THE Ecclesiastical Review A V Λ Γ: Βί.Π'ΛΠ. \ b)K TIM. ΐ Μ,ίΜΛ ' ^r·. '-V:·'!' '· ,/zw»T«« Vol. CI .TLV-hECE'.THl I Cor. Hmcncan S«Ueta?UcaI Kevww ίΚΙΙΙΪΙίΙΙίΰβ^^ u : 5, ■ J THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. 96 HISTORICAL. Francisco Franco. The Times and the Man. By Joaquin Arraras. Transit by J. Manuel Espinosa, Ph.D. The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, Wiscow13· 1959. Pp.. xt --24». P.-ick, 12.5'1. Fhe Bisiset· jots it hots. An Autobiography by the Most B.everend Francis Clement Kelley. Harper & Brothers, New York City. 1939. Pp. viii-t- 353· Price, $5.CO. Lb Christ t.n Maar.hi. ay Congo, Scenes de la Vie Missionaire. By' Pierre Croidys. Editions Spes, Paris, France. 1939. Pp. 278. Price, Mfr. The Beginnings of by Bertram Lee Woolf. Price, $4.00. Christian Church. By Hans Lietzmann. Translated Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York Chy. 1937. Pp- 4,i· the The Founihng of the C> ’CH I’sniA.L By Hans I..ktzmann. Translated by Bertram Lee M'.iolL Char ■ Scr .’oner’s Sms, N.w ’■■-.rk > .·.·.. 1938. ?Ρ· 4i2' Price, $4.00. Hekoes of ths Cross. To: i'raa.i;.cco Mirtyrs of North America. By «ts Reverend Mario:-. A. Hi’-.g, O.F.M. FcnasA, N-W Y.-rk City. 1939. FP- 17’’ Price, $2.00. trrrÉRATi.’Kr. . ,'ΤΐΝ . I: Depuis les c· ,.-,es ;. Renrimttc* carolinpenn Pp. Vol. I, 19 ; ’.o' i: ' M- s Λ-.ι- 1- - ’e R. ?. J. ■.< Gheliinck, 5 J· Vc,S . 1 :.a Je 1-, uc.-.-J-, irn’.-ck· r.e. Vol. B: VS* a F·. ". Ar -■!«:.·. i’.'.im.; 'j:.·, i’ iris, France. 1“·3· 91. Prix, 15 fr. Preiat nr * -u. .’ ... ·. ■ Csia-v,: Msy.-:>; ■’ ■· ■·.■.<> Far M’ ^‘"pp. Arris. Préfa .. -e '. I Ea. My · Sa,lt·... i’.·.·· i·.·.;·.·· v -ri·. France. V»3· Sri+114. Ι..Λ. 12«. Cii mXna' -y ' w s ' nt Λ'· i '.· M ■ oi'tb ■ >*' I s- ·>* *:»3S. C‘f ’4 *··'ί”· -'•"■■‘.'i-.ony's GuiW. FranPj>. 21. Price. 5c. :·*, Λ À . J' .’ . · “'!?: '■■■ . 'U.T . .. s ur. r _ ■ ·. ■ .”·’· ■ ............. ‘ ' ■.· ■.; ■■ ·'··· -...i .!5a-.-!’..k ef the Oibdic , . g„ ?ϊ1Λ 2Jc. .... _ , ·-’· » is··!' r. Parente. Cathode ■ ■■■·. Î’?s‘. Γ-ce, MC. à 3 . THE Ecclesiastical Review Volume 101.—August, 1939.—No. 2. A MODERN DEFENCE OF THE PHARISEES. piE PHARISEES are pictured in the Gospels in colors that are very hard to erase. They live in the imagination of Christians as " whited sepulchres,” as covetous, envious, ostenta­ tious hypocrites. But the Pharisees of the Gospels, we are now being told, are only the straw-men of early Christian propa­ ganda. The Pharisees of history, as they are revealed in their literature, were honorable men, the worthy representatives '-’i a form of religion different, indeed, from Christianity, but ao: necessarily inferior to it.1 The purpose of this essay is to give a fair exposition of what been written recently in favor of this Jewish sect, and then îo examine the weaknesses from which the plea of the defence ’«ms to suffer. t must preface the exposition by a few words explaining the mentality of the Pharisees." As far back as we can trace ,2^ Travers Herford, PherisaiMB (London, 1932; reëdîted as Tie Pharisees, rt' îsd Jmmiu in lbs NT. T. Period 'London, 19-?)