The Pharisees are frequently depicted in the New Testament as adversaries of early Christians. However, this narrow portrayal fails to capture their broader historical significance and the substantial role they played in shaping Jewish religious life during the Second Temple period and beyond. This article reevaluates the Pharisees’ leadership by exploring their positive contributions to both Judaism and the foundational development of early Christianity. Key aspects discussed include their twofold view of the Law of Moses, their pioneering efforts in synagogue worship, and their progressive stances on theological matters such as resurrection, the existence of angels, and social stratification. By highlighting these dynamics of power and influence, the study advocates for a more balanced understanding of the Pharisees’ enduring impact, which extends beyond their opposition to Jesus and early Christians to encompass their essential role in shaping the religious landscape of their time. This reassessment fosters a deeper appreciation of the Pharisees as a vital force within Jewish tradition and the emerging Christian movement.
This article aims to highlight the positive aspects of Pharisaic leadership in the face of external challenges during the Second Temple era and the early Christian period. It serves as a lesson within theology, sociology, political science and other fields, emphasising the importance of diverse leadership narratives beyond the New Testament’s portrayal, which often presents a negative view of the Pharisees.
PhariseesSecond TempleJudaismpeople-conscious leadershipleadership dynamicspower dynamicshigh priest powerSynagoguemiddle classFunding information This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.Introduction
The New Testament’s negative perspective about the Pharisees has left a legacy that focuses primarily on their weaknesses, overshadowing their strengths and contributions (Flusser 2007; Levine 2022; Mash 2012; Mpeta 2022; Oliver 2013, 2022; Thiessen 2020). This biased portrayal, especially prevalent among scholars with a Christian perspective, has created an unbalanced view that fails to acknowledge the Pharisees’ historical significance and positive aspects (Dunn 1990; Gaston 1979; Sanders 1977). However, Jesus Christ’s reference to the Pharisees’ righteousness in Matthew 5:20 indicates that they had established a standard of righteousness that even he recognised. This suggests that the Pharisees played a vital role in the internal contestation of Judaism and the foundations of Christianity (Supratikno 2024). While Second Temple Judaism was not unilateral in its practical posture of the realities, it is essential to present a balanced perspective that highlights the Pharisees’ strengths, goodness and progressiveness, revealing their positive leadership and strategic posture during the Second Temple period and early Christianity (Maston 2010; Sacchi 2004, Schiffman 1991).
Oliver (2022) emphasises the unfairness towards the Pharisees, noting that despite significant scholarly attention (eds. Sievers & Levine 2021), little new information has emerged about them (eds. Neusner & Chilton 2007). The limited understanding stems from biased sources, including non-Pharisaic documents and the perspectives of Paul and Josephus. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of Matthew also present conflicting views on the Pharisees’ observance of the Torah (Adamczewski 2020:69–92; Young 2018). Oliver’s article aims to re-envision the Sabbath practices of the Pharisees, focusing on their positive impact on religious and political matters, their pioneering of the synagogue, and their views on the resurrection and angels. This balanced perspective is crucial for appreciating the Pharisees’ role in the Second Temple period and early Christianity.
Twofold view towards the Law of Moses
One of the notable characteristics of the Pharisees’ positive posture is their ‘two-fold view’ towards the Law of Moses (Josephus 1957:297; Grabbe 1996:41–44; Tov 2015:154). They perceive the Law of Moses from two different angles: written and oral law or tradition (Grabbe 1996:41–44; Tov 2015:154). The Pharisees acknowledged that the law given to Moses was twofold, consisting of the written and oral laws, including the prophets’ teachings and the Jewish people’s oral traditions (Mpeta 2022:2).
Grabbe (1996:40) notes that the Pharisees have exclusive forebearers ‘traditions’ identified within scripture (Mt 15:2; Mk 7:5; Gal 1:14) in the New Testament. Pharisees value these traditions, perceiving them as having the same significance as the written law (Basser 2012:174). Nickelsburg (2003:165) further emphasises the Pharisees’ perspective on belief by highlighting the importance of recognising the traditional interpretations of their forefathers.
