paul.lesson 10.11.12.political groups.second temple judaism

1 | P a g e . N o C l a i m o f o w n e r s h i p i s a s s e r t e d b y t h e E d i t o r

TheGoodLifeandHardTimesOftheApostlePaul

EditedbyJohnR.Wible1

Lessons 10, 11, and 12 – Religio‐Political Groups in Second Temple Judaism

During the Second Temple period, there arose or continued basically four groups that, whether

they liked to think of themselves this way, were in essence political groups. These include:

Pharisees

Scribes

Sadducees

Essenes2

Herodians

Zealots and Sicarii.

Paul was a Pharisee, but it is noteworthy to see how the other groups influenced what was

going on at the time. You will find reference to these groups in the New Testament. We will

look at these groups in order of their connection to Paul.

Pharisees

The Pharisees were a religious party that flourished in Palestine during the

latter part of the Second Temple period (515 B.C.–A.D. 70.) Their insistence on

the binding force of oral tradition (“the unwritten Torah”) still remains a basic

tenet of Jewish theological thought. 3 We know much about their teachings

from their compilation of the oral Law, known as the Mishna in about A.D. 200

by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi in Roman occupied Judah 4 and compiled by his

father and Nathan the Babylonian.5 The Pharisees believed that the oral

tradition was not a “development” but was given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

They were merely collecting it and passing it along.

1 Editor’s note. Most of the material used herein is taken from a number of other sources. In some cases, it is taken ver batem. That being the case, I refer to myself as the Editor and not the Author. 2 See supplement. 3 “Pharisee.” 2016. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. http://www.britannica.com/topic/Pharisee accessed January 22, 2016. 4 "Commentary on Tractate Avot with an Introduction (Shemona perakim)." World Digital Library. 5 Codex Judaica' Kantor, second edition, NY 2006, page 146.


Their belief that the Oral Torah was transmitted orally from God

to Moses on Mount Sinai during the Exodus from Egypt was

recognized as one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith6 by

Maimonides.7 There is no direct Biblical evidence for the oral

Law’s Mosaic origin.

The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim,) like the Sadducees and Essenes, came to be a distinct group shortly after, and probably as a result of, the Maccabean revolt, about 165–160 B.C. They claimed to be the spiritual descendants of the Hasadeans who were a Jewish sect of uncertain origin, noted for uncompromising observance of the Law.

The Hasadeans joined the Maccabean revolt against the Hellenistic Seleucids in the 2nd Century B.C. to fight for religious freedom and stem the tide of paganism. They had no interest in politics and withdrew from the Maccabean side as soon as they had regained their religious freedom. For this reason, they fell into disfavor with the Hasmonean (Maccabean) rulers. 8 Soon thereafter, the Pharisees emerged as a party of laymen and scribes who opposed the priestly Sadducees that had traditionally provided ruled the Jewish people.

The basic difference that led to the theological split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees lay in their differing attitudes toward the Torah and the problem of finding in it answers to questions and bases for decisions about contemporary legal and religious matters arising under circumstances far different from those of the time of Moses.9

Both parties recognized the problem. However, as in most matters, the two parties differed in their response to this problem. The Sadducees flatly refused to accept any precept as binding unless it was based directly on the Torah, the Written Law. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of the Written Law and the Oral Law.10 Whereas the priestly Sadducees taught that the written Torah was the only source of revelation, the Pharisees recognized and indeed, elucidated upon the principle of

6 David Birnbaum, Jews, Church & Civilization, Volume III (Millennium Education Foundation) 2005. 7 The 13th Century Jewish scholar considered by most to be the preeminent scholar on Judaism. 8 Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Hasidean." accessed January 22, 2016, http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hasidean. 9 “Pharisee.” 2016. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, supra. 10 See text, supra.


evolution in the Law. The stated that men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems.11

Rather than blindly follow the letter of the Law even if it conflicted with reason or conscience, the Pharisees Attempted to harmonize the teachings of the Torah with their own ideas or found their own ideas suggested or implied in the Torah. They insisted that they interpreted the Law according to its spirit. When in the course of time a law had been outgrown or superseded by changing conditions, they gave it a new and more‐acceptable meaning, seeking scriptural support for their actions. It was due to this progressive tendency of the Pharisees that their interpretation of the Torah continued to develop and has remained a living force in Judaism.12

The Sadducees detested this Pharisaic expansion of the law seeing it as “cutting the pattern to fit the cloth” rather than the other way around. In other words, the Sadducees held that the Pharisees “made it up” as they went along by their practice of citing predecessor Pharisees who cited their predecessors & ETC.