-. and among modern Jenssb. '■■y-. e^ciüîy I. Abrahams, SWier in Pharisaism and tie Gospels. First and Series 93v), 1, pp- 56-71 and 2«β. > 9S THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. the sect, they appear as zealous upholders of the Jewish law. law” is what the Jews called in Hebrew the Τοπώ. Torah simply means " teaching.” It was the name given by the Jews to the teaching "par excellence, that is, the divine revelation touchsafed to them through Mos--. In fact, they came grad­ ually to call the whole of God’s r<-\elation as set forth in the Scriptures of the Old Testament hy tr.k name, Torah. The Pharisees took a vers- different view of Torah from the Sacducces. The Sadducees were the h.gh-priestly sect, and t> 'j ' 2V ]i“ryccs· wnetiK-r th.y were laymen or simple priests, ti.i. ..mmacaj iKo the oral traditions of the Scribes. The Λ'"? (S'?rT---'Ç ’A’l··' interpreted the written γ·,' , Λ, lt’'‘ Λ'-“Ρ,·'·«1 and ·’.ppi>·.·,< it io changing conditions. <-v '. > . u.,.i ... ,j r;-v. - t. v- l.. ti) deduce from the i!ed them to Jo in '·■■more p :'·. ..-{"i. η» that co?.J Λ-ord Gi.J. tj ".•■re corny'. :te’y did ·■'■ lives of -he P. an L?s \K i-iti-.u■ κι of obédience t. _ . -........ .■.. i.verv action ot the ot i.oliniss. T’.e a od Pha.he. vi th;·· ”■ strove in the prtscnc.· of God, and to wo.-di r: ' I'ir'.ist. *’ ir. tl e 1 ght of th;- cojn’.tnanc-. x>'.id.ly, the Pharisees rude the mistake ua y,· io a liwl lool upon these p.ous reaching·· fii tf sc o 's ■ — er tab'e unwritten Γο;: !: ri r eak 1 v« G >d— ■ .ually holy, tguzllj C inc s rm·: -.ecp . mind: the > , vr ‘ten and .. al. went-1« ■c ',t : tvi * ‘ .'..e Phar . ■ ®e.*c its casts c ans t-vi ■ 'h 'i' rclsitkir·. ‘ Pharis ■ :r, takes utf w’th ti: s st t aftairs J.-rived ■ vs, 'vere dejic:'cu r'-> the ■ ' d; . λ tEcy uiujerstoo i i;, ;n :h-:ir progrès·· iVl rtte'-tn ’■ιπχ may ha's .sa.tr c- tig A ΛίΟΜΛλ’ DEFENCE O? THE PHARISEES. 99 Pharisees cannot be blamed if in the disputes over healing and plucking corn on the sabbath, over the permissibility of divorce, and over ritualistic ablutions and purifications, they upheld their traditional understanding of their religion. Jesus in real­ ity pitched His superlative personality against the received interpretation of the Jewish religion: therein lay the irrecon­ cilable opposition between Him and His adversaries. Christian­ ity is a religion founded on devotion to a Person, Christ; Judahm, and especially Pharisaism, is a religion founded on devotion to an idea, the Torah? Thus is emphasized the opposition between our Lord and the Pharisees. But in defence of the Pharisees it can also be said toa: they and Jesus occupied much common ground? The originality of Jesus, we are told, has been exaggerated. Phar«aism was itself, independently of Jesus, a religion of joy: the sabbath was a joyous family festival and the joy at the pil­ grimages was phenomenal. Pharisaism was a religion of mercy, tor had it not mitigated the harsh penal code of the Sadducees? Th Pharisees enjoined friendly relations with Gentiles. They tiughr respect for human personality and safeguarded the rights of women and even of slaves. They taught the transcendence sec ill-presence of God, His divine mercy, His Fatherhood. Against the Sadducees they taught belief in a future life and to the resurrection of the just. In a word, a Pharisee listening to the Sermon on the Mount was simply right at home. ’^T.at is more characteristic of Christian piety than the phrase Our rather who art in heaven ”? Yet Isaias centuries before -nd prayed, " Thou, O Lord art our Father ” (63:16), and in toa oral tradition of the rabbis at the end of the first century ■it our era we find the loving prayer: “ Who is there on. whom to lean, except Our Father who is in heaven? ” '* Or again, vhit is so tender as our Lord’s phrase, " Are not two sparrows told for a farthing, and not one of them shall fall on the ttoand without your Father” (Mt. 10:29)? Tet the rabbis z similar saying: ” A bird perishes not without Heaven”.'5 ‘Hwforct 4 *' ir S “Wnrki™ end lesns «n. OU. l«7-8. *■’·■'p'.er on " P'jmusi'i ' , λ. λ. r. ι·ι. t ·· .... y, L PF- / jgjlggl. I · B a à * I |T FlalJillfllltillii. * '» S , ' û-α g : .....r m Het:· pp 261-2. r..I st t’..e end .1 C-.3?