From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion
Subject: Re: Traffic Light Theology
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 00:39:16 GMT

On Fri, 29 May 1998 02:50:11 +0900, Michael Smith
<> wrote:

>I just did a quick search through Matthew's gospel on the word
>"Pharisee" and almost every single reference was either Jesus
>criticizing the Pharisees or the Pharisees plotting to kill Jesus.
>
>Am I missing something?

Yes.
The Gospels were written long after the death of Jesus, probably
mostly after the destruction of he Temple. At that time, the Pharisees
were perceived by the Christians as the main force in Judaism, and the
main force opposing the Christian Gospel. It is therefore hardly
surprising that the Gospel story is told with the Pharisees portrayed
as the bad guys. 

According to every source other than the NT, the Pharisees were a much
more marginalised section of Judaism in the early part of the first
century than they are portrayed in the Gospels, and their teaching and
practises were remarkably similar to what eventually became Christian
teaching and practise (with the obvious exception of Jesus as
Messiah). 

Most Christians do not know this, because we accept uncritically the
Gospel portrayal of the Pharisees. That is a bit like basing
everything you know about the Labor Party on John Howard's speeches in
parliament. If you want to know what the Pharisees were REALLY like,
read some of their writings - people like Hillel and Akiba. 

A very good source is a book by Hayim Goren Perelmuter "Siblings -
Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity at their beginnings" published
by Paulist Press in 1989. 
There is also an article I have published in "Gesher" - the Journal of
the Council of Christians and Jews (Vic) in November 1996 which sets
out my views on this subject in detail. The title of the article is
"Works Righteousness and the Synagogue of Satan - rethinking Christian
caricatures of 1st Century Judaism". I will happily snail mail a copy
to anyone who requests it.

BTW, Michael. No doubt you will also look at Bishop Paul Barnett's
books on this subject. Paul is a very good scholar, and we had an
interesting discussion on this subject when he was in Perth last year.
His agenda, which he makes perfectly clear in the introduction to his
books, is to present evidence which proves that the New testament is
historically accurate. With that agenda, he does his task very well,
but I am sure you can see that a person approaching the same evidence
with a different agenda would potentially emerge with a very different
conclusion.

cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell