Posted on 05/16/2019 2:19:40 PM PDT by ebb tide
In spite of the progress in the historical work on the Pharisees, preaching all over the Christian world continues to depict these Jewish teachers as xenophobes, elitists, legalists, lovers of money and moral hypocrites. Moreover, in general the term ‘Pharisee’ implies ‘Jew,’ since many Jews and Christians consider the Pharisees the precursors of rabbinic Judaism. Therefore, even when Christians use the term ‘Pharisee’ to denounce clericalism in ecclesial contexts, they do nothing but reinforce prejudice toward Jews.”
That’s how Amy-Jill Levine, a Jewish American from Vanderbilt University, began the talk she gave on May 9 in Rome at the Pontifical Gregorian University, at a conference dedicated to the theme “Jesus and the Pharisees. A multidisciplinary reexamination.”
But who flat out uses the term “Pharisee” to denounce “clericalism in ecclesial contexts” if not Pope Francis himself?
The beauty of it is that as of this May the author of this jab at the pope is a member of the new management committee of “Donne Chiesa Mondo,” the monthly supplement of “L’Osservatore Romano,” the official newspaper of the Holy See.
Who is Amy-Jill Levine? She tells about herself in a sparkling autobiographical note in “L’Osservatore Romano” of May 5, on the occasion of a previous conference also held at the Gregorian.
And on May 9 Pope Francis met her in person, receiving those taking part in the conference on the Pharisees. Instead of reading the speech prepared by expert hands for the occasion, the pope preferred - and he said so - to greet all the participants one by one.
That speech - if read - would have allowed Francis for the first time to publicly adjust his aim in the use he often makes of the term “Pharisee,” to attack and disqualify as rigid, hypocritical, greedy, quibbling, vain his opponents within the Church.
The Jews, obviously, have never liked this use of the term “Pharisee” on the part of the pope. To the point that Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome, after an audience on April 27 2015, said he had presented his remonstrances and “explained why” to Francis, who “took note of my observations.”
Even afterward, however, Francis has never ceased from brandishing pharisaism as a weapon against his opponents, above all in his morning homilies at Santa Marta, as for example, among the most recent, those of October 16 and October 19 2018.
While instead in the New Testament there is not only polemical conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. There is appreciation for leading Pharisees like Gamaliel and Nicodemus. There are Pharisees who Jesus himself says are “close to the kingdom of God” because of the primacy they give to the commandment of love for God and neighbor.
All this was fully explained in the speech that went unread by Pope Francis, together with the consequent correction of the negative stereotype still associated with the Pharisees.
But getting back to Amy-Jill Levine, the following are a few passages from her self-portrait published in “L’Osservatore Romano” of May 5. A personality to keep an eye on, seeing the role that she now plays on the new management committee of “Donne Chiesa Mondo.”
*
A JEWISH WOMAN WHO WENT TO MASS AS A CHILD
I am a Jewish woman who has spent more than half a century studying the New Testament. My situation is different from that of Christians who teach the Old Testament: the Old Testament is part of the Church’s Bible; the New Testament is not a Scripture of the Synagogue. […]
Not only do I study another’s Scripture, but I also write about another’s Lord. This is both an immense privilege and an immense responsibility. Even if I do not render worship to Jesus, his teachings fascinate me as a scholar and inspire me personally, as a Jewish woman faithful to my tradition.
To explain what I do and how I do it, I must explain why I do it, that is why I, as a Jew, since my childhood have worked in the vineyard of the New Testament.
When I was growing up in a Portuguese Catholic neighborhood in the early ’60’s, in Massachusetts, my friends used to bring me to church. Attending Mass was for me like attending services at the synagogue: the people were seated on benches while men in long robes spoke a language - the priests in Latin, the rabbis and cantors in Hebrew - that I did not understand at all. […]
My parents told me that Christianity - which meant the Roman Catholic religion - was like Judaism: we worshipped the same God, He who made heaven and earth; we treasured the same books, like Genesis and Isaiah; we recited the Psalms. They also told me that the Christians followed Jesus, a Jew. […]
Finally, as an adolescent I read the New Testament. There […] I understood two facts that have characterized my academic life: first, we are the ones who choose how to read; second, the New Testament is Jewish history. […]
What guided my studies were therefore hermeneutics and history. […] This means correcting the false and negative stereotypes of Jews that some Christians have. If we poorly characterize the Judaism of Judea, Galilee, and the diaspora, we also misunderstand Jesus and Paul. Bad history leads to bad theology, and bad theology hurts everyone.
We must also uproot the false and negative stereotypes of Christianity that some Jews have. Work needs to be done on both sides.
As a scholar of the New Testament, I am interested in how the Gospels describe the Jewish tradition, and in how that tradition ends up being represented by the Christian interpreters. This study makes me a better Jew: better informed on Jewish history and more capable of correcting interpretations that are historically inaccurate and hardly pastorally faithful.
In the first place, the Gospels are an extraordinary source for the history of Jewish women. […] The common teaching according to which Jesus rejected a misogynist Judaism that oppressed women is mistaken. Women did not follow Jesus because they were oppressed by Judaism; they did so because of his message about the kingdom of heaven, his healings and teachings, his new family where all are mother or brother or sister.
