Pharisees: Who Are the Pharisees in the Bible? (PLUS VERSES)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

In my classroom, students often ask whether the Jews of antiquity shared common beliefs. This question strikes me as peculiar, like asking if all Americans believe in the same things. Just as contemporary American society is diverse, ancient Judaism was far from monolithic.

Historical sources reveal that Judaism in antiquity consisted of various streams and schools of thought, each with distinct views on God, salvation, and the role of Scripture. Among these diverse groups were the Pharisees, a significant and influential sect.

The Pharisees in the Bible often appear in discussions and narratives, but understanding who they truly were requires looking beyond the scriptures. These individuals were deeply committed to the Torah and its interpretation, emphasizing piety, ritual purity, and adherence to traditions. 

Throughout this article, we will explore the Pharisees' beliefs, teachings, and their complex relationship with Jesus. We will also examine historical sources that mention them and discuss the controversial questions regarding their identities and roles.

By the end, we aim to provide a comprehensive scholarly perspective on who the Pharisees were and their significance not only for ancient Judaism but also for the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity.

For a deeper dive into the historical context of the Gospels and an exploration of the distinction between history and myth in these narratives, consider enrolling in Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's online course “The Unknown Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” You won't be disappointed! 

Pharisees: What Sources Do We Have?

The Pharisees are most familiar from the pages of the Gospels. In these texts, they frequently appear as opponents of Jesus, criticized for their excessive concern with legal technicalities and minor points of ritual law (e.g. Matthew 23:23–28; Luke 11:37–44). 

The Gospels particularly emphasize their hypocrisy, depicting them as individuals who seek admiration from others while failing to adhere to the burdensome laws they impose on their fellow Jews (e.g. Matthew 23:4). This portrayal, however, reflects the theological and narrative aims of the Gospel writers and must be understood within that context.

Another valuable source of information about the Pharisees comes from the Jewish historian Josephus. He frequently discusses the Pharisees, noting their distinctive beliefs and actions. According to him, the Pharisees had a reputation for their interpretation of traditional laws not explicitly found in the books of Moses.

He also highlights their attempts to gain political power in Judea and Galilee, though he suggests they were not particularly successful in this endeavor. 

Josephus’ accounts are important but must be approached critically, as his writings often serve apologetic purposes. To put it more bluntly, Josephus is known as a historian who often tried to present Judaism and the Jews in a positive light to a Roman audience, hoping to reduce tensions and animosities.

A third source of information comes from Rabbinic literature, such as the Mishnah. However, these sources are late, dating from the 3rd to the 5th centuries, and there is significant debate about whether they accurately reflect the Pharisees’ position before the Jewish revolts in 70 and 135 C.E. 

In other words, the Rabbinic texts are valuable for understanding the development of Jewish thought and practice, but the historical context in which they were written may have influenced their portrayal of the Pharisees 

Examining these sources, it becomes evident that our understanding of the Pharisees is fraught with challenges. 

The Rabbinic documents post-date the times of Jesus and Paul, the synoptic Gospels depict Pharisees as negative foils, and Josephus’ writings contain apologetic elements. Moreover, the only undisputed Pharisee from whom we have any written records is the apostle Paul (we’ll discuss this later in the article). 

As Joseph Sievers noted in an article: “After over two decades of research, there is at least one assured result: we know considerably less about the Pharisees than an earlier generation knew.” This caution is necessary, but it doesn’t render our efforts futile. (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Pharisees: A Look at Their Origins and Teachings

The name “Pharisee” likely derives from the Hebrew root “P-R-Sh,” meaning “to separate.” Others probably gave them this name, as the Pharisees themselves referred to their group using different terms, such as scribe or sage, which later evolved into the term rabbi (see: “Did you Know?” section). 

The Pharisaic movement was unique in that it wasn’t inherited like the roles of priests or village elders. This characteristic allowed it to transcend class boundaries to some extent. Pharisees were primarily householders from the “middle class,” including tradespeople and professionals. Their professions varied widely —  they included tent-makers such as Paul and educators such as Nicodemus.

Thus, one wasn’t a Pharisee by profession but rather by a commitment to the group's beliefs and practices.

Josephus, a key historical source, describes four major Jewish sects: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the "Fourth Philosophy," which is comparable to the Zealots. He places the origins of the Pharisees around the time of Jonathan the high priest (c. 145 B.C.E.). 

According to Josephus, the Pharisees played significant roles in Hasmonean politics. They opposed King Janneaus but later allied with his wife, Queen Salome Alexandra. Their influence fluctuated under her son Aristobolus, and later under Herod, who favored them partly because the Pharisee Pollion advised the people to accept his rule. 

However, despite their earlier involvement in politics, the Pharisees of Jesus’ time were a voluntary association with limited influence. Josephus estimated their number at around 6,000 in an empire with over 4 million Jews.

In the New Testament: A Historical Introduction, Bart Ehrman rightly points out: “Most Jews in Palestine did not belong to any of these groups… Pharisees claimed six thousand members, and Essenes claimed four thousand. The Sadducees probably had far fewer.”

What Did Pharisees Believe?

The Pharisees’ beliefs eventually became central to Rabbinic Judaism after 70 C.E. They upheld a synthesis of free will and determinism and strongly believed in the sanctity of the oral law.

Moreover, Pharisees believed in angels, spirits, and bodily resurrection. Josephus notes, “They also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them. And that under the Earth, there will be rewards or punishments according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life.”

The Acts of the Apostles 23:8 corroborate this, stating: “For the Sadducees hold that there is no resurrection and that there are no angels or spirits, while the Pharisees believe in all three.”

Additionally, their belief in free will was nuanced. Josephus explains: 

“And when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom of men acting as they see fit. Since their notion is that it has pleased God to make a temperament whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of men can act virtuously or viciously.” Rabbi Akiva (c. 50-135 C.E.), a Pharisee, succinctly summarized this belief: “All is foreseen, but free will is given.” (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.13)

Lester L. Grabbe, in his Introduction to Second Temple Judaism, emphasizes the Pharisees’ attempt to replicate the temple cult in their own homes. He notes: 

“The Pharisees claimed to have traditions from the fathers which were not written in the Hebrew Bible... The best estimate about the content of these traditions is that they represented an attempt by a group to reproduce the temple cult in their own home. That is, the laws seemed to turn primarily on eating ordinary food in a state of cultic purity (normally required in the temple but not necessarily in the home) and thus involved questions of ritual purity, eating, tithing (since only properly tithed food could be eaten), the Sabbath, and festivals.”

Additionally, Ludovic Nobel summarizes the Pharisees' basic features: “Attaching great importance to the Law (written and oral), they were legalists and strictly observed the Sabbath, circumcision, and annual festivals. Many Pharisaic teachings were integrated into rabbinic tradition.” (my translation)

To further clarify the distinctions among Jewish groups, the table below compares the beliefs and practices of the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.

Now, having explored the Pharisees' origins and beliefs, let's turn our attention to one of the most controversial and intriguing aspects of their history: their relationship with Jesus. What was the nature of their interactions, and why did Jesus criticize them?

Jesus and the Pharisees in the Bible

In the Gospels, the Pharisees are often portrayed as Jesus' primary opponents. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, they frequently challenge Jesus, questioning his authority and actions (e.g. Mark 2:24; Mark 3:6).

However, we should not take these stories at face value. As Bart D. Ehrman notes: 

“We know that Pharisees interacted frequently with Christian churches after the death of Jesus. Is it possible that the opposition leveled against the church by Pharisees after Jesus’ death affected the ways that Christians told stories about his life?” 

Most historical Jesus scholars would agree with this assessment. Therefore, it’s a mistake to overemphasize the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, particularly in contrasting Pharisees and the Mosaic Law with the historical Jesus.

The Pharisees were a highly committed group of Jews dedicated to following God’s law, as revealed in the Torah, to the fullest extent possible. Where the written law was ambiguous, they relied on well-established oral traditions.

Contrary to the Gospel's portrayal of them as hypocrites, most Pharisees appear to have been sincere and devout, emphasizing the meticulous observance of God's law in all its detail. 

Historical Jesus, however, had a different perspective on what mattered to God. While the Pharisees focused on strict adherence to the law, Jesus emphasized the underlying principles and the “spirit of the law,” rather than its minute details.

The controversies between the historical Jesus and the Pharisees didn’t revolve around whether God's law should be followed, but rather the correct interpretation of that law.

Disagreements arose over moral decisions and interpretations of ambiguous aspects of the Mosaic law. For instance, regarding divorce, while Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife (Deut. 24:1–4), Jesus took a more radical stance, opposing divorce (Mark 10:2-9). Similarly, disputes over the proper interpretation of Sabbath laws were frequent and intense.

An illustrative example involves the law to keep the Sabbath day holy, one of the Ten Commandments. Contrary to accusations that Jesus broke the Sabbath and encouraged others to do likewise, it’s difficult to find, as E. P. Sanders notes in his study Jesus and Judaism, any instance in the Gospel traditions where Jesus actually violated Sabbath laws from the Hebrew Bible. 

Instead, Jesus often diverged from the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Sabbath laws. 

For example, he healed on the Sabbath or allowed his disciples to pluck grain to eat on the Sabbath. Healing on the Sabbath is nowhere forbidden in the Law of Moses, and Jesus himself never plucked grain on the Sabbath. For Jesus, an overarching principle guided what was appropriate on the Sabbath: “Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27).

Thus, the fundamental issue between Jesus and the Pharisees wasn’t whether the law should be kept, but how to interpret it. An additional point to remember is that these were internal Jewish debates, similar to the disputes between other Jewish groups such as the Essenes and the Sadducees.

As Bart Ehrman notes in his book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium:

“These heated disagreements with the Pharisees were not particularly out of place in Jesus' world of first-century Palestinian Judaism… There were lots of internal disputes among Jewish teachers… It was not, as is sometimes thought among Christian readers, a case of Jesus against everyone else… There were lots of views that all contended with one another, each group insisting that it was right and that the others were, tragically, wrong.”

In summary, the conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees reflected broader, ongoing debates within Judaism about the interpretation of the law. They were intense but not unique, mirroring the dynamic and diverse nature of first-century Jewish thought.

After reading about the heated controversies between Jesus and the Pharisees, you might assume that no follower of Jesus would ever come from a Pharisaic background. However, you would be wrong. One of the most influential figures in early Christianity, Paul of Tarsus, was himself a Pharisee!

Famous Pharisees: A Brief Overview

Our primary sources of information about Paul come from the Acts of the Apostles and his undisputed letters. These sources provide valuable insights into Paul's background and his relationship with the Pharisaic tradition.

In his letters, Paul explicitly identifies himself as a Pharisee. In Philippians 3:4-6, he writes: 

“If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.”

This passage indicates that Paul saw his Pharisaic background as a significant part of his identity and credentials.

Additionally, the Acts of the Apostles also confirm Paul's Pharisaic roots. In Acts 23:6, Paul allegedly declares before the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.”

This statement reinforces his identification with the Pharisaic tradition and highlights his belief in the resurrection, a key Pharisaic doctrine. 

Furthermore, Paul's respect for the Torah also aligns with Pharisaic teachings. His writings reflect a deep reverence for the Jewish law, even as he reinterprets it through the lens of his faith in the risen Jesus. 

Additionally, Paul often framed his religious hopes in messianic and apocalyptic language, especially after his transformative experience on the road to Damascus. This experience marked a profound shift in his mission but didn’t erase his Pharisaic roots.

Alan F. Segal, in his book Paul the Convert, captures the complexity of Paul's identity: “To read Paul properly, I maintain, one must recognize that Paul was a Pharisaic Jew who converted to a new apocalyptic, Jewish sect and then lived in a Hellenistic, gentile Christian community as a Jew among gentiles.”

This perspective highlights Paul's ability to navigate and integrate his Pharisaic background with his new faith in the risen Jesus, thus making him a unique bridge between Jewish and Gentile communities.

Beyond Paul, other notable Pharisaic teachers include, among others, Gamaliel and Nicodemus. Gamaliel, a respected Pharisee and a teacher of the law is mentioned in Acts 5:34-40 as a voice of moderation and wisdom within the Sanhedrin.

Nicodemus, who appears in the Gospel of John, is depicted as a Pharisee who engages in meaningful dialogue with Jesus and later assists in his burial (John 3:1-21; John 19:39-40). These figures exemplify the diversity and depth of the Pharisaic tradition and contribute to its rich legacy within Jewish history.

Conclusion

The Pharisees were a complex and influential sect within ancient Judaism, dedicated to the meticulous interpretation and practice of the Torah. While the Bible portrays the Pharisees negatively, historical evidence suggests that conflicts Jesus had with them revolved around differing interpretations of the law rather than its validity or authority.

Furthermore, Paul of Tarsus, a Pharisee who became a pivotal figure in early Christianity, exemplifies the intricate relationship between Pharisaic Judaism and the nascent Christian movement. His writings reflect a deep respect for the Torah, even as he reinterpreted it through his faith in Jesus.

Finally, the Pharisees and Sadducees, along with other Jewish groups, contributed to the rich tapestry of Jewish religious life in antiquity, providing a crucial context for understanding the origins and development of both Judaism and Christianity.