Epstein (1986:96) asserts the perspective which upholds Pharisees’ advancing a view recognising forefathers’ interpretation as a relevant approach for the written law of Moses to maintain relevance and positive impact. Traditions of the forefathers stir the written law to heights which are foundationally important even in the Second Temple period (STP) (Fouche 2024). They perceived the forefathers’ perspective as a glue that reveals and accomplishes the correctness of the written law. Hence, Epstein (1986:96) recognises that the absence of upholding forefathers’ interpretation equals the difficulty of the relevance and the effectiveness of the written law: regardless of time, place and issue. This perspective raised the bar to qualify the Torah beyond its original emergence, viewing oral tradition as a strategic central contributor towards the wholeness of the effectiveness of the written law (Fisch 2020).
The Pharisees’ perspective towards the five books of Moses is not static but progressive and people-conscious through the embodiment of oral tradition (Van der Toorn 2023:385). Therefore, their approach to the law is characterised by a twofold view, being propagators of the oral tradition (Rivkin 2000).
Conservatives in religious matters
The Pharisees’ twofold views towards the law do not automatically lead to their perception as religious idealists outside the Judaistic context (Saldarini 1988:5). Though they are viewed as believers in oral tradition (Basser 2012:174), embodying a people-conscious progressive approach, they remain fundamentally conservative in their religious character. Their belief in oral interpretation has not served as a loophole for introducing doctrines that are foreign to the written law (Josephus 1957). From this perspective, they are seen as defenders of the religious context of Judaism against Hellenistic tendencies within Second Temple Judaism (Josephus 1927:164–166). They perceive the Hellenisation of Jews as something to be resisted at all costs. This attitude led them to apply conservative tendencies to defend their religious identity (Mpeta 2022:5).
Otzen (1990:117) shows Pharisees in a posture which wants to move beyond rigidity through a transformative and balanced approach, highlighting the dangers their religion could face within Hellenistic culture. They aimed to uphold the fundamental principles that define and express ordinary living. By perceiving law as the only way of applying in all things, their conservative attitude stretched against any Hellenistic practice within Jewish religious life (Josephus 1957). Hellenisation tendencies indirectly contributed to the conservative tendencies that shaped the religious identity of the Pharisees: without the threats of Hellenistic culture and assimilation, the Pharisees would not have perceived Greek culture as a threat to Jewish religious life, and their conservative tendencies would not have been as radical (Coogan 1986).
Otzen (1990:116) demonstrates that the infiltration of Hellenisation generated conflict between Hellenised Jews and the Pharisees, as their visions and missions did not align with one another’s interests. Nickelsburg (2003:163) notes that the Pharisees felt it necessary to observe the relevant precepts of the Torah in every context, reflecting their religious commitment to being custodians and implementers of the written Law through oral interpretation. Consequently, from a people-conscious approach, Hellenisation represents a culture that can only be countered by Jewish conservatism.
Conservatives in political matters
The conditions during Second Temple Judaism contributed to the conservative tendencies of the Pharisees, aiming to preserve the ideal of Jewish life in all interactions (Neusner 1973:48). Besides their religious conservatism, the Pharisees also exhibited political conservatism, perceiving the politics as inseparable from fundamental teachings of the Torah (Mpeta 2022:4). They believed that the political life of Jewish society should be derived from interpretations anchored in the Torah (Josephus 1957:365–370). This perspective aligns with a radical political approach where an organised and disciplined vanguard aims to reshape the political and cultural system according to a specific ideology, viewing politics as part of a divine call to remake the public sphere (Itamar 2023:692).
Epstein (1986:96) shows that the Pharisees, despite their attachment to the state, placed primary emphasis on the Torah. They believed that the Jewish religious constitution, the Torah, should fundamentally guide the governance of state political life (Goodblatt 1989). Therefore, the conservative tendency of the Pharisees aimed to counteract liberal tendencies against their twofold view within Second Temple Judaism. Epstein (1986:96) narrates that the Pharisees desired all state affairs to be governed strictly by Torah lines, without consideration for other factors. Their political approach propagated an exclusive philosophy centred on the Torah, despite new conditions challenging its centrality in governance (Josephus 1957:370).
The Pharisees’ political conservatism aimed to preserve Jewish governance from polytheistic influences through a theocratic approach emphasised in the Torah (Bickerman1947:103). Because of these conflicting approaches, the Pharisees valued conservatism as the route to redeem Judaism from political liberalism, conflicting with the written and oral law (Neusner 2003). Their conservative stance on political and religious issues enhanced their people-conscious identity within and outside Judaism (Niebuhr 2019). Otzen (1990:136) shows that early Pharisees may be directly identified with the Hasidic movement, which formed the popular background of the Maccabean revolt in 167 to 160 BCE (Josephus 1957:171–173). This identification underscores the conservative, people-conscious identity of the Pharisees against foreign infiltration.
