More On Pharisees

by FireNBandits 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  Great summary of the ideological underpinnings of the Pharisee and Essene traditions. I would say tho that a sapiential Hellenistic Judaism was also well-suited for the diaspora, as especially the case in Alexandria, and which certainly contributed in different ways to early Christian philosophy and theology.

  If the etymology of "Essene" lies in the Aramaic plural chsayya/chsén "pious" (as indicated by the variant Greek spellings Essaioi and Essénoi), then early Essenes would have likely been the Hasideans (= Hasidim, from the Hebrew cognate) of 1 Maccabees who allied themselves with the Maccabeans (2:42, 7:12-13; cf. 2 Maccabees 14:6), and this comports well with Boccaccini's theory (as the militaristic Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch sees Judas Maccabeus in heroic, quasi-messianic terms). The origin of the Essenes/Hasidim, as their own documents suggest (cf. especially the Animal Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Weeks, and the Damascus Rule), lay in the apocalyptic movement that took shape during the wars of Antiochus III at the end of the third century BC (cf. Daniel 11:14, which took a dim view to the militaristic attempts to fulfill apocalyptic visions during the reign of Antiochus III as it did of the militaristic attempts of Judas Maccabeus during the reign of Antiochus IV in v. 34). The Qumran covenenters represented one sub-branch of Essenism in the Hasmonean period; the Book of Parables of 1 Enoch, unknown at Qumran, is best viewed in the Boccaccini model as an exemplar of first-century AD non-Qumranic Essenism, a continuation of the Enochic Judaism earlier attested in the Epistle of Enoch in the second century BC. The striking parallels between early Christianity and the Book of Parables are of course well known.

  The sectarian nature of the Qumran texts is quite pronounced considering its extended polemic against the "wicked priest" (the Hasmonean priest-kings) and the "man of lies" (Pharisees?), and the hotly contested dispute between the lunisolar and solar calendars. The calendrical polemic is also pronounced in Jubilees, which may be directed against the use of the Hellenistic lunisolar calendar by the Pharisees (in place of the Zadokite solar calendar). The Pharisees broke from the Hasmoneans at least by the time of Jonathan (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 13.5.9), but they also likely drew on earlier pre-Maccabean responses to the Hellenizing priesthood.

  Btw, any Semitic etymology of the NT pharisaioi would have been lost to Greek readers too...

  I think it is significant that the gospel of John implicitly relates (via its intertextuality with Exodus 2:15-21, 4:30-31 in John 2:11, 4:1-7, 5:18, 20:30-31) the Pharisaioi with Pharaó "Pharaoh", as both are similarly-named enemies of the miracle-worker Jesus/Moses (compare Matthew which intertextually linked Pharaoh to King Herod). That is a connection that would have made some sense to readers of the LXX in the diaspora.
• 

  Euphemism

  Sorry, I don't mean to drag the thread off topic, but could someone briefly explain to me the difference between Enochic and Zadokite judaism? I gathered from a quick web search that 'Enochic' apparently refers to the Jewish tradition that produced the Book of Enoch; and I assume that 'Zadokite' is an eponymous term for the preistly tradition. Beyond that, however, I'm lost. Enoch was written in Ethiopic, so was the Enochic branch the diaspora created by the Babylonian exile?
• 

  Narkissos

  Zadokite is a (highly controversial) reference to the legitimate Jerusalemite priesthood (in "Biblical history" from the name of Zadoq, the priest of David). Interestingly (from a historical-critical standpoint) it may derive from a long Jerusalemite tradition of Zedeq worship (cf. Melchizedeq, Adonizedeq). From Josiah's and even more Ezekiel's time it is the inner circle around the high priest. Claiming Zadokite descent (or denying it to another) becomes a key weapon in the struggle of priestly clans and schools (including alternative calendrical views).

  The Book of Enoch was conserved in its fullest form in Ethiopic but it was originally written over more than 2 centuries in Aramaic (and perhaps partly in Hebrew).

  (That's all for now coz I must go.)
• 

  Leolaia

  Sorry, I don't mean to drag the thread off topic, but could someone briefly explain to me the difference between Enochic and Zadokite judaism? I gathered from a quick web search that 'Enochic' apparently refers to the Jewish tradition that produced the Book of Enoch ; and I assume that 'Zadokite' is an eponymous term for the preistly tradition. Beyond that, however, I'm lost. Enoch was written in Ethiopic, so was the Enochic branch the diaspora created by the Babylonian exile?

