Clivedurdle

Wiki makes the same points

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

Jeffrey Gibson

Certainly not what you take it as meaning, especially since Paul does not speak in Phil. 3:6, as the translation of κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ your cite would have us believe, of "legalistic righteousness", but, of a righteousness which is ‘in the law’, is ‘rooted in the law’, or ‘rests in the law’ -- an explicitly Pharisaic belief (on this, see O. Betz, "Paulus als Pharisäer nach dem Gesetz. Phil. 3,5-6 als Beitrag zur Frage des frühen Pharisäismus", in Treue zur Thora. Beiträge zur Mitte des christlichjüdischen Gesprächs. Festschrift für Günther Harder zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. P. von der Osten-Sacken [Berlin, 1977], 54-64, esp. pp. 55–56; note the examples and further details in W. Schenk, 282–283 and J. Blank, J., "Erwägungen zum Schriftverständnis des Paulus"’, in Rechtfertigung. Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pohlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher [Tübingen, 1976] 37-56. P.T. O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians : A commentary on the Greek text (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans 1991) and R.P. Martin, Philippians (or via: amazon.co.uk) [Dallas: Word, 2004] 187).

But are you really saying that Pharisees did not try, let alone think that it was eminently possible, to live by the law of God, to fulfill what they understood to be its requirements, to call others to do, to excoriate those among their co religionists who did not do so, and that they had no concern to be found blameless by God when it came to their understanding and proclamations of what obedience to the his Law entailed?

May I ask what it is that informs your views on the topic of Pharisees and the Law and their notions of obedience to it? Is it anything besides the EB article? Anything from the scholarly literature on the topic of the Pharisees and the Law and/or the Pharisaic ideal of δικαιοσύνη?

More importantly, have you read anything of the extant primary sources (Josephus, the Mishna, etc.) on what the Pharisees -- including the schools of Shammai and Hillel --understood as "righteousness" ἐν νόμῳ and the desirability, necessity, and possibility of achieving it?

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

from above - and it wasn't "my" cite.

What is all this rapid cutting and pasting of book lists you do about? Primary sources are always interpreted and argued about!

Jeffrey Gibson

Since you rarely, if ever, deal with primary sources, not by you.

In any case, I ask again -- hoping this time to receive an actual reply to what I asked -- do you believe thatis century Pharisees (whether of the "house" of Hillel or of Shammai or of some other allegiance) did not try, let alone think that it was eminently possible, to live by the law of God, to fulfill what they understood to be its requirements, to call others to do, to excoriate those among their co religionists who did not do so, and that they had no concern to be found blameless by God when it came to their understanding and proclamations of what obedience to the his Law entailed?

Jeffrey

Toto

This is a bit of a digression. Can we tie it to the OP?

Clivedurdle is probably relying on the notion popularized by Hyam Maccoby, that Jesus's reported actions were closer to the actual Pharisees than the caricatures of Pharisees in the gospels. If this is the case, and if Paul were either a Pharisee or aspired to be a Pharisee, would he have been persecuting Christians?

We can accept that the Pharisees felt that they were upholding the Law (as they understood it.) Would the Law have required them to hunt down Christians and throw them into prison?

Jeffrey Gibson

Where does Paul say that that's what he did?

But as to the question of the Law requiring "persecution" of those who, while professing allegiance to the God of Israel, nevertheless follow policies that seem to endanger the holiness and distinctiveness and security of Israel, you might want to take into account the answer given not only Phineas, or by Sadoc the Pharisee and Judas of Gamala, or the Sicarrii or Elaizar ben Yair, or by Rabbi Akiva and Simon bar Khosiba and by others who were what Paul says he was -- i.e., full of "zeal" for the Law (on this see Martin Hengel, The Zealots, Hengel The Pre-Christian Paul (London SCM Press, 1991), Tory Seland "Saul of Tarsus and early Zealotism: Reading Gal 1,13-14 in light of Philo's writings," Biblica 83 (2002): 449-471; Establishment Violence in Philo & Luke: A Study of Non-Conformity to the Torah & Jewish Vigilante Reactions, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995); and Mark R. Fairchild. "Paul's Pre-Christian Zealot Associations: A Re-Examination of Gal 1:14 and Acts 22:3," NTS 45 (1999) 514-532) -- but also by the yeshiva student Yigal Amir, the assassin of Yitzak Rabin, all of whom answered that question in the affirmative.

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

On the Pharisees, I recommend In Quest of the Historical Pharisees
edited Neusner and Chilton.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

And very nice and academic that is, but back to the real world we have key texts of one of the main religions invented by human beings being very explicit about Pharisees, to such an extent that other authors have called the views anti- semitic.

We have not that long ago an attempt to wipe out the Jewish people.

We have im modern Islam similar tensions between groups who believe the koran is unchanging and those who look for the spirit. Similar things happen in xianity - liberals and fundamentalists.

We have explicitly defined who are the heavy lot - the Sadducees - and that the Pharisees are actually concerned about both the law and its spirit - a fundamental and very important distinction.

And yet the book recommended does not seem to grasp that yes there are right wing Democrats and left leaning republicans, but there are some real fault lines, and allowing humans to tweak the law to make it fit humans is one of them!

Yet we have from xianity attacks on the Pharisees! There is something going on definitely worth looking at!

And this related directly to the OP because Paul claims to be a Pharisee and a Zealot - but they are different groups, and it does not make sense about who is persecuting who or why!

Jeffrey Gibson

Oh yes, Different groups. That's why Josephus tells us that one of the founders of the "Fourth Philosophy" was Sadoc the Pharisee, not to mention that "Zealotism" had as most prominent assumption the Pharisaic assertion that God alone is king, and why, as Hengel, Vermes, Rhoads, and others have observed, he goes on to note that many of the proponents of, and the active participants in, the revolt were from the school of Shammai.

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

Let's have another go at this because it is critically important.

CS Lewis used the idea of deep law, the law behind the law.


In British Law there is a concept of natural justice - you have your rules and regulations, but you must always ask what is just. There are phrases like fettering your discretion.

Love your neighbour type stuff, talking of spirit of the law are similar concepts. Human Rights Law is about this idea.

This is a very ancient debate between what the law says and what is practicable and reasonable.

The way someone responds to this may be hard wired into individuals - a matter of personality, but the societies we live in definitely effect individual responses.

When we find someone claiming to be something, but actually what they are claiming to be does not fit the mindset that group is coming from, their are very strong grounds for suspicion about authenticity, and it is definitely worth trying to work out what is going on.

Jesus' attitudes do fit quite well Pharisaic attitudes, so the attacks don't make sense!

The stuff about King of the Jews fits Saducees so it looks like a pastiche is going on from someone who does not atually understand the local politics.

It is the equivalent of calling Jimmy Carter a Reaganite!