SESSION 2: THE PRE-CHRISTIAN PAUL

1. Paul's Appearance and Demeanour   Paul was not an imposing figure, it would seem; this was probably because his personal presence and appearance were unimpressive, and he lacked rhetorical skills (a valued commodity in the ancient world). One should probably assume that he was this way both before and after his conversion. Paul admits that he lacks personal presence and rhetorical skills in his Corinthian correspondence.  

1 Cor 2:3-4: I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power.  2 Cor 10:10: For some say, "His letters are weighty, but in person he is weak and his speaking amounts to nothing."

. Paul admits his first appearance in Corinth was very forgettable (1 Cor 2:3-4). Because of Paul's lack of personal presence, it seems that the Corinthians came to affix to Paul the disapprobious label of “weak” (asthenê), in contrast to the “super-apostles” who had infiltrated the church. This encapsulated their overall appraisal of him, disqualifying him thereby from being considered an apostle. Paul appears to be quoting from the one who still heads up the opposition against him when he writes, “For he says, ‘His letters are weighty, but in person he is weak’” (10:10). Similarly, when he remarks sarcastically that he, unlike his opponents, was too “weak” to exploit the Corinthians, Paul seems to be turning an accusation leveled against him on its head (11:21). The same use of irony to refute the charge of being too “weak” occurs in 2 Cor 13:9: Paul says that he and his colleagues rejoice when they are “weak,” but the Corinthians are strong, because their prayer is for the perfection of the Corinthians. Finally, standing behind Paul’s paradoxical assertions that he boasts in his weakness is the negative assessment that he is too “weak” to be a bona fide apostle (11:30; 12:5). Clearly, for the Corinthian church and probably for other churches Paul was not an impressive figure.   There is a description of Paul found in the apocryphal work Acts of Paul and Thecla that is realistic and even unflattering; since it is not idealized, it is probable that the description of Paul in this work is accurate. The description is as follows: "And he saw Paul coming, a man little of stature, thin haired upon the head, crooked in the legs, with eyebrows joining, and nose somewhat hooked, full of grace: for sometimes he appeared like a man, and sometimes he had the face of an angel."   2. Paul as an “Israelite”  

1

Paul says that he is an “Israelite” (Israêlitês) (2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5; Rom 11:1). To be an Israelite is to be a Jew in a religious and social sense (see its use in 4 Macc 18:1; John 1:47; Rom 9:4; 11:1Synonymous with being an Israelite is being from "the seed of Abraham" (2 Cor 11:22). Paul's use of the term "seed of Abraham" no doubt derives from his opponents at Corinth who are using the phrase to distinguish themselves from Paul and others. What they meant by it exactly is unclear. Probably, they asserted their racial Jewishness by the phrase perhaps in opposition to being a proselyte. (Based on Paul's use of the term elsewhere in his letters, however, unlike his Corinthian opponents, being from the seed of Abraham is defined by faith and not physical descent [Gal 3:16ff. 29; Rom 4:13-17; 9:6-13].) In Rom 11:1 and Phil 3:5, Paul further identifies himself as from the tribe of Benjamin one of the two tribes (the other tribe being Judah) occupying the southern kingdom of Judea at the time of the Babylonian captivity. (1 Chron 7:6-11; 8; 9:7-9 lists Benjaminite families.)   3. Paul as a “Hebrew”   In addition to being an Israelite, Paul says that he is a “Hebrew” (Hebraios) (2 Cor 11:22). To be an Israelite must not be identical with being a Hebrew, for otherwise Paul would not use these two terms of himself in setting forth his credentials against his Corinthian detractors. Probably, to be a Hebrew means that he was from Palestine or had close connections with Palestine as opposed to being a diasporan or Hellenist Jew. For this reason, to be a Hebrew means to be fluent in Aramaic and possibly Hebrew (see Acts 6:1

(Philo contrasts the language of the "Hebrews" with Greek [De mut. nom. 71; De confus. ling. 129].) Paul's use of the term “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Hebraois ex Hebraiôn) seems to be a more emphatic way of saying the same thing (Phil 3:5).) Jerome (342-420) gives expression to the tradition that Paul's family came from Gischala in Galilee and moved to Tarsus (Comm. ad Philem. 23; De vir. illus. 5); this would give Paul non-diasporan roots. This tradition may be true but there is no way of knowing for sure. Luke has Paul say that he was brought up (anatethrammenos) in Jerusalem, implying that he spent much of his youth in the city. Perhaps, this is why Paul called himself a "Hebraios." It should be noted, however, that “Hebrew” (Hebraios) can function as a synonym for a Jew among Greek-speaking genitles, as the synagogue inscription found in Corinth testifies: "Synagogue of the Hebrews."   4. Paul as Citizen of Tarsus   Paul, in addition to being a Jew, was also a native and citizen of Tarsus in the Roman province of Cilicia and Syria (Acts 21:39; 22:3); because this information comes to us only from the Book of Acts many scholars call it into question, especially since Paul in his letters claims to be "a Hebrews of Hebrews" (Phil 3:5). But what Luke describes is perfectly feasible; although Tarsus was a Greek polis, it was possible for a Jew to become a citizen of a Greek polis, since it was possible in some cases to buy citizenship outright

2

Besides, Hengel also points out that Luke's term may not mean full citizenship.  Paul’s statement that Tarsus was no ordinary city (Acts 21:39) is borne out by sources roughly contemporary with Paul. Tarsus was a major Hellenistic city, founded by the Seleucids, and later favored by Augustus. According to Strabo, "There was much zeal for philosophy and all other aspects of education generally among the inhabitants that in this respect they surpassed even Alexandria, Athens and any other place" (Geog. 14.5.13).  If he was in Tarsus for any length of time, Paul no doubt spoke fluent Greek; nevertheless, he was still able to speak Aramaic, which was probably the main language spoken by Jews in Palestine (see Acts 22:2) (The risen Christ also spoke to him in Aramaic [Acts 26:14].)   5. Paul as Roman Citizen   In the Book of Acts, Luke has Paul say on two occasions that he is a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37-38; 22:25-29). In fact, Paul says that he was born a Roman citizen, because his father was one (Acts 22:28). Roman citizenship was originally conferred on free-born natives of the city of Rome, but as Rome conquered Italy and regions beyond citizenship was conferred on others, but certainly not all occupants of the Roman empire. Citizenship brought with it certain legal rights, such as the right to a fair public trial, exemption from certain types of executions and punishments, and the right to have one's case heard before the emperor in Rome; the social and economic benefits were less tangible but just as real and even more important.   How Paul's father or perhaps grandfather, as Jews, acquired Roman citizenship is unknown; there were some obstacles to Paul's family becoming Roman citizens. Jews loyal to the Law, as Paul's father and grandfather seem to have been, were not normally interested in becoming Roman citizens, since to do so would involve participation to a degree in Roman religious practice, which for a Jew would be idolatry. Likewise, it was difficult in general for Jews to become Roman citizens since they tended to be isolated from mainstream Roman society. Nevertheless, for a Jew to be a Roman citizen was not an impossibility; there were several ways of obtaining it. Apart from being in the right place at the right time to benefit from its extension to segments of a whole population, one could purchase Roman citizenship with a large sum of money (see Acts 22:28) or perform some valuable service to a Roman general (Pompey or Antonius perhaps) or one of the Roman proconsuls of the province.  In addition, it was the Roman practice to grant citizenship to all freed slaves of Roman citizens (manumission).  In one of these ways Paul's family acquired citizenship. There is no reason to doubt Luke's assertion that Paul was a Roman citizen, as some scholars do.   6. Paul as a Pharisee   6.1. Introduction  

3

Although he could speak and write Greek, there is little indication that Paul had a complete Hellenistic education (in a gymnêsion).  First, he writes in koinê Greek, making no attempt to imitate the Attic Greek of classical literature, as someone with a Hellenistic education would have done. Second, he makes few allusions to Greek classical works (e.g., 1 Cor 15:33: the epigram from Menander, Thais, 218; Acts 17:28: Epimenides; Aratus; Titus 1:12: Epimenides

(These are probably the exceptions that proves the rule, since these were likely common epigrams known to educated and uneducated alike.

In fact, Paul claims to have been a Pharisee. He states explicitly that he was a Pharisee in Phil 3:5 (see Acts 26:5). Luke has Paul say that he is from a Pharisaic family (Acts 23:6: “son of Pharisees” [huios Pharisai ô n ]). (How influential Pharisaism was outside of Palestine and therefore whether Paul was exposed to Pharisaism outside of a familial context while in Tarsus is unknown.) When he says "according to the Law, a Pharisee" (kata nomon Pharisaios), Paul means that he adhered to Pharisaic halakot and to Pharisaic theology in general. In Gal 1:14, Paul says that he advanced in Judaism much beyond his own contemporaries, by which he means that he advanced in Pharisaic Judaism. Luke records that Paul explains that he went to Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel, a Pharisaic teacher (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was a member of the Sanhedrin, and advised that leniency be shown towards the apostles (Acts 5:34-39). (Hillel and Shammai, although both Pharisees, disagreed on many issues; as a result, two schools of Pharisaism developed in the first century before the destruction of the Temple. Whether Paul was a follower of either one is unknown, but, since Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel, Paul may have been a Hillelite.) This man is the teacher referred to occasionally in the Mishna as Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, (m. Sota 9.15; m. Git. 4.2-3; m. Abot 1.16). (At what age Paul took up residence in Jerusalem is unknown; whether his whole family moved there or just he is also unclear, although Paul does have a sister living in Jerusalem [Acts 23:16].) Being a Pharisee, however, was not an occupation; it seems that Paul was a tentmaker (skênopoios) by trade, and supported himself by this even after he had become an apostle (Acts 18:3).   Understanding what Paul was theologically before his conversion will illumine what he was after his conversion and the position of his opponents who seemed to be influenced by Pharisaism (see Acts 15:5). It is difficult to reconstruct Pharisaic Judaism because information from the most reliable sources (pre-70) is not in abundance; what is available as source material is Josephus’ writings, the New Testament and the Qumran sectarian writings. The result is that many historical questions are unanswerable or equally answerable by more than one hypothesis. Moreover, it is probable that the Psalms of Solomon are Pharisaic in origin, even though the term "Pharisee" (or Sadducee) does not occur in these texts. Rather, many of these compositions focus on “the devout” (hoi hosioi) also known as “the righteous” (hoi dikaioi) and several other synonymous terms. (Unfortunately, little is known about the activities of Pharisees outside of Palestine.)  

4

There is no doubt that early rabbinic Judaism, which appeared after the destruction of the second Temple, was continuous with the Pharisaic Judaism of the second-Temple period. Two facts make this certain. First, there are clear resemblances between the rabbis and the Pharisees (which we derive from sources of this second-Temple period) with respect to beliefs and practices. Second, the later rabbis identify second Temple figures as authoritative teachers known to us as Pharisees from other sources (e.g., Gamaliel Acts 5:34; Simon b. Gamaliel Josephus, Life 191). But there is the danger of retrojecting later developments of rabbinic Judaism into the second-Temple period. There is also the possibility that what the later rabbinic sources claim about the Pharisees (or synonymous term) is historical fabrication. For this reason, it is better to draw certain conclusions, even if these are more fragmentary, by restricting oneself to the pre-70 sources.   6.2. The Origin and Meaning of the Name “Pharisee”   Most likely, the spiritual ancestry of the Pharisees can be traced back somehow to the “pious ones” (Hasidim) referred to in 1 and 2 Maccabees as the opponents of Antiochus’ program of Hellenization and the allies of Judas Maccabees. Exactly how the Pharisees are related to the Hasidim, however, is a matter of debate. (Surprisingly, even though he used 1 Maccabees as a source, Josephus omits all explicit reference to the Hasidm [see Ant. 12.278 / 1 Macc 2:42; Ant. 12.396 / 1 Macc 7:12-15].)  

In rabbinic sources, reference is made to the "early Hasidim" (hasîdîm hr'šonîm) (m. Ber. 5:11; T. B. Qam. 2:6; B. Nid. 38ab; B. Ned. 10a; B. Menah. 40b-41a). Traditions about the pious behavior of these men are approvingly cited (Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism. A Study of 1 and 2 Maccabees (SCSS 24; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 187-207). Kampen argues that the "early Hasidim" are the Hasidim known from 1 and 2 Maccabees, which means that the Pharisees have a direct historical connection to the Hasidim.

  Generally, scholars agree that the name Pharisee derives from the Hebrew parash, meaning to separate; thus, the noun form perush means separatist.

The question arises whether the name Pharisee was the name originally chosen by the Pharisees themselves or whether it was a derisive term imposed upon them by their opponents. If the latter, eventually the term came to be used by the Pharisees as a self-designation, having lost its negative connotations. (When Josephus refers to them in his writings as "Pharisees" there is no sense that the term was ever derogatory.)  

In the Mishna, the term perushim (“Pharisee”) referring to what Josephus and the New Testament know as Pharisaioi occurs only three times (m. Yad. 4:6-8; m. Hag. 2:7; m. Sota. 3.4); the term also occurs in the Tosepta (t. Yad. 2:20; t. Hag. 3:35) (see E. Rivkin, A Hidden Revoluton: The Pharisees' Search for the Kingdom Within [Nashville: Abingdon, 1978] 125-79). In these texts, the Pharisees are portrayed as having legal views that differ from those of the Sadducees/Boethusians. (There are other occurrences of the term perushim in early rabbinic writings with a different meaning [t. Sota 15:11-12; t. Ber 3:25; m.

5

Sota 3:4].) It is possible that the rarity of the term Pharisees in early rabbinic writings is to be explained by the fact that the early rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees, did not want to be identified by a term originally intended as derogatory. Indeed, another term for the Pharisees is "sages" (hakamim) (see m. Mak. 1:6; t. Sanh. 6:6; t. Roš. Haš. 1:15) (In t. Yoma 1:8, the term Pharisee is used synonymously with "sage") and "scribes" (sopherim) (t. Yad. 3:2). This would also explain why the term Pharisee does not occur in Psalms of Solomon. But this hypothesis does not explain why Josephus and the New Testament use the term Pharisee with no hint of opprobrium, nor does it explain why the Qumran community would not have used the term perushim to refer to the Pharisees.

  In addition, it is not clear from what the Pharisees were supposed to have separated themselves. It is most often argued that separation was from sources of ritual uncleanness, and in particular the "people of the land" (am ha-eretz), known from rabbinic sources. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the Pharisees are more or less equivalent to the haberim. But the Pharisees may have originally separated themselves from contact with Jews whom they considered to be apostate.  

In early rabbinic literature there are references to haburot, associations of Jews whose aim was to ensure a supply of properly-tithed produce and to ensure that this supply was kept ritually pure. Since a purpose of the members of a habura was to eat their ordinary meals in a state of ritual purity, the food used in the preparation of meals must begin as ritually pure. Thus, to eat one’s ordinary meals in ritual purity was a commitment that required separation from non-haberim, usually identified as the ammei ha-eretz, in many aspects of life, especially in the areas of buying produce and eating. This is because non-haberim were suspected of not taking sufficient precaution against the ritual contamination of food and indeed of not accepting the halakot for the handling of food to be consumed by non-priests (m. Demai 2.3; t. Demai 2.2, 12). (According to t. Demai 2.10, some non-haberim were known to follow the rules of the haberim in private.) The relationship between the Pharisees and the haburot is a question that scholars have long debated. No doubt the institution of the habura evolved over the centuries, so a simple identification of the haberim in early rabbinic writings with second-Temple Pharisees is historically unwise. Nevertheless, there is evidence in early rabbinic writings that second-Temple Pharisees sought to eat ordinary meals in a state of ritual purity and formed themselves into haburot in order to ensure that this would happen (Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishhah [Philadelphia:Trinity Press International, 1990], 250). In m. 'Ed. 1.14, in a debate between the houses of Shammai and Hillel, the am ha-eretz stands in contrast with these two houses with respect to the cleanness and uncleanness of vessels. In other contexts in the Mishna, it is the haberim who stand in opposition to the ammei ha-eretz in this respect, so that one could argue that in the second-Temple the Pharisees are to be identified with the haberim.  In m. Demai 6.6, similarly, the houses of Shammai and Hillel debate whether one should sell his olives to anyone but a haber; the assumption is that, since olives, being wet, will be rendered ritually impure by being touched by anyone who has not washed his hands before handling the olives. A haber, by contrast, would cleanse his hands before touching the olives, thereby preserving them as ritual pure and therefore edible for a haber. The implication is that the Pharisees are haberim. Likewise, in m. Hag. 2:7 the ammei ha-eretz are contrasted with the Pharisees with respect to the ritual defilement of clothing (midras impurity), whereas in m. Dem. 2:3 the contrast is between the ammei ha-eretz and the haberim. This implies that haberim is synonymous with the term Pharisee (perushim). Finally, in t. Shab. 1.15, it is debated whether a perush (i.e., a Pharisee), when ritually impure because of a

6

discharge (a zav), is allowed to eat with an am ha-eretz, who is assumed to be equally as ritually impure. The assumption is that it is the norm for Pharisees to eat their ordinary meals in a state of ritual purity. Now whether every "good" Pharisee in the second-Temple period was a haber is impossible to say; nevertheless, it is clear that the institution of the habura antedates the early rabbinic period, having its origins in the second-Temple period and that the Pharisees were haberim (see Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority [Lund: Gleerup, 1978] 62-67; Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, 187). In general, one can say that to be a Pharisee is to be a haber, since this was the only reliable way ensuring that one’s ordinary meals were ritually pure (contrary to Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution, 173-75).

6.3. The History of the Pharisees  

Most of the data on the history of the Pharisees come from Josephus' War and his later Antiquities. Josephus' source is no doubt Nicolas of Damascus, who tends to be hostile to the Pharisees. Josephus sometimes uncritically takes over this negative assessment of the Pharisees, even though he himself claimed to conduct his life as a Pharisee [Life 10-12].)

The earliest historical reference to the Pharisees is dated to the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104 BCE). Josephus reports that the Pharisees were supported by the people and even by the Hasmoneans for a while, which lasted until one Pharisee (a certain Eleazar) insulted John Hyrcanus by saying that he should give up the high priesthood because his mother had been captured in war (in accordance with Lev 21:14), insinuating that he was illegitimate (War 1.67-68; Ant. 13.288-99; see the parallel account in b. Qidd. 66a; b. Ber. 29a). Hyrcanus was furious and switched his allegiance to the Sadducees. (There was probably more to the dispute than this isolated incident, but no further information is provided.) What is lacking in the Antiquities is an account of the origin of the Pharisees. As a group, they just suddenly appear in Josephus' account of the Hasmonean rulers. Either his source had no such historical account or Josephus omits it.   During the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 BCE), the Pharisees made the political mistake of allying themselves with the Syrian king Demetrius III (Theos Philopater Soter) against Alexander; this indicates that the Pharisees were at variance with the Hasmoneans and their Sadducean supporters. The result was that Alexander crucified 800 Pharisees while dining in a conspicuous place with his concubines and had the families of the 800 killed in front of them while they died on the crosses (Ant. 13.372-9; War 1.93-98). Although Josephus does not identify Alexander's victims as Pharisees, it is clear from what he says later that a large number must have been, because the Pharisees sought to persuade Salome Alexandra to avenge the death of these Jews (see below); this implies that many of those crucified were Pharisees or at least sympathizers. This event is also referred to 4Q169 (Nahum Pesher). The lion of Nahum 2:11b is interpreted as Demetrius III.  But

7

in the interpretation of Nahum 2:12a, the lion appears to become Alexander, whose victims, mentioned in 2:12a, b are said to be "the seekers of smooth things," (the term used for the Pharisees) whom the furious young lion hung alive, i.e., crucified.  The author criticizes the "seekers of smooth things" for plotting to depose Alexander and bring the independent Jewish nation under the control of the Seleucids again:  "[But God did not permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim" (4Q169 frg. 3+4, col. 1.3).   Josephus also relates that some unnamed opponents began to revile Alexander Jannaeus, when performing his high priestly duties during the Festival of Tabernacle, and pelted him with “kitrons” (Ant. 13.372-73; War 1.89). These opponents said that Jannaeus was descended from captives and was unfit to hold the high-priestly office. In response Jannaeus had some 6,000 of them killed. More than likely these unnamed opponents were Pharisees or sympathizers with the Pharisaic movement.   Under Queen Salome Alexandra (78-69 BCE), the widow of Alexander Jannaeus, the Pharisees were given free reign in the area of politics/religion; this was their golden age (Ant. 13.408-16; War 1.110-12). As said already, the Pharisees sought revenge on those who were involved in the crucifixion of Alexander's opponents. If it dates from the period of Salome, 4Q169 (Nahum Pesher) gives further evidence that the Pharisees dominated politically and religiously during the reign of Salome. The author interprets Nahum 3:1-7 as a prediction of the imminent eschatological destruction of “the seekers of smooth things,” who have led the nation astray.  

According to rabbinic sources, Simeon ben Shetah (one the pairs [zugot] [m. Hag. 2.2]) was a prominent Pharisee at this time. He was the brother of the queen Salome Alexandra, the wife of Alexander Jannaeus (b. Ber. 48a). With the king's permission, he replaced the Sadducees on the bet din (Sanhedrin) with Pharisees (Meg. Ta'an. 10.) Pharisees who had taken refuge in Alexandria returned to Jerusalem, including Joshua ben Perahiah, the former president (nasi). He was elected president anew and Simeon ben Shetah was elected vice-president (ab ben din). Upon the former's death, the latter became president and Judah ben Tabbai became vice-president (b. Sota 47a). When Alexander Jannaeus became hostile towards him and the Pharisees, however, Simeon ben Shetah was forced to go into hiding (b. Ber. 48a). When the king died, Salome Alexandra gave free reign to Simeon ben Shetah and the Pharisees. With Judah ben Tabbai, Simeon ben Shetah worked to impose the Pharisaic interpretation of the Law upon the nation. He is called called "the restorer of the Law," who "has given back to the crown of learning its former brightness" (b. Qidd. 66a).

  During the reign of Herod the Great, little is found on the Pharisees in the historical sources; this probably because they had little direct political influence. (Neusner, however, unconvincingly argues that the Pharisees had become de-politicized and turned their attention to tithing and ritual purity of ordinary meals; in effect they became a table-fellowship organization

Herod ruled with the support of the Romans and to a lesser extent the Jewish aristocracy, which included few Pharisees, since the aristocracy tended to

8

have Sadducean allegiance. Likely the Pharisees were ambivalent or hostile to Herod as king as most Jews seemed to have been. It seems that the Pharisees were as directly involved in the politics during Herod's reign as much as circumstances would allow. References in Josephus’ works to Pharisees during Herod's reign include the following.   Josephus reports that two Pharisees—Pollion and Samaias, his student—advised that the populace to open the gates of Jerusalem to Herod, when Herod put the city under siege. Herod, nonetheless, rewarded these two for their support. According to Josephus, Pollion (and Samaias?) had earlier advised the Hasmonean Hyrcanus II and the members of the Sanhedrin that Herod should be executed for putting to death guerilla leaders without authorization, as the Law prescribes, because if his life was spared he lived he would return to persecute them (see Ant. 14.172-76; 15.370). So why these two were in favor of allowing Herod entrance is unclear.   About 20 BCE, Herod required that his subjects take an oath of loyalty; Pollion, Samaias and most of their disciples (i.e., other Pharisees) refused. But because of their earlier support Herod left this infraction unpunished (Ant. 15. 370; see also Ant. 17.41-42 where the same event is described).  The 6,000 Pharisees who did not take the oath were merely fined.  

Samaias and Pollion are to be identified with Shemaiah and Abtalion mentioned in later rabbinic writings (b. Pes. 66a; 70b; B. Yoma 35b). According to rabbinic tradition, these men were one of the "pairs" (zugot), pre-tannaitic authorities, who presided over the bet din ha-gadol (Great House of Judgment probably identical to the Sanhedrin) as the president (nasi) and vice-president or "father of the court" (ab bet din) (m. Peah 2.6). There are five pairs listed (m. Hag. 2.2). They are said to have received the tradition from Judah b. Tabbai and Simon d. Shetah (m. Abot 1.8, 10). The pairs not only exercised political authority but also were guardians of religious tradition (m. Abot 1.1). Hillel is said to have studied with them (b. Yoma 35b). They are called "the great men of the age" (b. Pes. 66a) and "interpreters" (darshanim) (b. Pes. 70a). The halaka that the Passover lamb must be offered even if Passover fall on a Sabbath is attributed to them (b. Pes. 66a). In addition, Abtalion is supposed to have said, "You sages, be careful of your words, lest you draw upon yourselves the punishment of exile and be banished to a place of evil water (dangerous doctrine), and your disciples, who come after you, drink thereof and die, and the name of the Holy One thereby be profaned" (m. Abot 1.12). Shemaiah is credited with saying, "Love labor, shun power, and make for yourself no friends of ruling powers" (m. Abot 1.10). Their experiences with Hyrcanus II and then Herod may stand behind these sayings.

  Josephus says that near the end of Herod's life Pharisees were involved in a plot to transfer power from Herod's sons to Pheroras, Herod's brother; Salome, Herod's sister, disclosed the plot to Herod, and Herod executed those Pharisees most responsible and those in his household who approved of the plot (Ant. 17. 43-44; War 1. 571).   At the end of Herod's life (4 BCE) two unidentified teachers (sophistai), Judas and Matthias, who were probably Pharisees, encouraged some young men to pull down the golden eagle that Herod erected over the gate of the temple. Herod executed those responsible (Ant. 17. 149-67; War 1. 648-55).

