark 3.6). More, though finding here no fatal conflict, have seen these points of law as defining Jesus' conflict with his contemporaries. Opinions range from this extreme all the way to another: there is no direct violation of the law at all, or none worth much attention. In this case, one of the extremes must be judged to be correct: the second one."

" We must then note that this means that debates with the Pharisees recede in importance. I am one of a growing number of scholars who doubt that there were any substantial points of opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees (that is, with the Pharisees in particular, as distinct from the rest of Jewish Palestine). Again, a negative cannot be proved. But all the scenes of debate between Jesus and the Pharisees have more than a slight air of artificiality. We consider this question further in the next chapter. Bultmann and many others have pointed out the unrealistic ('imaginary') character of the scenes. Just *how* incredible many of them are, however, seems not to be realized by many. Harvey, for example, seriously discusses the story narrated in Mark 2.23-26 as representing a real *event* in which Jesus transgressed the law by allowing his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath. Similarly he seems to think that Pharisees really did go to Galilee in order to inspect Jesus' disciples' hands (Mark 7.2). In the latter case, and also in discussing Mark 2.18, Harvey does not note that it is not Jesus who is said to have been accused, but his disciples. In taking the stories at face value he also seems to deny what he had just accepted as an 'assured result' of form criticism, namely, that the conflict stories were composed in the light of debates between Christianity and Judaism. The extraordinary unrealistic settings of many of the conflict stories should be realized: Pharisees did not organize themselves into groups to spend their Sabbaths in Galilean cornfields in the hope of catching someone transgressing (Mark 2.23f), nor is it credible that scribes and Pharisees made a special trip to Galilee from Jerusalem to inspect Jesus' disciples' hands (Mark 7.1f). Surely stories such as these should not be read as describing actual debates between Jesus and others."

" The stories of healing on the Sabbath (the Man with the Withered Hand, Matt. 12.9-14 || Mark 3.1-6 || Luke 6.6-11; the Woman with a Spirit of Infirmity, Luke 13.10-17; the Healing of a Woman with Dropsy, Luke 14.1-6) also reveal no instance in which Jesus transgressed the Sabbath law. The matter is quite simple: no work was performed. If Jesus had had to remove a rock which was crushing a man's hand, there would have been a legal principle at issue: was the man's life in danger, or could the work have waited for the sun to set? But the laying on of hands (Luke 13.13) is not work, and no physical action of any kind is reported in the other stories."

" The disciples did not gain the impression that the Mosaic dispensation was valueless and had already passed away. I think that we can rely on Acts as showing that they felt that the temple was a fit place of worship (e.g. Acts 3.1; 21.23-26). They may have thought that it was doomed, but not that it was impure or had already been superseded. We have again and again returned to the fact that nothing which Jesus said or did which bore on the law led his disciples after his death to disregard it. This great fact, which overrides all others, sets a definite limit to what can be said about Jesus and the law. I wish, however, to call attention to a curious aspect of the fact. Even when we know or have good reason to believe that we have a saying which touches on the law and which goes back to Jesus, we can also tell that the saying did not entirely determine early Christian behaviour and attitude. The saying on divorce is secure and is attested to by Paul - who quotes it, attributes it to the Lord, and proceeds to give his own rules independently. These neither spring from nor totally agree with the saying attributed to 'the Lord' (1Cor. 7.10-16). The saying to let the dead bury the dead seems to have had no repercussion at all. It is unlike anything known from early Christianity, and this helps support its authenticity; but it also means that it was without influence. The Jesus of Matt. 15.4 || Mark 7.10 and of Matt. 19.19 and parr. repeats the commandment to honour father and mother as if it is to be accepted without reservation. If one or other of these sayings, as well as Matt. 8.21f., is authentic, we would have to conclude that one nuances the other: Even though in Matt. 8.21f. Jesus says something which seems clearly to imply disregard of the commandment, his acceptance of it elsewhere shows that this was not his intention. In any case, the disciples did not take the saying in Matt. 8.21f. and par. as permission to disobey the law."

" It is only the action and saying against the temple which had ascertainable results: probably the crucifixion as well as Stephen's speech. We gather, however, that the action was not construed to mean, and probably did not mean, that Jesus objected to the sacrifices instituted by God. Stephen appears to have taken a more negative stance than did Jesus. Jesus himself looked to a new age, and therefore he viewed the institutions of this age as not final, and in that sense not adequate. He was not, however, a reformer. We find no criticism of the law which would allow us to speak of his opposing or rejecting it."

Paul

Jayjg recently deleted an addition, raising source issues. It struck me, too to be the product of "original research." But I want to make a slightly different point. Paul wrote many things. This article is not the place to detail all the things Paul wrote, or to review all the different interpretations historians have had concerning Paul's attitude towards the Pharisees and Phariseic/Rabbinic Judaism. I think the article summarizes the dominant view. I suggest that any editor who wants to add all the nuances and complexities do so in the Paul article, and make sure there are adequate links from this article to that one. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The point of the paragraph is not to detail anything Paul wrote. First of all, it is a summary based on original sources which are cited, and this summary is consistent with the majority of secondary sources. (See the "Early Life", "Consultation with the apostles" and "Paul as inclusionist" sections of the Paul of Tarsus article, for example.) Secondly, this paragraph is focused specifically on Paul's identification as a Pharisee, and how that colors Jewish-Christian interaction in the first century. Paul wrote that the Law of Moses was good, even glorious, but that Christ was superior in glory (2 Corinthians 3). Paul of Tarsus is second only to Jesus in establishing the core of Christian belief. His writings form the largest portion of New Testament Scripture, and excluding his perspective toward his roots as a Pharisee would be a glaring omission in any discussion of Pharisees and Christianity. Why is this so important? Because some people have a stake in portraying a stereotype of Christianity that condemns Judaism as evil. The message of Paul of Tarsus is clear among biblical scholarship: Paul declared Judaism to be good, and backed it up by his own ritual practice, but he said Christianity is better. (Paul also said that the practices of Judaism were not normative for Gentile Christians, and he had very harsh words for those who said so. It is worth mentioning for context/background that Paul instructed his disciple Timothy to be circumcized because he had Jewish roots, but he insisted that Titus not be circumcized because he was a Gentile. But I would agree with Slrubenstein that those details stray from the specific subject at hand, and are topics for another article.)Gandalf2000 20:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the sentence "(Paul also said that the practices of Judaism were not normative for Gentile Christians, and he had very harsh words for those who said so." although I do not think it is relevant to this article, as no Jew has ever contested this to my knowledge (I imagine it was an issue for early Christians especially gentile Christians). I also happen to agree with the sentence "Paul declared Judaism to be good, and backed it up by his own ritual practice, but he said Christianity is better." Of course, my personal feelings, like Gandalf200s, are simply irrelevant as articles are not the place for us editors to express our views. However, if Galndalf2000 is correct that "Because some people have a stake in portraying a stereotype of Christianity that condemns Judaism as evil" then we must all tread very carefully around Wikipedia: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: No original research policies. That is, we should include the claim that "some people portray Christianity as condemning Judaism as evil" IF this relates to Pharisaic Judaism in particular and IF we can provide a source (thus complying with NOR) and THEN we should include the claim that "Pauls declared Judaism to be good" in order to provide NPOV compliance, and also provide a source for this claim to comply with NOR. I do not believe that a quote from the Christian Bible itself will be an adequate source. Paul wrote a lot, but being dead cannot speak up for himself; so what we have here is a debate over different interpretations today, of what of Paul's stance was two thousand years ago. Best to provide well-recognized or widely accepted secondary sources for each interpretation. I am sure the consequence will be a stronger article that is more informative and compliant with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this engaging dialogue. Regarding the source material, the information cited comes from the Acts of the Apostles, which is the only contemporary history of first century Christianity. As a historical record, it is less disputed and less subject to various interpretations than the epistles (letters), and its accuracy is far less disputed than the gospel accounts. In other words, one could find other secondary sources, but they would simply be retreading the historical account found in Acts. Did you read the cited passages? If so, I expect you will find the summary is hardly controversial. Nevertheless, in the interest of collegiality, I will provide additional sources. Regarding the relationship between Pharisees and Christianity, a comment by F.F. Bruce, a leader in Pauline studies, sheds further light on the subject: "A Sadducee could not become a Christian without abandoning a distinctive theological tenant of his party; a Pharisee could become a Christian and remain a Pharisee--in the apostolic age, at least." F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 428. This comment provides insight into Paul’s trial before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30—23:35). Less noteworthy support for this thesis are found in the following which were obtained with a quick Google search: Paul the Pharisee by Brad H. Young, Ph.D. and Paul the Pharisee by Dean Wheelock. Since I haven't vetted these articles, my natural preference is to let the historical accounts speak for themselves. Gandalf2000 03:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added back in the Paul of Tarsus section, paying more attention to citations and good scholarship. Improvements are certainly welcome. I'm not sure I put the references in there correctly, so help from someone who knows how to clean up citations would be appreciated. Thanks. Gandalf2000 17:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Also a critique of imbalance in this section of Pharisees and Christianity.

I think fundamentally that it is quite well done as argument from a Jewish perspective, but without any deep understanding of Christian or Jewish scholarship IMHO. From a Christian perspective many things should be assumed by the author that obviously are not present: most notably that St. Paul was responsible for the deaths of many Christians before he had his famous conversion! He is not the one to hold up as an example of Pharisean virtue! And from a Jewish perspective the section ignores that this was still the period of coercive Judaism before the destruction of the 2nd temple, when the Romans were willing to be brutal and favor deals with those it had set in power in order to manage rebellions and freelance "kings." Let me amplify this critique of Jewish scholarship: the section is written as if Jesus had lived at a later time when Judaism was Rabbinical and not centralized -- which I believe is a complete reversal of history. It is also enlightening in its opposite because Christianity took the opposite tack as Judaism, going from a natural authority to coersion under Roman dominance by the 300's! Thus, it should be legitimately noted, all dogma of that Church has in effect stripped away the natural authority of the early Christian message, while the Jews only determined theirs after their secular power had been removed (and what does this say for centuries of persecution and power?)

Thus (back to Christianity) Jesus was ahead of that game, and the split that occured was a combination of mis-timing, and a path of diversification that became Universal Christianity; primarily through a conscious adaptation of other cultures, a' la Hellenism, which was Christianity's other influence at the time. --Xgenei 02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this your point: Judaism was built more on coercion and Christianity on persuasion before the 2nd temple was destroyed, and the opposite was the case by the 300s -- at least more so than the article indicates? That's quite a statement, perhaps controversial. Do you have sources? If you can get past WP:NOR, and if it directly ties to the topic of the Pharisees, it may shed light on the discrepancy of accounts, specifically on how later perspectives color the interpretation of history.--Gandalf2000 03:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you have it. Also accurate about a general error of perception of time, as if time flowed backward (possible only for angels). There is a ton of data. I'm not sure, but I appreciate your comments. -- John Meghly Xgenei 06:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The statement that this was a "coercive" period in Jewish history is highly debatable. It is true that the Romans were coercive in the application of certain laws and taxes, and that they supported the Temple hierarchy in return for their support of Roman rule. But does this mean that all Jews were forced to believe the same things, and follow the same ritual practices? All of the historical evidence is to the contrary, that there was a great deal of heterogeneity in Jewish belief and practice. This is hardly "coercive Judaism." As to Paul killing many Christians, I am not sure what the historical facts are. Do we have any sources ther than the NT? In any event, Xgenei's error is to use the phrase "the author." No wikipedia articles have one author, many people have had a hand in this. Also, while there may be an argument for including a "Christian" point of view and a "Jewish" point of view (as if there were only one of each!) the article itself is supposed to maintain a neautral point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not wish to offend you or Judaism. Please excuse me. This was also my first post. --Xgenei 06:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Interpretation

Many, including some scholars have distinguished the Saducees as a sect that interpreted the Torah literally, whereas the Pharisees interpreted the Torah liberally. This contrast is a distortion. This passage goes on to discuss that use of oral law as the true difference, but oral law is just the method used to interpret Torah liberally. This or any other method of liberal interpretation still meet the same goal; we're artificially making a distinction. It is perfectly reasonable for scholars to come to this refuted conclusion. Djbell 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC:

Well, I think the view expressed here comes from Neusner, I will have to check. I know that one of the references points to the Pharisees as interpreting the Troah literally, when it says that the Children of Israel are to be a nation of priests. I also know that there are sources that state that the Oral Law was revealed at Sinai (Wikipedia cannot endorse this view as true, but it can state that it is true that some people believe this to be true). They do not see the Oral law as a body of interpretation in the same sense, say, that all the essays at the end of a Norton critical edition of a classic novel, are "interpretations." When most people today say something is an "interpretation," they mean that it is a meaning that a reader gives to a text, whether or not it is shared by the author of the text. I believe that the Rabbis generally believed that their "interpretations" were inherent in the text and communicated by its author and thus reflect the meaning of the author. That is a big difference. If you do not agree, or if you think there is something more nuanced going on here, by all means tell us and provide your sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Xian POV of what is Pharisaic: Insulting?

The current version "Jews today (who ascribe to Pharisaic Judaism) typically find this insulting if not anti-Semitic" misses the point and is POV (and not the one of a Pharisaic Jew). Jews find in this Xian view of Pharisaism one typical trait of insult/antisemitism which they find otherwise in the Gospel. Ascribing hypocrisy to Pharisaism can only be insulting to Jews if Jews would have consideration for the opinion of the ones who condemn this hypocritical obsession. Jews (who ascribe to Pharisaic Judaism) only find in this a common trait of Xian views, trait which they condemn otherwise. It is not this view of Pharisees as hypocrites (or even that this term is synonymous in Western languages) which is viewed as insulting to Jews (the Talmud does not speak differently of obsession to "man-made" rules, as self criticism), it is the identification of Jews in general with this hypocrisy (i.e. Jews=Pharisees=Hypocrites). This triple identification is proper to the Gospel and its message... at least this is the POV of Pharisaic Jews ... which is what the statement is all about. hasofer 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Second, Jews find it insulting whether you like that fact or not. Third, what does "a trait of the gospel" mean? Adding it seems only to degrade the quality of the writing, without saying anything.Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You're miles off. Obviously myself, as a rabbi, I find insulting whathever the awen gilayon says... but that is not the point. It is not that you are not sure what I am trying to say, it is that you are not even considering it. If only you were just asking instead: ela may it lakh lemeimar. Next time, I guess.

I think you misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia, which is not to present our own views. See Wikipedia:No original research. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you did not read what I wrote. For once, you dis-understand the nature of Wikipedia. As a "Pharisaic Jew", I expressed what is our POV on the subject. This sentence was supposed to express the POV of "Pharisaic Jews". Your POV is different and you wish to impose it using the saintly ideal of eliminating POVs, even when this very sentence was supposed to give a POV. As I already said, next time just ask: ela may it lakh lemeimar. Please re-see WP:DR. hasofer 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Jew, I do not find the description of modern Judaism as a descendant of Pharisaism to be even mildly insulting. What who considers to be an insult tho is irrelevant unless we can find verifiable noteworthy citable sources: anything else, when we're talking about opinions especially, falls dangerously close to, if not directly under the rubric of original research. Tomer^talk 14:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Second. The fact is that Rabbinic Judaism is a direct decendant from Pharisitic Judaism. They way that Pharisitic Judaism is portrayed in the NT is a mishmash of various dejective opinions, but the Pharisees are the legitimate ancestors of most modern Jewery. It's not an insult, it's just a fact. SF2K1 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Claim about Karaism

The article presently states that the Qara'im are not descendants of Pharisaism, but that is not even remotely true. The hallmarks of Pharisaism were acceptance of the belief in the afterlife and in the Inspiration of the Nevi'im and Kthuvim, both of which are accepted as fundamental principles by the Qara'im. I have, therefore, removed this libel. The statement is, however, true of the Samaritans, whom I have inserted into the "exception" clause instead. (relevant link) Cheers, Tomer^talk 10:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

are you unaware of the the historical research on the great schism between Rabbinic and Karaitic Judaism? Are you unaware of Saadiah Gaon's arguments? I can find sources for these claims. I do not see any libel at all. No one is claiming Karaites are not Jews, or that they are bad Jews. Moreover, how many people today think Samaritans are Jews? Clearly there religion derives from the religion practiced in Israel/Judea, but Samaritans are not Jews. Your edit only distorts. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd apologize if I were sorry, SLR, but you're just plain wrong. Historical research indicates that the schism between Rabbinical and Karaite Judaism occurred between the 8th and 10th centuries, and not prior thereto. I am well-aware of Saadya Gaon's arguments against the Qara'im, some of which border on libelous themselves. I never claimed anyone was saying that the Qaraim aren't Jews, simply that the claim that the Qara'im are ideological descendants of the Tzduqim is erroneous in the extreme. The Kuthim do not practice Judaism according to any but the most liberal interpretation of that term, but the same can be said of the Reform. My edit did not distort anything, it, instead, reflects scholarship and reality. Your reversion to the previous version of the article, however, perpetuates falsehood. Respectfully, but in deepest protest, Tomer^talk 12:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tomer, I know you are right about the 8-10th century schism. I have heard people claim that the Qara'im were in part remnents of the Saducees. I will look for a source, and if I cannot find one, then I apologize and abandon the claim. In the meantime (and I say this with respect, not hiostility) if you have sources that state either that (1) prior to the 8th century there were no Qara'im, or (2) that the Qara'im have their roots in Pharisaic Judaism, then go ahead and roll back my revert. If you are right I see two possibilities: the Qara'im have their roots in Pharisaic Judaism in which case that should be in the article but with a source, or (2) they have their origins in Rabbinic Judaism in which case there would be no need to mention them at all in this article. I still would not put in the Samaritins. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Karaites make the claim that they are somehow decended of Sadduceean principals, but this is baseless. They have at best supposed writings that they attribute to saudeceean ideas. http://www.karaite-korner.org/history.shtml Even says that the offical group of Karaite Judaism begins in the 9th century with no ideas on where such a people would have existed before (except that sadducees existed for a bit after the temple's destruction). They are an anti-rabbinic movement, not an independant one, and just as Reform Jews who reject the authority of traditional rabbinic thought but still counted as rabbinic, they too are in effect derrived of Rabbinic Judaism. They are not a new type of Judaism because they rename their leaders. SF2K1

I'd have to do some digging to source this, but everything I've read that wasn't openly apologetic or polemic regarding the formation of the Qaraim indicates that they developed out of opposition to the assertion that the Talmud is equally binding as Tanakh (not exclusively Torah, like the Sadducees nor Breishith-Bamidhbar, like the Kuthim). From what I recall, they didn't oppose the redaction of the Talmud, only the authority attributed thereto. As a result of their rejection of that authority, specifically the authority attributed to "rabbis", they had to rename their rabbis, which is why they're called chakhamim. The writings of their chakhams deal with many of the same questions as those addressed in various responsa, and are generally accepted as being authoritative, just as are rabbinical responsa in Rabbinic Judaism. They are, essentially, Rabbinic Jews who don't want to have anything to do with rabbanim.  :-\ Tomer^talk 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SpaceFalcon2001, if contemporary Karaites do claim to have their origins in the Saducees, then this article should state so. And if there are historians who have written that this claim is baseless, then the article should say so as well. But it is not up to us editors to declair claims as baseless or true. That violates both NPOV and NOR. TShilo12, you may well be right but I think we can both agree that what we need to do is draw on verifiable sources. Now, the link to the Saducees may be so tenuous as to merit discussion in the Karaite article and not here. But people have made links, however tenuous. I checked Marx and Margolis last night (admittedly, not the latest word on Jewish History, but a well-regarded history in its day). They do not claim that the Karaites are a group of Saducees who maintained their independence and identity after the destruction of the Temple. But they so say that even after the fall of the Temple and the rise of Pharaseic hegemony in the form of rabbinic Judaism, Saducean tendencies (I can't quote them because I do not have the book in front of me, but I think they use this word) persisted, and that when Amon ben David (again, if I remember correctly) lost his bid for Gaon, he went to the Sultan and declared that there were two branches of Judaism and each should have its own Gaon (an argument that would appeal to the Sultan as it echoed the schism between Shia and Sunni Muslims) - by the way, I believe this account supports TShilo's view - but Marx and Margolis go on to say that the resulting movement expressed Saducee views. Now, I am not saying that Marx and Margolis are right. But I am saying that they are a verifiable source and if we are going to get into this discussion in an article, we need to rely on verifiable sources. I don't see any reason why an article cannot say something like "some historians draw a connection between the Saducees and the Karaites, while others view the Karaites as an entirely 8th century phenomena" or something like that Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I rashly added something about the Karaites here, but it looks as though this matter has been discussed for a time. If someone wants to revert that's fine with me, but keep in mind I did write "possibly." Cheers. 172.133.49.139 17:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your addition is good, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pharisee Viewpoint

The Pharisees believed that rules of ritual purity (kashrut etc.) were applicable to the people as a whole and not just priests, and they sometimes opposed the ritual and political positions on various matters that many priests held, but they definitely believed in a priesthood with a distinct role. To say they believed "the people as a whole were to be like priests" puts a very distorting spin on things. It's a bit like characterizing a liberal view of judicial review as a belief that "justices should behave like legislators." It's not NPOV. --Shirahadasha 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV issue here is that the claim lacks a citation. In fact, this is a particular scholar's interpretation of the Pharisees. Like any factual claim, we should be clear about who claims this view of the Pharisees. i think it is Neusner but I do not have his books at hand. Can you wait a week or two so I can see if I can find the correct citation (then we would rewrite it, "According to Jacob neusner" or whomever, .... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The person presenting the Pharisee viewpoint clearly disagrees with it and I beleive the disagreement distorts the presentation. For example, the Pharisees believed that the people, not just the priests, were ALWAYS obligated to observe purity laws, etc. Only someone who disagreed with their beliefs could make a statement like "The people were to behave like priests" with respect to purity laws etc. Such a statement implicitly assumes that the Pharisees were incorrect, since from the Pharisee point of view there were plenty of differences between people and priests, but the purity laws simply weren't (with some exceptions) among them. The Pharisees didn't believe they were making a break from the past. They claimed to be following an unbroken oral tradition back to Mount Sinai. Thus describing the Pharisee viewpoint in terms of differences from a past that is presented as a neutral narrator's fact fundamentally contradicts (and hence does not accurately describe) that viewpoint. It's certainly reasonable to present their views in context, including historians' assessments of their accuracy. But the Pharisees made claims about the past, it is there view of history that should be presented as the "Pharisee Viewpoint" Historians' differing claims about the past, including discussion of breaks with the past, represent an outsider's view, not an insider's --Shirahadasha 03:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like your own interprestation. If so you know that you are forbidden to add it to the article. If it is not your interpretation but one found in a verifiable source, you can and should add it to the article with an appropriate citation. As to the remark which i still believe is from Neusner, as you know according to our policies that view should be represented in the article regardless of whether another source reject the view. This is not a question of two different views, insider versus outsider. This is a question of possibly multiple views, each of which should be identified clearly. It is a problem indeed that the view in the article ius not clearly ascribed, and I will as I said work on that soon. However, any other view of the Pharisees should also be clearly identified. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very explicit policy on this exact situation. It's the special NPOV religion policy and it's quite clear:

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.

This is the situation we have. The Pharisees, like many other adherents of traditional religions, saw their faith as eternal and nonhistorical. Professor Neusner's historical point of view, which defines their beliefs and practices in terms of differences from a past, obviously requires otherwise. Not an uncommon situation at all in religion, happens all the time. So we just do what the policy says to do in these cases. "NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of (the "Pharisee viewpoint") believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed, however, (etc.), modern historian (Professor Neusman) believes Z. Perfectly appropriate to give the modern critical historical viewpoint. It's just not what the Pharisees themselves believed, so it can't be called the "Pharisee viewpoint." One has to use inside sources for that. Of course modern historical scholars are highly appropriate for "outside", critical or interpretive, views. If you you just relabeled the section something like "Modern historians' views of the Pharisees" and not the "Pharisee viewpoint" this issue would go away. The issue would also go away if Pharisee beliefs and practices were simply stated without historical latticework, i.e. without references to claims that a past was otherwise. --Shirahadasha 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right about Neusner - I actually said this last week and I have added his name and when I can will add a new cistation. What you are not entirely right about is the relationship between NPOV and NOR. Neusner is making a claim about what most Pharisees believe. You are making a claim about what most Pharisees believed. If Neusn'er is a published source, we can add his claim with a citation. If your claim is your own and not published, we cannot add it. If your claim is shared/stated by a repubtable published source, we can add it, with the approipriate citation. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a "legitimate" question...

First of all, I saw this while I was reading the article.

"The Pharisaic position is exemplified by the assertion that "A learned mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest." (A mamzer is an outcast child born of a forbidden relationship, such as adultery or incest;"

Last time I looked, didn't the torah state that a "bastard" (fatherless child) could not enter the temple for ten generations?

...Also, is not wisdom known by her children?

Since God is the giver of wisdom, will not He Himself teach the ignorant high priest?

Finally, you create confusion when you call an high priest "ignorant"; by who's standards is he ignorant? Is he ignorant by man's or by God's?

Obviously, it is by man's standards because a high priest couldn't AFFORD to be ignorant on God's duties; he was the one who offered the sacrifices for the people's sins.

If he made one mistake in the offering of the sacrifices, then God would strike him dead just like he did Aaron's sons.

I'll wager that a high priest would not care if a mere man called him ignorant because he answered to God--not man!

Let God do his own judging of a high priest's heart--and if he is found unworthy, then let him be struck by lightening and found dead in the tabernacle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Sorry, we're writing an encyclopedia article here, this is not the place to debate religious questions. --Shirahadasha 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

parts?

What is the basis for changing two Torahs to two parts of the Torah? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I raised the above question three weeks ago and no one responded. I provided ample time for a response. Since no one had a response, I reverted this edit. Now someone has reverted me. This is unfair. Use the talk pages to discuss changes. Can you provide me with a verifiable source that states that the Torah she baal peh and the Torah she biktav are two "parts" or two "halves?" Slrubenstein | Talk 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

resurrection

An anonymous editor deleted verifiable content. I restored it. In the edit summary the anonymous user stated that Josephus had been vandalized. That an editor believes this is not adequate reason to delete content. Instead, one should add that some scholars believe that this part of Josephus was forged. However, to do so one must name the scholars and provide the source. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Samuel as "first prophet" claim

Is there any need for a parenthetical claim that Samuel was the first prophet? It's a highly debatable claim. The Book of Samuel isn't considered the first book of Neviim, Joshua is. Other prior figures such as Miriam, Joshua, and Deborah, are explicitly called "prophets" in the Bible. And traditional Judaism -- it's one of Maimonides' 13 principles of faith -- calls Moses a prophet. Thus, a claim that Samuel was the first prophet doesn't seem to be consistent either with the Biblical text or the point of view of traditional Judaism. It may be an article of faith of some Christian denominations (I don't know) or based on an academic definition of "prophet" that doesn't take Biblical statements of who is one at face value, but I see no reason to insert such this sort of proposition parenthetically in an article on another subject. This is an article on the Pharisees, and there's no need to bring up a dispute in a totally parenthetical subject. I suggest dropping the reference to Samuel as the first prophet entirely. The dispute, if there is one, can be discussed in the Samuel article. --Shirahadasha 04:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate your spelling out your reasons. Go ahead. (PS please sign your statements) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of pharisee

The opening sentence of the article gives the qal form of the Hebrew root pei-reish-shin, parash meaning to separte, as the source of the word Pharisee. However, this root changes its meaning in the piel form, peireish meaning to explain or the noun form peirush meaning explanation. This other form, aside from sounding closer to the Hebrew word peirushi gets at one of the defining characteristics of the Pharisees, that they accept an Oral Law which consists of interpretations of the Written Torah rather than rely solely on a literal understanding of the Written Torah. For instance, Lev. 19 includes a prohibition on putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person. A literal interpretation, as the Samaratans held by, would hold that this verse only prohibits placing a physical object in the path of a person who lacks the sense of sight. However, the Pharisees/Rabbis held that this also prohibited any action which would cause someone to figuratively trip due to something of which you are aware but which either is not readily apparent or of which the person might be unaware. 70.19.90.244 00:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Scott

The current etymology is that used in a number of history books. Citations are lacking, but I didn't think that would be a problem if the etymology is uncontroversial. If the etymology is controversial, I can put in citations. Similarly, the argument you present could be included in the article if you have a verifiable source - other wise, it violates our NOR policy. In short, I appreciate your comment. whether we can incorporate it into the article or not hinges on whether or not we can do so in a way that complies with the aforementioned policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yochanan Ben Zakai was not the first Nosi Yose ben Yoezer was in the beginning of the 2nd temple (see haggiga 17a). Second, Dorot Harishonim makes a strong case that Saducees were only a political party of Hellenized Jews who used the denial of the Oral Law to continue their ways. Since the Hashemonim wouldn't have tolerated open secularism. He also proves that the Pharisees always had "the heart and soul" of almost all the people (as was slightly alluded to before). As the article stands there are serious POV issues. Perhaps someone can edit it.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.90.129 (talk • contribs) 16 March 2007

This article is about a historical topic and does privilege the views of historians, and if other historians have other points of view, they surely should be included. I would not object to a section at the end on how different contemporary religious movements (like/including Agudat Israel) view the Pharisees, as long as the POV is correctly identified as that of a group who claim to be their religious heirs and not historians. However, we have to be careful not to violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

True, and being as Dorot Ha'Rishonim, a historian, made it his life's work to controvert the misconceptions such as those mentioned in the article and that Josephus (virtually our only source for Second Temple information) would imply like his views,he definitely deserves a mention. As far as the origin of the term Pharisees, there are those that say the term perushim originated from their opponents to give the impression that they were seperated (parush) from the concerns of the rest of the nation. (Tivyomi in Tal Oros 3 - I don't know if he counts as a historian).It might be worth mentioning that the anti-phrasical accounts in the NT have relation to the fact that J may have been a student rejected by the pharasee's see article on Yeshu. Wolf2191 03:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Wolf2191