Power and relations
Within the principle of power relations, it is evident that political, economic and social factors often manipulate religious influence (Horsley 2022:13–15; eds. Neusner & Chilton 200:17–18). During the Hasmonean period, such dynamics were apparent, as Hyrcanus’s action manifested the direction of the order of religious authority, regardless of the Torah’s historical principles. Stemberger (1995) recounts an incident where:
Hyrcanus hosted a banquet for the Pharisees, which was harmonious until a Pharisee of poor character mentioned a rumor about Hyrcanus’s mother being a prisoner, casting doubt on his legitimacy as high priest. A Sadducee present at the banquet, who was on good terms with Hyrcanus, convinced him that this was the opinion of all the Pharisees. Angered by this, Hyrcanus transferred his loyalty to the Sadducees and forbade all Pharisaic rules, resulting in increased hatred from the people. This incident illustrates a tragic chain of anger, intrigue, and misunderstanding (AJ 13:288–296). (p. 105)
Three dynamics of power
From the quotation above, three power dynamics appear to be independent yet interdependent in shaping the whole posture in the religious life of Second Temple Judaism. The first dynamic is the high priest’s power, represented by Hyrcanus (Josephus 1957:289). The second dynamic is the power of religious groupings, exemplified by the Pharisees (Josephus 1957:290). The third dynamic is the power of the people, reflected in their reaction to hatred towards Hyrcanus’s actions (Josephus 1957:296; Hatch 2019:157–158). These dynamics collectively influenced the Jewish nation’s broader identity and religious life during this period (Bvumbi 2021:154–157).
High priest power
The organisation of a banquet by a high priest signifies his authority as the highest figure in Second Temple Judaism’s religious life (Horsley 2022:88–92). It demonstrates that whoever he identifies with, whether an individual or a sect, gains high honour and access through his endorsement (Neusner 1973:48–49). This indicates that his orders were crucial in enhancing the influence of a religious grouping (Todd 2007). Regardless of a group’s doctrinal power, he played an important part in establishing opportunities for their influence (Marshak 2012). Therefore, power relations were a significant factor in determining the order of the day. The fact that he hosted a function for a particular religious sect in good standing with him further confirms this dynamic of power and relations (Josephus 1957:288, 299).
Religious grouping power
It may seem unusual for a high priest to host a function for a specific religious sect rather than at a broader level beyond religious sects. On the contrary, this act of focusing on specific religious group power relations suggests recognition of a group’s significant influence within the religious hierarchy (Josephus 1957:288). Human nature dictates that individuals or groups are rewarded, recognised or appreciated when they rise above their peers. Usually, higher powers typically acknowledge and reward those who serve their interests.
From a relational perspective, higher powers are aware of the influence exerted by other higher powers. Therefore, the high priest must recognise and appreciate the significant role of the Pharisees within the religious hierarchy, including the Sadducees (Josephus 1957). This suggests that the Pharisees were a dominant force in the religious community and warranted the high priest’s acknowledgement (Grabbe 1995). In this context, the banquet represented a win–win situation: the Pharisees gained prestige as a leading religious power, and the high priest benefited from good relations with them (Josephus 1957:288, 299).
During Hyrcanus’s time, the Pharisees held considerable religious power compared to other groups (Collins 2018). However, when he became angered by Eleazar’s remarks, he used his high priestly authority against the entire Pharisaic movement, disrupting the win–win dynamic (Simon 1967:21). Consequently, the Pharisees lost their advantageous power relationship with Hyrcanus.
People power
When the high priest’s power subjected the Pharisees’ influence, a third power emerged as the silent source of the Pharisees’ strength: the people’s power (Josephus 1957:296). By severing relations with the Pharisees, the people’s relationship towards Hyrcanus changed (Stemberger 1995:105). This indicates that the Pharisees’ religious power was rooted in the people’s support, reflecting their people-conscious leadership (Hatch 2019:157). The Pharisees seemed to be the people’s voice within the religious context of Second Temple Judaism, with their doctrines widely accepted and upheld by the Jewish masses during the Hasmonean period (Deines 2001, 2010; Mason 1991:129–131; Sanders 1992:380–451).
