PHALIAS

PHAIIAS (1 Es 9<») = Pelaiah, Neh 8'.

PHALTIEL (cf. 2 S S").— The ■ captain of the people" (2 Es 5").

PHANUEL.— The mother of Anna (Lk 2").

PHARAKIM.— A family of Nethinim (1 Es 5").

PHARAOH.— The later Egyptian royal title, Per-'o, "Great House," adopted into Hebrew. Originally designating the royal establishment in Egypt, it gradually became the appellative title of the king, and from the 22nd Dyn. (c. B.C. 950) onwards was regularly attached to the king's name in popular speech. The Hebrew Pharaoh-necho and Pharaoh-hophra are thus precise renderings of Egyptian. Shishak also was entitled Per-'o Sheshonk in Egyptian, but apparently Hebrew had not yet adopted the novel fashion, and so gave his name without Pharaoh (1 K II" 14M). Tirhakah is not entitled Pharaoh as in Egyptian documents, but is more accurately described as king of Cash (2 K 19").

The following Pharaohs are referred to without their names being specified: 1. Pharaoh of Abram (Gn 12i"-2»), impossible to identify. The title Pharaoh and the mention of camels appear to be anachronisms in the story. 2. Pharaoh of Joseph (Gn 39 etc.). The proper names in the story, viz. Potiphar, Potiphera, Asenath, Zaphenath-paneah are at once recognizable (when the vocalization is discounted) as typical names (Petepre, Esneit, Zepnetefonkh) of the late period beginning with the 22nd Dyn. (c. B.C. 950), and ending in the reign of Darius (c. B.C. 500). It has been conjectured that the Pharaoh of Joseph was one of the Hyksos kings, but it is not advisable to press for historical identifications in this beautiful legend. 3. and 4. The Pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus. The name of,Baamses, given to a store-city built by the Hebrews" (Ex 1"), points to one of the kings named Ramesses in the 19th-20th Dyn. as the Pharaoh of the Oppression. The chief of these was Ramesses ii. (c. B.C. 1350), after whom several towns were named. He was perhaps the greatest builder in Egyptian history. His son Mineptah might be the Pharaoh of the Exodus: but from the fifth year of Mineptah bijiere is an Egyptian record of the destruction of ' Israel," who, it would seem, were already in Palestine. At present it is impossible to ascertain the proportion of historical truth contained in the legends of the Exodus. 5. 1 Ch 4'8, 'Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh": no clue to identity. Bithiah is Heb., and not like an Egyp. name. 6. 1 K 3' 9'«- « 11', Pharaoh, the father-in-law of Solomon, must be one of the feeble kings of the end of the 21st Dynasty. 7. 1 K 11"8, the Pharaoh who befriended Hadad the Edomite in the last days of Solomon, and gave him the sister of his queen Tahpenes: not identified. (At this point in the nar-rative Shishak comes in: he is never called Pharaoh, see above.) 8. Pharaoh, king of Egypt in 2 K 18", Is 36» etc., perhaps as a general term for the Egyptian king, not pointing to any individual. In the time of Sennacherib and Hezekiah, Tirhakah or some earlier king of the Ethiopian Dynasty would be on the throne. 9. For Jer 37, Ezk 29, see Hophra. F. Ll. Griffith.

FHARATHON. — Named, with Timnath and Tephon, among the cities which Bacchides 'strengthened with high walls, with gates and with bars' (1 Mac 9'°). Some authorities read with LXX ' Timnath-pharathon,' as indicating one place. Conder suggests Fer'on, about 15 miles W. of Nablus. This seems to be too far to the north, as the towns mentioned are all 'in Judffia.' It may possibly be Fer'ata, 6 miles S.W. of Nablus, although the same difficulty exists in a modified degree. Cf. Pikathon. W. Ewing.

PHARES.— See Perez.

PHARIDA.— See Perjda.

PHARISEES. — A study of the four centuries before Christ supplies a striking illustration of the law that

PHARISEES

the deepest movements of history advance without the men, who in God's plan are their agents, being clearly aware of what is going on. The answer to the question — How came the Pharisees into the place of power and prestige they held in the time of our Lord? involves a clear understanding of the task of Israel after the Exile. It was to found and develop a new type of community. The Hebrew monarchy had been thrown into perpetual bankruptcy. But monarchy was the only form that the political principle could assume in the East. What should be put in its place? In solving this problem the Jews created a community which, while it was half-State, was also half-Church. The working capital of the Jews was the monotheism of the prophets, the self -revelation of God in His character of holy and creative Unity, and, inseparable from this, the belief in the perfectibility and indestructibility of the Chosen Nation (the Messianic idea). Prophecy ceased. Into the place of the prophet came the school-master and the drill-master. They popularized mono-theism, making it a national instinct. Necessarily, the popularization of monotheism drew along with it a growing sense of superiority to the heathen and idolatrous nations amongst whom their lot was cast. And by the same necessity the Jews were taught to separate themselves from their heathen neighbours (Ezr 10"). They must not intermarry, lest the nation be dragged down to the heathen level. This was the state of things in the 3rd cent. B.C. (see Essenes), when Hellenism began to threaten Judaism with annihila-tion. The deepest forces of Judaism sounded the rally. The more zealous Jews drew apart, calling themselves the 'Holy Men" iPhoMdlm), Puritans, or those self-dedicated to the realization of Ezra's ideal. Then came the great war. The tendencies of Judaism precipitated themselves. The Jewish Puritans became a distinct class called the 'Pharisees," or men who separated themselves from the heathen, and no less from the heathenizing tendencies and forces in their own nation. They abstained even from table-fellowship with the heathen as being an abominable thing (Gal 2™) . As years went on It became more and more clear that the heart of the nation was with them. And so it comes to pass that in our Lord's time, to use His own words, ' the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat ' (Mt 23^). They, not the priests, are the source of authority.

The history of Pharisaism enables us to understand its spirit and ruling ideas, to do justice to its greatness, while emphasizing its limitations and defects. Into it went the deepest elements among the forces which built the Jewish church and nation. The Pharisees are seen at their best when contrasted with the Zealots (see Canan^an) on the one side and the Herodians (wh. see) on the other. Unlike the latter, they were deeply in earnest with their ancestral religion. Again and again at critical times they showed the vigour and temper of fearless Puritanism. Unlike the former, they held back from the appeal to force, believing that the God of the nation was in control of history, that in His own good time He would grant the nation its desire; that, meanwhile, the duty of a true Israelite was whole-hearted devotion to the Torah, joined to patient waiting on the Divine will. This nobler side of Pharisaism could find itself in Ps 119. The Pharisees were in a sense Churchmen rather than statesmen. And they emphasized spiritual methods. Their interests lay in the synagogue, in the schooling of children, in missionary extension amongst the heathen. They deserved the power and prestige which we find them holding in our Lord's time. The Master Himself seems to say this when He distinguishes between their rightful authority and the spirit which they often showed in their actions (Mt 23i-«). Hence we are not surprised when we learn that, after the conflicts with Rome {a.d. 66-135), Pharisaism became practically synonymous with Judaism. One great war (the Maccabaean) had

719