An event you might be interested in on Rom 9-11

[Swordman]

Here's the lecture he was talking about. Pays to listen to it at double speed. At 54.30, Gaventa begins to conclude, saying that the church hasn't replaced Israel or rendered Israel unimportant to God, as all persons remain important to God because of the "Christ event" which "changes things" sic.

As I see it, the Church is one and the same as prophetic Israel. It is prophetic (spiritual) Israel which has replaced physical Israel under Christ, so I concur with your remnant theology, even I concur with her that "all persons remain important to God" (just because God desires all men to be saved).

She lived up to my low expectations.

You should pay attention to the whole of the argument not just a brief clip. That way you are hearing in context. Here is what she says, starting a few seconds earlier: "What Paul has to say about Israel derives from the Christ event, rather than the other way around. That is not to say Israel is no longer of importance, but the importance even of Israel is relearned through the death and resurrection of Jesus."

I would agree, particularly since Paul reads the death of resurrection of Jesus as understood from Israel's scriptures. I reject replacement theology.

After years of study, I have come to the conclusion that the church participates with Israel, not as Israel, for the redemption of the world. It is the remnant of Israel that preserves the promise for all of Israel (πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ).

It is fine to disagree, and there are fine scholars that would disagree with me. However, we do so in a respectful and constructive manner.

 

[Swordman]

I haven't studied "covenantal nomism." I find Sander's style to be turgid. He says at p. 422

" An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered​

to be by God's mercy rather than human achievement."​

​

Yet I see no antipathy between God's mercy and human achievement. Rather they are complimentary: the one follows on from the other for human achievement depends on God's mercy. Rather the focus of the New Covenant is on what constitites human achievement.

The New Perspective is much broader than just Sanders. What Sanders established was that "Palestinian Judaism" was a religion of grace which led to obedience of those within the covenant. It is founded squarely on God's mercy to Israel and this is echoed by Paul who sees the Christ-act as evidence of God's mercy. "Covenantal nomism" is Sanders approach to what constitutes Judaism. What Sanders concludes is that where the Law was central to Palestinian Judaism, Christ is central to what today we would call "Christianity."

For the first generation, Christians saw themselves as part of Israel. That is why Paul speaks of both a remnant and "all Israel."

 

[cjab]

The New Perspective is much broader than just Sanders. What Sanders established was that "Palestinian Judaism" was a religion of grace which led to obedience of those within the covenant. It is founded squarely on God's mercy to Israel and this is echoed by Paul who sees the Christ-act as evidence of God's mercy. "Covenantal nomism" is Sanders approach to what constitutes Judaism. What Sanders concludes is that where the Law was central to Palestinian Judaism, Christ is central to what today we would call "Christianity."

For the first generation, Christians saw themselves as part of Israel. That is why Paul speaks of both a remnant and "all Israel."

One thing the "New Perspective" may have got wrong is in suggesting that Paul's perspective may need to be reformulated. What Paul is arguing in his letters doesn't necessarily reflect the practices of Judaism. Indeed it would be perverse to think that there was much right about 1st century Judaism.

That is, the soteriology of first-century Judaism may be perfectly irrelevant, even if it could be distilled coherently from the multiplicity of Jewish groups. Paul is a biblical purist, and we know many Jews were lost and / or had corrupted their doctrines (per Christ). Secondly Paul's views had been much enlighted by Christianity, and he was far more advanced than his compatriots. Thus I don't agree that "Judaism in all its forms was uniformly a grace-based soteriological system; it was not a works-righteousness system." It is the second part of the statement I don't agree with. Grace is always imputable to the elect, but not so as to effect justification without obedience to the law, even if one can argue about which law. Paul argues it is the whole of the law, and who can controvert him?

So I don't agree with "Therefore, Paul could not have been arguing against a non-existent (law-)works-righteousness soteriology" [source]. Paul is clearly using the OT as his reference.

There also appears to be confusion between the words "justification" and "salvation" amongst the New Perspective authors, and how the terms apply to Judaism. The New Perspective seems to be a minefield of risqué positions and formulations, and presents a very confusing set of ideas. Do you have anyone who can explain it coherently in a short thesis?

 

[Swordman]

One thing the "New Perspective" may have got wrong is in suggesting that Paul's perspective may need to be reformulated. What Paul is arguing in his letters doesn't necessarily reflect the practices of Judaism. Indeed it would be perverse to think that there was much right about 1st century Judaism.

That is a pretty bold statement. When you say, "What Paul is arguing in his letters doesn't necessarily reflect the practices of Judaism," you seem to be hedging your statement here. What evidence can you give to support this?

You make a bold statement when you say, "Indeed it would be perverse to think that there was much right about 1st century Judaism." Christianity was a version of 1st-century Judaism, there were Pharisees in the church, and Paul states that, even after becoming a believer in Christ, he remained a Pharisee. He even was willing to sacrifice in the Temple. I think there is much that we assume 20 centuries later that was not held in the early church. For example, F. F. Bruce suggests that early Christianity in Rome has a distinctive Jewish character.

That is, the soteriology of first-century Judaism may be perfectly irrelevant, even if it could be distilled coherently from the multiplicity of Jewish groups. Paul is a biblical purist, and we know many Jews were lost and / or had corrupted their doctrines (per Christ). Secondly Paul's views had been much enlighted by Christianity, and he was far more advanced than his compatriots. Thus I don't agree that "Judaism in all its forms was uniformly a grace-based soteriological system; it was not a works-righteousness system." It is the second part of the statement I don't agree with. Grace is always imputable to the elect, but not so as to effect justification without obedience to the law, even if one can argue about which law. Paul argues it is the whole of the law, and who can controvert him?

As Sanders notes, whereas Palestinian Judaism held the law to be central, Christians saw the center replaced by Christ. That did not mean the law disappeared. For Christians, Christ (God's means of justification) became central because it was God's act of righteousness (faithfulness) to the covenant.

So I don't agree with "Therefore, Paul could not have been arguing against a non-existent (law-)works-righteousness soteriology" [source]. Paul is clearly using the OT as his reference.

There also appears to be confusion between the words "justification" and "salvation" amongst the New Perspective authors, and how the terms apply to Judaism. The New Perspective seems to be a minefield of risqué positions and formulations, and presents a very confusing set of ideas. Do you have anyone who can explain it coherently in a short thesis?

You really need to be engaging Sanders (or Dunn or Wright) directly, not an article from the Gospel Coalition. Even that argument acknowledges the following:

The New Perspective correctly understood that the traditional-Protestant view sees justification by faith as the opposite of legalistic works righteousness; one is declared righteous based on Christ’s work versus being declared righteous based on one’s own works. That is, the traditional-Protestant view sees Paul opposing two soteriological systems: justification by grace/Christ’s-work/faith (grace soteriology) versus justification by works of the law (works-righteousness soteriology). The New Perspective rejects that Paul is opposing these two systems. Why? Because according to the new view of Judaism, a works-righteousness soteriology did not exist!​

All that the NPP states is that we have gotten Judaism wrong concerning legalism. Christianity is a grace-based religion because it comes out of Judaism, not paganism. Jews always believed that God was the savior. Obedience to the law was a responsibility of being in covenant.

I am not going to address the article in the link you provided in total, but it is rather selective in nature and I disagree with many of the conclusions. Let me briefly comment on the following statement:

The traditional-Protestant view has two major problems with New Perspective’s view of justification: (1) A believer’s works are included as part of final justification; that is, in the end, a believer is declared righteous (justified) based on some combination of his faith and his works; and (2) imputation of Christ’s work to the believer is denied.​

I think this should say "the traditional-Calvinist view." Protestant viewpoints (which include Anabaptist, Anglican, dispensational and other non-Calvinists viewpoints) are much more varied. You also need to define what you mean by "final justification." Do you mean the final judgment? Can you show a description of the final judgment in the gospels or Paul that does not judge by what we do? Finally, the second issue depends on what you mean by imputation of "Christ's work to the believer." The article had already affirmed that "[t]he New Perspective correctly understood that the traditional-Protestant view sees justification by faith as the opposite of legalistic works righteousness; one is declared righteous based on Christ’s work versus being declared righteous based on one’s own works." If this is not imputation, then you need to describe what it is.

The fundamental problem that I see is that the "traditional" view (not the ancient view) needs an enemy for Christianity, and thus raises up Judaism as the enemy. Yet Judaism is our ancestry, not our enemy. Paganism in the ancient world was the primary foil against which Judaism and Christianity should be measured. Paul is concerned about the unbelief of his kindred and he does not believe Gentiles need to become Jews in order to be saved, but that is not a rejection of Judaism by any means.

 

[Swordman]

If you want to hear an interesting (and sometimes humorous) lecture by a Jewish scholar on Jesus and Judaism, click here.

This was presented at the Ecumenical Institute at St. Mary's Seminary and University, at their annual Dunning Lecture in 2007.

 

[cjab]

If you want to hear an interesting (and sometimes humorous) lecture by a Jewish scholar on Jesus and Judaism, click here.

This was presented at the Ecumenical Institute at St. Mary's Seminary and University, at their annual Dunning Lecture in 2007.

You seem to be very free with whom you associate - possibly too free. I read Amy Jill "Levite" Levine as not a Christian. Admittedly she seems to accept that her teaching will not be heard by a certain category of Christian; and I would say it is downright dangerous. E.g.:

​

"Third, these commandments are addressed to Israel, not to the gentile nations. Since Christians today are generally Gentiles (i.e., non-Jews), the laws given specifically to Israel, unless they are also repeated in the New Testament, are irrelevant. Christians need no more attend to Leviticus 18 and 20 on sexual relations than they need attend to Leviticus 11:10, which prohibits the consumption of shellfish." [source]​

​

This statement is perverse on two levels. First she fails to contrast the punishment for eating shellfish: "Lev 11:25 "Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening" as against the punishment for immorality: death. The punishments are sufficiently differentiated as to make the commandments incomparable.

Secondly, her statement fails to grasp that the Church as prophetic Israel is bound by the same moral law as Israel, i.e. the "law of Christ" that all Christians are required to uphold. Jesus denounced sexual immorality often enough as a cause of God's wrath, which covers all immorality, and which the apostles upheld in their first injunctions to the Gentiles (Acts 15:29).

Hence I wouldn't credit anything this woman says, unless I could verify it from another source. She serves as an example of the probably unbridgeable gap between non-Christian Judaism and Pauline Christianity: she seems to be an exponent of that traditional Jewish art of making any scripture say whatever is desirable.

 

[cjab]

That is a pretty bold statement. When you say, "What Paul is arguing in his letters doesn't necessarily reflect the practices of Judaism," you seem to be hedging your statement here. What evidence can you give to support this?

Jesus is the starting point for exposing the differences between the Moses's idea of Judaism and its later corruption by its protagonists. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for observing their own traditions, rather than the law, including introducing libertinism (immorality), i.e. divorce on demand etc. He condemned them for using the "seat of Moses" to extort money, and for hypocrisy - public prayers for money, and for stealing widows houses linked to this. But Jesus wasn't the only one to condemn them: the Essenes had unilaterally separated from them and renounced the second temple, and its sacrifices, which also was not legal under the law. There was a general contempt for the teachings of prophets combined with a superficial show of piety in building their tombs. At its core, the problems concerned the de-spiritualization of the law, which had become subverted from within by those responsible for upholding it: the pharisees and teachers of the had in reality, although they never acknowledged it, become wolves and devotees of satan, honor and money (perhaps akin to the liberal side of academia in the universities which doesn't much reflect biblical religion).

So in Paul we don't really get much of this story. He condenses it into a general statement that the law had proved impossible to uphold: i.e. Judaism had become an exercise in self-delusion for the vast majority of Jews. Not all Jews of course. There was always the remnant, but the remnant doesn't include the generality.

 

[Swordman]

You seem to be very free with whom you associate - possibly too free. I read Amy Jill "Levite" Levine as not a Christian.

I never said she was. In fact, I specifically said that the lecture was by a Jewish scholar.

And yes, I do associate with Jews. I have had some very good friends who were Jews.

I am not a racist or a religious bigot. I also associate with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Anglicans, Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, and other groups. I have had conversations with Buddhists and Muslims. I have even worked with them.

Jesus was a Jew. The apostles were Jews. Paul was a Jew and remained a Jew. Real Christians and Jews dialog all the time to gain insights from each other. I have read and listened to Jewish authors many times to understand how Jews approach the scriptures - Levine, Sanders, Nanos, Eisenberg, and many others.

I do disagree with them on the nature of Jesus as the Messiah, but I do gain insights from Jewish scholars who are willing to discuss these things.

