Should Jews Object to the Misuse of Pharisee?

[Jrosemary]

I read this article in The Jewish Daily Forward. It's gives both sides of the argument, although it comes down strong on the side of making a fuss. What do you think?

(In the interests of full disclosure, I'll admit that I've been known to make a fuss. )

[elle]

Both this thread and another post I've read by you Jrosemary have both dealt with this subject in a way I had never heard before. I had only heard the Pharisees mentioned in church in the context of the New Testament and Jesus' disagreements with them and in my Christian Tradition class in college. I remember thinking in class that the claim that Jesus or any of his disciples/followers could have been Pharisees was shocking and slanderous. The Pharisees were depicted in church as religious leaders of the day who were unwilling to change their thinking to the truth that Jesus brought.

One thing that was never once mentioned in church, class, or by anyone to me in conversation was that the Pharisees played an important role in Judaism and not just in the Christian story. I suppose that was lost on me primarily because I had no experience with Judaism or any of it's adherents growing up. I also had no idea that the term was used outside of the context of religion to mean a hypocritical person. Having learned these things, I definitely understand the argument against using the word "Pharisee" in that general derogatory context and I think it would be right for Jews to oppose this. This is, of course, my opinion based on information from an article that is not "neutral," so perhaps that is part of what swayed me.

[Jrosemary]

Thanks for your input, Elle!

I'm always shocked by the negative views many Christians have of the Pharisees--and equally shocked when a Christian is insulted by the suggestion that Jesus seems either to have been a Pharisee or at least to have been in the general 'Pharasaic school of thought.'

Perhaps most Christians don't understand who the Pharisees were. The Pharisees were learned teachers who helped create a way of worship that didn't involve the Temple and animal sacrifice. They championed the synagogues--houses of worship, prayer and study. While the priests (that is, the Sadducees) were claiming that only the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) held any weight as Scripture, the Pharisees also accepted the Prophets, the Writings and the Oral Law.

There were many different schools of Pharisees: some quite 'conservative,' like Shammai's school of thought; others quite 'liberal,' like Hillel's school of thought. (Jesus was a near contemporary of both men. He seemed to be more like Hillel in general--except on the issue of divorce, on which he was as strict as Shammai. Ok, I am simplifying here and the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are anachronistic. But you get the idea.)

The Pharisees, like Jews today, liked to argue, lol. They debated constantly. The Talmud gives us a glimpse of some of those debates. (Arguably so does the New Testament.)

When the Romans destroyed the Temple, the Pharisees enabled Judaism to continue. We could no longer atone with animal sacrifices, but we didn't need to. The Pharisees already knew that 'prayer, repentance and deeds of loving kindness' could take the place of--and mattered more than--animal sacrifice.

Post-Temple we didn't use the term 'Pharisee.' We moved officially into 'Rabbinic Judaism.' But the Pharisees were unquestionably the founding fathers of rabbinic Judaism and the reason that Judaism survived the destruction of the Temple.

So, from a Jewish point of view, to be compared to the Pharisees is a good thing. It's a compliment!

*Edited to correct punctuation.

[McCulloch]

One could find other examples where Christians use words in such a way as to display their cultural insensitivity. Crusade is such a term. The Campus Crusade for Christ is an interdenominational Christian organization that promotes evangelism and discipleship in more than 190 countries around the world. Yet, historically, the crusades were a time of bloody military conquest of Muslim lands by Christian soldiers. Can you imagine an organization called Campus Jihad for Allah or Christian Benevolent Pogrom.

[Cathar1950]

I read this article in The Jewish Daily Forward. It's gives both sides of the argument, although it comes down strong on the side of making a fuss. What do you think?