The banquet thrown for the Pharisees likely recognised their key leadership role within the religious power structure and their connection to the people’s power (Cohn-Sherbok 2003). Hyrcanus’s appreciation and reward of the Pharisees aimed to maintain his high priestly authority without disturbance from the Pharisees’ leadership (eds. Sievers & Levine 2021). However, when Hyrcanus changed his support, the Pharisees’ religious leadership became more visible through the people’s power (Zeitlin 2018). This people’s leadership was evident during Alexander Jannaeus’ 103 to 76 BCE rulership as both king and high priest, as the people expressed dissatisfaction with his lineage (Josephus 1957:242).
As shown by Stemberger (1995:105), the sharing of some powers by Salome Alexander through the advice of Jannaeus Alexander had a significant impact among the people (Josephus 1957:401–402). This suggests that the intertwined bonds of people’s power and religious leadership through the Pharisees created challenges for the high priest’s authority (Geller 1979). Consequently, the high priest and the temple’s role did not always fully control the religious life of the Jewish groupings (Collins 2020). As the temple’s centrality waned, a new dimension of people-conscious leadership emerged, embodied by the Pharisees (Patrich 2024).
Pioneer of the synagogue
The Pharisees significantly contributed to the progressive development of Judaism (Horsley 2022:121–22). Through their scriptural interpretation, they fused the teachings of the Torah with their own ideas, giving it new and more acceptable meanings supported by a detailed system of Hermeneutics (Mpeta 2022:2). This shows that the Pharisees were not merely fatalistic but had valuable ideas for interpreting the law (Josephus 1957).
Given the Jewish people’s social, political and economic realities, those living in the Diaspora found themselves in a situation that needed worship beyond the temple (Josephus 1957). This created a need for organised worship for those far from the Jerusalem temple (Simon 1967:120). The Pharisees’ leadership approach ensured that Judaism adopted a progressive stance towards these challenges (Fouche 2024). While they valued the centrality of the Jerusalem temple, they recognised the need to extend worship beyond its physical confines (Palmer 2002). Josephus, as cited by Furstenberg (2004), indicates that the Pharisees supported the idea of worshipping God even away from the temple, as evidenced by the existence of synagogues and the practice of sending money to the temple (Furstenberg 2004:18).
Otzen (1990:118) notes that the Pharisees’ concept of universal priesthood emerged from their people-conscious leadership. They saw the relevance of religious worship beyond the Jerusalem temple, fostering the synagogue institution. Hence, Otzen (1990:104) explains that synagogues availed worship in a different manner for individuals, including expanding the scope of physical and religious expressions. The synagogue became a progressive institution suitable for the Jewish Diaspora, reflecting the Pharisees’ belief that the law should be interpreted relevantly to new conditions (Josephus 1927).
This innovation did not contradict or compete with the temple’s centrality (Levine 2001). Instead, it supplemented temple worship, recognising its importance while addressing new needs (Nam 2001). The synagogue, pioneered by the Pharisees, filled the gaps the temple could not occupy (Tuval 2012). Epstein (1986:12) highlights that the Pharisees developed the synagogue with elaborate liturgy to serve as a place for prayer and worship, demonstrating their innovative and people-conscious leadership within the evolving dynamics of Jewish life.
Their view towards the resurrection of the dead
The notion of the resurrection of the dead is one of the most critical issues in the history of the Jewish people (Chilton 2019). The Pharisees anchored their religious identity in this belief, zealously interpreting the law and incorporating the resurrection of the dead into their doctrine (Josephus 1957; Johnson 1985:17). This belief became a defining feature of the Pharisees within Second Temple Judaism and beyond (Siniscalchi 2020). Despite their conservative stance on political and religious issues, the Pharisees actively propagated the doctrine of resurrection among the Jewish people (Elledge 2017).
The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was non-negotiable for the Pharisees (Mpeta 2022:4). In the New Testament, Saint Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee and uses the issue of resurrection to create division between the Sadducees and Pharisees, highlighting its importance (Ac 23:6–8). This indicates that the Pharisees’ belief in resurrection was integral to their identity, making it impossible for them to view Paul’s notion of the resurrection of the dead as anything but one of the most critical issues (Chilton 2019) and to see Paul as an adversary on this matter (Thompson 2024). The Pharisees anchored their religious identity in this belief, zealously interpreting the law and incorporating the resurrection of the dead into their doctrine (Johnson 1985:17). This belief became a defining feature of the Pharisees within Second Temple Judaism and beyond (Siniscalchi 2020). Despite their conservative stance on political and religious issues, the Pharisees actively propagated the doctrine of resurrection among the Jewish people (Elledge 2017).