In the end, the Pharisees won out and their ideas are still binding on Observant Jews today, especially the modern sect known as the Hasidim, the ultra‐orthodox strict sect famous for their black hats and uncut strands of hair resembling sideburns that are known as payot.13 Indeed, with the destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees were divested of their main source of authority, without which their theology could not survive.

On the other hand, the Pharisees became the progenitor of the rabbinic class, who formalized the traditions of their predecessors. Following the fall of the Temple, it appears that the Pharisaic leader Johanan ben Zakkai (A.D. 30‐90) established himself in Yavneh (a town south of Jaffa known to the Greeks as Jamnia), where he established a school that came to be regarded by fellow Jews as the successors of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.14

11 “Pharisee.” 2016. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, supra. 12 Id. 13 The modern‐day Hasidic Jews consider themselves as the spiritual progeny of the Hasmonean Hasideans. 14 Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. Hendrickson Publishers. pp. xvii–xix.


The Pharisees were primarily not a political party but a society of scholars and strictly observant Jews. About 100 B.C., they engaged in a long struggle with the Sadducees for control of the direction of Judaism.

The Pharisees tried to make their religion more of a people’s religion and less of a controlled religion as decreed by the priestly Sadducees who held power by virtue of dominating the priesthood and especially by holding the hereditary office of High Priest.

The Pharisees asserted that God could and should be worshipped even away from the Temple and outside Jerusalem. To the Pharisees, worship consisted not in bloody sacrifices—the practice of the Temple priests—but in prayer and in the study of God’s law. Hence, the Pharisees supported and enlarged the idea of the synagogue as an institution of religious worship, outside and separate from the Temple.

The synagogue, though of Babylonian origin and born of necessity due to the Captivity grew to be considered a Pharisaic institution, since the Pharisees developed it, raised it to high eminence, and gave it a central place in Jewish religious life. After the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, it was the synagogue and the schools of the Pharisees that continued to function and to promote Judaism in the long centuries following the Diaspora.15

Alfred Edersheim gives us a picture of the personal excesses to which the Pharisees went and expected of others not even of their school.

There was probably no town or village inhabited by Jews which had not its Pharisees, although they would, of course, gather in preference about Jerusalem with its Temple, and what, perhaps would have been even dearer to the heart of a genuine Pharisee‐‐its four hundred and eighty synagogues, its Sanhedrims (great and small), and its schools of study. There could be no difficulty in recognising such an one. Walking behind him, the chances were, he would soon halt to say his prescribed prayers. If the fixed time for them had come, he would stop short in the middle of the road, perhaps say one section of them, move on, again say another part, and so on, till, whatever else might be doubted, there could be no

question of the conspicuousness of his devotions in market‐place or corners of streets.

15 “Pharisee.” 2016. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, supra.


There he would stand, as taught by the traditional law, would draw his feet well together, compose his body and clothes, and bend so low "that every vertebra in his back would stand out separate," or, at least, till "the skin over his heart would fall into folds." The workman would drop his tools, the burden‐bearer his load; if a man had already one foot in the stirrup, he would withdraw it. The hour had come, and nothing could be suffered to interrupt or disturb him. The very salutation of a king, it was said, must remain unreturned; nay, the twisting of a serpent around one's heel must remain unheeded." Citations omitted.16

The Pharisees enjoyed a large popular following, and in the New Testament they appear as spokesmen for the majority of the population. Unfortunately, that having been said, they fell victim to the same disease of power that would befall the Sadducees. “All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” 17

Indeed, in the Gospels, each and every one of the 89 times the Pharisees are mentioned by the writers either in narrative or through the words of Our Lord or John the Baptizer, it is with a well‐deserved criticism. Though it might be said that sometimes the criticism lumps the Pharisees in with the Priests and other Sadducees.

Jesus says, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.18

John the Baptizer says, “But when he saw many of the Pharisees

and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of

vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”19

Almost 80 additional times we see the Gospel writers pointing out

that the Pharisees have gone seriously off track. Remember that

Paul was “such an one.”20

16 Edersheim, Alfred. Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel. Chapter 13. 17 Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. Lord Acton quoting The Prince, Chapter VIII by Nicolo Machiavelli. 18 Matthew 23:15. 19 Matthew 3:7. 20 I Corinthians 5:5 King James (Authorized) version.


