WHO WAS A PHARISEE?

by

Joseph Sievers

Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome

People generally have a fairly clear idea of who the Pharisees were. Dictionaries frequently
give two definitions. In the standard Italian dictionary by Zingarelli they read as follows: “1.
Seguace di un’antica setta religiosa ebraica che si distingueva per la rigida e formale
osservanza della Legge mosaica. 2. (figuratively) Chi con falsità e ipocrisia si preoccupa
della forma più che della sostanza delle sue azioni.” [1] With slight differences one finds
similar definitions in English and German (and Spanish??) dictionaries.

The trouble with these definitions is that the first one is in part erroneous and the second
one is based on an improper reading of some New Testament texts. Unfortunately we have
to admit, however, that we are dealing not with an error of the lexicographers but with a
widespread misreading of the New Testament that has had disastrous consequences. Not
only books but also words have their peculiar destinies. Here I would like to explore the
meaning of one key-term for the relations between Judaism and Christianity.

Who were these persons called “Pharisees”? The word seems easy enough to explain.
“Pharisees” comes from the Greek term pharisaioi, which is a transliteration of the
Aramaic perishaya, which in turn is the equivalent of the Hebrew term perushim. The
meaning of this term is never explained in the main ancient sources. It is probably linked to
the Hebrew parush in the meaning of “separated,” even though we do not know from whom
or from what the Pharisees were separated. [2] The rare appearance of the term in Hebrew
and Aramaic sources and its sometimes decidedly polemical and scornful usage make it
likely that at least initially it was not chosen as a term of self-identification. Instead, it seems
to have been used first by outsiders, just as later the term “Protestant” was introduced by
opponents of Martin Luther, before it served as self-designation.

Aside from the problem of the name, numerous scholars have studied the history, ideas,
and identity of the Pharisees in great detail. [3] In a brief presentation as this one, I cannot
enter into all these questions, let alone give exhaustive and definitive answers. The biggest
problem one encounters right at the outset is the question of sources. From where can we
draw the information for a realistic picture of the group of people called “Pharisees”? In
short, there are three types of sources: First, the immense rabbinic literature. Its authors,
the rabbis of the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth century, are frequently considered
successors of the Pharisees. The links between Pharisees and rabbis, however, are not as
clear and direct as one might imagine.

As a matter of fact, scholars become more and more aware of the problematic character of
this relationship. On the one hand, it is not directly attested in early sources, on the other
hand, when the Mishnah was redacted shortly after 200 ce, the situation was radically
changed from earlier centuries. The Temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed in the year
70 and therefore sacrifices and other priestly functions had ceased. The different groups
that had flourished during the period of the Second Temple no longer existed: among these
the Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, and even the Pharisees themselves. Therefore one
cannot use rabbinic literature indiscriminately as an authoritative source for the Pharisees.

The second source are the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37-100 ce).
They are indispensable for reconstructing the history of Palestine (Eretz Israel) in general
and of the Pharisees in particular. Further on, we will have more to say about Josephus
and his relation to Pharisaism.
The third source is the New Testament, from which most Christians draw the principal
elements of their knowledge about the Pharisees. If it were not for the name “Pharisees,” it
would be hard to believe that the rabbinic literature, Josephus, the Gospels, the Acts of the
Apostles, and Paul speak of the same group. As a matter of fact, in the past many Catholic
and Protestant exegetes and theologians construed their view of the Pharisees almost
entirely on the basis of the synoptic Gospels, whereas Jewish authors relied primarily on
rabbinic texts, arriving at a completely different picture. In these works, frequently one
could note anti-Judaic or apologetic tendencies. Both of these extremes lead to distorted
views. It is clear that a serious study has to take into account all available ancient sources,
with attention to their particular tendencies and degrees of historical reliability. A detailed
survey of the history of scholarship on the Pharisees has been undertaken by Roland
Deines. [4]

The crucial problems remain the usability of the various sources, the origin and history of
the Pharisees, their teachings, their relations to other contemporary groups, and to rabbinic
Judaism. The complexity of these questions has led to divergent and contradictory
answers. It is probably fair to say that the question of who the Pharisees were and what we
can know about them has never been as widely open as it is today, and this in spite
of and because of considerable research efforts. This new situation is evident in a small
volume by Stemberger, in which he shows how ill-founded many common assumptions
about the Pharisees are, even though he is unable to offer a new coherent alternative
picture. [5] After over three decades of intensive research there is at least one assured
result: we know considerably less about the Pharisees than has often been assumed by an
earlier generation. [6]

Frequently it has been asked “Who were the Pharisees?” At times, in order to get
to know a group of people, it helps to come to know some individual members of the group,
not necessarily its leaders. Here therefore I would like to pose the question differently:
“Who was a Pharisee?” Perhaps this can help us to avoid and even to overcome dubious
generalizations, stereotypes, and prejudices.Thus I would like to study here solely those
individuals who either identified themselves or were identified by others as Pharisees. Their
number is quite small, around a dozen in sources attested before the fifth century ce. [7]
This is certainly not a representative sample of the whole group in any given period, even
less so for its entire history. Yet it might be profitable to try to treat the Pharisees not as a
more or less amorphous collective, but as individuals who happened to be members of the
same group. Through this approach we may find elements for verification or falsification of
current theories about them.

I will not deal with the passages in Josephus that describe the Pharisees and some of their
doctrines in general terms. Neither will I deal with the gospel passages that speak of the
Pharisees as a group, often though by no means always, in polemical contexts.

This limited study yields some negative as well as positive results that may be useful for
the larger question as to who the Pharisees were, what they stood for, and what we can
know about their connections with later rabbinic Judaism. A first negative result is that only
two or three of the sages studied by Neusner in his The Rabbinic Traditions about the
Pharisees Before 70 qualify for the present study. The others are not identified as
Pharisees in ancient sources and it is not clear exactly why they should be so identified
today. The houses of Hillel and Shammai, for example, are explicitly connected with the
Pharisees for the first time by Jewish-Christian sectarians cited in Jerome's commentary on
Isaiah 8:14, written in the first decade of the fifth century. [8] Rabbinic literature never
identifies any named individual as a Pharisee. [9] There is a growing awareness of the fact
that the tannaitic sages were not necessarily either Pharisees or successors of the
Pharisees, [10] even though there are several lines of connection.

Even though my first approach is limited and somewhat minimalist, my purpose here is not
to deny the possibility that Hillel, Shammai or other pre-70 rabbis were Pharisees, but to
start by bringing together the material about individuals explicitly associated with the group.
This may help to get a more secure foundation for affirmations about "the" Pharisees. It
may also assist, incidentally, in putting into question any stereotypical views of the group,
be they favorable or unfavorable.

1. The first individual who may be considered a Pharisee is a certain Eleazar. He is

a key figure in the famous legend about the break between John Hyrcanus (135/4-104 bce)
and the Pharisees, as recounted by Josephus (Antiquitates 13.288-298). During a banquet
given by Hyrcanus for his Pharisee friends they find nothing to reproach him of. Only
Eleazar demands that he lay down the office of high priest. Hyrcanus is understandably
upset and asks the Pharisees to determine the penalty for such arrogance. The Pharisees
suggest to scourge Eleazar, but Hyrcanus considers such a light penalty an insult to his
dignity. He therefore breaks relations with the Pharisees, whose disciple he was or had
been, [11] and joins (or: sides with) the Sadducees. The whole story is quite legendary and
not trustworthy as a historical source. [12] Eleazar is mentioned in conjunction with the
Pharisees, but not clearly identified as one of them. If he was one, he is mentioned
precisely because his disrespect for the high priest was exceptional. [13]

In the parallel story in the Babylonian Talmud (b.Qidd. 66a), the names as well as other
details are different. Here it is a certain Judah ben Gedidyah, a (Pharisaic) elder, who
demands that King Yannai (= John Hyrcanus’ son and eventual successor) renounce the
high priestly office. The villain of the story is again a certain Eleazar, here identified as son
of Po‘irah. It is not entirely clear, especially in light of Josephus, whether Judah is meant to
represent the Pharisees' point of view.

2. The third person that concerns us here appears on the scene at the time of Herod the
Great. Josephus calls him "Pollion the Pharisee". He and his disciple "Samaias" were
honored by Herod for the assistance they had given him while he was still a
commoner. [14] Because of the similarity of names, Pollion and Samaias are often
considered identical with Avtalyon and Shemaya of rabbinic literature. [15] When Josephus
mentions Pollion and Samaias together, twice he calls only the former a Pharisee. I think
that one has to take this distinction seriously. That John Hyrcanus and Samaias are called
disciples of Pharisees does not make them Pharisees.

In any case, according to Josephus, Pollion was an important person, a man with a
following, who had helped Herod. Because of this, he and his followers were exempted
from a loyalty oath. [16] It is possible that Pollion/Avtalyon was an authoritative
representative of the Pharisees. According to Ant. 14.172-176, his disciple Samaias was a
member of the Sanhedrin, the only one spared by Herod. The roles of the two in relation to
Herod are confused by Josephus. [17] Much later, rabbinic tradition would call Avtalyon—
and Shamaiah—the two greatest men of their generation. [18]

3. The next person described by Josephus as a Pharisee is a certain Saddok (Ant. 18.4)
who together with Judas the Galilean (or: the Gaulanite) founded the so-called Fourth
Philosophy at the time of the census of Quirinus (c. 6 ce). Josephus says nothing else
about Saddok, but charges that "the zeal which Judas and Saddok inspired in the younger
element meant the ruin of our cause." [19] With characteristic inconsistency, Josephus
states first that the Fourth Philosophy had nothing in common with the other Jewish groups
(War 2.118). Later instead, in Ant. 18.23, he asserts: "Concerning everything else they
agree with the opinions of the Pharisees, except that they have an unconquerable passion
for liberty, since they regard God alone as [their] leader and master." Mason correctly
points out that "passion for liberty" is the main issue of this group, even in the Antiquities,
and that similarities with the Pharisees in non-distinctive areas of teaching might tell us
more about Josephus' attitude toward the Pharisees than about actual closeness of the two
groups. [20] Thus Saddok is another Pharisee who is not representative of the group, even
though Josephus admits (not in the War but in the Antiquities) the Fourth Philosophy's
indebtedness to Pharisaism. This does not in any way mitigate Josephus' negative—and
biased—judgment about its founders.
If we now turn to the gospels, in the close to 90 references to Pharisees, they are almost
always mentioned in the plural. With one exception (Mat 23:26), the singular is used only
by Luke, who has Jesus dine on three occasions at the home of a Pharisee (each time a
different one?). [21]

4. Only the first one of these, Simon, is mentioned by name (Lk 7:40-44). Luke situates the
story in Galilee. The name is probably introduced secondarily from Mark 14:3, even though
Simon the Leper lived in Bethany and is not called a Pharisee. [22] Luke evidently wants to
make the point that despite tension and polemics Jesus was in contact with several
Pharisees. All of them are portrayed as householders who are able to accommodate
several guests at their homes.

5. Nicodemus is the only other named individual Pharisee in the gospels. He appears only
in John, first speaking with Jesus at night (3:1-15), then defending him, unsuccessfully, in
the Sanhedrin (7:50-52). Finally, he participates in his burial (19:39). The historical
reliability of this information is hard to assess, but Nicodemus is shown, aside from his
problematic but enduring relationship with Jesus, not as a flat stereotypical character, but a
distinguished member of the ruling class (“a leader of the Jews” 3:1)—one who seeks truth
and justice, and offers compassion. [23]

