PHARISEES OF MATTHEW

ANAYLYSIS OF MATTHEW 23: 3 IN THE LIGHT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PHARISEES AND WHO THE MODERN PHARISEES ARE.

TABLE OF CONTENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION.

2.0 WHO ARE THE PHARISEES AND SCRIBES?

2.1 PHARISEES AND SCRIBS OF JESUS’ TIME.

2.2 MPORTANCE OF THE PHARISEES OF JESUS' TIME.

3.0 ANALYSIS OF MATT. 23,2.

4.0 THE MODERN PHARISEES IN CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

5.0 EVALUATION.

CONCLUSION.

REFERENCES.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Most past and even recent writings or documentations on the Pharisees and scribes have dominantly presented limited facts as regards their origin, nature and function. A good number of today’s oracles of these groups construe them in a very negative and pejorative way. These undesirable conceptions evolve primarily from the biblical accounts of the gospel. The biblical conception of the Pharisees and scribes has paradoxically made them and their function or responsibility in Jewish traditional religious society more obscure and difficult to describe. In various sources, biblical scholars have painted these groups as a sect within Judaic tradition, a powerful religious leadership group, a political group, a learned scholarly group and many others. These categories used to explain who these people do not provide a healthy and lucid depiction of their reality in Jewish society. It is in the light of the above conceptions and the outstanding statement of Jesus: “the scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses seat….” (Matt. 23.2) that this easy revolves. Such instance is evident in the Ch. 23 of the gospel account of Matthew. In view of this, it will be scholarly to use a critical telescope to observe this group so as to generate more concrete understanding of the significance within the Jewish community. Consequently, this easy intends to x-ray the nature and function or role of the Pharisees and scribes; their encounter with Jesus, their importance, then their “figurative presence” within the modern day Christian religion.

2.0 WHO ARE THE PHARISEES AND SCRIBES?

The question of “the who?” of the Pharisees and scribes seems to be a problematic one in the sense that their origin and nature is difficult to establish. Many documentations regarding this set of people project various notions, though with seemingly common grounds.

The Pharisees were an important, powerful, and popular group of religious leaders among the Jews of Palestine. Their origin is unknown but they are believed to have been very popular with the people. According to biblical scholars, traditionally, the word Pharisee comes from the Hebrew פרושים prushim from פרוש parush meaning “separated,” that is, one who is separated for a life of purity. 1 Some recent views suggest that the word “Pharisee” may be traced to the Hebrew word parosim, meaning “specifier,” that is, that they sought to specify the correct meaning of the Law of Yahweh to the people.

The Pharisees were, depending on the time, a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought among Jews that flourished during the Second Temple Era (536 BC to 70 AD). After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Pharisaic sect re-established itself as Rabbinic Judaism - which ultimately produced normative, traditional Judaism, the basis for all contemporary forms of Judaism. They were one of at least four major schools of thought within the Jewish religion around the first century and were most prominent in opposition to the Sadducees.

The first mention of the Pharisees is by the Jewish historian Josephus, in a description of the “four schools of thought” into which the Jews were divided in the first century. He identifies some Jewish priests as Pharisees, so they should be regarded as a faction or interest group not necessarily opposed to the religious leadership. In all, the pieces of information we have about the Pharisees comes from three sources: Josephus (considered generally accurate), the New Testament (not very accurate), and rabbinic literature (fairly accurate). The Pharisees were probably a sectarian group (how one joined is unknown) faithful to their own traditions. The adhered to both the written and the oral law, emphasized ritual purity, and were popular and influential. Adherence to the oral law may have been their most distinctive feature.

2.1 PHARISEES AND SCRIBS OF JESUS’ TIME

During Jesus’ ministry He undoubtedly encountered in one way or another many, if not most, of these groups. Sadducees, Zealots, and Herodians are all mentioned in the gospels, as well as numerous references to the people of the land (commoners). These were the common folk, often untrained in the “schools” and unobservant in ceremonial details, who also provided so many of the followers of Jesus in those early days (ref. Luke 18:9-14; Acts 4:13.). The most famous group Jesus encountered, however, was the Pharisees. 2 While their membership may not have totaled more than a few thousand in His day, their influence was felt far beyond their havurot (“brotherhoods”). They were often associated with the scribes, most probably professional scholars in the Torah (theologians in our modern views), but sometimes were clearly distinguished from them.3 Some of the most stinging rebukes Jesus issued were directed toward the Pharisees. However, in general, the New Testament does not present a simple picture of the relationship between the Pharisees and Jesus. Those who perceived the Pharisees as a class of political leaders posit that Jesus came to be understood as a political liability or threat. Those who understand the Pharisees as a society of legal and religious experts suggest that Jesus became viewed as a dangerous rival, a false teacher with “antinomian tendencies”. To the extent that there were Pharisaic leaders and scribes, both these factors probably played a part. Yet other scholars point out that according to the Gospels the disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees centered primarily on the validity and application of purity, tithing, and Sabbath laws (e.g., Matt. 12:2, 12-14; 15:1-12; Mark 2:16; Luke 11:39-42). In the light of this evidence, it would seem that at least part of the Pharisaic opposition to Jesus was occasioned by the obvious disparity between Jesus’ claims about himself and his disregard for observances regarded by the Pharisees as necessary marks of piety. In the end, the Pharisees could not reconcile Jesus, his actions and his claims, with their own understanding of piety and godliness.

The Pharisees were in many ways the idealists of Jewish society. Most of the Scribes (the ‘theologians’ of the day) were Pharisees as well. This accounts for their relation with the Pharisees. In general, despite their ‘unfavourable press’ in the Gospels, the Pharisees sought to live a life of spiritual purity by a meticulous following of the Torah (Jewish law). They did not believe in compromise with the Romans (as did the Sadduccees) nor in revolutionary activity (as did the Zealots). No doubt their emphasis on the law could result in legalism. Nonetheless, many Pharisees were highly committed and deeply spiritual people. They believed in the resurrection of the dead. From their perspective, Jesus seemed to relativize the law which explains their anger towards him.

2.2 SIGNIFICANCE OR IMPORTANCE OF THE PHARISEES

The Pharisees are perhaps best known today because of their appearance in the New Testament. The New Testament portrays the Pharisees as legalistic, hypocritical, and jealous of Jesus’ popularity. While the latter may be theoretically plausible, the first two are not accurate or fair. Pharisees are the villains in gospel literature and, as such, are portrayed negatively because they need to be. “The sharp rebukes Jesus administered to the Pharisees and their frequent appearance as his antagonists have obscured the considerable area of agreement between them. He had many friendly contacts with certain Pharisees (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 13:31-33; 14:1; Mark 12:28-34; Matt. 23:1,2). These verses, if nothing else, should have made unnecessary the lesson many Christians have had to learn from Jewish scholars, that ‘Pharisee’ was not synonymous with ‘hypocrite’4. Let it be understood, therefore, that Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees was not universal, and that it was consistent with the Pharisees’ own recognition that they often fell far short of their own goals and aspirations.

Within the Pharisee circles, just prior to the coming of Jesus, it was taught that there were (at least) seven types of Pharisees, of which five (some say six) were conceived in the negative and only two (or one) were good. Some biblical scholars now believe that Jesus’ criticisms were primarily aimed at the ‘bad’ types of Pharisees and that he drew a large number of his followers from the ranks of the ‘good’ Pharisees and their followers. It may be pertinent to elucidate these different kinds of Pharisees who were in existence within Judaism. This of course will enable us understand that all the Pharisees were not the same and do not maintain exactly the same principles and way of life.

First is the Shikmi (shoulder) Pharisee: he is one who performs the action of Shechem (also known as a Shechemite), who carries his religious duties (that is, commandments) upon his shoulder (shekem), ostentatiously. The “shoulder” Pharisee wears his good deeds on his shoulders and obeys the precept of the Law, not the principle, but from expediency.

The second order is called the Nikip (stumbling) Pharisee. He is the one who knocks his feet together. He walks with exaggerated humility. According to the Jerusalem Talmud: “He says, “spare me a moment that I may perform a commandment.” This is ‘the wait-a-little Pharisee’, who begs for time in order to perform a meritorious action.

The third order is called the Kizai (bleeding) Pharisee. He is the one who makes his blood to flow against walls. In his anxiety to avoid looking upon a woman he dashes his face against the wall, in his eagerness to avoid looking for a woman shuts his eyes and so bruises himself to bleeding by stumbling against a wall.

The fourth order is called the Pestle (Mortar) Pharisee. His head is bowed like a pestle in a mortar. “The painted” Pharisee, who advertises his holiness least anyone should touch him so that he should be defiled.

The fifth order is the one who constantly exclaims (Reckoning) Pharisee. That is my duty that I may perform it? As though he had fulfilled every obligation.

The sixth order is called the “Pharisee from Love” (of God). In all but this one there is the element of “acting” of hypocrisy. This is the only order that is a reality. As Brad Young suggested: “Probably only one of these seven types of Pharisees is positive.” Joseph of Arimathea would probably have been a part of this category, along with Nicodemus.

The seventh order was the “Pharisee from fear,” whose relation to God is one of trembling awe. The sense of fear here as in Hebrew verb, is a sense of reverence. There is more involved here than mere psychological fear. 5

From the above evidence of this ancient work, it is clear now that there are seven types of Pharisee, only one or two of whom attain the ideal of “serving God out of love for Him” (Sotah 22b). Consequently, the other types may be the referent of all the negative conceptions against the entire sect.

According to the Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 2a, and 13b – 14a, in the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of Jerusalem, out of 70 seats of the council, 5 belongs to Pharisees. Interestingly, during the time of Jesus, 3 of the 5 Pharisees on the council were named in the Christian Scriptures, all three of whom were either followers of Christ - or at least sympathetic to or in good terms with Jesus’ followers. These three were Niccodemus, Joseph of Aramathea, and Gamaliel.

Additionally, as earlier stated, like Jesus, the Pharisees were the most popular of the religious ‘sects’ among the common people. They brought the practice of worshipping in synagogue to Israel with them from their captivity in Babylon. The Pharisee rabbis led the synagogue schools and taught that God could be worshipped wherever His people gathered.

Apart from their frequent frictional encounter with Jesus, the Pharisees were important to the development of modern Judaism. According to traditional view, although not all Pharisees were legal experts, Pharisaism was the ideology of the vast majority of the scribes and lawyers. Thus, as a group the Pharisees were the guardians and interpreters of the law and through this role they were able to preserve certain important Jewish traditions.

3.0 ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW 23, 2

The phrase: τῆς μωϊσέως καθέδρας ἐκάθισαν οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι. which translates thus “the Pharisees and scribes sit on the seat of Moses….” projected in the above chapter and verse of the gospel account of Matthew has received a wide range of views, few of which will be observed here. Biblical scholars have spent thought and ink in their effort to decipher what Jesus intended to project in the above statement. Many raise question as to whether these were Jesus’ actual words or Matthew’s.

Mark Allan Powell has an excursus on 23:2-7. He takes some issue with the traditional interpretation of this section, since the picture of the scribes and Pharisees in chapter 23 doesn’t square with the picture of these religious leaders in the rest of Matthew’s. He gives the following as the traditional understanding (which one may find in some other commentaries as their interpretation of the phrase).

First, by saying that the scribes and the Pharisees “sit on Moses’ seat,” Jesus grants that they have authority to interpret the scriptures for God’s people. They have authority to “bind and loose,” to determine on the basis of the scriptures what is the will of God for present circumstances. Second, by telling his disciples to do and keep whatever the scribes and the Pharisees say, Jesus commends adherence to the teaching of these religious leaders. Jesus’ followers ought to respect the authority of these teachers and live in accordance with their interpretation of scripture. 6

One’s suggestion here hinges on the possibility that when Jesus says that the “scribes and the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses”, he means that they are the keepers of the Torah, the ones who know and are able to tell others what Moses said. Cecil Roth and Kenneth Newport present arguments for regarding the “seat of Moses” as a literal piece of synagogue furniture, possibly the stand on which the law scroll itself rested. However, even if this is not the case and we are to take the phrase metaphorically, we need not assume that it is a metaphor for teaching authority. The most natural application would be to regard those who (metaphorically) sit on Moses’ seat as those who speak Moses’ words either by reading them from the scrolls themselves or by citing them from memory. Thus, those who occupy the seat of Moses (literally or metaphorically) may be regarded as those who control accessibility to Torah even if they are not regarded as persons who have the insight or authority to interpret Torah.

In saying that the scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, Jesus may be simply acknowledging the powerful social and religious position they occupy in Matthew’s gospel story world, a world in which most people are illiterate and copies of the Torah are not plentiful. Since Jesus’ disciples do not themselves have copies of the Torah, they will be dependent on the scribes and the Pharisees to know what Moses said on any given subject. In light of such dependence, Jesus advises his disciples to heed the words that the scribes and the Pharisees speak when they sit on the seat of Moses, that is, when they pass on the words of the Torah itself. The first activity of the scribes and the Pharisees, the one that Jesus commends, refers not to teaching or interpretation of Moses but simply to citation of Moses. 7 With this approach, what the religious leaders do correctly is to quote scriptures. We are “to do” and, literally, “to keep” whatever they say. What they say would refer to what they read (or recite the Torah from memory) from Moses’ Seat. That is, we are to listen to them and pay attention when they read/recite scriptures, and follow when they start interpreting the scriptures. In order to make sense of the import of this authority, we reflect on why the disciples should observe whatever the scribes and Pharisees tell them.

Scholarly investigation has thus far suggested a more straightforward reading of verse 2 to be in order. Historically, it is known that the “Seat of Moses” was an actual chair in the synagogue where authorized teachers of the Torah sat. When Jesus states that the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses, he means this both literally and figuratively (or metaphorically). Whether taken literal or metaphorical, the ‘seat of Moses’ is generally understood to represent authority to teach the laws given by God through Moses.8 In Greek Matthew, the Pharisees and Scribes sit upon the seat of Moses, and so most interpretations assume that “they” are the inheritors of this authority - a fact which even Jesus apparently admits. The Jesus of Greek Matthew, follows his own apparent admission of the authority of these leaders with a charge for his disciples to follow the teachings of these Jewish leaders. However, taken at the peripheral level, and when read in conjunction with verse 3a, this verse seems to suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were the authorized and legitimate teachers of the Torah. They are the expounders of the Law of Moses i.e. as interpreters of the law given by Moses. Though it has been established that the scribes and Pharisees were the authorized teachers of the Torah- does this mean that Jesus endorses their legal interpretations of Scripture? What exactly does Jesus mean when he instructs the disciples to do whatever the Pharisees tell them?

 The meaning of Matt 23:3a. Steve Mason, a biblical scholar argues, that verse 2 is in fact a sweeping endorsement of Pharisaic authority.9 The tension created by such a blanket affirmation of Pharisaic authority juxtaposed against scathing indictments that follow compels Mason to conclude that Matt 23:2-3 is a pre-Matthean tradition.

 The basis of Jesus’ command to obey the Pharisees. Many scholars interpret verse 3 to be a concession to the reality of Pharisaic dominance and authority in Second Temple Judaism. Saldarini (a theological scholar), writes that Matthew “acknowledges the authority of the scribes and Pharisees, but he then undercuts it with attacks on their titles, laws, and intentions and proposes an alternative model of community leadership.”10 This view has some merit, and as Powell points out, Saldarini offers us an important insight overlooked by many New Testament scholars: “acknowledgement does not necessarily imply endorsement.”11

Jesus does not merely acknowledge the authority of the Pharisees, however; he instructs his disciples to obey them. Because God appointed the order, the Lord would therefore have his word to be heard even from the mouth of hypocrites and hirelings.

4.0 THE MODERN PHARISEES IN CHRISTIAN RELIGION

A concrete evaluation of the position and functions of the ancient Pharisees and scribes of Jesus’ era reveals echoes of their existence in some varying form within the Christendom of our contemporary time. There are numerous gospel texts that present Jesus either exercising authority in his ministry or teaching about authority to his disciples (one of such example is this Matt. 23, 2). Viewed with a Christian telescope, authority sustains two major characteristics: it is characterized as service, and the exercise of authority demands openness to the transcendent; there must be a fundamental dependence on God and the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Analytically then, one who is in or who sits on the seat of authority is in the position of service. Christ makes this question of service lucid in the gospels when James and John (his apostles) requested for places of privileged in his kingdom (Mk. 10, 42-45). The fact that the scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of authority fixes them in the position of service, which is the interpretation and explanation of the law to the people.

