WASHINGTON —- The
Rev. Pat Madden often calls his adult religious students in the
Catholic Diocese of Shreveport, LA, Pharisees. But he doesn’t
mean the label as an insult.
“The Pharisees were educated lay people, people who wanted
to do a little extra for their faith,” Madden explained.
“If you’re doing more for your faith than just going
to church on Sunday, if you’re coming to religion class
after work on a Wednesday night, then you share something in common
with the Pharisees.”
That’s a far cry from how most Christians think of Pharisees.
After all, throughout the biblical Gospels, Jesus often castigates
them as “blind guides” who don’t practice what
they preach. Indeed, their name has become synonymous with hypocrite.
Some Christians even confuse the Pharisees with Jerusalem’s
Temple elite, those who were possibly complicit in Rome’s
execution of Jesus.
As a matter of history, only Rome had the power to crucify —
a public, excruciating death for those convicted of treason. As
a matter of Christian doctrine, Jesus died for the sins of the
world.
Still, the view of Pharisees and their Jewish followers as Christ-killers
has helped perpetuate nearly 2,000 years of anti-Semitism. As
Easter approaches, many Christians will reflect on Jesus’
ministry and sacrifice. This might be a good time to rethink the
Pharisees’ image as the conniving bad guys of the New Testament.
In truth, the Pharisees get “a bum rap,” says Thomas
Smith, the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Loyola
University in New Orleans and an early church historian.
“The Pharisees,” he said, “were a major component
of the ‘glue’ that held Judaism together after ...
the destruction of the Temple” (in A.D. 70). Indeed, the
Pharisees were the predecessors of the modern rabbis.
They were in the lineage of scribes who first came to prominence
at the end of the Babylonian exile in the sixth century B.C.,
Smith said. They focused on careful interpretation of the Torah,
the first five books of the Bible, and in finding ways to make
it applicable to everyday life.
By Jesus’ day, the Pharisees had introduced two concepts
into Jewish thinking, said Rabbi David Kline of Temple B’nai
Israel, a Reform synagogue in Monroe, LA. Kline also teaches biblical
studies at the University of Louisiana at Monroe.
The first was an oral tradition to complement the Torah. This
tradition would ultimately form the foundation of the Talmud,
a multi-volume Jewish sacred text. The second idea was even more
revolutionary — a belief in an afterlife.
The Sadducees, Judaism’s priestly caste which included
the temple elite — including Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest
who handed Jesus over for execution — did not share the
Pharisees’ belief in resurrection.
Jesus, however, obviously did. Indeed, as he is portrayed in
the Gospels, Jesus shared a great deal in common with the Pharisees,
including his teaching style.
“It’s probably a bit beyond the evidence to say definitely
that Jesus was a Pharisee,” said Smith, “but it is
a distinct possibility.”
So why do the Gospels portray the Pharisees in such a negative
light? The answer may reflect Christian attitudes at the time
the Gospels were written more than attitudes during Jesus’
day, Smith said.
“The Gospel writers, all of whom are anonymous (the titles
come from the late second century), would have had some interest
in portraying the Jewish religion as obsolete, and Jews as rejecting
the true Messiah,” Smith said.
Interestingly, Smith points out that Mark, the earliest of the
Gospels, doesn’t depict the Pharisees quite as harshly as
subsequent Gospels.
Madden said the Pharisees enjoyed argument, and it’s quite
conceivable they would have debated at length with Jesus over
interpretations of the law.
But he suggested that the Gospels used the Pharisees mostly as
foils for Jesus, narrative devices to provide a counterpoint to
his teachings.
Amy-Jill Levine, a professor of New Testament studies at Vanderbilt
Divinity School in Nashville, TN, agrees.
“For a modern, albeit inexact, analogy: The New Testament’s
depiction of Pharisees is much like the depiction of very liberal
Democrats by very conservative Republicans, or vice versa,”
she said. “Some Pharisees were hypocrites, as, of course,
were some Christians; others were not.”
But make no mistake, scholars say, whoever the Pharisees were,
they had little to nothing to do with Jesus’ crucifixion.
If you’re looking for a historical villain in the Gospels,
look no further than the character Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor
of Judea. From external sources and Luke 13:1, scholars know Pilate
was a brute who cared little for the religious sensitivities of
the people in his jurisdiction.
Only Pilate had the authority to crucify, and he did so on plenty
of occasions, often without trial. He also controlled the high
priesthood, including Caiaphas, who was essentially a political
appointee.
“It was the task of the high priests to maintain the peace
of Jerusalem,” Levine explained. “At Passover, when
Jewish pilgrims streamed into the city to celebrate the ‘festival
of freedom’ even while surrounded by Pilate’s troops,
the arrival of anyone claimed to be ‘king’ would have
been dangerous.”
Jesus was crucified by Pilate for the crime of sedition, not
blasphemy. The Sadducees might have been complicit in Jesus’
execution, but they did so as agents of Rome, according to many
scholars.
Interestingly, the priestly caste did not last long after the
fall of the Temple in A.D. 70, Madden said. But the Pharisees
survived, and they preserved the Jewish faith.
Still, regardless of how the Gospels portray Pharisees or other
Jews, Kline said he doesn’t consider the books inherently
anti-Jewish. “Anti-Semitism doesn’t flow from the
Gospels,” he said. “The anti-Semitism is in the way
demagogues choose to use these stories.” |
