Pharisee, but what is it?

Saul's participation in the persecution of the Church, as well as the term "zealous" by which he describes his actions, clearly indicate that he belonged to a very specific trend in Judaism in the first century C.E. Both give us many reasons to assume what ideas led the young Tarsus to persecute Christians not only in the Holy Land but also abroad. Both allow us to see in him not just a Jew, but a Pharisee; not just a Pharisee, but a disciple of Rabbi Shammai; finally, not just a disciple of Rabbi Shammai, but the most orthodox of the faithful.

Who were the Shammaites? Thirty years before the appearance of Saul of Tarsus on the historical scene, a split occurred in the Pharisaic movement. During the reign of Herod the Great (36-4 B.C.), two rabbinic schools arose within the then very influential movement. They were led by two of the most revered teachers of that time, Hillel and Shammai. They are known mainly from numerous discussions in the Mishnah (codification of Jewish law around 200 C.E.), in which Hillel is almost always "lenient" and Shammai is "stern."

By the time of the Mishnah's origins, that is, about the end of the second century C.E., Hillel's adherents, as is evident from most of its texts, had prevailed. However, in the interval between the era of Hillel and Shammai, that is, the end of the first century and the very beginning of the second century, when the famous Rabbi Akiva became the ruler of minds, there was practically no cessation of discussions between the "Hillelites" and the "Shammaites". Saul grew up in an atmosphere of fierce disputes and struggles between supporters of the two parties. He was not just a Jew forced to accept the authority of the Gentiles, a goyim, not just a Pharisee living in a world in which (from the Pharisaic point of view) many Jews had stained themselves with paganism, but a disciple of Shammai, a hardliner, or, as we would say now, a militant "extreme right."

But why was Hillel lenient and, on the contrary, stern? When one reads the Mishnah and other later rabbinic texts, it would seem that the debate was mainly about the Torah. However, in Paul's world, everything was much more complicated. The disputes between the "lenient" and the "strict" were not limited to the observance of religious precepts. It was not a question of personal or public piety. The main problem around which spears were broken was as "theological" as it was "political." At stake was the fate of Israel – its people, its land, its Temple.

The basic question at that time, as in almost all times of Jewish history, was: What should we do now? Hillel's disciples, by and large, adhered to the principle of "live and do not interfere with the lives of others." Let Herod and Pilate rule the world together with Caiaphas, let them even rule Israel, if only the Jews could calmly study and observe the law given to them – the Torah. Shammai's followers believed that this was not enough. The Torah, they argued, required Israel to throw off the pagan yoke, to serve its God in peace and freedom, and to call no one lord except the one true God, Yahweh.

This is how "zeal" or "zeal for God and the tradition of the fathers" was understood in first-century Judaism. For us, "zeal" is rather a feverish state of heart and spirit, in other words, ardor. It cannot be said that this connotation is completely absent in the meaning that was closer to the Jews of the first century. However, if the modern Christian sees "zeal" in falling on his knees on any occasion, preaching the Gospel with fervor and straining to do good deeds, in contemporary Judaism Paul was more likely to be a knife. Longing for freedom from the Roman yoke, the Jews of the first century were inspired by the Old Testament images of Phinehas and Elijah, as well as the exploits of the Maccabees who lived two centuries earlier. As long as they are "zealous for the LORD11 and the Torah," they have every right and, moreover, a direct duty in the name of the LORD and the Torah to stop at nothing, not even violence. "Jealousy" was thus understood as a call for a holy war, which, at least at first, was to be waged by almost guerrilla methods by individual devoted daredevils.

However, one should not think that such revolutionary ideas wandered only in a few hot heads or briefly surfaced at the right time (for example, when it was necessary to inspire the war of the 60s and 70s). It can be safely stated that such attitudes agitated society both in the first century before the birth of Christ and in the first century after it. Surprisingly, their bearers were the Pharisees, or more precisely, the disciples of Shammai. However, the Jewish "revolutionaries" of that time were not at all like political rebels who were far from the faith. Their revolutionary "flame" was kindled and sustained by the reading of holy books, prayers and fasting, which made them very similar to modern Islamic extremists. According to archaeologists, the last "sicarii" who stabbed each other in the besieged fortress of Masada were deeply religious people.