·..■.· ■. i. .'. 7 .2 * 100 THE fCCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. Ve mav sav at once that: as Catholics we find nothing strange in these similarities. To us it seems only natural that our Dxvm Lord in His public teaching should have used many p r which He had heard from childhood in the synagogue, ^h tcver we may claim for the teaching of Jesus, we do not e. P gerate -.ts i i-rbaï originality of expression. , But we must hasten on to a third aspect of t. e e εΙ)ε the Pharisees. How do these apologists deal with the evid of the New Testinwnt? Surely the testimony of t e. ° Gospels, especially the Sermon on the Mount and the exconau . ^ of the Pharisees at the hands of our Tord as recor e twenty-third chapter of St. Matthew, cannot be ma e to r w-.th the contention that Pharisaism, in teaching an *in P t.ce. was in die time of our Lord not far trom oein^ 8 pure and undefined Listen to the lied-· reply of Mr· LoReader in Rabbinics. Queen's College, Camm>dge. held him \i- e. our Lord; responsible for Matthew twentv-t..· _ ït seems t.-> me most natural t.i rv-card the chapter as ιη·ι·>“'( ally altered bv later hands. The obiectic-n to it » denunciation··, but the fact that the dcnuncut.or.s are wiio*-·'1· Vhat ώ the k’.cr elemi.nt.'· ’ · , .. -’sir. Others, like Mr. Herford and rhe kit·.· L»r. the *' unehar.tabhncS' ” of Jesus toward btis r.·* · e ■ · ■· _ :·'”ι.:·: ’· -'·■'■ stle aft·.' h s enr-verstot: trom χ - iisi'.'-tii ·-■ ·.■■·.·i iimr’t:! p-tr.ta» _·'μλ Ό'·1^ "I'h·.?, iri.r.tii - ■ r i'i’ N -h-m," w-il.' Μγ H-t ''·*■ . . . r. ■·. ;.t .· ^ ---a ·.. tt ■·· « ' ·''·'■ v■' lli.it are we to reply to “bise attev/ts ‘o i. -■ ■ ιη, t-s5 nve .. ·ηηοΐ. ill·· w .-.ny firce :n rh:ir ksi:: ’ of ..our* · ne nc.-iminating passages ui the N..· , ·/3. ;i ur.s rhe hr·* Gospr? retain th ■■ '» oî.iîe xxiixiiiiiHt A MODERN DEFENCE ΟΓ THE PHARIEJS. 101 twenty-third chapter with the seven " woes ” pronounced upon the Scribes and Pharisees. There is not a scrap of textual evi­ dence against it. Moreover, the substance of Matthew twentythree is found in Luke eleven (vv. 37-50) and twenty (vv. 45-47), and is of a piece with the threads of conflict between our Lord and His enemies running through the four Gospels. If we are to meet these apologists on purely historical ground, we cannot invoke as arguments the divinity of our Lord or the inspiration of the New Testament documents. No, we must examine their assertions and assumptions to discover wherein lie the historical weaknesses of their apologetic. First of all, is it right to assume that our Lord's condemna­ tion of the Pharisees was wholesale? It seems not. Nicodemus, atsenbed by St. John as a Pharisee,10 was certainly a good man. Gamaliel, likewise described as a Pharisee,11 appears as a fairminded seeker after truth. Ve have no grounds for ascribing to icnon the Pharisee, with whom our Lord dined.12 the whole catalogue of vices of our Lord’s denunciation. We know from Mark’s narrative that our Lord praised the inquiring Scribe to ▼bom He said, " Thou art not far from the kingdom of God ” Ιι2:34), and yet that