Faith & Doubt

Faith (pronounced feyth)

(1) Confidence or trust in a person, thing, or abstraction.

(2) A belief based not on proof.

(3) Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.

(4) Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit etc.

(5) A system of religious belief.

(6) The obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.

(7) The observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance etc.

(8) A female given name.

(9) As (usually in) bad faith, insincerity or dishonesty, as (usually in) good faith, honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business.

10) Indeed; really (also in the phrases by my faith, in faith) (archaic).

1200-1250: From the Middle English faith, fayth, feith & feyth (also fay, fey, fei (faith) from the Old French fay, fey, fei, feit, & feid (faith), from the Latin fidēs (faith, belief, trust (from which English gained fidelity), from fīdō (trust, confide in), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European bheidth (from bheydth) (to command, persuade, trust (from which English gained bide).  The Middle English forms ending in -th are thought perhaps to represent an alteration of the earliest French form feid under influence of other abstract nouns in -th (truth, ruth, health et al) but may have been formed instead from the more usual Old French forms fay, fey, fei etc. with the English suffix added (also due to assimilation to other nouns in -th), thus making the word equivalent to fay +‎ -th.  The theological sense dates only from the late fourteenth century although religions had been referred to as faiths since circa 1300.  The adjective multifaith (written often now as multi-faith) is a most recent addition.

Before Broken English:  Marianne Faithful (b 1946), Faithless (1978 NEMS Cat: NEL 6012), repackaged re-release of Dreamin' My Dreams (1976).

Doubt (pronounced dout)

(1) To be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe.

(2) To distrust.

(3) To fear; be apprehensive about (archaic).

(4) A feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something.

(5) A state of affairs such as to occasion uncertainty.

(6) In philosophy, the methodical device, especially in the writings of Descartes, of identifying certain knowledge as the residue after rejecting any proposition which might, however improbably, be false.

(7) In theology (and, in earlier times, among poets), a technical device for addressing problems with faith.

1175-1225:  From Middle English douten drawn from Anglo-French and Old French douter or doter, derived from Latin dubitāre (to waver, hesitate, be uncertain (frequentative of Old Latin dubāre)).  Final Latin form was dubium (plural dubia) and the Old English was doute.  Douten entirely replaced the Middle English tweonien (to doubt) which was derived from the Old English twēonian.  The Old French doter from the Latin dubitāre reflected how the meaning had changed in Latin; related to dubius (from which English picked up dubious) meant originally "to have to choose between two things."  The sense of "fear" developed in Old French and was passed on to English. Meaning "to be uncertain" is attested in English from circa 1300.  Related forms are doubtable (adjective), doubtably (adverb), doubter (noun), doubtingly (adverb) and doubtingness (noun).  Most popular today is doubtlessly or doubtless.  English doubtlessly has tended to the permissive.  Where a clause follows doubt in a positive sentence, until well into the twentieth century, it was correct only to use whether but if and that are now acceptable.  In negative statements, doubt is followed by that.  The old practice of using but (as in “I do not doubt but that she speaks truth”) is wholly redundant.

Faith and doubt:  The four dubia cardinals, the pope and the hint of heresy

On 19 September 2016, a letter from Cardinals Carlo Caffarra (1938-2017), Walter Brandmüller (b 1929), Raymond Burke (b 1948) & Joachim Meisner (1933-2017) was delivered to the pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the old Holy Office or Inquisition).  Technically, the letter was a dubia, a respectful request for clarification regarding about certain established teachings which appeared to be challenged by recent events in or statements from the Holy See (especially Pope Francis' (b 1936; pope since 2013) 2016 post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia (The Joy of Love) concerned with the pastoral care of families).  Phrased as five questions, the cardinals asked (1) Whether those living in sin were now to be granted Holy Communion, (2) Whether the Church had overturned Saint John Paul II’s (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005) 1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor (The Splendor of the Truth) which laid down certain fundamentals of the Church's role in moral teaching, (3) Whether there were changes in what constituted certain sins, (4) Whether circumstances or intentions can now transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act subjectively good or defensible as a choice and (5), Whether the church no longer excludes any creative interpretation of the role of conscience and now accepts that conscience can be authorized to permit legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?  The issues raised were matters of vital interest inside the curia, to theologians and certain other clergy and, though seeming perhaps a little arcane to many, are actually fundamental to the very nature of the Church.

Faith and research: Lindsay Lohan with Qur'an, April 2016.

Of interest too was the structural question: the authority of the pope.  The cardinals' view was that a pope's duty is to defend and preserve the doctrines and teachings of the church, these being eternal and unchanging.  The alternative view is the pope is the bishop at the head of an absolute theocracy.  So, when speaking on matters of doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, the pope's authority is absolute and he is held to be infallible.  Use of this power is called speaking ex cathedra, (the Latin cathedra and sedes translate as "chair", a historic symbol from Antiquity for a teacher and one preserved in academia for the office of professor, and the "see" of a bishopric.  The significance of ex cathedra (from the chair) is that a pope occupies the "chair of Peter" (the "Holy See") by virtue of being the successor of Peter himself.  Saint Peter being held to be, ex-officio, the spokesman of Christ (and therefore, as the "Vicar of Christ on Earth" speaking the words of God) and every pope since has fulfilled this role), a matter long assumed even before it was declared at the First Vatican Council (Vatican I;1869-1870).  Although invoked formally only once since, papal infallibility remains as a pope's thermo-nuclear option in these matters.

The dispute remains afoot because Pope Francis neither acknowledged nor replied to the cardinals' respectful dubia.  Less deferential was another letter delivered some months later in which several dozen Catholic theologians, priests and academics went further than the cardinals and formally accused Pope Francis of spreading heresy, a document the like of which hadn't been sent to a pope since the 1300s.  Stunningly, it was one step short of actually accusing the pontiff of being a heretic.  The squabble may last at least as long as Francis' pontificate although, unfortunately, in these modern times, it can no longer be resolved by Inquisition having accusers burned at the stake.  Francis has proved a quick learner in the handling of social media and, perhaps borrowing from the Anglicans, appears to feel some problems are best solved by pretending they don't exist although it may be he simply didn't see the point, recalling the words of world-weary Benedict XIV (1675–1758; pope 1740-1758): "The pope commands, his cardinals do not obey, and the people do what they wish."  He ignored the theologians’ letter.

Interestingly though, early in 1919, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (b 1927; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus since), although without mentioning the five dubia, did respond and his words would have pleased the two cardinals still alive.  His answers were an unambiguous (1) no, (2) no, (3) no, (4) no and (5) no.  With a Benedictine certainty reminiscent of Pius IX's (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) Syllabus Of Errors (1864), he spoke of a “...crisis of morality…, the hypothesis that morality was to be exclusively determined by the purposes of human action..." to the point there could no longer be said to be any "...absolute good, any more than anything fundamentally evil; (there could be) only relative value judgements”  He warned of the risk of a world in which there was “…no longer was (there an absolute good), but only the relatively better, contingent on the moment and on circumstances..."  He’s discussed this theme before: that a church of true-believers is better than one that just accepts what happens to suit whoever wishes to join the club.  Benedict didn’t say it but he may think if that’s what people want, they may as well become Anglicans, his documented opinion that a smaller Church which remains pure is preferable to one larger but corrupted by the falsehoods post-modernist structures claim as moral and intellectual equivalents of traditional teachings.

Nor did he add the words of Pius IX which so many see when reading between the lines the pope emeritus has written during the pontificate of Francis: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic faith, do not follow him". 

Faith and Doubt in the Century's Poets, Edited by Richard A Armstrong (1843-1905), Bib ID 2635856, James Clarke & Co, London, 1898, pp136.

Percy Bysshe Shelley: The spirit of revolt.
William Wordsworth: Revelation through nature and man.
Arthur Hugh Clough: Between the old faith and the new.
Alfred Tennyson: The larger hope.
Matthew Arnold: The eternal note of sadness.
Robert Browning: Faith triumphant.

The nineteenth century can be thought a truly scientific age and the discoveries revealed provoked much writing about the defensibility of a faith based upon much shown to be impossible or at least improbable.  While poets agonized, theologians rationalized where they could, finding allegory and analogy useful devices to explain where they could the less plausible passages of scripture and for everything else offered a fudge: “you need not believe it but you must accept it.”

