Culture Reconsidering the Jewish Pharisees

L | A
By Cathy Lynn Grossman
85700-1.jpg

New Testament scholars Joseph Sievers and Amy-Jill Levine share a goal: dissect and demolish 2,000 years of Christians’ disparaging portrayals of the Pharisees, the Jewish rabbis of Jesus’s time. They are the coeditors of The Pharisees (Eerdmans, Dec.), a compendium of essays drawn from a May 2019 international conference at the Gregorian University in Rome, “Jesus and the Pharisees: An Interdisciplinary Reappraisal,” that brought together dozens of Christian and Jewish scholars who examined the origins and impact of slandering Jews from Jesus’ time to today.

Sievers, a Catholic priest and professor emeritus of Jewish history and literature of the Hellenistic period at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, led the conference. For the book, he teamed up with Levine, an emerita professor from Vanderbilt University, who joined Hartford Seminary in August as a professor of New Testament and Jewish studies.

The Pharisees tracks hateful portrayals of Jews “not only in scholarly works but also in the arts, including Passion plays and cinema, as well as in textbooks and in preaching,” Sievers says. “Old and new prejudices and stereotyping, which are rampant today, are based often on ignorance or sometimes on false certainties. The Pharisees have been and are victims of both. A reconsideration has to be done by Jews, Christians, and other scholars together.”

Levine, who is Jewish, encountered anti-Semitic tropes even as a child, growing up in a Portuguese Roman Catholic neighborhood in North Dartmouth, Mass. She recalls “friends with crucifixes on the walls and rosary beads in their hands,” one of whom said, “You killed our Lord.” She adds, “I started asking questions then, and I’m continuing to do so 60 years later.”

Levine says that for Jews, the Pharisees are “our spiritual ancestors, those who preserved the interpretations of Israel’s scriptures and adapted them for the people apart from the Jerusalem Temple. Many Christians, following certain Gospel passages, regard the Pharisees and, by extension the Jewish tradition, as lifeless, legalistic, and so toxic. After two millennia of misunderstanding and in consequence, bigotry, it’s time for a more historical, less negatively stereotypical understanding both of the Pharisees and of Jesus’ interactions with them.”

In their own chapters in the book, the coeditors each give very specific suggestions for change in teaching, preaching, and cultural presentations of the Pharisees. Sievers writes that people need to recognize “how elusive it is to know your own self, much less the historical Pharisees.”

Levine writes, “If priests, pastors, and religious educators would stop bearing false witness against Pharisees, if people in general will stop using ‘Pharisee’ as a synonym for ‘hypocrite,’ and if Jews and Christians had better knowledge of both our common roots and our distinct branches, we’d be closer to the love of neighbor and love of stranger that Leviticus and Jesus command.”

Andrew Knapp, Eerdmans’s senior acquisitions editor, says, “Ignorance and prejudice fueled anti-Semitism throughout history.” The Pharisees, which also includes an address to the 2019 conference by Pope Francis, demonstrates the “essential role of interfaith collaboration in the study of history, theology, and the practice of religion,” Knapp adds.
 
Jewish tradition, as lifeless, legalistic, and so toxic.
And we're correct. It's as ritualistic as paganism and autistically legalistic.
Out of curiosity, what does "money changing" actually signify. I presume it's not "I only want to donate 1 shekel to the collection and I don't have less than a 10 shekel note". Because that by itself doesn't really sound like it deserves a whipping.
They were forcing poor people to buy sacrificial pigeons. Poor people (including Jesus's family) were supposed to sacrifice pigeons/doves because they're winged rats; just go outside and catch one. It's exploitation of the poor while claiming its God's will.
 
In the middle ages the Rabbis were threatened not by anything external (Muslims or Christians) but by a movement that arose within Judaism itself called Karaism. The Karaites rejected rabbinical authority and the Talmud completely and considered themselves as the restorers of true Judaism. The movement spread rapidly and something like a third of believing Jews worldwide may have joined it. Whether or not they were exactly Sadducees (probably not) but I think they were kind of inclined that way.

The rabbis actually went to the Muslim authorities with propped up charges that the group was a threat to civil authority. A massacre of the Karaites followed and that was that. No more threats to rabbinicial authority. There's maybe 100,000 Karaites left nowadays.

The whole business has always seemed to me to be a variation on the theme of the New Testatment, though a bit more successful since the Karaites are mostly a footnote at this point.
 
Many Christians, following certain Gospel passages, regard the Pharisees and, by extension the Jewish tradition, as lifeless, legalistic, and so toxic. After two millennia of misunderstanding and in consequence, bigotry, it’s time for a more historical, less negatively stereotypical understanding both of the Pharisees and of Jesus’ interactions with them.”
"Stop preaching!" they preach, "Shame will not overtake us". Should you talk that way, O family of Israel? Will the LORD’s Spirit have patience with such behavior? If you would do what is right, you would find my words comforting... If a liar and deceiver comes and says, "I'll preach to you the joys of wine and alcohol!", that would be just the prophet for this people! Micah 2:6-11

Most of Jesus's interactions with the Pharisees were basically arguing using very precise words and quibbling over the meaning, and wanting to trick him into saying something that would trap him (Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. Matthew 22:15). Jesus meanwhile got pissed off at them for being massive hypocrites who made everyone's lives harder due to legalistic nonsense while completely distracting from the true meaning of the Torah. Jesus was from Galilee and seems to have been well acquainted with the Rabbinical tradition, but not a Pharisee, so I'm guessing this perhaps represents what people outside of Judah viewed the Pharisees like (before the Pharisees became the main form of Judaism).

