The sadducees

Though the Pharisees and the Sadducees make their first appearance as distinct parties during the latter half of the 2nd cent. B.c., they represent tendencies which can be traced much further back in Jewish history. When Ezra returned from Babylon (B.c. 458), he found the Jews living in and around Jerusalem divided into two parties on the question of intercourse with foreigners. Those who returned first from exile (B.C. 537) had been more scrupulous in this matter.

They seem to have held aloof at first not only from the heathen inhabitants of the land, but also from the descendants of those Jews that had been left in Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar, and to have admitted into the new community only those whose ancestors had been in exile, or who were otherwise able to prove that they were of pure stock (Ezr 2, Neh 7°), Gradually, however, they fell awa from this strictness; they received into their fellowship their Palestinian brethren and such of the heathen as acknowledged J” and His command- ments; and many of them even entered into alliances of various kinds with those of their heathen neighbours who remained heathen.

That such was the case we learn eepeciall from the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Immediately upon his arrival in Jerusalem, Ezra was informed that many of the people had intermarried with the people of the land, the chiefs of the people being most guilty (9"-).* A commission appointed to inquire into the matter took three months to erform its task (1015), The number of those who τὴ contracted such marriages was very great; the list that was drawn up (10!)

contains the names of four members of the high priest’s family (v.18), Ezra perceived that a grave crisis had arisen in the history of the Jewish community in Palestine; the holy seed was being profaned (9*) ; the heathen element might soon become dominant ; the danger could be averted only Pe the adoption of measures that would secure that only such could belong to the community as were of pure Jewish blood.

He accordingly demanded that they put away their foreign wives and children, without giving them the opportunity of becoming Jews (10-4), Though they pledged themselves to do so (10"), this measure was not, at least ermanently, carried out.+ For when Nehemiah Brat visited Jerusalem (B.C. 444) he found matters exactly as Ezra had found them. The ‘nobles of Judah’ were in close alliance with the foreign * We learn from Mal 214.

that some of the Jews had put away their Jewish wives in order to marry foreign women. ¢ According to the LXX of 104 they put away their foreign wives along with their children. element (Neh 6'7- 35); the Sabbath was not strictly kept (10%, cf. 13%); and mixed mar- Tiages were exceedingly common.

After taking the precautionary measure of building the wall o Jerusalem, he held an assembly of the people, at which they resolved to separate checnatata entirely from all foreigners, and to observe all the LorRD’s commandments (93 10**-). He did not, however, compel them to put away their foreign wives and children, but ite to pledge themselves to abstain from all mixed marriages in future (105). But he had not yet gained a complete victory.

When he revisited Jerusalem in 432, he found that the high priest Eliashib had renewed his close fellowship with Tobiah (13), that the Sabbath was still Teeaarated (v.19), that many of the people were still marrying foreign wives (ν. 55.) and that a prone of the high priest was son-in- law to Sanballat (v.¥). Against these abuses he took active measures. He cast out all Tobiah’s household stuff, and had the chambers of the temple purified (v.

) ; he renewed his injunctions against Sabbath desecration and the contracting of fresh mixed marriages, and expelled the high priest’s grandson from the Jewish community (v.). Thus,’ he adds, ‘cleansed I them from all strangers’ (ν. 3). Complete separation from all foreign elements became henceforth the principle of Judaism.

In connexion with these proceedings it is import- ant to notice that the natural leaders of the people, including the members of the high priest’s family, who had become a sort of temple nobility, were among the chief offenders, and that it was from them that Nehemiah experienced the greatest active opposition.

Backed up by the authority of the Persian king, he was able to crush their opposi- tion, and to establish in Juda the strict separa- tion which from the first had ruled among the pious exiles in Babylonia. ‘The aftertime shows ey that he accomplished tke werk of his life. e impressed the stamp cf his ol ps upon Judaism for all time, and fcrced it to follow the course he had marked out’ (Cornill, History of the People of Israel, p. 168; see also Wellhausen, Isr. und Jiid. Geschichte’, p. 173).

We must not, however, make Nehemiah a Pharisee and Eliashib a Sadducee. In them and their respective adherents we have only, at the most, a preparation for the sachin that formed much later. The victory of Nehemiah was the victory of Judaism generally, not of Judaism in its specific Pharisaic form. Regarding the latter half of the Persian period we have hardly any authentic information.

The high priest was probably, under the Persian rovernor of Syria, the civil as well as religious nead of the Jewish community ; he and his ean brethren of higher office along with their families would doubtless form a kind of aristocracy, even as compared with the rest of the priests. Judging from the conduct of some of their successors towards the close of the Greek period, it is very unlikely that their influence was always of an ideal character (cf. the story of Johanan and Bagoses, Ant.

XI. vii. 1). In spite of the er 5 of the exclusive party under Ezra and Nehemiah, there still remained an Israel after the flesh, and a deep gulf between it and the Israel after the spirit.t ὁ According to Josephus (Ant. xt vill, 5 σ.} this expelled priest was Manasseh, for whom Sanballat built the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim. | For detailed proof drawn from the Pealms see Bertholet, Die Stellung der Irractiten und der Juden mu den Premden, p. 18417.

We need not suppose that only wicked ny 4 " of Ezra.

Cheyne (JewisA Ke were opposed to the rig ligious Life after the Baul 220) makes the Book of Ruth ‘an idyllic story to justify adw g into the community any foreign women who heartily adopted the nationality and religion of their Jewish husbands It shows that Bera did not gain δ at all complete victory over the friends of mixed marriages,’ PHARISEES The conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great and the settin oP of the Greek kingdoms of Egypt and Syria uader his successors one the Jews into close contact with a new and highly developed civilization.

During the first half of the Greek period Judwa belonged to Egypt, and the Pales- tinian Jews, with whom we are mainly concerned, though surrounded by Greek cities, with which they had constant intercourse, do not seem to have been much harmed by such intercourse. It was otherwise when Syria (B.C. 198) became the para- mount power. Antiochus IIL, it is true, favoured the Jews in many ways, and allowed them the enjoyment of unconditional religious freedom (Ant. xu. iii. 3. 4).

A crisis came, however, when Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne (B.C. 175). He resolved to suppress the Jewish religion, and he found a party among the Jews themselves ready to play into his hands. This party contained leading members of the priesthood, several of whom had eaaried Greek names, and who, in order to further their own ambitious designs, were prepared to go almost any length in Hellenizing the people. During the reign of Seleucus Iv.

, one Simon, who was ‘guardian’ of the temple, and who was evidently one of the chiefs of this Hellenizing party, had caused serious trouble to the hig priest Onias mI. (2 Mac 3-4‘). On the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the throne, Jason, whose name was originally Jesus (Ané. XII. v. 1), supplanted his brother Onias in the high priest- hood (B.C.

175) by promising the king a large sum of money; in return for another large sum he also received permission to erect a nasium in Jerusalem and to register its inhabitants as citizens of Antioch (2 Mac 47%), And now the work of Hellenization began. Jason ‘forthwith brought over them of his own race to the Greek fashion....

Seeking to overthrow the lawful modes of life, he brought in new customs forbidden by the law ; he established a Greek place of exer- cise under the citadel itself, and caused the noblest of the young men to wear the Greekcap. And thus there was an extreme of Greek fashions, and an advance of an alien religion...

; the priests had no more any zeal for the services of the altar; but despising the sanctuary, and neglecting the sacri- fices, they hastened to enjoy that which was un- lawfully provided in the palestra, after the summons of the discus; making of no account the honours of their fathers, and thinking the glories of the Greeks best of all’ (2 Mac 4!*2; cf. 1 Mac 1+), He even sent money to Tyre to provide a sacrifice for Hercules.

ter three years Jason was supplanted in the high priesthood by Mene- laus, brother of the above-mentioned Simon,* who is described in 2 Mac 425 as ‘bringing nothing worthy the high priesthood, but having the passion of a cruel tyrant and the rage of a savage beast.

’ In order to secure his position with the king by means of bribery, Menelaus spoiled the temple of its vessels oi gole (453; the aged high priest Onias, who protes ainst this sacrilege, was treach- erously murder (4"*-), and a deputation from Jerusalem, which appeared before Antiochus to accuse Menelaus of these and other outrages, was pae to death (4°), On a false rumour of the eath of Antiochus, Jason endeavoured to recover the high priesthood.

Thinking that Judea was in revolt, Antiochus returned from Egypt (B.c. 170), took Jerusalem by storm and gave it up to pillage for three days. He also entered ‘the most holy temple of all the earth,’ having Menelaus for his e; he took the holy vessels with his ‘ polluted ds’ and spoiled the temple treasury (5"-" ; cf. * According to sy a (Ant. xi. v. 1), Menelaus, whose name was originally On was the brother of Jason. Accord- ing to Wellhausen his Hebrew name was M wnahem or Manasseh.

PHARISEES 1 Mac 155), Two years afterwards an even worse fate befell Jerusalem. Returning froma campaign in Egypt, Antiochus sent an oflicer with a large army to Jerusalem, with orders to slay all that were of full age, and to sell the women and the younger men, These orders were executed most relentlessly.

The city was plundered and set on fire ; its walls were torn down ; such of its inhabit- ants as had not been put to the sword or made captive fled ; only apostates and heathen strangers remained ; and the city of David was rebuilt into a strong citadel, the Akra, which was held by 8 Syrian garrison till B.c. 142 (2 Mac 5“ ; ef. 1 Mac 155.), Soon thereafter a decree was issued by Antiochus suppressing the Jewish religion.

The sacrifices in the sanctuary at Jerusalem were for- bidden ; the Sabbaths and feasts were to be pro- faned and the sanctuary polluted ; their sons were no longer to be circumcised ; the sacred books had to be delivered up; altars and temples and shrines for idols were to be built in the cities of Judah, and swine’s flesh and unclean beasts were to he offered in sacrifice. These injunctions were rigidly carried out by overseers appointed for the purpose. On the 15th of Chislev (7.e.

December) B.C. 168 an altar was erected to Zeus Olympius on the altar of J”, and on the 25th a sacrifice was offered on it to the heathen deity. Whether Menelaus officiated as high priest, we cannot tell.

Such of the Jews as remained loyal to the law were barbarously put to death, no respect being paid to age or sex (1 Mac 1“*-), Hellenism had evidently made considerable pro- gress not only among the priestly aristocracy and the inferior priests (2 Mac 415"), but also among the people generally (1 Mac 11"), more especi- ally in Jerusalem and among the young men (ef. Ant. x1. v. 1 with 1 Mac 1").

At first there was probably no intention, even on the part of the eading Hellenizers, to apostatize from the national religion; what they desired was to remove from Judaism its narrowness and exclusiveness, to give up the intolerable and, as it seemed to them, bar- barous customs of the fathers, so that they might freely participate in the advantages of Greek culture and in the joys of Greek life.

But even after Antiochus had taken his extreme measures, many of the Hellenizing party still adhered to him. ‘Many of Israel consented to his worship, and sacrificed: to the idols, and profaned the Sab- bath’ (1 Mac 1; cf. what is said of the ‘lawless’ and ‘ungodly’ 358 622 9% 1014; also Dn 8% 1159. 32), After the outbreak of the Maccabzan rising we find them among the ‘ Macedonian’ garrison of the citadel (Ant. ΧΙ]. v. 4, ix.

3) and in the armies of Seron, Ptolemeus, Nicanor, and Gorgias (XI. vii. 1. 3). But, as the Maccabean rising proves, these measures of Antiochus had shown the mass of the people to what Hellenism was tending and had awakened a powerful reaction. Apart, however, from this national reaction, the radical Hellenism of the priestly aristocracy had called forth another extreme party, the Hasideans (see art. HASIDZANS).

This party is, in principle, as ancient as Judaism, but it was opposition to extreme Hellenization that brought them close together into a separate company (συναγωγή, 1 Mac 2"), shortly before the Maccabzan rising, and made them allthe more resolved tostand by the threatened law. They were the party of those who had laid most to heart the teaching of the scribes (cf. 1 Mac 7:18); they were so devoted to the law (2%) as not even to defend themselves when attacked by the Syrians on the Sabbath (v.

#%); they observed strictly the laws as to purification (1 Mac 1%, * According to Josephus (Ant. xi. ix. 7) it was Menelaug that persuaded him to compel the Jews to renounce their ce ligion ; cf. 2 Mac 515, PHARISEES PHARISEES 823 2 Mac 6188:), and insisted upon complete separation from the Gentiles (2 Mac 14%).

Though they were not the first to raise the standard of revolt against the Syrians, they soon associated themselves with Mattathias and his friends in the common cause (1 Mac 2) ; but they withdrew from the struggle, when religious freedom was granted and Alcimus, 5 descendant of Aaron, was made high priest instead of Menelaus (7#-), and do not seem, at least as a party, to have taken any further share in the war, in spite of the perfidy of Alcimus in putting many of them todeath.

They were an exclusively religious party, supremely interested, not in the political independence of the nation, but in the strict observance in every respect of the laws and customs handed down from the fathers. We have dwelt at considerable length on the Hellenizers and the Hasideans, because these were the progenitors respectively of the Sadducean and Pharisaic parties. It is during the reign of John Hyrcanus (B.C. 135-105) that we first hear of these as two opposed 165."

According to Josephus (Ant. XII. x. 5. ), H us on one occasion invited the Pharisees to a feast, and having entertained them well and put them in good humour, reminded them that they knew he was desirous to be a righteous man and to do all things whereby he might please God, after their manner. If they observed him erring in any way, he requested them to correct him.

They all expressed entire satisfaction with him, except one, Eleazar by name, who informed him that, if he would be really righteous, he must lay down the high priesthood and be content with the civil government of the people, and stated, as the reason for making this demand, that they had heard from old men that his mother had been a carer in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Not only Hyrcanus, but also all the rest of the Phari- sees were andigpant at Eleazar for repeating this story, which of course insinuated a suspicion as to the purity of Hyrcanus’ descent. But one, Jona- than, a Sadducee, and a great friend of Hyrcanus, assured the latter that Eleazar had simply expressed the sentiments common to all the Pharisees, and advised him to test them by putting to them the pears what punishment Eleazar deserved.

On their answering that he deserved stripes and bonds, H us was very angry, and concluded that Eleazar had reproached him with cra ine Sar He accordingly left the Lea of the Pharisees, abolished the decrees they had imposed upon the people, and punished those that observed them with death.

Though the form of the story as told by Josephus is certainly unhistorical,t+ there is every reason to believe that in the time of Hyrcanus the Pharisees had become a well-defined party and broke de- cisively with the Hasmonsan princes.

