Biblical Views: The Pharisees—Good Guys with Bad Press

022

Nearly everybody seems to know enough about the Pharisees to label someone else’s behaviour as “pharisaic,” but nobody ever claims to be a Pharisee himself. Pharisees are, almost always, the “bad guys.” They are hypocrites whose outside appearance does not match their true inner nature. If you order a “Pharisäer” in a coffee shop in northern Germany, you will get a strong black coffee topped with whipped cream and a lot of sugar. Nothing special at first glance. But after the first sip you know why it is called a “Pharisäer”: Hidden under the cream and mixed into the coffee is a generous serving of very strong rum.^a Legend has it that this recipe was conjured up on the small northern Frisian island of Nordstrand to hide alcohol consumption at weddings from the local pastor who strongly opposed it. On one occasion he was offered the wrong cup of coffee and, detecting the cover-up, commented simply, “You Pharisees!”

The best-known accusation against the Pharisees in the New Testament is that they tell others what to do “but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to do it” (Matthew 23:3–4). Their religious practice is regarded as mere show for bystanders who would admire their piety and call them “teacher” or “rabbi” (Matthew 23:5–7). The parable of the tax-collector and the Pharisee praying in the Temple (Luke 18:9–14) is the iconic description of Pharisaic self-righteousness. It looks like coffee, it smells like coffee, but it is rum. The Pharisees look like they do God’s will, they teach how to do God’s will, but in the end it is all about something else: themselves. This remains the popular perception of the Pharisees. Without a doubt certain New Testament texts—Matthew 23 prominent among them¹—are responsible for this lasting negative image of the Pharisees. To make matters worse, they were often taken as the “typical Jew” in the history of the church. Whenever I ask students what they initially associate with the Pharisees, it is inevitably the term “hypocrites.” But the New Testament authors are not solely to be blamed: Josephus occasionally also described the Pharisees in very negative terms. Even a few rabbinic traditions present the perushim—often understood as a reference to the Pharisees before 70 C.E.—in connection with hypocrisy.² How is it, then, that the Pharisees are described as the people’s party in the New Testament as well as in Josephus? Why would the people follow their example if they were nothing but hypocrites, eager to burden others with heavy halakhic [ legal] bundles?

The main problem is that scholars and laypeople alike too often ignore the fact that polemical texts cannot be taken at face value for historical information. They mistake the polemical stance of the New Testament against the Pharisees as an objective description of the Pharisees, and this is as much in evidence today as it has been in the history of the church. To be sure, polemics can serve as a source for historical understanding, and polemics only work when they contain some truth. But it is also true that polemics have a purpose and quite often point to a more deeply rooted conflict in another sphere. This is clear in Matthew’s gospel. He accuses the Pharisees of all kind of things, but underlying these accusations is the extent of the Pharisees’ influence on the Jewish people (in Matthew’s terminology, “the crowds”).³ In Matthew’s eyes, the Pharisees are mainly responsible for the failure of Jesus’ mission among his own people.

This brings us back to the question of why the “hypocritical” Pharisees had such influence in the first place. The answer I propose here is that they cared for the people. They had a vision for them and actively helped the people of Israel to do what they thought God expected of his chosen people. This can be established from one of the accusations brought forward in Matthew 23:25–26, according to which the Pharisees declare the outside of a vessel clean, whereas the inside is full of wrongdoings (see also Luke 11:39–41; Mark 7:4b; Gospel of Thomas 89:1). This short saying is quite inconsistent—which works for a polemical argument but not for social history. The first half presents a halakhic decision known from the rabbinic literature about the differentiation between inside and outside with regard to the purity of pottery vessels. The second half of the verse does not continue the halakhic rule but mocks it: The Pharisees declare the outside clean but have nothing to say about the moral impurity inside (now no longer inside the vessel but the person). It’s a turn from halakhic purity to moral impurity.