We have every reason to say that in the period between the reign of Herod the Great and the Jewish War of 66-70 C.E., the Shammites prevailed in society. In the circle of Hillel's disciples there were also very notable personalities, for example, Gamaliel, mentioned in the fifth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 5:34-39). He defended the "permissive" position already known to us: if the new movement (that is, Christianity) is not from God, it will collapse under its own weight, but if it is from God, then it is better not to oppose it. However, at that time, Gamaliel's supporters were a clear minority, the tone was set by "ardent revolutionaries". Josephus Flavius gives a fairly accurate idea of them: they were the followers of Shammai – the "zealous for God", the "zealous for the Torah" Pharisees, who agreed to go anywhere and to anything, including violence, if only to bring closer the desired freedom and the long-awaited Kingdom of God. If we remember that in the first century there was more than one movement similar to all the well-known "Zealots", it becomes obvious that "zealots for the Torah" were a very common phenomenon, especially among the uncompromising students of Shammai. In other words, according to some scholars (including me), it is to the extreme right Shammaites that we owe the understanding of "jealousy" as the thirst for a "holy war" in which the Gentiles will be defeated once and for all, and the apostate Jews will be returned to the fold or destroyed along with the Gentiles.

In the twentieth century, these events could serve as a very timely warning about the dangers of anachronisms. In order to have a general idea of Shammai's beliefs, it is enough to understand what ideology is behind the shooting of Yitzhak Rabin, which thundered in Tel Aviv on November 4, 1995. Newspapers wrote that Yigal Amir, who shot at the Israeli prime minister, "studied the law." A Westerner might have thought that he was preparing to become a legal adviser or a lawyer, but what was meant was quite different: Amir was studying the Torah. As was evident from virtually all the newspapers, he was convinced, supported by some influential Israeli and American rabbis, that Rabin was a traitor, that he had sold himself to the Gentiles because he was willing to give up one of the most important symbols of the people, namely the land, for the sake of peace.

When I saw the photo of Amir on the cover of the London Times, and then read the report, I was horrified to realize that I was looking at a modern version of Saul of Tarsus. He could not be suspected of inconsistency. He was not mentally ill. Moreover, Amir knew that he was right. All land, including the West Bank (the Israelites call it "Judea and Samaria"), must belong to Israel, because the Torah teaches so. Those who compromise, as well as those who are willing to compromise in order to flirt with the enemy, are apikorsim, traitors. Upon learning of Rabin's assassination, most Jews in Israel and abroad shuddered, as Gamaliel and his allies had once experienced. Amir correctly understood what it means to be zealous for the Torah. This "jealousy" cannot be pietistic or apolitical. And even more so "non-resistant". "To be zealous for the Torah" means, acting in the name of God, to cleanse Israel of defilement and thereby bring the Kingdom closer, to free the people from the pagan yoke. Of course, it would be a mistake to say that Amir's action is no different from Saul's. However, Amir himself allows us to understand the young Tarsian much better than many of the images we cherish. At the very least, he reminds us that "zeal for God" is much more than fervent prayers and self-sufficient religiosity.

After the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., the gulf between the Hillelites and the Shammites became even deeper. By that time, Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai had led Hillel's supporters, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkan gained the greatest influence in the ranks of the Shammaites. The main question now was: Should we reconquer Jerusalem, rebuild the Temple, and throw off the Roman yoke? Hillel's followers, as we can guess from the only late (outside – or even anti-revolutionary) Hillelite hagiography available to us, tried to prove that the Torah is most important. After all, they assured, the destruction of the Temple was not such a tragedy, since we can still study the Torah, follow it, and therefore enjoy the presence of God as if we were in the Temple. The Shammaites, on the other hand, demanded a revolt: only the complete liberation of Israel, only the restoration of the Temple – they would not settle for anything less. Towards the end of this period, Rabbi Akiva, later hailed by the Hillelite as one of the greatest teachers of all time, unexpectedly joins the revolt of Simon ben Koziba and declares him to be the Messiah, the "son of the star," who has come to wage holy war against the Gentiles.