Nickelsburg (2003:163) also attests to the Pharisaic belief in the resurrection of the body in the New Testament. The resurrection of the dead was a core component of the Pharisees’ identity, influencing their religious stance and impacting early Christianity. This belief and other complex elements solidified the Pharisaic identity (Setzer 2001). They demonstrated their commitment to interpreting the law to address contemporary challenges and developments as an adversary in this matter.
The resurrection of the dead was a core component of the Pharisees’ identity, influencing their religious stance and impacting early Christianity (Setzer 2021). This belief and other complex elements solidified the Pharisaic identity and demonstrated their commitment to interpreting the law in a way that addressed contemporary challenges and developments (Anderson 2009).
Their view towards the existence of angels
The belief in the existence of angels is a significant aspect of Jewish history, upheld by groups such as the Pharisees, who often engaged in doctrinal disputes with the Sadducees (Buttigieg 2023:83). The Pharisees’ dualistic approach was foundational to their identity and beliefs. Their progressive tendencies allowed for a dynamic interpretation of the Torah, keeping it a vital force in Judaism (Grabbe 1996:44). Epstein (1986:111) notes that the Pharisees had a strong and lasting influence on the people. This people-focused leadership suggests that their beliefs were broader and deeper than those of other religious sects (eds. Sievers & Levine 2021).
Epstein (1986:111) also highlights that the Pharisees were the only sect to survive the national catastrophe. This strength and uniqueness also tied them to the belief in angels. Saint Paul, in Acts 23:6–9, portrays the Pharisees as acknowledging the existence of angels. The Pharisees did not see the belief in angels as speculative or time-wasting but as an integral part of their religious features, upheld within the context of written law and oral traditions.
As the oral law extended the inclusivity of beliefs such as the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels, the Pharisees can be associated with the doctrine of the existence of angels, reflecting their comprehensive and progressive approach to religious beliefs (Mpeta 2022:4).
Middle class
As history shows, societies are composed of different classes, and individuals or groups are often associated with specific class factors. The role and success of a group can be influenced by its class type. Class factors contribute to the identity of a group within a larger society, and beliefs can also define these class associations. For example, domestic workers forming a social organisation are not considered high-class within the social hierarchy. Similarly, the Pharisees in Second Temple Judaism were identified with the middle class, anchored among the masses (Deines 2010).
Pharisee Samaias, known as an ‘upright man’, challenged Herod and the Sanhedrin, representing the voice of the ordinary masses against the ruling powers (Josephus 1957:172–174). Hatch (2019:155) asserts that when Jews began ruling their state, the Pharisees filled the leadership void left by the great prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They aimed to reestablish the role of social reformers and moral gatekeepers, holding kings accountable and ensuring the proper observance of God’s laws. This role required a strong middle-class layer linking the ordinary masses and the upper class through people-conscious leadership. Hatch notes that the Pharisees sought to fill this role ‘until a true prophet [shall] arise’ (Coogan 2010).
Most Pharisees were middle-class (Johnson 1985:17), but this does not mean there were no individuals from lower or upper classes among them. The Pharisees’ strategic and tactical leadership was primarily middle-class. Otzen (1990:116) shows that the Pharisees had an entrenched identity within this social group. While they did not represent the highest hierarchy, they remained subordinate to the high priesthood. The social status of the ordinary people dictated the group’s class dynamics, and the Pharisees’ movement contributed to the success of the Maccabean revolt, reinforcing their role as the voice of the masses from the lower class (Millar 1978).
The Pharisees’ twofold view of the Law, conservative stance on religious and political matters, power relations, pioneering synagogue, belief in angels, the resurrection of the dead and middle-class identity reveal their people-conscious leadership within the dynamics of Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity.
Conclusion
Recognising the historical identity of the Pharisees before the New Testament reveals a broad-based perspective that highlights their strengths and weaknesses, virtues and vices, and progressive and conservative traits. While the New Testament often highlights their negative aspects, recognising their broader historical identity reveals that these writings do not fully appreciate the Pharisees’ positive contributions and their people-conscious leadership. Without the Pharisees’ positive leadership, Christianity may not have easily established many of its doctrinal perspectives, such as the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels.