Well, I see no conflict between us then. As long as you comply with WP:ATT by refraining from making your own interpretive or synthetic claims, and by providing reliable veriviable sources, and as long as you comply with WP:NPOV by not deleting verifiable views you do not agree with, and by identifying any views you add, I see no obstacle to your adding the other view(s) you raise. If you have any question about the source of anything in here please let me know and be specific and if the claim is unsourced I will find the source (if the claim was originally added by me - of course, if another editor added something I may not know the source). As you can see I relied heavily on Neusner who is indeed a very reputable source, but I never suggested he should be the only one! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.I am waiting to get a hold of S. Baron's history before editing. Most of the article is factually correct (but written in a slightly jaundiced tone). "the precepts concerning unclean meat were perhaps intended originally for the priests, but were extended to the whole people" This statement is from the scholar Isaac Hirsch Weiss. This view was hotly contested. Perhaps you can reference the exact source. Chajes thinks that the Essenes may have been an extremely pious form of Pharisees (referred to in the Talmud as Vasikin or Chasidim). I don't think it holds up under modern scholarship so I won't mention it. Wolf2191 02:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I did not put in the line about meat, so I cannot provide a source. If you know it by all means add it - or add a request for a source and see if anyone else comes up with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re "pharisee" being an historical topic and the work of historians being priveleged: The term "pharisee" is a religious as well as an historical topic, and per WP:NPOV nobody's viewpoint is privileged, as long as the viewpoints involved are notable and properly attributed and, in this case, identified as to type of viewpoint. This is one of those cases where the topic legitimately falls into multiple POV camps and the academics and the religious people are just going to have to share it. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. My only concern is structural: I don't think articles that go back and forth "some say x, others y" read very well, but I am not sure if NPOV is better served by having two big sections, one for historians' views and one for the views within the Rabbinic tradition. I accept completely Shirahadasha's point about NPOV, I just think we need to be thoughtful about the best way - stylistically - to call attention to and address divergent views. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"when Pharisees demanded that the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus choose between being king and being High Priest." This is incorrect Janneus asked the Pharisees for suggestions. Most were silent one (Eliezer Ben Peoriah) recommended that he take only one crown. The story is unanimus in both Talmud Kiddushin and Josephus (w/ slight changes). Janneus went ballistic (he wasn't the most stable person). Wolf2191 06:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"opposed the expansions" "Lo Hodu Lo in Talmud Pesachim simply means did not agree. The impression is given that the Pharisees were a terribly militant group. They weren't. They readily gave up power after the death of Salome for peace.Wolf2191 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on your sources so I will address my points here.

1. According to the mishna in Chagiga Shimon ben Shetach was more than a leading pharisee he was in fact the Nosi.

see WP:NORSlrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why a clear statement in mishna counts as original research.

I'll give a general answer first, which applies to any use of the Mishna: It is a primary source, and hosts of historians have questioned its value as a historical document (there is no doubt that it has some kind of historical value, but there have been considerable debates over what) - to use out of context, all you can really say is that "there is strong evidence that by the late second/early third centuries CE many rabbis believed x" - I see no policy problems with making that kind of statement. But anything beyond that kind of statement and you are really making some kind of interpretive claim that expresses some point of view, raising NOR and NPOV questions. The way around this is to draw on a secondary source e.g. "Scholar x, drawing on Mishna y, has argued x." That would be fine too. Now, as far as Shimon ben Shetach being Nasi: I am frankly unsure. Are there other historical sources identifying him as Nasi? By this do you mean president of the Sanhedrin? I think there may be some historians who question whether the Sanhedrin existed at that time. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mishna in Chagiga records the Zugot -the pairs who were (according to the Mishna in Avot) in charge of the tranmission of the Torah. One was called the Av Bet Din (President of the Sanhedrin) and the other the Nasi. The exact role of the Nasi requires more research. It seems he had both a sort of veto power over the Sanhedrin(acc. to R. Margolies) and was in charge of negotiations with the Gov't. Baron says that when Pompey was called in to arbitrate bet. the brothers, he also arbitrated bet. them and the "nation" meaning the aforementioned zugot (the Pharisaic leadership.) I don't as yet have an secfondary source re: Shimon ben Shetach.Wolf2191 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

2."One of the factors that distinguished the Pharisees from other groups prior to the destruction of the Temple was their belief that all Jews had to observe the purity laws (which applied to the Temple service) outside the Temple" This doesn't seem to be correct from my own personal study of the Mishna I understood that although it was considered praiseworthy to eat Chullin Al taharas Hakodesh it was definitely not a requirement. Only when dealing with sacrifices or priestly offerings was tahara purity necessary.

Again, see WP:NOR and WP:V Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why this might be considered OR, but unless we have a source for the above statement it should be removed.

I doubt it's disputed that the Pharisees believed one had to observe some ritual purity laws, but not "all" the ritual purity laws of the Temple. It's pretty clear there were laws they considered applicable only to Temple situations. As pointed out, there was a rule that Kohanim had to eat Terumah while in a state of ritual purity. But there is no corresponding rule requiring this of laypeople in order to eat regular food. The problem can be easily resolved by saying the Pharisees believed Jews had to observe some of the purity laws which applied to Temple service. Best --Shirahadasha 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The source is Neusner. i have no objection to Shirahadasha's suggested edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't disputed that the Kohanim needed to keep the purity laws. And the rest of the nation kept them during the "regel" the tri-yearly pilgrimage to the temple. Other then that it was merely considered praiseworthy. It definitely doesn't support this statement "In practice, this meant that the Pharisees believed that all Jews should observe the rules and rituals concerning purification that had developed around the Temple priesthood. " I don't think Shirahadasha's edit will serve either. I have doubts of Neusner's reliability (see his wiki page) but he is a valid source so I guess the statemnet can stay if you so choose.Wolf2191 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. How about "The Pharisees believed that all Jews in their ordinary life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should observe rules and rituals concerning purification." The current language suggests the Pharisees were making innovations rather than preserving ancient ways. There's no need to bring up the question, which is controversial and parenthetical to the point. It's worth noting that the Bible depicts Bathsheba observing niddah and tevilah prior to coming to see David. I think the question of to what extent the Pharisees were innovators and to what extent preservers, and different views on the subject, should be raised directly in its own section. I don't think the article should be adding unnecessary parenthetical comments that take a stand on the issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds fine to me.Slrubenstein | Talk 09:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

3."The conflict between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus culminated in a civil war that ended when the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 BCE and inaugurated the Roman period of Jewish history" He was actually called in by one of the brothers.

Seems easy to fix Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to look in Josephus for the deatils.Wolf2191 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

4. "For most of their history, Pharisees defined themselves in opposition to the Sadducees" defined is waaay to strong a term.

I will check to see if I have a verifiable source for this wording; otherwise, can you suggest other ways to word it? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned above a reason for the term perushim in that their enemies liked to portary them as being divorced from the rest of the world. It's interesting that the Pharaisic term for Pharisee is in fact Chaver-friend implying that they defined themselves as being connected with the rest of the people. In any event, I would substitute "considered" for "defined" (unless you have a source).

It's one thing to say the Pharisees disagreed with the Sadducees, another thing to say they "defined themselves in opposition", a statement so strong it seems to imply the Pharisees would be lost if they didn't have Sadducees around to oppose. After all, the Sadducees did dissappear, and the Pharisees didn't become lost. They seemed to have other ways of defining themselves. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already expressed my openness to other wording. But to be clear: the intention of this sentence (which I may have written) was that there was a long part of their history when Pharisees were virtually by definition the opponents of the Saducees 9and vice versa) ... but 9and the article has to make this clear and if it isn't clear we need to clarify it) at a certain time in their history they no longer defined themselves through their opposition to the Saducess but in other ways as well which as Shirahadasha correctly observes is very important to understanding their continued importance after the Saducees were kaput. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

5."the Children of Israel also had sacred texts (according to traditional Jews, revealed at Mt. Sinai" the texts were not revealed at Mt. Sinai. Only (some? of)the laws were.

