Pharisees outside Judea?

[Charles Wilson]

There is another way to resolve this --- Paul was not a Pharisee.

Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker..., https://www.amazon.com/Mythmaker-Paul-I ... 678&sr=8-1

CW

[perseusomega9]

Just a few scattered thoughts here. Not committed to any of this.

Despite the lack of explicit evidence for it, there were Pharisees outside Judea, in Antioch and Syria and at least as far north as Tarsus in Cilicia.

What would Matthew 23.15 mean if not something like this? Even if we grant it is an exaggeration, what would it be an exaggeration of? Staying put in the homeland and never going anywhere? Is it so metaphorical that it lacks any geographical component at all, and journeying "by land and sea" means merely, say, that they left no argument untouched in their quest for converts? It has always sounded geographical to me, not merely metaphorical.

Also, would not Jewish people of virtually any or all persuasions have found homes outside of the homeland after the destruction of Jerusalem? The more so after Simon bar Kokhba, of course. Josephus talks about Sicarii who fled to Africa, but he appears to discuss them only because of the trouble they caused once they arrived. Would there not have been other, less militant refugees moving away, as well?

While not specifically about Pharisees I was just reading

He [Horace] describes Jews as a sect whose tenacious efforts to proselytize are difficult to avoid.

Wiefel, The Romans Debate 2ed, pg 88, 1991 citing Horace Sermones 1.4.143

[Ben C. Smith]

Just a few scattered thoughts here. Not committed to any of this.

Despite the lack of explicit evidence for it, there were Pharisees outside Judea, in Antioch and Syria and at least as far north as Tarsus in Cilicia.

What would Matthew 23.15 mean if not something like this? Even if we grant it is an exaggeration, what would it be an exaggeration of? Staying put in the homeland and never going anywhere? Is it so metaphorical that it lacks any geographical component at all, and journeying "by land and sea" means merely, say, that they left no argument untouched in their quest for converts? It has always sounded geographical to me, not merely metaphorical.

Also, would not Jewish people of virtually any or all persuasions have found homes outside of the homeland after the destruction of Jerusalem? The more so after Simon bar Kokhba, of course. Josephus talks about Sicarii who fled to Africa, but he appears to discuss them only because of the trouble they caused once they arrived. Would there not have been other, less militant refugees moving away, as well?

While not specifically about Pharisees I was just reading

He [Horace] describes Jews as a sect whose tenacious efforts to proselytize are difficult to avoid.

Wiefel, The Romans Debate 2ed, pg 88, 1991 citing Horace Sermones 1.4.143

Interesting:

Horace, Satires 1.4.137b-143 (translation slightly formatted from that of Christopher Smart): 137b These things I 138 resolve in silence by myself. When I have any leisure, 139 I amuse myself with my papers. This is one of those 140 lighter foibles: to which if you do not grant your indulgence, 141 a numerous band of poets shall come, which will 142 take my part — for we are many more in number — and, like 143 the Jews, we will force you to come over to our numerous party. / 137b Haec ego mecum 138 conpressis agito labris; ubi quid datur oti, 139 inludo chartis. hoc est mediocribus illis 140 ex vitiis unum; cui si concedere nolis, 141 multa poetarum veniat manus, auxilio quae 142 sit mihi —nam multo plures sumus — ac veluti te 143 Iudaei cogemus in hanc concedere turbam.

How is The Romans Debate, by the way? Is it a lot of New Perspective?

[perseusomega9]

I havent read enough NPP to really say ( I've avoided wright, meier, the later dunn, etc on Paul). A few good papers on the end of Roman's and parts of 15. I'm finding some authors, while making connections in Pauline theology between different epistles, run into difficulty as usual but that's because most think these letters are complete and full letters by Paul. A few non-connections they made I thought could be better explained by competing Pauline factions within the letters but hey, I'm no scholar so what can I possible know. Wiefel's article above has some good summaries of archeology of Judaism in Rome 100bce- 100ce, but his analysis is quasi-apologetic, or at least conservative and unimaginative. He quotes Seutonious on Chrestos and the Jewish expulsion under Claudius, thinks that has to be Christos, which magically become Jesus of Nazareth a few sentences later. I'm not even sure these scholars realize what they're doing in loading assumption after assumption into their analysis anymore.