Scribes

We 21st Century Christians have a pretty low impression of the Scribes due to their

“shenanigans” in New Testament times. However, that was not always who they were, rather

who they became. Their original duty was to supervise the carrying out of the Shema, the

commands laid out in Deuteronomy 6:9.

4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your

house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Of the 3rd to 2nd Century B.C. Scribes, the Jewish Encyclopedia states that they were:

[a] [b]ody of teachers whose office was to interpret the Law to the people, their

organization beginning with Ezra, who was their chief, and terminating with Simeon the

Just. The original meaning of the Hebrew word "soferim"21 was "people who know how

to write"; and therefore the royal officials who were occupied in recording in the

archives the proceedings of each day were called scribes (comp. II Sam. viii. 17; II Kings

xix. 2, passim); but as the art of writing was known only to the intelligent, the term

"scribe" became synonymous with "wise man" (I Chron. xxvii. 32).

Later, in the time of Ezra,

the designation was

applied to the body of

teachers who, as stated

above, interpreted the Law

to the people. Ezra himself

is styled "a ready scribe in

the law of Moses" (Ezra vii. 6).

21 Editor’s note. See the cognate Greek word for wisdom, sophia. This is an evidence of the common linguistic source of Hebrew and Greek.


Indeed, he might be correctly so called for two reasons, inasmuch as he could write or

copy the Law and at the same time was an able interpreter of it . . . It is evident that

these scribes were the first teachers of the Torah and the founders of the oral law. 22

As to their function, the Jewish Encyclopedia states:

The activity of the scribes began with the cessation of that of the Prophets. In fact, after

the Israelites who came back from Babylon had turned their hearts to God, there was

greater need of men to instruct the people, and to assist them in obtaining a clear

understanding of the Law. This body of teachers is identified . . . with the "men of the

Great Synagogue."23 If this identification is correct, the organization of the scribes lasted

from the time of Ezra until the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great, a period of

about 200 years. It must be said, however, that the term "soferim" was sometimes used,

particularly in the post‐Maccabean time, to designate teachers generally.24

The Scribes beginning with Ezra, had a great heritage. Perhaps next

to Ezra, the greatest was “Simon the Just,” mentioned on the

previous page who lived until in the Third or Second Century B.C. He

was either Simon I (310–291 or 300–273 B.C.) or Simon II (219–199

B.C.,) perhaps more likely Simon II.25

The Book of Sirach and the Second Book of Maccabees all contain accounts of him. He was

termed "the Righteous" because of the piety of his life and his benevolence toward his fellow

man. 26 He was credited with being deeply interested in the spiritual and material development

of the nation. It is said that he “rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, which had been torn down by

Ptolemy, and repaired the damage done to the Temple in Jerusalem, raising the foundation‐

walls of its court and enlarging the cistern into a pool.”27

An interesting story about Scribe Simon the Just illustrates the esteem in which he was held not

only by the Jews but others, including Alexander the Great.

22 Singer, Isodor, M. Seligsohn, Wilhelm Bacher, and Judah David Eisenstein, “Scribes,” Jewish Encyclopedia.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7605‐herodians accessed 1/21/2016. 23 The members of the Great Synagogue are designated in the Mishnah as those representatives of the Law who occupied a place in the chain of tradition between the Prophets and the earliest scholars known by name. "The Prophets transmitted the Torah to the men of the Great Synagogue. . . . Simon the Just was one of those who survived the Great Synagogue.” 24 Id. 25 See lately B. Barc, Siméon le Juste: L'auteur oublié de la Bible hébraïque: Judïsme antique et origines du christianisme 4), Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2015. 26 Josephus, Antiquities, 12:2, § 5. 27 Sirach 50. 1‐14.


According to the Talmud and Josephus, when

Alexander the Great marched through Land of Israel

in the year 332 B.C. Simeon the Just, dressed in his

priestly garments went to . . . meet him . . . [in]

Jerusalem. As soon as Alexander saw him, he

descended from his chariot and bowed respectfully

before him. When Alexander's courtiers criticized

this act, he replied that it had been intentional, since

he had had a vision in which he had seen the high priest, who had predicted his victory.