Planter

Planter (pronounced plahn-tah (U) or plan-ter (non-U))

(1) A person who plants (usually seedlings, shrubs etc).

(2) An implement or machine for planting seeds, seedlings etc in the soil.

(3) The owner or manager of a plantation.

(4) In historical use, during the era of European colonialism, a colonist or new settler.

(5) In historical use, any of the early English or Scottish settlers, given the lands of the dispossessed Irish populace during the reign of Elizabeth I (1533–1603; Queen of England & Ireland 1558-1603).

(6) A decorative container, in a variety of sizes and shapes, used usually for growing flowers or ornamental plants.

(7) In the slang of law enforcement and the criminal class, an individual (from either group) who “plants” incriminating evidence for various purposes.

1350–1400: From the late fourteenth century Middle English plaunter (one who sows seeds), an agent noun from the verb plant, the construct being plant + -er.  Plant was from the Middle English plante, from the Old English plante (young tree or shrub, herb newly planted), from the Latin planta (sprout, shoot, cutting) while the broader sense of “any vegetable life, vegetation generally” was from the Old French plante.  The verb was from the Middle English planten, from the Old English plantian (to plant), from the Latin plantāre, later influenced by Old French planter.  Similar European forms meaning “to plant” included the Dutch planten, the German pflanzen, the Swedish plantera and the Icelandic planta.  The use of “plant” to describe heavy machinery and equipment emerged in the mid-nineteenth century, based on the ideas of something being “planted” in place and immovable (like a planted tree).  As technology evolved, use extended to non-static equipment such as heavy earth moving vehicles but the exact definition now differs between jurisdictions, based variously on purchase price, function etc although the aspect of most practical significance is often the threshold to qualify for certain taxation advantages such as accelerated depreciation.  The –er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought most likely to have been borrowed from the Latin –ārius where, as a suffix, it was used to form adjectives from nouns or numerals.  In English, the –er suffix, when added to a verb, created an agent noun: the person or thing that doing the action indicated by the root verb.   The use in English was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant -our), from the Latin -ātor & -tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  When appended to a noun, it created the noun denoting an occupation or describing the person whose occupation is the noun.  Planter is a noun; the noun plural is planters.

Planters (with plants) at the main entryway to Lindsay Lohan's house, Venice, Los Angeles, California, 2013.

The figurative sense of “one who introduces, establishes, or sets up” dates from the 1630s, picked up a decade later to refer to “one who owns a plantation, the proprietor of a cultivated estate in West Indies or southern colonies of North America” although in the latter case it was literally the “planting of seeds” for cropping rather than the idea of planting the “seeds of civilization”, a notion which for centuries appealed to the defenders of European colonialism and echoes of this attitude are heard still today.  The mechanical sense of a “tool or machine for planting seeds” is by 1850 dates from the 1850s.  The “planter’s punch” was a cocktail mixed with Jamaican rum, lime juice and sugar cane juice; first mentioned in the late nineteenth century it fulfilled a similar role to the gin & tonic (G&T) under the Raj.  The now familiar use to describe a “pot for growing plants” is a surprisingly late creation, apparently named only in 1959 although such devices obviously had been in use for centuries, such as the “window box” attached to the sills outside windows in which folk grew either something decorative (flowers) or useful (herbs or miniature vegetables).  The form “window box planter” is now used in commerce; something which seems a needless addition.  A church planter (also as churchplanter) describes a missionary, preacher or organization which travels to establish a church in a place where no congregations of the relevant denomination exist.  The tactic is most associated with Evangelical Christianity.  In Cebuano (an Austronesian language spoken in the southern Philippines), as a back-formation from planteran, planter is used as a noun to mean “a frame-up; a false incrimination of an innocent person”.  The Cebuano verb planteran was also from the English plant and was used to mean “to arrange fraudulent evidence to falsely implicate someone in the commission of a crime”.  An often un-mentioned aspect in the career of Neville Chamberlain (1869–1940; UK prime-minister 1937-1940) was his early career as a planter.  Dispatched by his father Joseph Chamberlain (1836–1914) to establish a sisal plantation on Andros Island in the Bahamas, the younger Neville proved a tough imperial pioneer, toiling for some six years in the Caribbean but the climate was uncooperative and the soil proved no more receptive to Neville's attempts at appeasement than would Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) two generations later.  The sisal project ended in failure with the family fortune suffering a loss equivalent (in 2024 values) to some US$8-9 million.

