A Jewish group mentioned, either collectively or as individuals, 98 times in the NT, all but 10 in the Gospels. Additional information about the Pharisees comes from the Jewish soldier-historian, Flavius Josephus (ca. A.D. 30-100) in his The Jewish War, The Antiquities of the Jews, and Life and in Rabbinic writings. Possible allusions in the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are too uncertain and vague to be of assistance. There are two major parts of the debates regarding the sources. How accurate are they and how are they to be interpreted? Second, what is the essential nature of the Pharisaism they depict? Theories are numerous, often influenced by the point of view of the researcher.
The root meaning of "Pharisee" is uncertain. It is probably related to the Hebrew parash (Aramaic perish), "one who separates." From whom did they separate? those, especially priests or clerics, who interpreted the Law differently than they? the common people of the land (cf John 7:49)? Gentiles or Jews embracing Hellenistic culture? certain political groups? All these would be included in their determination to separate themselves from the types of impurity proscribed by the Levitical law, more specifically, their strict understanding of it.
Josephus' references are hardly neutral; he says he governed his "life by the rules of the Pharisees" (Life 2 [12]). His statements are selective and probably adapted to his cultured Gentile audience. Josephus' information comes in two, sometimes inconsistent, forms: (1) direct descriptions and (2) the role the Pharisees play in the history he depicts. His more important descriptive statements are found in War II:8,14 [162-164-166], Ant XIII:10,5-6 [228-298]; XVII:2,4 [41], XVIII:1,1-4 [12-15] XX:9,1 [199] and Life 2 [12]; 38 [191].
Josephus says the Pharisees maintained a simple life style (Ant XVIII:1,3 [12]), were affectionate and harmonious in their dealings with others (War II:8,14 [166]), especially respectful to their elders (Ant XVIII:13 [12]), and were quite influential throughout the land of Israel (Ant XIII:10,5 [288]; XVII:2,4 [41-45]; XVIII:1,3 [15]) -- although at the time of Herod they numbered only about 6,000 (Ant XVII:2,4 [42]). Josephus mentions their belief in both Fate (=divine sovereignty) and the human will (War II:8,14 [163], Ant XVIII:1,3 [13] and in immortality of both good and evil persons (War II:8,14 {16 ]. Ant XVII:1,3 [14]). Some Pharisees refused to take oaths (Ant XVII:2,4 [42]. Of particular importance are Josephus' statement that the Pharisees adhered to "the laws of which the Deity approves" (Ant XVII:2,4 [41] and that they "are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws" (War II:8,14 [162]). He continues, Pharisees "follow the guidance of that which their doctrine has selected and transmitted as good, attaching the chief importance to the observance of those commandments which it has seen fit to dictate to them" (Ant. XVIII:1,3 [12]) and they "passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses" (Ant XVII:2,4 [41]; XIII:10,6 [297]). Although the phrase "Oral Law" is not used, it appears Josephus understood that the Pharisees affirmed a body of traditional interpretations, applications, and expansions of the OT law communicated orally.
The Pharisees first appear in Josephus' account of Intertestamental history as he describes the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104). He assumes they had been in existence for some time. This raises the much discussed question of their origin. Some see the Pharisees' roots in the Biblical Ezra (n.b., Ezra 7:10 and his concern for exact keeping of the law (especially for ceremonial purity), others in the cHasidim (=the Holy/Pure/Righteous) who supported the Maccabean revolt as long as its motives were religious but withdrew when it became primarily political (1 Macc 2:42; 7:13; cf, 2 Macc 14:6). Recent studies suggest the Pharisees were part of a general revolutionary spirit of the pre-Maccabean times and that they emerged as a scholarly class dedicated to the teaching of both the written and oral Law and stressing the internal side of Judaism. In any case they were certainly one of the groups which sought to adapt Judaism for the post-Exilic situation.
John Hyrcanus was at first "a disciple" of the Pharisees but became their enemy (Ant XIII:10,5 [288-298]). The Pharisees were opponents of the Hasmonean rulers from then on. The hostility was especially great during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76), and they seem to have taken a leading part in opposition to him; it is usually assumed that Pharisees composed either all or a large part of the 800 Jews he later crucified (Ant XIII:14,2 [380]). The one exception to Pharisaic opposition to the Hasmoneans was Salome Alexandria (76-67), under whom they virtually dominated the government.
Josephus' information about the Pharisees under the Romans is spotty. Under Herod (37 B.C.-4 B.C.) the Pharisees were influential, but carefully controlled by the king. Some individual Pharisees did oppose the Herod on occasions. Josephus gives almost no information about the Pharisees from the death of Herod until the outset of the revolt against Rome (about A.D. 66). At first they attempted to persuade the Jews against militant actions (War II:17,3 [411]). Later Pharisees appear as part of the leadership of the people during the revolt, some individuals played a leading role in it.
The NT usually depicts the Pharisees as opponents of Jesus or the Early Christians. On the other hand they warn Jesus that his life is in danger from Herod (Luke 13:31), invite him for meals (Luke 7:36-50; 14:1), are attracted to or believe in Jesus (John 3:1; 7:45-53; 9:13-38), and protect early Christians (Acts 5:34; 23:6-9). Paul asserts he was a Pharisee before his conversion (Phil.3:5).
The clearest NT statement of Pharisaic distinctives is Acts 23:6:ff, "... Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angels, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all." This would give the impression that doctrine was the basic concern of the group. However, Mk 7:3-4 says,
The Pharisees ... do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.
Thus, we are also told of the Pharisees' concern for washing (ceremonial cleansing) and observance of "the traditions of the elders," a description of the Oral Law. Matt 23 calls attention to their (1) positions of religious authority in the community, (2) concern for outward recognition and honor, (3) enthusiasm for making converts, and (4) emphasis upon observing the legalistic minutia of the law. In vs 23 Jesus condemns them, not for what they did, but for neglecting "the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith."
The portrayal of the Pharisees in Rabbinic literature is particularly hard to interpret. It was compiled and written by the Rabbis who regarded themselves successors of the Pharisees and therefore have both historical and sociological biases. Some Rabbinic statements about the Pharisees may be propaganda to enhance or support their position against opponents. The present compilation of Rabbinic writings was made after A.D. 200 and contains material that has been selected, edited, or added in view of situations that arose after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. It is difficult to distinguish within it accurate representations of the pre-A.D. 70 situation from a later ones. Consequently, Rabbinic literature, when used as a source for historical data about the Pharisees, be handled with extreme care.
The Rabbinic material says virtually nothing about the items of the belief of the Pharisees found in Josephus and the NT. Its concern is almost entirely with cultic and ceremonial matters related to purity, eating, Sabbath, festivals, agriculture and such "women's issues" as betrothal, marriage, and divorce.
Our three sources, neither individually nor collectively, provide sufficient information for a complete understanding of the Pharisees. Each presents a different pictures or has a distinct emphases. By giving preference to the NT evidence, traditionally the Pharisees have been viewed as a legalistic and hypocritical sect, but even the NT portrayal of them is more complex.
There is general recognition that Josephus' description, "sect" (hairesis) should not be understood in the modern sense. Instead, it seems to denote something like a "religious party," "community," or "denomination" within mainstream Judaism. Pharisaic zeal for the Law is obvious, but what is meant by Law? The sanctity of the written Law was never questioned, but Intertestamental Jewish groups differed on how it was to be interpreted and applied. The Pharisees developed their own body of interpretations, expansions, and applications of the Law which they came to regard as of divine origin (Mishnah, Aboth, 1:1). This was to assist in understanding and keeping the Law, often added regulations ("fences" or "hedges") were designed to prevent even coming close to breaking the law. Most of these traditions, the Oral Law, dealt with matters of Levitical purity. Some contained other additions which had come into prominence in the Intertestamental situation. These included belief in immortality, angels and demons, spirits, and divine sovereignty. Expansions of such doctrines led to others. For example, belief in immortality resulted in expanding messianic and eschatological views. Their social and political views were based on their premise that all of live must be lived under the control of God's law. They opposed Hasmoneans who, contrary to the Law, sought to combine the monarchy and priesthood. Likewise, they rejected Roman authority when it appeared to conflict with the Law of God.
Some modern studies (e.g., E. P. Sanders) have objected to the assumption that Intertestamental Judaism, including the Pharisaism, believed in a "wage price-theory of righteousness," that eternal life is granted on the basis of faithfulness in keeping the Law. Rather, they insist, Israel's religion was a "covenantal nominism" in which Law-keeping was a response to God's grace offered in his covenant with Israel. These studies provide a helpful corrective to traditional views of Intertestamental Judaism, including Pharisaism, as merely a blatant legalism. Yet, the New Testament assumes that Jesus and his disciples were at times in conflict with just such legalism (e.g., Mk 10:17; Luke 15:29 [note that "the older brother" most likely represents the Pharisaic point of view]); John 6:28; and Paul's constant fight against earning salvation by works of the law (note: Rom 9:30-32, Israel "pursued it [righteousness] not by faith but, as it were, by works"). Of particular relevance here are the contrasting prayers of the Pharisee and the Publican, the results of which the latter "went down to his house justified rather than the other" (Luke 18:9-14). Intertestamental Judaism was far from a monolithic whole; many, if not most, of the common people, who were influenced by the Pharisees, seem to have held a legalistic way of viewing their religion. Jesus and the early Christians strongly opposed views that externalized religion and/or sought God's favor on the basis of human effort.
A Jewish group mentioned in three different contexts in the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 12:18 [=Luke 20:27; Matt 22:23-34]; Matt 3:7; 16:1-12) and six in Acts (4:1; 5:17; 23:6-8). They always appear as inquisitors or opponents of John the Baptist, Jesus, or the early Christians. Acts 23:8 defines the Sadducees theologically, saying that, in contrast to the Pharisees, they hold there "is no resurrection, nor angels, nor spirits." The Sadducean rejection of the resurrection is the point at issue in Mark 12:18 and parallels. Additional information about them, primarily through the Jewish historian, Josephus, and the Rabbinic writings, is scanty and hostile. Rabbinic writings sometimes interchange the term "Sadducee" with "Samaritans" (here meaning "opponents") and "Boethuians." The latter is probably from their connection with the house of Boethus, from which came several high priests during the NT period.
The name "Sadducee" is closely associated with attempts to determine the origin of theis group. Suggestions include linking it with an OT priestly family (Zadok) the Hebrew word for "just" or righteous" (sadduk), or "fiscal officials" (Gk, syndikoi). There are problems with etymologies and all other attempts to identify their origin.
Josephus lists the Sadducees as one of the three sects/groups of Jewish "philosophy" ( Ant XVIII.1:2 [11]; cf., XIII:5:9 [293]). His first historical reference says John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.) came under their influence after his break with the Pharisees. Josephus describes them as argumentative (Ant XVIII:1,4 [16], "boorish" and "rude" both to each other and aliens (War II:9,14 [166], few in number but included "men of the highest standing" (Ant XVIII:1:4 [17]). They have "the confidence of the wealthy" but not the populace (Ant XIII:1,4 [298].
When exercising office the Sadducees were forced by public opinion to follow "the formulas of the Pharisees" (Ant XVIII:1,4 [17]). Evidently they were more severe in administering punishments than Pharisees (Ant XIII:10,6 [294]). Like the NT, Josephus mentions the Sadducean rejection of resurrection (War II:9,14 [165]; and twice says they rejected "Fate" (predestination) to dissociate God from evil and to assert the human free choice of good or evil (War II:9,14 [165]; Ant XVIII:1:4 [14]).
Josephus says, "The Pharisees had passed on ... certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, ... rejected by the Sadducean group, who hold only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down (in Scripture) ..." (Ant XIII:10,6 [297]; cf. Ant XVIII:1,4 [16]). This points toward a major feature of Sadduceanism, rejection of the Pharisaic Oral Law, or "the traditions of the elders (cf, Mk 7:3). In the centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (586 B.C.), the Pharisees compiled and transmitted orally a body of traditional interpretations, adaptations, and additions to Scripture which they believed to be of divine origin. These included ways of applying the law to various situations -- expansions, and prescriptions regarding a wide range of Levitical ceremonies and regulations. These traditions also included certain theological points, such as resurrection, angels and spirits, etc. which, although not particularly emphasized in the OT were prominent during the Intertestamental period. Although the Sadducees rejected the Pharisaic Oral Law the Sadducees they certainly had their own traditions, interpretations, and procedures.
In Acts 5:17 "those with the High Priests" are identified as "the party of the Sadducees." Josephus depicts the Sadducees as closely associated with the priestly Hasmonean rulers. By the time of the NT they appear to be the majority in the Sanhedrin, over which the high priests presided.
References to the Sadducees in the Rabbinic writings present a different view of them. Here their difference with the Pharisees are on issues of ritual, ceremonial, and judicial matters. These involved a vast array of disputes about the calendarical matters, observances of Sabbath and certain feasts, sacrificial and Temple ritual, penalties in criminal cases, laws related to ceremonial defilement, and such women's issues as betrothal, marriage, and divorce.
Religiously, the Sadducees were literal in handling the OT law and resisted the "new" ideas and traditions of the Pharisees. Politically and socially, they were open to rapprochement with Hellenistic (Greek) culture and the Roman political system. The Sadducees were essentially secularists, a result of their exclusion of God ("Fate") from human affairs and their conviction that humans can expect nothing beyond this life. In general it seems the Sadducees supported those interpretations and procedures which enhanced the prestige, power, and financial benefit of the priestly Temple cult and the aristocracy.
Jesus and the early Christians posed a threat to the Sadducees (cf., John 11:47-50). Jesus' proclamation of the reality of the spiritual realm, his denunciation of the Jewish religion as then practiced, and his wide popular support could have endangered the already precarious position of the Sadducees. Furthermore, Jesus and his followers supported some of the positions of the Pharisees. The Sadducees found particularly objectionable the Christian proclamation that in Jesus the resurrection is a present reality (Acts 4:2).
The Sadducees were inseparably bound to the external political, social, and especially the Temple-centered institutions of Judaism. With the destruction of the Jewish state and Temple in A.D. 70, they passed into the pages of history.
The "Herodians" appear along with the Pharisees in Mk 3:6 (after the healing of a paralyzed man) and Matt 22:16 (where the question of the legitimacy of paying taxes to Caesar is raised). In Mk 12:13 the Pharisees consult with them on how to destroy Jesus.(1) Their name identifies them as members of the household or court of the Herods or supporters of the dynasty. Josephus describes the drowning of "the partisans of Herod" in the sea of Galilee by rebellious Galileans in the days of Herod the Great.(2)
Those drowned in Galilee are not called "Herodians" but "partisans or supporters of Herod." The presence and use by the king of a recognizable group of Jewish supporters would be contrary to the policies of Herod the Great. Consequently, it is likely that the group developed under Herod Antipas, hence their presence in Galilee.(3)
It can be assumed that the Herodians were pro-Roman. The Herodians teaming with the Pharisees, with whom they had no natural affinity, in the question of taxation(4) faced Jesus with representatives of two extreme opinions on the issue. Mk 3:6 assumes that although the Herodians were not present at the healing of the paralyzed man, the Pharisees sought their assistance as a group with influence to assist in achieving their purpose.
It is sometimes assumed that the Herodians were Sadducees. The Sadducees shared their support of the Herodian family, but there is no evidence for equating the Herodians and Sadducees.
Josephus, in his Jewish War and Ant XIII-XX, is our primary source of information about the "Fourth Philosophy." He says the Jews were not acquainted with this "Fourth Philosophy" until the AD 6 rebellion led by Judas of Galilee when Quirinius ordered that a census(5) be taken.(6) He seems in some way to associate the Zealots with this spirit. He blamet The Fourth Philosophy for sowing "seeds of every kind of misery," wars, murder of friends and important persons, robberies, and, in short, the general disorders and rebellion which eventually led to the Jewish defeat by the Romans in AD 70.(7)
In Ant XVIII:1,1 and 6 [1-10 and 23-25] Josephus says, "Quirinius...visited Judea...in order to make an assessment of the property...[a]... registration of property." This took place in AD 6, following the removal of Archelaus as ethnarch over Judah and Samaria. Although Quirinius' action brought widespread unrest among the populous in general, most were quieted by the high priest. But Judas of Gamala and Zaddok, a Pharisee, called for rebellion, saying that
the assessment carried with it a status amounting to downright slavery, no less, and appealed to the nation to make a bid for independence. They urged that in case of success the Jews would have laid the foundation of prosperity, while if they failed to obtain any such boon, they would win honour and renown for their lofty aim; and that Heaven would be their zealous helper to no lesser end than the furthering of their enterprise until it succeeded - all the more if with high devotion in their hearts they stood firm and did not shrink from the bloodshed that might be necessary.(8)
One may wonder why an assessment, a registration (census) would call for such heated reaction. The census was preliminary to increasing taxes, and that in itself could have prompted some hostilities. It might also explain the cry for "liberty." But why the strong religious overtones in the rhetoric of Judas and Zaddok? Josephus calls Judas a "leader" (hegemon) and "sophist" (saphistes.)(9) Of the latter term Schürer says, "This description marks out Judas as a teacher with his own distinctive interpretation of Torah" (emphasis mine).(10) This means that Judas, along with numerous other Intertestamental Jewish groups, held to his own set of traditions alongside the written text.
The taking of a census in Israel was no inconsequential matter. For many Jews it was an administrative measure which only God could instigate. Num 1 and 26 indicate God did so in the wilderness. Even David, the prototypical Hebrew ruler, incurred divine anger when he counted his people.(11) The assumption behind Judas and Zaddok's cries seems to be that any human ordering a census of Israel placed himself in the position over the Hebrews which must be reserved for God alone -- it was a blasphemous act. If David incurred divine disfavor for so doing, how much more should the Hebrew rise up in righteous rebellion when a foreigner did sought to number God's people. The "fourth philosophy" was not merely a revolutionary party; they sought revolution in the name of religion.(12) Josephus' comment, "They think little of submitting to death...if only they may avoid calling any man master,"(13) should be understood in such a setting.(14)
Josephus seeks to make evident that Judas' spirit, interpretation, and example influenced all subsequent revolutionaries. His "philosophy" probably became the core convictions of most of the later Jewish freedom fighters, especially those active in the AD 66-70 war. Judas' family was prominent among later freedom fighters.(15)
Theirs was a spirit akin to the Maccabean patriarch who called for rebellion against the sacrilege of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is possible that the title "Zealot" may have come from Mattathias' battle cry, "Let everyone who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come out with me!"(16). As the specter of war grew larger, some of those with this "philosophy," as they affirmed "that Heaven would be their zealous helper," may have thought in terms of "forcing" God to protect his own name by intervening (possibly by sending the Messiah) on their behalf. Such views would be in keeping with both the spirit of the movement and conditions in the Land of Israel at the time.
Before considering further the "Fourth Philosophy" and groups possibly associated with it, we must note a social situation in first century Israel and a group within it. Josephus calls the Jewish opponents of Rome "rebels" (stasiastai) and "revolutionaries" (neoterizontes). It is also significant that both Josephus and the Greek NT make a distinction between (1) kakourgos, one identified as evil-doer and common criminal, on the one side;(17) and (2) lestes, robber, highwayman, bandit(18) or a revolutionary, insurrectionist(19) on the other. Josephus indicates the presence of all of these groups throughout Galilee and Judea as a whole, as well as among the insurgents. In the NT Luke describes those who were crucified with Jesus as "criminals" (kakourgoi)(20) but Matthew, probably preserving more of the exact flavor, designates them as lestes.
"Bandit" (lestes) designates either one who was forced to steal to support himself and his family or who stole from the rich to give to the poor (like the English "Robin Hood"). Banditry is a multi-sided phenomenon. Here we note its political and military manifestations. Later we will see it as an indicator of socio-economic conditions.
Josephus says the land, especially the rural areas, was over-run with the "bandits" and ascribes to them the same type of activities which he blames on the followers of the "Fourth Philosophy." In such a situation the ruling authorities, upper classes, and the wealthy view the "bandits" as thieves and thugs; whereas the common people might hail them as heroes and saviors. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter!
Josephus mentions the Zealots as a distinct group only after the outbreak of the AD 66-70 war where he portrays them as one of several revolutionary factions.(21) He names the Sicarii, John of Gischala and his followers, Simon son of Giora and his followers, and the Idumeans as other revolutionary groups. Other sources indicate the "Barjone" and "Galileans" were among those involved in the struggle against Rome.(22) Some modern scholars even include "the Bandits" (lestes) among the groups within the freedom movement.(23) These groups fought each other as much or more than they did the Romans.
All this raises the question, "Who were the Zealots?"(24) Josephus says John of Gischala rallied various bandit and militant groups in Jerusalem about AD 66. This action caused a split among those who had previously followed Eleazar son of Simon.(25) At that time John's followers, the more extreme group, were, for the first time, called "The Zealots."(26) However, as we have seen, Josephus also associates the term specifically with the insurrection led by Judas the Galilean sixty years earlier. The issue is made more difficult because Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13(27) identify Simon, one of Jesus' apostles, as "the Zealot," an anachronistic use if "Zealot" here refers to a group that surfaced thirty eight or so years after Jesus concluded his ministry.
Recent studies seek to distinguish between several features of the Intertestamental Judaism to which the term "zealot" could be applied: (1) certain persons with fervent devotion to God's Law;(28) (2) a general attitude and movement illustrated by Judas of Gamala and Zaddok who led an abortive revolt against a Roman census in AD 6 promising "that Heaven would be their zealous helper." It is this movement that Josephus identifies with "The Fourth of the Philosophies;" it was a "violent, religious, revolutionary" one. (3) The Jewish revolutionary factions which emerged during the AD 66-70 war under John of Gischala. Josephus says this was a coalition of bandits and miscreants. Contemporary scholarship differs on the relation, if any, between these groups and between one or more of these groups and the Sicarii, a group we will discuss below.
