During the time of Jesus and in the couple of centuries
prior, Judaism was not a monolithic entity but was comprised of
different groups with varying religious concerns and political
interests. This multifaceted nature of Judaism has caused scholars to
question whether it would be better to speak of Judaisms rather than
Judaism. Was Judaism cut from a whole cloth, or was it a box of
fabric scraps? Perhaps it is best to speak of Judaism as a single
entity, but one comprised of various factions with diverse beliefs
and interests. This conclusion is justified because the diverse
sentiments and interests were responses to the same religious and
political issues, such as Torah, the temple, and foreign occupiers.
Five
of the important parties in ancient Judaism were the Pharisees, the
Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Herodians. The first
three seem to have first emerged in reaction to the rise of the
Hasmonean priest-kings in the mid-second and first centuries BC, and
the other two in response to the occupation of Palestine by the
Romans and their establishment of the Herods as the rulers of Israel.
Pharisees
According
to Josephus.
The best source of information on the Pharisees, apart from the
Gospels themselves, is the Jewish historian Josephus, who discusses
the beliefs of various Jewish factions. In consideration of his Roman
audience, he depicts these groups as Jewish philosophical schools. In
his Antiquities, Josephus indicates a rough outline of the beliefs of
the Pharisees and their political position in relation to the
Sadducees and the general populace.
Josephus
gives the following points in summation of the Pharisees’
beliefs. (1) The Pharisees believed some things are the result
of fate, whereas other things are the result of human choice. (2) The
Pharisees believed that the soul survives death in a place of either
reward or punishment, and in the resurrection of the body.
(3) Besides believing in the authority of Scripture, the
Pharisees also had an authoritative body of oral tradition.
The
Pharisees and the Sadducees had a difficult relationship, due not
only to different religious beliefs but also to conflicting political
aspirations. Josephus suggests that Jewish leaders gave patronage to
one group or the other, or suppressed one group or the other,
sometimes violently. In regard to the general populace, the Pharisees
had a much better relationship with them than did the Sadducees, to
the point that when Sadducees were magistrates, they had to rule
according to the beliefs of the Pharisees or else the people would
not listen to them.
In
the New Testament.
In the Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees were one of the groups that
opposed Jesus. It seems that the Pharisees most strongly opposed
Jesus on issues related to their received tradition, which they
considered to be as binding as the OT law. Two such legal issues were
ceremonial washings before meals and working on the Sabbath. All
three Synoptic Gospels narrate the Pharisees questioning Jesus
concerning his and his disciples’ failure to follow the
tradition of the elders by eating with “unclean,” that
is, “unwashed,” hands (Matt. 15:1–2; Mark 7:1–5;
Luke 11:39–41). Concerning breaking the Sabbath, the Pharisees
confronted Jesus on various occasions, such as when Jesus healed on
the Sabbath (Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–11)
and when his disciples picked grain while walking through a field
(Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5).
In
response to accusations concerning breaking the traditions of the
elders, Jesus affirmed the priority of mercy in the face of human
need that supersedes laws concerning the Sabbath by saying that the
Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27),
or that the Son of Man (Jesus) was Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8;
Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). He also said that God desires mercy, not
sacrifice (Matt. 12:7).
Jesus’
critique of the Pharisees concentrated on their neglecting mercy
toward fellow humans for the sake of their tradition. This is
especially clear in Matthew, where Jesus’ critique of the
Pharisees includes indictments against them for concentrating on the
fine points of the law but neglecting justice and mercy (12:7;
23:23).
In
the Gospel of John, the Pharisees are again usually depicted as
adversaries of Jesus and also in league with other Jewish authorities
in plotting to arrest and kill Jesus (7:32; 11:47–57). One
passage suggests that they were divided concerning Jesus (9:16). One
Pharisee, Nicodemus, came to Jesus by night (John 3), defended Jesus
before his peers (7:50), and brought spices to prepare Jesus’
body for burial after his death (19:39).
The
Pharisees were not always antagonistic toward Jesus. From time to
time, they were on the same side of an issue, such as Jesus’
confrontation with the Sadducees over the resurrection (Luke
20:27–40). Nicodemus, mentioned above, was quite sympathetic
toward Jesus. The apostle Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee in
regard to keeping the law in Phil. 3:5; Acts 26:5, and in a
confrontation with Jerusalem authorities in Acts 23:6. Also, some
early Christians were said to be Pharisees (Acts 15:5).
