Pharisaism, Its Aim and Its MethodHerford, R. Travers (Robert Travers)
Religion
Pharisaism, Its Aim and Its Method
Herford, R. Travers (Robert Travers)
Pharisees
But Torah and Christ are incommensurable terms;
and Paul's presentation of Pharisaic Judaism is, in consequence, at its
best a distortion, at its worst a fiction.
[12] I have been asked if it were not possible that there might be
some section or school of the Pharisees to whom Paul's strictures
might apply? Even if there were any evidence of such a school, that
would not alter the fact that Paul himself draws no such
distinction, but condemns the whole theoretical position of which
the Halachah is the expression. A Pharisee who should repudiate the
Halachah would be a contradiction in terms. My object is to set
forth, as truly as I can, what Pharisaism was, on its own showing;
and I am under no obligation to find a means whereby the strictures
of Paul might be made to appear more relevant and valid than I have
admitted them to be.
I shall presently offer reasons in support of that judgment, which is
not a hasty assertion but a deliberate opinion formed after years of
comparing the Judaism of the Rabbis with Paul's version of it. Before,
however, going on to this further part of my task, I will pause for a
moment to consider the difference between Paul's attitude and that of
Jesus towards the Pharisees and their religion. In the main it is
this--that Paul condemned Pharisaism in theory, while Jesus condemned it
in practice. Paul held that the whole system was radically defective,
and remained so whatever relative excellence might be produced under it
in the lives and characters of those who submitted to it. He condemned
it, though he had himself, as he said, been "as touching the Torah,
blameless." Jesus, on the other hand, charged the Pharisees with certain
specific sins and vices, such as hypocrisy, pride, self-righteousness,
etc. And he did not expressly denounce the systematic religion of Torah
as such, although, as has been shown in the preceding chapter, he did on
certain points reject the Torah. The Pharisees themselves were quite
aware that the faults he denounced were not unknown amongst them. The
Talmud bears honest witness to that fact, in the passage so often quoted
(b. Sotah, 22^b), about the seven kinds of Pharisees.
The censure of Jesus admits of the possibility that some, at least, of
the Pharisees were pious and good. And that Scribe, to whom Jesus said,
"Thou art not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark xii. 34), did not
cease to be a Pharisee by reason of the opinion he had expressed.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account