9

  After Herod’s death, the Romans sought to incorporate Judea into the Roman empire by putting it under the direct rule of procurators (after Archelaus’ short-lived reign); to this end a certain Coponius was appointed procurator and Quirinius, the newly-appointed legatus of Syria, was given the task of taking a census of the population of Judea for taxation purposes. In response, Judas of Gamala, called the Galilean, and a Pharisee named Zadok began an unsuccessful popular rebellion against Roman hegemony in 6 (Ant. 18.3). In their view, direct Roman rule was slavery, and they encouraged the people to fight for independence. This event at least proves that not all Pharisees were non-political during this period. (Josephus says that this was the origin of the so-called “fourth philosophy,” Zealotism; it could be that the more revolutionary Pharisees allied themselves with the newly-form Zealot movement, since Josephus says that they differed from the Pharisees only in their desire for their “passion for freedom” [Ant. 18.23].)    Josephus describes how the Pharisee Simon b. Gamaliel assumed a leading role in the Jewish war against Rome. Unfortunately for him, Simon disliked Josephus and sought to have him replaced as a general. A deputation of men, some of whom were Pharisees, was sent to Galilee to investigate the situation (Life 190-98; 216; 309).   6.4. The Influence of the Pharisees   Josephus reports that the influence of the Pharisees among the people was great, especially among the city dwellers (Ant. 13.298; 18.14-15); he claims that the Pharisees were the leading “sect” (hairesis) (War 2.162).  (The influence of the Pharisees was particularly great among the women of Herod’s court [Ant. 17.41].)  When relating an account concerning Hyrcanus II, Josephus says that the Pharisees’ influence among the masses was so great that when they spoke against a king or a high priest, the masses gave them heed (Ant. 13.288); although this remark about the Pharisees occurs in the context of his account of Hyrcanus II, Josephus seems to intend his remarks to apply to every historical period. Josephus adds that the Pharisees were powerful enough to cause Herod some grief (Ant. 17.42). This implies that the Pharisees had an indirect influence over Herod, functioning to keep Herod in check with the ever-present threat of popular rebellion. By contrast, the Sadducees had influence only among the wealthy and the ruling class (Ant. 13.298); Josephus explains that they had to submit to the decisions of the Pharisees, for otherwise the masses would not tolerate them (Ant. 18.17). Moreover, the masses gave heed to the Pharisaic regulations on prayers and the sacred rites of divine worship (procedures in the Temple) (Ant. 13.288, 298; 18.14-15). (In Matt 23:1-3 Jesus says that the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses, which means that their legal decisions are to be considered binding; this is a probably reflection of the fact that the Pharisees already occupied that position.)  

Although many scholars view them as exaggerations, Josephus’ statements about the Pharisees’ political influence are credible (see Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution).

10

Neusner (From Politics to Piety), following M. Smith ("Palestinian Judaism in the First Century" Israel: Its Role in Civilization (Ed. M. Davis; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1956), 67–81, however, argues that, in his Antiquities (unlike his earlier work War), Josephus inaccurately claims that the pre-70 Pharisees had political power in order to convince the Romans that the post-destruction Pharisees should likewise be entrusted with political power. Similarly, E. P. Sanders unsuccessfully tries to explain away the passages in Josephus’ works concerning the power and influence of the Pharisees by saying that they derive from Nicolas of Damascus and are intended as complaints against the Pharisees as political meddlers (Judaism. Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE [Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992] 388-99).  M. Yoma and other tractates from the Mishna agree that things were done in the Temple according to Pharisaic interpretation.

  6.5. Pharisaic Theology   Reliable sources for an understanding of Pharisaic theology include Josephus' works, the New Testament and the Qumran sectarian writings. In addition, the Pharisees were probably responsible for the Psalms of Solomon, as traditionally has been held; if so, these texts represent the Pharisees' critique of political events and Pharisaic theological self-understanding dating from the first century BCE.   6.5.1. Josephus' Works   In his works, Josephus describes the Pharisees and compares them to other Jewish groups prevalent at that time; some scholars are quite skeptical about the reliability of Josephus' statements, but this is largely unjustified. When reading Josephus' writings, what must be kept in mind, however is the fact that he is writing for a gentile audience, so that his descriptions of the Pharisees may employ non-Jewish concepts and terminology.   A. War 1.110  

These are a certain body (suntagma) of Jews that appear more religiously observant (eusebesteron) than other Jews, and seem to interpret the laws more accurately (akribesteron).

 According to Josephus, Pharisees are a distinct group of Jews who have a reputation of excelling other Jews in religious observance and being exact more interpreters of the laws. All Jewish "sects" interpreted the laws, but the Pharisees were viewed generally as the most accurate interpreters.   B. War 2.162-64, 166  

But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and hold the position of the leading sect. These ascribe all to fate (hermarmenê) and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are

11

imperishable, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.... Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord, and regard for the public; but the behavior of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree boorish, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them.

  Josephus explains that the Pharisees are the most accurate interpreters of the laws of all the Jewish sects (hairesis). They attribute everything to Fate (heimarmenê) and to God, at the same time, holding that to act rightly rests for the most part on all people, but that fate cooperates. Josephus uses the abstract concept of "fate," but as a Jew he no doubt is referring to God's sovereignty over creation. To attribute everything "to fate and to God" is to say that God has pre-determined all things. Nevertheless, the Pharisees exempted human behavior from God's sovereignty, or at least believed that "fate" and human freedom were somehow compatible (It is not clear what the clause "And fate co-operates means" [boêthein...tên heimarmenên].) It seems that the fact that God has ordained all things does not annul the freedom of the will and, therefore, moral responsibility. The Pharisees also believe that every soul is imperishable and the soul of the good passes into another body while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment. In this case, Josephus is accommodating himself to his gentile readership, because it is probable that by the passing of the soul of the good into another body, he is referring to the resurrection. By the soul's imperishability, he means that the soul survives the death of the body, not that the soul is by nature imperishable. The reason that Pharisees are so courteous to one another, whereas the Sadducees are not is not clear. (Whether this was in Josephus' own source is unknown.)   C. Ant. 13.171-73  

At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essenes. Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly.

  In this section from the Antiquities, Josephus distinguishes three Jewish "sects" (haireseis) according to their views on "fate" (heimarmenê). In the early Hasmonean period, during the reign of Jonathan (161-42 BCE), there existed Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. What is not stated, however, is how these three "sects" came into existence. The Pharisees believe that some events are the work of fate (heimarmenê), but not all; other events depend upon human beings. (In War 2.162-64, Josephus refers to "to fate (heirmarmenê) and to God," whereas in the later Antiquities he only refers to

12

"fate.") Josephus uses the abstract concept of "fate," but as a Jew he no doubt is referring to God's sovereignty over creation. Unlike the other two "sects," the Pharisees believe that God predetermines some events, but not all; in particular, God does not predetermined all human behavior, but allows for human freedom. This description of Pharisaic belief differs slightly from that in War 2.162-64, insofar as in the latter human actions seem to be paradoxically both free and determined by God.   D. Ant. 18.11-15  

The Jews had for a great while had three philosophies peculiar to themselves; that of the Essenes, that of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees; of which philosophies, although I have already spoken in the second book of the Jewish War, yet will I a little touch upon them now. Now, for the Pharisees, they live simply, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the guidance of that which their teaching (logos) has selected and prescribed to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe its dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced; and when they determine that all things are done by fate (heimarmenê), they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it has pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or according to vice. They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or according to vice in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about Divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also.