The Mac- cabean rising, which was originally in defence of religion (1 Mac 2”- δ), had developed in a way that was little to the mind of ‘the pious,’ who, as we have seen, had withdrawn from the contest, when religious freedom was granted in the year 163, Τὸ ἘΣ ΑΙ became a war, not for the law, but against the ancient aristocracy for the ethnarchy under the Syrians, and ended in the founding of a worldly dynasty.

In the course of their struggles, Judas and his brothers were compelled by the necessity of their position to make use of ‘ profane’ means; they entered into alliances with Gentile nations (1 Mac 817 1915. 14%), and took the side, now of one, now of another pretender to the Syrian throne; they accepted from the kings of * According to Ant. xm. v. 9, they existed as parties as early as the time of Jonathan. ΕΣ : t ee sur les origines des partis saducten εἰ pAarisien, ff. ; Wellhausen, op. cit.

200, Syria military titles and commands and even the office of high priest (10% © 1177 9 145) and acted generally in accordance with the dictates of worldly prudence. The result was the establishment under Simon of a thoroughly secular State, the civil ruler being at the same time high priest (1487), Hyrcanus, whom Josephus calls a dis- ciple of the Pharisees, walked in the footsteps of his predecessors. He renewed the alliance with Rome (Ant. xl. ix. 2, XIV. x.

22) and kept a standing army of foreign troops, with which he accompanied Antiochus Sidetes against the Par- thians (XIII. viii. 4). It is true, he destroyed the Samaritan sanctuary upon Mt. Gerizim,and ἘΩ͂Ν converted the Idumzans and razed Samaria to the ground; but these were purely political measures, undertaken for the purpose of extending his do- minion beyond the narrow limits of Judea. His high priesthood was a secondary matter.

‘For Hyrcanus the tiara had fallen to the rank of a mere decoration ; he was a secular prince like the neighbouring heathen kings ; his State was a purely secular realm, which was no longer able to pursue alas aims, no longer had spiritual concerns’ (Cornill, p. 212). The majority of the people were meanwhile satisfied with this turn of affairs.

They were proud not only to enjoy religious freedom, but also to be once more an independent nation,and honoured the valiant princes who had led them to victory (1 Mac 136 14 4-4"), The ancient aristocracy also, the extreme Hellenizers of the cime of Epiphanes, who at first had held out against Judas and his brothers, had either been swept away or had re- cognized the futility of carrying on the struggle, and along with their adherents came over to the new rulers, to whom they were able, from their birth and attainments, to render considerable ser- vice.

Taught by experience, they had given up all thought of overthrowing the national religion, and accommodated themselves to the new order of things, which imposed upon them no harsh restric- tions, and allowed them the full enjoyment of the good things of this life (cf. 1 Mac 1653). Along with the leading men of the new regime,* they became the chief supporters of the Maccabean princes, with whose political aims they were in full sym- pathy.

It is this party, consisting of members of the ancient and the new aristocracy and their adherents, that went by the name of Sadducees. They were primarily a purely political party, ee were nae bsg | interested in the maintenance an prosperity of the State as a secular State ; religion was with them an altogether secondary concern ; and they held very lax views on the subject of exclusiveness. To ‘the pious,’ on the other hand, the Hasmonwan rule ast have become ever more and more obnox- ious.

Since the outbreak of the Maccabmean risin they had doubtless grown both in numbers an exclusiveness, and were now known by the name, Pharisees. These were essentially a purely re- ligious party, although we shall find them occasion- ally using political means for the attainment of their religious ends. Their fundamental principle was complete separation from everything non- Jewish.

In order to secure this separation the law must be scrupulously kept; there must be no adoption of foreign ideas or ways of living; there Ὁ The frequent occurrence of foreign names at this time among the Jews shows the progress that Hellenism had made among them. The Hasmonman prinoes [ἢ selves bore fc en, in addition to their Heb Aristobulus, Alexander, ΑἹ ira. For other Greek names at this time see 1 Mac 14% Ὁ iif; Ant, xi. ix.

2 ‘That which was surprising in U of the fret Hellenizing high priests, had, it would seem, ἢ ὁ the fashion In the national party, at least among those of higher rank. They had learned to do what the foreigners did, and did not ecruple to bear foreign names’ (Bertholet, op. os. 8501} PHARISEES 824 must be no alliances with other nations; Israel, as the chosen people of J”, must live an altogether separated life. The whole tendency of the new dynasty was against this exclusiveness.

Hence the opposition to it of the Pharisees. Josephus may be right in making the ostensible ground of their quarrel with Hyrcanus the possession by him of the high priesthood. But the real ground of their opposition to him was much deeper. The Hasmonians were orthodox worshippers of J”, and even compelled neighbouring peoples to become Jews.

But the dynasty they had founded was a worldly dynasty ; and the Pharisees felt instinct- ively that in a national State with national politics their ideal was less likely to be realized than even under the rule of the Gentiles. The success of the Maccabeean rising had thus led to the formation of the two parties which played so important a part in the after history of the Jews." Under Alexander Jannieus (B.C.

104-78) the opposition between the Hasmonwans and the arisees broke out into open conflict. Jannzus was a man of such an utterly worthless character that he very soon alienated the people from him and made them sympathize with the Pharisees.

On one occasion, when, at a Feast of Tabernacles, he was officiating as high priest, the people pelted him with the lemons they were carrying for the celebration, and reviled him as the son of a ote tive and as being therefore unworthy of his priestly office. At his command his troops eut down 6000 of the people (Ant. XII. xiii. δ).

When he returned to Jerusalem from his war with Obfdas, defeated and without an army, there broke out an open rebellion, which lasted for six years, during which 50,000 Jews perished. When, wearied of the con- test, he asked the conditions of peace, they de- manded his death and called in the aid of the Syrian king, Demetrius ΠῚ. (Eucairus), Jannzus was totally defeated and fled to the mountains.

Moved by sympathy with him in his sore need, and perhaps dreading lest their country should once more become subject to Syria, many of the Jews deserted to him; Demetrius was compelled to retire, and Jannzus took fearful revenge upon his adversaries :—upon his return in triumph to Jerusalem he caused 800 of theirchiefs to be crucified (Ant. XIII. xiii. 5, xiv. 1. 2).

That the leaders in this rebellion were Pharisees, is evident from the fact that they afterwards avenged the execution of the 800 (Ant. XIII. xvi. 2), and that Jannzeus, when dying, counselled hiswife AlexandraSalometomake peace with them and be guided by them (XIII. xv. δ). Alexandra Salome (B.c. 78-69), during whose reign Hyrcanus I1., her eldest son, was high priest, followed entirely her dying husband’s advice.

She recalled the exiled Pharisees, admitted them to a large share in the government, and reintroduced the Pharisaie practices which John Hyrcanus is said to have abolished (Ant. Χμ. xvi. 1ff.; BJ 1. ν. 1ff.) She also gave to the heads of the scribes a seat in the Sanhedrin along with the priestly aristocracy and the elders. According to later tradition, this was the golden age of Judaism.

+ But the Pharisees, who, according to Josephus, governed the queen, made a bad use * See Bousset, Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Juden- thum, p. 29ff. The Psalms of Solomon complain bitterly of the Hasmonwans having assumed the office of high priest and the title of king ; see Ryle and James, Ps. of Sol. on 812 1755... Hyrcanus, however, did not call himself king, but ‘ high priest and head of the commonwealth of the Judmans.’ + Montet, op. eit. 277.