  Hi Euphemism.....As Narkissos pointed out, 1 Enoch was preserved in its entirety in Ethiopic, but it was not written in this language. Fragments of the original Aramaic were discovered at Qumran, and we also have good portions of the Greek version as well (from which it was translated into Ethiopic). The book is not really a single book but an anthology of seperate Enochic documents (much as the Bible itself is an anthology of different books), all purportedly about Enoch or written by Enoch, which had their origin in the third century BC (e.g. the Book of Luminaries, the Book of Watchers, the Book of Giants), the Maccabean period in the early-to-mid second century BC (e.g. the Apocalypse of Weeks, the Animal Apocalypse), the mid-second century BC (e.g. the Epistle of Enoch), and the first century AD (e.g. the Book of Parables). The content of 1 Enoch varied from place to place....the version at Qumran, for instance, included the Book of Giants, lacked the Book of Parables, whereas the Book of Luminaries circulated independently as a separate book. The Ethiopic version, on the other hand, included the Book of Parables, an abridged version of the Book of Luminaries, and omitted the Book of Giants. The Book of Giants circulated independently in Manichaean tradition. The canonical book of Daniel, written in the same period, is very similar. It contains a collection of different stories about Daniel and purportedly written by Daniel, which varied from place to place. There is evidence from the Old Greek LXX that ch. 4-6 of Daniel originally circulated as a unit independently of the rest, in a rather different form. The Aramaic version also added ch. 2-3 and 7, whereas the composite Hebrew-Daniel text also added ch. 1 and 8-12. The two Greek versions also added the Song of the Three Children and the Prayer of Azariah in ch. 3, and two variant forms of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon (originally independent stories about Daniel) were also included. The Qumran library, moreover, included other similar Danielic stories in Aramaic that were not included in the canonical version of the book.

  Enochic Judaism is a term that refers to a religious movement in Judaism that later gave rise to the Essenes, but which in the earlier period was a viable alternative to Zadokite Judaism (which was focused on the Temple cult and represented in the OT chiefly in Ezekiel, Zechariah, Haggai, the Priestly document of the Pentateuch, and in a very late form in the Hebrew portions of Daniel), especially in the lack of emphasis placed on the Torah in the pre-Maccabean period. Two books that give a lucid introduction to the history and character of Enochic Judaism are Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism and The Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History From Ezekiel to Daniel, both by Gabriele Boccaccini. He lays out all the evidence in a rather convincing fashion. Another more technical book is Enochic Judaism by David Jackson. It was not until relatively recently that scholars realized the importance of 1 Enoch and related books. The other key book representing Enochic Judaism is Jubilees. This was written in the Hasmonean period, very much focused on the Temple, the sabbath and other religious holy days, and the priestly obligations in the Torah, anticipates a lot of Essene Judaism. It is also preserved in its entirety in Ethiopic, with fragments of the original Aramaic at Qumran. Then you've got all the later sectarian Qumran writings like the Damascus Document, Community Rule, Manual of Discipline, the Temple Scroll, the War Scroll, etc.

  The Zadokite line effectively came to an end in 175 BC when Onias III (cf. the "anointed one" of Daniel 9:26, the "prince of the covenant" of Daniel 11:22, the "sheep dashed to pieces" in 1 Enoch 90:8) was removed from power and then assassinated in 171 BC (tho his brother Jason was also of the Zadok family, tho recognized by traditionalists as illegimate). Menelaus, Alcimus, Jonathan Maccabeus, Simeon, John Hyrcanus, etc. were all non-Zadokites, and departed significantly from earlier traditional ways (especially with respect to Hellenism and combining autocratic rulership with the office of the priesthood). The Sadduccees were the religious heirs of the Hasmonean priest-kings. The Hasmonean use of the Seleucid lunar calendar was one big bone of contention with the Essenes (cf. the month names in 1 Maccabees), who viewed it as sacraligious, for it would put the worship in the Temple and all the feasts and sabbaths out of synch with the worship occurring in heaven. The early Enochic corpus from the third century BC in the Book of Luminaries and (if Annie Jaubert is right) the priestly books of the OT attests the earlier Zadokite use of the solar calendar. The main difference between the earlier form of the calendar (attested in the Book of Luminaries) and the one in Jubilees and in the Qumran calendrical texts is how the four epagomenal days (the two equinoxes and two solstices) are reckoned among the days of the month. The later texts include them among the days of the month (with one 31-day month each season), whereas the older system was more elegant, counting these days outside of the months as non-monthly markers of the seasons (with three 30-day months each season). If Boccaccini is right, Daniel conforms to the older system. James VanderKam argues that the switch to the lunar calendar occurred during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes IV (cf. Daniel 7:25), as 2 Maccabees 6:7 also seems to indicate. When the Maccabeans re-established the Temple, they stuck with the lunar calendar. This irked the Essenes who claimed that the true servant of God is "not to transgress any one of all God's words with respect to their seasons, not to advance their times, and not to delay any of their festivals" (1QS 1:13-15), as the lunar calendar did when evaluated against the 364-day solar calendar. The Wicked Priest (= the Hasmonean high priest) was criticized for worshipping incorrectly by using the wrong calendrical system, and the Essenes (heirs to the Zadokite system through the Enochic literature) regarded the Wicked Priest and his followers as sinners.
• 

