Were the Pharisees the conservatives or the liberals?

[Logos1560]

Through the years, I have been taught that the Pharisees were the conservative Jewish group while the Sadducees were the liberal sect of Jews.

In the introduction, Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook asserted: "It is certain that the Pharisees, largely a lay movement and the liberals of their day, generally opposed the Hasmoneans. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were composed primarily of priests and as the conservatives supported the Hasmoneans" (Dead Sea Scrolls--a New Translation, p. 17). [bold type added by this poster]

Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook wrote: "The Pharisees were distinguished in particular for their oral law, an unwritten adjunct to the Scriptures that claimed to provide the correct interpretation of Holy Writ" (p. 18).

Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook wrote: "The movement arose among the religious conservatives of its day, whereas the Pharisees were more liberal" (p. 33).

 

[Ben1445]

I always understood it as you and contrary to your quoted author.
Definitions certainly have some bearing on it, but without defining terms, I would assume that the conservative view would hold to angels and resurrection as written it the OT. On the other side I assume that the liberal view would take liberties with those teachings and interpret them as freely as they wish, ultimately denying them.

Is there a reason given for his assertion of there leanings?
He did say “religious conservatives.” For a second I wondered if he was including political ideology.

 

[Logos1560]

In contrast to the one source, Roger Beckwith wrote: "The Pharisees were traditionalists, and ... traditionalists are essentially conservative" (Calendar and Chronology, p. 182). Roger Beckwith asserted: "The upholders of tradition were the Pharisees, not the Sadducees, who rejected tradition and claimed to follow Scripture alone" (p. 177). Roger Beckwith described the Sadducees as a "biblicist" movement and as a "reforming" movement (p. 177).


In their introduction to The Dead Sea Scrolls A New Translation, Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook wrote: “The Pharisees were distinguished in particular for their oral law, an unwritten adjunct to the Scriptures that claimed to provide the correct interpretation of Holy Writ” (p. 18). They noted: “They [the Pharisees] were the forebears of the rabbis, and rabbinic literature contains a fair number of laws and traditions that go back to the Pharisees” (Ibid.). They asserted: “Modern Judaism comes from Pharisaism” (p. 35).

Roger Beckwith asserted: “The Pharisees upheld oral tradition” (Calendar and Chronology, p. 174). Roger Beckwith observed: “The characteristic additions which Pharisaic tradition makes to Scripture are its preventative measures—the ‘making of a fence around the Law’ so as to ‘keep a man far from transgression’ (Mishnah Aboth 1:1, Berakoth 1:1)” (p. 183). Roger Beckwith pointed out that tradition “readily develops a life of its own; for it tends to add to Scripture where Scripture is restrained, and to adapt Scripture, not just to changing conditions but to the weakness of the flesh; and these developments are liable, in time, to become sacrosanct, and to resist attempts to test and correct them by Scripture” (pp. 182-183). Roger Beckwith wrote: “The characteristic adaptations of Scripture which Pharisaic traditions contains are admitted to ‘make void the Law’ but only because ‘it is time to work for the Lord’ (M. Berakoth 9:5), i.e. because of the exigence of the times” (p. 183).

 

[Ben1445]

"The upholders of tradition were the Pharisees, not the Sadducees, who rejected tradition and claimed to follow Scripture alone" (p. 177). Roger Beckwith described the Sadducees as a "biblicist" movement and as a "reforming" movement (p. 177).

This is reminiscent of today’s political atmosphere.
Both sides say the other is destroying the constitution.
But only one of them calls themselves conservative.