The leadership spirit that shaped fundamental Christian doctrines was developed and matured within the cycles of the Pharisees before the emergence of Christianity. The Pharisees’ people-focused leadership overlapped with and served the needs of early Christianity. This broad perspective recognises that the Pharisees’ characteristics, such as their dualistic worldview, belief in angels, and resurrection of the dead, created a bridge between Judaism and Christianity. Both religions benefited from the Pharisees’ doctrinal insights.
The New Testament writings about the Pharisees should be viewed as efforts to defend, build and establish the Christian faith, rather than recognising the Pharisees’ foundational contributions. This tendency mirrors how children often fail to appreciate the foundational roles their parents play in their development. New Testament scholars, whether intentionally or unintentionally, have portrayed the Pharisees negatively. However, the Pharisees’ people-conscious leadership has endured over time, standing strong against all odds.
Acknowledgements
Sections of this article are partially based on the A.E.B.’s thesis for the degree of Doctor of Literature and Philosophy in Ancient Near Eastern Studies at the University of South Africa, supervised by Prof. Hulisani Ramantswana, which was completed in 2021. It is available here: https://uir.unisa.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/744d1b42-3074-469e-963f-1a7a39daa9f7/content.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationship that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
Author’s contribution
A.E.B. is the sole author of this research article.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Data availability
The author confirms that the data supporting this study and its findings are available within the article and its listed references.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
ReferencesAdamczewski, B., 2020, ‘Are the Dead Sea scrolls pharisaic?’, in H.Drawnel (ed.), Sacred texts and disparate interpretations: Qumran manuscripts seventy years later, pp. 69–92, Koninklijke Brill, Leiden.Anderson, C., 2009, Ancient laws and contemporary controversies: The need for inclusive biblical interpretation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Basser, H.W., 2012, Confirming that ‘Tradition of Elders’ (Paradosis) refers to an oral Body of Law (Masoret), Queens University.Bickerman, E.J., 1947, ‘The Warning Inscriptions of Herod’s Temple’, The Jewish Quarterly Review37(4), 387–405.Buttigieg, K., 2023, ‘Angels as observers of human affairs: A study of Angels in Paul’s Epistles’, Melita Theologica: Journal of the Faculty of Theology73, 83–105.Bvumbi, A.E., 2021, ‘Historical grouping in the Second Temple Judaism: A comparative analysis on religious, social and political impact of Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes’, Doctor of Literature and Philosophy in the Ancient Near Eastern Studies, University of South Africa.Chilton, B.D., 2019, Resurrection logic: How Jesus’ first followers believed God raised him from the dead, Baylor University Press, Waco, TX.Cohn-Sherbok, D., 2003, Judaism under Hellenism, Taylor & Francis Group, London.Collins, J.J., 2018, ‘The Hellenistic and Roman era’, in R.G.Hoyland & H.G.M.Williamson (eds.), in Oxford illustrated history of the Holy Land, pp.111–140, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Collins, J.J., 2020, ‘The historical context of the teacher and his movement’, in H.Drawnel (ed.), Sacred text and disparate interpretations: Qumran manuscripts seventy years later, pp. 166–184, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.Coogan, R., 1986, ‘The Pharisees against the Hellenist: Edward Lee versus Erasmus’, Renaissance Quarterly39(3), 476–506. https://doi.org/10.2307/2862040Coogan, M.D. (ed.), 2010, ‘The first book of maccabees’, in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, New York.Deines, R., 2001, ‘The Pharisees Between’, in D.A.Carson, P.T.O’Brien & M.A.Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, pp. 443–504, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.Deines, R., 2010, ‘The social profile of the Pharisees’, in R.Bieringer, F.G.Martinez, D.Pollefeyt & P.Tomson (ed.), The New Testament and Rabbinic literature, pp. 111–132, Brill, Leiden.Dunn, J.D.G., 1990, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, John Knox Press, Westminster.Elledge, C.D., 2017, The resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Epstein, I., 1986, Judaism: A historical presentation, Penguin Press, London.Fisch, Y., 2020, ‘The origin of oral Torah: A new Pauline perspective’, Journal of the Study of Judaism51(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700631-12511265Flusser, D., 2007, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.Fouché, N.F., 2024, ‘The invisible hand of Pharisees: Reconstruction of the centre by the peripheries after the fall of the axis mundi – The devil in the details behind Pauline Jewish identity’, thesis$4, Uppsala University, Uppsala, pp. 4–45, viewed 21 September 2016, from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1917549/FULLTEXT01.pdf.Furstenberg, Y., 2024, ‘The shared image of Pharisaic law in the Gospel and Rabbinic tradition’, in J.Siever, A.