6. In Acts, Luke mentions two individual Pharisees: Paul (about whom I will speak in a
moment) and his alleged teacher, Gamaliel. Gamaliel is cited prominently on two occasions
(5:34-39; 22:3). He is very important for the assessment of the Pharisaic movement,
because he and his son, Simeon ben Gamaliel, mentioned by Josephus, are the only
persons unambiguously identified as Pharisees and cited in rabbinic literature. Thus they
are the only definite personal links between the Pharisees on one hand and the sages of
rabbinic literature on the other. One has to bear in mind though that in the chain of tradition
of Mishnah Abot 1:16-18, Gamaliel and his son are listed after Hillel and Shammai, but
without the formula "[they] received [the Torah] from them." This phrase appears again
in Mishnah Abot 2:8 in reference to Yohanan ben Zakkai who "received from Hillel and
Shammai." Abot de R. Natan, an ancient rabbinic tractate related to Mishnah Abot, in fact
passes on to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai immediately after Hillel and
Shammai. [24] Many scholars conclude therefore that Gamaliel and his son have been
inserted later into an existing text, perhaps to strengthen dynastic claims of the house of
Judah the Prince. [25] The link between Gamaliel's family and the other sages is therefore
more tenuous than is frequently assumed. [26]

Gamaliel is described in Acts as a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, and "a teacher of
the law, respected by all the people" (5:34). His wise and tolerant attitude is expressed in
the well-known statement "if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if
it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found
fighting against God!" (Acts 5:38-39 NRSV). Luke can hardly have reconstructed an actual
speech of Gamaliel at a closed-door session of the Sanhedrin. In fact, the anachronistic
reference to the uprising of Theudas (5:36) shows that the speech was composed long
after its dramatic date. [27] Here again, but even more than in the gospel, we find Luke's
tendency to emphasize possible positive relations between followers of Jesus and Phari-
sees. [28]

In rabbinic literature it is not easy to distinguish traditions regarding this Gamaliel I (the
Elder) from those of his grandson Gamaliel II. The traditions that may be assigned to
Gamaliel I with some measure of confidence present a great variety of topics. [29] Several
of his decisions seem aimed at improving the position of women, especially in the case of
widows, whom he allows to remarry based on the report of any one witness concerning
their husband’s death (mYebamot 16:7). Gamaliel reportedly wrote letters regarding tithes
and the intercalation of the calendar to various Jewish communities in Galilee, in the South,
and in Babylon. In more than one story it is emphasized that he was unassuming and
attentive to the opinions of others. He was rigorous however in not permitting use of the
Targum of Job. Later on it was asserted that "when Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the
glory of the Law ceased and purity and abstinence (perishut) died." [30] Thus both Luke
and rabbinic literature paint a highly favorable image of Gamaliel as a man who stood up
for the poor and persecuted.

7. According to Acts 22:3, Paul was a student of Gamaliel. There are serious and well-
founded doubts about this claim. What is beyond doubt however is that Paul—at least for
some period of his life—understood himself as a Pharisee. In fact, the earliest known
reference to a Pharisee is Philippians 3:5-6 where Paul presents some of the principal
elements of his earlier life, almost in the form of a brief resume:

when eight days old

circumcised
of the people (of) Israel
of the tribe (of) Benjamin
a Hebrew of Hebrews
as to the law: a Pharisee
as to zeal: a persecutor of the church
as to righteousness under the law: blameless.
Of the 99 references to Pharisees in the New Testament, this is the only one outside the
gospels and Acts. The Pauline corpus lacks any further mention of Pharisees. Paul relates
being a Pharisee to "the law," without further specification, but the context indicates that
this identification should strengthen his credentials in the eyes of the audience.

Evidently he attributes to the Pharisees a particular view of or attitude toward the Torah. In
Galatians (1:14) where he gives the most extended description of his past he claims "I
advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more
zealous for the traditions of my ancestors" (NRSV). I am not sure that other Pharisees
would have agreed with this estimation, [31] but there is no doubt that Paul before his
Damascus experience should be considered an authentic Pharisee. [32] It is clear that he
means to emphasize the importance of Torah and of traditions of the fathers in his
understanding of Pharisaic Judaism. As was common among later rabbis, Paul did not
occupy himself full-time with Torah study. Apparently he had learned a trade and was able
to earn a living for himself even during his missionary travels. [33]

Paul never explains who or what induced him to persecute the followers of Jesus,
except that "as to zeal" he was "a persecutor of the church." He also does not state where
and how he persecuted it. It seems unlikely that he did it in Jerusalem. Paul himself is
silent about his place of origin and about a stay in Jerusalem before his conversion
experience. He only relates that even after his visit to Cephas in Jerusalem he was still "not
known in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ"(Gal 1:22). In his own writings,
Paul offers little more autobiographical information concerning the time before the
Damascus experience. [34]

Acts adds many more details about Paul's relation to the Pharisees. Much of this material
reflects Luke's own interests. He has Paul state: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but
brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated precisely according to our ancestral
law, being zealous for God, just as all of you are today (Acts 22:3 cf. NRSV). Luke
underscores again Torah-observance and zeal as central elements of Paul's Pharisaism.
He adds the word akríbeia (“precision”, rather than “strictness”) which is often used by
Josephus in reference to the Pharisees' thoroughness and precision in interpreting the
Torah. [35]

The most surprising assertion is made later, in a speech in his own defence, where Paul
states: "Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees" (Acts 23:6). Did Paul really remain a
Pharisee? Was it possible to be a follower of Jesus and a Pharisee at the same time? For
Luke, at least, the answer seems to be yes. On the occasion of the so-called Council of
Jerusalem he mentions "some believers who belonged to the school of the Pharisees"
(Acts 15:5). As we noted before, Luke makes a point of emphasizing the closeness
between (some of) the Pharisees and the early Christian community. According to
Haenchen, Luke was convinced that the bridges between Pharisees and Christians had not
yet been cut and that communion between Pharisees and Christians was still pos-
sible. [36] Even though Paul should be considered a former Pharisee (despite Luke's
assertion to the contrary), Paul’s own writings and Acts offer valuable information about
some aspects of being a Pharisee.

8. The only other writer who has generally been considered a Pharisee is Flavius
Josephus. However, his membership in the group is at least as problematic as Paul's. He
too is not very forthcoming concerning his relationship to the group. He explicitly mentions
his association with it only once, in his autobiography: "Being now in my nineteenth year I
began to participate in public life (politeuesthai), following (katakolouthōn) the school of the
Pharisees, which is very close to the one the Greeks call the Stoic school" (Vita 12). The
crux of the matter is the meaning of the two verbs indicated. Thackeray, in his Loeb
Classical Library translation, and others take the former to mean "to govern one's life," but
some scholars, most recently Mason argue that one should translate "participate in public
life." According to Mason, Josephus never even claimed to have become a Pharisee, but
rather accepted only the Pharisees' political program so far as it was necessary in order to
advance in public life. [37]

This hypothesis is very interesting and would go a long way toward explaining Josephus'
ambivalent and sometimes clearly negative remarks about the Pharisees. It is curious,
however, that precisely in this context he compares the Pharisees to the Stoics whose
main characteristics, in the Flavian period do not seem to have been those of a political
pressure group. During the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian, under whom Josephus
most likely wrote these remarks (cf. Vita 429), they represented a persecuted
opposition. [38] Even Mason admits that at least one point of comparison between
Pharisees and Stoics is to be found in their teaching—specifically in their understanding of
fate. [39]

Although Josephus does seem to adopt some Pharisaic doctrines, [40] he does not write in
a way one might expect of a member of the group. Only twice does he refer to his own
dealings with Pharisees. He reports that in the year 66, at the beginning of the revolt, he
"ventured out of the Temple and once more got together with the chief priests and the
leading Pharisees" (Vita 21), to seek together with them, in vain, to avoid full-scale war.

The only other incident in which Josephus mentions several Pharisees is rather complex.
He reports that at the request of John of Gischala, the Pharisee Simeon ben Gamaliel
induced the Sadducean high priest, Ananus, to send a four-man delegation (of whom three
were Pharisees) to remove him, Josephus, from office as a troop commander in Galilee,
and to arrest him. In the end, Josephus arrests two members of the delegation and sends
all four back to Jerusalem. [41] Certainly his relations with several Pharisees were not good
at the time, even though they may have improved later, as his characterization of Simeon
ben Gamaliel in the same passage suggests.

9. Simeon ben Gamaliel is described by Josephus as follows:

a Jerusalemite, of a very prominent family, belonging to the school of the Pharisees, who
have the reputation of surpassing all others in their precision concerning the ancestral
customs. This man was full of intelligence and reasoning power. By his practical wisdom he
was able to straighten out troublesome situations. He was bound to John [of Gischala] by a
longstanding and close friendship, whereas with me he was at odds at that time.

(Vita 191-192)

It is unclear why Josephus has such words of appreciation for someone who tried to have
him removed from office and arrested. Mason sees here only Josephus’ grudging
admission of the well-known qualities of an adversary, whereas Cohen thinks that a
reconciliation—evidenced by “at that time”—must have taken place. [42] In any case, it is
certain that Simon was a prominent person. His long friendship with John of Gischala, who
is sometimes characterized by Josephus as an unscrupulous rebel leader from Galilee
(War 2.585 and passim), is noteworthy. Elsewhere, however, Josephus depicts this same
John as a moderate leader who tried to prevent a revolt (Vita 43).

In any event, Simon was well-connected in his native Jerusalem. He influenced the
Sadducean high priest, Ananus (in Spanish transliteration of Hebrew Janan?), and his
party to send a delegation to remove Josephus from his post. [43] Apparently he led,
together with Ananus, the opposition against the Zealots. [44] To the same circle belonged
a chief priest, Jesus son of Gamalas (Vita 193 and passim), sometimes identified with the
high priest Jesus son of Gamaliel. [45] Even though our information about the personal and
political connections between these men is incomplete, it is clear that the Pharisees as
such did not form a party or represent a unified front as opposed to Sadducees or
others. [46] Simon in particular was connected with priestly circles that included at least
one Sadducee. He was influential, but did not hold a political decision-making position.

In the rabbinic texts that mention a Simon son of Gamaliel (Shimon ben Gamliel), we
encounter the same difficulty as with his father; namely, that his name recurred in several
generations of the same family. Most traditions concerning Shimon ben Gamliel are
commonly assigned to his grandson, who was active in the second century. The main
criterion for ascribing traditions to the elder Simon are explicit or implicit references to the
existence of the Temple. Thus Simon ben Gamaliel I is credited with drastically reducing
the price of doves for sacrifices. [47] In light of what we know from Josephus, it is highly
doubtful that his teaching would have had an immediate and decisive impact as described
in this instance.

Another brief story, reported with slight variations in three different sources, recounts how,
during the feast of Sukkot, Simon used to juggle eight lighted torches and how no one
could imitate this and other acrobatic acts of his. [48] Probably one would not expect to see
a leading Pharisee in the role of popular entertainer. This may be one reason why the story
was preserved.

Two additional traditions are attributed sometimes to him, sometimes to his father. One is
about writing letters to various Jewish communities concerning the calendar and tithing,
and the other is aboutr blessing a beautiful Gentile woman. [49] The rabbinic material
about Simon ben Gamaliel is not extensive. That almost no halakhic decisions are
preserved in his name is puzzling, given the importance attributed to him and especially to
his family. Neusner suggests that the halakhic material may have been suppressed
because Simon was close to the school of Shammai, whose views were later overruled by
those of the school of Hillel. [50] Although explanations of the paucity of traditions in his
name are highly conjectural, the best one may be found in a saying attributed to Simon ben
Gamaliel himself: “All my life I grew up among the Sages and found nothing better for a
person than silence. Not study is the most important thing but action; whoever indulges in
too many words brings about sin” (Mishnah Abot 1:17).

10-12. The three remaining known Pharisees all belong to the four-man delegation sent to
remove Josephus from his generalship. In his Vita he introduces them as follows:

They [Ananus and his entourage] decided to send men who were of different social
classes, but of similar educational level. Two of them, Jonathan and Ananias were lay
people, [51] affiliated with the Pharisees, the third one, Jo‘azar (?), belonged to a priestly
family, he too being a Pharisee; Simon, the youngest of them, was descended from high
priests.
Vita 197

The story of this delegation takes up one third of Josephus’ autobiography (Vita 189-332),
whereas in his earlier account he devotes only a few paragraphs to the whole episode
(War 2.626-631). In the War, all four members are called “distinguished men, … very
capable speakers.” The same passage differs from the Vita in other important details,
including the delegates’ names (War 2.628). Our purpose here is not to analyze these
passages in any detail, but to see what we can find out about these individuals as
Pharisees.