I made a change, I think it addresses the point. remember though that this paragraph deals with the period prior to the Babylonian Exile - and long before the Tanakh was canonized. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Great.

The Orthodox POV is that the texts (of the Torah were revealed essentially verbatim. The issue here isn't what editors personally believe to be correct, it's what the Orthodox POV is. Note that there's a passage in Tractate Sanhedrin calling a person who believes even a line of the Torah wasn't revealed at Mount Sinai a heretic -- the POV is not a modern invention. --Shirahadasha 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the current wording does not make this explicit, but neither did I think that the current wording excludes this. Of course, non-rabbinic/Orthodox scholars question this. But if it is a matter of accurately expressing the distinct views, i have no objection to adding this wording to the article. But honestly, I just think it is unnecessary. In the context of this article, the crucial thing is that the Israelites and later Jews had/have sacred texts. I hope it is clear that I do not object to saying more about what we think the Israelites believed about those texts, but I do think that this is unnecessary detail in this context. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the first four books the belief is that G-d dictated and Moshe wrote, I'm not aware of an importance to Mt. Sinai except as regards the laws and I don't think that this applies to all the laws. The fifth book is more complicated (I think the Gra describes it as being written under Divine spirit not dictated and the Abarbanel has a different explanation I don't remember off hand.) So the text as it stands is better even according to the Orthodox POV.

6.The missing 150 years of Jewish History would certainly confuse the issue of the emergence of Pharisees (i.e there is a 150 year break bet. the Ezra and Shimon B. Shetach). I don't know of any source that discusses this.

We need to find a source, otherwise nothing we can do. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

7."There is a record of only one high priest who was a Saducee." This implies that there are acurate descriptions of the high priests, to the best of my knowledge the details of many of these high priests are very sketchy.I'm adding in the word definiteWolf2191 06:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

8."Instead of giving tithes to the priests and sacrificing offerings at the Temple, the rabbis instructed Jews to give money to charities" This is a ridiculous statement, tithes continue up until this day in the holy land. Possibly, he was referring to the those in exile.

Well surely, there were no sacrifices after the destruction of the Temple. As for tithes, well, I will try to find the source for this. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's a huge discussion if the Passover sacrifice continued after the destruction of the temple (I remember reading this in one of Chajes's works). It definitely continued at least 30 yrs. if not longer. I get your point however.

While there's discussion in the Talmud about how to handle tithes in the absence of the Temple, this language seems to suggest that the Pharisees opposed giving tithes to the Temple when it was standing as distinct from devising substitutes out of necessity in its absence. I believe any such statement would need to be sourced as a named individual's POV to be kept, it shouldn't be presented as a consensus view. "Rediculous" or not, there is extensive reliably sourced information contradicting this statement.--Shirahadasha 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Neusner and other historians' claim is that the Pharisees had developed a form of Judaism that did not require the Temple, which is why their version of Judaism survived the destruction of the Temple. I do not think that they ever questioned the Pharisees devotion to the Temple, or believed that they opposed sacrifice. How would you suggest we reword the sentence? i honestly did not think that the language suggested that the Pharisees were opposed to tithes and sacrifices while the Temple stood. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you refer to as tithes. Translated literally as a tenth it applied to Maasros which continued after the temple. If you refer to the Machatzis Hashekel given (yearly?) I hardly think that required a replacement. Possibly, you are referring to individual donations (Hekdaishos). Please clarify.

I disagree with the term developed as the Pharisees record a tradition (at least in regard to methods of exegisis) going back to Sinai. I will be on the look out for a source. (The article doesn't seem to focus enough on this idea of a Mesorah or tradition as brought forth in the Mishna in Avot and in Maimonides introduction to Mishne Torah.) Is Maimonides a proper source?Wolf2191 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

9. "the Pharisees were one sect among many" given that it's already been mentioned that the common nation gave their full support to the Pharisees this statement is misleading. and many isn't much good either the Essenes were a very small group who had no contact with anyone. The rebels weren't a religious group. You basically have Saducees whom as I mentioned weren't a real Religious group. You're left with one group, the Pharisees. Dorot Ha'rishonim focuses on this as well. Chajes discusses the issue of groups in his darkei moshe but I don't have a copy on hand now.

Please don't say "you've already mentioned." It is the article that mentioned it. Good call - but it is the article, not me. You will find many Wikipedia articles have contradictions, because they are written by several people over time. I am certain Neusner and others claim that the Pharisees did not have the full support of the common nation. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the "you". Slip of the keyboard. No offense intended. And I really don't understand how Neusner and others can ignore the overwhelming evidence from Josephus (who was not exactly close to the Pharisees). If it's been printed it's a valid source, so nothing I can do.

10."birchas haminim-and which is understood as a rejection of sectarians and sectarianism" Huh? The original version minim and mishumadim refers to those who deny Judaism. or have I been praying wrong all these years.

Well, what you have been praying is between you and God. And I have no reason to think that your kavanah is the same as the people who first wrote Birkat Ha-Minim. I will try to find a source for this claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That was just a joke. There's in essay in Binu Shenos Dor V' Dor (Nosson Rabinowitz) he claims that the Christians of the time were as sort of Jews for J and that they used to regularly come to the synagogue and pray as Shaliach Tsibur. The intent of Birchas Ha'minim was to seperate them from the rest of the Jews. Personally, I don't agree with that theory, but ant-sectarianism definitely doesn't fit into the words.

I think Cohen may be the source for this - I will try to track it down. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

11."The "Judaism" of the rabbis at this time is in no degree either normal or normative." What does he mean, that there were other groups that it is different than today's Judaism? Please elaborate.

I think he means precisely what you think. How should we elaborate? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

12. "substantial means of coercion" Has this Neusner ever opened up a Talmud there are numerous examples of Amoraim who whipped or used the Cherem to enforce laws. The Amoraim were close to the Reish Galuta generally (I can provide exact Talmudic sources if desired.) Wolf2191 07:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Neusner suggests that the Talmud is more often a portrait of the world rabbis wished (or believed God wished) the Jews to live in, an ideal. Therefore, he claims that much of it should not be used as a direct, reliable historical source for how people actually lived. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any source for that period besides the Talmud. On what basis can he possibly make that claim? The sources I have (i.e. the Talmud and Medrashim) describes R' Nachman as a son-in-law of the Reish Galuta. Shmuel in close relationship to Shabor Malka. Rav having a relationship with a different high ranking dignitary. As I said there are numerous Talmudic statements supporting the idea that the Amoraim had a certain amount of power in Babylonia (Makkas Mardas, Cherem). I realize this might constitue OR so I will work on finding a definite source. ThanksWolf2191 18:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So far I think the edits you have been making are good. As for Neusner - well, you might find it interesting to read something by him like Invitation to the Talmud. What his sources are, I am not sure, since this book is for a general audience (I assume he wrote many scholarly articles with more careful argumentation from the sources) but I would guess that he is drawing on what we know about how the Roman and Sasanid Empires were run, in general, and also arguments based on textual criticism of the Talmud - but this is just a guess. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Neusner (and academic historians/textual critics generally) and the Talmud (and religious views generally) represent different POVs. I believe the WP:NPOV policy is in play here. If the issue is disputed, the article culd use language like "According to the Talmud..." and "according to Professor Neusner..." --Shirahadasha 00:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Innovaters or Preservers

"I think the question of to what extent the Pharisees were innovators and to what extent preservers, and different views on the subject, should be raised directly in its own section"

It sound like a good idea. I'll give an example to demonstrate my current understanding of the subject. The Bible requires one to take on Succoth "the fruit of a beautiful tree-Pri Eitz Hadar". The Rabbis explained that this refers to a citron. This is an oral tradition that goes back to Mt. Sinai there is no machloket on this issue and this would be the role of preservers. The prohibition to take an etrog on the Sabbbath is a decree "lest one comes to carry it" this is an obvious innovation. The sticking point would be the law that one may not take a dried out or a green etrog. Is this the Rabbis own interpetation of Hadar (beautiful) thus an innovaton to some extent or does this come from some method of exegesis that we are not aware of and as the methods of exegesis are said to come from Sinai this would be the role of preservers? I'm unclear at the moment.

