What most are unaware of is that the latter, the Pharisees, have been highly questioned and criticised due to the general - and often seen as subjective- depiction of them throughout the New Testament. Scholarly examination depicts this social group in several different lights, leading to the confusion of the masses and a common consensus on the group is found left wanting.
Who were these Pharisees? What did they believe in? Where did they come from? What really happened between their parties and Jesus? To attain a full appreciation of Jesus’ culture, a clearer perception of the Pharisees is required.
Historians and Theologians have had several inquiries in regards to the origin of the Pharisaic community. Scholastic investigator Solomon Zeitlin uses Jewish historian Josephus’ text, Antiquities to state that “The Pharisees existed as a distinct group as early as the beginning of the 4th century BCE.” (Zeitlin: )
Indeed, “the Pharisees appear in Hasmonaean times as part of the governing council in coalition with the Sadducees.” (Schiffman, 1994: 76)This correlates with Josephus’ reference in relation to Jonathon the Hasmonaean, thereby tracing their origin as far as 444 BCE.
It was this time in which a group of Jews began following the lead of Ezra. “This Ezra was a scribe who was well versed in the Law of Moses, which the LORD, the God of Israel, had given to the people of Israel.” (Ezra 7: 6). Within the Jewish
Bibliography: Ferguson, E (1993) Backgrounds of Early Christianity, WB Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, pg 481-487 Finkelstein, L Geiger Hertz, J [Trans] (1995) Pirke Abothe (Sayings of the Fathers), Behrman House Publishing, 3:12 Landman, I [Eds.] (1941) The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia Vol VIII, Judaica: New York, pg 473-478 Marucs, R Riddle, D Schiffman, L (1994) Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: This History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran, Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia, pg 76-78 Zeitlin, S (1969) “The Origin of the Pharisees Reaffirmed,” in the Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol 59. No 4. Pg 255-267