Roland Murphy, The Pontifical Biblical Commission, Jews, and the Bible - Book Review

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2003 by Amy-Jill Levine

   seems to play down the polemic between Jew and Christian,
   but in some cases it does not succeed; some interpretations
   are strained or perhaps overly subtle, as when the "synagogue
   [assembly] of Satan" in Revelation 2:9, 3:9 is interpreted
   in light of 12:10 as a "positive appreciation of Jew" as
   a title of honour ... [2002: 147].

More examples could be mounted. According to the PBC,

   The Gospels frequently present the Pharisees as hypocritical
   and heartless legalists. There was an attempt to refute this
   by referring to certain rabbinical attitudes attested in the
   Mishna, which shows that they were neither hypocritical
   nor strictly legalist. But this argument is not convincing, for
   a legalist tendency is also present in the Mishna.
   Furthermore, it is unknown whether these attitudes, codified
   by the Mishna c. 200, actually correspond to those of
   the Pharisees of Jesus' time.

Such comments are enough to confirm for any but the most resisting reader that the Gospel depictions of the Pharisees are on the whole historically accurate. By the time we read the next sentence--"However, it must be admitted, that in all probability, the presentation of the Pharisees in the Gospels was influenced in part by subsequent polemics between Christians and Jews"--the point is almost irrelevant. And, just in case readers were to adopt even a slightly positive view of Pharisees, the text continues,

   At the time of Jesus, there were no doubt Pharisees who
   taught an ethic worthy of approval. But the first-hand direct
   testimony of Paul, a Pharisee "zealous for the traditions of
   the ancestors," shows the excess to which this zeal of the
   Pharisees could lead: "I persecuted the Church of God."

There no doubt were some worthy Pharisees; I am sure--she said, dripping with sarcasm--there were also no doubt first-century Christians who did not harbor strong feelings of antipathy to Jews who did not join the Church.

At times, the PBC waters down the New Testament's polemic against Jews and thereby (almost) rescues the canon from charges of anti-Judaism. For example, it asserts that "Matthew's polemic does not include Jews in general. These are not named apart from the expression 'the King of the Jews', applied to Jesus (2:2; 27:11, 29, 37) and in the final chapter (28:15), a phrase of minor importance." Murphy's sensitive reading would remark that this singular use in 28:15 is the last parting reference to the Jewish community: here they are fully distinguished from the Church. "The Jews" are those who proclaim that the body of the Christ was stolen, and this image remains with the reader.

Continuing with Matthew, the PBC regards the polemic to be "for the most part internal, between two groups both belonging to Judaism. On the other hand, only the leaders are in view. Although in Isaiah's message the whole vine is reprimanded (Is 5:1-7), in Matthew's parable it is only the tenants who are accused (Mt 21:33-41)." The claim might be a bit less positive, for we know neither the identity of the author nor the composition of the community. That problematic verse just cited, 28:15, suggests that Matthew and his group do not identify themselves as "Jews."