Scribe, according to Matthew’s account was of the Pharisee party. So much for individuals 01 whom we can be certain. Ikv.des, it is evident from the Gospels that there was dis- among the Pharisees themselves over the claims made by Jenis. Some of that sect were quite frankly impressed by His «-taeles, and said so; others were not.13 Again after our Lord’s Resurrection and Ascension a number of Pharisees became Lnristians. some of whom (we may add) by their Judaizing nude necessary the Council of Jerusalem.1·1 The Pharisees were e--uentiy a large, heterogeneous party. Wî»fe» J:l. xïArtr j.j4, 7-.3ÎS. ■ x- · ■■ ■ by JesiM of the min blind from birdi. It is worth '' .‘‘*r '* ' b·-· - -er·- "rhe Jc—« ” —ms e-pncfeHv rhe enemies of ,n- " ; v -sts i :h. I /iTK.e: r.e-., ; ,'ί ’*'·'*■ ;. ’..VV'·· ■·. ■ .nd ■> .2. "Tb? 'em" in f ***.’"*’'_'nrldden I’-urisecs: >er t’n.y not i.pear th·.re 3: tnr s , ■ -lu :&r Æ» H.-..·.::.· ■< s. ί.Μ-i of ni k·-'^ <. r-.r:·.. · ï-.te.j-ic-Hr. ·■ 102 'i!;r ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. Finally, would St. Paul after his conversion have boasted about his Pharisee upbringing if all Pharisees of that time had been as contemptible as those our Lord condemned? Three times the Apostle refers explicitly to his status as a Pharisee." Elsewb.ere he again claims consideration because of the religious instruction he had received in Judaism; ia and quite rightly, for it wa, the best h‘>s country and his reiig’on bad :> give, ’i'e must recall that when St. Paul was held capti·.;', it st·. "■ sect " of the Pharisees who were unw:lling to condemn h l’;. i hinxif never chtractcrvcd Pharisaism as a wivi; ’ i’.h the 'ti cr.’.'i < f hypoer.-y. \V< I,.·.··.·.·.· fn.rr. J·', .p’.-.uj that tl-jic were t:ri-e ::i the t.me ILrod ;he ‘ is only re.;.onable to cry; ;e, n t?< light -.if X.·.·· i\>nttnem ·.■ idence, rhat our !.. r.i c-.-.dcmn: J t ’v i- ■>: : >·■: t.t. .. t te riem.-ers of the party wh..< out ■ ;' cn-.v had f.-rived t ·'·!.-·.·,·.ι’ cabal against Him. '-v'e ca ts, t cvr.ciudc that ai’ ϊ’.-λ''■’re tarred with the same brash. Hence, e·. en if :n·.*· ' "".cm were sa- holy as the well-.elected texts fit the rail·.; rat-l·.; -, ’ ■•■id one tn "bink. th -t· seem*· :o ’. c nxm for them in the -■■1ment ·. ithout J ·η·; ■io.ence t ) irs text. Mo.--.-.)vcr, -. jj * : nd i.-. η'-Εϊηΐ^ιΙ writings sure :»i.t.·· ■·■ -tf th? * i “■ fju· ■' ■ )- ·; ■:ch ί .-rd i :?.rr.cd the Pharisees >i -Ls ’ -1 ' jobl , ' · . : . · •rir :;s-.· s. ·;·■:♦.—.i di m, a ch jd-b.-y e m: ■.> I. b r ghiv.-tsr.;»v •renphao· · . ·. ■■ ,;r rf.< ex,'■_·-,■·■· ■ ■; it··· s.i.r.t. ï.i'fcO et · ” . r,': 1.-V :.i .t e'.· ·.■.,■ r.es·. thn: it lits, and ? ■■ -h . -. 1 tr he Dr. .‘1 mt. t.i re ’s quite • ' V- :··„■ lons's ..-■■Cc- r. matu· the wHv ■■ ■ ■ -.:!.·■!. m · ? · ; it.-i. ’ if? appeared th,- Lon : ■■ .'/■■ : : I-.l· .'3’.· '■ η j-.-aclli. .·=·». r , -p ” «< ’0- A MODERN DEFENCE OF THE PHARISEES. 103 regard to hypocrisy, we learn from rabbinic sources that, ten parts of hypocrisy in the world, nine are in Jeru—And again, " the plague of Pharisees,” a form of acrisy—" is one of the four causes of the ruin of the Id”.2" Finally, we are told that there arc seven kinds of rises:2» "The' Shoulder Pharisee? who bears his good deeds hs shoulder; the 1 Wait a Little Pharisee,' who says, ’ wait I do my good deed;’ the 'Bruised Pharisee,' who has hurt nself against a wall, to avoid looking at a woman; the ' Pestle msee,’ with his head down in mock humility; the ' Reckoning