Leaving aside the polemic, one can learn from this 057 verse something about halakhic decision-making. What might seem like another example of a pharisaic legalistic burden for the people who listen to their teaching is in fact a halakhic alleviation that makes it more practicable to follow the requirement described in Leviticus 11:33: “And if any of [the swarming creatures] falls into any earthen vessel, all that is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break the vessel” (see also, m. Kelim 1.1). The Greek verb καθαρίζετε (katharízete) in Matthew 23:25 is often erroneously translated “they cleanse,” rather than “they declare as clean,” as noted above. The Pharisees’ (and scribes’) teaching authority is the target of the accusations. The Biblical rule is that any vessel made of clay must be destroyed when it becomes impure. As certain impurities happen regularly (especially if we accept that mainly women did the cooking and handled pots and pans in those days) obedience to God’s law could quickly become rather costly. This could lead to a real dilemma: Either one could afford to buy enough new pottery to be obedient (or have servants to do the household chores in states of impurity) or one has to abstain from keeping these commandments in order to do those things necessary for daily life.

This is where the Pharisees came in with their ideal for all Israel to be holy—not just the priests and the Temple. Since purity is a prerequisite for holiness, purity needed to be made practicable for as many within Israel as possible. Therefore, the Pharisees declared the outside to be clean: One can touch the vessel and handle it from the outside even in a state of impurity; the Biblical rule about contamination applies only if the impurity enters the inner space of the vessel, which can be more easily avoided. The Pharisees are the only known Jewish group (at least until this idea was perhaps taken over by followers of Jesus as well) that was willing to “compromise” the Biblical law in such a way that it become practicable for as many people as possible. They accepted that farmers, craftsmen and shopkeepers needed to be able to follow their daily routine even if they became impure. The extremist 057 Qumranites labeled the Pharisees “seekers after smooth things” (dorshe ha-halaqot instead of dorshe ha-halakhot, “seekers after the law”). The Pharisees made the keeping of the law easier so that more people could achieve holiness. I believe this is what made the Pharisees popular. What they sought to achieve with their rather lenient interpretation of the law was the sanctification and holiness of the whole nation.

So far this argument is based solely on textual interpretation. But there is also an archaeological aspect to it. Yonatan Adler recently discussed the “Interface of Archaeology and Texts” in BAR.^b He took the Jewish stone vessels used in the land of Israel (and only there) from the time of Herod until Bar Kokhba (and only during this time) as a key example of the way in which texts can provide a more accurate understanding of archaeological finds from the same time. Archaeology alone can only describe the sudden appearance of stone vessels in the first century B.C.E. (with the nearly parallel spread of Jewish ritual baths, synagogues and other changes within the material culture). Texts such as John 2:6 and rabbinic discussions help us understand these finds as related to Jewish ritual purity. But what caused the Jewish people suddenly to change their attitude toward purity? The available textual evidence mentions the Pharisees as a new group gaining influence at that time who, together with their scribes, taught the people of Israel how to live a life that pleases God. They were concerned with pots and pans and the tithing of kitchen herbs (see Matthew 23:23) not to make life in conformity with the Torah harder, but to make it more widely accessible. They pursued a halakhic praxis that allowed all of Israel to participate in obedience to the law for the benefit of all. This is why stone vessels became so prominent for a short while. The Pharisees encouraged their use, and the people liked what they had to say. In those days, the Pharisees were the “good guys.”

Nearly everybody seems to know enough about the Pharisees to label someone else’s behaviour as “pharisaic,” but nobody ever claims to be a Pharisee himself. Pharisees are, almost always, the “bad guys.” They are hypocrites whose outside appearance does not match their true inner nature. If you order a “Pharisäer” in a coffee shop in northern Germany, you will get a strong black coffee topped with whipped cream and a lot of sugar. Nothing special at first glance. But after the first sip you know why it is called a “Pharisäer”: Hidden under the cream and mixed into the […]