(In the interests of full disclosure, I'll admit that I've been known to make a fuss. )

I think the word has out lived its use as a slur.
Jesus had more in common with the Pharisees then he would with those that would use it as a slur. The in Mark the Pharisees were are pretty good terms with Jesus and there is good reasons to think he may have been thought of as one of their own.
The later gospels the situation has changed and now the Christian communities that produced the later gospels were competing with the Pharisees that were not the leading group where the other groups bound to the temple lost their positions and the Jewish Christian leadership had vanished with the temple too.
They also competed for the interpretaion of the Hebrew writings where the Christian was an obvious reinterpretation. The later depictions of the Pharisees in the gospels is propaganda.

[Jrosemary]

I read this article in The Jewish Daily Forward. It's gives both sides of the argument, although it comes down strong on the side of making a fuss. What do you think?

(In the interests of full disclosure, I'll admit that I've been known to make a fuss. )

I think the word has out lived its use as a slur.
Jesus had more in common with the Pharisees then he would with those that would use it as a slur. The in Mark the Pharisees were are pretty good terms with Jesus and there is good reasons to think he may have been thought of as one of their own.
The later gospels the situation has changed and now the Christian communities that produced the later gospels were competing with the Pharisees that were not the leading group where the other groups bound to the temple lost their positions and the Jewish Christian leadership had vanished with the temple too.
They also competed for the interpretaion of the Hebrew writings where the Christian was an obvious reinterpretation. The later depictions of the Pharisees in the gospels is propaganda.

Sorry for not answering this sooner! You bring up an excellent point. Judaism and Christianity were in the midst of a nasty divorce by the time the Gospels-- excepting Mark?--were written. That's no doubt one reason why the Gospels have such a negative depiction of the Pharisees. Neither religion, I imagine, had much good to say about the other at the time; it's just a shame that the bitterness of the divorce bled into the Gospels. But we can learn from that divorce now and try to view each other in more positive light.

[Cathar1950]

I read this article in The Jewish Daily Forward. It's gives both sides of the argument, although it comes down strong on the side of making a fuss. What do you think?

(In the interests of full disclosure, I'll admit that I've been known to make a fuss. )

I think the word has out lived its use as a slur.
Jesus had more in common with the Pharisees then he would with those that would use it as a slur. The in Mark the Pharisees were are pretty good terms with Jesus and there is good reasons to think he may have been thought of as one of their own.
The later gospels the situation has changed and now the Christian communities that produced the later gospels were competing with the Pharisees that were not the leading group where the other groups bound to the temple lost their positions and the Jewish Christian leadership had vanished with the temple too.
They also competed for the interpretaion of the Hebrew writings where the Christian was an obvious reinterpretation. The later depictions of the Pharisees in the gospels is propaganda.

Sorry for not answering this sooner! You bring up an excellent point. Judaism and Christianity were in the midst of a nasty divorce by the time the Gospels-- excepting Mark?--were written. That's no doubt one reason why the Gospels have such a negative depiction of the Pharisees. Neither religion, I imagine, had much good to say about the other at the time; it's just a shame that the bitterness of the divorce bled into the Gospels. But we can learn from that divorce now and try to view each other in more positive light.

They seem to be on rather friendly terms in Mark written sometime around the destruction of the temple. They warn Jesus of Herod and he even agrees with one young man. The next generation the Pharisees were leading even is Diaspora and the Christians Gentiles were competing for the reinterpretation of the Hebrew writings. You can find sectarian Jews calling each other Satan in the two centuries before Jesus and you see Christians kind of inherited it now calling Jewish assemblies synagogue of Satan.
Who ever Jesus had a beef with it doesn't seem to be the Pharisees which are added later as opposition. The unknown author of Mark seems to have a desire to separate Jesus and his followers fro the Zealots which a generation later when the other gospels are reworking Mark the have less of a problem as the war has been over for at least 2 or 3 decades.

[Lioba]

I always got the impression that Jesus had more troubles and disagreements with the Sadducees and I can imagine that he didn´t sympathize with the zealotic movement because he saw that at this time in history it was suicidal to fight openly against Rome.