Relationship
with rabbinic Judaism.
An issue concerning the Pharisees is their relationship with later
rabbinic Judaism. There are basically two viewpoints on this matter,
and both involve the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70.
One position maintains that when the dust settled from the
destruction of the temple, only the Pharisees remained standing, and
rabbinic Judaism is their heir. Another view holds that after AD 70
sectarian Judaism disappeared, and rabbinic Judaism emerged from a
coalescence of various Jewish groups. Although one cannot be certain,
it seems that the former view may be closer to the truth, since in
the Mishnah, Sadducean legal opinion is contrasted with Pharisaic,
and the Pharisaic is invariably considered correct.
Sadducees
The
Sadducees were an elite group of Jews connected with the priesthood.
“Sadducee” probably means “Son of Zadok,” a
descendant of the high priest Zadok from the time of David. Some
members of the Qumran community used the term “Son of Zadok”
as a self-designation as well, suggesting some common ancestry, if
not direct identification, of the Sadducees and some members of the
Qumran community.
Along
with the Pharisees, the Sadducees were a religious-political group
that sought the support of the ruling powers. It is in the context of
the patron-retainer relationship that we first hear of the Sadducees.
Josephus relates how the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus switched from
being the patron of the Pharisees to that of the Sadducees. When the
Pharisee Eliezer suggested that Hyrcanus step down from the high
priesthood due to his uncertain lineage, Hyrcanus became very angry
and wanted Eliezer to be executed. The rest of the Pharisees
suggested that he merely be bound and whipped, since they had a
tradition of passing light sentences. A Sadducee suggested that they
passed such a light sentence because they agreed with Eliezer that
Hyrcanus was unsuitable to be high priest. Hyrcanus then cast his
support behind the Sadducees and abolished the laws that the
Pharisees had given to the populace.
Josephus
gives the following general description of the Sadducees’
beliefs and relationship with the general populace. (1) The
Sadducees rejected fate; things are the result of human action alone.
Along with this, God stands aloof from humans concerning good and
evil actions. Good and evil are the result of human action. (2) The
Sadducees believed that the soul dies along with the body. (3) They
accepted only the written law and had no oral tradition. Some take
this last point to mean that they accepted only the Pentateuch as
Scripture, but this goes beyond what Josephus says about them.
Josephus
goes on to write that Sadducees were as contentious in their disputes
with fellow Sadducees as with people outside the group, and they did
not hold their elders in esteem. They had influence over the elite,
but no say with the populace at large.
The
Sadducees are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in John,
although the “chief priests” who plotted against Jesus
with the Pharisees (e.g., John 11:46) probably were Sadducees. All
three Synoptic Gospels relate the narrative in which the Sadducees
posed the hypothetical question concerning whose wife a woman would
be in the resurrection if she outlived seven husbands. Jesus answered
that they understood neither the Scriptures nor the power of God, and
that God was the God of the living and not the dead (Matt. 22:23–33;
Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–40).
The
book of Acts confirms that the Sadducees were closely connected to
the priesthood (Acts 4:1; 5:17), and that they disputed with the
Pharisees over the resurrection (Acts 23:6–8).
Essenes
The
Essenes are the third “philosophical school” mentioned by
Josephus. Most scholars consider the Qumran sectarians who produced
the DSS to be Essenes. This has created a number of circular
arguments, since the DSS are then used to confirm the nature of
Essene beliefs. That being said, there is good evidence that the
Qumran sectarians were at least in part Essene. The Essenes are not
mentioned in the NT or in rabbinic literature, but they do appear in
the writings of Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder.
Josephus
delineates the beliefs of the Essenes as follows. (1) They
ascribed every happening to God. (2) They believed in the
immortality of the soul.
Josephus
writes at great length concerning the Essenes’ way of life.
They lived an ascetic lifestyle, avoided pleasure, and devoted
themselves to prayer. They shared all things in common and lived in
harmony with one another. Some Essenes avoided marriage, whereas
others regarded marriage and procreation as too central to human life
to avoid. Certain Essenes could predict the future and interpret
dreams. Concerning sacrifices, Josephus mentions that although they
sent offerings to the temple, they had their own, superior
sacrifices.