‘Under Simon ben Shatach [a leadin, Pharisee and brother of the queen) and queen Salome, rain fel on the eve of the Sabbath, so that the corns of wheat were large as kidneys, the barley corns as large as olives, and the lentils like golden denarii; the scribes gathered such corns and Preserved specimens of them in order to show future genera- tions what sin entails’ (Talm. Bab. Ta’anith 23a, in Streane, The Age of the Maccabees, p. 72). PHARISEES of their authority.

They took such fearful ven- geance upon the Sadducees that a deputation of the latter, led by Aristobulus, Salome’s younger son, presented themselves before her, protesting against the cruel treatment to which they were subjected. They reminded her of the assistance they had rendered her husband, hinted at the readiness with which neighbouring monarchs would receive them into their service, and insisted upon being at least placed in her fortresses.

They not only succeeded in having an end put to the rei of terror, but also obtained command of all the fortresses, except three, where, along with Aristo- bulus, who soon joined them, they awaited the death of the queen to snatch the power out of the hands of the Pharisees (Ant. XIII. xvi. 2. 3. 5; BJ 1. v. 3. 4). On the death of Alexandra, Aristobulus (B.c. 69-63) soon dispossessed Hyrcanus Π. of both the kingship and the high ξείθοθθσοα (Ant. XIV. i. 2, XV. vi. 4, xx. x.)

He befriended the Sadducees, who were his chief supporters. In the course of the struggle that ensued, both the brothers appealed to the Romans, and presented themselves before Pompey in Damascus, in order to plead their cause. A third party (whom most take to have been Pharisees) also appeared before him, desiring the abolition of the sovereignty altogether, and the restoration of the old sacerdotal constitution (Ant. XIV. iii. 2).

When at last he was compelled to take the temple-mount by storm (B.C. 63), Pompey entered the Holy of Holies, but left the treasures of the temple untouched. Many of the leaders of the Sadducees were executed ; Aristobulus and his children were taken to Rome; and Hyrcanus was restored to his much-curtailed inheritance, not as king, but as high priest and ethnarch, with the nominal control of the civil administration of the country.

How the Pharisees regarded this terrible catastrophe we learn from the Psalms of Solomon.* They looked upon it as a Divine punish- ment of the Sadducean aristocracy and priests, who had called the Romans into. the land (82-1), but were at the same time bitterly enraged against the heathen, who had so impiously defile the temple and the holy city (Ps-Sol 1, 2, 8, and 17, which seem to refer to Pompey’s capture of Jeru- salem ; cf. Ryle and James, op. cit. xliii).

After the loss of national independence, the opposition between the Pharisees and the Sad- ducees naturally soon lost its political character, and became more and more dtatinetly religious. The Sadducees, who still formed the majority of the Sanhedrin, attempted, during the ethnarchy of Hyrcanus, to call Herod to account for his law- less proceedings in Galilee, but this attempt only proved their powerlessness (Ant, XIV. ix. 1 ff.) When Herod captured Jerusalem (B.C.

37), he put to death 45 of these Sadducean Sanhedrists (Ant. Xv. 1. 2 calls them leaders of the party of Anti- gonus, ef. BJ 1. xviii. 4; Ant. XIv. ix. 4 says ‘all the members of the Sanhedrin’ except Sameas) ; and he still further diminished their power by deposing and appointing high priests according to his own pleasure, and by introducing amon the high priestly families his own relations an creatures.

When he purged the Sanhedrin in the manner just dead he spared the leaders of the Pharisees, who had advised the citizens to throw open the gates of the city to him (Ant. XIV. ix. 4, XV. i. 1); and although they refused to take the oath of allegiance, he merely punished them with a fine (xv. x. 4; xvi. ii. 4).

Recog- nue their influence with the people, he at first would fain have gained them over to his side, and * These are of Pharisaic origin, and date, according to Ryle and James, from between B.0. 70 and 40, according to Cheyne between 63 and 45. PHARISEES therefore took pains in several ways to respect their religious feelings (cf. xv. xi. 5. 6); but they simply acquiesced in his rule, as being a Divine judgment upon the people for their sins.

Towards the end of his reign, their attitude towards him became one of hostility. They conspired with members of his household to secure his overthrow (XVI. ii. 4), and (B.C. 4) instigated their pupils to cut down the golden eagle, which he lad placed over the chief entrance to the temple as a sign of Roman sovereignty. For this offence he caused a number of them to be burned alive (XVU. vi. 2-4; BJ 1. xxxiii. 1-4).

When, after the deposition of Archelaus, Judea pee under the direct rule of the Romans, the atter left internal matters largely in the hands of the Sanhedrin, under the presidency of the high priest, who belonged to the Sadducean party (Ant. Xx. ix. 1; Ac 5).

The Sadducean aristo- crats, with whom the new families raised by Herod to the high priestly dignity had soon mixed, thus regained a considerable measure of power; but in order to stand well with the people, they were compelled to act in respect of all legal questions in accordance with the Paneiplce of the Pharisees (Ant. Xvi. i. 4). The latter, many of whom sat = ae Seem eile 23), were the real leaders of the people. nder Agrippa I. (A.D.

41-44), who, at least within Palestin’, lived the life of a AS Jew, observing strictly the ancient laws and offering daily sacrifices, they had matters very much after their own mind. To please them, Agrippa persecuted the Christians, put James, the brother of John, to death, and cast Peter into prison (Ac 12). When Judea passed again under the direct rule of the Romans, the Sadducees once more became the nominal possessors of authority. But their doom was sealed.

With the destruction of Jerusalem, the high priesthood and the San- bedrin vanished, and the Sadducees, as a party, ed from history. They disappear It was otherwise with the Pharisees.* survived the Temple and the State. They had not, strictly speaking, been a political party within the old commonwealth, and for that very reason, when the latter perished, their influence was not lessened. Their leading Rabbis formed a body, which regarded itself as a continuation of the ancient Sanhedrin.

At first it had its seat at Jamnia; it afterwards removed to Galilee, and remained for a long time at Tiberias. The office of president was hereditary in the family of Hillel. The president’s authority grew rapidly.

He bore the title of the old high priests, Nasi or Ethnarch, and, later, Patriarch; in course of time he was recognized by the imperial government as the head of the Palestinian cena from Jews in foreign lands he received gifts of money, which were collected annually by his representatives. These Rabbis separated themselves more and more com- pees from the Gentiles. The LXX, which had me the Christian’s Bible, was supplanted by a more literal translation, that of Aquila.

They also became more strict among themselves; the old tendency of the scribes to regulate the whole of life by the law was accentuated. The result was 8 spiritual slavery such as had never before existed. The communities voluntarily submitted to the new hierarchy; they willed the end, viz. the maintenance of Judaism, and therefore accom- modated themselves to the means. As result we have the preservation of Judaism as an inter- national fellowship even after the downfall of the theocracy. ii.

LEADING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHARI- B8EES.—(1) Their scrupulous observance of the law. According to Josephus they were noted for their * See Wellhausen, op. ott. 871 ff. PHARISEES 825 accuracy in interpreting the laws (BJ 1. v. 2, Il. vill. 14, Vita 38, Ant. XVII. ii. 4), and for the scrupulousness with which they kept them (Ant. XVIII. i. 3). They held as binding not only the written, but the oral law, the ‘traditions of the fathers’ (Xu. x. 6, xvi. 2).

Like their progeni- tors, the Hasidwans, they were, speaking gener- ally, the party of the scribes, whose precepts they carried into practice, and whose PK latterly, proceeded from their ranks (Xv. i. 1, x. 4). The account given of them in the NT is substantially the same as that of Josephus. In the Gospels the Pharisees and the scribes are con- stantly mentioned in the same connexion, and in such a way as to imply that they practically formed the same party, e.g. Mt 5” 12% 15!

, Mk 915 P+ 8, Lk 57-21-30 67 78 1153 143 153 Jn 825 The great discourse in Mt 23 (cf. Lk 11-) is directed against both the Pharisees and the scribes.

Gama- liel is both a Pharisee and a doctor of the law (Ac 5); the Pharisees form the straitest sect of the Jewish religion (26°), and Saul, a Pharisee (Ph 35), had been brought up according to the strict manner of the law of the fathers (Ac 22%), Attention is called to their holding the traditions of the elders, Slaten in regard to the washing of hands and vessels (Mk 7!5=Mt 15%, Mt 23", Lk 11®), to their tithing (Lk 1813, etc.), fastin (Mk 24%=Mt 9%, ete.)

, and strict observance o the Sabbath (Mk 27%=Mt 12), Lk 13:05. 1415. Jn 5-16 045), The traditions of the elders were even more binding than the commandments of the written law (Mk 78). In later Jewish writings we find similar statements. The written law had to be explained in accordance with tradition. ‘The sword comes upon the world for suppression of judgment; and for perversion of judgment; and for explaining Torah not according to canon (tra- dition).

’+ ‘Words of Soferim are akin to words of Torah and more beloved than words of Torah, for (Ca 1?) Thy Love is better than Wine.’ It is added that whereas the Torah contains both light and weighty precepts, the words of the Soferim are all of the Teter class (Rabbi Jochanan in Taylor, op. cit. 105). ‘It is a greater crime to teach con- sgt d to the precepts of the scribes than contrary to the Torah itself’ (Sanhedrin xi. 3 in Schiirer, GJV®* ii. 390 [HJUP 11. ii. 12)).

No contradiction was allowed to anything that had once been introduced and laid down by the fathers (Ant. XVIII. i. 3). The Pharisees were thus the strictly legal party among the Jews. Their piety was strictly legal ; the essence of religion consisted in the accurate knowledge and scrupulous observance of the law and tradition, which were the norm of all life, national, social, and individual.

The Sadducees, while they had a tradition of their own, utterly rejected the traditions to which the Pharisees were so much attached. (2) Immortality of the soul, resurrection of the body, and future retribution. According to Josephus, the Pharisees taught that every soul is incorruptible, but that only those of good men over into another body, while those of the wicked are punished with eternal suffering (BJ Il. viii. 14).

They held that there is an immortal vigour in souls, and that under the earth there are rewards and punishments for those that have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; that for the latter there has been appointed an everlasting prison, but the former have the power to return to life (Ant. xvul. i. 3f.)

In the above passages Josephus does not represent the Pharisees as Such expressions as ‘the soribes of the Pharisees’ (Mk τὸ, the Pharisees and their scribes’ (Lk &*), ‘the soribes of the Pharisees’ part’ (Ac 23%), show that there were also non-Ihart βαῖο scribes. + Pirke Aboth ¥.

13; eee Taylor, Savings of the Jewish Fathers PHARISEES PHARISEES believing in the transmigration of souls, but as holding the doctrines, common to Judaism since Dn 193, of a resurrection of the body and of a future retribution. The Psalms of Solomon also speak only of a resurrection of the righteous. The sinner ‘falleth ; verily grievous is his fall, and he shall not rise again ; the destruction of the sinner is for ever.

But they that fear the Lorp shall rise again unto life eternal, and their life shall be in the light of the Lorp, and it shall fail no more’ (315: 16, ‘The life of the righteous is for ever. But sinners shall be taken away unto destruction’ (13%), ‘Therefore is their inherit- ance hell and darkness and destruction... But the saints of the Lorp shall inherit life in glad- ness’ (14° ; οὗ, 154-45).

The Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the y: Ἵ (3) Messianic expectations. The doctrine of the resurrection was 8 cardinal doctrine with the Pharisees, because of its close connexion with their Messianic hopes. They looked for a literal reign of God upon earth, when the power, of which they were meanwhile deprived, would be in their hands ; for the Messianic kingdom was to be the kingdom of the saints, and they were the saints.

In the Psalms of Solomon we have a good account of these hopes as cherished by them shortly before our Saviour’s birth. The Messiah, who is not Divine, is the son of David, and is raised up by God, whose vicegerent he is upon earth. He de- livers Israel from the supremacy of the Gentiles (i.e. the Romans), whom he destroys with the word of his mouth, and thrusts out the sinners (i.e. the Sadducees) from the inheritance of God.

He reigns over Israel, evidently in Jerusalem, which he purges and makes holy as in the days of old ; the Gentiles also become subject to him. Pure from sin him- self, there is no sea in his day in the people’s midst; they are ΒΟΥ and the sons of their God. Though his kingdom is really an earthly kingdom, nothing is said of material blessings.

* But that their hopes were occasionally of a very materialistic nature, is evident from the prospect which, according to Josephus, they held out to , the eunuch (Ant. xvm. ii. 4). Naturall the Sadducees were wholly indifferent to suc Messianic expectations. (4) Angels and Spirits. The Sadducees denied that there was either angel or spirit; the Pharisees confessed both (Ac 238). (5) Divine providence and freedom of man’s will.

According to Josephus, the Pharisees, while making everything dependent on fate and God, taught that the doing of what is right or wrong is for the most part in man’s own power, but that fate also co-operates in ora action (BJ It. viii. 14), They maintained that all things are done by fate, and yet admitted a measure of freedom to man, so that he contributes to the divinely willed result (Ant. Xv. i. 3); or, as it is put in another sara (XII. ν.

9), they taught that some things, ut not all, are the work of fate; with regard to some events, it is in man’s power whether they happen or not. It is altogether improbable that the Pharisees spoke of ‘fate’; but the Psalms of Solomon bear witness to the substantial accuracy of Josephus’ statements. ‘Verily as for man— his portion is laid in the balance before Thee— he addeth not thereto nor increaseth contrary to Thy judgment, O God’ (5%).

“Ὁ God, our works are in our choice, yea, in the power of our own soul; to do either righteousness or iniquity in the works of our hands. Whoso doeth righteousness layeth up for himself life at the Lorp’s hand: and whoso doeth wickedness is guilty of his own soul * Ryle and James, op. cit. lil. ff.; Hiihn, Die messia: techen Welesagungen des teraclitisch-fadicchen Volker 91 ff. 1a to destroy it’ (91.9)."

The Pharisees believed in the omnipotence and providence of God, and therefore held that in human actions, good or bad, a co operation of God must be assumed. At the same time they insisted upon the freedom of man’s ower of choice, and upon man’s responsibility. The Sadducees denied ‘ fate’ altogether, and 8 man the absolute master of his own destiny. (6) Their separation from the mass A the people, their distinctive ‘Pharisaism.

’ On all the above- mentioned points the Pharisees simply held what was common to later orthodox Judaism. But all our sources present them to us as a distinct party within the people, an ecclesiola in ecclesia.t This is implied also in the name that they bore. The name, Φαρισαῖοι, is derived from the Aramaic 19), stat. emphat. 375, and denotes ‘the separated ones.

’ hether this name was given them by their adversaries (Schiirer, Montet, Edersheim) or adopted by themselves, } it connoted something more specific than the separation from the Gentiles, which, since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, was characteristic of all who would be genuine Jews It referred to their separation from the great mass of even their orthodox fellow-countrymen.

The latter, however willing, were unable to observe strictly the minute prescriptions of the law as to foods and levitical purity; they were consequently unclean in the eyes of the Pharisees, who, in order to avoid all risk of being defiled, held aloof, as far as possible, from all intercourse with them. ‘Parush is one who separates himself from all uncleanness and from unclean food and from the people of the land, who are not scrupulous in the matter of food’ (Nathan ben Jechiel).

The Phari- sees were thus the Separatists or Purists. The name, however, that they gave themselves was hiabértm (0729 ‘associates’), a name which also shows that they formed among themselves a close fellowship. A habér is one who, whether learned or unlearned, scrupulously observes the law, written and oral, more especially in respect of levitical purity, tithes, and all other religious dues.

Ac- cording to the OT view each Israelite was the haber (7) of the other; the Pharisee acknowledged as his habér only him who scrupulously observed the law. These scrupulous observers of the law, and these alone, were the Adbérim, the genuine Israelites. The rest of the pene were simply the ‘am ha-arez, the people of the land, common persons, the vulgar herd.

In the Books of Ezr (91 107») and Neh (107-*) this name was given to the heathen and half-heathen inhabitants of Pales- tine as distinguished from the Jews; as used by the Pharisees, it designated the mass of the people as distinguished from themselves, the real Israelites, the Israel according to the spirit.§ They were naturally unable to separate them- selves entirely from ‘the people of the land,’ and had therefore to draw up precise rules regulating their intercourse with them.

‘The f haber * See Sir 1114: ‘Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches are from the Lord’ (cf. 337-15); 1511: ‘Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell. ., it is He that caused me toerr... (The Lord) left man in the hand of his own counsel. If thou wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments; and to perform faithfulness is of thine own good pleasure. He hath set fire and water before thee; thou shalt stretch forth thy hand unto whichsoever thou wilt.

Before man is life and death; and whichsoever he liketh, it shall be given him.’ + According to Josephus (Ant. xvu. ii. 4) they numbered above 6000 in the time of Herod. t Wellhausen (op. cit. 289) says it was a title of honour and called attention, not so much to their separation, as to their eminent piety. § The above paragraph summarizes Schiirer, GJ V8 ii. 396-403, & very full and lucid account of the matter; cf. also Weber, Jiidische Theologie, etc., 42-46; Edersheim, i. 311f.

Schiirer remarks that the question, Who is my neighbour? (Lk 1029), waa & very important question to a Jew. The habér of a Rabbi was a Rabbi; the Aaber of a priest was a priest; the haber of am Israelite was an Israelite. 828 some leading Pharisees did not approve of their excesses (BJ IV. iii. 9); but he is forced to admit that it was a Pharisee, named Zadok, who along with Judas Galilzeus formed that party, and that the notions they held were those of the Pharisees (Ant. xvul.i. 1. 6, οἵ.

BJ πι. viii. 1). The Zealots were the party of political action, and simply carried out the Pharisaic principles to their logical conclusion. iii. THE PHARISEES AND JESUS. —(l) Their opposition to our Lord. The Pharisees and scribes were the first to assume an attitude of hostility and criticism to Jesus.

They maintained this attitude all through His public ministry down to the very close ; for although in the last days of His life the Sadducees were most prominent, the Pharisaic scribes also took part in His trial and condemnation. They had many reasons to find fault with Him.

He claimed authority to for- give sins (Mt 9°, Mk 2%, Lk 5%), and associated freely with jpublicans and ‘sinners’ (Mt 94, Mk 218, Lk 5” 7® 15 197); He and His disciples were indifferent to ascetic practices (Mt 914, Mk 918, Lk 553), and to leviti purity (Mt 15, Mk 74, Lk 11°), and were not careful to observe the Sabbath in the orthodox fashion (Mt 1218-914, Mk 935. 815. Lk 615. 6a. 13 1415. Jn 5 lor. 9126... They accused Him of being in league with Beelze- bub (Mt 12**, Mk 8535.

Lk pect, Mt 9% 1115); demanded a sign from Him (Mt 12" 161, Mk 84), and attempted to frighten Him from Galilee into Judwa, where He would be more in the power of the Sanhedrin (Lk 13%, cf. Plummer, δέ. Luke, 348). They μα testing questions to Him, e.g. as to the way o preter} eternal life (Lk 10), as to the greatest commandment (Mt 9345. Mk 12°5#-), and as to the law of divorce (Mt 19%, Mk 102).

These were leading questions meant to test His orthodoxy, and to discredit Him, if possible, with the people (see Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 202 on Mk 103 : ‘probably their intention was simply to place Him in apparent opposition to Moses, who had permitted divorce’). Their most skilful testing question was that as to the lawful- ness of paying tribute to Cesar (Mt 227) Mk 123.

1, *): whatever answer He gave, He could hardly avoid offending either the Roman authorities or the people. For their alliance with the Herodians in this matter (Mt 22!6, Mk 1918), ef. Mk 3°. From their standpoint their opposition to Him was inevitable. They felt instinctively that the whole spirit of His life was in flat contra- diction with their most cherished convictions. (2) Our Lord’s criticism of the Pharisees.

Jesus recognized that the opposition between Himself and the Pharisees was essential, and not only defended Himeelf egaiuek their attacks, but also criticised them keenly. He frequently denounced them as hypocrites (e.g. Mt 6% δ: 156. 157 9313. 1. 23. 35. 71.3, Mk 7°), whited sepulchres (Mt 23%, cf. Lk 11*), the offspring of vipers and serpents (Mt 12% 23%), an evil and adulterous generation (Mt 12% 16‘), and blind guides (Mt 15! 2315. 19. 24. 26).

He warmed His disciples against their leaven (Mt 16% 44, Mk 8, Lk 121), denied that their right- eousness qualified for admission into the kingdom of heaven (Mt 5”), and declared that, while the publicans and harlots were entering the kingdom, they were remaining outside (Mt 215), He recognized their official character, and the duty of the people towards them as authorized teachers, but He warned against following their example (Mt 23™-), He also charged them with a great many specific vices, most of which were inherent in Pharisaic Judaism.

The fundamental principle of Pharisaic Judaism was complete separation from everything non- Jewish ; hence their separation from the mass of PHARISEES PHARISEES their fellow-countrymen ; hence also their devotion to the minute study and scrupulous fulfilment of the law. The law was God’s great gift to Israel; their possession of the law was the most signal proof that they were God’s chosen people; it separated Israel as a ‘holy’ people from all other peoples.

It was also the on 7 and the absolutely oe πον means of attaining the Messianic salvation th for the individual and the nation. Life had therefore no other aim and meaning than the study and fulfilment of the law. One evil conse- quence of this ‘idolatry of the law’ was the exter- nalizing of religion. was conceived of mainly as Lawgiver and Judge. The religious relation between God and Israel was purely legal; it was founded on a purely legal compact.

Religion was not a fellowship with God, but a strictly legal walk before God. Their zeal for the law was conse- quently a serving of God for the sake of reward; more especially for the supreme reward of sharing in the glory and bliss of the Messianic age. It was ossible to satisfy God’s demands perfectly in a fea way ; and by doing so they hoped to enjoy the commanding God, whom they obeyed, as a a gracious God.

This doctrine of merit led almost of necessity to a great multiplication of precepts, to a hedging or fencing of the law, so as to make its violation almost impossible. They also sought to acquire merit by doing more than was com- manded. Moreover, in their keeping of the law, they considered mainly whether a particular action was commanded or forbidden. eir attitude to their almost deified law was external, formal, mechanical.

They laid stress not upon the right- ness of an action, or upon the disposition from which it was done, but upon its being commanded and upon its formal correctness. They applied this principle even to such matters as fasting and prayer. They attached excessive importance to the precepts relating to foods and levitical purity, because the strict observance of these precepts kept them from defilement. They made the law ‘only a manual of religious etiquette.

’ Their righteousness was thus mere formalism ; their righteous man was one who kept the law, written and oral, in an external, but formally correct manner. Our Lord’s whole teaching regarding God as the Father was a criticism of Pharisaic legalism. God is not primarily Lawgiver and Judge, but the heavenly Father. Religion is fellowship with God. The religious bond uniting God and man is grace on God’s part, trust and love and heartfelt obedi- ence on the part of man.

In the relation be- tween God and man there is no room for the idea of merit (Lk 177°). God cares for individual sinners gud sinners, and throws the kingdom of heaven wide open to all who are willing to enter in. He sends Wiis Son to seek and to save the lost, and rejoices greatly when any lost one comes back. He rewards men, not according to the quantity of work they have done, but in accordance with His own sovereign grace (Mt 2011.

Our Lord ex- plicitly criticises the externalism of the Pharisees. According to Him, the basis of the ethical life is not an external authority, but the personal rela- tion of an individual to God (cf. Mt 5%: 18%, Lk 77). What He demands is not outward correct- ness, but inner moral life (Mt 23-8, Lk 118-41), the surrender of the whole personality (Mt 22%7-°), not the mere performance of a number of exter- nally good deeds.

That which ‘defiles’ a man is the evil condition of his own heart (Mt 154, Mk 7“), No action is of any moral worth, unless it is the expression of the inward disposition (ef. what is said of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting Mt 65: δ. 16 git.) The righteousness of the king: dom of heaven is inward and spiritual ; it is the fruit of a renewed heart and of a filial relation to The purely formal ethics of the Pharisees led to a great many other evils.

They paid no attention to the ethical content of a law. Ethically in- different precepts were as important as those bear- ing on really moral duties, simply because they were contained in the law or tradition. They accordingly busied themselves with minute trifles, to which ΠΟΥ even attached greater importance than to the discharge of duties to their fellow- men. They divorced morality and religion (Mt 151%, Mk 73%, Mt 23%, Lk 11 18, cf. Mt 5% 01 121°; justice and mercy, etc.

, are opposed by our Lord to a false way of serving God; mercy is better than sacrifice ; duty to parents takes pre- cedence of so-called religious Alte to be recon- ciled to one’s brother is more necessary than coming to the altar; the Sabbath is ‘sanctified’ by doing good; ‘the programme of genuine re- ligion’: ‘genuinely ethical deeds are more im- portant than the observance of ceremonial pre- scriptions ’—Jiilicher).

Their externalism did not deliver them from the impulses of the natural man, such as covetousness and rapacity (Mt 23%, Mk 12”, Lk 9057, cf. 164) and the desire of receivin honour from men (Mt 23°, Mk 12%8-, Lk 114 147 2046) ; while it led inevitably to casuistry (e.g. in respect of the Sabbath;* oaths, Mt 23%"; dut to God outweighing duty to man, Mt 15%, M 7°".

; inventing statutes virtually cancelling more irksome ones, Mt 234, Lk 11"), ostentation and self-righteousness (Mt 61:18 23°, Mk 12”, Lk 16% 1895.

2047), censoriousness (Lk 18°), and hypocrisy (Mt 237-28, Mk 12°, Lk 11% 1616 2047), They paid external homage to the great men of the past, ut were altogether void of their spirit (Mt 23%", Lk 114"-), By means of their false interpretations of scripture and their legal conception of religion they shut the kingdom of heaven both against themselves and others (Mt 23", Lk 11°?) ; while by means of their fencing of the law, they turned the commandments of God (e.g.

as to the Sabbath), which were given to help men to live a true life (Mk 2”), into heavy burdens, grievous to be borne (Mt 234, Lk 11). There were doubtless in our Lord’s time many good men among the Pharisees, but the tendency of the whole system was to pro- duce hypocrisy (cf. what is said of proselytes Mt 23)5), or, in the case of earnest and sincere souls, self-torture and a sense of estrangement from God (cf. Mt 11%; see Weber, 320 f.) LrreraTurg. — Schiirer, Οὐ ΡῈ ii. 8380 6, [HJP nm. fi.

1ff.}, also in Riehm’s H WB? 1906 ff., 1339 ff. ; Wellhausen, Die Phari- sder und die Sadducder, also IJG3 157-388 ; Weber, Jtidische Lf ie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften; Montet, Essai sur les origines des partis saducéen et pharisien et leur histoire "ὰ la naissance de Jésus-Christ ; Hausrath, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte 1, 129 ff., also in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iv. 618 ff.; Sieffert, ‘Sadduciier und Pharisiier’ in Herzog, PRES xiii. 210 ff.; O. Holtzmann, Neutest.

Zeitgeschichte, 158 {f., also in Stade, GVT il. 894 Π΄.; Ewald, GVI3 iv. 357 ff.; Cornill, His- tory of the People of Israel, 145 ff.; Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, passim ; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, i. 822; Davaine, Le Saducéisme, étude historique et dogmatique ; Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten wnd der Juden zu den Fremden, 123 ff.; H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutest. Theo- logie, i. 28 ff., 62 ff.

; Jacob, Jesu Stellung zum mosaischen Gesetz ; Bousset, Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum, Ehrhardt, Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu im Verhaltniss zu den messianischen Hoffnungen seines Volkes, etc.; Jiilicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, ii. 64 ff., 459f%. and passim ; Bruce, The Kingdom of God4 187 ff.; Mackintosh, Christ and the Jewish Law, 89 ff.; Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, 165 ff.; Ryle and James, The Psalms of Solomon, xlix ff. Ὁ. EATON.

PHARPAR (1978, B’Adap¢d, A Φαρφαρά) is named by Naaman, along with the ABANAH (2 K 5%), as one of the rivers of Damascus. Much has been written on the subject, but its identity is still in doubt. The Arab. Version gives Zaurd for Pharpar, * See Schiirer, ii. 470ff., 491 f.; Edersheim, il, 774 ff. PHASELIS but the modern Beirft revision simply transliter- ates Farfar.

There is a local belief, for which some antiquity is claimed, that Abanah and Phar- par are represented by Nahr Banids or Abanids, and Nahr Taurd, respectively. In favour of this, Dr. Wm. Wright argues in Nelson’s Bible Treasury (p. 250), lone a the late Dr. Meshaka, one of the most learned of modern Damascenes. The old Arab geographers, however, are unaware of the Posen charms of any two rivers of Damascus. imashki (c. A.D.