10.The priest Jo(‘a)zar held a subordinate position in the delegation headed by Jonathan.
From War 2.628 we learn that Joesdrus (=Jo‘azar) was the son of a certain Nomikos, either
a man with a very unusual Greek name or a legal expert. [52] Jo(‘a)zar may be identical
with the priest Jo(‘a)zar sent together with Josephus to Galilee (Vita 29). Josephus
accused this Jo(‘a)zar of unduly enriching himself through priestly tithes and bribes
(Vita 63, 73).

11. Both Ananias and Jonathan are characterized by Josephus as demotikoi. This
expression implies nonpriestly status and lower social standing, especially in the eyes of
Josephus, who prided himself on his priestly background. In the War, Ananias is identified
as Sadouki, translated by Thackeray as “son of Sadok” (War 2.451, 628 [Loeb Classical
Library]). Doubts about the appropriateness of this designation and its translation have
been raised by Schlatter, who considered Sadouki a surname or title (Sadducee),
mistakenly introduced here. [53] Could it be that Josephus in his earlier report meant to
present a Sadducee instead of a Pharisee?

Ananias is treated by Josephus with great hostility. He is described as an evil and

mischievous man who had no scruples about using religious pretexts to arrest Josephus
(Vita 290). In a separate incident, Ananias, along with others, was sent to negotiate the
withdrawal of the Roman garrison from Jerusalem at the beginning of the war. They gave
the Romans a pledge of security, but that pledge was broken as soon as they laid down
their arms. the whole garrison, except its commander, was slain (War 2.451-453). If we
take Josephus seriously, making due allowance for his personal polemics, it appears that
certain Pharisees were actively involved in the revolt from the beginning. At the same time,
some were, of course, trying to prevent war. [54]

12. According to the Vita, where his name is mentioned fifty times, the delegation to arrest
Josephus was headed by Jonathan. Josephus in fact quotes two letters he received from
“Jonathan and those with him” (Vita 217, 229). Josephus also accuses Jonathan of having
used the occasion of the Sabbath service in the synagogue of Tiberias to incite the
populace against him (Vita 277, 302). It is difficult to gauge the veracity of these
accusations but they would suggest a preponderance of political over religious
considerations.

In War 2.628, the last member of the delegation is Judas, son of Jonathan, instead of
Jonathan himself. Grammatically, he appears here to be a brother of the Simon who,
in Vita 197, belonged to a high priestly family. The same Judas, son of Jonathan, appears
alongside Ananias Sadouki in the garrison incident. It is difficult to decide which tradition to
trust: Jonathan the lay Pharisee of the Vita, or Judas son of Jonathan and brother of Simon
(of high priestly family?) and spokesperson for the rebels. Probably the detailed account in
the Vita, written to counter specific accusations by another historian and politician, Justus
of Tiberias (Vita 336), should be given preference. The best argument in its favor would be
if the letters from and to Jonathan (Vita 217-218, 226-227, 229) could be shown to be
genuine, but I doubt this is possible.

CONCLUSIONS
In our search through the different sources, we have been able to identify only a dozen
individual Pharisees. They lived over a period of about two centuries and are not of
sufficient number to draw any statistical conclusions. Due to the character of our sources,
they cannot be presumed to constitute a representative sample. Of the twelve, two are
known to have left to join other, conflicting groups (Saddok, Paul). The Pharisaic identity or
even the historicity of several of the others is in doubt. Two are priests (Josephus,
Jo‘azar). [55]

All the Pharisees mentioned in Josephus – plus at least Nicodemus – are politically active,
yet most often they represent a minority position or have to accept the authority of others.
All except Paul (and Luke’s Simon) are active in or coming from Judea. Pollion,
Nicodemus, as well as Gamaliel and his son, Simon, exercise leadership functions. The
last two represent the only case in which more than one member of a family is known as a
Pharisee. [56] No woman – not Shalomzion Alexandra nor even any unnamed woman – is
ever called a Pharisee. This is not entirely surprising. Yet, though the Sadducees are even
less well-known than the Pharisees, Sadducean women are mentioned in the
Mishnah. [57] In no case do we have information about how one became a Pharisee,
except for Josephus’ problematic statement that he decided to follow them.

A question that imposes itself is why we know of so few individual Pharisees. A standard
answer has been that “Pharisee” was not a self-designation and that other terms, such as
“sage” or “scribe,” were normally used instead. It is clear that the term parush (“separated”)
was often used with negative connotations in Hebrew and Aramaic sources. [58] Yet it was
used for self-identification by Paul and Josephus. Separation “from the majority of the
peo[ple]” is also described as a voluntary act on the part of the authors of an important and
famous document from Qumran, the so-called “Halachic Letter” or 4QMMT. [59] Though
presumably Essenes, they advocate halakhic positions ascribed to the Sadducees in the
Mishnah. [60] Thus, one cannot simply assert that “separate ones” (= “Pharisees”) was
necessarily a pejorative term.

In his entire work, Josephus mentions only two Sadducees [61] and four Essenes. In the
New Testament, only Acts 5:17 identifies a high priest and his entourage as Sadducean.
As is well-known, Essenes are never mentioned in the New Testament or in rabbinic
literature. Thus, with the exception of the followers of Jesus the Pharisees have by far the
highest number of known individual members among all the Jewish groups that were active
before the events leading to the revolt of 66 ce! [62]

In spite of these somewhat minimalist conclusions, I hope this prosopographical

investigation can further the more general study of Pharisaism and of Second Temple
Judaism in various ways.

First, we must accept the limitations of our knowledge about real-life Pharisees, due to the
nature of our sources.

Second, although a prosopographical approach can teach us little about Pharisaic doctrine
and observance, we do get glimpses into the lives not of the Pharisees but
of some Pharisees. Both negative and positive stereotypes are challenged by this look at
individuals.