Discussions on the specific meaning of the term "Zealot" and exactly when they began may be asking from Josephus a precision he did not intend. He says that Judas and Zaddok "started" the fourth philosophy among the Jews and refers to "the zeal with which ... [they]... inspired in the younger element."(29) Thus, he appears to describe an orientation, a spirit, which gave birth to and nurtured the type of thinking and actions which eventually led to war with Rome. Hence, a popular writer, such as Luke, might well use "zealot" to refer to one who embraced the spirit of Judas and Zaddok well before the outbreak of hostilities; more technically, "Zealot" (with a capital) is appropriate for one of the revolutionary factions during the war.
From our point of view, it is important to note carefully again that Josephus describes this group or movement as one in agreement with the Pharisees (or at least, we would suppose, with their general orientation). To this commitment they added a violent, revolutionary nationalism within a firm religious context. From this we also learn something about the Pharisees (there seem to have been a quietistic element among them), the pre-war revolutionaries, and one or more of the Jewish military groups who fought the Romans.
The Sicarii was the group with which Paul was mistakenly identified in Acts 21:38.(30) Josephus says they arose during the procuratorship of Felix (AD 52-59). Josephus also equates them with the much earlier disturbances in the time of Quirinius.(31) They were certainly active in and around Jerusalem from the time of Felix through the procuratorship of Albanius (AD 62-65) and were later present in the fortress of Masada (AD 72-73).
During the first period of their activity they conducted a campaign of terror -- kidnapping, extortion, robbery, and murder. Josephus distinguishes them from other bandits; this
new species ... was springing up in Jerusalem, the so-called sicarii, who committed murders in broad daylight in the heart of the city. The festivals were their special seasons, when they would mingle with the crowd, carrying short daggers concealed under their clothing, with which they stabbed their enemies. Then, when they fell, the murderers joined in the cries of indignation, and, through this plausible behavior, were never discovered.(32)
The favorite weapon of these urban terrorists or guerrillas was a curved dagger to dispatch opponents, usually Jewish supports of the Romans. This gave rise to their name (Latin, sica = dagger).
During their latter period of prominence, at Masada, the Sicarii participated in the futile stand against the Romans. The end of the Roman siege of the fortress and the suicide of its defenders brought the end of organized Jewish resistance to the Romans in the Land of Israel in first century. Josephus also calls some Jews who fled to Egypt after AD 70, "Sicarii."(33)
The Sicarii leader at Masada, Eleazer son of Jarius, was a relative of Judas the Galilean, as was Menahem.(34) Menahem was a revolutionary leader who set himself up as virtually a king in Jerusalem, but was attacked and killed by other insurgent Jews, led by Eleazer son of Simon.(35) The exact relation of Menahem to the Sicarii is unclear. Although Josephus blames the Sicarii with beginning the disturbance in which Manahem asserted himself and was killed,(36) he refrains from identifying him with the Sicarii. Eleazer and his followers may have been both supporters of Menahem and also Sicarii, or the followers of Menahem may have joined the Sicarii at Masada after his death. In any case, the connection between Judas the Galilean, the Fourth Philosophy, and the Sicarii is well established.
A more difficult question is that of the relation between the Zealots and Sicarii. Recent scholarly opinions differ on the point.(37) Menahem's bodyguard is described as "armed zealots"(38) but "zealot" here need not be a technical, party name. Zealots and Sicarii may have been completely separate groups. It is also possible that prior to the stand at Masada the Sicarii operated only as an "undercover" force. In such a case when the Sicarii joined in open battle Josephus designates them as "Zealots" or as members of some other revolutionary group.
This could explain why there is no reference of the Sicarii actually engaging the Romans in battle in Jerusalem. It is also possible that following the death of Menahem they withdrew from the city and were simply not present in Jerusalem during her final, agonizing hours.
The Essenes are not mentioned in the NT. The major descriptions and comments about them come from Jewish writers Josephus(39) and Philo(40) and the Gentile Pliny the Elder.(41) Almost a dozen Christian writers, including Hegesippus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, include notices about the Essenes; of these only Hippolytus(42) adds noteworthy information.(43)
The Essenes remain an "enigma of Jewish history," even the meaning of their name is uncertain.(44) Furthermore "the sect as a whole exerted no marked influence on Judaism."(45) Their relevance for our study lies in their (1) example of another of the divisions within Intertestamental Judaism, (2) testimony to another type of reaction (withdrawal from society) to the crises which molded the distinctive character of the period, and (3) the probable relevance they have for a discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fascination they held for early Christian writers demonstrate they had some special relevance for some branches of Christendom.