Philo
writes that the Essenes were much admired due to their holy lives,
living peaceably with one another and holding to the truth. Contrary
to Josephus, Philo says that the Essenes did not sacrifice, but
through study they kept their minds pure and holy.
The
Essenes, as Josephus and Philo describe them, seem similar to the
Qumran sectarians. The Qumran sectarians believed that God determines
the fate of people (1QS 3:13–4:26). Although the sectarians
believed in the immortality of the soul as well as divine reward and
punishment, this does not seem to be emphasized in their writings.
Zealots
Scholars
tend to use “Zealots” as a general term to refer to three
different groups mentioned by Josephus: brigands, Sicarii, and
Zealots. The three groups have different political ideologies and
emerged at different times in the first century. They can all be
described as revolutionaries.
The
brigands were motivated not by religious or political ideology but by
survival. Displaced from the traditional economic structure of
Palestine—the agricultural village—by the Romans, the
brigands stole from Jew and Roman alike. They hated the Romans
because the Romans had driven them into poverty through taxation and
transformation of the economy from subsistence-based agriculture to
cash crops that could be sold more readily. (Money could be shipped
to Rome more easily than crops.)
The
other two groups, the Sicarii and the Zealots, fought the Romans and
Jewish collaborators for political and religious reasons. They
emerged at different times during the first century, and they should
not be lumped together, for their methodologies and goals were
somewhat different.
Josephus
writes about what he calls the “fourth philosophy,” which
he considers an alien element introduced into the religion and
politics of Israel, begun in AD 6 by Judas the Galilean and Zadok the
Pharisee. Their slogan was “No king but God,” and they
engaged in a short-lived rebellion. It seems unclear whether the
fourth philosophy should be a category that includes the brigands,
the Sicarii, and the Zealots, or whether it is a group unto itself.
Whatever the case, Josephus makes clear that this fourth philosophy
is an anomaly in the history of Israel.
The
Sicarii were a group of assassins who emerged in the AD 40s–50s.
They specialized in mixing into Jerusalem crowds and murdering Jews
who were friendly with the Romans, mainly the wealthy. The high
priest Jonathan was one of their victims. At the start of the first
Roman war, they commanded Jewish troops but were driven out by fellow
Jews. They spent the rest of the war at Masada, conducting
inconsequential exploits. They killed themselves in AD 73–74
rather than be captured by the Romans. Josephus writes that the
leader of the Sicarii at the beginning of the first Roman war was
Menahem, the son or grandson of Judas of Galilee. It has been
speculated that Judas Iscariot’s surname may be derived from
Sicarii, but the etymology is uncertain.
The
Zealots emerged at the start of the first Roman war (AD 66–70).
Josephus mentions them mainly in connection with the Roman war and
seldom in other sections of his writings. They consisted mainly of
people displaced by Roman activity in Galilee. They targeted the
aristocracy that collaborated with Rome, the Romans themselves, and
other revolutionary groups. One of Jesus’ disciples was called
“Simon the Zealot” (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), but this is
likely a reference to his zealous faith.
The
first Roman war erupted when the Roman procurator Florus looted the
temple. When nothing was done concerning this, the lower priests, the
captain of the temple guard, Eleazar, and other revolutionary leaders
decided to terminate the temple sacrifice made on the emperor’s
behalf. This essentially started the Roman war and gave rise to the
Zealots.
Herodians
The
Herodians are mentioned three times in the Gospels. They are reported
to have plotted, along with the Pharisees, to kill Jesus after he
healed a man with a withered hand (Mark 3:6). They are also
described, along with the Pharisees, as trying to trap Jesus
concerning the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:16;
Mark 12:13).
The
Herodians were aristocrats who supported the Herodian dynasty and the
Romans, whose support made that dynasty possible. There seems to be
some overlap between the Herodians and the Sadducees; Mark 8:15 has
Jesus warning his disciples concerning the leaven of the Pharisees
and the leaven of Herod (some ancient witnesses read “Herodians”),
whereas the parallel in Matt. 16:6, 11 has Jesus warning his
disciples concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Their religious
beliefs may have been similar to those of the Sadducees. Too little
information about them exists to permit drawing strong conclusions.
One can safely say, however, that the Herodians were pro-Roman
aristocrats who joined forces with the anti-Roman Pharisees in
opposing Jesus.