Bollards, raw and disguised.

Dealing with terrorism is of necessity a reactive business and in Western cities, bollards appeared sometimes within hours of news of the use of motor vehicles somewhere as an instrument of murder, either as a delivery system for explosives or brute-force device to run down pedestrians.  Because of the haste with which the things were deemed needed, it wasn’t uncommon for bollards initially to be nothing but re-purposed concrete blocks (left), often not even painted, the stark functionality of purpose limited to preventing vehicular access which permitting those on foot to pass with minimal disruption.  They’ve since become a fixture in the built environment, often is stylized shapes (centre & right) and urban designers have been inventive, many objects which function as bollards not recognizably bollardesque, being integrated into structures such as city furniture or bus shelters.

Bollards disguised as planters.

Urban planners have however responded and the large-scale planter box, which had for some time been a familiar sight in cityscapes, has proved adaptable, able to be shaped and placed in a way which obviates the need for conventionally shaped bollards.  Where the space is available, even small green spaces can be installed and, with integrated drip-feed irrigation systems, maintenance is low, an additional benefit being the lowering of temperature in the immediate environment, the foliage reducing radiated heat.  One popular feature of the big planter boxes in many cities is that they include built-in benches on which people can sit, something seen in squares, malls and plazas.  Not all support this however.  Retailers think people should be in such places only to shop and giving them somewhere to sit makes them for the time they spend unproductively inert not able to go to shops and spend money.  There’s also the view such things attract an anti-social element who loiter with nefarious intent and there is still a view by some in authority (based apparently on some English case-law from the 1960s) that in public spaces, while people have the right to walk up and down, there’s no right to stay in the one place, sitting or standing.  So, planters with seating presumably are provided on a case-by-case basis: in nice respectable suburbs which are well-policed, planters have comfortable seats in the shade while in low income areas where the police appear only to respond to murders, serious assaults, armed robbery etc, the built environment is designed in such as way that to sit anywhere is either uncomfortable or impossible.

Planters with an integrated bench on which people can sit are a feature of the street architecture in Canberra, Australia.  Pictured here are several on Lonsdale Street, Braddon.

However, even when planters offer a comfortable spot on which to rest, dangers lurk, especially if one is at the time tired and emotional or at least a bit squiffy.  Shortly before midnight on 8 February 2024, the honourable Barnaby Joyce MP (b 1967; thrice (between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022) was observed sprawled on the sidewalk mumbling obscenities into his phone, having fallen from the planter where he’d paused to gather his thoughts.  The planter sits on Lonsdale Street in the Canberra suburb of Braddon, a short distance from a bar popular with politicians.  The Daily Mail published footage of the remarkable scene, the highlight in some ways being the conversation the former deputy prime-minister was having with his wife, the lucky soul who captured the scene reporting the uttering of “dead fucking cunt” (the phrase a not infrequently ejaculated part of idiomatic Australian English).

Vikki Campion (b 1985) and Barnaby Joyce (b 1967) on their wedding day, 11 November 2023.  In a nice touch, the couple's two children were able to witness the ceremony.