There is no information about the origin of the Essenes. Other than the mention of them as one of the "three schools of thought," the first reference to the Essenes comes with Josephus' story of a prophet, "Judas of the Essene group," who was active during the reign of Aristobulus I (104-103 BC).(46) They may have come from a branch of the cHasidim after that group withdrew from the supporters of Judas Maccabeus.
In general the Essenes represent a monastic, ascetic, puritanical strain within Intertestamental Judaism. Some lived in towns and cities while others withdrew into their own communities in the wilderness. All lived a communal life in which all property, goods, money, and wages were placed in a central treasury for the use of all. They took their meals of simple food together. Most were engaged in agricultural work but some in trades.
The Essene life was open to adult males; the sources differ on whether they were entirely celibate, could be married, and if women were permitted any association with the group. They adopted children and reared them in their own traditions. There were no slaves among them.
The organization of the Essenes was hierarchal, led by priests and officers elected by the body "by a show of hands." Applicants for membership first underwent a trial for a year and then another two years of probation while they were examined and taught. Only then were they administered the oath required of all in the fellowship (otherwise Essenes took no oaths). From that point on they were part of the community and permitted to eat with the rest. Still there were ranks between members. For an example, senior members bathed if even touched by a junior member.
Essenes devoted themselves to study of the Scriptures and other ancient writings. Their concern was for morals and ethics rather than speculative philosophy. They revered the Lawgiver, Moses, next to God and stressed the observance of the law. Their interpretation and practice of the Law was more strict than any other known Jewish group. Their Sabbath practice even prohibited building a fire or emptying their bowels. The Essenes placed strong emphasis on maintaining Levitical purity. They frequently bathed with cold water, rejected anointing with oil, wore only simple white clothing, and practiced the utmost modest style of life.
In beliefs they were fundamentally Jewish. Differences between the Essenes and other Jewish groups lay in a number of areas. They rejected the traditions of others, especially the Pharisees. They were completely deterministic (fatalistic), believing that God is in absolute control of all. Essenes believed bodies would be destroyed but that the soul is immortal. They rejected the legitimacy of those controlling the Jerusalem temple; instead they believed only the family of Zaddok should occupy those positions. They sent offerings to the temple but did not sacrifice there themselves and seemed to have had their own ceremonies and liturgy. They lived by their own calendar.
The ancient writers who describe the Essenes mention their rejection of war, except possibly for self defense. However, Josephus says that "John the Essene" was an officer in the war against Rome. As noted above, at least one Essene was recognized as a prophet; others, because of their intense study of the Bible, were also believed to have the prophetic gift. Both Philo and Josephus mentions their practice of medical arts.
(1) Some manuscripts mentions "Herodians" in Mk 8:15 but the reading "Herod" is better attested.
(2) Ant XIV:15,10 [450]; War 1:17,2 [326].
(3) N. Hillyer, "'Herodianoi (Herodians)," Dictionary of New Terstament Theology. Colin Brown, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 3, 441-443.
(4) Mk 12:13-17; Matt 22:15-22.
(5) The date of Quirinius and the census in the Land of Israel, when compared with the Biblical data, poses a problem. Matthew clearly places the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod the Great (4 BC). Luke 2:2 places it during the time Quirinius was governor of Syria. It is usually suppose he assumed this office only after the death of Herod. Additional problems center around the nature of the census itself.
There is no completely satisfactory explanation for all the data. On this issue see the excellent summary by I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (The New International Greek Testament Commentary; Exeter, Paternoster Press, 1978), 97-104.
(6) Ant XVIII:1, 1 [1 ff], 6 [23].
(7) Ant XIII:1, 1 [7].
(8) Ant XVIII:1,1 [4-5].
(9) War ii:8,1 [118].
(10) HJP2, II, 2, 600, n. 5.
(11) 2 Sam 24.
(12) There may also have been religious financial obligations for those counted in a census. This was the case in the wilderness when the tabernacle was being built; Ex 30:11-16; 38:26.
(13) Ant XVIII:1:6 [23]. The Greek, despotes, from which comes the word "despot;" it may mean only "the master of a house" or an "absolute ruler," it may also be used of a god. Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. New (9th) Edition Revised and Augmented by Henry S. Jones, with assistance of Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1940; Supplement, 1968), 381. It is the term Josephus uses to describe the uniqueness of the Fourth Philosophy, "God alone is their leader and master (hegemona kai despoten)," Ant XVIII:1,6 [23]. He also employs it to depict the position of Sicarii in Egypt who sought to persuade their fellow Jews "to look upon the Romans as no better than themselves and to esteem God alone as their lord (despotes)," War VII:10,1 [410]. The historian also says they endured utmost torture aimed at forcing them to acknowledge "Caesar as lord (Kaisar despoten),"War VII:10,1 [418].
(14) Hengel, Zealots, 90-144, offers a lengthy reconstruction of Judas' message.
(15) Schürer, HJP2 II, 600-601, summarizes as follows: "His father Ezekias had opposed Herod's tyranny; his sons Simon and Jacob were crucified for anti-Roman activities under Tiberius Julius Alexander; his descendant Menahem seized Masada at the beginning of the revolt in 66, and was leader of the revolution in Jerusalem until his murder by Eleazar b. Simon's party, and Menahem's nephew Eleazar b. Jair led the last stand of the freedom fighters at Masada."
(16) 1 Macc 2:27. The concept and term "zealot" has an even longer history. The priest Phinehas was rewarded for his zeal when he slew an immoral and idolatrous Israelite man and Moabite woman on the plain of Moab, Num 25:1-13. Elijah claims to have been "zealous" for the Lord, I Kngs 18:10, 14. In John 2:17 Jesus applies Ps 69:9, "For zeal for thy house has consumed me," to himself as he cleansed the temple; thus interpreting the Psalm passage messianically.
(17) Lu 23:32-33, 39; 2 Tim 2:9.
(18) Mt 27:38; Mk 11:17; 15:27; Lu 10:30, 36; Jn 10:1, 8; 2 Cor 11:26.
(19) Mt 26;55; Mk 14:48; Lk 22:52.
(20) Luke 23:32, 39.
(21) War IV:3, 9 [161].
(22) Martin Hengel, The Zealots (David Smith, trans: Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1989), 53-59, who draws from Rabbinic as well as first century sources.
(23) See Richard A. Horseley with John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs (New York: Harper, 1985) and Hengel, Zealots, 24-46.
(24) for additional information see Hengel, The Zealots; David Rhoads, "Zealots, "Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 (1992), 1043-1054; M. Smith, "Zealots and Sicarii, Their Origins and Relation," HTR 64 (1971), 1-19; Richard Horsley, "The Zealots," Novum Testamentum 27 (1986), 159-192; W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956).
(25) War II:20,3 [564].
(26)War IV:3,9 [160].
(27) In Mk 3:18 and Matt 10:4 he is called a "Cananean."
(28) Sirach 45:23-24; 4:1-2; Jub 30:17-19; 1 Macc 2:27.
(29) Ant XVIII:1,1 [9, 10].
(30) Greek, sikarios, from the Latin "sicarius," a curved dagger (hence, a sickle). English translations render the term "murderer" (KJV), "assassin" (RSV, NASB, NRSV), and "terrorists" (NIV).
(31) War VII:8:1, [153]; Schürer (HJP2 2, 602) suggests they were organized at this time.
(32) War II:8,3 [254-255].
(33) War VII:10,1 [410, 412, 415]; 11:1-2 [437, 444].
(34) War II:17,8 [433]; 7:8 [447].
(35) War II:17,8-9 [433-448].
(36) War II:17,6 [425].
(37) Gary C. Porton, "Diversity in Postbiblical Judaism," EJMI, 72-73.
(38) War II:17,9 [444].
(39) Ant XVIII:1,5 [18-22] and War II:8,2,2-13 [120-161].
(40) "Every Good Man is Free" 75-91; "Hypothetica: Apology for the Jews" 11:1-18.
(41) Natural History, V,73.
(42) "Refutation of All Heresies" IX:13-22; at one point Hippolytus confuses the Essenes with the Sicarii and Zealots.
(43) A compilation of all texts (in Greek and Latin) dealing with the Essenes is available in Alfred Adam, Antike Berichte über die Essener (Kleine Texte; Berlin: Walter De Grutyer, 1961).
(44) Attempts to understand the meaning, or assuming plays-on-words, of the titles by which the group is called or by looking for clues in the descriptions of the community have produced a number of proposed meanings of the name. "Holy," "Doers of the Law," "Silent," "Worshippers," and "Healers" have all been suggested. The best guess, and it is only that, is probably "Pious."
(45) Bronner, Sects, 103; see also Schürer, HJP2 2, 558.
(46) War I:3,5 [78-80]; Ant XIII:11,2 [311-313].
Back to [New
Testament and Early Christian History Aids]
[Dr. Scott's Home] [Wheaton
College Home]