-J.Levine & J.Schroter (eds.), The Pharisees, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 199–219, Grand Rapids, MI.Gaston, L., 1979, ‘Paul and the Torah’, in A.Davies (ed.), Antisemitism and the foundations of Christianity, pp. 48–71, Paulist Press, New York, NY.Geller, M.J., 1979, ‘Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisee Rift’, Journal of Jewish Studies30(2), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.18647/915/JJS-1979Goodblatt, D., 1989, ‘The place of the Pharisees in the first century Judaism: The state of the debate’, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period20(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1163/157006389X00029Grabbe, L.L., 1995, ‘4QMMT and Second Temple Jewish Society’, in D.W.Parry & M.J.Bernstein (eds.), Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, pp. 111–126, Brill, Leiden.Grabbe, L.L., 1996, An introduction to first century Judaism: Jewish religion and history in the Second Temple Period, Clark, Edinburgh.Hatch, T., 2019, Jesus’ enemies? Why didn’t the Pharisees reject their friend Jesus?, Brigham Young University, Faculty Publication, Provo, Utah.Horsley, R.A., 2022, Empowering the People: Jesus, Healing, and Exorcism, Wipf and Stock, Eugene, OR.Itamar, B.A., 2023, ‘The total state of the Torah: Isaac Breuer and the foundations of the radical orthodox politics’, Jewish Quarterly Review113(4), 692–721. https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2023.a913350Johnson, M.D., 1985, ‘Life of Adam and Eve’, in J.H.Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, pp. 249–295, Doubleday, New York, NY.Josephus, F., 1927, The Jewish War, trans. H. St. J.Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library 203, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Josephus, F., 1957, Jewish Antiquities, Books XIII–XIV, trans. R.Marcus, Loeb Classical Library 489, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Josephus, F., 1999, The Antiquities of the Jews, transl. W.Whiston, Hendrickson Publishers, ylPeabody, MA.Levine, L.I., 2001, ‘The First-Century Synagogue: New perspectives’, Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift77, 22–30.Levine, L.I., 2022, A Pharisee and a tax collector walk into a parable: Questioning the sources of anti-Jewish interpretations, Hartford International University for Religion and Peace, Hartford, CT.Marshak, A.K., 2012, ‘Rise of the Idumeans: Ethnicity and politics in Herod’s Judea’, in B.Eckhardt (ed.), Jewish identity and politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba, pp. 117–129, Brill NV, Leiden.Mash, S.D., 2021, ‘Anti-semitism in the New Testament: New scrutiny of a chronic notion, Part 1’, Bibliotheca Sacra178, 143–162.Mason, S., 1991, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study, Studia Post-Biblica, vol. 39, Brill, Leiden.Maston, J., 2010, Divine and human agency in the Second Temple Judaism and Paul: A comparative study, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.Millar, F., 1978, ‘The background to the Maccabean revolution: Reflections on Martin Hegel’s “Judaism and Hellenism”’, Journalism of Jewish Studies29(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.18647/856/JJS-1978Mpeta, L, Whitman, RJr, Reed, R, Bjorgen, K., 2022, Jewish Sectarianism: A case for Pharisees and Sadducees, Journal: Ambassador International University.Nam, J.S., 2001, ‘Roots and tensions: Worship patterns developed from the synagogue to the Jerusalem church’, Fuller Theological Seminary, School of Theology, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses.Neusner, J. & Chilton, B. (eds.), 2009, In quest of the historical Pharisees, Baylor University Press, Waco, TX.Neusner, J., 1973, ‘“Pharisaic-Rabbinic” Judaism: A clarification’, History of Religions12(3), 250–270.Neusner, J., 2003, From politics to piety: The emergence of Pharisaic Judaism, The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR.Nickelsburg, G.W.E., 2003, Ancient Judaism and Christian origins: Diversity, continuity, and transformation, Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, MN.Niebuhr, K.W., 2019, ‘Jesus, Paul and Pharisees, observations on their commonalities and their understanding of Torah’, in A.Frantisek (ed.), The message of Paul the Apostle within Second Temple Judaism, Lexington