  In this section of Antiquities, Josephus enumerates several distinctives of Pharisaic belief and practice. (He calls Pharisaism a "philosophy" for the sake of his gentile readers.) First, the Pharisees, in contrast to the other "philosophies," are moderately ascetic. Second, the teaching of the Pharisees consists of prescriptions for behavior ("as good for them they do"), which probably refers to the Pharisaic halakot. Third, unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees are respectful towards their elders and their teachings. What he no doubt means is that the Pharisees accept the traditions passed down by their teachers as authoritative, unlike the Sadducees, who have no such authoritative tradition. Fourth, the Pharisees believe both that all things occur according to "fate" (heimarmenê), or God's sovereignty, and that human beings have free will to "act virtuously or according to vice." Restated in Jewish terms, the Pharisees believed that human beings have the freedom to obey or disobey the Law. Fifth, they believe that the soul of a person survives the dissolution of the body (having an "immortal rigor") and resides under the earth. This is an adaptation of the biblical teaching of Sheol, the destination of all who have died. In this adaptation, Sheol is the permanent dwelling of the wicked, being a prison, where they are punished, but only the temporary dwelling of the righteous, for they will be restored eschatologically to some

13

type of corporeal existence (anabioun) (see 1 Enoch 22). For a Pharisee, to live "virtuously" is to obey the written and oral Law, whereas to live "according to vice in this life" is not to do so. Finally, the Pharisees have the support of the people and are thereby in a position to control how worship in the Temple is carried out.

E. Ant. 13. 294, 297-98  

And indeed the Pharisees, even upon other occasions, are not apt to be severe in punishments....What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the wealthy, and having no following among the people, but the Pharisees have the masses on their side.

  Josephus indicates that Pharisees are more lenient in matters of punishment (as compared to other Jewish groups). They also hold to the validity of certain regulations that are not contained in the laws of Moses. What he means is that in addition to the written laws found in the Torah the Pharisees have unwritten laws that have been passed down from their teachers. It is true that the written laws must be clarified so that these clarifications implicitly become part of the written laws. (According to early rabbinic writings, the Pharisees and the Sadducees disputed over how to interpret the written laws and came to different conclusions.) But the Pharisees not only clarified the written laws differently than the Sadducees (and the Essenes), but also had laws handed down from past generations and accepted as authoritative that were not found or even implied in the Torah. The Sadducees by contrast reject the unwritten laws, "the traditions of the fathers" (ta ek paradoseôs tôn paterôn) and hold only to the laws of Moses, the "regulations that are written" (nomina ta gegrammena). (The mishna contains both clarification of the written laws and unwritten laws. An example of the latter are the regulations about handwashing found in m. Yad.) Moreover, the Pharisees have the support of the majority of Jews.   6.5.2. New Testament   The Pharisees are referred to often and in unflattering terms in the gospels; there are also references to the Pharisees in the Book of Acts.   A. Mark 7:1-23 = Matt 15:1-20 7:3-4   The Pharisees are said to hold to the traditions of the elders and not to eat until they have washed their hands first and they wash things like cups pitchers and kettles. In Mark 7:9, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of setting aside the Law of God in order to observe their own traditions. (See in this regard Matt 23:4, where Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for imposing too great

14

a burden on the people.) The implication is that the Pharisees binding, extra-biblical legal traditions.   B. Matthew 23:1-36 23:15   Jesus says that the Pharisees proselytize, seeking Jewish converts to their interpretation of biblical religion. In Matt 23:16-22, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of making distinctions with respect to the swearing of an oath that do not exist; this implies that they were involved with specifying exactly what the Law required. In Matt 23:23, Jesus portrays the Pharisees as meticulous when it comes to tithing: they would even tithe herbs grown in private gardens. In Matt 23:25-26, Jesus implies not only that the Pharisees are concerned about purity issues, but that they attempted to make obedience to the purity laws easier by distinguishing between the outside and the inside of a cup or dish. It is probable, as the saying implies, that the Pharisees distinguished impurity of the inside of a vessel from impurity of the outside Jesus then both parodies this type of distinction-making, and uses it metaphorically to make a point: when the inside is clean (when the heart is pure), then the outside (actions) is also clean.   C. Acts 23:6-8   Luke says that the Pharisees believe in the resurrection and in the existence of angels and spirits, unlike the Sadducees.   6.5.3. Qumran Sectarian Writings   The members of the community opposed the Pharisaic halakot, i.e., their oral interpretations and elaborations of the Law. They made a derogatory pun on the key Pharisaic term halaka. Rather than calling the Pharisees "Interpreters of Laws” (dorshe halakot) as they no doubt called themselves, the Qumran community referred to them as "seekers after smooth things (i.e.,"Interpreters of false laws") (dorshe halaqot), which is an allusion to Isa 30:10, where Isaiah criticizes Israel for rejecting the prophetic message of impending judgment and prefering to hear "smooth things" (see CD 1.18-20; 1QH 10[2].32; 12[4].7-12; 4Q163 [Isaiah pesher]; 4Q169 [Nahum pesher]; 4Q177 [Catena]). The major criticism of the Pharisees is their leniency with respect to the Law, hence the name "seeker of smooth (easy) things"; this is borne out by the halakot found in the Dead Sea Scrolls: consistently they are stricter than what we know to be Pharisaic halakot and early rabbinic halakot. The point is that the Pharisees replace biblical commandments with their own regulations. The members of the Qumran community no doubt included the Pharisees as "the sons of darkness," who would be destroyed at the time of God's visitation; in the view of those responsible for the production of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pharisees led the people astray with their deviant halakot.  From what is said about the "seeker of smooth things" in 1QH-a 2.32; 4.7-12, some Pharisees were involved in the persecution of the community or leaders within it.  

15

The Qumran community criticizes an unidentified group referred to only as "builders of the wall" (CD 4.19-20); probably this criticism was directed against the Pharisees, who create extra-biblical laws in order to protect the Law (see m. Abot 1.1: "And make a fence around the Torah") (see also CD 8.12-13, 18; 19.31). The point is that the Pharisees replace biblical commandments with their own regulations.   6.5.4. Psalms of Solomon   The Psalms of Solomon provide a data for a more complete understanding of Pharisaic beliefs and practices. Surprisingly, however, there are no references to "the tradition of the elders" or oral law, which is distinctive of Pharisaism. What is found in these texts is a messianic expectation and teaching on the possibility of the removal of guilt.   A. God’s Discipline of the Nation   With respect to the Israelite nation, God’s judgment is also his discipline (7; 8:26, 29; 9:2)  In line with the deuteronomistic interpretation of history, when Israel breaks the covenant through sin, God brings disaster upon the nation that is designed not only to punish but also to discipline the recalcitrant people.  The ultimate purpose is restoration. Several of the Psalms of Solomon (2, 7, 8, 17) interpret Pompey's entrance into Jerusalem, resulting in the de facto end of the Hasmonean dynasty, as the discipline of God on the nation, in particular the Hasmonean religious and civil administration. (But, even though he was the instrument of God's discipline on the nation, Pompey's defeat at the hands of Caesar's allies was interpreted as God's judgment on him for his atrocities in Jerusalem [2:27-30].) The author of  Ps. Sol. 8 professes at first his puzzlement and consternation that God could allow Pompey to invade Jerusalem, but when he learns of the secret sins that provoked God to bring judgment on the people, he understands that God’s judgment is just (8:4-8; see 1:7). The obligation of the individual Jew is always “to justify God or declare God to be righteous” (see 2:15; 8:7, 26; see also 4:8). Any misfortune that befalls the nation must by faith be accepted as God’s just discipline.   B. Human Beings as Free and Responsible, Eschatological Judgment and Resurrection   God chose Israel from among the nations as God’s “portion and inheritance” (Ps. Sol. 14:5). The individual Jew, however, must choose to maintain himself as part of the nation insofar as he is presumed to be free and responsible: “Our works (are) in the choosing and power of our souls, to do right and wrong in the works of our hands” (9:4a). Nevertheless, there are also some deterministic-sounding passages in the Psalms of Solomon (5:4; 8:14; 16:5–8). It follows that God must judge human beings: “And in your righteousness you look upon human beings” (9:4b). For God to “look upon” human beings is to judge them. But God always judges impartially, according to a standard. This is what is meant when it is said that God judges in righteousness (9:4b;