In answer to enquiries from the Daily Mail (past masters at identifying those “tired and emotional”), Mr Joyce’s wife confirmed she was the interlocutor and her husband was referring not to her as a “dead fucking cunt” but was “…calling himself one.”  “He likes to self flagellate” she added.  She further observed it was disappointing that rather than offering assistance to someone sprawled on the ground in the dead of night, someone would instead film the scene but the witness confirmed Mr Joyce seemed “relaxed & happy”, in no obvious distress and conducting his phone call calmly, using the wide vocabulary which has helped make him a politician of such renown.  Responding later to an enquiry from the Daily Mail, Mr Joyce admitted the incident was “very embarrassing” and that had he known “…someone was there with a camera, I would have got up quicker.”  Explaining the event, he told the newspaper: “I was walking back to my accommodation after parliament rose at 10 pm.  While on the phone I sat on the edge of a planter box, fell over, kept talking on the phone, and very animatedly was referring to myself for having fallen over.  I got up and walked home.”  Commendably, Mr Joyce seems to have made no attempt to blame the planter box for what happened but a Murdoch outlet did report that "...privately he was telling friends he was taking medication you cannot drink alcohol with and that was the cause of the incident".  Left unexplored by Sky News was whether that implied (1) knowing that, he hadn't taken any alcohol that day and the episode was induced by a reaction to the medicine or (2) he had taken a quantity of alcohol and the episode was induced by the combination of strong drink and the pharmaceuticals.  He later clarified things, confirming the latter, after which he announced he was "giving up alcohol for Lent".

The honourable Barnaby Joyce MP, Lonsdale Street, Canberra ACT, February 2024.

The morning after the night before, the planter box's 15 minutes of fame was marked in an appropriately ephemeral way, a chalk outline added where the recumbent Mr Joyce continued his phone call.

Mr Joyce should be given the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps recalling Lyndon Johnson’s (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) observation of Gerald Ford (1913–2006; US president 1974-1977) as someone “so dumb he can’t fart and walk at the same time” (sanitized by the press for publication as “chew gum and walk at the same time”), Mr Joyce may have thought it wise to sit on the planter while making his call.  Unfortunately, when one is tired and emotional, the challenge of using one’s phone, even if one sits a planter, can be too much and one topples to the ground, a salutatory lesson for all phone users.  

Dr Rudd sitting in a pew during the ecumenical church service marking the start of the parliamentary year, Canberra, February, 2008.

Among serious & cynical observers of politics (the adjectival tautology acknowledged), the consensus seems to be this latest incident in Mr Joyce's eventful life will prove beneficial and he'll likely increase his majority at the next election, the rationale for that being politicians tend to benefit from being seen as “authentic” and few things seem more authentically Australian than going to a bar, spending a few hours giving it a nudge, then falling off a planter box on the way home.  People can identify with that in a way something like the essay discussing "faith in politics" and the example set by anti-Nazi preacher Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945) which Dr Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2007-2010 & 2013) published in The Monthly (October 2006), just doesn't "cut through".  The essay was politely received as “earnest”, “thoughtful” and “worthy”, few apparently prepared to risk retribution by pointing out it was also derivative, taking 5000-odd words to say what had many times over the years already been said (which, in fairness, can be said of many works).  Still, it was shorter than might have been expected so there was that.  The sanctimony in the text would have surprised nobody but it was only after he was defenestrated by his colleagues that some, musing on the the policies his government implemented, decided to point out the hypocrisy of him asserting Christianity “must always take the side of the marginalised, the vulnerable and the oppressed” and that politicians should uphold “the values of decency, fairness and compassion that are still etched deep into our national soul”.  Mr Joyce's many and varied sins are (mostly) well documented and “ordinary Australians” (as politicians like to call us) seem still willing to extend to him the Christian virtue of forgiveness.  Of Dr Rudd, they probably prefer to try to forget.

Hypocrite & Pharisee

Hypocrite (pronounced hip-uh-krit)

(1) A person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles etc., that they do not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

(2) A person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

1175–1225: from the Middle English ypocrite & ipocrite (false pretender to virtue or religion), from the Old French ypocrite (the Modern is French hypocrite), from the Ecclesiastical Latin hypocrita, from the Ancient Greek ὑποκριτής (hupokritḗs) (a stage actor, one who plays a part), from ὑποκρίνομαι (hupokrínomai) (I answer, act, feign, the construct being from hupo(krinein) (to feign (from krinein (to judge) + -tēs (the agent suffix).  Hypocrite is a noun (and long ago an adjective), hypocritical an adjective and hypocritically an adverb

Hypocrite came to English from the Ancient Greek hypokrites, which translates as “an actor”, the word a compound noun, the construct being two Greek words that literally translate as “an interpreter from underneath.”  That sense may sound strange but is actually literal, the actors in ancient Greek theater wearing large masks to indicate the part being played, thus they interpreted the story from underneath their masks.  This meaning endured from Antiquity, the Greek word later taking on an extended meaning to refer to someone said figuratively to be masked and thus pretending to be someone or something they were not.  This sense was taken-up in medieval French and subsequently English, where initially it used the earlier spelling ypocrite and in thirteenth century was used to refer to someone who pretends to be morally good or pious in order to deceive others.  Hypocrite gained its initial h- by the sixteenth century and it wasn’t until the early 1700s that it assumed in general use the now familiar modern meaning “a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings”, some five-hundred years after those striding English stages were so-described.