The nusach (language) of the Amidah and of the prayer in general are Rabbinical "innovations". Than you have gezeiros (Lest you come to...) and Rabbinical holidays (Hanukkah and Purim),(almost) the entire legal system (almost entirely logic based), blessings before (but not after) eating. I'm sure there are many more that I can't think of off hand.

I assume for such a section the classical commentaries (Chinuch or Maimonides) would be OK. I don't have any modern sources on this so I would love to here of some suggestions (for my own personal use as I find this a confusing issue that very much requires clarification.) Wolf2191 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that a dried out etrog is permitted in a community where it is impossible to get a fresh one, and there are two opinions on the subject, one that one isn't really fulfilling the mitzvah but is preserving its memory by such an action, and the other is that beauty depends on sociological conditions -- when there are no fresh etrogim, a dried-up one is beautiful. More fundamentally, the Rabbis embedded fundamental Temple concepts throughout their descriptions of everyday life. For example, by the simple act of saying that skach is plant material which is not susceptible to tumah, they preserved the whole world of taharah and tumah thought, because simply to understand what's acceptible for your sukkah, the gemarah has to go through a fundamental understanding of how taharah and tumah works in a way that can train decision-makers for a future Temple. My guess, however, is that user:Slrubenstein will provide sources whose concepts of what was innovated and what preserved may be quite different from the Talmud's concepts of d'Oreitah and d'Rabbanan. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If I can find any! In any event, I think it is fair to say that the Pharisees claimed that they were largely preservers of an ancient tradition, whereas many historians today see them - in part, at least - as innovators. I do not see why both views cannot be included in the article. I certainly do not oppose the Phariseic/Rabbinic view being included./ Slrubenstein | Talk 08:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start to this section in the Sandbox off my user page (I don't know how to link it here). Any suggestions or revisions are most welcome. Shirahadasha, where is the source for the ruling about the dried citron? I think I've heard of it but I can't find it in Arukh Ha-shulchan or Mishna Berurah. Thanks for the info.Wolf2191 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have two suggestions: first, in the section on the religion of ancient Israel, there is this sentence:

Although sharing the practice of offering sacrifices with other near eastern religions of the time, the Children of Israel also had sacred texts (according to traditional Jews, the core of which were revealed at Mt. Sinai and during the years of wandering in the desert, following the exodus from Egypt; according to the documentary hypothesis, based on earlier literary and oral sources and later edited into the Torah, or Five Books of Moses) which contained moral stories and teachings, as well as laws, which provided all people with ways to worship their God in the course of their everyday lives.

I propose that we break this into two sentences and add a sentence that cites Avot and explains that the Rabbis trace a continuous line of authority from Moses to the Pharisees to themselves. Second, I suggest that somewhere in the section on "from Pharisees to rabbis" - around when the Mishnah is introduced - there be a paragraph on Pharisees as maintainers of tradition and as innovators and how this created a dual legacy for the Rabbis (Amoraim) who saw themselves as the heirs of the Pharisees. Does this seem reasonable and appropriate? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer a seperate section on the Pharisees as innovators or preservers. It's a very central point of Pharisaic belief. The first suggestion is good.Wolf2191 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC) I've just found this [1](I didn't read through it yet.) It may be useful.Wolf2191 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you like my first suggestion, and invite you or Shirahadasha to make the change. As to the second point, I have no objection to a separate section on Pharisees as innovators and preservers. My only question is, where to put it? Here is my issue: even historians who themselves argue for a strong connection between the Pharisees and the Rabbis (Tannaim and Amoraim) see a historical break between the two; the Mishnah quotes some Pharisees but more Amoraim and seems to be Wolf's primary source on certain claims. I want to emphasize that I am not rejecting or discounting the claim that there is a strong and meaningful connection between the Pharisees and the Amoriam, I am just observing that they are nevertheless two different groups most living at different times. It is an open question as to what extent the Mishnah and even braitot represent the direct, unmediated views of Pharisees, versus the view Amoraim had of the Pharisees, including knowledge by and of the Pharisees preserved by the Amoriam. Might the solution be as simple as this: "The composers of the Mishnah and Gemorah portray the Pharisees as both preservers of tradition and innovators?" Is this - or something like this - acceptable to Shirahadasha and Wolf? Then the question is, would the new section go before or after the section on "From Pharisees to Rabbis?" Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mishna records no Amoraim only Tannoim. Are you differentiating between Tannoim before or after the temple? (David Zvi Hoffman writes that Rebbi's mishna was actually based on earlier texts (from the time of the temple.) There wasn't a historicla break since Rav a Tanno who sat in Rebbi's court lived during the first generation of Amoraim. And why mishna and "even" braitot. The braitot are considered a less reliable form of tradition in the Talmud. Possibly, you mean the medroshei halochoh. Maybe we should write "The Pharisees (early tannoim) and the Rabbis (later tannoim and amoraim) portrayed themselves..." It makes sense that the section should come after "From Pharisees to" since the line of tradition end at R' Ashi (the amora). As far as the first suggestion, I'm not sure how to go about breaking up the paragraph. Possibly we shoud add in a sentence like this- "The Mishna in the beginning of Avot and (in more detail) Maimonides in his Introduction to Mishna Torah records a chain of oral tradition from Moses at Mt. Sinai down to R' Ashi redactor of the Talmud and last of the Amoraim. " ThanksWolf2191 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, a complete mistake on my part, I meant to say Tanaaim - just a mistake. I will look for sources but I am pretty sure many historians make a break between the Rabbis and the Pharisees and I thought they date it to the compilation of the Mishnah, but I will double-check. In any event I acknowledge that this is but one POV and others need to be included. We just have to figure out an elegant way to include both (or more) points of view.I don't have a problem with a discussion of innovation and tradition after the section on "from Pharisees to Rabbis" but if reference will mostly be made to sages who lived prior to 135 I think it would make more sense to put it before this section ... I am open to what others think. As to breaking up the sentence in the paragraph in the earlier section on ancient Israel, I wonder if Shirahadasha or anyone else has a suggestion. In your sentence I would drop the reference to Rambam who presumably was relying on Avot - I think Avot is the key text here and all that needs to be cited. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that different views on the role of the Pharasees as innovators and/or preservers is important. Will be on Wikibreak due to passover for the next few days, so can't do anything now. As to Tanaim/Amorim -- I had understood that some people, like Rabbi Akiba, acted as both Tannaim and Amorim, sometimes appearing in the Mishna transmitting traditional teachings of their own, and sometimes appearing in the Gemara elucidating on others' teachings. Also, it might be worth discussing the role of the Bar Kochba revolt and its aftermath, including the suppression of the rabbinate in the Land of Israel and the mass exodus to Babylonia, in these events. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadducee from Zadok

Twice this article says that the name Sadducee comes from Zadok. Why is it even worth mentioning once? The Zadok page, which is linked to, does not seem to be very relevant to this article. 76.212.11.109 04:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

See the Saducees page, that should answer your question. The link is incorrect.Wolf2191 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Purities

Apparently, Jacob Elman has a critique on Neusners theory of purity in Pharisaic thought (that I found very faulty-see above.) I do not have access to his work though.Wolf2191 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Boasting

In his writings to the church in Philippi, Paul referred to his strict Jewish credentials as a cause for boasting (Philippians 3:4-6), but then stated his belief in Christ Jesus was more glorious. This is inaccurate to the point of being disingenuous. Paul does not boast in his worldly things, rather he counts as loss on account of Christ all things which he previously held boast-worthy. I would appreciate if someone would fix this.