Third, although few generalizations are advisable, all the individuals studied were of some
prominence. Many, however, found themselves in a minority position or had to bow to the
authority of others.

Fourth, Neusner included more than fifty “Pharisees” in his groundbreaking study The
Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70. Of these, only two or three are clearly
identifiable as such. Some of those excluded from our list (e.g., Hillel, Shammai, Simon
ben Shetach) may well have been Pharisees, but their connection with the group is
attested only in sources of the fifth century or later and can no longer simply be taken for
granted. [63]

Fifth, the entire methodology for identifying a person, a doctrine, or a literary composition,
as Pharisaic must change. In contrast to earlier generations, scholars today find
themselves unable to confidently attribute any pre-70 document to a Pharisaic
author. [64] Thus, to understand the Pharisees, we may first have to acknowledge that we
know much less than we thought we did.

[1] Il Nuovo Zingarelli: Vocabolario della lingua italiana di Nicola Zingarelli, Bologna, 11ª
ed., 1986.

[2] See Albert I. Baumgarten, “The Name of the Pharisees,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 102 (1983), 411-428.

[3] A. Michel - J. Le Moyne, "Pharisiens", Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément, Vol.

7 (1966) 1022-1115. This remains the most extensive collection of sources, with particular
attention to the New Testament and to Jesus’ relations with the Pharisees.

Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70. (3 vols. Leiden,
1971); Offers a critical study of the rabbinic traditions about pre-70 sages and about the
schools of Hillel and Shammai. The Pharisaic affiliation of all the sages is assumed rather
than argued.

Idem, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973). A reconstruction based on separate studies of the Pharisees in
Josephus, the New Testament, and rabbinic literature.

Ellis Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution. The Pharisees' Search for the Kingdom
Within (Nashville, 1978). An original reconstruction, based on a somewhat acritical use of
the sources.

Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society. A

Sociological Approach (Wilmington, Delaware, 1988). Uses sociological models in order to
try to elucidate the function of the groups studied.

Marcel Pelletier, Les Pharisiens. Histoire d'un parti méconnu (Paris, 1990). A general
survey. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned studies are not sufficiently taken into
consideration.

Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (Leiden,

1991). A systematic and critical study of all the passages in which Josephus speaks about
the Pharisees.

David B. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and
Acts (Emory Studies in Early Christianity), New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1991.
Concentrates on the literary function of the Pharisees in Luke/Acts.

[4] Roland Deines, __________________________; see also a critical, at times polemical,

review of earlier literature in Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees, 3. 320-368;
Charlotte Klein, Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (London, 1978), 67-91; E. P.
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London, 1977), 1-12, 33-75.

[5] G. Stemberger, Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener (Stuttgarter Bibel-Studien 144;

Stuttgart, 1991) (Translated into English and Italian).

[6] Cf. Louis Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their
Faith, 3rd ed. with supplement, Philadelphia: JPS, 1962. Idem, The Cambridge History of
Judaism, vol. 2, (Cambridge, 1989), 229-277.

[7] Shaye J. D. Cohen ("The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the
End of Jewish Sectarianism, Hebrew Union College Annual 55 [1984] 36 n. 20) lists eleven
of these. An aocryphal gospel fragment (Papyrus Oxyrrhynchus 840.10-11) mentions “a
certain Pharisee chief priest by the name of ….” Unfortunately, the reading of the name is
extremely doubtful although the editors cautiously suggest Levi. This priest is described as
having an argument with Jesus in the Temple area about purification requirements.
Although preserved only in a copy of around 400 ce, this text betrays an unexpectedly
detailed acquaintance with some Jewish purity regulations (e.g. the double stairway used
for ritual baths). This fact, however, does not bestow historical probability on the incident
recounted. See Adolph Büchler, “The New Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel,” Jewish
Quarterly Review 20 (1908), 330-346; François Bovon, “Fragment Oxyrhynchus 840,
Fragment of a Lost Gospel, Witness of an Early Christian Controversy Over
Purity,” Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000), 705-728. Another Pharisee by the name of
Arimanius is mentioned in a gnostic text from Nag Hammadi (II.1.1.8,12). His question
“[Where] is your master whom you followed?” addressed to John the son of Zebedee, sets
the stage for the theological exposition of the tractate. Arimanius here seems to be a
literary device more than a historical figure.

[8] Ad Is 8:14: "Duas domus Nazaraei . . . duas familias interpretantur, Sammai et

Hellel, ex quibus orti sunt scribae et pharisaei" ("The Nazareans interpret the two houses
[of Is 8:14] as the two families, of Shammai and of Hillel, from which the scribes and
Pharisees originated") Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, vol. 73 ed. M. Adriaen, Paris-
Turnhout, 1963, p. 116; PL 24.119. Cf. A.F.J. Klijn, "Jerome's Quotations from a
Nazoraean Interpretation of Isaiah," in Judéo-Christianisme: Récherches . . . offertes . . . à
J. Danielou (= Récherches de science religieuse 60 [1972]) 249-251. S.J.D. Cohen,
Significance 52-53.

[9] On Judah ben Gedidyah see below.

[10] E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977, pp.
60-62; J. Neusner, Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press, 1981, pp. 70-71; S. J.D. Cohen, Significance, pp. 36-42; Stemberger, Pharisäer,
pp. 40, 129-135.

[11] Ant. 13.289. The mss. differ concerning the tense of the verb. The meaning of disciple
(mathētēs) in this context is unclear. On the one hand, it might be taken as an awkward
way of saying that Hyrcanus himself was a Pharisee, as might also be inferred
from Ant. 13.296, according to which he abandoned the Pharisees for the Sadducees. On
the other hand, Hyrcanus is clearly distinguished from “all the Pharisees” Ant. 13.292). The
problem is foremost a literary one: What idea did Josephus and/or his source want to
convey about Hyrcanus? It seems that at most he is presented as a pupil or supporter of
the Pharisees, never as a member of the group.

[12] See Joseph Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters: From Mattathias
to the Death of John Hyrcanus, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990, pp. 147-150; Emmanuelle
Main, “Les Sadducéens vus par Flavius Josèphe,” Revue Biblique 97 (1990) 161-206,
especially 190-202.
[13] Cf. Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical
Study, Leiden: Brill, 1991, pp. 229-230.

