Pharisaism, Its Aim and Its Method

by R. Travers Herford

[6] The action of Jesus in casting out devils was not in itself a ground of controversy with the Pharisees, since they did the same; and moreover neither side questioned the genuineness of the exorcisms of the other. But it appears from Mark iii. 22-30 that the Pharisees alleged that Jesus performed his cures by the help of Beelzebub the prince of the devils; and Jesus denounced them as guilty of the sin against the Holy Spirit, for their malicious slander in ascribing to diabolic agency what was due to power from God. Then follows the famous declaration: "Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mark iii. 29). This is the foundation for the doctrine of the unpardonable sin, in Christian theology. It rests entirely on a misunderstanding of the phrase, "hath never forgiveness," a misunderstanding already apparent in Matt. xii. 32, where it is said that such a one "shall not be forgiven either in this world or in that which is to come." The phrase in Mark, "hath never forgiveness," is the key to the real meaning of the saying of Jesus. The Christian reader, finding the phrase only in this one passage, naturally supposes that it is very exceptional and carries some tremendous meaning. But, in fact, it is a Jewish idiom applicable in ordinary circumstances. In the Talmud, j. B. Kama 6^c, is a passage dealing with injuries and affronts from one man to another. A Rabbi suggests a method of reconciliation; upon which another Rabbi comments: "This will do where it is not a case of slander; but if he has put forth a bad name against his fellow-man, he hath not forgiveness for ever." There is here no question of a sin which God will not pardon, but of an affront which man will not, or does not, pardon. It is only a way of saying that slander is one of the hardest of all offences to forgive. The Rabbi who said this never dreamed of an unpardonable sin as Christians have imagined it. The unvarying doctrine in Pharisaic theology on the subject of forgiveness is that God always forgives those who repent when they repent (see on forgiveness in Chapter IV.). The term rendered "for ever" is used in the Talmud in connections which preclude all idea of theological meaning. Thus, j. M. Kat. 83^d, of the rent garments of the mourner, "They do not sew the pieces together for ever." The declaration of Jesus accordingly is not the intimation that there is a sin which God will never forgive, but the denunciation of malicious slander by a justly indignant man. The phrase, "is guilty of an eternal sin," is only an expansion of "hath never forgiveness." It is worth noting in this connection that the references to Jesus in the Talmud do not include a charge that he was possessed by a devil or made use of the help of the prince of the devils. See my Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, where all the Rabbinical passages relating to Jesus are collected and commented on.

[7] "Corban" does not mean "Given to God," at least it does not mean that the thing in respect of which the vow was made was dedicated to sacred use. "Corban" is merely a formula prefacing a vow. A man would say, "Corban! if you shall enter my house!" meaning, "I vow that you shall not enter it."

[8] See the often-quoted passage describing the seven classes of Pharisees, b. Sotah 22^b.

[9] I have been asked how I can reconcile this alleged inability on the part of Jesus to understand the Pharisees with the power he showed elsewhere of reading the character and comprehending the thoughts of those with whom he came into contact. My answer is that I do not admit John ii. 25 as true of the historical Jesus; and that, while I do not deny that he had deep insight into human character and thought, such insight depends on sympathy. That there was finally a complete absence of sympathy between Jesus and the Pharisees is plainly to be seen, and admits of no dispute. And, that being so, I submit even he did not escape the effects of that limitation, in making him unable to comprehend the position of the Pharisees. The inability was on both sides, and for the same reason.

[10] I use in quotations from Paul the word Law instead of Torah, because Paul spoke of Nὁμος [Greek: Nómos]. The fact that he did so is characteristic of his whole conception of Judaism. If the Greek language did not provide an equivalent of the word Torah (any more than the English language does), the fact still remains that an equivalent is needed, or the argument becomes for want of it invalid.

[11] The theory, of course, is conditioned by the fact of Christ's coming when he did. It is an attempt to interpret a historical fact in terms of world-history and eternal wisdom.

[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.

[13] The words ascribed to Jesus, John vii. 19, "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law?" are clearly dependent on the Pauline conception of the Torah. They are quite out of keeping with the attitude of Jesus as set forth in the Synoptic Gospels. And even Paul himself never went so far as to say, "None of you doeth the law." He only said in effect, "None of you keepeth the whole law." That the Gospel of John represents a stage in the development of anti-Jewish feeling later than that of Paul is further shown by the statement in John xii. 42, "Nevertheless, even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue." The policy of detecting secret adherents of Jesus and casting them forth from the synagogue was not adopted till a.d. 80, or thereabouts. See my Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, p. 125 fol. If, as recorded in John iii., Nicodemus really came to Jesus, he need not have come secretly. And, if the name Nicodemus be merely adapted from that of Nakdimon, a well-known and prominent citizen of Jerusalem at the time of the siege, of whom the Evangelist might have heard, then he did not come to Jesus at all.

[14] When I say the "doctrine of repentance and restoration," I do not mean to imply that Rabbinical theology was an organised and consistent system of doctrines. Such it never was; and it is the fundamental fallacy of Weber's book that he has so represented it. I shall go into this subject, of the sense in which it is legitimate to speak of the theology of the Rabbis, in the next chapter.

[15] The process of building up the system is seen in the Talmud. The Code, or the chief Code, is the Shulḥan Aruch, compiled in the sixteenth century by Joseph Caro.