The adjective hypocritical (of, pertaining to, or proceeding from hypocrisy) dates from the 1540s (as implied in hypocritically) and prevailed over hypocritish (1520s) & hypocritic (1530s).  It was adjectivally innovative because from the thirteenth century, Middle English used the simple hypocrite as the adjective as well as the noun.  In Scottish, the late fifteenth century Lowrie (the characteristic name of the fox) was also used in the dual sense of "crafty person; hypocrite”

Hypocrite is so precise and well-understood that synonyms really aren’t required to convey any intent of meaning but for literary purposes there’s also bigot, charlatan, crook, impostor, phony, trickster, actor, backslider, bluffer, casuist, cheat, deceiver, decoy, dissembler, dissimulator, fake, four-flusher, fraud, humbug, informer, pretender & pharisee.  That such an impressively long list exists is a commentary on the human condition.  The noun dissembler is probably closest; a dissembler is “one who conceals his opinions, character etc, under a false appearance, one who pretends that a thing which is not".  Attested since the 1520s, it’s the agent noun from dissemble.

Pharisee (pronounced far-uh-see)

(1) A member of a Jewish sect that flourished between the second century BC and first century AD (during the Second Temple Era (536 BC-70 AD) which differed from the Sadducees principally in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions (as interpreted rabbinically), belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah (always with initial capital).  The movement was ultimately the basis for most contemporary forms of Judaism.

(2) Of or pertaining to the Pharisees.

(3) A sanctimonious, self-righteous, or hypocritical person (usually and correctly with initial lower-case).

(4) In figurative (and usually derogatory or offensive) use, a person who values the letter of the law over its spirit or intention; a person who values form over content.

Pre 900: From the Middle English Pharise & Farise, from the Old English Fariseos & Farīsēus, from the thirteenth century Old French pharise, from the Church Latin Pharisaeus (a variant of Pharīsaeus), from the Ancient Greek Φαρισαῖος (Pharisaîos), a transliteration of the Aramaic פְּרִישַׁיָּא‎ (pərîšayyâ’), emphatic plural of פְּרִישׁ‎ (pərîš) (separatist (literally “separated”)) and related to the Hebrew פרוש‎ (parush), qal passive participle of the verb פָּרַשׁ‎ (pāraš) (one who is separated for a life of purity), from parash (the Aramaic (Semitic) pərīshayyā was the plural of what is usually rendered as perīsh & pərīshā (literally “separated”)).  The extended meaning "any self-righteous person, formalist, hypocrite, scrupulous or ostentatious observer of the outward forms of religion without regard to its inward spirit" dates from the 1580s.  There’s no agreement between scholars about whether "Pharisee", derived words meaning “separated; set apart" refers to a physical separation from impure gentiles or a doctrinal separation from less religiously rigorous Jews and there’s even a suggestion they were regarded as "separatists" in the modern political sense.  The derived terms pharisaic, pharisaical, pharisaically, pharisaicalness, pharisaism & phariseeism (used according to context with and without an initial capital) are rarely used except in biblical scholarship or especially learned (and usually critical) legal texts.