Not a bad read, plenty of papers, and I only paid $2 for it. One good feature is these papers are specifically in dialogue with each other.

[perseusomega9]

From the same article.
Juvenal:"if the father starts keeping sabbath as a God fearing man, the son proceeds to have himself circumcised, and then the son proceeds to despise roman laws so that he may be obedient to the jewish one". Juv. Sat. 14.96-102

[Baley]

That seems to me like assuming that a sizeable Christain population anywhere would necessarily include, say, Coptic or Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.

Well, sort of. I'd assume that any sizeable emigré christian population from Southern Europe would include Catholics. In the same vein I would assume that any jewish diaspora population from Judea/Palestine would include Pharisees. They were the most popular jewish religious party of the time (more popular than Saduccees or Essenes). I have also given an example of a well known Pharisee moving to Egypt. Do you think my assumption is wrong?

[Ben C. Smith]

I havent read enough NPP to really say ( I've avoided wright, meier, the later dunn, etc on Paul). A few good papers on the end of Roman's and parts of 15. I'm finding some authors, while making connections in Pauline theology between different epistles, run into difficulty as usual but that's because most think these letters are complete and full letters by Paul. A few non-connections they made I thought could be better explained by competing Pauline factions within the letters but hey, I'm no scholar so what can I possible know. Wiefel's article above has some good summaries of archeology of Judaism in Rome 100bce- 100ce, but his analysis is quasi-apologetic, or at least conservative and unimaginative. He quotes Seutonious on Chrestos and the Jewish expulsion under Claudius, thinks that has to be Christos, which magically become Jesus of Nazareth a few sentences later. I'm not even sure these scholars realize what they're doing in loading assumption after assumption into their analysis anymore.

Not a bad read, plenty of papers, and I only paid $2 for it. One good feature is these papers are specifically in dialogue with each other.

Thanks for the summary. Personally, I think the New Perspective has a lot to offer on the interpretive side of things, but yes, the approach always seems to assume that the letters are pristine, with only a couple of possible exceptions.

[Secret Alias]

While it is not conclusive, since the Sadducees don't seem to have proselytized you are left with one Judean party basically to have carried out the observation of Horace. It is worth noting that there does seem to have been a veiled accusation in Philo that Alexandrian Jews were making converts in Egypt.

[Difflugia]

Well, sort of. I'd assume that any sizeable emigré christian population from Southern Europe would include Catholics. In the same vein I would assume that any jewish diaspora population from Judea/Palestine would include Pharisees. They were the most popular jewish religious party of the time (more popular than Saduccees or Essenes). I have also given an example of a well known Pharisee moving to Egypt. Do you think my assumption is wrong?

I've been thinking about this some more since I wrote the first response. The way I was thinking that Egypt might have escaped Persian influence dating back to before even the Second Temple period doesn't make sense as it would mean no Alexandrian versions of pretty much anything postexilic (Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Maccabees) so my original challenge to your comment is just wrong on its face.

On the other hand, I didn't realize that Pharisaism seems to have arisen only after the Maccabean revolt. That still allows about 150 years for enough movement from Palestine to Egypt to establish Egyptian communities of Pharisees, though, so if there's evidence of that kind of movement, I think I'm inclined to agree with you. Is that exactly the evidence that's lacking?

[mbuckley3]

Footnote : the line from Horace is not relevant. Not only is it not about Pharisees, it is probably not about proselytizing either. Horace terms the Jews a 'turba', an unruly crowd, a mob. This is how they are described in Rome a generation before Horace, as a pressure -group in the crowds intrinsic to public (legal/political) life, here trying to influence the course of a trial : "You know how numerous that 'turba' is, how great is its unanimity, and of what weight it is in the popular assemblies" ( Cicero, Pro Flacco 28.66).