And it's not just the Christians who felt this way; the Dead Sea Scrolls include passages of commentary calling them "seekers of smooth things", looking for ways to rules lawyer their way out of obligation, "builders of a wall", a wall of fake laws derived from tradition that cuts people off from YHWH, "preachers of falsehoods" etc. It criticises them for fucking with the rules of ritual purity in temple priests as a powerplay. You get this elsewhere in the Gospels -
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay tithes of mint, dill, and cumin. But you have disregarded the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Matthew 23:23-24
Insects are treif (forbidden to be consumed). The Pharisees would make a show of straining their drinks to avoid accidentally swallowing an insect, and Jesus's point is that they do this big showy gesture while missing the entire point of God's teachings and so "swallow a camel" (camels are also treif, so knowingly consuming one is obviously worse than accidentally swallowing a gnat).

Paul's warning to the Corinthians is also prescient;
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. (...) And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
If someone comes along and tries to twist the Gospels into meanings that contradict the Gospels you know or the Jesus you know, they are false apostles trying to recreate the rabbinical approach in Christianity or otherwise mislead you. Beware the yeast of the Pharisees; a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.

I'm not actually even religious but it's good advice. The Bible is pretty clear on the Pharisees being bad, legalistic people who are like the fig tree full of leaves but no fruit. Trying to argue that Priests need to change how they preach against the Pharisees and stop bearing "false witness" because it makes the Jews look bad is literally what the Bible basically warns you the false preachers will do.
Animal sacrifices? Who the fuck were they worshipping? Khorne?
The first bit of Leviticus goes over how the sacrifices were offered, originally out in the fields; this later got highly formalised for sacrifices in the Temple (which is detailed at great length in the Talmud). It's where we get the phrase "burnt offering"; this was when you burned the remains of an entire animal to ashes (rather than just sacrificing a bit of it and eating the rest - the burnt offering was the biggest and most holy sacrifice).
The Greek word for a burnt offering is "holocaust" (holos = whole, caustos = burning).
 
Human sacrifice was also a thing (even if rare) famously the Romans did it twice (to the horror of their own historians), burying alive two Gauls and two Greeks as a plea to the Gods to save them from Hannibal.
Correct, this was the last time on record human sacrifice was performed in the classical world. What's interesting is even though the Romans won they didn't associate the victory with human sacrifice - I think even they realized at the time that was an extreme overreaction.
 
Levine, who is Jewish, encountered anti-Semitic tropes even as a child, growing up in a Portuguese Roman Catholic neighborhood in North Dartmouth, Mass. She recalls “friends with crucifixes on the walls and rosary beads in their hands,” one of whom said, “You killed our Lord.” She adds, “I started asking questions then, and I’m continuing to do so 60 years later.”
Not exactly a denial.
Levine says that for Jews, the Pharisees are “our spiritual ancestors, those who preserved the interpretations of Israel’s scriptures and adapted them for the people apart from the Jerusalem Temple. Many Christians, following certain Gospel passages, regard the Pharisees and, by extension the Jewish tradition, as lifeless, legalistic, and so toxic. After two millennia of misunderstanding and in consequence, bigotry, it’s time for a more historical, less negatively stereotypical understanding both of the Pharisees and of Jesus’ interactions with them.”
“But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. " Matthew 23

When Jesus calls the Pharisees the Children of Hell, there is no misunderstanding, and it's as true today as it was then.
 
Animal sacrifices? Who the fuck were they worshipping? Khorne?
God commands Jews to perform a huge number of animals sacrifices for a myriad of reasons in the Mosaic Law, and the only reason Orthodox Jews don't perform sacrifices regularly today is because there's no Temple to perform them at. Animal sacrifices are near ubiquitous across historical religions. The only reason Christianity abandoned them is because Jesus is the final, perfect sacrifice.
 
When people use the term Pharisee, they tend to mean hypocritical legalism, inordinate obsession with the letter over the spirit(as relating to morality mostly) or too self righteous pride and condemnatory prejudice.

Notably Jesus tells his disciples their faith must be greater than the Pharisees, and to respect them because they sit at Moses’ seat.

So it’s not like the NT is all anti Pharisee. Anymore than the early church was always going to be.

Respect for their intellectual role in preserving and defining Jewish law, and their piety is in the NT.

This is just Jewish neuroticism. “Oh my I was called a Pharisee, it’s a holocaust!”
 
Out of curiosity, what does "money changing" actually signify. I presume it's not "I only want to donate 1 shekel to the collection and I don't have less than a 10 shekel note". Because that by itself doesn't really sound like it deserves a whipping.
IIRC tithing to the temple could only be done using a special currency that was only used there. You had to exchange your everyday coins for the special coin, and the moneychangers charged an exchange rate that was much higher than it was supposed to be and subject to random price surges. Various other grifts ran alongside this one as well.
 
Correct, this was the last time on record human sacrifice was performed in the classical world. What's interesting is even though the Romans won they didn't associate the victory with human sacrifice - I think even they realized at the time that was an extreme overreaction.
The Romans got lucky that Hannibal was a goddamned autist that spent so much time waiting to besiege Rome itself until he got reinforcements of more elephants. Man loved his elephants.

If Hannibal hadn't been waiting for more stupid fucking elephants he would have won.
 
The Romans got lucky that Hannibal was a goddamned autist that spent so much time waiting to besiege Rome itself until he got reinforcements of more elephants. Man loved his elephants.

If Hannibal hadn't been waiting for more stupid fucking elephants he would have won.
That's debatable IMO, sieging Rome would've been a massive undertaking considering his limited number of soldiers and supplies, Hannibal also lacked proper siege engines so he would have needed to build them on the spot, requiring him to divert more time and manpower to their construction and what's more is that the Romans still had large field armies in Italy who's main job was to cut off Hannibal's ever dwindling supplies so if he tried to siege Rome he would have to not only siege a massive city but also fend off Roman reinforcements at the same time.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo