"Pharisee" is one of those NT words that English translators of the Bible, beginning with Wycliffe, decided to transliterate rather than translate, just as they did "baptism" and "apostle" and other words. Given the meaning of Pharisee I can only conclude that the reasoning behind this decision was to hide the meaning of the word. Why? To avoid stepping on the toes of the Pharisees of their own time. This tradition of obfuscation and obscurantism continues right up to the present, with most Christians--conservative or otherwise--having no knowledge of the actual meaning of the word because the Bible they use does not translate it. According to Strong’s dictionary of NT words Pharisee means "Separatist" a Separatist in a religious sense. Immediately I'm reminded of how full of Separatist churches and Separatist movements the Protestant churches have been. In fact, most Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches, including "Bible churches' arose from the spirit of Separatism, the spirit of Pharisaism. Protestantism was itself a Separatist movement. Look into yuor own sect or denomination. Did it have it's genesis in the various Separatist/Pharisee movements during and after the Protestant Reformation?
My own fellowship now is with a very inclusive group that did not grow out of the spirit of the Separatist/Pharisee. We're not even limited to those who experience the Divine in a Christian context, but we're open to all. We've attracted one Zen Buddhist and that is quite exciting to us. Besides the usual nuances of inclusivism we also have some actual by-golly Bible believers in our ranks. We're a small but slowly growing group. Each of us also is part of a much larger group. I'm a member of a local Eastern Orthodox parish along with my wife.
Take a few moments to read about religious separatism in Wikipedia. I'll not reproduce it here. Googling "Separatism" is also instructive. The writings and histories of the ranks of the Separatists/Pharisees in European history is quite instructive. One is immediately reminded of some of the statements attributed to Jesus Christ in the gospels which are directed toward the Separatists of his own day and age.
If one is interested in inclusive Christian groups in your area, then I recommend the Society of Friends or Unity School of Christianity. There are probably many more, but these two are enough to begin your search, hopefully. If you're one of those who already knows (Im a poet and didn't know it) that Pharisee means Separatist, that's grand. Please feel free to add to this post. -Martin
More On Pharisees
by FireNBandits 29 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
FireNBandits
-
Zico
So... aren't you saying every non-Catholic religion is separatist?
-
Narkissos
Hi Martin
A side remark fwiw: as you're a fan of R.M. Price you might have noticed his alternative take on the etymology of "Pharisee," which he traces back to "Persian," indicating one of their main sources of doctrinal influence (spiritual and moral dualism, angelology, eschatology, resurrection, etc.; this of course would apply as well, if not even better, to the "Essenes" if the Qumran sectarian texts offer a good picture of them).However "separation" would work at least as a self-definition.
More to the point, it should be noted that many "separatist" movements in church history weren't meant to be so. The 16th-century Reformers aimed at reforming the Catholic church and sometimes dreamt that the process would extend to the Eastern churches or even Judaism. History decided otherwise and new separate churches were born instead. Many pietist or revivalist movements followed a similar route within Protestantism: they tried to work within the existing churches and to transcend their borders until they were pushed out and forced to create their own churches. So often an attempt at unification results in yet another division. Groups as the Church of Christ, Universalist Unitarians, or the Baha'i faith are exemplar in this regard.
Anyway it's fun trying...
-
Deputy Dog
Martin
Your right, Paul was a Pharasee!
2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Looks like the Lord is too!
-
Pahpa
FireNBandits
I don't understand your point.
There were a number of "separatist" groups among the Jews of Jesus' time that were not "Pharisees." The Essenes and others could be classified by that general term. But the Pharisees were a particular Jewish sect distinquished by that specific name. (See Josephus) So why would a Bible translator do anything but maintain the name by which this group was known? Many Jews may have had zeal for their various belief systems. But not all were Zealots.
-
FireNBandits
Hi Narkissos. I'm familiar enough with Price's arguments for Pharasaios meaning Persian, etc, that I don't buy it. Price is very a good scholar--with a very enjoyable show--but everyone has their off day. I look at this idea much as he looks at Acharya's ideas on the etymology of "Solomon." Granted, he isn't being preposterous--Acharya is definitely being preposterous--but he’s still not correct. In my opinion at least. You've got me in a soft spot here my friend. Price is one of my favs, I hate to have to disagree with him. It's almost as bad as having to disagree with Leolaia. Which, fortunately, I've never had to do. I think I’ve got a few commentators here who missed the point, such as the one asking if I'm saying all non-Catholic religions are Pharisees, or pointing out that before his conversion to Christ the apostle Paul was a Pharisee.
My point being that the Jews believed they were the Covenant people, and the Pharisees believed they were better than the common Jew because of their hyper religiosity. So they made a Separatist sect for themselves. Yet they weren’t any better, they were worse, according to the words of Jesus in the synoptics, mainly Matthew. The same holds true for the Church, the people of the New Covenant. Many evangelicals, fundamentalists, and "holiness" Christians proudly call themselves "Separatists" and they're doing it in the context of the “New Israel” the people of the New Covenant. These Separatists feel they are too good for the “common Christian.” When Paul says to come out from among them and be separate he’s speaking about the world (“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers“) not our fellow Christian who may not be as hyper devout as we are. It’s instructive to keep the context of any verse in mind. (I’m not directing that comment to you Narkissos)
You wrote:
“More to the point, it should be noted that many "separatist" movements in church history weren't meant to be so.”
Aye, but the effect was the same. The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. That's how this crazy world works. Perhaps some metaphysical judo could keep this from happening?
“The 16th-century Reformers aimed at reforming the Catholic church and sometimes dreamt that the process would extend to the Eastern churches or even Judaism.”
Yes, and have you read any of the correspondence carried on between Constantinople and the Lutherans? It’s a bit much. Those were some uppity upstarts for sure. Still and all, they started well enough and I'm sure they meant well. I’ve enjoyed, as far as any reasonable modern man can, the deeply mystical writings of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and it’s a far cry from the legalistic mindset of the Western church. In a recent article I oversimplified the matter to a Pauline verses Johannine approach. It went over well.
I’ve even been going back to Divine Liturgy with my wife on Sundays and enjoying being among those who aren’t hyper-devout. Those who many of my evangelical and fundamentalist friends, with their Separatist attitudes, tell me aren’t even Christians. As if that’s their call.“History decided otherwise and new separate churches were born instead. Many pietist or revivalist movements followed a similar route within Protestantism: they tried to work within the existing churches and to transcend their borders until they were pushed out and forced to create their own churches. So often an attempt at unification results in yet another division. Groups as the Church of Christ, Universalist Unitarians, or the Baha'i faith are exemplar in this regard.”
I understand why you included the Bahai Faith here, it makes sense, but you must have also known I would find it startling.
What my post comes down to is a guarding against a Separatist attitude toward fellow Christians who aren’t as devout as we might like or prefer, or who might even seem quite “worldly.” I have so many friends and acquaintances, online and off, who have a Separatist mentality, that I thought it good to speak up against it. Being a Gnostic, I too shared this attitude toward the “hylics” but not anymore. It’s Pharasaic! Hehehe.
Thanks for dropping by Narkissos. I always enjoy your posts and comments. It's time for me to get back to work. -Martin
P.S. As for the fellow talking about the Essenes, well, friend, you missed the point. We'll talk up the Essenes another time. -
Leolaia
Have you read any of Gabriele Boccaccini's books? He puts together a convincing (imho) reconstruction of the history of second Temple Judaism that sees the Pharisees and Qumran Essenes as sub-branches of Zadokite (cf. the Sadducees of the first century AD) and Enochic Judaism respectively.
(slightly amended)
-
Narkissos
An interesting angle to approach the distinct Pharisaic and Essene modes of "separatism" (imo) is their relationship to the temple and the priesthood. "Separating" (the sacred from the profane, the clean from the unclean) was originally the priests' business, which they took care of on behalf of the whole community. Lay people wouldn't have to worry about "cleanness" unless they had to approach the sacred zone (for an offering) in a special circumstance -- and even then the requirements imposed on them were very limited compared to the priestly rules proper. The temple/priesthood system worked as a screen between the numinous and the community, dealing with the "hazards of holiness" and letting only "blessing" filter out as it were.
But that works only as long as the priestly system is trusted. As soon as a crisis of credibility occurs, fear and "superstition" seeps through the population and the need (or opportunity) arises for alternative priestlike systems to supply for the failing official priesthood. That's where the Essene and Pharisaic pattern apparently depart. The Qumran community seems to have kept the true Zadokite priesthood ideal and have served as a provisional "spiritual temple" until the expected restoration of true worship under the true priesthood in the Jerusalem temple. The Pharisees, otoh, subverted the priestly system much more subtly and radically, not by opposing it, but by transferring / translating it into the everyday life of ordinary lay people, making, as it were, every individual (or family head) his own priest, separating the clean from the unclean, and keeping a strict yet viable separation from the general population without physically "going away to the desert". This was, in effect, creating a templeless and priestless religion, suitable for a permanent diaspora situation, which (providentially to the Pharisees) became the only possible Judaism after 70 AD. (even though it had been of little influence before).
DD: Fwiw, 2 Corinthians 6:14--7:1 which sounds disrupting to the context and of conspicuous "Qumran-like" style has often been construed as a non-Pauline interpolation.
-
Pahpa
FireNBandits
Perhaps, I did miss your point. But....
Did you not suggest in your posting that the reason that early translators of the Bible hid the meaning of the word "Pharisee" was by not transliterating the word for fear of offending the "Pharisees" of their own time? In the time of the KJV the Separatists were those that were breaking away from the Anglican church. Why would translators working for the King who was the head of the church hesitate to cast aspersions upon those who were in opposition if that was the case? Perhaps, they were just good translators that wanted to avoid any confusion between the origin of a word and the specific application of the word.
"the fellow"
-
Narkissos
Btw, any Semitic etymology of the NT pharisaioi would have been lost to Greek readers too...