In the second place, the Gospels remind us of the diversity of Jewish views in the first century, a diversity confirmed by outside sources like the Jewish historian Josephus and the Jewish philosopher Philo, the Dead Sea scrolls, the pseudepigraphs, even archeology. In such sources we find different points of view on marriage and celibacy, fate and free will, heaven and hell, the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul, conformity to the Roman empire and resistance against the same.
In the third place, I deeply respect Jesus’ instructions on how to understand the teachings that Moses received on Mount Sinai. Jesus not only follows the Torah, but he intensifies its teachings. In addition to the commandment against murder, he forbids anger; in addition to the commandment against adultery, he forbids lust. These teachings are what the rabbinical tradition call “building a fence around the Torah,” which means protecting it from violations. […]
Even when Jesus pronounces invectives against other Jews, as in Matthew 23 with his refrain “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,” to me it sounds very Jewish. It sounds like Amos and Jeremiah; it also sounds like my mother, who from time to time complained about the decisions made by the heads of our synagogue. The Jews have had a long history of “tochecha,” of reproof, based on Leviticus 19:17: “You shall not brood in your heart over hatred against your brother; you shall reprove your neighbor openly, so that you may not bear sin because of him.” The subsequent verse is the famous “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Nonetheless, I also realized that when the words of Jesus to other Jews are extrapolated from their historical context and placed in the canon of the Church of the gentiles, the words to Jews become words about the Jews, and prophetic discourse can seem like anti-Semitism. This is why the historical context is important.
In the fourth place, I love the parables. […] The parables of Jesus accuse and amuse, they provoke and entertain: this is the best form of teaching, it is a Jewish form and Jesus applies it brilliantly. And moreover, the parables help me to find new intuitions concerning my Scriptures. The good Samaritan draws upon the second book of Chronicles 28; the prodigal son makes me reconsider Cain, Ishmael, and Esau.
In the fifth place, the accounts of miraculous conceptions, of the voice of God coming down from heaven and of the resurrection are at home in the Judaism of the first century. In that context, even the magnificent prologue of John - “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God” - is very Jewish. Rather than considering the Christological teachings as pagan intrusions, we Jews should recognize how these teachings had a meaning for some Jews of the first century.
But what had a meaning for some Jews of the first century no longer did for Jews four centuries later. Our traditions gradually moved apart as Jews and Christians developed our own practices and beliefs. […] That’s fine. We will not reach an agreement on everything until the coming - or, if you prefer, the return - of the Messiah. But until then, we would do well to listen with our ears to one another. With learning comes understanding, and with understanding respect.
When Christians read Genesis or Isaiah or the Psalms, they see in those texts things that I as a Jew do not see. When I read through the rabbinical lenses, in the same texts I see things that my Christian friends do not see.
Even afterward, however, Francis has never ceased from brandishing pharisaism as a weapon against his opponents, above all in his morning homilies at Santa Marta, as for example, among the most recent, those of October 16 and October 19 2018.
Bergoglio, the dictator pope, accepts correction from no one.
He continously hurls insults against all enemies, both perceived and real, especially against traditional Catholics:
I’m still waiting for Francis to take the opportunity to show us he is Roman Catholic
Ping
don’t hold your breath
Interesting take...I’ve never equated Pharisee to Jew (though I knew they were Israelites).
I always equated them with people who followed the letter rather than the spirit of the law and/or felt themselves better than others for sticking to the detail while missing the forest for the trees.
From the article:
In spite of the progress in the historical work on the Pharisees, preaching all over the Christian world continues to depict these Jewish teachers as xenophobes, elitists, legalists, lovers of money and moral hypocrites. Moreover, in general the term ‘Pharisee’ implies ‘Jew,’ since many Jews and Christians consider the Pharisees the precursors of rabbinic Judaism. Therefore, even when Christians use the term ‘Pharisee’ to denounce clericalism in ecclesial contexts, they do nothing but reinforce prejudice toward Jews.”
>The problem here, is not the perception “Christians” have of the Pharisees, but the perception of them by our founder, Jesus Christ. Has the one who wrote this lead article, ever read Matt. 23? Where Christ said the Pharisees were the children of them who killed the prophets...prophets like Isaiah, who was put in a hollow log and sawed in two?
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
bump
Later
Intriguing woman, interesting article.
This is super-sensitive bordering on snowflakism. Common phrases evolve from past epochs, and their current meaning is no reflection on any living person.
What next? “Patience of Job” denigrates labor? “Good Samaritan” slanders jews? Or non-Jews? A “good thief” insults the incarcerated? “Millstone” references are patronizing to children?
There must be hundreds of such references. If something is really racist and oppressive, change it, but this is a mountain out of a molehill.
It is a reflection when Bergoglio uses them: He used the "Great Accuser" in his feeble attempt to brush off Archbishop Vigano's scathing indictment.
"Sourpuus", ""Pickled pepper-faced Christian!", "Creed-reciting, parrot Christian!", "rosary counter", "Self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian!", "A simple numerary in this sect!" are all reflections on living persons: traditional Catholics.
.
Jesus also criticized them for putting their man made tradition above the law of God. This is why he quoted Isaiah 29.13 when he condemned them.
Wow, can you imagine if any other world or religious leader called his subjects these names?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.