Excessive Length?

Anybody else feel like this article is simply too long? An explanation of who the Pharisees were, a concise history, summary of beliefs and practices, and maybe some special issues such as the relationship with Christianity would be plenty. This article seems to be as much history of the Jewish people itself as it is the Pharisees. Far too long. Any other opinions? Soonercary (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the4 Pharisees are a very integral part of what makes up the Jewish People itself. They were the "founders" of Rabbinic Judaism which is what the majority of Jews are today. We need a lengthy article to fully reflect that. Perhaps we may need to make some sections into seperate articles eventually but at this point I see no need.Wolf2191 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand this. Lengthy explanations on Jewish history certainly set a cultural context for the development of the Pharisees, but do not belong in an encyclopedic article that needs to deal with the basics. What we seem to have here are other historical articles altogether that have been included in an article that should only focus on the Pharisees' part in such a history. As informative as it would be, I shouldn't be reading about the entire life cycle of the chicken if I just want to know about the egg. Soonercary (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then just read the intro. You do not have to read the whole article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Guess I was thinking of this as an encyclopedia article rather than a book. Soonercary (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh! "Wikipedia is not paper!" Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this was a VERY informational article, even if it was long. Put a lot of things in perspective for me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.200.157.177 (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Christians and Pharisees

Since the length issue is not of concern to others, new topic: the Pharisees and Christians section seems to be a strong defense of the Pharisees against a perceived Christian attack, rather than a description of the issues. I did a little bit of cleanup and re-writing in this section to balance it out more, but it seems that the whole section needs a general rewrite to explain some modern day perceptions of Pharisees that have been influenced by Christian writings and why this might be so. Sourced explanations of those who believe this to be inaccurate and why would certainly be appropriate, but not as a general tone of the whole section. Thoughts? Soonercary (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have worked on this article a lot, but did not write the passages you edited. For what it is worth, I think your edits thus far are fine - the result is definitely more NPOV and better-written. The only thing I could counsel you bear in mind is (1) almost all contemporary Jews see themselves as the heirs of the Pharisees and identify strongly with the Pharisees, and (2) there is a good deal of historical research that challenges a literal reading of the NT account of Pharisees. As long as NT accounts are presented as (1) definitely a Christian POV and (2) one which many historians (yes, a different POV) believe was written some time after the fact, I will probably have no problem with any further edits of your sthat are in the spirit of the ones you just made. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The example of Jesus healing the paralytic is weak. Jesus told the man, "Your sins are forgiven" and the Pharisees questioned his authority to do that. While the tradition may have linked healing with forgiveness, it's unlikely that others routinely forgave sins of their own authority. Instead of inferring forgiveness from the objective evidence of healing, in this case Jesus explicitly forgave the man's sins, and it's not surprising that they accused him of blasphemy. He then performed healing as evidence of his authority to forgive.--FusionDude (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no historical evidence to support. It is unlikely Jesus ever told anyone that their sins were forgiven since (1) most of what is now considered Jewish law did not exist at the time, and (2) what law that did exist was not obeyed by the majority of Jews and (3) what laws Jews did observe, were easy to find forgivance for if they broke the law. There is evidence from Rabbinic texts of many people who cured the ill by casting out demons and thus rendering them pure, and the Rabbis never condemned any of these men for blasphemy; waht they did was not considered blasphemy. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Very little detailed historical evidence comes down to us outside of the NT bible. Josesphus provides some insight (and other contemporaries to a lesser degree), but not to a level that would satisfy this discussion. In the "Great Commission" Jesus sent his disciples forth to make disciples "all the nations," because he had all "authority in Heaven and on Earth." He drove out demons on his own authority and believers drove them out with his name. One may not believe these supernatural claims, but central to Jesus teachings was his authority. Therefore, it seems very likely that Jesus would have been forgiving sins by his own authority. According to the NT bible (also could be inferred by Josephus' writings), his claims to divinity were a major source of friction between him and the Teachers of Religion during his time.

NPOV dispute [Pharisees and Christianity]

Few points I dispute.... 1) In The Epistle to the Romans, by Leon Morris it is asserted that the shift in power from the Jewish Christian to the Gentile Christian (then minority) occured due to the temporary explusion of Jews from Rome by Emp. Cladius. 2) The NT Bible is clear that Christ's word was first for the Jews then the rest of world. 3) It also seems to be a stretch to assert that Christ was being rejected by Jews because he was simply restating a common teaching by the Pharisees (see discussion in paragraph above). It seems more likely that his claims to divinity and therefore his moral authority was being doubted. Based on his claim to authority he was mediating a new deal with Jews (and also humanity) and thereby radically changing the Jewish faith. Most mainstream Jewish counter claims (that I've seen) to Christianity are basen on their belief that Christ did not fulfil God's promisses (e.g. Elijah did not return). Because of disputed facts and assertions noted, the conclusion that was made do not present a Neutral Point of View. It also seems inconsistent with the heading of the article; it seems somewhat arguementative to present an Anti-Christian perspective in a section that should present the relationship of Pharisees to Christians. I recommend the last paragraph be removed or rewritten to describe the Christian and Pharisees relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.173.254 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Literalism

1 - "Sadducees rejected the Pharisaic tenet of an oral Torah, and created new interpretations based on a literal understanding of verses" This is only half the story. According to some scholars (Geiger - Urschrift.. - disputed by Bernard Revel in his diss. - but there must be newer sources by now), the Sadducees were following an older Halacha whereas the Pharises were willing to innovate

2 - "An example of this differing approach is the interpretation of, "an eye for an eye". The Pharisaic understanding was that the value of an eye was to be sought by the perpetrator rather than actually removing his eye too. In the Sadducees' view the law was to be taken literally. " - The source for the Pharisees is easy - Bava Kamma ch. 8, for the Sadducees I only have the NEJ sv Sadducees.

3 - An excellent quote from Lauterbach I'd like to add -

"The theological struggle between the two parties, as J.Z. Lauterbach puts it (Rabbinic Essays, 23–162), was actually a struggle between two concepts of God. The Sadducees sought to bring God down to man. Their God was anthropomorphic and the worship offered him was like homage paid a human king or ruler. The Pharisees, on the other hand, sought to raise man to divine heights and to bring him nearer to a spiritual and transcendent God."Wolf2191 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think all this is included in your quotes from Neusner. So I'll just add the sources in 2.Wolf2191 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable but on a related note it looks like you have good material for developing the Saducees article! Maybe you can use this to help improve that one! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

- This section still seems biased and comes of as a defense of the Pharisees. IMO, all statements of Jesus being a Pharisee be removed except for suggesting the theory of Jesus being a Pharisee and start a new article or link to a section on Jesus' theoretical denominations. Also of importance, is not to try to argue what the laws of the Pharisees were, but the actual cultural practice of the Pharisees at the time (e.g., the culture of the Pharisees rather than their theology). The section should be more balanced. mark the history, make citations where possible and present both sides in a fair manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehel (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Any significant view from a notable source can go in. If you have relevant content taken from books or articles by leading historians of this time and place that you wish to add, please do so! But if something is a view held by a significant person, published in a notable source, we cannot remove it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)