  VM44

  It is interesting that the Watchtower never delves into these historical details. It does not suit them nor future their own purposes for them to consider these matters. --VM44
• 

  Narkissos

  A couple of links:

  http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/review038.htm is a review of Boccaccini's next book (I think it's interesting to note where his reconstruction of "middle Judaism" is heading to, especially as regards Christianity).

  http://resources.theology.ox.ac.uk/library/data/pdf/THD0040.pdf (which I was quite surprised to find online) is J. Collins' introduction to the book of Daniel, which includes a detailed study of its relationship to Enochic literature.
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....Good stuff. I like how Boccaccini describes primitive Christianity as a movement within Judaism, but since he doesn't dwell on the period beyond the first century AD, I don't think I would concur that its status as a Jewish movement remained as such in the years that followed. I think there is also a difference between the historical relationship between early Christianity and "Middle Judaism" and the ideological self-categorization of early Christians, which likely varied from place to place. Paul saw a discontinuity between "Judaism" and the gospel delivered to him (Galatians 1:13-14, 2:14), the Petrine tradition in various sources saw the new faith as a space ("a third way") between Judaism and Hellenism, while the Jamesian Christians (and possibly the Matthean ones) saw the faith as the true form of Judaism, but the sociohistorical reality of these religious movements may indeed have been quite different than expressed emically by early Christians. I think sometime by the second century at least, there would be enough grounds for considering the increasingly varied forms of Christianity as sufficiently distinct from contemporaneous forms of Judaism, tho we still don't know much about the status of Jewish-Christian groups in the East. The rise of Marcionite, Sethian, Valentinian forms of gnosticism, for instance, were an inner-Christian development (as there is little clear evidence of a genuine Jewish gnosticism). But the current of modalism in second-century Christianity does seem to reflect the resurgence of strict monotheism that occurred at the same time in rabbinical Judaism (see Daniel Boyarin's work on how the heresy of the "two powers" in early rabbinical Judaism is related to proto-orthodox binitarianism, and how the heresy of modalism in Christianity in turn was related to the emerging orthodoxy of strict monotheism in rabbinical Judaism).

  One thing I don't quite see eye-to-eye with Boccaccini is his categorization of the "Jesus movement" as mainly historically linked to mainstream (non-Qumran) Essenism. I think this downplays the debt to Pharisaism (and the early diversity of primitive Christianity, drawing members from different religious traditions) evident in some early Christian texts. But considering the strong relationship of Christian notions with those in Enochic/Essene texts (including the direct use of 1 Enoch in Jude, Barnabas, and elsewhere), I agree that Essenism was one of the most significant influences.

  It is interesting that the Watchtower never delves into these historical details. It does not suit them nor future their own purposes for them to consider these matters. --VM44

  In part this disinterest reflects the traditional view of the Bible canon as complete and exclusively authoritative; the extracanonical context is thus mainly irrelevant. The few times the Society has ever talked about 1 Enoch, it merely dismisses it as pseudepigraphal or apocryphal, as an unreliable uninspired book, and that's that. It is not interested in the fact that this was the most significant book written between the OT and the NT, and that it anticipates many concepts and notions that are taken for granted in the NT. The historical details of the movements that gave rise to the Sadducees and Pharisees are not of central interest; it doesn't really matter to them where these groups came from.