Alexander demanded that a statue of himself be placed in the Temple, but the high

priest [Simon the Just] explained that this was impossible. He, [Simon] promised instead

that all the sons born of priests in that year would be named Alexander.28

Thus, through the Scribe Simon’s good name and shrewdness, a crisis was averted.

However, once the Canon of Old Testament Scripture was complete, and inspiration of the prophetic period in Old Testament times had been accomplished, the work of the Scribes began to degenerate. We have already learned that during this Intertestamental Period, Greek culture and Hellenization began to threaten the life and mission of Judaism. To thwart this wrong‐headed shift, their religious leaders determined that the law needed to be preserved and taught with the most jealous of care. At first blush, one would think this a good thing, but this decision had a bad outcome.

The logic went like this. In order to preserve the Law, the Law needed to be studied carefully, and all of its precepts needed to be given application according to the ever‐changing way of public and private life in Israel. To accomplish this was the job of the Scribes. Unfortunately, by developing a system of rules for people to follow, they forgot the heart and spirit of the law.

28 Josephus l.c. xi. 8, § 4. See also for comparison, 3rd Maccabees, Chapter 2.


They had, in effect, made the Law to be greater in their minds than God Himself. That is the sin of Idol‐worship. Their rules cut deeper and deeper until no one had the freedom to truly seek the real God. 29

To accomplish this, the Scribes set about with two main goals:

1. Multiplying oral traditions to “put a fence or [gezeirah] around” the law, and 2. Interpreting the Law to accomplish their social purposes rather than stating truth.

These two goals actually achieved the opposite effect from their intention. The words became infinitely more important than the Word and the Word lost its meaning. Without the Word, the people ultimately were lost.

By New Testament times, they had become all highly educated from a young age, and at an appropriate time (some say by the age of 30) they were elected to office. They were not only copyists of the Law, but also the preservers of the oral tradition which included the commentaries and additions to the Law. This oral tradition accumulated over the course of time into a great mass, and was regarded by most to be equal to or to be even greater than the Law itself. It was to these oral traditions that Jesus so often attacked. Luke called the Scribes derogatorily "lawyers"30 and "doctors of the law."31

The Scribes had over the centuries developed forced interpretations of the law, attempting to find a hidden meaning in every word, syllable, and letter. Jesus charged them saying "Woe unto you, lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge, you entered not in yourselves, and those that were entering in you hindered." (Luke 11:52.)

From force of habit, the people had become dependent on the Scribes. By this time in history as we have seen, Hebrew, the language of the Jews, was being replaced by the Aramaic dialect. That being the case, the uneducated people, which included most of the people, were unable to understand their own Torah They were forced to accept the interpretation which was given by the Scribes. They quoted not the law but an earlier interpretation of the law given by a particular teacher.

29 See Russell, R., “Scribes – Jewish Leaders of the New Testament.” Bible History Online. http://www.bible‐history.com/Scribes/THE_SCRIBESBackground.htm accessed 1/21/2016. 30 Luke 11 and 14. 31 Luke 5.


Thus, their formula for making a statement would be as follows. “As the Scribe Simon the Just said . . .” In contrast Jesus’ formula was, “You have heard it said . . . [by a Scribe,] but I say to you . . .” You now might understand why the people were so amazed when Jesus talked like that. 32

Their great failure was their over‐reaction to the Hellenistic influences placed on them. The fell into the same situation as the people in the famous story of the life‐saving society which I set out here as a verbal picture of the Scribes.

On a dangerous seacoast where shipwrecks often occur there was once a crude little life‐saving station. The building was just a hut, and there was only one boat but the few devoted members kept a constant watch over the sea, and with no thought for themselves went out day and night tirelessly searching for the lost. Some of those who were saved, and various others in the surrounding area, wanted to become associated with the station and give of their time and money and effort for the support of its work. New boats were bought and new crews trained. The little life‐saving station grew.

Some of the members of the life‐saving station were unhappy that the building was so crude and poorly equipped. They felt that a more comfortable place should be provided as the first refuge of those saved from the sea. They replaced the emergency cots with beds and put better furniture in the enlarged building. Now, the life‐saving station became a popular gathering place for its members, and they decorated it beautifully and furnished it exquisitely, because they used it as a sort of club. Fewer members were now interested in going to sea on lifesaving missions, so they hired life‐boat crews to do this work. The life‐saving motif still prevailed in this club’s decoration, and there was a symbolic life‐boat in the room where the club initiations were held. About this time a large ship was wrecked off the coast, and the hired crews brought in boat loads of cold, wet, and half‐drowned people. They were dirty and sick and some of them had black skin and some had yellow skin. The beautiful new club was in chaos. So the property committee immediately had a shower house built outside the club where victims of shipwreck could be cleaned up before coming inside.

