lpetrich

In the Gospels, Jesus Christ is pictured as vilifying the Pharisees in rather extreme terms, calling them lots of names and violating his Sermon-on-the-Mouth prohibition of name-calling.

One wonders what that reflects -- the opinions of some sect with a big grudge against Pharisees? Whatever that grudge might be.

Interestingly, both the anti-Pharisee comments and the prohibition of name-calling are in the reconstructed document "Q".

godfry n. glad

What level of the reconstructed Q? Q1? Q2? Or, Q3?

godfry n. glad

Vinnie

I think the pharisees were a minority group. The population estimates of Palestinian Jews in the first century are speculative and not fully reliable. The scholarly spectrum ranges anywhere from 500,000 Jews to 2.5 million Jews. Josephus also gives us numbers for individual sects (AJ 17.42, 18.21). We have no more reason to trust Josephus’ account than the modern scholarly speculations but the sheer contrast of the numbers is informative. During Herod the Great’s reign, Josephus claims the Pharisees numbered about 6,000. It seems that this group hardly represented a very large portion of the Jews inhabiting Palestine. Even if we take the lower scholarly assertion of 500,000 and combine that with Josephus’ number of 6,000 Pharisees we see they constituted little over 1% of the Jewish population.

That invokes a few questions regarding Mark 7: Were the Pharisees actually surprised Jesus and his disciples did not obey their customs? Did they not know they were a minority? In effect, weren’t they complaining that Jesus’ disciples were not Pharisees?

While Jesus certainly may have had run ins with Pharisees and teachers of the law many scholars think the portrayal in Mark iss more polemical than historical. From Paula Fredriksen:

“Mark shapes these controversy traditions polemically, to provide the greatest contrast between Jesus and his challengers. The scribes and Pharisees fuss over imagined Sabbath infringements (in fact, none is actually presented; it is the tone of Jesus’ activity that offends), oblivious to the splendid healings; miffed by a question and a miracle, they plot his murder. In their anxiety to ensure universal conformity to their own standards of observance, they follow Jesus everywhere, watching his house to see whom he eats with and how (Mark 2:13-17 and parr.), patrolling grainfields on the Sabbath hoping to catch him out (2:23-24), checking to see whether his disciples first wash their hands before eating (7:2). This is polemical caricature, not realistic portraiture.”

Vinnie

leonarde

From the OP: My understanding
is that, to the extent that one could pidgeon-hole
him before his public ministry, Jesus himself was
a "Pharisee": though there were a number of disputes between Sadduccees and Pharisees, the
resurrection and afterlife, and the world of the
spirits seem to have been the biggest (ie most profound)conflict areas. Naturally since Jesus was
himself to rise from the dead, he would be of the
sect which adhered to this doctrine.
His case against the Pharisees was mostly:

1)their obsession with externals (ritual washings
and the like).

2)their superficiality (criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath).

3)not having a genuine love for God.

4)loving their respectability more than anything
else (see 3).

5)putting heavy burdens on the shoulders of others.

6)rejecting Him (ie Jesus) and trying to trip him
up constantly.

7)legalism [added via edit].

Still, to the extent that Jesus was 'merely' a Jew, he was a Pharisee.

Cheers!

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Amos

Of course he was and that was the cause of his anger with them. It is a natural response to the burden he carried.

It is much the same with Paul who was a taxcollecter and persecutor of Christians, ie. we would be too if we got knocked of our own high horse by a Beatific Vision.

Notice also how Jonah was "running away from God."

Grumpy

Did the proportion, or the total number, ever go up? I've heard that the prominence of the Pharisees in the Gospels represents a curious anachronism, since the Pharisees weren't worth much attention until after the Temple was destroyed in 66 CE. Once the priesthood was eliminated, the Pharisees moved in to fill the gap. If the Gospels were written after the Revolt, the writers could easily depict contemporary rivals as longtime foes.

Vinnie

Grumpy, I think I remeber E.P. Sanders advocating that view or a similar one in The Historical Figure of Jesus. He said later Christians projected their current situation back into Jesus' own ministry or something to that effect.

Vinnie

CX

I'd say (and there is not inconsiderable literature on this) it reflects a conflict between the early Xian sect and the Pharisaic sect of Judaism. If the Pharisees were strong and vocal opponents of emergent Xianity, and if Paul's admissions of persecution of Xians are to be taken at face value (I realize that is not uncontroversial) more than likely the language in the NT directed at the Pharisees is polemical in nature and the result of that conflict.