[14] Ant. 15.3-4, 370. Josephus is very inconsistent in his report on the manslaughter
trial of Herod. In the War he says nothing of Pollion or Samaias. In the Antiquities he first
reports the intervention of Samaias (14.172-176), but later credits Pollion with it (15.4; cf.
370).

[15] mHagiga 2,2; mAvot 1,10-11. Louis Feldman, "The Identity of Pollio, the
Pharisee," Jewish Quarterly Review 49 (1958-59) 53-62. Against this identification J.
Neusner, Pharisees I.159.

[16] Ant. 15.370: [Herod] “tried to persuade also the people around Pollion the
Pharisee and Samaias and most of those close to them to take the oath.”

[17] Cf. Ant. 14.172-176 where Samaias speaks with Ant. 15.370, where Pollion is
referred to as the protagonist on the same occasion. In Ant. 15.3-4, the majority of the mss
assign the leading role to Pollion, while some harmonize the story with Ant. 14, mentioning
Samaias in his stead.

[18] b.Pesajim 66a. For other traditions attributed to them see Neusner, Rabbinic
Traditions, 1.142-58.

[19] Ant. 18.10 (transl. Louis Feldman, Loeb Classical Library).

[20] Cf. Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical

Study, Leiden: Brill, 1991, pp. 282-285.

[21] Lk 7:36; 11:7; 14:1. The story of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Lk 18: 9-14)
is a parable that will not be discussed here.

[22] Many authors note that the historical basis of the Lucan banquet stories is not at
all certain. Cf. Gérard Rossé, Il Vangelo di Luca: Commento esegetico e teologico (Roma,
1992), 274; Mark Allan Powell, "The Religious Leaders in Luke: A Literary Critical
Study," Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990) 93-110; John T. Carroll, "Luke's Portrayal
of the Pharisees," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988) 604-621.

[23] Cf. Jouette M. Bassler, "Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth

Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989) 635-646. The so-called "Gospel of
Nicodemus," also known as the "Acts of Pilate," is inspired by reminiscences of John's
Nicodemus, but has no historical connection with him. Cf. Mario Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi
del Nuovo Testamento, vol. I/2, Genova: Marietti, 1981, p. 233.

[24] Abot R. Nat. A 14 (Schechter p. 57). Concerning the relationship(s)

between Abot de R. Natan and Mishnah Abot see Günter Stemberger, Einleitung in
Talmud und Midrasch (8th ed.; München, 1992) 224.

[25] See e.g. Giessener Mischna, Abot.

[26] It may be that there was more than one prominent Gamaliel in the middle of the first
century, because the high priest, Jesus, son of Gamaliel (Ant. 20.213, 223), does not seem
to have been a brother of his contemporary, Simon, son of Gamaliel.

[27] See Schürer-Vermes-Millar Vol. I p.456 n. 6.

[28] In some gnostic texts, Gamaliel becomes the name of an angel. Cf. "The Gospel
of the Egyptians" III.2.52.21 in James A. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library, San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977, p. 199. Even an entire apocryhal gospel, dating from the
5th or 6th century, is attributed to Gamaliel (Mario Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo
Testamento I-III, 1966-1981, I/2, 346-366). Gamaliel is cited also in other New Testament
apocrypha, but none of these texts appear to offer any reliable information independent of
the canonical gospels.

[29] See Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, 1.341-376, especially 364-367 for a

convenient but incomplete list of 26 traditions attributable to Gamaliel the Elder. I. Konovitz
(Tannaitic Symposia, Vol. 1 R. Abba – Rabban Gamliel bar Yehudah ha-Nasi [Jerusalem,
1967] pp. 264-274) cites 45 different traditions (in Hebrew/Aramaic) , but omita some listed
even by Neusner and includes others that refer to Yavneh and should therefore be
attributed to Gamaliel II.

[30] mSota 9,15. perishut is an abstract noun from the same root parash as
"Pharisee". Here it does not seem to indicate any connection with Pharisaism. This text is
found in an appendix to the Mishnah that contains material later than Judah the Patriarch,
its main redactor. On the origin of the designation “Pharisee,” see Albert I. Baumgarten,
“The Name of the Pharisees,” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983) 411-428.

[31] Also Josephus makes a similar claim for himself in Vita 8-9.

[32] Hyam Maccoby’s assertion (Paul and Hellenism [London and Philadelphia, 1991]
that “it was Jesus who was the Pharisee, and Paul the non-Pharisee” is interesting but
unfounded. Maccoby thinks that Paul’s knowledge of Pharisaic teachings was inadequate
and that therefore Paul could not have been a (good?) Pharisee. This approach begs the
question: What were the principal criteria for belonging to the Pharisees?

[33] 1 Thess 2:9; 1 Cor 4:12; 9:6; cf. Acts 18:3.

[34] Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the
Pharisee (New Haven, 1990), 26. For detailed discussions of Paul’s Pharisaism see Martin
Hengel and Roland Deines, The pre-Christian Paul (London and Philadelphia, 1991) 27-53;
K. W. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel aus Israel: Die jüdische Identität des Paulus nach ihrer
Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT 62; Tübingen, 1992), 48-57, 108-109.

[35] War 2.162; Ant. 17.41; Vita 191.

[36] Ernst Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (7th ed.; Göttingen, 1977), 615.
Similarly Franz Mussner, Apostelgeschichte (Neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg, 1984), 138.

[37] Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 342-356.

[38] Thus Mason’s assertion (Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 354 n. 37) that the
principal point of comparison is the fact that Pharisees and Stoics had comparable
functions in their respective societies is at least problematic.

[39] Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 140.