At the next meeting, there was a split in the club membership. Most of the members wanted to stop the club’s life‐saving activities as being unpleasant and a hindrance to the normal social life of the club. Some members insisted upon life‐saving as their primary purpose and pointed out that they were still called a life‐saving station.

32 This is particularly true in the Matthew 5 account of the Sermon on the Mount.


But they were finally voted down and told that if they wanted to save lives of all the various kinds of people who were shipwrecked in those waters, they could begin their own life‐saving station down the coast. They did.

As the years went by, the new station experienced the same changes that had occurred in the old. It evolved into a club, and yet another life‐saving station was founded. History continued to repeat itself, and if you visit that sea coast today, you will find a number of exclusive clubs along that shore. Shipwrecks are frequent in those waters, but most of the people drown. 33

Sadducees

The historical origin of the Sadducees is somewhat a mystery. An important and controversial clue is the etymology of the name 'Sadducees' (sedûqîm in Hebrew). This word may be derived from the Hebrew word Tsaddîq meaning 'righteous' or from the name Zadok, who was either the high priest in the age of King Solomon or the name of the founder of the sect. The name 'righteous ones' may have been adopted as a retort to the Hasidim, the early Pharisees, who claimed that they were the only pious ones.

The name 'sons of Zadok', on the other hand, may refer to the fact that only the descendants of Zadok34 were ‐according to an ancient tradition‐ entitled to perform the priestly service in the Temple. 35

The Sadducees appear in the middle of the second century B.C., and they are introduced by Josephus at the same time as the Pharisees and Essenes.36 The three movements probably originated in the same climate of national and ethical revival, which was a reaction to the dominance of the Greek culture.37 The Temple which was considered unclean because of these pagan influences, particularly the dastardly act of the pig sacrifice on the altar by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. As a result, in the Maccabean Revolt, with the overthrow (to some extent) of the Seleucids, the Temple was purified in 164 B.C.

33 Origin unknown. Quoted in “Stories that Bring Sermons to Life.” Stories for Preaching.Com. http://storiesforpreaching.com/category/sermonillustrations/church/ accessed 1/21/2016. 34 See Second Samuel 8,15,17,19, and 20 and First Kings 1, 2, and 4. 35 Lindering, Jona. “Sadducees,” Livius.org: Articles on Ancient History. http://www.livius.org/articles/people/sadducees/ accessed January 21, 2016. 36 Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13.171 ff. 37 Lindering, supra.


However in 152 B.C., one of the members of the Hasmonaean (Maccabean) royal family usurped the high priesthood that had traditionally from the time of King David belonged solely to the family of Zadok, the Priest.38

This usurpation was scandalous as well as sacrilegious. The high priesthood was hereditary in the Zadokite family, and if one accepts that Sadducees means 'sons of Zadok,' the Sadducee movement found its origin in the opposition against the Hasmonaean usurpation. On the other hand, an argument can be made that the Sadducees usually collaborated with the Hasmonaean kings. Whatever their relation to the Hasmonaeans, the Sadducees remained deeply involved with the Temple cult in Jerusalem for more than two centuries.39

The Sadducees never wrote about themselves, thus very little kind is said about the Sadducees by any other writer of the period. The Pharisees were usually vehemently opposed to the Sadducees and as a consequence, the few passages in the rabbinical literature that refer to the Sadducees almost always portray them as enemies. For example, when Pharisee teachers were discussing whether a good person could become an evil person, the example of a Pharisee who went over to the Sadducees was quoted as proof that people could become evil.40 Another Pharisaic text stated that the Sadducee sect started as a group of Pharisee heretics.41

Josephus states of them, “the behavior of the Sadducees towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them.”42

In the New Testament, Matthew records them uniformly as enemies of Jesus along with the Pharisees.

The Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Jesus, they asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 But He replied to them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.” And He left them and went away.

38 See note 15, supra. 39 Lindering, Supra. 40 Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 29 a. 41 Avot de Rabbi Nahum A 5. 42 Josephus, Jewish War 2.166.


