Pharisees Torah Only?

[NewReformation]

The Pharisees were NOT Torah-Only. That distinction would belong to the Saducees. The Pharisees held to the Torah, as well as the rest of the Old Testament writings, and the Talmud. The Talmud was the "Oral Tradition" which was given to Moses at Mt Sinia(I think). The Saducees, who were Torah only, didn't believe in the afterlife since it was't spoken of in the Torah. The Pharisees believed that their intepretation of both the Torah and Talmud was correct, and once something was interpreted it was strictly followed. The Talmud was not actually copied down until a few centuries after Moses received it(I think it was that long). If anything, the Pharisees could be compared to Catholics rather than Protestants, since Protestants don't hold to the teaching of Church Tradition(note, this is not intended to be a slam on Catholics).

[ironmonk]

Protestants do hold many traditions. Wedding rings, Christ Mass, Easter, etc...

The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint (293 AD). The Jews used the Septuagint up until 90 AD when they created the Messorah.

Every Christian used the Septuagint until the kjv was made. Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint.



God Bless,
ironmonk

[MC Just]

I'll Trust Brother Bob Fishman's word before anyone elses.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Apr 16 2004, 02:17 PM'] I'll Trust Brother Bob Fishman's word before anyone elses. [/quote]
Not wise at all. Jewish and Christian sources both record that the Pharisees used the Torah, the Talmud, and the other books of the Old Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that 'we are indebted to them for the books of Daniel and Enoch'(that's a paraphrase, I can't remember exactly what it said). Christian and Jewish sources also record that the Saducees accepted the Torah only. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[ironmonk]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11789b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11789b.htm[/url]

[b]Pharisees [/b]

[quote]It was the Pharisees who made idealized nationalism, based upon the monothism of the prophets, the very essence of Judaism. To them we are indebted for the great apocalypses, Daniel and Enoch, and it was they who made common the belief in the resurrection and future reward. In a word, their pedagogical influence was an important factor in training the national will and purpose for the introduction of Christianity. This great work, however, was marred by many defects and limitations. Though standing for the spiritualizing tendency, Pharisaism developed a proud and arrogant orthodoxy and an exaggerated formalism, which insisted on ceremonial details at the expense of the more important precepts of the Law (Matt., xxiii, 23-28). The importance attached to descent from Abraham (Matt., iii, 9) obscured the deeper spiritual issues and created a narrow, exclusive nationalism incapable of understanding a universal Church destined to include Gentile as well as Jew. It was only through the revelation received on the road to Damascus, that Saul the Pharisee was enabled to comprehend a church where all are equally the "seed of Abraham", all "one in Christ Jesus" (Gal., iii, 28-9). This exclusivism, together with their over valuation of external levitical observances, caused the Pharisees to be ranged in opposition to what is known as prophetism, which in both the Old and New Testament places the main emphasis on character and the religious spirit, and thus they incurred not only the vehement reproaches of the Precursor (Matt., iii, 7 seq.), but also of the Saviour Himself (Matt., xxiii, 25 seq.). [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13323a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13323a.htm[/url]

[b]Sadducees[/b]

[quote]A politico-religious sect of the Jews during the late post-Exile and New-Testament period. The old derivation of the name from tsaddiqim, i.e. the righteous; with assumed reference to the adherence of the Sadducees to the letter of the Law as opposed to the pharasaic attention to the superadded "traditions of the elders", is now generally discredited mainly on philological grounds and the term is associated with the proper name "Sadoc", Sadducee being equivalent to Sadokite. They became the dominant priestly party during the Greek and Roman period of Jewish history, and the name, whether bestowed seriously or in irony, originated doubtless in their pretensions to the descendants of Sadoc, the high-priest prominent in the times of David and Solomon (III Kings, I, 8, 26, 32; ii, 35; I Par., xxix, 22; cf. Ezech., xl, 46; xlii, 19; etc.). As a prominent political party they first appear in the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.). They espoused the hellenizing tendencies of the Asmonean princes in which they were strongly opposed by the Pharisees (q.v.), or Separatists, a party evolved from the earlier Assideans, and which abhorred all forms of Greek culture as detrimental to the religious interests of the Jewish nation. Under Aristobulus I and Alexander Jannæus, the immediate successor of John Hyrcanus, the power of the Sadducees was supreme, and though the opposing faction of the Pharisees came into favour during the regency of Alexandra Salome (780-69 B.C.), the Sadducees regained their ascendancy under Aristobulus II (69-63 B.C.) whom they supported in his conflicts with Hyrcanus II, Antipater, and the Romans. When Pompey captured Jerusalem (63 B.C.) he executed many of their leaders, as did also Herod the Idumean on his accession to power (37 B.C.). The Sadducees retained however, their traditional priestly functions and also a varying preponderance in the Sanhedrin, but even in this respect their influence was much diminished through the policy of Herod and later of the Roman procurators of Judea, who, arbitrarily and mainly for political reasons, appointed and removed the high-priests at will.

During this period and down to the destruction of Jerusalem the Sadducees were naturally unpopular with the masses because of their marked tendency to side closely with the ruling power, while the patriotic and exclusive Pharisees became more and more the leaders of the people. Among the religious difference between the two parties may be mentioned the denial on the part of the Sadducees of the resurrection, the immortality of the soul and the existence of angels (Matt., xxii, 23; Mark xii, 18; Acts, xxiii, 8). They rejected likewise the oral traditions which the Pharisees maintained and emphasized as a Divinely ordained supplement to the written law. While the tenacity and exclusiveness and other characteristics of the Pharisees have been indelibly impressed on all subsequent generations of Judaism, the influence of the indifferent and materialistic Sadducees vanished completely as soon as the Jews ceased to be a nation. [/quote]



Seeing that the Sadducees where the ruling party for so long and being high priests, I do not believe that all they used was the Torah because the Septuagint had to be translated by them... The high priests had the infallible authority and were guided by God in cases of faith and morals.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[willguy]

[quote]The Pharisees were NOT Torah-Only[/quote]

He's right. The Saducees were Torah-only, which is why they denied the resurrection or afterlife (as he also said).