1300) speaks of seven streams into which the waters of el-Barada are divided, and mentions among the others, with no special commendation, Nahr Thaurah and Nahr Balniyas (or Banas). So also Idrisi (A.D. 1154). But even these names are unknown to Istakhri and Ibn Haukal (A.D. 951-978), who refer to only three canals as branching off from the main stream.

It is hard to see why Naaman should have ignored the river itself, flowing towards the city with full refreshing current, to extol two of the canals sup- plied by its waters. The identity of Pharpar with el-A'waj is main- tained by Thomson (Land and Book, ii. 359, 398, 429), he two main sources of this stream rise on the eastern slopes of Hermon, just under Kagr ‘Antdr; the'Arny to the north, and the Jenndny to the south.

Below Sa'sa‘ the latter takes the name Sabirdny, which it retains after conflu- ence with the “Arny, as far as el-Kisweh, on the great hajj road. Thence to the lake it is called el- A'waj (‘the crooked’). In the season of melting snows the volume of water it carries is very great; but later in the year the stream is much attenu- ated.

Escaping from the valley, el-A'way waters the south-eastern part of the plain of Damascus, and, splitting up into several streams, falls at last into Bahret el-Hijdneh. In the Wddy Barbar iv is natural to detect an echo of the ancient ‘Phar- par’; but Thomson errs in making this Wdady tributary to the Sabirdny. Such waters as it supplies are carried into the plain north of Jebel oy) πυαα, while the Sabirdny flows to the south.

The proposed identification, therefore, loses what support might be derived from similarity of name. It is, however, adopted by G. A. Smith as probable (HGHL 642), and by Baedeker as certain (Pal.* 268, 312). Dr. Wright quotes Dr. Meshaka to the effect that el-A'way ‘is not a river of Damascus at all. It is distant a ride of 3 hours from the city at the nearest point.’ Against this we have the statement of Dimashki (c.

1300), ‘another river (of Damascus) is called el-A'way,’ and the distance from Bawwabet Ullah to the nearest point is only 6 miles. It is futile to seek for the Pharpar in the short stream from ‘Ain Fijeh. Beside el-Barada, with its copious and never- failing supplies, el-A'waj may seem hardly worthy of mention. But during the greater part of the year it carries down no mean volume of water ; and there is no other stream near the city at all deserving the name of river.

It should also be remembered that whatever ministered to the fruit- fulness and beauty of any part of the famous pen would bean object of grateful pride to the Damascene soldier, Lrrzratune.—Thomson, Land and Rook, \ii. 429-452 ; Racdeker, Pal.3 268, 312; Nelson's Bible T'reasu 250; Guy le Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, 235, 238, 265, 206. W. ἔνινα. PHASELIS (#don\is)*.

—A city on the eastern ex- tremity of the coast of Lycia near the hese Fy frontier, standing apart, not only geographically, Φ Sareal wrongly in edd. of 1 Mac 15%), and in some classical authors; but Peers is right, and is now printed in Strabo, p. 666, Paus. lil. 8, 8 (whore older edd. have oxytone), eta Φασυλίς was the name of a kind of vase or utensil in Alexandria, 880 PHASELIS PHILADELPHIA but generally even politically, from the rest of the country. Pliny (Nat. Hist. ν.

36) and Stephanus Byz. actually assign it to Pamphylia; but this is erroneous. it was said to be a Dorian colony ; and it became a city of great importance at a very early time, being one of those which shared in the trade with Egypt under Amasis, B.C. 570-526. It struck a series of coins in the 6th and early 5th cent. with a variety of types, among which the most noteworthy are the prow and the stern of a war galley. These coins, which were struck on the Persian standard, cease about B.c.

466, when the Athenian confederacy became powerful on these coasts ; but Thucydides (ii. 69) mentions that Phaselis was a place of consequence in the Athenian trade with Phenicia and the Levant coasts generally. Its coinage began again about B.c. 400, and during the 4th and 3rd cents. the same types were characteristic. During that period it was a more or less independent city; but while Lycia was under the power of the Ptolemies, B.c.

276- 204, Phaselis was ay under the same in- fluence; and at the end of that time a radiated head, which is conjecturally taken as represent- ing Ptolemy Iv., appears on the prow in the reverse type. When Seleucid power ended in B.c. 190, Phaselis commenced to use the type of Pallas. About B.c. 168 it began to strike coins with the types of the Lycian confederacy (Κοινὸν Λυκίων), founded in that year (see LycIA); and in the lst cent. it also struck coins which are of a different style.

There can therefore be no doubt that at least in the period later than B.C. 77 (when it was captured by Ser- vilius Isauricus), it ceased to be a member of the Lycian confederacy ; and Strabo mentions that it was not a member in his time (B.C. 64-A.D. 19). But Mr. G. F. Hill, in his Catalogue of Coins in the Brit. Museum, Lycia, p. \xvii, thinks there is no reason to deny its membership during the period before B.c. 77.

But the mention of Phaselis among the States to which the Roman consul sent letters in B.C. 139 in favour of the Jews (1 Mac 15%), proves that it was at that time a free city, distinct from the Lycian confederacy (which is also mentioned as a recipient of similar letters); and Mr. Hill admits that there is some reason to think that it was not a member of the confederacy about B.c.

100, for it must have been one of the greatest cities of Lycia, yet Artemidorus does not mention it when enumerating the six members of the first class at that period. Now, even its coins with confederacy types do not mention the name ΛΥΚΊΩΝ, as is the case with those of most cities; there are, however, occasional examples of the same omission on the coins of other Lycian cities, even during the early period of the confederacy.

But, on the whole, it would appear that Phaselis either never belonged to the confederacy (but merely from alliance and common interest adopted the types), or ceased before 138 to belong to it; and the words of Cicero (Verr. ii. 4. 10, 21) suggest that it had originally been a Lycian city, but that it soon allied itself with the Cilician pirates (which led to its capture by Servilius) and separated from the Lycians. Phaselis stood on a promontory with a very con- spicuous mountain behind it.

Livy (xxxvii. 23) describes _this in vague and hardly accurate terms. He is evidently alluding to the vast ridge of Taurus, which rises from the coast all along the eastern part of Lycia, and is seen by sailors for a great distance out at sea; but he is hardly correct in saying that Phaselis is the first land Ae athes by sailors on the voyage from Cilicia to odes. No coins of Phaselis are known with certainty | under the Roman empire except in the time of Gordian 1.

(others are probably forged), which shows that it hardly maintained its ancient im- | portance in the post-Christian period. It was a δες in the Byzantine time. W. M. RAMSAY. PHASIRON (A Φασιρών, § Φασειρών, V Papiowv). Name of a Nabatean tribe (1 Mac 9%).

Since most Nabatean names find easy etymologies in Arabic, it ought to be possible to explain this from that language; the roots, however, which this name recalls, seem rarely used for forming proper names, except, indeed, fazara, which gives Fazarah, a well-known tribal name. The form Pashiron of the Peshitta version makes it no easier. The name may be corrupt. D. 5. MARGOLIOUTH. PHASSURUS (B Φάσσορος, A Φάσσουρος, AV Phassaron), 1 Es 5%=Pashhur.

PHEREZITE occurs in AV and RV of 2 Es 1” and in AV of Jth 5" for the more usual PERIZZITE, which is the reading of RV in the latter passage.