cheenc03a.pdf

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES
of the adjacent or dominant heathen people (Samaritan.
I'ersiun. Greek) remained unchanged. By the timi the
Grseco-Syian domination began, the schalariy class,
who edited and circulated the historical and prophetical
Scriptures, treating them from thesameminutedogmaticethical
~oint of view as the" did the law. had founded
diR';red from each other, however, more on minor querrions of
intcrprerarivn than on any serious points ?f doctrine. In
xenerrl, rhe school of Hillel war more icnlent than that of
Shammni (cp CANON, g 53, n. 3).
The Scribes were undoubtedly the originators of the
Synagogue service which was a natural result of their
religious positi~n.~ Separated as they were from the
high-priestly class, the teachers in there synagagal
schools developed of necessity into a well-defrned independent
order of religious leaders called Rabbis, whom
Sirach, writing at the &ginning of the second century
B.c.. . oraiser . most heartilv , 130-aol. ,", , , It is doubtful
whether the Scribes had crwtallired into a distinctly
political party as early as thLtime of Sirach.3
The first thing which tended to turn the religious
students called Scribes into a fierce politics-reliqious .
16, Besidaans. faction was the attempts of Antiochus
Epiphanes, so bitterly stigmatired io
the book of Daniel, to Hellenire the entire Tewish
people. In this, Antiochus was aided by the arirtbcratic
party which, from the beginning of his reign, had
manifested marked phil-Hellenic tendencies. Among
the opponents of the Hellenistic movement we find
a party calling themselves ASSLDZANS [q.u.] or the
' oious.' and reoresentine the moat rieid " develooment
oi the idear of the scribe;
They were strict observers of the law (I >lacc.2~~), and in
parliculnr ir rigid in rhcir riewr of the Srhbrth that they even
reiurd lo dafcnd themselves on the holy dqy (I Macc. 2328).
Ibar ,hey were ascetics in their mode of lhfe may be inferred
from I Macc.16~8, and that they yere eu/dently a well.
organired body is seen from rhe unammlty wlfh whxsh they
-
acted together (r Macc. 7x3). See Ass~on~as.
It in interestine to notice that the author of Daniel
shows many Ajsidaan tendencies. We need observe
only the stress which he lays on the necessity of
observine - the law. and the indifference with which he
regardr the Maccabaan rising, calling it only 'a little
help' (1134). This is probably an ull,aion to the fact
that man" of the Muccub9an combuantr attached more
importance to the palltical than to the religious aspect
of the question xt issue.
The reaonr for tlie rebellion of the Assidaanr against
Antiochus Epi~hanes must not be confounded with those
16, The bcich produced the popstlar rising ot the
Maccabees. The fundamenoll impulse of
p?pnlar the Maccabman rebellion was a pure
"'q. putriotism, a true feeling for the mirerien
which the common people were undergoing (I Macc.
2, c1. The Assid=anr were much more selfish in their
." ,
aims, as they were perfectly willing to recognire the
dominion of the heathen k'ing, ar long as they were
left undisturbed in the observance of the law. They
accordingly took part in the contest only long enough
to insure their own religious freedom and, as soon as
this seemed safe, promptly rumendered to Alcimur the
He1ienirtic hi~h priest.
SCRIBES AND PHARISEES
. , . . . - . . . - ..
There can be little doubt that there Assidzans were
practically identical with that parry of the Scribes'
hLssidaans which came to be called Pharisrer
under Johannes Hyrcanur (135-105
B.c.). As soon as the Maccabsean
dynasty had beome eitabliihed, the new rulers assumed
the high-priesthood, and so the ancient aristocratic and
high~priestly families who, up to that time, had been
the kernel of the phil-Hellenic party, were now forced to
relinquish their position as political leaders. They
retained a great part of their infiuence, ho\vever, a5
party leaders of their own faction which continued
under the name Sadducees with erseniinliy the same
principles.
At the time of Hyrcanus, we find the Pharisees
Rupture opposed to the Maccabaean or Hasmongan
family, with whom during
Haam~~",ans, the reign of Antilcks Epiphaner they
had temporarily made common cause.
If ir not difficult lo account for lhii change 01 ,Ar
bas already been rtnted, the Arsid=anr cared little for polttrcrl
freedom pnd were rh.&re nor in rympalh with the Macrnber
a.ru themnini.sue. It wuonlyniltural, tl%refore, that, assoon
as the Maccaker had succeeded in founding n temporal dy"~ry,
they rhould begin to drift aptrr from the rlrlcor ssnb=l r~l1610~r
shrs who had now quite evldenrly L33urn.d the 1eaderrhlp.of
their own rqy. The first rupture heween the royal fam~ly
and the P arrree. occvned in the n n of H canus who,
although himself a pharisee at first, dciheracely Gt th=t party
and became a. S~L~~UCFC (CP ISXLFL, P 18).
The son and successor of Hycanus, Alexander
Ja~rneus (104.78 B.c.), iuherited his father's spirit, and
waged a six years' war against the now powerful Phaiisaie
party. On the death uf Jannmur, however, his
widow and successor Salome Alexandra (78~64 .. . B.C.I. .
renlisin~ the futility of attempt in^ to resist the Pharisees,
who were becoming strong& and stronger ilnder oppozition,
made peace and allied herself with them (Ant.
, ...
x111. 61). It was at this period that the Pharisees
giiinrd'over the minds of the people the ascendancy,
retained without interruption until the days of Jerur,
which appears so plainly in the pager of the NT.
Indeed, their opponents the Sadducees never again
became ~rominent as a political party after the advent
of the Romans, who in 61 B.C. appointed the Pharisaic
Hyrcanur, son of ~lexandra. ar thiir vassal-king, giving
him the preference over his Sadducee brother, Arirtobulu
(cp Pr. Sol. 1).
The Pharisees now appear as the leaders of Jewish
national religious feeling, although they murf not be
19, as leaders, regarded as forming the kernel of the
people, nor as king the people's party.
This is true in spite of their violent apposition to Herod.
with whom the Saddncees had allied themselves. The
Pharisees naturally hated all religious oppression and
were therefore on the people's side. Their position,
like that of the earlier Assideaus, war purely ieligious,
however, and their object can be said to have been
political only in so far an they desired to establirlr the
theocratic idea. The Pharisees hated the Romans,
therefore. with perfect eanristency, because it was from
them that the anti-legal exactions came. Extremists