 In view of the above, we can observe that certain similarities can be drawn between the ancient Pharisaic authority and authority structure of the Christian church today, with particular interest on the Roman Catholic Church. Just as Jerusalem was the central city of Jewish authority and the base of the “council of elders of the people” (Luke. 22, 66) – the “Senate of the sons of Israel” (Acts. 5, 21) known as the Sanhedrin; the Vatican City is the epicenter of Roman Catholic Church’s authority. However, the authority of the church disseminated according to her hierarchical structure. In the light of this, the pope, Bishops and priests stand the position of explanation of the Word to the people. Thus, the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church resides in the Pope, Bishops. They stand in the right position to judge or rather interpret the true meaning of revelation and to teach it with authority. Put differently, the Pope, Bishops (and the priests) sit now not just on the seat of Moses but on the seat of Christ himself to interpret and teach the people the fundamentals of revelation. It may be also argued that theologians are the modern scribes of our contemporary era. They may be acting as helpers of those at the church’s vanguard of interpretation of the scripture. However, they have no authority of their own to authenticate any teaching within the sphere of the church unless sanctioned by the authority of the church.

5.0 EVALUATION

Christian tradition, beginning with the New Testament has generally perceived and presented the Pharisees as an antithesis to the life and teachings of Jesus. Ironically, this is significant because for there to be a synthesis (closer to truth and perfection) there is need for antithesis. So the Pharisees and scribes here served this purpose.

In our present time, it is almost a general idea that this word “Pharisee” and its meaning have a pejorative connotation. As a result of the New Testament’s frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers, the word “Pharisee” (and its derivatives: “pharisaical”, etc.) has changed in meaning and has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit. Consider the following definition of “Pharisaic” in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary: “pretending to be highly moral or virtuous without being so; hypocritical.”12 Thus, most often there are certain characters one may exhibit and others, especially within the Christendom, will admonish him or her with such expressions: “desist from pharisaic attitude.” This indicates the level to which this class has been relegated to in the course of time. Granted that some Pharisees especially at the time of Jesus were hypocritic, but this yardstick cannot be used to draw conclusions about the rest of the sect. One cannot authentically condemn this sect because their contribution to Judaism helped to elevate the moral cum spiritual standard of the people. In the same light, the specific statement of Jesus in our case study quotation, stresses the significance of this group of Jews and their position in the Jewish tradition. Consequently, the misuse of this name may be blamed on ignorance or over generalization. The life of some outstanding figures in the scripture, who have link with Pharisee, reveals more of the place in Jewish religious community. For instance when Paul writes about his life as a Pharisee, he says that he was blameless as to righteousness under the law (Phil. 3:5-6). Similarly, Paul, himself some twenty years after his conversion, who affirmed before a council of Pharisees and Sadducees that he was a Pharisee (But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (Acts 23:6). More still, there were some who were sincere righteous people. When Nicodemus genuinely sought the truth, Jesus gave grace and instructed him in the way of Salvation (John 3: 1-21).

In his book “New Testament Survey”, M. C. Tenney asserts, “Not all of them were hypocrites. Nicodemus, who earnestly sought out Christ during His earthly ministry and ultimately shared with Joseph of Arimathea the responsibility of burying Jesus’ body was a Pharisee.”13 this shows that the Pharisees were of important even at the time of Jesus but just like in every group, there are always those who paint the group black. Among the apostles Jesus selected, this inevitably appeared in the person of Judas. In other words, that a few number of the Pharisees are hypochritic in character, does not make the entire group hypocrites.

It should be noted that the conflicts of the scribes and Pharisees with Christ’s teaching were not so much over doctrines and beliefs, but of a lack of understanding of Jesus’ mission. The New Testament attests that not all Pharisees were adversaries of Christ. Luke 7:36, 11:37, and 14.1 relate Christ’s sitting down to eat with Pharisees. In Luke 13:31, a Pharisee warns Jesus of danger. This of course indicates that some Pharisees and scribes of Jesus era were authentic.