5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Matthew 16:1‐6.

We have seen the difference in the history of the Sadducees and the Pharisees. There were also fundamental differences between the Sadducees and the Pharisees is the interpretation of the Law of Moses, the Torah. The Sadducees insisted that the only way for truly pious behavior was to live according to the commandments in the written Law; the Pharisees, on the other hand, taught that the written Law had been given to the Jews and that they were free to interpret the Law. After all, the world had changed since the days of Moses. As a consequence, the Pharisees said that the 'written Torah' was to be supplemented with 'the oral Torah', the interpretation of the written Law by the Pharisee teachers, the rabbis. The Sadducees considered this an almost blasphemous act, because it seemed to deny the majesty of the Law of Moses.43

The fact that the Sadducees had a very high opinion of the five first books of the Bible, does not mean that they denied that the other books of the Bible, the prophets and the historical writings‐ were divinely inspired. But they refused to accept the other Biblical books as sources of law. When a Sadducee had to judge a case, he would look in the written Torah and ignore the oral traditions that the Pharisees accepted as normative. One of the consequences was that the Sadducees stressed the importance of the priests in the Temple cult, while the Pharisees insisted on the participation of all Jews.

The Sadducees denied the existence of the supernatural world insisting that a person’s soul died with the body.44 The Pharisees and Christians, on the other hand, believed in the resurrection of the dead. When Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin to explain his ideas in which some members were Pharisees and others Sadducees, he found it easy to create division among his judges.

When Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!' And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees' party arose and protested, saying, 'We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to

him, let us not fight against God. (Acts 23:6‐9.)

43 Lindering, Supra. 44 Mark 12:18‐27 and Flavius Josephus, Jewish antiquities 18.16.


They did not believe either in angels or in fate (divine determinism.) Of the former they held that there is no mention of them in the Torah. Of the latter Josephus says:

Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of Fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to Fate, but are not caused by Fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm that Fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away Fate, and say that there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly.45

Josephus gives us a final comparison of the ideas of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.46

The Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws. [...] They ascribe all to Fate and to God, and yet allow that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although Fate does co‐operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies and that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. But the Sadducees [...] take away Fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men's own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to everyone, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in the Underworld. [...] The behavior of the Sadducees towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them.

In summary, the Sadducees were a conservative group. One remarkable aspect shows this better than anything else: they held on to the old Hebrew script, and never adapted to the Aramaic alphabet that became popular all over the ancient Near East.47

45 Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13.172‐173. 46 Remember that Josephus was himself a Pharisee. 47 Lindering, Supra.


The following table is an extraction of the views of the three major player groups.

Summary of the Views of the Three Parties

Sadducees Pharisees Essenes

Social Class Priests, aristocrats Common people [Unknown]

Authority Priests "Disciples of the Wise""Teacher of

Righteousness"

Practices Emphasis on priestly

obligations

Application of priestly

laws to non‐priests "Inspired Exegesis"

Calendar Luni‐solar Luni‐solar Solar

Attitude Toward:

Hellenism For Selective Against

Hasmoneans

Opposed usurpation of

priesthood by non‐

Zadokites

Opposed usurpation of

monarchy

Personally opposed to

Jonathan

Free will Yes Mostly No

Afterlife None Resurrection Spiritual Survival

Bible Literalist Sophisticated scholarly

interpretations "Inspired Exegesis"

Oral Torah No such thing Equal to Written Torah "Inspired Exegesis"

Herodians 48

The Herodians were a sect or party of Hellenistic (Greek‐sympathizing) Jews who hated Jesus.

They are mentioned twice — first in Galilee, and later in Jerusalem. In each of these cases their

name is coupled with that of the Pharisees.

48 See: Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.,) Cambridge University Press and Kaufmann, Kohler. “Herodians,” Jewish

Encyclopedia. http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7605‐herodians accessed 1/21/2016.


Mark 3:6, “The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians

against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.”

Mark 12:13, “13 Then they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him in order to trap

Him in a statement.”

Matthew 22:16, “16 And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying,

“Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no

one; for You are not partial to any.”

Mark 8:15, “5 And He was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out! Beware of the leaven of

the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”

Luke 13:31-32, “31 Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.” 32 And He said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.’”