16

see also 4:24; 8:24–25; 10:5). The same thing is meant by saying that God is a righteous judge (2:18; 9:2; see 4:24), that he shows himself righteous (8:23) and that his judgments are righteous (5:1; 8:8, 29). A person is qualified as righteous insofar as he obeys the commandments, the Law, which was given for he purpose of life (14:2–3). The Law is the means of life, because those who make themselves righteous by doing the Law are judged to be deserving of life. (It is not specified on what basis those who do not know the Law will be judged; presumably, the author only has Jews in mind.)   God executes judgment in this life: “The one who does what is right saves up life for himself with the Lord, and the one who does what is wrong causes his own life to be destroyed” (9:5). Accordingly, Pompey’s invasion of Jerusalem and his subjugation of the Hasmoneans is viewed as a particular example of God’s judgment in history (2:16–19; 8:8, 27–29; 17:8-9). Nevertheless, there is an eschatological thrust in Psalms of Solomon, so that, although God’s judgments are manifest in history, there will be a final judgment of the wicked and the righteous. At this time, the righteous will be raised and inherit to eternal life, whereas destruction awaits the wicked. Several passages bear on this. In Ps. Sol. 2:31, the author speaks God’s raising him up to glory, a possible reference to bodily resurrection, but God’s “putting to sleep the arrogant for eternal destruction in dishonor because they did not know him” (2:31). (In what follows in Ps. Sol. 2:32–35, the author establishes that God judges and repays the sinner for what he has done to the righteous.) In another psalm, the author explains that there will come a time when God will “look upon” the righteous, by which is meant that he will be merciful to them and vindicate them in judgment. At this time, the sinner will be destroyed and no longer remembered; this is the share of sinners forever (3:11–12). This is the “day of mercy of the righteous” (14:9; see 19:9). The ones who fear the Lord, however, “will be raised up to eternal life” (3:12), which is probable allusion to Dan 12:2. Along the same lines, the author of Ps. Sol. 15 explains that sinners will be destroyed “when God looks upon the earth with judgment” (15:12b), which, in this context, is idiomatic for the time of final judgment. The ones who fear the Lord, however, will “receive mercy” in this day, and “will live by God’s mercy forever” (15:13a). The implication is that even the righteous do not fully deserve eternal life, but are granted this because of God’s mercy. (Ps. Sol. 15:8–9 establishes that God will judge sinners, but does not specify that this will occur on the day of judgment.) Finally, in Ps. Sol. 14:9–10, the final destiny of sinners is said to be “Hades, darkness and destruction” (14:9). These sinners “will not be found in the day of the mercy for the righteous” (14:9b), which is time of the eschatological vindication of the righteous; at that time also the righteous “will inherit life in joy” (14:10; see also 12:6).   God condemns sinners “by means of the thoughts of their hearts” (17:25), by which is meant their fundamental intentions, which are contrary to the will of God as expressed in the Law. Thus, sinners are condemned for their hypocrisy (4:2–3, 8) and their greed, which leads to oppression and exploitation of other Jews (4:9–13). Yet, in the Psalms of Solomon, it is also said that God repays sinners according to their works (2:16a, 34; 17:8b) or, synonymously, according to their sins (2:16b; 17:8a). Sinners are condemned for what they do, including sexual immorality (2:11–14; 4:4–5; 8:9, 10; 16:7–

17

8), deceit and slander (12:1–2) and desecration of the Temple (2:3–5). It seems, therefore, that the sinner is defined as one who fundamentally wills evil and then acts accordingly; intention and action are inseparable, the latter being an expression of the former. The righteous, on the other hand, may sin, but do not have that fundamentally evil disposition that characterizes the sinner. Rather, the righteous are described as those who “remember the Lord at all times” (3:3a), “fear the Lord” (4:23; see 6:5), are “ready to call on the name of the Lord” (6:1; see 9:6), “bless the name of the Lord” (6:4), “hope in him” (6:6) and “love him in truth” (6:6; 14:1). All these epithets describe a person who is fundamentally allied with God and committed to the fulfillment of the Law; this is what makes the righteous what they are: those who sin non-habitually and therefore uncharacteristically. Nevertheless, as with the sinner, the righteous are ultimately defined by what they do and what they do is a function of the exercise of their free wills. Thus, the possibility always remains open for the righteous to become a sinner (and, conversely, for the sinner to become righteous); the categories of sinner and righteous are not destinies, but generalizations.   E. Forgiveness and Discipline of the Individual   The righteous are not perfect. The difference between them and the wicked is that the former do not sin habitually and, when they do sin, they repent immediately. If anyone deserves mercy, it is the righteous, because of their past record of obedience; nevertheless, according to the conditions set forth in the Torah, God has no obligation to remove the guilt resulting from any sin deemed worthy of extirpation in the Tora. God as merciful, however, provides the righteous with the opportunity for the removal of guilt when they sin: “The righteous constantly searches his house to remove unrighteousness in his transgressions” (3:7; see 13:10). “To remove unrighteousness in his transgressions” seems to mean to remove the unrighteousness that has resulted from violations of God’s commandments, so that the even is being used instrumentally (“by means of”). (In Ps. Sol. 3, the righteous man, described in 3:5-8, stands in contrast to the sinner, described in 3:9-11. ) The psalmist adds that the righteous man atones for his (unknowing?) sins (agnoias) by fasting and the humbling of his soul” (3:7–8). It is possible that the use of both paraptôma in 3:7 and agnoia in Ps. Sol. 3:8 reflects the biblical distinction between intentional and unintentional sins (Num 15). Indeed, the clause “He atones for his (unknowing) sins seems to be influenced by Lev 5:18 “And the priest shall atone for him for his unknowing sin.” Lev 5:17-18 describes the procedure for the atonement of any unintentional sin. But, given the looseness of the terminology, it is more likely that the terms paraptôma and agnoia are more or less synonyms, standing in relation to each other in a synthetic parallel construction; the term hamartia in Ps. Sol. 3:10, used to describe what the sinner does, may be intended as a harsher term. The use of agnoias may be a translation of šggh, and thereby carries with it the connotation of unintentionality. The implication of calling the righteous man’s sin an agnoia is that the righteous person, by definition, always sin unintentionally either unknowingly or uncharacteristically, as not reflecting his true nature. Thus, when the righteous person turns to him in fasting and the humbling of his soul, God grants forgiveness for any sin committed, since all

18

of the sins of the righteous are unintentional and forgivable, as the Tora specifies. Ps. Sol. 3:7-8 is reminiscent of Lev 16:29-30, part of the instructions for the observance of the Day of Atonement, insofar as in both the phrase “to humble one’s soul” occurs. The implication seems to be that the possibility of atonement remains open perpetually for the righteous, and is not offered simply on an annual basis.   In another psalm, the author confesses, “He [God] will cleanse a soul from sin in confessing and restoring (9:6). When they sin, the righteous have the confidence that, provided that they confess and make restitution, God will cleanse them from their sins. It is clear that the soul that is cleansed is the soul of the righteous because the sinner would not confess his sin and seek cleansing. The author continues, “And whose sins will he forgive except those who have sinned? You bless the righteous, and do not accuse them for what they have sinned. And your goodness is upon those who sin, when they repent” (9:7). In this passage, the same group of Jews is called both “righteous” and said to sin or have sins. The righteous who sin, however, are not in the same category as the sinners who sin. Even though the righteous sin, the righteous are not sinners. The difference between them and the sinners is that the righteous repent when they sin. The adverbial phrase “in repentance” serves to qualify the sinning by the righteous and to specify the condition upon which God will not accuse them when they sin but will allow his goodness to be upon them. To repent is to turn from the sin towards a renewed obedience. Interestingly, no reference to atoning sacrifice as part of the means of obtaining forgiveness is found in the Psalms of Solomon, but this could easily be accidental.   Divine discipline is said to effect the removal of guilt. It is significant that God is called “the one who disciplines us” in Ps. Sol. 8:29, though in a national context. God distinguishes between the wicked and the righteous, in that the former are punished for their sins, whereas the latter are disciplined: “For the discipline of the righteous in ignorance (en agnoia) is not the same as the destruction of the sinners” (13:7). The adverbial phrase en agnoia probably denotes, not so much the unknowing, but more the uncharacteristic transgressions of the righteous, which is to say all their sins (see 18:4; 3:8). The difference between punishment and discipline is that the latter is salvific in intent, whereas the former is retributive. Because “the righteousness of the devout” is “before God” (9:3), when uncharacteristically a righteous person sins, God responds to him as a father would to a disobedient son, by disciplining him (10:9). No doubt, this is what is meant by proving the Lord right (3:5; see also 2:15; 8:7) or proving the Lord’s judgment right (3:3) when undergoing the discipline of God (3:4): it is the acceptance of God’s discipline as deserved. Submission to such discipline has the effect of removing the guilt of the sin that occasioned the discipline: “For the Lord will spare his devout, and he will wipe away their transgressions with discipline” (13:10). In another psalm, the author declares, “The one who prepares his back for the whip shall be cleansed, for the Lord is good to those who endure discipline” (10:2; see also 14:1–2; Sir 23:2). The willing acceptance of correction from God leads to purification from sin; this probably should be taken to mean that the suffering resulting from the discipline is atoning.

19

  C. The Messiah and Eschatological Salvation   As already indicated, the author(s) of Psalms of Solomon sees Pompey’s invasion as God’s judgment and discipline of the nation. Presumably, one of the reasons that God brought Jewish political independence to an end was that the Hasmoneans had usurped the kingship from the rightful heirs, the descendents of David. The author of Ps. Sol. 17 speaks of how the Hasmoneans despoiled the throne of David (17:6). In Ps. Sol. 17:21-25, he asks God to raise up for Israel a king from the line of David (“son of David”) to replace the deposed Hasmoneans and to purge Jerusalem of its gentile occupiers. It is said that the king of Israel will be "Messiah of the Lord" (Christos kuriou), and will be a righteous king, taught by God (17:31-32). There will be no unrighteousness during his reign. The Messiah would gather to himself a holy people, judge the twelve tribes of Israel and purge Jerusalem of all impurity; gentiles will come to the Temple to see the glory of the Lord and bring with them the dispersed of Israel. During the Messiah’s reign, it seems that dispersed Israel will return to the land (17:31; see 8:28; 11), which shall be divided according to the biblical tribal divisions (17:28).  The Messiah is said to be "powerful in the Holy Spirit" (Ps. Sol. 17:37), probably alluding to Isa 11:2. In Ps. Sol. 17:23, there is a clear allusion to Ps 2:9, implying that the author is interpreting the latter messanically. In Ps. Sol. 18, the author interprets the nation's present misfortunes as divine discipline, which, it seems, is intended to lead to the nation's cleansing for the day appointed by God to bring mercy through the Messiah. In Ps. Sol. 18:4-5, the author asks God to purify the nation through discipline for the appointed day when the Messiah will reign.   6.5.5. Summary   One can conclude the following about Pharisaic theology from Josephus' writings, the New Testament, the Qumran sectarian writings and the Psalms of Solomon.

The Pharisees were voluntary religious association within Judaism that sought to proselytize. They were the leading "sect," had the support of the people, and functioned as religious authorities.

The Pharisees sought the proper interpretation of and obedience to the Law. This led them to bring clarifications to the Law, which other non-Pharisaic Jews rejected. The Pharisees had a reputation for lenient interpretation thereby making obedience to the Law easier and more attractive to the potential converts.

The Pharisees had a body of oral laws that were not found in the written Law but were binding on their adherents ("the traditions of the elders"). These had status of a second law.

The Pharisees believed in angels and spirits. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees believed that human beings (Jews, in particular) were

free to obey or disobey the Law; they also believed that things were also predestined by God.

20

The Pharisees believed that God was a righteous judge. There would be a final, post-resurrection judgment in which the righteous would be rewarded and the wicked punished, the basis of which would be obedience/disobedience of the Law. Obedience was probably also defined in terms of the oral law.

The Pharisees believed in the possibility of the removal of guilt but only for the righteous. (This presupposes that the righteous are not perfect but only habitually obedient.)

The Pharisees believed that a Messiah, a descendent of David, would appear and reign in Israel.

21