 

CONCLUSION

We must not be oblivion of the fact that there is no perfect situation in life or a group of people (or beings) that are completely perfect. Even among angels, there were those who became unauthentic and rebellious, what then about mortals? The Pharisees and scribes as a given sect in Jewish tradition have their limitation but this does not totally dilute their positive impact in Judaism. Also one cannot honestly deny their significance within the era of Jesus. The authority of the Pharisees and scribes is a special one and they sustained significant position in the sphere of Judaism. Similarly, in the modern Christian era, this authority is felt through the ministers (in other Christian denominations) and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church radiated through the pope and bishops and disseminated through the priests and consecrated.

REFERENCES

1. Baron, Salo W. “A Social and Religious History of the Jews” Vol 2. p.57.

2. Emil S. and T. Edinburgh., “The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus

Christ”, Vol. II, 1979. pp. 381-403.

3. Jeremias J., “Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus”, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1969. p. 246

4. Ferguson E, “Backgrounds of Early Christianity”, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1987, p 408.

5. Babylonian Talmud: Sotah 22b, trans. By Cohen A, & (ed) Epstein. I.

6. Powell M., “God With Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew’s Gospel”,

1995. p. 75

7. Powell M., Ibid. pp.78-9

8. Nichols R., A Note on Matthew 23:2-3, According to Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew

1997. p. 305

9. Mason S, “Flaivus Josephus on the Pharisees”, published by Brill Academic Publishers,

2001. p. 89.

10. Saldarini A, “Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community”, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

1994. p. 234.

11. Powell M., Ibid, p. 77

12. “Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary”, Noah W, (Ed), Dorest & Baber Publishers,

New York. 1972.p 1344.

13. Tenney M. C., “New Testament Survey”, published by Munnbooks Limited, United Kingdom,

1988. p. 45

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrahams, I., “Studies in Pharaism and the Gospels”, Cambridge 1917 (rep. New York 1967).

Brown E. Raymond., “An Introduction To The New Testament”,. Doubleday Publishers, New

York, 1997.

Emil S. T and Edinburgh T. C., “The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus

Christ”, Vol. II, 1979.

Gigot, F. C., “Outlines of New Testament History”, Benziger Brothers Publishers, New

York 1902.

Herford R. T., “The Pharisees”, Macmillan Company, New York, 1924.

Jeremias J., “Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus”, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1969.

Mason S., “Flaivus Josephus on the Pharisees”, Brill Academic Publishers, Boston, 2001.

Nichols R., A Note on Matthew 23:2-3, According to Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew

1997.

Powell M., “God With Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew’s Gospel”,

Salo W. Baron., “A Social and Religious History of the Jews” Vol 2.

Saldarini A., “Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community”, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

1994.

Tenney M. C. “New Testament Survey”, Munnbooks Press Ltd, United Kingdom, 1988.

“Anatomy of The New Testament: A Guide to its Structure and Meaning”. Robert Spiney &

Moody Smith (Eds). Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc, New York, 1969.

“The Anchor Bible Dictionary” Vol V. Freedman N. David (Ed). Doubleday publishers New York.

1992.

“Babylonian Talmud”: Sotah, trans. By Cohen A, & (ed) Epstein. I.

“Haper’s Bible Dictionary”. Achtemeier J. Paul (Ed). Haper’s and Row publishers, San Francisco,

1985.

The Holy Bible, (RSV), Catholic Edition, Thomas Nelson Inc. U.S.A, 1990.

“New Testament Interpretation: Essay on Principles and Methods”. Marshall Howard (Ed). The

Paternoster Press Ltd, 1977.

“Theological Dictionary of The New Testament”. Gerhard Kittel & Gehard Friedrich (Eds). The

Paternoster Press Ltd, 1977.

“Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary”, Noah W, (Ed), Dorest & Baber Publishers,

New York. 1972.

Whiston W., “The Works of Josephus”, Hendrickson publishers U.S.A, 1982.