Acts 4:27, “27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus,

whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of

Israel,”

According to many interpreters, the courtiers or the

soldiers of Herod were intended when one said,

“Herodians.” Others argue that the Herodians were

probably more of a public political party who

distinguished themselves from the two great historical

parties of post‐exilic Judaism, the Pharisees and

Sadducees. Their distinguishing fact was that while the

Pharisees and Sadducees merely attempted to “get

along with” Herod, the Herodians were and had been

supportive him and his dynasty.

It is possible that to gain adherents the Herodian or Herodian party may have been in the habit

of representing that the establishment of a Herodian Dynasty would be favorable to the

realization of the Jewish theocracy. This may account for the allegation that the Herodians

regarded Herod himself as the Messiah. Whether they truly thought this is a subject for debate.


They followed the Sadducees in their opposition to the Pharisees, and were therefore often

identified with them.49

Zealots

The Zealots were originally a political movement in 1st century Second

Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people to rebel against the

Romans Empire and expel them from the Judea by force of arms, most

notably during the First Jewish–Roman War (66‐70). Zealotry was the term

used by Josephus for a "fourth sect" during this period.50 Simon the Zealot

was listed among the apostles selected by Jesus in Luke 6:15 and in Acts

1:13.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Zealots:51

Following Josephus ("B. J." ii. 8, § 1; "Ant." xviii. 1, §§ 1, 6), most writers consider that the Zealots were a so‐called fourth party founded by Judas the Galilean (see Grätz, "Gesch." iii. 252, 259; Schürer, "Gesch." 1st ed., i. 3, 486). This view is contradicted, however, by the fact that Hezekiah, the father of Judas the Galilean, had an organized band of so‐called "robbers" which made war against the Idumean Herod ("B. J." i. 10, § 5; "Ant." xiv. 9, § 2), and also during the reign of Herod, if not long before by the fact that the system of religious and political murders practised by the Zealots was in existence during the reign of Herod, if not long before.

We have previously stated that the Galilee was a hotbed of anti‐Roman revolt and more than one false messiah came from there. Perhaps, the most famous was Judas the Galilean. Two of Judas' the Galilean's sons, Jacob and Simon, were involved in a revolt and were executed by Tiberius Alexander, the procurator of Judea from 46 to 48.52

The Zealots had the leading role in, and probably precipitated, the First Jewish–Roman War (A.D. 66–73.) This patriotism proved to be deadly to them and to the nation as a whole. The Zealots objected to Roman rule and violently sought to eradicate it by targeting Romans and Greeks.

Another group, likely related but much more vicious, were the Sicarii, (dagger bearers) who raided Jewish homes and killed Jews that they considered to be collaborators. They urged Jews to fight on against

49 Grätz, "Gesch." 4th ed., iii. pp. 2, 693. 50 Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, supra. 51 Kauffmann Kohler, "ZEALOTS”. Jewish Encyclopedia.com. Originally published in book form 1906. 52 Ben‐Sasson, H.H. A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, page 275.


the Romans. Josephus paints a very bleak picture of their activities as they instituted what he characterized as a murderous "reign of terror" prior to the Jewish Temple's destruction.53

According to Josephus, the Zealots followed John of Gischala, who had fought the Romans in the Galilee, escaped, came to Jerusalem, and then inspired the locals to a fanatical position that led to the Temple's destruction. They succeeded in taking over Jerusalem, and held it until A.D. 70, when the son of Roman Emperor Vespasian, Titus, retook the city and destroyed Herod's Temple during the destruction of Jerusalem.54

A small number of Zealots and Sicarii escaped Jerusalem with their families and took the fortress of Masada to the south. They held out there for four years until overtaken by the Tenth Roman Legion. We have previously written about the mass suicide that took place there.55

Josephus records the speech of Elazar ben Yair, their leader.

"Since we long ago resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God Himself, Who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice ...We were the very first that revolted, and we are the last to fight against them; and I cannot but esteem it as a favor that God has granted us, that it is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom."56

Summary

Taken together, these diverse groups coalesced into what was to become the Jewish homeland

of Jesus’ and Paul’s time. Their diversity of ideas yet harmony of patriot ideas set the stage for

the drastic events that would take place in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem went away and Roman

domination became final and complete, lasting for centuries.

53 Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, supra. 54 Id. 55 Lendering, Jona, "Wars between the Jews and Romans: Masada (A.D. 74.)" Livius, Articles on Ancient History. http://www.livius.org/ja‐jn/jewish_wars/jwar05.html accessed 1/23/2016. 56 Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, supra.