  It is also best for the Society's interests not to dwell on these matters. For example, the Hasmonean period doesn't really fit well with the Society's notion of a 2,520-year period of "Gentile Times" that extended from 607 BC to the twentieth century. It is true that there are grounds for rejecting (as the Pharisees and the Essenes did) the Hasmoneans as legitimate rulers or representatives of "God's kingdom". But....neither could it be claimed that the Hasmonean period was a time of Gentile domination of Jerusalem and the Jewish people. This was a time when, for the first time in centuries, a Jewish state emerged that ruled itself...not until Pompey's invasion of 66 BC did Judea fall again under Gentile (this time Roman) control. It was certainly not a time that Jerusalem was trampled by the nations.
• 

  Leolaia

  To kind of bring this thread back to its original topic, there is an interesting parallel to the JWs in the "separating" of Pharisaism from the established state religion that presented itself as the direct heir of Zadokite Judaism (i.e. proto-Sadduceeism). Following the successor crisis of 1917-1918, the Rutherford-led Bible Students presented themselves as the legitimate heirs of Pastor Russell's movement in no small part because Rutherford controlled a key institution that Russell founded, namely, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. By reinterpreting Rutherford's office of President of the Society (which heretofore was only a business corporation) as a religious office, Rutherford was able to legitimize himself and his reforms as the "center" of the movement, and all the other schismatic Russellite groups as apostates who was breaking away from him. They indeed withdrew themselves from the institution that Russell had founded, but that was not important because Rutherford did not fill (nor claimed to fill until the late 1920s, by extension of his redefinition of the "faithful & wise servant" as the "Society") the religious office of "faithful & wise servant" that Russell had filled. Although they lacked the "official" status that Rutherford claimed to have, they did continue Russell's beliefs and practices much more faithfully than Rutherford's group -- which managed to dispose of almost the entirety of Russell's belief system and church organization. The question of "who was the seperatist" thus becomes a murky one. Were the Bible Students who conversatively preserved Russell's ideas and practices the ones breaking away, or was Rutherford's group (despite its institutional grounding in the Watchtower Society) the one that broke away from the movement? Where was the "center", if a center could even be defined?

  Compare this with the situation of the Pharisees and Essenes. The Temple was the key institution that formed the center of Zadokite Judaism, but the original cultus came to an end in the Maccabean crisis of 171-164 BC, which broke the longstanding continuity of the sacrificial cult and priesthood (compare the break in continuity in the events of 1917-1918). When the Temple was restored in 164 BC, new people were in control (viewed as illegitimate by traditionalists, just as those who respected Russell's Will viewed Rutherford and his hand-picked directors as illegitimate) and the Hasmoneans increasingly altered the original pattern of worship and practice from the Zadokite ideal (especially by incorporating Hellenism). Because the Hasmoneans controlled the Temple, and ruled with autocratic authority (this varied ... not every high priest was an Alexander Jannaeus), the emergence of alternative Judaisms that were polemically opposed to the normative Hasmonean state religion was motivated by desire to faithfully follow the Law. Thus, the levitical laws that were intended for priests were adopted by lay followers such that Pharisaism became as Narkissos described it, a "templeless and priestless religion". They seperated themselves from the Temple cultus because they did not control this institution as the Hasmoneans did, but they still wanted to see the levitical laws followed. The Essenes followed a similar tack, and the sectarian Qumranites went further by declaring themselves the legitimate priests and withdrawing literally into the desert. So what was the true "center" of Jewish religion and who were the ones breaking away? The Hasmoneans would say that they restored the Temple and priesthood and were following the regulations on sacrifice and purity. The Essenes would say that the Hasmoneans (= the "Wicked Priest") were not legitimate high priests and that they abandoned the true ways of the Zadokite priests and turned to paganism. The Qumran sect of the Essenes declared themselves as spiritual sons of Zadok, as legitimate heirs of the high priesthood. Both mainstream and Qumranite Essenes legitimized their alternative form of Judaism by publishing books that purportedly traced their own traditions to Moses. The Pharisees would similarly say that the Hasmonean priests deviated from the traditions of the fathers and they passed on "oral law" that similarly legimitized their traditions as established by Moses. They both regarded the Hasmoneans as the apostates who betrayed the covenant, even though the latter was in possession of the Temple institution, just as the various Bible Student groups established in the 1920s regarded themselves as the true heirs of Russell (= Moses), and viewed the Rutherford-led Bible Students as apostate tho they were in control of the institution established by Russell.

  Of course, the Hasmoneans were more conservative in their own way too. Judging by the beliefs of the Sadducees of the later period, they maintained the traditional Israelite personal eschatology whereas the Pharisees and the Essenes to a lesser extent adopted the Persian-influenced belief in resurrection. The Essenes also had some form belief on the immortality of the soul, which paralleled more clearcut cases of Hellenized Judaism.
• 

  Euphemism

  Thanks, Narkissos and Leolaia!
• 

  Leolaia

  Well I thought it was an interesting similarity myself... (Particularly since the JWs have frequently been compared in the past to the NT stereotype of Pharisees instead)