Admittedly she seems to accept that her teaching will not be heard by a certain category of Christian; and I would say it is downright dangerous. E.g.:

​

"Third, these commandments are addressed to Israel, not to the gentile nations. Since Christians today are generally Gentiles (i.e., non-Jews), the laws given specifically to Israel, unless they are also repeated in the New Testament, are irrelevant. Christians need no more attend to Leviticus 18 and 20 on sexual relations than they need attend to Leviticus 11:10, which prohibits the consumption of shellfish." [source]​

​

This statement is perverse on two levels. First she fails to contrast the punishment for eating shellfish: "Lev 11:25 "Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening" as against the punishment for immorality: death. The punishments are sufficiently differentiated as to make the commandments incomparable.

Secondly, her statement fails to grasp that the Church as prophetic Israel is bound by the same moral law as Israel, i.e. the "law of Christ" that all Christians are required to uphold. Jesus denounced sexual immorality often enough as a cause of God's wrath, which covers all immorality, and which the apostles upheld in their first injunctions to the Gentiles (Acts 15:29).

Hence I wouldn't credit anything this woman says, unless I could verify it from another source. She serves as an example of the probably unbridgeable gap between non-Christian Judaism and Pauline Christianity: she seems to be an exponent of that traditional Jewish art of making any scripture say whatever is desirable.

And what other source would you accept? The Gospel Coalition? Levine has coauthored a book with Christian scholars on the Pharisees. Would you accept that? (She does deal with some of these issues in that book.)

As a Gentile, I recognize that I am not bound by either dietary or ceremonial laws. I celebrate Christmas and Resurrection Day, not Hanukkah or Passover. But I honor those holidays as part of the Jewish heritage and respect their celebration. I try to be sensitive to dietary restrictions when I am with others who disagree with me.

Do you maintain the dietary laws of Judaism? (It is ok if you do. I have relatives who also do this.)

To be frank, the only one who is perverse here is the one who refuses to examine the evidence that might change his or her way of thinking.

Declaring someone perverse does not make it true.

 

[Swordman]

Jesus is the starting point for exposing the differences between the Moses's idea of Judaism and its later corruption by its protagonists. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for observing their own traditions, rather than the law, including introducing libertinism (immorality), i.e. divorce on demand etc. He condemned them for using the "seat of Moses" to extort money, and for hypocrisy - public prayers for money, and for stealing widows houses linked to this. But Jesus wasn't the only one to condemn them: the Essenes had unilaterally separated from them and renounced the second temple, and its sacrifices, which also was not legal under the law. There was a general contempt for the teachings of prophets combined with a superficial show of piety in building their tombs. At its core, the problems concerned the de-spiritualization of the law, which had become subverted from within by those responsible for upholding it: the pharisees and teachers of the had in reality, although they never acknowledged it, become wolves and devotees of satan, honor and money (perhaps akin to the liberal side of academia in the universities which doesn't much reflect biblical religion).

So in Paul we don't really get much of this story. He condenses it into a general statement that the law had proved impossible to uphold: i.e. Judaism had become an exercise in self-delusion for the vast majority of Jews. Not all Jews of course. There was always the remnant, but the remnant doesn't include the generality.

Where did the Pharisees promote immorality?

There were Pharisees in the church and Paul, even after his encounter with Christ, remained a Pharisee.

I think you are misreading what Jesus said. Here is what he said specifically about the Pharisees and Moses' Seat, which comes before the condemnations.

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. (Matt. 23:1-3 NRSV)​

Matthew is very harsh in this chapter towards the Pharisees, but you should not misrepresent what is being said above.

John associates Pharisees with the Temple authority (which is the real antagonists in the gospels) but he also presents Pharisees who support Jesus.

Luke has a much more balanced portrayal of Pharisees in his gospel and Pharisees support the Christians in the Acts of the Apostles.

Therefore, it might be better to understand Matthew 23 as targeting a specific group within the Pharisees rather than a unilateral picture of Pharisaism.

As for the Essenes, you should remember that the Sadducees dominated the Temple, not the Pharisees. Sadducees restricted their authority to the Torah (Pentateuch) because it contained the core of what they understood as Judaism. Essenes believed in a renewal of Israel and that the Temple had been polluted.

In my experience, declaring something or someone as "liberal" is meaningless. Essentially, people use this term for someone who holds a view contrary to their own.

The following books may help you.

Sanders has a good scholarly work on Judaism, called Judaism: Practices and Beliefs, 63 BCE to 66 CE. Also, you might enjoy Dunn's book, The Parting of the Ways.

The book I mentioned above on the Pharisees can be found here.

If you have Logos, you can probably get them there as well.

 

[Swordman]

Real Christians and Jews dialog all the time to gain insights from each other.

Ok. That is a bit of hyperbole. "Frequently" is probably more correct.

 

[cjab]

Where did the Pharisees promote immorality?

I'll address your points in separate posts, as they are involved. First there is an initial point as to who and what Judaism comprised pre AD70, which is a grey area in the "New Perspective" material I have read to date. Prior to the 20th century, many Jews concurred with Louis Finkelstein's words that Pharisaism before AD70 was "practically synonymous with Judaism" on a religious level. There were also the Essenes and the Sadducees. But as to the great mass of people, Josephus in Antiquities speaks about the Pharisees' great public influence and power. In recent years Josephus has been attacked by sceptics e.g. Morton Smith "Studies in the Cult of Yahweh," 1995, Ch.9 "Palestinian Judaism in the 1st century." He posits that Antiquities' reflects an emphasis on Pharisaic predominance post AD70: he asks whether our post-70 sources have not all read this later situation back into their accounts of pre-70 Judaism. However, this scepticism may be untenable, given the bible supports Josephus, and there is no overriding reason to suppose that what was the case post AD70 is not a reflection of pre-AD70.

"Josephus tells us, first, that on account of the Pharisees' domination of religious and social norms, even the Sadducees defer to their authority (Ant. 18.17). Second, although Josephus himself was a rather outspoken critic of the Pharisees' behavior, as we have seen, he too claims that he "followed" their way when he began public life (Life 12b).65 It seems plausible, then, that any first-century Jew, such as Jesus, could concede the Pharisees' legitimate social-religious role without taking out membership in the group and, indeed, while pointedly criticizing their conduct .... Notwithstanding legitimate scholarly suspicion about the motives sources on the Pharisees, the evidence of Josephus seems to require this group did exercise the dominant religious influence in pre-70 Palestinian Judaism."

"Pharisaic Dominance before 70 CE and the Gospels' Hypocrisy Charge (Matt 23:2-3)", Steve Mason, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Oct., 1990), pp. 363-381

As to the specific immorality and sins of the Pharisees, one article is "The Pharisees and Their Legal Traditions According to the Dead Sea Scrolls," Lawrence H. Schiffman, Dead Sea Discoveries, Vol. 8, No. 3 (2001), pp. 262-277. From the critiques of the Pharisees by the Essenes, and from "later rabbinic reports" their sins linked to immorality were those of advocating the marrying of one's niece, polygamy and remarriage after divorce, which the Essenes associated with fornication.

 

[Swordman]

I'll address your points in separate posts, as they are involved. First there is an initial point as to who and what Judaism comprised pre AD70, which is a grey area in the "New Perspective" material I have read to date. Prior to the 20th century, many Jews concurred with Louis Finkelstein's words that Pharisaism before AD70 was "practically synonymous with Judaism" on a religious level. There were also the Essenes and the Sadducees. But as to the great mass of people, Josephus in Antiquities speaks about the Pharisees' great public influence and power. In recent years Josephus has been attacked by sceptics e.g. Morton Smith "Studies in the Cult of Yahweh," 1995, Ch.9 "Palestinian Judaism in the 1st century." He posits that Antiquities' reflects an emphasis on Pharisaic predominance post AD70: he asks whether our post-70 sources have not all read this later situation back into their accounts of pre-70 Judaism. However, this scepticism may be untenable, given the bible supports Josephus, and there is no overriding reason to suppose that what was the case post AD70 is not a reflection of pre-AD70.

You might want to consider reading that book on the Pharisees that I recommended. There were swings of power prior to the time of Jesus, with the Pharisees falling in and out of power, depending on the time period. Anything after the fall of the Temple (post-70s AD) would not provide an accurate reflection of what Jesus actually said or meant. That is one reason why I place the writing of Matthew prior to that event. Rabbinic Judaism evolved after 70 AD and Pharisees may have been influential in that development. During Jesus' time, the Pharisees numbers were in the single-digit thousands. They were lay teachers, who had limited authority in terms of the Temple. Generally, they had other work and Paul is a good example.

One thing I would encourage you to do is study what is called common Judaism of the time. There are overlaps between the sects and the common people (theʽAm haʼaretz, or "people of the land") technically did not fall into any of the major groups.

As for Josephus, he views Pharisees as follows:

3. (12) Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them, they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in anything which they have introduced; (13) and, when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of men can act virtuously or viciously. (14) 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; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; (15) on account of which doctrines, they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities gave great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also (Ant. 18.3) (Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 477.) Note that numbering for Antiquities varies depending on the translation used.

In his evaluation of the Sadducees, he notes that they are influential among the masses. (There is some dispute as to whether Josephus was a Pharisee. He seems to have received instruction from multiple groups, and as a priest, held them in some destain. However there are places where he seems to agree with them.) They also were known to be lenient in judgment, which is reflected in Gamaliel's assessment of the Christians in Acts 5:33f and the judgment of the Pharisees in Acts 23:6-10. They were also present in the church (Acts 15), which tells us that Pharisaism, in and of itself, was not incompatible with Christian belief. John provides us with two Pharisees who also are friendly with Jesus.

How does this compare to Jesus's assessment of them in Matthew 23? Given the other evidence, does it not seem more reasonable to suggest that Jesus' condemnation of the "scribes and Pharisees" is dealing with a subset, perhaps a particular group of Pharisees who are also scribes or even priestly Pharisees? The Temple authority seems to be the dominant antagonist for Jesus.

"Josephus tells us, first, that on account of the Pharisees' domination of religious and social norms, even the Sadducees defer to their authority (Ant. 18.17). Second, although Josephus himself was a rather outspoken critic of the Pharisees' behavior, as we have seen, he too claims that he "followed" their way when he began public life (Life 12b).65 It seems plausible, then, that any first-century Jew, such as Jesus, could concede the Pharisees' legitimate social-religious role without taking out membership in the group and, indeed, while pointedly criticizing their conduct .... Notwithstanding legitimate scholarly suspicion about the motives sources on the Pharisees, the evidence of Josephus seems to require this group did exercise the dominant religious influence in pre-70 Palestinian Judaism."

"Pharisaic Dominance before 70 CE and the Gospels' Hypocrisy Charge (Matt 23:2-3)", Steve Mason, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Oct., 1990), pp. 363-381

Steve Mason is a fine Josephus scholar and I have discussed certain ideas with him in the past, particularly on the audience of Romans (where we disagree). But note what he says above - "Notwithstanding legitimate scholarly suspicion about the motives sources on the Pharisees, the evidence of Josephus seems to require this group did exercise the dominant religious influence in pre-70 Palestinian Judaism." Scholars do disagree here. They definitely were influential, but they did not dominate the Temple or the Temple authority. Herodians dominated the political landscape. The Essenes saw all as corrupt.

Mason has a chapter on Josephus' view of the Pharisees in the book I mentioned and summarizes his conclusions at the end. You might want to get that book to see what his conclusions are. The book is more recent than the article you reference.

As to the specific immorality and sins of the Pharisees, one article is "The Pharisees and Their Legal Traditions According to the Dead Sea Scrolls," Lawrence H. Schiffman, Dead Sea Discoveries, Vol. 8, No. 3 (2001), pp. 262-277. From the critiques of the Pharisees by the Essenes, and from "later rabbinic reports" their sins linked to immorality were those of advocating the marrying of one's niece, polygamy and remarriage after divorce, which the Essenes associated with fornication.

That is one I have not read, so I will limit my comments. As I noted above, Essenes saw all (except their own community) as corrupt. I agree that Rabbinic literature does not speak kindly of the Pharisees. However, the Essenes faded from view after the Temple fell, so I would not conflate their view with later Rabbinic views of the Pharisees.

 

[Swordman]

As to the specific immorality and sins of the Pharisees, one article is "The Pharisees and Their Legal Traditions According to the Dead Sea Scrolls," Lawrence H. Schiffman, Dead Sea Discoveries, Vol. 8, No. 3 (2001), pp. 262-277. From the critiques of the Pharisees by the Essenes, and from "later rabbinic reports" their sins linked to immorality were those of advocating the marrying of one's niece, polygamy and remarriage after divorce, which the Essenes associated with fornication.