The ancient Jewish sect which flourished between the second century BC and first century AD was distinguished the strict observance by its members of laws of behavior & ritual but were so extreme in their adherence that others came to regard them as pretentious and self-righteously sanctimonious and one of those others, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew was Jesus Christ himself:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

(23) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

(24) Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

(25) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

(27) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

(28) Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Matthew 23 (King James Version (KJV 1611))

The recently revealed text messages sent by Australia’s deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice deputy prime-minister 2016-) included a character assessment of Prime Minister Scott Morrison (b 1968; Prime Minister of Australia 2018-) as “…a hypocrite and a liar from my observations and that is over a long time,” adding “I have never trusted him, and I dislike how earnestly [he] rearranges the truth to a lie.”  That was good but more amusing still was Mr Joyce’s “unreserved” apology to which he added the reservations that (1) it was a long time ago (10 months) and he was younger then, (2) he didn’t really know him at the time the message was sent (they’ve served together in cabinet for most of the last decade), (3) his opinion since he got to know him better has softened and he now thinks he’s a fine chap “of high integrity and honesty” and (4), he was in a bad mood when sending the message.

Given the ferocity of the critique, one might have thought Mr Morrison may have been consumed by hatred and vengeful thoughts but, perhaps feeling constrained by Luke 6:37…:

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. (King James Version (KJV 1611))

… issued a statement saying he’d forgiven Mr Joyce his trespasses, a gesture which either demonstrates some generosity of spirit or hints at his increasingly perilous political position.

Grace Tame looking at Scott Morrison, The Lodge, Canberra, annual pre-Invasion Day (aka Australia Day) festivities, 25 January 2021 and, arm in sling, after “a bike stack”.

Mr Joyce however may still nervously be looking over his shoulder.  A few days after Grace Tame (b 1994; activist for survivors of sexual assault & 2021 Australian of the Year), not best pleased with some aspects of Mr Morrison’s commitment to helping victims of sexual assault, spoiled one of his prized photo-opportunities by fixing him with a frosty stare rather than the expected asinine smile, she was involved in an accident, tumbling from her bike, breaking a collarbone and sustaining the odd graze.  There is no suggestion either Mr Morrison or the Liberal Party’s squad of dirty tricks operatives were involved in what Ms Tame described as a “bike stack” but Mr Joyce, noting no doubt that Mr Morrison said only “forgive” and not “forget”, may be impressed by the coincidence.

Even if he worries about that, perhaps Mr Joyce might have time to reflect on the attitude of Jesus to hypocrisy, discussed in the Gospel of John.  The Pharisees, in an attempt to discredit Jesus, brought before him a woman they accused of adultery, reminding the crime was under Mosaic law punishable by stoning.

(3) And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

(4) They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

(5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

(6) This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

(7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

(9) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

(10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

(11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

John 8 (King James Version (KJV 1611)

Given the enthusiasm Mr Joyce showed for defending the sanctity of the marriage vow during the debate about same-sex marriage before deserting his wife to co-habit with a former employee with whom he’d been conducting an adulterous affair, it may be time for him to read the bible rather than just thumping one.

Gladys Berejiklian looking at Scott Morrison.

What made the latest in Mr Joyce’s long line of gaffs funnier still was the release a few days earlier of text messages between former New South Wales premier Gladys Berejiklian (b 1970; Premier of NSW 2017-2021) and an un-named member of Mr Morrison’s cabinet in which Ms Berejiklian branded the prime minister a “horrible, horrible person” who was "untrustworthy" and “more concerned with politics than people”.  The minister proved responsive to the then premier’s analysis, describing his leader as “a fraud”, “a complete psycho” and “desperate and jealous.”  Perhaps a victim of Sinodinos syndrome, when asked, Ms Berejiklian said she couldn't recall of the exchange.

Spirit of forgiveness: The prime-minister washes and conditions his deputy’s hair (digitally altered image).

As soon as this scurrilous texting was revealed, Mr Joyce affected outrage that anyone would do such a thing, condemning the anonymous minister and demanding they reveal their identity.  “I would suggest that if you know anything about this don’t wait to be outed”, Mr Joyce told the media.  He also had practical advice, adding “…and give an explanation.  Maybe it was a bad day in the office, I don’t know. That’s a better way to do it. It getting out is one good rump steak, with horseradish sauce, vegetables and chips, two bottles of red wine, and some journo is going to say ‘You know who told me that? Blah blah blah.’ And she’s out.”  That may yet prove sound advice.  Most revealing perhaps was (1) the admission by the journalist who provided the leak that the ministerial author had on two prior occasions over the last year refused to authorize a public release of the text, dropping the embargo only to permit a release on 1 February 2022 and (2) the journalist writes for the Murdoch press.  Politicians’ motives for doing things always attract interest (when being told of the Belgium ambassador’s death, Talleyrand mused “I wonder what his motive was?”) and there’s been much speculation, most of it pondering which minister would gain most to gain from the messages entering the public domain.

Former NSW premier Bob Carr (b 1947; Premier of NSW 1995-2005, foreign minister 2012-2013 (@bobjcarr)), anxious to help, tweeted:

The minister who shared the text with van Onselen and gave permission to use it was Peter Dutton. If PM Morrison has one more week in free fall the prospect of a leadership change pre-election is real.  Party rules don’t count if most MPs think you will lead them to defeat.

Mr Dutton (b 1970; member of cabinet since 2013) responded by tweeting “Bob Carr’s tweet is baseless, untrue and should be deleted” but Mr Carr declined, instead adding “Only one way Peter Dutton can win his case: get another colleague to admit that they were the source for comments about the Prime Minister.  If not you, Mr Dutton, which of your colleagues? Until then who has most to gain from undermining further a flailing PM?”

In happier times: Liberal-National Party billboard for the 2016 election campaign.

Given Ms Berejiklian and Mr Dutton sat in different parliaments, hailed from different states and belonged to different factions, it does seem strange he might be the suspect texter but few things in politics unite like a mutual loathing.  Mr Carr offered no evidence for his claim and seemed unconcerned the notably litigious Mr Dutton might issue a writ.  The former foreign minister said that, like a journalist, he wouldn’t be revealing his sources but did indicate the tip came from a normally reliable source and was not supposition based on Mr Dutton having “a bit of previous”.  Mr Dutton's texting history included sending one calling a journalist a "mad fucking witch".  Unfortunately he sent the text to the target of his remarks but fortunately she worked for the Murdoch press and thus had to cop it sweet which the witch did with some aplomb, even complimenting Mr Dutton for having been a minister who had made a great contribution to government.  The conspiracy theory which underpins Mr Carr's tweet is the notion that in 2018 Mr Morrison tricked Mr Dutton into triggering the defenestration of Malcolm Turnbull (b 1954; prime-minister of Australia 2015-2018) and then double-crossed him, securing the numbers and The Lodge for himself.  Not quite Fortinbras in Hamlet but an anyway successful venture.

Peter Dutton looking at Scott Morrison.

Amidst the Sturm und Drang which has raged since the text messages emerged, what’s not been discussed is the desirability of characteristics such as hypocrisy, having more interest in politics than people and being an actual psychopath in a prime-minister.  Being a hypocrite in its original meaning in Ancient Greek (an actor; one playing a part) is so obvious a helpful attribute for a political leader that Ronald Reagan (1911-2004 US President 1981-1989) was probably genuinely surprised at the journalistic naiveté when, during the 1980 presidential election campaign, he was asked if was possible for an actor to be good president.  His rely was “How is it possible for a good president not to be an actor?” and his point was well made and Harold Macmillan (1894-1986, UK prime-minister 1957-1963) was habitually referred to as an “actor-manager”.  Being, in its modern sense, a hypocrite, liar and psychopath might sound less promising qualifications for political leadership and for idealists something truly appalling and it may be these qualities are more valuable in attaining office than exercising successfully its power although there’s always the extraordinary example of Comrade Stalin (1878-1853; leader of the USSR 1924-1953) to illustrate just what a serious psychopath can achieve.

Another fun aspect of these text messages is that the conflict is internecine.  Politicians being mean to those on the other side is so common it barely rates as news unless there’s some particularly egregious accusation, preferably involving a goat or some other abomination but when it’s within the same party, it’s especially amusing because that’s where the real hatreds lie.  That’s why Gordon Brown (b 1951; UK prime-minister 2007-2010) being was labeled “a psychopath” by Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007) was funny; had he said it of the leader of the opposition it’s doubtful anyone would have noticed.  Mr Joyce’s contribution to the genre was really quite good as was that of Mr Dutton (or whomever the culprit may be) but that of Ms Berejiklian lacked punch; she needs to sharpen the hatchet.