books/Fortress Academic. London.Noam, V., n.d., Pharisaic Halakah as Emerging from 4QMMT, pp. 55–79.Oliver, I.W. & De Oliveira, R., 2022, ‘Being fair to the Pharisees: The Sabbath Praxis of the Pharisees from a Jewish Latin-American perspective’, Currents in Theology and Mission49(4), 14–20.Oliver, I.W., 2013, ‘Forming Jewish Identity by Formulating Legislation for Gentiles’, Journal of Ancient Judaism4(1), 105–132.Oliver, I.W., 2022, ‘Being Fair to the Pharisees: The Sabbath Praxis of the Pharisees from a Jewish Latin-American Perspective’, Currents in Theology and Mission49(4), 14–20.Otzen, B., 1990, Judaism in antiquity: Political development and religious currents from Alexander to Hadrian, JSOT Press, Sheffield.Palmer, B., 2002, ‘Holy people, holy place: Images of the Synagogue and its leadership in progressive Judaism’, European Judaism: A Journal for the New Europe35(2), 106–130. https://doi.org/10.3167/001430002782266315Patrich, J., 2024, The Jerusalem temple and the temple mount: Collected essays, Mohr Siebeck, GmbH & Co. KG Postfach 2040 D-72010, Tübingen.Rivkin, E., 2000, ‘Who were the Pharisees?’, in J.Neusner (ed.), Judaism in Late Antiquity 3. Where we stand: Issues and debates in ancient Judaism, pp. 1–33, Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, Brill, Leiden.Sacchi, P., 2004, The history of the Second Temple period, T&T Clark, London.Saldarini, A.J., 1988, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, Michael Glazier, Wilmington, DE.Sanders, E.P., 1977, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A comparison of patterns of religion, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA.Sanders, E.P., 1992, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE, SCM Press, London.Schiffman, L.H., 1991, From text to tradition: A history of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, KTAV Publishing House, Hoboken, New Jersey, NJ.Setzer, C., 2001, ‘Resurrection of the dead as symbol and strategy’, Journal of American Academy of Religion69(1), 65–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/69.1.65Setzer, C., 2021, Resurrection of the body in early Judaism and early Christianity: Doctrine, community, and self-definition, Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. Boston, MASievers, J., & Levine, L.I. (eds.), 2021, The Pharisees, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, pp. 137–155, Grand Rapids, MI.Simon, M., 1967, Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA.Siniscalchi, G.B., 2020, ‘Resurrection logic: How Jesus’ first followers believed God raised him from the dead by Bruce D. Chilton (Review)’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly82(3), 502–503. https://doi.org/10.1353/cbq.2020.0088Stemberger, G., 1995, Jewish contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, MN.Supratikno, A., 2024, ‘National political differences as a cause of debate between the Pharisees and Jesus’, Evangelika: Journal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warge Jemaat8(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.46445/ejti.v8i2.821Thiessen, M., 2020, Jesus and the forces of death, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.Thompson, K.A., 2024, ‘The Apostle Paul’s teaching on life after death: A model of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection’, Master of Arts in Biblical Studies (MA), Liberty University, Rawlings School of Divinity.Todd, A., 2007, ‘Feasts and the social order in early Jewish society (ca. third century BCE-third century CE)’, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Duke University.Tov, E., 2015, ‘The scribal and textual transmission of the Torah analyzed in light of its sanctity’, in C.M.Maier (ed.), Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint, Collected Essays, pp. 154–165, 3rd edn., Brill, Leiden.Tuval, M., 2012, ‘Doing without the temple: Paradigms in Judaic literature of the Diaspora’, in H.M.Zellentin (ed.), Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History?, pp. 181–239, Brill, Leiden.Van der Toorn, K., 2023, ‘Before the Decalogue: In search of the oldest written Torah’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly85(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1353/cbq.2023.a908777Young, M.C., 2018, ‘The Matthean split: An analysis of the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew’, MRes thesis, University of Glasgow.Zeitlin, S., 2018, ‘The Pharisees, A historical study’, in C.Hayes (ed.), Classic essays in early Rabbinic culture and history, pp.315–347, Routledge, London.
How to cite this article: Bvumbi, A.E., 2025, ‘People-conscious leadership: Strategic and tactical strengths of Pharisees in early Christianity’, Verbum et Ecclesia 46(1), a3334. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v46i1.3334