[40] Free will and providence: Ant. 16.398; cf. War 2.163; Ant. 13.172; 18.13. See
Harold W. Attridge, "Josephus and His Works," in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period, ed. by Michael Stone (Compendia ... Section 2 Vol. II) Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984,
pp. 226-227. Idem, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of
Flavius Josephus, Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976, pp. 178-179. Seth Schwartz (Josephus
and Judaean Politics, Leiden: Brill, 1990, pp. 172-208) points out how accurate Torah
observance is a central theme of the Antiquities, stated prominently in Ant. 1.14. As we
have seen, this is also central of Paul's Pharisaism. It is also one of the principal facets of
later rabbinic Judaism. According to Schwartz, the Antiquities is propaganda for this post-
pharisaic type of Judaism.

[41] Vita 191-332; cf. War 2.627-631; Shaye J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and
Rome, Leiden: Brill, 1979.

[42] Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 365; Shaye J. D. Cohen, Josephus in
Galilee and Rome (Leiden, 1979), 144-145.

[43] Vita 193-196. Ananus is the only person called a Sadducee by Josephus (Ant. 20.199)
after John Hyrcanus’ friend, Jonathan, almost two centuries earlier (Ant. 13.293-298).

[44] War 4.159-160. The spelling here is Symeon son of Gamaliel, but the identity of the
person should not be in doubt.

[45] Ant. 20.213, 223. At one point, Schürer-Vermes (History, vol. 1.431 n. 5) distinguishes
the two, but at another (2.232) he considers them the same person, identifying them with
Joshua son of Gamla and Ben Gamla. Louis Feldman (Josephus, Loeb Classical Library
vol. 9/10, General Index s.v. “Gamaliel”) considers the high priest Jesus ben Gamaliel a
brother of Simon, but distinguishes him from Jesus son of Gamalas. Josephus mentions
his own friendship with Jesus son of Gamalas (Vita 204), but does not hint at any family
relationship between the latter and Simon. See now also Flavius Josephus, Aus meinem
Leben (Vita): Kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar (ed. F. Siegert et al.;
Tübingen, 2001), 203.

[46] For a detailed study of the power relationships in Jerusalem see Martin Goodman, The
Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome A.D. 66-
70 (Cambridge, 1987), esp. 164, 183-187.

[47] Mishnah Keritot 1:7; see Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, 1.377-378.

[48] See t.Sukkah 4:4; y.Sukkah 5:4; b. Sukkah 53a.

[49] Letters: t.Sanhedrin 2:6; Midrash Tannaim to Deuteronomy 26:13; beautiful Gentile: y.
Abodah Zarah 1:9; b. Abodah Zarah 20a.

[50] Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, 1.387.

[51] demotikoí is translated by Thackeray (Loeb Classical Library) as “from the lower
ranks.” The term does have the connotation of “common” or “ordinary.” Here, however, it
seems to serve primarily to distinguish nonpriests from priests.

[52] The word is taken as a personal name by most translators, but may also be a common
noun: “learned in the Law,” “scribe,” “lawyer” (cf. K. H. Rengstorf et al., A Complete
Concordance to Flavius Josephus, 4 vols. [Leiden, 1973-83], s.v. nomikos. The preceding
definite article makes this solution somewhat awkward (cf., however, Mat 13:55). In
contrast to Luke 7:30, 11:45-52, and 14:3, Josephus never connects Pharisees
and nomikoi. Joachim Jeremias (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus [Philadelphia, 1969], 234)
assumes without further proof that both Jozar/Joezer and his father were
scribes. Nomikos is a frequent personal name in Byzantine times, but apparently not
earlier. The father may have had a Greek name, whereas the son went by a Hebrew name.
This phenomenon was somewhat rare—the reverse was much more common—but it did
occur. Thus, it is impossible to draw any definite conclusions about either Hellenization
(Greek name?) or professional position (scribe/lawyer?) of Jo‘azar or his father.

[53] Adolf Schlatter, Die hebräischen Namen bei Josephus (Gütersloh, 1913), 93 (reprinted
in A. Schlatter, Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus [ed. K. H. Rengstorf; Darmstadt,
1970], 205); cf. S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus, 224 n. 88; Jonathan Price, Jerusalem Under
Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State 66-70 C.E. (Leiden, 1992), 44.

[54] Josephus describes both the massacre of the Roman garrison and his meeting “with
the chief priests and the leading Pharisees” (Vita 21) right after the murder of Menajem.
Since he acknowledges that in their attempt to prevent a full-blown war “we professed to
concur with their [i.e. the revolutionaries’] opinions” (Vita 22), it is possible that Ananias
was trying to collaborate with the revolutionaries to prevent worse from happening. But
Josephus does not make this clear.

[55] On the Parisee chief priest mentioned in Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 see note 7 above.

[56] See, however, Acts 23:6, where Paul is said to claim “I am a Pharisee and a son of
Pharisees.”

[57] The term ’ishah perushah at Mishnah Sotah 3:4, often rendered as “Pharisee woman,”
should be understood as “a woman who abstains” (from marital intercourse?); cf. E. Rivkin,
“Defining the Pharisees,” 240-241. Sadducean women, more precisely “daughters of
Sadducees,” appear in Mishnah Niddah 4:2 and elsewhere.

[58] See E. Rivkin, “Defining the Pharisees,” 234-238.

[59] E. Qimron and J. Strugnell (eds.), Qumran Cave 4 V: Miqsat Ma‘ase Ha-
Torah (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 10; Oxford, 1994).

[60] Ibid. 116-117, 162, 187-188, 191-200.

[61] On Ananus see now James McLaren, Journal of Theological Studies 2001.

[62] Other small and large groups are mentioned by Josephus, and some also in the New
Testament, such as the “Fourth Philosophy,” the Sicarii, the Zealots, Theudas and his
followers, an Egyptian and his followers, the Herodians. Except for the Zealots and Sicarii
during the great revolt, our information about these groups is very limited.

[63] It has often been assumed – and Rivkin (“Defining the Pharisees,” 214-220) has tried
to demonstrate – that all the pre-70 sages were Pharisees. This claim does not stand up
under scrutiny. See Stemberger, Pharisäer, 50.

[64] See J. H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City,
NY, 1983-85), 2.642: “It is unwise to label these psalms [the Psalms of Solomon] as either
Pharisaic or Essene.” As a matter of fact, none of the works included in these massive two
volumes is labeled as Pharisaic in origin.