I am reading through Schiffman's article. While reading what an opponent says has some value, we should always approach it tentatively. Schiffman notes, "In fact in the polemic against the Pharisaic practice of niece marriage found in the Zadokite Fragments (CD 5:7-8), the text makes very clear that the difference of opinion lay in the Pharisaic rejection of the sectarian exegesis, which, in this case, was less literalistic than that of the Pharisees." (269)

There is no dispute that Pharisees accepted the idea of an oral Torah, which the sectarians would have rejected. However, Schiffman also notes that the author of the Temple Scroll felt free to "rewrite and re-redact the Torah to reflect his views and those of his source. The author apparently believed in a one-time revelation at Sinai, but saw that revelation as including laws and interpretations beyond those of the written law." (267-268). As such, the sectarians become as inconsistent as the Pharisees. Whereas the Pharisees "built a wall around Torah" (as noted by Lavine and Schiffman), the sectarians changed Torah to protect their belief system!

(To be fair, we should note that the Samaritans also had their own Torah which differed slightly from the Judean Torah. So the Essenes are not unique in this.)

The issue of polygamy is a bit different. The article seems to have the sectarians conflating polygamy with divorce and remarriage, which was a debate even among Pharisees. (Again, we might be dealing with a subset of Pharisees.) The sectarians take a hard line on this - no marriage after divorce until the first wife is dead.

As I stated above, we need to approach what opponents say tentatively. Schiffman notes that the scrolls "explicitly and implicitly polemicize against the law of the Pharisaic opponents of the sect," much like the discussions here. If we rely solely on what our opponents say, we would have to acknowledge that early Christians were cannibals, which we know is not true.

Some of the other disputes noted in the article are interesting, but not relevant to our discussion, except to note that Pharisees were often more lenient and reasonable in their approach at times.

 

[cjab]

I am reading through Schiffman's article. While reading what an opponent says has some value, we should always approach it tentatively. Schiffman notes, "In fact in the polemic against the Pharisaic practice of niece marriage found in the Zadokite Fragments (CD 5:7-8), the text makes very clear that the difference of opinion lay in the Pharisaic rejection of the sectarian exegesis, which, in this case, was less literalistic than that of the Pharisees." (269)

There is no dispute that Pharisees accepted the idea of an oral Torah, which the sectarians would have rejected. However, Schiffman also notes that the author of the Temple Scroll felt free to "rewrite and re-redact the Torah to reflect his views and those of his source. The author apparently believed in a one-time revelation at Sinai, but saw that revelation as including laws and interpretations beyond those of the written law." (267-268). As such, the sectarians become as inconsistent as the Pharisees. Whereas the Pharisees "built a wall around Torah" (as noted by Lavine and Schiffman), the sectarians changed Torah to protect their belief system!

(To be fair, we should note that the Samaritans also had their own Torah which differed slightly from the Judean Torah. So the Essenes are not unique in this.)

The issue of polygamy is a bit different. The article seems to have the sectarians conflating polygamy with divorce and remarriage, which was a debate even among Pharisees. (Again, we might be dealing with a subset of Pharisees.) The sectarians take a hard line on this - no marriage after divorce until the first wife is dead.

As I stated above, we need to approach what opponents say tentatively. Schiffman notes that the scrolls "explicitly and implicitly polemicize against the law of the Pharisaic opponents of the sect," much like the discussions here. If we rely solely on what our opponents say, we would have to acknowledge that early Christians were cannibals, which we know is not true.

Some of the other disputes noted in the article are interesting, but not relevant to our discussion, except to note that Pharisees were often more lenient and reasonable in their approach at times.

Shiffmann does say the Pharisees allowed "two wives" during the lifetimes of the wives (i.e. at once). I fully agree that sectarian opponents don't always give the whole truth. All I wanted to do was substantiate the laxness of the Pharisees in respect of Jesus's general charge of "porneia" which presumably applied mainly to divorce and remarriage, whilst conceding that it wasn't necessarily the Pharisees themselves who were guilty of the practice. I think further reading is required on this topic. Actually there are quite a few articles, which I may get round to reading.

 

[Swordman]

Shiffmann does say the Pharisees allowed "two wives" during the lifetimes of the wives (i.e. at once). I fully agree that sectarian opponents don't always give the whole truth. All I wanted to do was substantiate the laxness of the Pharisees in respect of Jesus's general charge of "porneia" which presumably applied mainly to divorce and remarriage, whilst conceding that it wasn't necessarily the Pharisees themselves who were guilty of the practice. I think further reading is required on this topic. Actually there are quite a few articles, which I may get round to reading.

I do not want to belabor the point, but the book on the Pharisees has numerous authors from various backgrounds on the subject of the Pharisees.

Jacob Neusner is another good author on this subject - In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (with Bruce Chilton)

If you have Logos, both books are available on that platform.