uriscc,’ who casts up his account of sins and virtues; rhe Scd-fearing Pharisee,’ i. e. Job; the ' God-loving Pharisee,’ e. Abraham.” These admissions regarding hypocrisy and ostentation come ie«t. rather late sources, and we need not overemphasize them. Lt so do many passages brought forward in praise of Pb.anscome from late sources. Moreover, these adnu«s.ons con5rm the antecedent likelihood ot hypocrisy in a religion which hid so much stress on keeping clean the outside of the cup, and made righteousness consist more in measurable justice in. immeasurable love.24 The very circumstance of our ■ -"g able to find such admissions in rabbinic literature at all not a little to bear out the truth of the Gospel picture of ïnansees of Galilee and Judea in the time of our Lord. ; an ‘hows again how unjustifiable it is to assume that rabbinic Mature and the New Testament documents arc wholly at odds ®way they delineate the character of Pharisees. I..-,· ··, denunciation of the Pharisees cut the ground *K’y under both the Pharisees of His own day and their modern T'.-e 5cct h.ad without warrant bound up with ' '' ·, ·. Xo. 17 on i. 5, cited by Montefiore, .p, c;; . ] .,0 2'. )-2 +. Hert jr-t tipre»** the e,··.··.·,i.·. rr.c-'e a: J Saw; ierlei ” tie writing: " the x-.reh» jrj a the N- *' • **»e. it.e ia’.chwnrd nt the Talmnd w Wisdom v/. p. ill· ■ H 104 TfiE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. the human as well as the divine—as if it were all equally Torah, divine teaching. By so doing they had riveted attention on human prescriptions, i. e. on externals, to the neglect of the '' weightier things of the law, judgment, and mercy and faith ”, This attitude of mind, which Mr. Herford asks us to understand and admire, our Divine Lord roundly censured. " You make void the commandment of God,” He tells them/' ” that you may keep your own tradition.” That is why He protested again·: the wild overgrowth of Phari-,aie legislation: "Every plant which ir.y heavenly father hath not planted shall be n-Kcd up.’ ’ 1 hat is why in such matters as their endless puriilcations and ablutions and sabbath regulations and in their unwarrantabL' !av.t'· in allowing divorce. He was bound to cross swords v-itl·, t'-e Pharisees. Altr.otig:’. wc nave all heard of the fantastic prescriptions of the Scribe., and Pharisees, it might be well to remind ourselves how far-fetched they actually were. Many of them h.'i r· Λ’ with sabba.h-obxrv ance. Long th·-· m-pk ir.rewt ■·:'■ ■ . f p.-n-.it.iith a ‘rrmς-bf. r their c.i-uht.c ç;· r.r.i’fû. tri- bt’K·· erm med that thirty-nine works were prohib.’ti'd on ttia v.bcaih. One was making a knot; another st- not '■'■· one. Such S’tnpli prohibit: as were n turn worked m.y t::ats-'. I·': a··, an-.y’ ?. " R. .\k’r f. Guô ·’,ζ i:. ι..-i.-ί ·-·. :v; t j i··.-: t ubzci can te v-t.nl v r. r h π ■· 0 ■’<··' * ’· man n.ighr tie tb.v .-traigs of hvr girdle, it ■*;s ag ecv t.iat a '»a·! might lie tied over .■» well w?.h i t't i'·'· h-.r nc·· w-b a i.-fv. ’Ό· · ■’.· : s'.'n.b .t .. ■ ir ■ ■■■ ' ■ ■ i . ■ 1 .·■ .r.r, <(·ρ -, ;ae b.ir.d··. str kt -.igo.· ii /«. or Ja :c< ‘ ' It was forbidden. t*x>. to carry .ir.- £·"■" min s wHc’· di 1 r· ; ’.-.J.-n·; :. · ..< s';·.::..· pr.-.’-T. e ·'·' .· · j:·. he;· ' 1 , miglr: Ikt ’ΓνΙ»· s R. Me... gi i.-ut With his woed.n k". R. ··» ti .· o:u,,r • 3 1 »r· ’ . ·'. •'J· c» ■■<· .‘O’ 5'· · · j. f:i T* . Γ ■ A ! ”, - ■'.· ;-’v.’···’ P ’ ’ i ■ vj so it I A MODERN DEFENCE OF THE PHARISEES. tys in which vessels or utensils might contract legal impurity. A (three-legged) table to which one foot is wanting, is clean; is it if a second foot is gone; but if a third is also gone and is to be used as a flat board, it is susceptible of defilement.” ' ' he legislating propensities of Pharisaism reached an all-time high” about 260 A. D. when Rabbi Simlai succeeded in .ormulating " as many negative commandments as there are fays in the solar year, and as many precepts as there are bones m a man ”—by I know not what reckoning a total of six hun­ dred and thirteen.”1 In view of their myriad prescriptions, it was our Lord, and rat the Pharisees, who could demand by what authority they uught these things, and neither they nor their modern apologtsts can return a satisfactory answer. ^hen our Lord declared/*’ “ Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees; al! things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do,” rle could not have meant raore than that the Scribes and Pharisees were to be obeyed *hen they proposed authentic Mosaic teaching." Their teach­ es had no claim on the obedience of the Jews when they were ttyiag to pass off their own legislative fabrications as divine hw. and our Lord more than once took the lead in transgressing these human prescriptions to make clear the line beyond which foarisaic teaching had not the sanction of the divme Torah. As St. Thomas notes, they were to be obeyed so long as they ‘sught secundum intentionem legislators. 4 « ® * ®«t the really critical question revolves around the historical ‘ slue of the rabbinic documents. Jewish rabbis reduced their traditions to writing only as late as the year 190 A. D- in called the lAishnahd'’ Besides the Mishnah, we have ; λ ■ ' erauns of their voluminous scholastic commentaries on 7e Mishnah in the form of the Talmud. These were compiled ’■'· ■■· ■ f.:t'·, and cenru~e= c-t our era. From these sources M&d. P. 1M. . ·»*■ - ^■»ilî--.ge, M. ·« ··' ' cr . II, r, 75, .J..„ J, M„s.,in :tu> ; . i; -;x.. rjj .k,. r,. Oifw-· 1’Ώ- 106 TH£ ecclesiastical review. the apologists of Pharisaism obtain the evidence which they oppose to the evidence of the New Testament documents. What historical value have the Mishnah and the Talmud as evidence of the teaching and especially of the practice of the Pharisees of our Lord’s day? A century and a half separatee the final appearance of the Mishnah from the years of our Lord’s public life. That is an uncomfortable gap to straddle. Moreover, during that interval two major catastrophes overtook the Jewish religion: the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 A. D. and the total overthrow of the Jewish nation in the years follow­ ing 130 A. D. Despite these calamities, we are assured by the ■: 'gist. i.: Ph.iri-.iom tl at the rabbis adhered strictly to their ft tor.' ". ren t-.-.e transpl’.nted their religion from Jeru-·< .:”> -<> c.·:’·.r-. The ricus of rhe rabbis of the transiTl·-i r.r’ d : R. ? h.:-;n b. ZAkf, -.ho died c. 80 A. D„ .md · ■· : - · : '...·· ^.-r. /V : Mishnah in the section ; ·- f ·'■ '■■’·■ <·' " P ”. l»-:t to this claim we may repiy Pr.,. .·>;<.wpûo ciiclit ccrltati'. we are able to give positive evidence that the Mishnah docs not afford a wholly reliable account of earlier Pharisaism. It is a ■ ■ ■■■'■«••th noticing, before calling attention to this damag ■; r U-.'C·.. the y-·r\. D. :s r.ct the test '.c v ; ■: r i, .■ -]- »r j0 a;; v->uTd e.s tf the' rai'biric snir-.c i·:t ’h. y o ■ ■■ ■ e··· sc!.· οι Pharisee d rcurrenrs. The Saautce-s. t ]· r '· v ii -.-ncarc·with the de*trucr»>n >: ' e ' ’ ·· 7 ·. X rtb ■■ -, -c > tv.k.cc. s n >;■ the Ibsenes irt-.-r. · y :e;i u anstt oowr RMupt K ‘I·· rc .·■ es· ·.. .it ju a r. '·. i-j ΤΎ - -·; ng a» jt :-jous . ..tt s, 5 ·’· in the <,2 m«>n of . sc’Olar : k·.: Dr. A ■-re »f Hir ard U- -.Ay v·.ry nrohably ex’sud m h; ·. ; fet · .· I or i- * Ti c Mhhnah Mtn- î*?· A MODERN DEFENCE OF THE PHARISEES. 107 s:he picture too much to be regarded as giving an adequate station of Judaism in the early first century. Without a olete reconstruction of .ill the elements of early first-century iism, however, how can anyone prove that there were not i Pharisees as those our Lord condemned? The tact is the tide literature we have is simply unable to yield such a instruction, for it records, not Judaism of the t’tr.e ot Christ h all its lights and shades, but the later Judaism of the irisees. It is quite certain that the catastrophes ot ,~V and 3. m addition to the natural reaction against Christianity, educed among the Pharisees a unity they had not possessed in e time of Jesus. One eminent English scholar, Burkitt, maintained that Phar?hm must have undergone a transformation in the course or - great misfortunes it suffered, and emerged a purer, m..re pintail religion." Indeed, we have strong evidence that in yme respects at least the Mishnah reflects an idealized Judaism, -anon Darby, who has translated the Alishnab. into English, ïrgeed with great cogency that the tractare " Sanhedrin ” in ~,e ÀLshnh does not describe a real governing body as it existed our Lord’s day?" Instead it presents an academic version of the Sanhedrin drawn on the model of the ri'organizi J body of the late second century of our era, the Sanhedrin with which the «itor of the Mishnah. Rabbi Jehudah, was familiar. And the •tte Lriel Abrahams, Reader in Talmudic at the University of Cambridge, in sifting Canon Danby’s evidence admitted that things in the Mishnah read like products of the imagi, - ■ -· C.. .. History In Trs pp. luS-l'i, rue'.sl ’.-v Moore io ■ '■ »n Ctmc-nuitv c> Nmniti.e juin," ”, toi 111, pp lT-22. Maori substantial continuity of the teaching of the rabbis, while calling attento the simplification "which took place. Other scholars besides Burkitt, for '■ '«.et. Gressmann. are C’tud by Moore as denying substant.J ..i‘r>tsnMry. ■ s'-.ïrai. Μλ,... , ,v.,.cion «ettns to be compatible with actrytr·-.-; of the Gospel ''c”"taarc, and since the names of none of the apologists of Pharisaism S,a 5^® *n^ex to his volumes, one may conclude that he has not associated apologetic. I think we could accept his careful statement con- y ? :i‘e -iunt of our bird's condemnation as gi'-cr in Vol. I, p. W. Whv P. t-*”*8» ia his extended review of Moore’s work in Recherches As Sciences Re. . ï? ;gJ,2,4. skv.jU 5pclk j{ α^,!ύζια f(>(. -he Phanseev, .5 ckir te H' certainly d.d not write to defend them aga.nst the ......... ’'W 2S. Herford. Montcfiore, Abrahams, and Loewe did write with ■ > •®·'<ίί*>ϊΛί>ίΐ1ίϊ4ΐ«*.ΐϊϊϊΐΑ'ϊν“!! .y . ,!’a T>'t Bearing of the Rabbi-ûcal Crimina! Code on the Jewish Trial <’· tx’.w. r,.r.ji r.: Th-.t-.n-l Mr Cl (: Slv-i ·:·:·) pr 4 'HHG-·· THE ECCLES1 WICAt. REVJiU”. 108 nation/0 We may conclude that in the Mishnah we are given a picture of Pharisaic Judaism as it appeared after it had had its face " lifted I inally, what assurance have we that the carefully selected texts from the vast rabbinic literature served up by the apologi<’ deserve to be considered typical of Pharisaic teaching. " W'hat touchstone did Monteiiorc use when he rejected incon­ vénient texts Λ' negligible/' the u-.ua! Rabbinic paradoxes,’ and blamed Strack-Billerbcck for '* taking playful exaggera­ tio:·!-. or ca-ubtic enjoyments too serioud) ? M->r.tenore h'-m-elr dcc'ared. “ You can ti=h out from the Tahrudic sea v.'hat suit·, sour pur Our c.=nelu­ u—.. ire twofold. First. that the del.r.eation of the P: in the rabbinic >ources and that giver. >u ar·.· not so contradictory as the apo1»è;Sl4 t’r. iris.tat; and -ecendly. that in so far a-= the tuV' J,,·. cats ·.; t-’c version set forth -n the New Testament acco'.i ted ng uns', that of the NFshnah ana tft·* -v. Test’.me at contain? documents of mue' -orica1 v.Jue. The·.' have emerged safe and sound ntur >f tssr.ng at the hand, of the higher c-itic · ? a,,, ;-as e-,-e:1 pr od .iced a crit:cJ editw ; ·.. ■ s >: f if ?hiri».-e-s. it is true, show great «.ver·-*’ th. 1 ■ >f .i as h; to. ic.:l documents. But •■.'ruv *’ Μ i· ;’:per s i w,:h the apporte rtm.:-k oi n: a • .cstti in T!|ti.;sr;, o> <;l-ie first century. P-. J « decl. ■■■,<■ ' • t •ne or it standing ” 4 ï I sturtcj; v t. Pharisees remair·» »r jx ■=?■ .1. V. O- ■ THE MORALITY OF ARTIFICIAL FECUNDATION. HE FIRST REACTION of many' priests to the subject of artificial fecundation is to consider it as quite impractical. Tcis, I think, is a somewhat hasty judgment. Eminent theo­ logians of the past half-century have judged this question to hive its practical aspects; and most of the ordinary moral theol­ ogy manuals of to-day give some space to it. And I am told that within the past year a popular novel appeared that de­ veloped the theme of artificial insemination as the solution of the otherwise thwarted life of an unmarried woman. It is not along ago that the magazine, Time, gave not a little space to '.he question of " proxy fathers; ” and only at the beginning of the present year another magazine, Ken, intrigued its readers with a very fantastic idea concerning fertilization without the *d of the male germ cell. Now, it is true that much of what our people read is sheer nonsense; nevertheless they read it, and, -tuth or nonsense, they ask us about it. For these, and other reasons that could be advanced, it seems that a discussion of ■-·- moral aspects of artificial insemination would not be useless ter the practical-minded; and I am confident that it offers a -tege measure of interest to those inclined to speculation. : I propose to give here a brief survey of the subject as it been treated by the moralists of the past five decades and ■ J tl ent on one or two aspects of the question that they -i’ e not yet thoroughly discussed. In the strict sense of the word, artificial fecundation com- T < Λ ■' ff■I· w ·' V- i’css any attempt to fertilize a female by a means which is a "testitute for natural sexual intercourse. Such a substitution be called for in cases in which both husband and wife "i7e normal procreative cells but by an organic malformation ‘te prevented from having intercourse; or again in cases in *;··νΛ natural intercourse is rendered fruitless by an acid con-■νώη ot the vagina which is fatal to the spermatozoa, and so terA. was, I believe, the first to introduce the question ^semination into moral theology? According to -‘ctors were meeting with a certain degree of success in appended to this article. Unless otherwise specified, references ra./ b. fo..d in the works and numbers listed in the bibliography. ί-ί-έ r’î ‘