The Portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts 9783666536151, 9783525536155, 9783647536156

Citation preview

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Matthias Köckert, Hermut Löhr, Joachim Schaper, David Andrew Teeter and Christopher Tuckett

Volume 254

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Mary Marshall

The Portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-53615-5 You can find alternative editions of this book and additional material on our Website: www.v-r.de Ó 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting by Konrad Triltsch Print und digitale Medien GmbH, Ochsenfurt Printed and bound in Germany by Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Rationale and Research Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The Objectives of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Approach and Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 The significance and relevance of the quest for the historical Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Structure and Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 20 21

2. The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Structure of this Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Mark’s Portrayal of the Pharisees in Research . . . . . . . . 2.1.2.1 J. Bowker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2.2 M.J. Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2.3 J.D. Kingsbury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Challenges to the Behaviour of Jesus and his Disciples . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Mark 2:15 – 3:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Mark 7:1 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 A Request and a Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 The Pharisees seek a sign from heaven (8:11 – 12) . . . . . . 2.3.2 Jesus’ warning against the leaven of the Pharisees (8:15) . . 2.3.2.1. The Pharisees and Herod pose a mortal threat to God’s messengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2.2 The Pharisees and Herod misunderstand the source of Jesus’ authority and power . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Requests for Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 27 28 29 29 30 32 35 35 45 51 52 57

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

22 24

58 59 61 66

6

Contents

3. The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Structure and Organisation of this Chapter . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Matthew’s Portrayal of the Pharisees in Research . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Predominance of the Pharisees in Matthew . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 The Pharisees as distinct from other Jews . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Pharisees as Leaders or Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Saying “We have Abraham as our ancestor” . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 “Leaven” and the implied criticism of the disciples in 16:5 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Moses’ Seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 The Pharisees as representative of the Jewish people . . . . . 3.4 The Source of Tension between the Teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 The Pharisees’ flawed understanding of Scripture and the will of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1.1 The Question about Divorce (19:3 – 9) . . . . . . . . 3.4.1.2 Question about the Greatest Commandment (22:34 – 40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1.3 Question about David’s Son (22:41 – 5) . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Plucking Grain on the Sabbath (12:1 – 8) . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Healing on the Sabbath (12:9 – 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 Hand–washing and Pharisaic Tradition (15:1 – 20) . . . . . . 3.4.5 Question about payment of taxes to Caesar (22:15 – 22) . . . 3.5 The Pharisees’ failure to recognise the identity and significance of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Question about eating with Tax–collectors and Sinners (9:10 – 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Question about fasting (9:14 – 18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3 The ‘Beelzebul’ controversies (9:32 – 4; 12:22 – 37) . . . . . . 3.5.3 Requests for a sign (12:38 – 42; 16:1 – 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3.1 The Sign of Jonah the Prophet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3.2 A Sign as Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 The Culpability of the Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 For the rejection of God’s emissaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1.1 The indictment of this generation . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1.2 The Pharisees reject John the Baptist . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1.3 The scribes and the Pharisees murder the prophets (23:29 – 39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

70 70 71 72 72 76 79 82 82 83 86 86 88 88 89 89 90 94 95 97 98 98 99 100 103 104 104 106 106 106 108 109

7

Contents

3.6.1.4 Three Parables of Rejection and Judgement (21:28 – 22:14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1.5 The Parable of the Two Sons (21:28 – 32) . . . . . . 3.6.1.6 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (21:33 – 46) . . 3.6.1.7 The parable of the wedding banquet (22:1 – 14) . . 3.6.2 Bearing fruit worthy of repentance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2.1 The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees . . 3.6.2.2 The Pharisees’ complicity in the deadly opposition to Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2.3 The Deputation to Pilate (27:62 – 6) . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 Hypocrisy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.1 The Historical Setting of Matthew and his Relationship to “Judaism” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

110 111 111 113 113 114

. . . .

115 116 117 122

.

124

4. The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 The Structure and Organisation of this chapter and some Methodological Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 First Theme: The Pharisees forfeit their place in the kingdom . . . 4.2.1 Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.1 The Pharisees’ rejection of John’s baptism of repentance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.2 Dining with the Pharisees from a Symbolic, Eschatological Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.3 Jesus’ teaching to the Pharisees in parables . . . . . 4.2.1.4 The Pharisees are vik²qcuqoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.5 The Pharisees’ question concerning the kingdom . . 4.2.2 Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Summary of First Theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Second Theme: The reputation of the Pharisees and their apologetic function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 The reputation of the Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2.1 Gamaliel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2.2 Pharisees of the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2.3 The distancing of Pharisees from involvement in persecution of the church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2.4 Paul’s appeals to Pharisaism in his defence speeches. 4.3.3 Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

128 128

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

129 131 131 131 132 134 136 138 139 140 141 141 142 142 145 146 147 150

8

Contents

4.3.3.1 Luke’s exploitation of the Pharisees’ reputation to show Jesus to advantage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3.2 The Pharisees’ “defence” of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel . 4.3.4 Summary of Second Theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1.1 Resurrection of the Dead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1.2 Pharisees who are also Christians . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.1 Jesus Dining with Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.2 The internal or limited nature of Jesus’ disputes with the Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.3 Lukan Redaction of Markan Material . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.4 Lukan Redaction of Q Material . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.5 Some Comments on the Value of Comparing Luke with other Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.6 Halakhah as the subject of Luke’s polemic against the Pharisees: A Response to J.T. Sanders . . . . . . 4.4.2.7 Summary : on the nature of Jesus’ disputes with the Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Summary of Theme 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 The Relationship of Luke’s Portrayal to Historical Pharisaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Significance of this study for the unity of Luke and Acts . . 5. The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Structure and Organisation of this chapter . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 A Note on Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Belief, Unbelief and Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 The Authoritative Role of the Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 The Authority to Send . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Powerful Allies and Distinction from the Crowd . . . . . . 5.3.3 Fear and the Ability to Expel Others from the Synagogue . 5.3.3.1 The Good Shepherd, the thieves and the hired man 5.4 Opposition to Jesus: plans to Arrest and Attempts to Kill . . . . 5.4.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

. . . . . . . . . . . .

150 151 154 155 155 156 158 162 162 167 168 172 174 175 179 179 180 182 184 188 188 189 190 191 193 193 194 195 197 198 202

9

Contents

. . . .

203 204 207 207

. . . . . . .

208 209 211 213 214 215 215

.

216

. . . .

217 219 220 222

.

222

. . . . . . .

223 226 227 228 229 231 235

.

237

.

239

. . . . .

242

. . . .

243 246 246 246

5.5 Reasons for hostility towards Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Factors leading to opposition from the Pharisees . . . . . 5.5.2 Exceptional Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2.1 Dialogue with Jesus (8:12 – 20) . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2.2 Concerning the healing of the man born blind (9:13 – 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2.3 An Encounter with Jesus (9:39 – 41) . . . . . . . . . 5.5.3 Factors leading to opposition from the Youda?oi . . . . . . 5.5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Nicodemus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 The Visit to Jesus by Night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1.1 “He came to him by night” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1.2 Nicodemus’ Statement Concerning the Identity of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1.3 Nicodemus’ misunderstanding and the necessity of being cemmgh0 %myhem (3:3 – 10) . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1.4 Jesus’ Testimony (3:11 – 21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Nicodemus’ Petition to the Council (7:50 – 2) . . . . . . . . 5.6.3 The Burial of Jesus (19:38 – 42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.3.1 Is Nicodemus a “Secret Disciple” and how would this affect his portrayal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.3.2 Do Nicodemus’ Actions Demonstrate a Correct Understanding of Jesus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.4 How Distinctive is an Ambiguous Portrayal? . . . . . . . . 5.6.5 Nicodemus and the Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Conclusions: Explaining John’s Portrayal of the Pharisees . . . . 5.7.1 John’s distinction between Vaqisa?oi and Youda?oi . . . . 5.7.2 The pre-eminence of Vaqisa?oi in John . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.3 Reflecting the History of the Johannine Community . . . . 5.7.3.1 Re–evaluation of the Assumption of the Pharisaic Dominance of Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.3.2 Re–evaluation of Martyn’s construal of the birkath ha–minim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 A summary of the prominent features of each evangelist’s portrayal of the Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Contribution of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 To the quest for the historical Pharisees . . . . . . . 6.2.2 To an understanding of the Gospels . . . . . . . . .

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

10

Contents

. . . .

248 248 249 250

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

262

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Primary Texts and Translations 2. Reference Works . . . . . . . . 3. Secondary Literature . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Acknowledgements

The following names stand in token of a list so long that to inscribe it here would try the reader’s patience to an unreasonable extent. My first acknowledgement must go to my parents and brother for their unfailing love and support and especially to my mother for her diligent proof–checking. I offer my sincere thanks to Christopher Tuckett for both his patient supervision of my doctoral work and his continuing kind encouragement. It is certainly true that any strengths of this volume I owe to his careful guidance, whereas the weaknesses are all my own. I am grateful also to my doctoral examiners, Christopher Rowland and Helen Bond, for their careful consideration and guidance, which has been particularly helpful in the preparation of this volume. I remember the support and encouragement of Mark Butchers and of Martin Goodman, who first introduced me to the Pharisees. I also wish to thank all members of the Oxford University New Testament seminars, particularly Richard Ounsworth, Christopher Hays, David Lincicum and Simon Cuff whose forbearance of and gracious comment on my work helped me to refine my own ideas and brightened many a day of otherwise solitary research. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the members and staff of the Faculty of Theology, Keble College and St Benet’s Hall at the University of Oxford since it is by their professionalism, expertise and kind attention that my comfortable progress has been secured. I also acknowledge the staff and pupils of Bishop Wordsworth’s School in Salisbury who have provided me with enthusiasm and inspiration when I lacked it. I thank Jenn Strawbridge, Mike Sommer and Susanne Sklar for their seemingly unlimited hospitality, which enabled me to revise the text of this book. Finally I offer my thanks to Clive Woolley, Suzie Merchant, Corrina Connor, Justin and Sarah Pottinger and Ed Green as without their sustaining friendships I certainly would not have accomplished even the little that I have. This monograph originated in my doctoral research which was generously funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council with further assistance from Mrs Victoria De Breyne.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

1.

Introduction

1.1

Rationale and Research Context

The first five books of the New Testament contain a large proportion of all uses of the term Vaqisa?or in extant literature. These references and ideas about the group have aroused a great deal of scholarly interest and studies involving this material have addressed a variety of different concerns. The most prolific branch of research has placed Gospel testimony alongside that of Josephus, the Tannaitic Rabbis and Paul, and attempted to reconstruct an historical entity of the same name. Older examples of this kind of study were often primarily compilations of source material and displayed only limited critical engagement with those sources. Moreover, their scope was rarely confined to Pharisees per se but encompassed many aspects of Second Temple and early rabbinic Judaism.1 More recently, the quest for the historical Pharisees has been revived with the publication of several major and still influential studies of historical Pharisaism, including John Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (1973), Jacob Neusner, From Politics to Piety : The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (1973), Ellis Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution (1978), A. J. Saldarini, Pharisees Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (1989), Günter Stemberger, Jewish Con-

1 See for example, J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer: Eine Untersuchung zu inneren jüdischen Geschichte (Griefswald: Bamberg, 1874); I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (First and Second Series; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917/1924); L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: the Sociological Background of their Faith (2 vol.; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962); and E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.– A.D. 135) (3 vol.; Rev. English edn Vermes/Millar/Black (ed.); Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1973/1979/1986/1987); R.T. Herford, The Pharisees (Boston: Beacon, 1962, 11924) is unusual in maintaining a narrower focus on the Pharisees in particular. See also the survey (which includes pre–1945 scholarship) undertaken by R. Deines, Die Pharisäer : Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

14

Introduction

temporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes (German original 1991), and E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief (1992).2 The preponderance of historical enquiry has entailed several consequences for the treatment of New Testament material concerning the Pharisees. In some of these more recent publications, New Testament material has been sidelined in favour of non–Christian sources. For example, in Judaism: Practice and Belief, E. P. Sanders draws extensively on Josephus and even Pauline literature but his references to the Gospels and Acts are sparse by comparison and dominated by the description of Gamaliel in Acts. In general, rather than leading Sanders’ reconstruction, the Gospels and Acts seem to take a supporting role and are not cited in his sections concerning specifically Pharisaic attitudes to work, tithes, food and hand-washing where they might be expected.3 Jacob Neusner devotes the fourth chapter of From Politics to Piety to the Gospels’ material but his concluding chapter, “The Pharisees in History” makes very few references to that material. This comparative neglect of the Gospels and Acts might be attributed to increasing popularity of research into rabbinic Judaism and the writings of Josephus. However, it also represents a “pendulum swing” away from the former dominance of Christian sources in the reconstruction of early Judaism. For example A. J. Saldarini expresses the underlying supposition as follows Earlier studies by Christians suffered from the tendency to read the polemical account of the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees in the New Testament as history and then use it to interpret the rabbinic sources … 4

2 This main text lists merely a representative sample of the major studies featuring a discussion of first century Jewish groups. J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973); J. Neusner, From Politics to Piety : The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood: Hentice–Hall, 1973); E. Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution (Abingdon: Parthenon, 1978); A.J. Saldarini, Pharisees Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1989); G. Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995 [German original 1991]); E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63BCE–66CE (London: SCM, 1992). To these should be added a number of highly influential essays in the field of Jewish history which have impacted on reconstructions of ancient Pharisaism and the interpretation of the New Testament. For example: J.N. Lightstone, ‘Sadducees versus Pharisees’ in J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and other Graeco–Roman cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (4 vol.; SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 3.206 – 17; A.I. Baumgarten, ‘The Name of the Pharisees’, JBL 102 (1983) 411 – 28; D.R. Schwartz, ‘Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees’, JSJ 14 (1983) 157 – 71. I refer the reader to the bibliography to this volume and to the comprehensive bibliography in J. Neusner/B. Chilton (ed.), In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (Waco: Baylor, 2007). 3 Sanders, Judaism, 418 – 24 on Pauline literature; 394, 419 – 20 on Acts 5:34 – 9; other references include: 421 on Acts 22:3 and 26:5; 422 on Mark 7 and 445 – 7 on Matt 23. 4 Saldarini, Pharisees Scribes and Sadducees, 7, italics mine.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Rationale and Research Context

15

Historians of Judaism are justifiably cautious about the bias and accuracy of Christian sources. However, the tendency to view portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts in wholly polemical terms has, in a few cases, resulted in an underestimation of their complexity. An extreme example is that of Hyam Maccoby whose reduction of the Gospel portrayals to a composite polemic prompts him to adopt a rather nave Tendenz criticism, which he summarises as follows Since the general trend is anti–Pharisee, so that the narrative becomes more and more anti–Pharisee as it is successively re–edited, any passages friendly to the Pharisees cannot be late additions to the text … instead they must be survivals that have escaped the eye of the editor.5

What is telling here is the characterisation of the evangelists as editors who mechanistically apply a single and undifferentiated Tendenz to individual pericopae. A better model is that evangelists used and adapted already complex and multi–faceted traditions and sources to address their own varied concerns and objectives. It is not therefore surprising that some parts of the text are in tension with others. It is also far from clear that passages which do not conform to tendencies observed in the majority of the text are necessarily “part of the original, authentic narrative which has survived the operations of the censor”.6 Nevertheless, Maccoby is not isolated in this assumption and something like it (albeit in a gentler tone) might undergird the refrain of K. Weiß that material which runs counter to the tendency of the evangelists to vilify the Pharisees might be considered authentic.7 Maccoby’s assumption also illustrates a tendency among some scholars to overlook the individuality of Gospel evidence. Since the New Testament authors shared a common tradition and were motivated by common polemical aims they have, on occasion, been attributed not just similar but uniform portrayals and biases, according to which their evidence may be dismissed on the same grounds. It may be argued that E.P. Sanders adopts a mild form of this tacit assumption. He frequently refers to the Synoptic Gospels as a single entity, normally represented by Mark, without drawing attention to differences be5 H. Maccoby, Jesus the Pharisee (London: SCM, 2003), 123 and see 157 for further descriptions of Tendenz criticism. 6 Idem. 123. 7 R. Meyer/K. Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, in G. Kittel/O. Bauernfeind/G. Friedrich (ed.), TWNT 9 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1973) 11 – 49, on pp. 37 – 8. Weiß endorses this principle even where the argument is from silence. For example, the relative absence of Pharisees from the Passion narrative is accepted as historically authentic because the presumed tendency would have introduced them. There is, however, no attempt to explain why other traditions were not immune to redactional “interference” apart from to assume that they have no basis in “history” and that no such basis was presupposed by the evangelist.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

16

Introduction

tween them. Any differences that exist are apparently irrelevant to his undertaking. Similarly Ellis Rivkin assumes that the “data to define the Pharisees” as it may be “extracted” from the Synoptics has been left relatively unaffected by the often subtle differences between the Gospels or, in his words, by an “intensification of hatred” over the period of their composition.8 At the very least, this assumption would appear to require clarification and greater justification than he offers for it. It is certainly the case that the Synoptics present similar pictures of the Pharisees but the pictures are nowhere independent of each evangelist’s shaping of them. Rivkin’s assertion, “no datum in Matthew is incompatible with the overall data in Mark or Luke”, may be fine as far as it goes but fails to acknowledge the nuances which mean that the three, while not incompatible, do not always fit comfortably together. I do not wish to give the impression that the individuality of the Gospels and their varied tendencies and biases have gone entirely neglected in recent historical reconstructions of Pharisaism. Neusner in chapter 4 of From Politics to Piety treats the Gospels collectively but since his approach is tradition–historical, he identifies five different types of tradition that are found in the Gospels.9 He thereby recognises that material concerning the Pharisees is not undifferentiated although his treatment necessarily downplays the redactional level of the Gospels and the meaning of these traditions as they appear in their current context. Saldarini highlights differences between the five portraits of the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes and relates the Gospels’ content to the social context in which they were produced although the breadth of his study means that his treatment of Gospels material is brief.10 It is the contention of this study that the portrayals of the Pharisees in the four Gospels and Acts are complex and individual. It upholds the validity and importance of a trend in recent scholarship to set aside the goal of reconstructing the Pharisees of history and concentrate instead on the way that they are presented in the different texts. This focus was apparent in the studies by Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition Critical Study (1991) and Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (1971).11 It is, moreover, a major concern of many contributors to the most recent scholarly collaboration on the subject, In Quest of the Historical Pharisees edited 8 9 10 11

Rivkin, Hidden Revolution, 80. Neusner, From Politics to Piety, 67 – 80. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 146 – 97. S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition Critical Study (StPB 39; Leiden: Brill, 1991); J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (3 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 1 – 2. Here Neusner proposes not to provide a new account of Pharisees but to bring to bear on rabbinic traditions the critical analysis which already flourishes in the study of the New Testament.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Rationale and Research Context

17

by Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton (2007). The editors’ preface prioritises text over reconstruction We do not undertake to homogenize the distinct sources’ pictures or reconstruct a coherent account of how things really were. Prior generations of scholars have signally failed at that task. We begin afresh in a more critical spirit. In these pages each source is described in its own terms and framework.12

The following chapters will likewise focus on the worlds of the texts and so continue in the furrow ploughed by In Quest of the Historical Pharisees, but dealing only with those texts created by the four evangelists. I therefore propose not a quest for historical Pharisees, neither for New Testament Pharisees, but for the Pharisees of Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts and John. Such a quest will redress the imbalance caused by the appropriation of these texts for historical enquiry and facilitate a richer understanding of both the texts themselves and those who shaped them. Another branch of scholarship has examined material involving the Pharisees as part of investigations into other, broader themes, in the four Gospels and Acts. There are studies of the Jewish leadership, e. g. Sjef Van Tilborg (1972), Michael J. Cook (1978), Elizabeth Struthers Malbon (1989) and Mark Allan Powell (1990).13 There are also investigations of the Jews in general, e. g. Jacob Jervell (1972), J.T. Sanders (1987) and Robert L. Brawley (1988) and of the law, e. g. S. G. Wilson (1983), Roger P Booth (1986) and William Loader (1997).14 In contrast with the historical quests, the particular purposes and concerns of individual evangelists are central to these enquiries. However, the portrayal of the Pharisees is examined as the means to understanding some other aspect of the text and this approach inevitably presents the Pharisees’ portrayal as dominated by that aspect which the study seeks to elucidate. For example, Boris Repschinski’s (2000) analysis of the controversy stories in Matthew incorporates many references to the Pharisees but no material which is not directly related to their

12 Neusner/Chilton (ed.), Quest, vii. 13 S. Van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972); M.J. Cook, Mark’s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (NovTSup 51; Leiden: Brill, 1978); E.S. Malbon, ‘The Jewish Leaders in the Gospel of Mark: A Literary Study of Markan Characterisation’, JBL 108 (1989) 259 – 81; M.A. Powell, ‘The Religious Leaders in Luke: A Literary Critical Study’, JBL 109 (1990) 93 – 110. 14 J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke–Acts (Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1972); J.T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke–Acts (London: SCM, 1992); R.L. Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology and Conciliation (SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987); S.G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); R.P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity : Tradition History and Legal History in Mk 7 (JSNTSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986); W.R.G. Loader, Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels (WUNT 97; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

18

Introduction

conflicts with Jesus.15 Similarly, J. D. Kingsbury’s several studies of Jewish leaders in different Gospels (1987, 1989, 1990 and 1991) inevitably demonstrate that the Pharisees are leaders of the Jews and focuses on this aspect of their portrayal.16 David Gowler’s (1991) study of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts may also be placed in this category since his analysis of the New Testament material serves as a test–case for the methodology he constructs in the first half of his book.17 Many of these studies underline the merits of the concerns I have expressed and the objective these concerns have prompted, namely to discard the notion of New Testament portrayals and attitudes in favour of a model which respects the individuality of New Testament texts. William Loader’s study, for example, whilst nominally pursuing Jesus’ Attitude Towards The Law demonstrates the distinctive stance to emerge from each evangelist, not withstanding their use of common tradition. As a result of paying attention to the redactional emphases of each text, Loader was able to conclude from his exegesis, for example (and stated here only briefly for illustrative purposes) that whereas Mark’s Jesus contends that elements of Torah never had validity, the Matthean Jesus upholds the written law but only as it is interpreted in the light of Jesus’ authority. Luke respects Torah observance as the continuation of the pattern of Israel but displays an ambivalent attitude to cultic and ritual commandments and brooks no construal of the law which would exclude Gentiles from the church. John, Loader concludes, reduces the role of the Torah to that of witness to Christ, it was divinely authorised but has been made obsolete since identity is established in relation to Jesus and not to Israel.18 Loader has demonstrated the distinctiveness of individual Gospels and therefore, provided strong support for the profitable study and comparison of different New Testament texts with regard to a given issue. It is to be hoped that this study of the Pharisees will similarly demonstrate the value of this objective. Analyses of Pharisees as they relate to an evangelist’s broader themes highlight important aspects of the Pharisees’ portrayal and their integral role in the Gospel, but they may give the misleading impression that an evangelist’s presentation of the Pharisees is reducible to only one concern or motif within his text. The approach of this study may be considered, in some respects, to reverse 15 B. Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism (FRLANT 189; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). 16 J.D. Kingsbury, ‘The Developing Conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in Matthew’s Gospel’, CBQ 49 (1987) 179 – 97; Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress,1989); ‘The Religious Authorities in the Gospel of Mark’, NTS 36 (1990) 42 – 65; Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). 17 D.B. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 2; New York: Peter Lang, 1991). 18 Loader summarises his conclusions in Jesus’ Attitude, 509 – 18.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Rationale and Research Context

19

that of many of the aforementioned thematic studies. Whereas the authors of those studies began with a certain theme, concern or debate and then gathered all material of potential relevance to that theme, I start with material involving the Pharisees and then identify the variety of themes, concerns and debates with which it is (and so they are) associated. The aim of this study is not to decipher any evangelist’s attitude towards Jews, Judaism, Torah etc, but only to discern how his portrayal of the Pharisees might function as one of several indicators towards it. Furthermore, I will maintain a narrow focus on the Pharisees rather than a wider one on Jewish leaders or named Jewish groups. Although the frequent claim that Pharisees are portrayed as members of the Jewish leadership may be accurate, it should be demonstrated for the portrayal of Pharisees independently of the other Jewish leaders. All four evangelists have retained several names for Jewish leaders and parties and sometimes exchange one term for another. As a result the portrayals of these groups might be considered cumulative (they combine to produce a picture of the Jewish leadership and any subsection of this group shares the characteristics of the whole) or interchangeable (that one sub–group is identical to another in all but name). However, I suggest that such claims may only be upheld or criticised in the light of what may be concluded about the evangelists’ portrayals of the individual groups. Is the portrayal of the Vaqisa?oi by a given evangelist consistent? Does it differ from the portrayals of other evangelists? Only after the portrayal of the Pharisees in their own right has been discerned, is it possible to evaluate its similarity to, difference from or identity with the portrayals of other groups with different names. A few studies of the portrayal of Pharisees by an individual evangelist do exist by, e. g. Feliks Gryglewicz (1978), J A. Ziesler (1978 – 79), Dieter Lührmann (1987), John T. Carroll (1988) and the contributors to the volume edited by Neusner and Chilton (2007).19 However, these studies do not answer the need for a comprehensive examination of the Gospels’ and Acts’ portrayals of Pharisees for their own sake. The chapters of the Neusner and Chilton collection which deal with the Gospels are very brief (Matthew and Mark are treated in a single essay) and there is no chapter dealing with all references to the Pharisees in Acts. Moreover, the collection appears to assume an audience more specialised in the study of Jewish history than of the New Testament. As a result its treatments of New Testament texts are sometimes insufficiently detailed. Other studies are isolated and, although they contain valuable insights for the interpretation of one 19 J.A. Zielser, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, NTS 25 (1978 – 9) 146 – 57; D. Lührmann, ‘Die Pharisäer und die Schriftgelehrten im Markusevangelium’, ZNW 78 (1987) 169 – 85; J.T. Carroll, ‘Luke’s Portrayal of the Pharisees’, CBQ 50 (1988) 604 – 21; F. Gryglewicz, ‘Die Pharisäer und die Johanneskirche’ in A. Fuchs, (ed.) Probleme der Forschung (SNTSU Series A 3; Munich: Velag Herold Wien, 1978) 144 – 58.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

20

Introduction

or other text, they do not enable all five portrayals to be juxtaposed and compared. Older monographs by Donald W. Riddle (1928) and Wolfgang Berliner (1959) are the exception but both are dominated by historical and methodological assumptions which are now contested or have been superseded.20 The contribution of K. Weiß to the TWNT entry ‘Vaqisa?or’(1973) treats separately the presentation of Pharisees in different parts of the New Testament: the Synoptic tradition, John, Acts and Paul.21 Weiß offers valuable insights into the redaction of traditions about the Pharisees by the evangelists and draws out agreements and disagreements between the different texts. However, these observations are generally explained with reference to a particular reconstruction of historical Pharisaism in the first century (some parts of which might now be called into question) and there is no thoroughgoing attempt to discuss the Pharisees’ function in each text as a whole, i. e. in relation the rhetorical and theological aims of the evangelists. Moreover, as a dictionary entry, the article is necessarily short and invites a more detailed treatment of the material, building on Weiß’s careful attention to the individuality of the New Testament texts. There is no recent and full length work by a single author that treats the Pharisees in all four Gospels and Acts.

1.2

The Objectives of this Study

I propose to offer just such a treatment which will encompass all five texts whilst maintaining a focus on the portrayal of the Pharisees. I hope to provide a more detailed and comprehensive analysis than that provided by existing articles and to highlight the relevance of these analyses to other areas of New Testament scholarship. To reiterate, this study will not reconstruct an historical group called Vaqisa?oi neither does it rest on the assumption that the Gospels and Acts reflect such a group, (although this possibility will be raised with regard to the exegesis of certain passages and discussed more fully in relation to the fourth Gospel). It will not offer a solution to any of the debates concerning New Testament attitudes to Jews and Judaism, the evangelists’ attitude towards the law or controversies with Jewish leaders. Moreover, it will not provide an exhaustive exegesis of whole pericopae but only those aspects that affect the Pharisees’ portrayal. The contribution of this study to debates on broader issues and the exegesis of whole texts will consist in the clarification of how the portrayals of the Pharisees may be relevant to other scholarly pursuits. Finally, it is hoped that 20 D.W. Riddle, Jesus and the Pharisees: A Study in Christian Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928); W. Berliner, Christus und die Pharisäer (Vienna: Herder, 1959). 21 Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Approach and Methodologies

21

the juxtaposition of all five analyses will enable similarities and differences to be discerned. Similarities and differences have the potential to equate two texts or to make them incompatible and exist not only on the level of isolated redactions but also on the level of the whole book so that the overall portrayals of different evangelists may be seen to have different characteristics and emphases. I will examine the way in which each author has preserved traditions concerning a named group and used, developed and added to those traditions thereby serving the interests of his text. It is my contention that such an examination will yield insights not only into the portrayals of the Pharisees themselves but, indirectly, into the interests of the evangelists and their treatment of the traditions they received.

1.3

Approach and Methodologies

It is not the object of this study to propound a particular methodology or reading strategy (cf. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend); rather I will employ such methods that deal with the text in its final form.22 By this I mean that I will not speculate about the portrayals of the Pharisees in hypothetical texts such as the non-extant sources of the evangelists or alternative editions of the Gospels where material is reordered or certain passages are read in isolation from others. My approach is for the most part redaction–critical and assumes the two source hypothesis. Redaction criticism will be understood in the broad sense that the Gospels and Acts represent the work of redactors who used existing traditions and sources to shape their own presentation of the life of Jesus and did not create their stories de novo. Although I recognise that the contents of the texts may reflect multiple layers of composition and the ideas and influences of several individuals or groups at various stages, I assume that each text was eventually subject to the control of a single author/redactor, whom I call “the evangelist” and who presented the whole text according to his own knowledge and understanding. The opinions of the evangelist are reflected in the whole text and not only in those portions where he alters his source. Neither is it the case the redactor’s position may be discerned by attention to any or all such alterations in isolation from the rest of his text. The evangelists did not only cut, paste and amend their sources but they shaped their own stories. An accurate appraisal of their opinion must take into account what they preserved unchanged from their 22 I take the text printed in the United Bible Society’s 4th revised edition of the Greek New Testament as representative of the “finished” New Testament text, although I am fully aware that it is a scholarly reconstruction from manuscript evidence which may not flawlessly reproduce the evangelists’ autograph versions. For this reason, I will discuss significant alternative readings where there is no consensus in the manuscript tradition.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

22

Introduction

sources as much as what they chose to alter. This recognition means that holistic methodologies, e. g. narrative–critical readings, are of equal value in discerning the distinctive features of the author’s/redactor’s text. Holistic readings will be especially important in the analyses of Mark, Acts and John because the sources used by the authors of these texts are not extant.

1.3.1 The significance and relevance of the quest for the historical Pharisees Although this study deliberately eschews the historical enterprise, it cannot be denied that the above mentioned work of historians and the portrayals of Pharisees in non–Biblical texts have informed and provided a background to my research. I refrain from summaries and appraisals of current scholarly reconstructions of the Pharisees since any attempt could not, in the confines of this chapter, do justice to the wealth of scholarship now available. Moreover, I am confident that recent studies have rendered such an effort on my part surplus to requirement, and I shall be content to refer the reader to surveys and bibliographies given elsewhere and to cite specific studies as and when they are directly relevant to the issues I elect to discuss.23 In this way I hope to preserve the particular focus of my own research and limit my citations and bibliography to a necessary and practical selection which will elucidate my arguments. I hope that the reader will view this volume as a modest companion to the mass of historical studies, rather than as a successor attempting in vain to retrace the same ground. Nevertheless, there is a methodological concern which requires at the very least some consideration of an historical perspective. My analysis of the New Testament is historical–critical, in that it acknowledges the Gospels and Acts as ancient texts which emerged as the product of evangelists in particular first century settings. Since the five texts I will discuss may be considered as both products of and windows on their own historical context, it is necessary to acknowledge questions raised by the possible presence or awareness of Pharisees in the authors’ settings, as well as in the settings which they explicitly describe. These questions, however, are not easily dealt with because the conundrum is inevitably circular. The historical setting of a Gospel can only be inferred from the Gospel itself. So all evidence of an author’s awareness of Pharisees outside of the narrative – i. e. in his own setting, which might have influenced his portrayal of Pharisees within the narrative – may only be inferred from that same narrative. Of course there are other sources which may provide a general picture but the extent of the information which might be securely applied to the setting of a 23 See especially Neusner/Chilton (ed.), Quest.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Approach and Methodologies

23

given New Testament text is limited. Josephus’ compositions took shape at roughly the same time as the New Testament texts under discussion here, but much of his narrative concerning the Pharisees is set in earlier Hasmonean and Herodian periods. Josephus wrote of the Pharisees as though they were a contemporary group but Steve Mason convincingly warns us against using his descriptions for historical purposes.24 Josephus’ elucidations of the Jewish “philosophies” are “set pieces” which he has manipulated to impress his Roman audiences with the validity of his own polemical and apologetic purposes. Neither Josephus nor any other text, excepting Acts, suggests the presence of Pharisees in the regions (outside Palestine) where the Gospels and Acts are commonly thought to have originated. References to Perushim (~yXwrp is widely accepted as the Semitic equivalent of the Greek Vaqisa?oi) in rabbinic literature are also difficult to contextualise historically or geographically. If we follow e. g. Rivkin, Hidden Revolution, and Lightstone, ‘Sadducees versus Pharisees’, by securing rabbinic descriptions of Pharisees in those texts which use Perushim as an obviously proper noun (as opposed to a common noun denoting “separate ones”) and party designation in juxtaposition with specified opponents, then we are left with relatively little material from the earliest rabbinic collections. It is, moreover, difficult to found firm historical conclusions on the information they contain. For example, two of the three pericopae in m. Yad. 4:6 – 8 juxtapose Perushim with an unnamed Galilean heretic, although of course he may not be in Galilee, and with Rabban Johannan ben Zakkai (c. 10 – 80 CE). It is difficult to relate this scant historical information to the historical settings of the Gospels and Acts at a similar time and perhaps not such a similar place. The Pharisees appear without great fanfare in any of the five New Testament texts, suggesting that the authors are content to introduce them to their stories and do not perceive any need to explain their identity (such as is found in Josephus’ excurses) or reason for their presence. Yet the same authors do not simply assume that their audience know anything of the Pharisees beyond what they will glean from the texts themselves. Indeed, several passages in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts provide quite basic information about the Pharisees and Sadducees, which the reader will need to know in order to understand the story (e. g. Mark 7:3 – 4; 12:18; Matt 22:23; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8). If the evangelists assume that their readers will be familiar with Pharisees as characters, they are not confident that those readers are well informed about distinctive points of Pharisaism, neither, arguably, do they need to possess information from an external source in order to understand what is in the Gospel. The evidence for the existence of Pharisees in the settings of the four evan24 S. Mason, ‘Josephus’ Pharisees: The Narratives’, in Neusner/Chilton (ed.) Quest, 66.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

24

Introduction

gelists and their audiences is therefore ambiguous. Consequently my exegesis of the New Testament texts will not, in the absence of adequate justification to the contrary, suppose that either the authors or their readers possessed any substantial or first-hand knowledge of the Pharisees. In this way, I hope again to emphasise my fidelity to the texts as my primary focus and to support the majority of my arguments solely from the texts themselves. It is possible that familiarity with Pharisees, suggested by the comfortable integration of these characters into the narratives, has been established by existing tradition rather than first-hand acquaintance. However, it is also possible that the approach I have described errs too much on the side of caution and so might miss insights which could be gained from admitting extra–textual awareness of the Pharisees. I have therefore included further and more detailed discussions of the historical setting of the New Testament below (pp. 124 – 7; 235 – 41.) where it is of direct significance to the interpretation of the text or has gained significant influence in scholarly discussion. It has been beyond the modest scope of this study to offer a thorough investigation of the controversial and complicated puzzle of the settings of the four evangelists, but I hope that by highlighting the challenges and relevance of this issue (however inadequately) I might direct the reader to the potential for further research in this area. Moreover, that I might demonstrate the value of narrowly focused research in to the portrayals of the Pharisees for wider concerns in the field of New Testament scholarship.

1.3.2 Structure and Organisation The following chapters will examine the portrayal of each book individually in the order Mark, Matthew, Luke with Acts and John. This order reflects my assumption of Markan priority and enables me, in the chapters concerning Matthew and Luke, to presuppose my discussion of Markan material. The structure of each chapter is determined by the nature of the material with which it is concerned. My decision as to how to organise the content is informed by the portrayal emerging from individual books and I make no attempt to impose a common order and structure on every chapter because different issues and scholarly concerns are primary for different texts. This decision in itself reinforces the motivating concern underlying the study ; that the Pharisees of the text might be studied in their own right rather than in order to serve some other purpose, viz the quest for the historical Pharisees or delineation of an evangelist’s attitude towards Judaism. In other words, it is necessary to begin with the text rather than a predetermined structure. Moreover, it presupposes then vindicates the hypothesis of the investigation, that a study of the Pharisees in

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Approach and Methodologies

25

each New Testament text is justified by the individuality of the respective portrayals, which do not conform to a common pattern The organisation of all four principal chapters is on thematic rather than sequential (according to the order of the text) lines; although in the case of Mark, a thematic treatment coincides with a sequential treatment of the Gospel material. I shall analyse the texts of each author in reference to prominent features and concerns of his portrayal. Although there is apparent commonality between all four Gospel portrayals (i. e. in the Pharisees’ opposition to Jesus), the distinctive treatment of each evangelist means that different texts give rise to different themes. There are obvious shortcomings to this method of organisation. Firstly, the interpreter may risk isolating a text from its context so that pericopae about the Pharisees are read and explained without reference to the significance of what happened before or what happens next. Secondly, without a sequential treatment it is difficult to monitor development and change within a text. It is however, I contend, possible to compensate quite adequately for these difficulties and to guard against these risks. Material can be organised thematically, whilst the exegete remains alert to the contexts of pericopae and the development of a text. In my discussion of each New Testament portrayal I have endeavoured to maintain and demonstrate sensitivity to both of these problems in a variety of ways. In particular, I attempt to resist the temptation to impose my themes inappropriately on the text, instead prioritising the latter over the former. Therefore, I am keen to highlight those aspects of the Pharisees in each text which are inconsistent or do not fit neatly into the categories I have discerned. Furthermore, thematic organisation affords a number of advantages. Firstly, it allows discussion to focus on the portrayal of the Pharisees over and above (although not to the exclusion of) other aspects of the texts. As the reviews of scholarship in each chapter will highlight, a number of sequential studies already exist, both as commentaries on the whole Gospel or as full length studies of discrete sections, e. g. Matt 23. In these studies the portrayal of the Pharisees is a subsidiary concern; the means to a different end, the elucidation of Matt 23 or of Mark’s treatment of the Jewish leaders. The inevitable objective of a sequential treatment is to make sense of the narrative more broadly, whereas the thematic arrangement yields a deeper understanding of features of the Pharisees portrayal. Consequently, it may also facilitate a fruitful comparison of different portrayals along lines other than merely shared and unique material. Moreover, arrangement by theme might avoid the repetition of material which inevitably results from commentary on the three Synoptic Gospels, which share so much material on the Pharisees. It will be demonstrated that material that appears in Mark, Matthew and Luke may be viewed from a variety of perspectives when analysed in the light of overarching themes and concerns in each Gospel’s portrayal. Since the structure of each chapter will vary a brief outline of the

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

26

Introduction

arrangement of the chapter together with a rationale is offered in the introductions to chapters 2 – 5. Please note that in chapter 2 all biblical references are to Mark, in chapter 3 to Matthew and in chapter 5 to John, unless otherwise stated.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

2.

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

2.1

Introduction

The twelve references to oR Vaqisa?oi (always plural) in Mark’s Gospel provide a starting point for the main exposition of this study. I begin my investigation with this Gospel because it contains relatively few and comparatively straightforward references. Moreover, since I assume the dependence of the other synoptic Gospels on Mark, an analysis of Mark’s portrayal is prerequisite to the study of Matthew and Luke. It is useful to gain some understanding of the impression that the Matthean and Lukan redactors received from Mark, their source of some material involving Pharisees, so that their own distinctive treatment of those traditions may be outlined. Mark’s own distinctive portrayal of the Pharisees is given in the context of his Gospel which, far from a neutral and nondescript threading together of existing traditions, is itself a distinctive and remarkable text, coloured by the concerns and purposes of its author. Mark’s story is one of relentless action culminating in Jesus’ passion and the evangelist repeatedly emphasises the necessity of suffering for both the Son of Man and those who would be his disciples. The Jewish leaders, including the Pharisees, in their opposition to Jesus act as a driving force which propels the narrative toward the violence and pain of Jerusalem. It will be important to define the Pharisees’ role in relation to such an important theme of Mark’s work, since their plot against Jesus (3:6) gains a heightened significance once it becomes apparent that Jesus’ death is inevitable and never far from the surface of the Gospel story. The Jewish leaders may also be seen in the light of another major theme running through the Gospel; that of discipleship. Mark’s portrayal of Peter and the Twelve is notoriously ambivalent. Mark describes their misunderstanding, their “little faith” and, in Peter’s case, denial of Jesus and leaves the reader in little doubt that they frequently function as examples of how not to follow Jesus. Followers outside the circle of the Twelve seem also to be on the verge of failure, e. g. the terrified women of 16:8. At the same time, Mark is keen to outline the

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

28

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

demands of true discipleship and to provide more (if not entirely) positive role models in whom faith is found in somewhat unexpected quarters, e. g. 5:34; 10:52. Given the negative portrayal of Jesus’ closest followers, it will be important to discern a distinctive role for the Pharisees. The Jewish leaders do not follow Jesus either but what is the nature of their negative example? Where are they placed on Mark’s spectrum of faith and failure? I will not here attempt to analyse Mark’s attitude to Jews and Judaism more generally, although the following investigation of the Pharisees’ portrayal will undoubtedly highlight issues relevant to this concern and contribute in turn to a more thorough survey of Mark’s presentation of these matters. Several discussions in this chapter will pertain to the variegated nature of the Jewish leadership in the Gospel – Mark refers to several different designations, including the very unusual “Herodians”, and a number of different combinations of Jewish groups – whilst acknowledging their unanimous hostility to Jesus. The Pharisees’ portrayal also involves many of Jesus’ pronouncements on the Torah and Jewish practice and prophet–like denunciations of faithless Israel (12:1 – 12). Nevertheless, Mark depicts Jesus as a Jew, who recognises the authority of the Torah (12:29 – 31), celebrates the Passover and asserts the priority of Israel in his initial dealings with the Syrophoenician woman (7:27).

2.1.1 Structure of this Chapter The structure of this chapter will generally follow the order of Mark, but in order to avoid repetition and to highlight distinctive traits I will gather related material according to three main categories: 1. The Pharisees challenge the behaviour of Jesus and his disciples (2:15 – 3:6 and 7:1 – 13). 2. The Pharisees seek a sign and Jesus warns against the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod (8:11 – 13, 15). 3. The Pharisees request instruction regarding divorce and the payment of taxes to Caesar (10:2 – 9; 12:13 – 17). This sequential approach will not be adopted in other chapters but may be considered appropriate to Mark because of the relatively small amount of material to be covered and its straightforward arrangement in this Gospel. As may be observed from the references given, Mark’s depiction of the Pharisees seems somewhat “self-contained” at particular points in his narrative. Moreover, the categorisation I have proposed according to the sequence of references in the Gospel text also allows different themes to be highlighted insofar as Jesus’ en-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

29

Introduction

counters with the Pharisees in the second half of the Gospel differ from both those in the first half and in chapter 8. It should not be inferred from this categorisation that references in one section may be isolated from those in another, or that the interpretation of the Pharisees’ portrayal in a given pericope may be wholly determined by their portrayal in a similar/adjacent pericope. Nevertheless, the following discussion will demonstrate the significance of Mark’s juxtaposition of some events in his narrative. The grouping of references should also guard against the danger of treating each reference discretely and thereby missing any development or recurring theme in the Pharisees’ portrayal.

2.1.2 Mark’s Portrayal of the Pharisees in Research 2.1.2.1 J. Bowker As indicated in the general introduction, this chapter proposes to investigate the Pharisees as figures belonging to a text rather than as historical figures. I thereby propose to retrieve the subtleties of Mark’s portrayal of the Pharisees which have been neglected under the historical agenda of several important existing studies on the Markan Pharisees which are, nonetheless, worthy of mention here. The influential work of John Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (1973), set out to demonstrate that the Pharisees were not “an undifferentiated group without an history of their own”.1 Bowker collated references to the Pharisees in ancient sources and attempted, in his introduction, to reconstruct the historical Pharisees who were behind or beyond those sources. Bowker discerned in Mark’s Gospel the reflection of subtle historical relationships and transitions in the roles of more than one Jewish group. Bowker admits that while Mark may not have been “consciously deliberate in his accuracy”, the subtleties in his presentation suggest that he preserved those accuracies in the traditions available to him.2 For Bowker, Markan Vaqisa?oi are undoubtedly related to the Hakamim of rabbinic sources. He identifies a variety of common interests and legal rulings, including on divorce and the Sabbath, but also notes that the Vaqisa?oi frequently adopt more extreme positions than the Hakamim, akin to those of the “extremist” Perushim as described in rabbinic sources. Bowker cites the Pharisaic requirements for hand-washing in Mark 7 which exceed those of the Hakamim in m. Hag. 2:4 f., since the latter concerns the consumption of offerings rather than ˙ ordinary meals. Bowker encourages the reader to perceive in the Markan 1 Bowker, Jesus, Preface. 2 Idem. 51.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

30

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

Pharisees a minority group associated with the Vaqisa?oi of Greek sources. A group that later became the rabbinic movement, but one whose extreme attitudes eventually led to their separation from the mainstream and criticism under the label of Perushim in rabbinic texts. Mark’s portrayal depicts the transitional status of this group as its increasingly extreme attitudes were differentiating it from the mainstream.3 Bowker’s reconstruction is vulnerable to criticism on historical grounds. He juxtaposes first–century Gospel accounts and much later rabbinic material without dating the latter or allowing for changes which may have occurred in the time which had elapsed between the composition of the Gospel and the rabbinic compilations. Perhaps he makes too little allowance for the variety of Judaism in the first century and the possibility that a religious or legal stance may be adopted by a group without being exclusively distinctive of that group. Therefore, the opinions that Pharisees hold in common with Hakamim are not necessarily either Hakamic or Pharisaic opinions (perhaps such opinions are much more widespread) so that similarity of opinion need not imply a direct relationship between the groups.4 Nevertheless, Bowker’s treatment pays careful attention to the subtleties and detail of Mark’s text as distinct from other sources.

2.1.2.2 M.J. Cook In notable contrast to Bowker’s attempts to reconstruct the historical Pharisees is Michael Cook’s primarily source–critical investigation, Mark’s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders which attempts to delineate the sources underlying Mark and the Gospel’s reliability as an historical source. Cook argues that Mark’s knowledge of the Jewish opposition to Jesus and his division of Jewish opponents into various parties is wholly derived from his sources and that if the Pharisees possess any distinguishing characteristics it is only by coincidence.5 Cook’s conclusions have serious implications for Bowker and anyone wishing to use Mark’s Gospel (and the other Synoptic Gospels) as a source of information about the historical Pharisees, but they do not invalidate my study of Mark’s Gospel itself. Unlike Cook, Mark’s theological drama is my primary concern.6 The delineation of Mark’s sources and the historicity of his portrayal are relevant only 3 Bowker outlines his argument in greater detail and with further examples, Jesus, 38 – 41. 4 There is insufficient space in this study to include a more detailed discussion of Bowker’s historical reconstructions, but more substantial challenges to his hypotheses may be found in e. g. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London, SCM: 1985) 49 – 51. 5 Cook, Mark’s Treatment, 1 – 4. Contrast the assertion that Mark’s early date means that it could provide valuable information about historical Pharisaism (so M. Pickup, ‘Matthew’s and Mark’s Pharisees’ in Neusner/Chilton (ed.) Quest, 67). 6 See Cook, Mark’s Treatment, 10.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

31

Introduction

insofar as they may highlight Mark’s own redactional tendencies and coherence. Indeed, this study proposes to investigate the implications of Cook’s warning … some of the group titles (“chief priests,” “Herodians,” “elders”) are merely general constructs, i. e. literary devices serving the convenience of the Synoptists themselves and lifted from their sources; they are not reflective of leadership groups actually functioning in Jesus’ time or later.7

If “Pharisees” is a device serving the convenience the evangelist, then it deserves to be examined in its own right to improve our understanding of Mark and his Gospel. Cook further argues that the evangelists “did not adequately define and describe [the Jewish groups] or adequately distinguish among them because they could not”.8 Since Mark had no knowledge of the ways in which the various groups differed from one another, any distinctions which appear in the Gospel do not reflect history but are produced by the juxtaposition of different pre–Markan sources. According to Cook’s reconstruction, each of Mark’s sources used either “Pharisees” or “scribes” to describe the same group of Jewish opponents. Mark then, Cook argues, noted the similarities of these groups across his different sources and being ignorant of the fact that the different terms in his sources were in fact referring to the same group, used both in his Gospel. We need not therefore assume on the basis of Mark, that they were distinct historical groups.9 The studies of both Bowker and Cook furnish a useful illustration of the difference between the Pharisees as historical figures and as figures in the text. In order to arrive at an historical reconstruction of the Pharisees it was necessary for Bowker to read between the lines of Mark’s presentation and much of what he discerned is based on comparison with rabbinic sources. The Gospel text itself does not provide a direct route back to Pharisaism of the first century, indeed Bowker himself implies that the historical accuracy of Mark’s portrayal may be coincidental rather than deliberate.10 Mark’s Gospel is not an historical survey but serves a different purpose. Cook’s suggestions concerning the relationship between scribes and Phar7 Idem. 1. Cook maintains that since “scribes”, “Pharisees” and “Sadducees” appear in non–Christian sources; they cannot be “mere constructs” but must reflect historical entities, although the evangelist’s usage may be imprecise (Idem. 17 – 18). He seems to overlook the possibility that Pharisees may function as a device serving the convenience of non–Christian sources as well as the evangelists. In any case, Cook’s distinction between historical entities and “constructs” is irrelevant to this investigation concerning the Gospel itself and not the history behind it. 8 Cook, Mark’s Treatment, 1 (original italics). 9 Idem. 67, 86 – 8. 10 Bowker, Jesus, 51; see above, p. 29 – 30.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

32

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

isees may or may not be valid from an historical perspective (indeed, it would be impossible to prove the case either way) but according to the internal logic of Mark’s Gospel the two terms designate two different groups. Mark did not subsume all of Jesus’ opponents under a single name; instead he chose to preserve the different names found in his sources. Elizabeth Struthers Malbon assesses Cook’s hypothesis and concludes that the genesis of a phenomenon is not the same as its significance in the narrative.11 In other words, the possibility that Mark derived the distinctions between Jewish groups from his sources does not nullify their existence or their effect in Mark. The Gospel contains neither history nor Mark’s sources but a story describing how various Jewish groups including the Pharisees became involved in the life of Jesus. If we allow interpretation of the second Gospel to be determined by what is conjectured about Mark’s sources and our knowledge of the Jewish leadership groups from elsewhere, we may fail to do justice to the story or to Mark’s way of presenting it.

2.1.2.3 J.D. Kingsbury The attempt to distinguish between the different Jewish groups has also been challenged by the work of J.D. Kingsbury who approaches the Gospel from a literary rather than an historical/source–critical perspective. In his narrative–critical study, Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (1989), and reiterated the following year in an article for New Testament Studies, Kingsbury argued that all the Jewish leaders function as a single character group in Mark. All of Jesus’ Jewish opponents exhibit the same characteristics and are included for the same purpose, that is, as “Jesus’ implacable enemies”, the agents of his arrest and crucifixion.12 Therefore, Mark emphasises not the distinctiveness of each leadership group but the solidarity of each with the others.13 The different groups co–operate and all (except the Sadducees) conspire to destroy Jesus (cf. 3:6; 11:18; 12:12). I do not deny Kingsbury’s claim that “Mark leads the reader to look upon the various groups of authorities as a united front” but maintain that, although the Jewish opponents are united against Jesus, Mark’s portrayal of them is not perfectly uniform nor does he collapse all distinctions between the constituent groups.14 Kingsbury argues that the religious authorities are bound together by Mark’s 11 Malbon, ‘Jewish Leaders’, 263. 12 Kingsbury, ‘Religious Authorities’, 46. 13 Kingsbury’s assertion is similar to Berliner’s protest that references to the Pharisees cannot be treated in isolation because an explicit inseparable connection between scribes and Pharisees in 2:16 is implicitly assumed throughout (Berliner, Christus, 239). 14 Kingsbury, ‘Religious Authorities’, 44.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

33

Introduction

various combinations of different groups.15 However, I suggest that it is these very passages and the retention of different designations, which demonstrate Mark’s deliberate preservation of a varied Jewish opposition. For example, the Pharisees and the Herodians act in perfect concert with one another in 3:6 and 12:13 – they are a united front. Yet, if reference to individual groups adds no particularity to the narrative (so one group is as good as another for Mark’s purposes), what is gained by referring to more than one group or to this combination in particular? If Mark intended to indicate only the co–operation of groups, then scribes and Pharisees that had already appeared in Galilee or the regular Jerusalem combination of chief priests, scribes and elders would have served equally well. It might, therefore, reasonably be suggested that Mark has selected these two groups to represent the united Jewish front because the characteristics of individual groups on these occasions nuance his presentation of opposition throughout the Gospel.16 Furthermore, Mark relates the different groups in such a way that their individuality is assumed. For example, the Pharisees and Herodians of 12:13 are sent to Jesus by the chief priests, scribes and elders of 11:27, necessitating a distinction between two parties – the commissioners and those commissioned. Also, Mark’s introduction of “the scribes of the Pharisees” (2:16) implies that Pharisaism is sufficiently distinct to warrant the affiliation (without becoming “Pharisees” proper) of either professional scribes engaged by the Pharisees or independent scribes who voluntarily adhere to the Pharisees.17 Mark has already introduced scribes without mentioning Pharisees in 2:6 and more frequently 15 Idem. 46. 16 Bowker, Jesus, 41, goes further to suggest the combination of Pharisees with Herodians makes historical sense since it reflects the efforts of a minority group like the Perushim to secure allies and support for their position, having lost the judicial and social privileges of the Hakamim in their transition from a mainstream to an extremist position. 17 The suggestion of professional scribes is advocated by R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Wm B. Eerdman/Paternoster, 2002), 134 who also defends the originality of the reading cqallate?r t_m Vaqisa¸ym against textual variants (130). See also Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 174 and Pickup, ‘Matthew’s and Mark’s’, 74, for whom “scribe” denotes a professional function and not a group with fixed allegiances. Bowker, Jesus, 22, 40 – 1, argues that 2:16 is an example of Mark’s subtle portrayal of Jewish groups in transition. Although scribes and more particularly the Hebrew equivalent sopherim are sometimes interchangeable with the Hakamim in later rabbinic sources, Mark reflects a period when scribes retained a role in legal interpretation and so did not denote an undifferentiated movement but might be associated with a number of different Jewish groups including the Perushim. The hypothesis of independent scribes who voluntarily aligned themselves with Pharisees (since Mark’s phrase implies that while some scribes were of the Pharisees others were not) is supported by J. Marcus, Mark 1 – 8 (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 227. Alternatively J.R. Donahue, The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina 2; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002), 102 envisages Pharisees who adopt the scribal profession.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

34

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

refers to scribes and Pharisees which does not connote the same relationship. It is difficult, therefore, to consider 2:16 as a generic description henceforth applicable (albeit unstated) to all scribes. The groups are undeniably related but they are not the same. Mark (with other ancient authors) ascribes a distinctive denial of the resurrection (cf. 12:24 and 27) to the Sadducees and this subtlety becomes necessary to the sense of 12:18 – 27. A dispute regarding the status of marriage in the resurrection involves Jesus’ defence of resurrection per se at 12:26 which would not be required if the Sadducees here were replaced with another group or with a broader designation such as “the religious authorities”. The Sadducees of Mark’s Gospel are distinguished by a particular doctrinal position, which is not negated by the similarity of the Sadducees’ portrayal with those of other Jewish groups. However, a connection between scribes and Pharisees cannot be inferred from the scribe’s approval of Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection (12:28), because Mark himself gives no indication that resurrection should be considered a Pharisaic doctrine. This chapter will, therefore, respectfully re–open the question that was closed by Kingsbury’s assertion To claim peculiarity for any of these groups in Mark’s story world by stressing differences in doctrine, disposition, geography or disputes ignores Mark’s fundamental description.18

Mark’s preservation of the term “Pharisee” and his employment of it only in certain pericopae are sufficient justification for my examination of Mark’s portrayal of this group alone (and not the religious authorities as a whole as in Kingsbury’s studies). It remains to be seen how substantially the portrayal of the Pharisees differs from that of other groups, but it is at least distinct. The following analysis of Markan material will discuss and evaluate the possible grounds on which Pharisees may be distinguished from other groups. Kingsbury himself admits that the peculiarities of groups are “marginally apparent” but dismisses such peculiarities as “nuances” in the portrayal of the religious authorities.19 This chapter proceeds from the conviction that in order to represent accurately the content of Mark’s Gospel, “nuances” and subtleties should not be overlooked. While it would be misleading to deny the undoubted commonality of the portrayals of all Jewish leadership groups, to treat all Jewish opponents as a uniform mass might ignore the perceivable distinctions that Mark has put in place.

18 Kingsbury, ‘Religious Authorities’, 45. 19 Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark, 64 – 5.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Challenges to the Behaviour of Jesus and his Disciples

2.2

35

Challenges to the Behaviour of Jesus and his Disciples

2.2.1 Mark 2:15 – 3:6 The first four references to the Pharisees occur in a cycle of five pericopae (2:1 – 3:6) in which Jewish opponents of Jesus question his behaviour and that of his disciples. (The first pericope in 2:1 – 12 features the scribes but the remaining controversies involve the Pharisees in several different ways.) These challenges provide an appropriate starting point for my investigation. It might reasonably be expected that these initial references lay the foundation for the Gospel’s portrayal of the Pharisees. Moreover, the similarity of stories in this small collection means that the four may profitably be treated together in order to highlight traits and themes associated with the Markan Pharisees. This contention is supported by Joanna Dewey’s claim that Mark formed 2:1 – 3:6 as a single literary unit.20 It is framed by two statements (1:45b and 3:7) which locate Jesus outside the city where “people came to him from every quarter” so that 3:7 picks up where 1:45 left off. Moreover the unit exhibits a concentric and chiastic structure which arguably has influenced the content of individual pericopae. For example, the healing miracles, 2:1 – 12 and 3:1 – 6, at either end of the unit are both set indoors and introduced with similar formulae Ja· eQsekh½m/eQs/khem p²kim eQr. In both cases the controversy is framed by two statements of Jesus addressed to the man being healed. In neither pericope is opposition voiced openly but Jesus is aware of the hearts of his challengers and responds to them with counter questions. These two episodes are flanked within the unit by two controversies related to eating (dining with tax-collectors and sinners and plucking grain on the Sabbath), whereas the central pericope concerns fasting. Alongside this concentric pattern Dewey also notes that the first two pericopae concern sin and forgiveness and the last two involve the Sabbath. These are only a selection of many observations which, according to Dewey, seem to tie the block of stories together. Dewey’s thesis has been disputed by Jarmo Kiilunen who queries the extent to which these parallels, only discernible through careful modern exegesis, are coincidental to the material rather than the result of a deliberate structure imposed by the evangelist and appreciated by his earliest audiences.21 For example, an indoor or outdoor setting may be used to indicate a change of scene and is appropriate to certain material (e. g. the call of

20 J. Dewey, ‘The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2.1 – 3.6’, JBL 92 (1973) 394 – 401. 21 See detailed objections to Dewey’s parallels in J. Kiilunen, Die Vollmacht im Widerstreit: Untersuchungen zum Werdegang von Mark 2,1 – 3,6 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1985), 73 – 9.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

36

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

the disciples in 1:16 – 20 takes place out of doors, so too that of Levi).22 Nevertheless, it remains clear that these controversy stories (and with them the references to the Pharisees), whether they were combined in tradition or by the redactor and whatever their contours, constitute a discernible section in the text as it stands. Their juxtaposition is congenial to Mark’s presentation. I do not deny that each pericope may be interpreted independently but the subsequent examination will demonstrate that the themes and portrayals emerging from each episode are mutually supportive. The first and most obvious point to be made is that all four references set the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus.23 They and groups associated with them (i. e. the scribes of the Pharisees in 2:16) challenge Jesus and his disciples, they conspire against Jesus with his other enemies (i. e. the Herodians in 3:6 cf. 12:13). Although they take no active role in the challenge of 2:18 – 22 and by virtue of their fast they are paired with the disciples of the Baptist, they oppose Jesus nonetheless since the behaviour of their disciples contradicts the proper behaviour of Jesus’ disciples. Secondly, the Pharisees’ opposition is not static or insignificant but intensifies throughout the section.24 The Pharisees (and allied groups) initially avoid direct confrontation of Jesus. In 2:16, their challenge concerning Jesus’ behaviour, “Why does he eat … ?” is addressed to his disciples (contrast the anonymous challengers at 2:18).25 Alternatively, in 2:23 – 8 the Pharisees address Jesus directly but they do not query his behaviour, as before, but rather that of his disciples. However, the confrontations in 2:16 and 18 seem to involve issues of supererogatory piety, whereas in 2:24 the Pharisees make a much more serious challenge concerning the disciples’ obedience to Torah. The intensification of hostility is ambiguous and unsystematic but is reinforced when the Pharisees’ opposition peaks in 3:1 – 6. The anonymous watchers introduced in 3:2 may be identified with the Pharisees of the preceding confrontation in the grainfield (which takes place on presumably the same Sabbath) and 3:6.26 The scene is openly hostile from the

22 Idem., 77. 23 The Pharisees are not Jesus’ disciples and !jokouh´y in 2:15 should be understood in a non–technical sense (as in 3:7 – 8; 5:24; 10.32; 11:9 and 14:13) merely explaining how the Pharisees came to be on the scene. See France, Mark, 103 and R.A. Guelich, Mark 1 – 8.26 (WBC 34 A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 97 – 8, 103. 24 An intensification of hostility is noted by Donahue, Mark, 110; Guelich, Mark, 106; M.D. Hooker, The Gospel according to St Mark (BNTC; London: A& C Blacks, 1991), 107; Kingsbury, ‘Religious Authorities’, 54 and Pickup, ‘Matthew’s and Mark’s’, 69 among others. 25 See France, Mark, 134. Although Guelich, Mark, 103 observes that they are more direct than the scribes in 2:6 who do not give voice to their concern. 26 So France, Mark, 148; Guelich, Mark, 134; Hooker, Mark, 107 and R. Pesch, Das Markuse-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Challenges to the Behaviour of Jesus and his Disciples

37

outset, the Pharisees do not happen by chance on some offensive activity of Jesus or his disciples, instead they watch Jesus “in order that (Vma) they might accuse him”. In contrast to the healing in 2:1 – 12, the man with a withered hand does not approach Jesus but the initiative is taken by Jesus who invites the man into the middle of the company.27 Although, Jesus’ opponents continue to avoid direct confrontation with him, their silence is not benevolent but provokes Jesus’ anger and leads to the plot against him in 3:6. The plot sets the stage for the arrest and crucifixion, providing one of the first real indications of Jesus’ fate. The Pharisees and Herodians are given the same role as the conspirators in Jerusalem (11:18; 14:1; 15:1). The Pharisees are not passive enemies of Jesus, uninvolved with the passion events at the culmination of Mark’s Gospel but are implicated in the destruction of Jesus.28 This impression is reinforced by verbal parallels that Morna Hooker, C. S. Mann and many others observe between 2:1 – 3:6 and the trial scene. Several commentators note that Jesus’ opponents gather (sulbo¼kiom) as in 15:1 and that Jesus’ eventual condemnation is achieved by an alliance of religious and political powers (represented in 3:6 by Pharisees and Herodians respectively).29 In both 3:2 and 14:55 Jesus’ would be accusers seek grounds on which to charge him, indeed 3:2 uses the same technical legal term, jatgcoq´y that is found in 15:3 – 4.30 (The scribes at 2:7 and the High Priest at 14:64 both accuse Jesus of blasphemy.) The eventual charges against Jesus are unrelated to healings and the chief priests, scribes and elders rather than the Pharisees and Herodians will bring about Jesus’ destruction.31 However, Mark describes the Pharisees’ murderous intentions toward Jesus and does not disassociate them from the kind of behaviour exhibited by Jesus’ opponents in the passion narrative. In all four cases from 2:15 – 3:6 the Pharisees challenge Jesus or his disciples

27 28

29

30 31

vangelium (2 vol.; Freiberg: Herder, 1976/1977), 1.190, who consider Jesus’ recent authorisation of his disciples’ transgression to have prompted their surveillance of Jesus in 3:2. So Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.191. See also Guelich, Mark, 134, who interprets Jesus’ action as drawing lines of conflict. See Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 172; Also A.B. Kolenkow, ‘Healing Controversy as a Tie between Miracle and Passion Material for a Proto–Gospel’, JBL 95 (1976) 623 – 38, on p. 629, who suggests that because of its parallels with the final plot against Jesus, the healing controversy is able to function as a “tie between miracle and passion material”. See France, Mark, 151 – 2; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (2 vol.; EKKNT; Zurich: Benziger, 1978), 1.129; Guelich, Mark, 137, 139, 140. Kolenkow, ‘Healing Controversy’, 629. Hooker, Mark, 106, also notes that the appeals to the Son of Man in 2:10 and 28 and the charge of blasphemy from 2:7 will be echoed in 14:62 – 4. See Kolenkow, ‘Healing Controversy’, 629; C.S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 1986), 241. Pace Gnilka’s suggestion that 3:6 indicates that Jesus’ death is provoked by his miracle working (Evangelium nach Markus, 1.129). Guelich, Mark, 138, dismisses the contention that Herodians connect the death of Jesus to the execution of John by Herod, so W.J. Bennett, ‘The Herodians of Mark’s Gospel’, NovT 17 (1975) 9 – 14, on p. 13.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

38

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

˘

because of what they do, either in relation to the Sabbath law or their dining and fasting habits. However, controversies may not be defined more precisely because Mark does not articulate the reasons which underlie the challenges. For example, in 2:16 the scribes of the Pharisees ask why Jesus eats with tax-collectors and sinners, but are they concerned that Jesus’ purity or his reputation or both will be damaged by the company he keeps?32 If their concern is for purity, they presumably worry that the food has been improperly prepared or tithed by Jewish “sinners” who take insufficient care over their legal and traditional obligations.33 In this case “sinners” takes on a similar connotation to am ha-’ares as ˙ it is used in rabbinic texts.34 The scribes’ question is born of their expectation that Jesus (as a teacher, healer or perhaps as a man in some way resembling themselves) should adhere to their own code of conduct. However, the use of “sinners” as a label for Jews with a lax (although not negligent) attitude towards their purity obligations seems incompatible with Mark’s description elsewhere of sin as something demanding repentance and forgiveness (1:4 – 5; 2:4 – 10; 3:28 – 9; 11:25). Furthermore, although Mark indicates in 7:3 that the Pharisees keep various purity traditions, he extends this to “all the Jews”.35 The idea that Pharisees observe a supererogatory purity is not obvious in Mark and it may not be legitimate to assume it in 2:15 – 17. Finally, if the challenge is prompted by purity concerns, how may we account for the inclusion of tax-collectors since it is not clear from the Gospel (or indeed any other sources) that the purity of taxcollectors was sullied, e. g. by their contact with Gentiles?36 For these reasons and because any purity concern is not explicit, the challenge is better interpreted as arising from the concern that Jesus associates with disreputable persons and cements that association with them through table-fellowship. Tax-collectors and sinners are combined not because they share similar traits but because both are outcasts, archetypes of disreputability.37 Note that Jesus’ reply is given not in terms of purity but of association; he calls sinners to himself. The second episode, 2:18 – 22, is equally difficult to interpret since Mark provides only a sweeping explanation (the bald fact that two groups were fasting)

32 See France, Mark, 134. 33 So Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 77. 34 The term describes ordinary Jews – people of the land of Israel – who, although Torah observant are not as fastidious as the Pharisees. In some texts it is used pejoratively. 35 If traditional piety was not the preserve of the Pharisees but universally respected (albeit most rigorously observed by Pharisees) – as argued by M. Goodman, ‘A Note on Josephus, the Pharisees and Ancestral Tradition’, JJS 50 (1999) 17 – 20, on p. 18 – this would explain the tension that results when Jesus flouts these traditions in 2:16 and elsewhere. 36 Pace Hooker, Mark, 94. 37 Hooker, Mark, 95, suggests that they are notorious sinners in deliberate violation of the law and dishonest officials in the employ of Rome and therefore religious and social outcasts.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Challenges to the Behaviour of Jesus and his Disciples

39

and the questioners are anonymous.38 The questioners note a discrepancy between the behaviour of Jesus’ disciples and that of the disciples of the Pharisees and of John but what does the difference connote? As in the previous pericope, Mark’s combination of two otherwise unrelated groups multiplies the possible interpretations. The disciples of the Baptist might fast in emulation of their master (whose ascetic lifestyle Mark described in 1:6), or else they might fast as a petition for John’s release from prison or in mourning after his execution.39 So the questioners might expect Jesus’ disciples to fast because Jesus was himself baptised by John or because their own master, like John, bears the hallmarks of a holy–man of whom extreme and pious undertakings might be expected.40 Similarly the Pharisees’ fast is most easily explained as the adoption of a non–compulsory practice by holy men as a gesture of special piety.41 The controversial issue in 2:23 – 8 is elucidated by the Pharisees’ accusation that the disciples are doing what is not lawful (oqj 5nestim) on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the grounds for the accusation are not made quite so explicit. It must address their action of plucking heads of grain, but should this be understood as threshing or reaping or neither?42 Does it allude to the action permitted in Deut 23:25? How does it compare with the regulations compiled later in the Mishnah?43 Whatever the precise grounds of the Pharisees’ claim, Mark certainly presents it as a serious one with severe ramifications. Exodus warns that the Sabbath should be kept on pain of death and excision from the people (Exod 31:14). In this case therefore, the Pharisees are not concerned with optional observances or pious sensibilities but with an injunction which is binding on all Israel. The Pharisees are concerned about the compliance of Jesus and his disciples not only with their expectations, but with the demands of the Torah. The same concern is evident in the final confrontation of this section when the 38 See Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 173. The questioners refer to the disciples of John and of the Pharisees in the third person and so cannot be identified with either group so Donahue, Mark, 105 and pace Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.112. 39 France (Mark, 138) espouses the former view of fasting as protest whereas Guelich (Mark, 108 – 9) interprets fasting as an expression of mourning. A. Kee, ‘The Question about Fasting’, NovT 11 (1969), 161 – 73 on p. 164, however, dismisses this suggestion because John is not mentioned and it would render Jesus’ response implausibly callous, it does not, moreover, apply to the Pharisees. 40 See Hooker, Mark, 98; Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.113. 41 One might compare the Pharisee in Luke’s parable who attests to his twice weekly fasts (Luke 18:12) although Mark has no parallel to this material. 42 Plucking grain, unlike the other potential Sabbath transgressions, e. g. making a journey, is attributed to only the disciples and not Jesus. If the Pharisees had objected to an activity other than plucking grain, they could have accused Jesus as well as his disciples (so Guelich, Mark, 120). 43 See the detailed treatment of these and other issues in Hooker, Mark, 102 – 3; France, Mark, 142 – 4.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

40

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

Pharisees watch to see if Jesus will heal on the Sabbath. Jesus’ questions and their intention to accuse him clarifies that again they are concerned with what is “lawful”. Yet our knowledge of the law (and contemporary interpretations of it) are inconclusive with regard to whether and how healing would transgress the Sabbath. The list of 39 classes of prohibited work in Mishnah Shabbath 7:2 does not include healing. However, it is possible that the Pharisees expected healing to involve subsidiary activities which were prohibited.44 Additionally, Jesus’ question in 3:4 might allude to the debate exemplified in Mekilta Exod 31:12 and CD 11:16 – 17 which describe the transgression of the Sabbath only in situations where life, rather than health, is at stake (although rabbinic and Dead Sea Scrolls material may not reflect the debates current during the life of Jesus or of Mark).45 In any case Mark’s narrative requires that the Pharisees consider healing to involve the potential transgression of Sabbath law (since this is their reason for watching Jesus). Moreover that on the Sabbath, healing itself (since Jesus’ method required no “work” but only a word) contravened the Torah, since this is presumably the reason for their plot against him. The Pharisees are thus portrayed as a group which challenges Jesus about his own behaviour and that of his disciples with regard to the law and propriety. However, the fact that the legal issue at stake is often ambiguous and never clearly articulated – at least to the eyes of modern exegetes – raises the following questions: 1. Did Mark leave these situations unexplained because he assumed that his audience would understand?46 If so, was he right? In this case how might these narratives legitimately be interpreted by today’s comparatively uninformed audience? 2. Did Mark believe the information he provided to be sufficient to convey his intended meaning? If so, may we conclude that the precise legal issue was not of paramount importance to Mark’s message in these stories and that the key to them lies elsewhere? The interactions are presented as challenges to behaviour but the readiness of modern exegetes to consider them as primarily legal conflicts might stem from unsupported assumptions. In fact the first two episodes contain relatively little legal material and nowhere do Jesus’ opponents respond to his answers after the manner of a legal debate. With regard to the first question, there exist in these pericopae several possible indications that Mark reflects controversies in the contemporary church. For 44 Kolenkow, ‘Healing Controversy’, 631, suggests that opponents’ suspicion about healing might indicate that they suspect Jesus of sorcery. 45 See Guelich, Mark, 121, and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.190. 46 Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 172, 174, claims that Mark did assume his audience’s legal knowledge but this knowledge was mediated by tradition rather than experience.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Challenges to the Behaviour of Jesus and his Disciples

41

example, the criticism of disciples rather than Jesus himself has been considered by many to reflect the criticism of Jesus’ later followers – the church of Mark’s day.47 This view also accounts for the inclusion of these particular controversies and their scant explanation. Furthermore, it assists the allegorical interpretation that Pharisees in these pericopae represent opponents of the church’s practices. However, closer inspection shows that behaviour and law are only two aspects of these interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees and indeed, arguably not the most important aspects in the opinion of the evangelist. Jesus’ responses to the Pharisees’ challenges do not appeal to legal interpretation but to his own authority and the nature of his ministry. The portrayal of the Pharisees in 2:15 – 3:6 is therefore focused on their christological misunderstanding.48 It follows that I will challenge Dieter Lührmann’s suggestions that opposition to Jesus on grounds of his personal authority and identity is the preserve of the scribes (e. g. 1:22; 2:10; 3:22). Also his assertion that Pharisaic opposition is confined to legal matters contained in traditions which continued to be handed down, even when their contents were no longer in dispute, and served only to legitimate existing practice in the church. Lührmann summarises his position as follows Während also die Pharisäer bei Mk als die Gegner in Fragen erscheinen, die nicht mehr von direkt aktuellem Interesse sind, ist das Thema der Auseinandersetzungen mit den Schriftgelehrten die Christologie, ein Thema höchst aktuell auch innerhalb der markinischen Gemeinde. Nicht die Pharisäer, sondern die Schriftgelehrten sind demnach die Hauptgegner Jesus bei Mark und – so möchte ich folgern – die aktuellen Gegner der Gemeinde des Mk von jüdischer Seite.49

In the subsequent analysis I will show that the function of the stories in 2:15 – 3:6 is primarily not to legitimate Christian practice (e. g. the church’s table fellowship, fasting and Sabbath regulations) but to convey christological understanding and the Pharisees’ lack of it. They show that Jesus has come to call 47 As claimed by for example, Berliner, Christus, 29; T. Burkill, A New Light on the Earliest Gospel: Seven Markan Studies (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1972), 39, and evident also in Gnilka’s claim that since the scribes’ criticism in 2:1 – 12 is directed at Jesus one can scarcely see in it a reference to the community (Evangelium nach Markus, 1.109; cf. Guelich, Mark, 103). See also Hooker, Mark, 96; Marcus, Mark, 230 – 1, and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.168, all of whom consider 2:15 – 17 to reflect the contemporary church problem of table fellowship that encompasses both Jews and Gentiles. Moreover, Riddle’s claim (Jesus and the Pharisees, 106) that these pericopae sanction the church’s interpretations of Torah by placing them on the lips of Jesus is echoed by Hooker, Mark, 98 – 9, and A. Kee, ‘The Old Coat and the New Wine: A Parable of Repentance’, NovT 12 (1970) 13 – 21 on p. 15. 48 Guelich, Mark, consistently identifies christology as the issue underlying confrontations between Jesus and the Pharisees e. g. on pp. 117, 123 and 136. See also D. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (Revised edn; London: A& C Black, 1968), 97. 49 Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 183, cf. 182 – 5.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

42

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

sinners and that his ministry demands changed behaviour just as new wine requires new wine skins, and that Jesus himself is the bridegroom who will be taken away and the Son of Man who is lord even of the Sabbath. In each of their disputes with Jesus, the Pharisees are shown to question Jesus’ authority and Jesus’ response focuses not on a legal dispute but on his ministry and person. Christological overtones are clearly visible in the controversy about Jesus eating with tax-collectors and sinners. Jesus’ response is not couched in the same terms as those of the Pharisees’ question (i. e. table–fellowship) but in terms of need and call, that is in terms that relate to his own person; sinners have need of him and he calls them. The role of Jesus as “physician” is therefore essential, as is his mission (“I have come to… ”). Furthermore, his relationship to sinners recalls from 2:10 his authority as the Son of Man to forgive sins.50 It is therefore, pace Lührmann, concerned with similar christological issues to those in the preceding confrontation with the scribes in 2:1 – 11. The central point is the identity of the proper recipients of Jesus’ ministry ; the Pharisaic scribes have failed to understand this because they do not understand the role of Jesus. R.T. France finds further indications of Jesus’ role in Mark’s choice of the verb jat²jeilai which evokes the setting of a festal banquet rather than an ordinary meal. The meal in Mark 2 may be considered to foreshadow the eschatological banquet anticipated by the prophets.51 Jesus’ invitation to table–fellowship therefore amounts to a call for repentance in the kingdom.52 Jesus’ proverb sets well against sick and righteous against sinner, so it might be argued that the Pharisees are placed in opposition to the sinners. On the one hand this might suggest that Pharisaic scribes are acknowledged as righteous. On the other hand, their position on the side of righteousness may be ironic. The Pharisees are satisfied with their own rectitude but they are deluded.53 They think themselves righteous and detached from sinners but in fact they too are sick and in need of Jesus. Mark does not state either that the Pharisaic scribes are righteous or that they were not called by Jesus, it may be inferred that they too were invited but have not responded to him. The focus of the comparison seems to be on the inclusion of sinners rather than the exclusion of the righteous.54 50 Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.169 and Guelich, Mark, 99. 51 France, Mark, 131. See J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM, 1966), 48 – 9 on the verb jat²jeilai. References to an eschatological banquet may be found in Isaiah 25:6; 55:1 – 2; Joel 2:24 – 6; 3:18 also in 1 Enoch 62:14; 1QSa II; and 2 Baruch 29:1 – 8. See J. Priest, ‘A note on the Messianic Banquet’ in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 222 – 38, and D.E. Smith, ‘Table Fellowship as a literary motif in the Gospel of Luke’ JBL 106 (1992), 613 – 38, for an examination of the references in Second Temple literature. 52 So Mann, Mark, 232 and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.166. 53 Kingsbury, ‘Religious Authorities’, 52 and Mann, Mark, 232. 54 So Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.109 and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.166.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Challenges to the Behaviour of Jesus and his Disciples

43

Nevertheless their mistake lies not only in their own failure to respond to Jesus’ call but in their misunderstanding of the role of Jesus and the implications of his ministry. Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ second challenge is similarly focused on his own authority and his personal presence as the bridegroom is the determining factor for behaviour. The significance of the title “bridegroom” is unclear. It may have eschatological overtones as it does elsewhere in the New Testament, describing the figure who is to come and herald a new age (cf. Matt 25:1 – 13; John 3:28 – 30; Rev 21:9). In that case Jesus appropriates a authoritative role inasmuch as he suggests that his own presence marks this new age and determines his disciples’ conduct.55 Alternatively, the focus of the bridegroom parable may not be so much the personal presence of the bridegroom as a comparison between the salvific age and the joy of a wedding celebration.56 It suggests that Jesus’ ministry is characterised by celebration just as John’s was characterised by fasting in preparation for the celebratory age.57 Even so, the parable has christological significance because the kingdom is inaugurated by the ministry of Jesus. The link between celebration and the presence of Jesus as the bridegroom (and with it the christological focus of the controversy in Mark) is confirmed in 2:19b–20 which draws attention to the temporary nature of the celebration because the bridegroom will be taken away. (The removal of the bridegroom and fasting on his departure do not reflect normal conduct at a wedding and diminish the verisimilitude of the parable.58 This should therefore be understood as a prediction of Jesus’ passion.59 The Pharisees, their disciples and the disciples of John represent an old order, the practices of which are no longer appropriate to the age inaugurated by one who is more powerful than John (cf. 1:7). The impropriety of their behaviour is illustrated in the brief parables that follow. The sense of the parables relies on a tension between old and new, which, in this context, must correspond to the tension between the “old”, established practice of fasting and the “new” age of celebration. The old clashes with new and their combination is manifestly inappropriate – the cloak would be torn and the wine and skins destroyed.60 This 55 So Mann, Mark, 233 and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.173. Also Hooker, Mark, 100, notes that although “bridegroom” serves as a title for Jesus in the New Testament, it is not a “messianic” title in the Old Testament but an image associated with YHWH himself, see: Isa 62:5; Jer 2:1; Ezek 16:8; 23:4; Hos 2:14 – 20. 56 Kee, ‘Question’, 168, identifies this as the original focus of the parable, see also France, Mark, 139; Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.114. 57 So France, Mark, 137; Guelich, Mark, 110 – 111. See also the saying in Luke 7:33 – 4//Matt 11:18 – 19 which performs a similar function. 58 So Kee, ‘Question’, 165. 59 So France, Mark, 140 and Guelich, Mark, 114. 60 So Donahue, Mark, 107; E.P. Gould, Gospel According to St Mark (ICC; Edinburgh: T& T

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

44

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

implies that the Pharisees’ failure to adapt their behaviour is not only as nonsensical as sewing new cloth on an old cloak but potentially harmful and dangerous.61 Yet, Mark seems to regard damage to the old cloak and skins as problematic, they too are valued. In these parables Mark does not warn against either old or new, but against their combination.62 The mistake of the Pharisees and the disciples of John is that they ignore the significance of Jesus’ presence and try to continue in their old patterns of behaviour. Jesus’ justification of his disciples’ transgression of the Sabbath in 2:23 – 8, more than any other of his replies, seems to be based on legal interpretation. Twice he enquires of his opponents, “Have you not read … ?”, implying that the Pharisees are ignorant of the law that they are defending, and he appeals to the precedent of David’s activity. However, the scenario Jesus describes in 2:25 – 6 forms a very poor parallel to the situation in the grainfield.63 David and his companions did not transgress Sabbath law and whereas they “were hungry and in need of food”, the actions of Jesus’ disciples are not provoked by necessity. Moreover, David’s conduct was in question whereas Jesus’ conduct is not. The crux of the parallel and the validity of Jesus’ argument, therefore, are not to be found in the dubious similarity of the two situations but in the typology of Jesus and David.64 Jesus’ reply is only superficially legalistic; here too he appeals to his own personal authority. The disciples are able to transgress the law, perhaps because Scripture shows it had been similarly transgressed but even more because Jesus possesses the same prerogative that David had to disregard the law and extend that freedom to his companions. Although the Pharisees criticise the conduct of the disciples, the fact that they address their complaint to Jesus and that he becomes responsible, refocuses the challenge on Jesus himself. Again, a misunderstanding about the role and significance of Jesus lies at the heart of his confrontations with the Pharisees.65 The two statements which conclude the pericope also have a christological basis. The first statement, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath”, might seem to universalise the authority to override Torah, thus diminishing Jesus’ significance. However, this inter-

61 62

63 64 65

Clark, 1896), 46 – 7 and A.J. Hultgren, Jesus and his Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1979), 183. So Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.177. So Hooker, Mark, 100 and Kee, ‘Old Coat’, 19. Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 32, contends that the context of the saying demonstrates that the target of criticism in these parables is not the wine itself but those who would put new wine into old skins. In other words, he targets not the Torah but its interpreters and practitioners, the Pharisees. So Guelich, Mark, 123. So France, Mark, 144 – 5; Guelich, Mark, 123 and Hooker, Mark, 103 – 4. Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.122, states, “Die Antwort ist von christologischer Relevanz”.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Challenges to the Behaviour of Jesus and his Disciples

45

pretation is undermined by the second statement which reinforces the idea that authority i. e. lordship, over the Sabbath is the special prerogative of the Son of Man (which Jesus employs as a self–designation in Mark’s Gospel). The first statement does not extend authority to all people but explains the divine intention for the Sabbath by appealing to creation (cf. Mark 10:1 – 12). The disciples’ activity is not permitted by their own freedom from the law but derived from the authority of Jesus. Again the Pharisees’ challenge shows that they have failed to recognise Jesus’ significance, moreover they misapprehend the purpose of Torah which Jesus fulfils. Jesus’ authority over the Sabbath is again demonstrated in 3:1 – 6. He poses a question as if to initiate a halakhic debate but the terms of his question make such a debate nonsensical. He presents two sets of two alternatives: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” but the last alternative is prohibited, not only for the Sabbath but at all times, so there can be only one legal answer to Jesus’ question. Consequently, the question demands a response not to some legal dilemma but to Jesus himself and the Pharisaic spectators’ silence marks their failure to respond positively. They seek to accuse Jesus but, ironically, it is they who are put on trial and their plot in 3:6 provides a delayed answer to Jesus’ question – they choose to kill (Jesus) on the Sabbath.66 Jesus implies that life and goodness are the will of God, the purpose of Torah and as such are always permitted. The pericope suggests that the Pharisees’ legal opinions hinder Jesus’ activity because they fail to recognise his authority and thus thwart good and accomplish harm. The man with the withered arm does not appear to suffer any threat to his life and so, in this context, the option to kill amounts to a decision to hinder the work of the Jesus who brings the salvific age of the kingdom. It is this special nature of Jesus and his ministry that magnifies the severity of any attempt to obstruct him.

2.2.2 Mark 7:1 – 13 This episode is in many ways like the controversies of chapters 2 – 3. The Pharisees approach Jesus with their concerns about the behaviour of his disciples but offer no response to Jesus’ reply. The Pharisees’ question reveals two contentious issues “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders but eat with defiled hands?” Indeed compliance with ancestral tradition and the pursuit of purity are treated almost as separate issues in the subsequent discussion but again, both concern behaviour and religious ob66 See Guelich, Mark, 139.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

46

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

servance. Mark links the two issues in an explanation which clarifies the meaning of joima?r weqs¸m and introduces the concept of paq²dosir. Mark interprets joimºr as unwashed (%miptor) and not as a matter of hygiene but of ritual defilement similar to that defined in Torah.67 Leviticus 6 – 7 commands priests to eat certain sacrifices in the holy place where they maintain ritual purity (see Exod 30:18 – 21) and warns “But those who eat flesh from the Lord’s sacrifice of well–being while in a state of uncleanness shall be cut off from their kin.” (Lev 7:20 and see Num 18:13). According to Mark’s explanation, a collection of traditional observances seem to have extended the undertaking to eat in a state of purity to non–priests and ordinary food For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles. (Mark 7:3 – 4)

In contrast with the Sabbath controversies, the disciples are not here accused of transgressing a commandment – of doing what is not lawful (oqj 5nestim) – but of failing to conform to the tradition accepted by the Pharisees and which Mark presents as commonly followed by all Jews although there is little independent evidence to endorse Mark’s description.68 Nevertheless, in order to interpret Mark’s construal of the episode and its implications for his portrayal of the Pharisees, the historical realities of hand–washing are incidental. It is necessary instead to understand the encounter as Mark presents and explains it. For Mark, the washing rituals prescribed by tradition are not the partisan practices of Pharisees, Haverim, Essenes or any other group, but are adopted by “all the Jews”. In the light of this, any questions as to why the Pharisees expect Jesus’ disciples to conform to their practice are irrelevant. They expect it because, according to Mark, an allegiance to tradition is expected of every Jew, but Jesus 67 So Booth, Jesus, 120 – 2; France, Mark, 282. Pace Lührmann’s statement that by focusing on hand–washing Mark renders the whole dispute banal (‘Pharisäer’, 173). 68 The Epistle of Aristeas 305 – 6 refers to Jewish hand–washing but as a preliminary to prayer rather than a meal. Most Mishnaic prescriptions concerning hand–washing in are not associated with meals (m. Ber. 8:2 and m. Hag. 2:5 do not concern ordinary food) and besides ˙ the final compilation of the Mishnah post–dates Mark considerably. France, Mark, 282; Guelich, Mark, 383 – 4; Hooker, Mark, 174 – 5 and Riddle, Jesus and the Pharisees, 112 all agree that Mark’s picture of universal Jewish purity observances is historically misleading. Booth argues that since the whole body of an ordinary Jew would usually have been in a state of uncleanness that could not be removed by washing the hands alone, the Pharisees’ question about the state of the disciples’ hands is trivial and irrelevant (Jesus, 187). Their question would he argues (202) be credible only if posed by Haverim (the group to whom supererogatory hand-washing is attributed by the Mishnah) expecting Jesus’ disciples to adopt their extraordinary piety. See also J.C. Poirier, ‘Why did the Pharisees wash their Hands?’, JJS 47 (1996) 217 – 33.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Challenges to the Behaviour of Jesus and his Disciples

47

confounds their expectation.69 Mark’s explanation serves to integrate two distinct (albeit not discrete) issues. It shows how the Pharisees’ observation leads to a discourse on both the tradition of the elders and purity. Contrary to the opinion of R.T. France who considers the focus of the parenthesis to be on a meticulous concern for purity, I regard the whole of 7:3 – 4 as Mark’s clarification that the dispute is centred on the status of tradition.70 The brief and generalised descriptions are included neither to convey the concept of purity to the reader, nor to clarify how the rituals were actually carried out but to show that hand-washing is only one of many traditions of the elders. The term paq²dosir is repeated and explained in the parenthetical section. The Pharisees’ question in 7:5 also focuses on the importance of paq²dosir rather than of defilement per se. They ask why Jesus’ disciples do not walk in accordance with the tradition of the elders; eating with unwashed hands is an example of their transgression. There are however, several elements of the controversy in chapter 7 which differ from chs. 2 – 3 and add a new dimension to Mark’s portrayal of the Pharisees. One example is that they are paired with the scribes from Jerusalem whereas previously they have accompanied only other parties from Galilee (the disciples of John and the Herodians). The Jerusalem scribes have already emerged as enemies of Jesus at 3:22 where they accuse Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul. Their origin in the capital associates them with the other Jerusalem authorities who will engineer Jesus’ death and implies their official nature.71 I have assumed that 1khºmter !p¹ gIeqosok¼lym qualifies the scribes only and not the Pharisees so that the latter possess these characteristics only by association. The scribes and Pharisees act in concert in this pericope but this does not necessitate their identification (pace France) or that the combination of

69 See also, Pickup, ‘Mark’s and Matthew’s’, 83: the widespread practice of hand-washing is crucial to explain the Pharisees’ criticism of non–Pharisees. Admittedly, p÷r in this verse as in 1:5, 32; 6:33 and 11:11 may not be intended so literally, nevertheless its use here (and similarly in all these verses) at the very least implies a large number of Jews in general and not a specific group. Note that Goodman’s suggestion that the traditions upheld by the Pharisees were generally respected is again supported by Mark’s text (see above p. 38 n. 35). “The accusation against Jesus’ disciples recorded in Mark 7:1 – 5 and Matthew 15:1 – 3 was not their failure to follow Pharisaic tradition in washing hands before meals – since they were not Pharisees, they had no reason to behave in a Pharisaic fashion – but their failure to live ‘according to the tradition of the elders’” (‘Note on Josephus’, 19, original italics). 70 See Donahue, Mark, 221, who claims the binding power of tradition becomes the basis of the whole narrative, pace France, Mark, 281. 71 See Hooker, Mark, 174; Malbon, ‘Jewish Leaders’, 264. For Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.279, the delegation from Jerusalem suggests that the Galilean authorities had summoned help.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

48

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

scribes and Pharisees is typical and permanent.72 Indeed, the significance of combining these two groups – one from Galilee and the other from Jerusalem – would be lost if the two were amalgamated. Many commentators consider this association of Pharisees with the scribes from Jerusalem to create a bridge between the opposition to Jesus’ Galilean ministry and his enemies in the passion narrative. The dispute over the disciples’ hands becomes, according to R.T. France, “a foretaste of the confrontation in Jerusalem”.73 It is appropriate to note here Dieter Lührmann’s attempt to distinguish between scribes and Pharisees on the basis of geography. The Markan Pharisees, he argues, are generally confined to Galilee, whereas scribes are either located in Jerusalem or have travelled from there, although he admits the exceptions 2:6, 16 and 9:14. The appearance of the Galilean opponents in Jerusalem (12:13) and the relocation of Jerusalem scribes to Galilee (e. g. 3:22; 7:1) binds the Galilee and Jerusalem sections of the Gospel together and, implicitly projects Jesus’ passion onto his early ministry (as the passion prediction sayings do explicitly).74 Although it is hard to deny that the narratives of the Galilean and Jerusalem ministries are bound together by the recall in 12:13 of the plot in 3:6 and the delegation of scribes from Jerusalem to Galilee, Lührmann’s attempt to distinguish between scribes and Pharisees on geographical grounds admits too many exceptions to be legitimate.75 The challenge of chapter 7 also differs from those of chapters 2 – 3 in that it prompts an extended response from Jesus which is addressed to the Pharisees, scribes, disciples and the crowd. As before, the implications for Mark’s portrayal of the Pharisees are revealed by the words he places on the lips of Jesus. Previous responses to the Pharisees have focused on their christological misunderstanding which may again be evident in this pericope; by challenging Jesus they show that they do not recognise his authority. However, Jesus’ response broadens Mark’s catalogue of Pharisaic flaws. It does not offer a justification for the disciples’ conduct but takes the form of a counter attack. Jesus appeals to Scripture, specifically Isa 29:13 LXX, to indict the Pharisees on two main grounds. First, that they honour God with their lips while their hearts are distant from him. This may be taken as an explanation of Jesus’ denunciation of the Pharisees as hypocrites (7:6). In as much as their observances (such as hand–washing) do not reflect the direction of their hearts, the relationship with God suggested by 72 So Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.370; Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 171 and see above, pp. 33 – 4 on the combination in 2:16. Pace France, Mark, 114, 280. 73 France, Mark, 275 and see Malbon, ‘Jewish Leaders’, 271. 74 Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 172. 75 Kingsbury, ‘Religious Authorities’, 46, criticises Lührmann’s geographical distinction along similar lines.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Challenges to the Behaviour of Jesus and his Disciples

49

their practices does not represent reality. There is (to borrow the terms of Joachim Gnilka) a discrepancy between their Vorgabe and their Wirklichkeit.76 It is difficult to deny that (as Mark employs it) rpojqita¸ implies culpability, the Pharisees’ lip–service alienates them from God and they deserve condemnation.77 The second indictment (which differs significantly from both the Hebrew and LXX text of Isaiah) is that the Pharisees teach human precepts as doctrines. Isaiah’s words are reinterpreted as an accusation that the Pharisees prioritise their own instructions over those of God. This accusation is clarified in the discourse that follows; it is restated three times (7:8, 9 and 13) and becomes the primary charge against the Pharisees. Each restatement redefines the nature of the paq²dosir under discussion. The Pharisees ask about tµm paq²dosim t_m pqesbut´qym (7:5) but Jesus’ first reply is given in terms of tµm paq²dosim t_m !mhq¾pym. He thus ignores the Pharisees’ implication that the tradition derives authority from mediation by past generations of pious Jews and contrasts the human origin of tradition with the divine origin of the commandments.78 Jesus next refers to tradition in terms of tµm paq²dosim rl_m, so that the scope and significance of the tradition is further diminished.79 Whereas Mark has described universal adherence to tradition, Jesus’ reply emphasises the presumption of his opponents in elevating their own practices above those ordained by God and Moses. The final reference to tradition, t0 paqadºsei rl_m Ø paqed¾jate, clarifies that the Pharisees are more than passive followers, keepers or receivers but they actively hand down the tradition.80 In addition Robert Guelich (among others) argues that each restatement intensifies their neglect of the Torah.81 In verse 8 the commandment of God is abandoned (!v¸gli). R.T. France notes that in the next verse the Vma clause implies that the law is a hindrance which is deliberately rejected or set aside (!het´y) explicitly in favour of tradition.82 He also observes the use of a legal term, !juqºy, in 7:13 – the word of God is nullified.83 An example of the use of tradition to invalidate a commandment is given in 7:10 – 12. Jesus accuses his opponents of abusing the process of dedicating property to God (korban) in order to deprive their parents of that property, thus 76 See Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.282, who further states “Sie sind Heuchler, weil sie an die Stelle von Gottes Gebot die menschliche Überlieferung gestellt haben.” 77 Pace Guelich, Mark, 366, who attributes to Mark’s use of rpojqita¸, the classical Greek meaning “actor” with no moral overtones. 78 See France, Mark, 283, 285. 79 See Evangelium nach Markus, 1.283 and Mann, Mark, 314. 80 So Guelich, Mark, 370. 81 Idem. 368, 370. 82 France, Mark, 285. 83 Idem. 288 and Mann, Mark, 314.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

50

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

transgressing the commandment “Honour your father and your mother”. The example is problematic because instead of setting commandment against tradition, it sets the commandment to honour parents against another commandment concerning oaths (see Num 30:2 and Deut 23:21 – 3).84 However, the context of the illustration certainly implies that (as Mark understood it) the conflict between two commandments was traditionally resolved by annulling the commandment to honour parents. “Then you no longer permit doing anything for father or mother, thus nullifying the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on.” (7:12 – 13). Therefore, Jesus’ opponents do not only revere the traditions of the elders but actually follow them at the expense of the word of God. Moreover the example of korban is not an isolated case, in fact Jesus says the Pharisees “do many things like this” (7:13). The Pharisees have criticised Jesus’ disciples for neglecting the tradition of the elders but Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees is far more powerful. The Pharisees have neglected the commandments of God and have done so in order to preserve their human traditions. In this pericope therefore, Mark loads the Pharisees’ portrayal with a heavy irony and his hostile attitude to the Pharisees is at its most explicit. Finally, it is necessary to examine Jesus’ address to the crowd and disciples on the subject of purity (7:14 – 23), which also proceeds from the Pharisees’ observation in 7:2, finally offering a justification for the disciples’ unwashed hands. They do not wash their hands because Jesus has redefined defilement. “There is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.” (7:15). Jesus’ comment to the disciples, “then do you also (ja·) fail to understand” (7:18), is best understood as a reference to the Pharisees as the other party who have demonstrated their misunderstanding, albeit prior to the teaching in 7:17 (the narrator makes no comment on the crowd’s response). Yet as Jesus’ response resumes the self–defensive tone exhibited in chapters 2 – 3, he makes no reference to, or attack on, the Pharisees and his criticism of them is once again implicit. The Pharisees are shown to be at fault because they have not understood Jesus’ authority or teaching. Jesus has criticised the Pharisees for setting their own instruction against the Torah and yet this is precisely what he himself does in 7:15, and more clearly in 7:19. For William Loader, Jesus’ announcement that all foods are clean since there “is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile” effectively denies a principle underlying much of the Torah, which is the distinction between clean and unclean for external things. Jesus does not revoke it; rather his claim is that this distinction was never valid.85 He abandons the commandment as it is observed by the Pharisees but not in 84 Hooker, Mark, 177 although Guelich, Mark, 370, disagrees and emphasises the clash of commandment with tradition. 85 Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 85, 125 – 6.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

A Request and a Warning

51

favour of tradition; his rejection of hand–washing serves to exclude commandments which enforce the distinction between clean and unclean from the law of God. Thus, Mark again emphasises the christological implications of the Pharisees’ challenges. Unlike the Pharisees, Jesus has sufficient authority to reinterpret and indeed reclassify the law and their criticism (implicit in their complaint about the disciples’ conduct) shows that they have not recognised this.

2.3

A Request and a Warning

The two references to the Pharisees in Mark 8 are quite different from references elsewhere in the Gospel. Despite the potentially confrontational aspect of 8:11 – 13, neither reference involves a challenge to the conduct of Jesus or his disciples.86 Instead 8:11 – 13 describes how the Pharisees seek a sign from heaven from Jesus and in 8:15 Jesus issues a cryptic warning against the leaven of the Pharisees. The warning follows quickly from the request and both 8:11 – 13 and 8:15 seem to be contained within a section concerned with the feeding miracles. There are a variety of ways in which the structure of this section may be outlined but this variety seems to indicate the significance of the context of this material. There are striking similarities between the description of the feeding of the 4000 and its aftermath (8:1 – 22) and the feeding of the 5000 and subsequent events (6:33 – 45).87 For example, in both cases Jesus has compassion on the crowd (6:34; 8:2) and both miracles involve breaking loaves, the distribution of bread and fish by the disciples to a crowd seated on the ground and the collection of surplus broken pieces into baskets. In 6:45 and 8:10 Jesus and his disciples depart in a boat immediately (eqh¼r) after the feeding and eventually arrive in Bethsaida (6:45; 8:22). The pattern, however, is compromised in chapter 8 when the boat journey to Bethsaida is interrupted by Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees in Dalmanutha. Furthermore, the two references to the Pharisees are bracketed by the feeding of the 4000 (8:1 – 9) and a discussion of that miracle (8:20).88 A link with the feeding miracles is reinforced by the prominence of a 86 Noted by Guelich, Mark, 413. Kingsbury, ‘Religious Authorities’, 54, perceives a gradual intensification of all opposition to Jesus through the middle section of the Mark (1:14 – 8:26) culminating with the sign request in which they confront Jesus directly on an issue pertaining to himself. 87 So Guelich, Mark, 411. 88 Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.409, further observes that the encounters with Pharisees in 7:1 – 13 and 8:11 – 13 bracket the account of Jesus’ ministry among the Gentiles and thereby explain Jesus’ turn to the Gentiles as a response to the rejection of him by Jews. He therefore concludes “… so soll die Forderung noch einem Zeichen vom Himmel gewiß die Frage die Legitimation der Beteiligung der Heiden am Heil aufwerfen, gegen die sich ,dieses Ge-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

52

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

bread–motif in the provocation for the warning, the warning itself and Jesus’ response. The bracketing technique also serves to mark out 8:11 – 13 with 8:15 as a pair so that the portrayal of the Pharisees in 8:11 sets the stage for the warning of 8:15.89 I do not claim that 8:11 – 13 and 15 can be detached from Mark’s portrayal of the Pharisees elsewhere but merely that cross–referencing 8:11 – 13 with 8:15 is encouraged by their juxtaposition. Jesus’ warning may be considered as the continuation of his comments at Dalmanutha.

2.3.1 The Pharisees seek a sign from heaven (8:11 – 12) Mark’s narration of this episode portrays the Pharisees as hostile from the start. They approach Jesus directly and without any further provocation begin to argue with him. The verb sufgte?m may sometimes mean ‘to discuss or question’ (e. g. Mark 1:27 and 9:10) but often, ‘to dispute or argue’ involving a difference of opinion (e. g. 9:14, 16 and 12:28). Their hostility is confirmed when Mark indicates their motive in seeking a sign; they are testing (peiq²fomter) Jesus. The motive of testing is also associated with the Pharisees in 10:2 and 12:15 and further negative connotations of peiq²fy are underlined by its attribution to Satan at 1:13. It indicates a desire to undermine Jesus and his ministry. The nature of the Pharisees’ test is to seek a sign from heaven but what such a sign could be and its significance is not explained by Mark. The interpreter is therefore left with a variety of options that will now be explored. One interpretation is that the Pharisees simply ask Jesus to show them a miraculous act. This understanding fits well the context of Mark 8. Jesus has just performed a miracle of magnificent proportions but the Pharisees ignore it and request further proof of his miraculous abilities. The Pharisees’ blindness and hardness of heart is thus demonstrated. However, this explanation also meets with several problems. A general term for miracles is rarely found in Mark but where one is found, d¼malir (6:5) is used rather than sgle?om.90 (Markan instances of the latter term being applied to miracles are found only in the longer ending, which represents an addition to the Gospel by a different author.) The two appearances of sgle?om in chapter 13 may offer better clues to how it should be understood in chapter 8. In 13:4 the group of disciples ask about the sgle?om that will portend the destruction of the Temple (cf. 13:2) “What will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?” Jesus warns that schlecht’ der Juden wehrt”. Guelich, Mark, 412, also notes the contrast between positive Gentile and negative Jewish responses to Jesus. 89 So Guelich, Mark, 416. 90 So Idem. 413; Hooker, Mark, 311 and Mann, Mark, 331. Pace Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.311, who maintains that 8:11 refers to Jesus’ “Wundertätigkeit”.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

A Request and a Warning

53

earthquakes and famines which seem to herald the end are merely “the beginning of the birth pangs” (see 13:7 – 8); in this way he cautions against the notion that astonishing physical phenomena should be interpreted as signs of the end. Nevertheless, it remains possible that the Pharisees of Mark 8 sought this kind of display and such phenomena do seem to serve as signs for the remainder of chapter 13. There are, for example, astronomical events which herald the coming of the Son of Man (13:24) and Jesus assures the disciples concerning some genuine signs “So also, when you see these things taking place you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.” (13:29 – 30). There are, however, several obstacles to identifying the things promised to “this generation” in 13:29 – 30 with the sign in 8:11 – 13. Firstly, since 8:11 – 12 is not placed in the context of an apocalyptic discourse, the idea that the Pharisees seek an unequivocal apocalyptic display of the kingdom is somewhat foreign to the pericope. Secondly, if apocalyptic portents are in view at both chapters 8 and 13, then Jesus’ assurance in 13:29 – 30 seems to contradict his reply to the Pharisees “Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.” (8:12). Alternatively, 8:12 may be read alongside 13:30 as Jesus’ ironic suggestion either that the signs expected by the Pharisees are not genuine signs but only the beginning of the birth pangs or that the Pharisees fail to recognise the significance of “things taking place”, in which case a more profound definition of sgle?a and their purpose is required. The sign of 8:11 may instead be understood in light of the association of signs with false messiahs and false prophets in chapter 13. Jesus’ reply to the disciples’ question of 13:4 begins with a warning against “Many [who] will come in my name and say ‘I am he (1c¾ eQli)!’ and they will lead you astray.” (13:5 – 6). This warning is re–iterated in 13:22 where sgle?a are mentioned for a second time “Xeudºwqistoi and xeudopqov/tai will appear and produce sgle?a and t´qata to lead astray, if possible, the elect”. Thus, signs are associated with figures claiming some kind of messianic (or prophetic) status and the Pharisees may seek a sign to verify Jesus’ claims and to demonstrate the source of his authority. A similar question is in view at 11:28 where the chief priests, scribes and elders ask Jesus, “by what authority are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority to do them?” which in turn leads to a discussion of the origin, whether human or divine, of John’s baptism. There are several examples in the Old Testament of the use of signs to authenticate a prophet’s message and the source of his authority. For example, Moses performed signs and wonders with Aaron in Exod 7:8 – 24 “so that they may believe that the Lord … has appeared to you” (Exod 4:5, cf. 4:30 – 1). Elijah calls upon the Lord in 1 Kings 18:36 – 9 to give a demonstration “that you are God in Israel, that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your bidding”. In 2 Kings 20 Isaiah prophesies Hezekiah’s recovery and his message is

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

54

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

confirmed by the miraculous retreat of a shadow (Isa 38:7 – 9). The need to verify prophetic claims is addressed in Deuteronomy 18:22, “If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken”. Jeffrey Gibson draws on Mark 13; 15:28 – 32 and reports of contemporary sign workers, (e. g. the Egyptian and Theudas as described by Josephus) to interpret the sign of 8:11. He argues that 8:13 cannot demonstrate Jesus’ refusal to reveal the source of his authority because he showed no compunction on this ground at 2:1 – 12, instead, Jesus must object to the implications of the particular kind of sign envisaged by the Pharisees.91 He infers that they sought a sign “apocalyptic in tone, triumphalistic in character, and the embodiment of one of the ‘mighty deeds of deliverance’ that God had worked on Israel’s behalf in rescuing it from slavery”.92 To grant such a sign would be to promise the violent overthrow of Israel’s oppressors and undermine Jesus’ integrity as the suffering Messiah. Many elements of Gibson’s interpretation, however, are not obvious in the context of Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees. Indeed, his interpretation of sgle?om depends on his construal of events in the Jewish War and the nature of Judean nationalism which is not obviously in view at Mark 8. Despite its prominence in the context of Mark 8:11 – 13, Gibson does not mention the feeding miracle (or the leaven of the Pharisees) in his exegesis of the passage. Gibson asserts that the phrase !p¹ toO oqqamoO connotes an apocalyptic signal of the onset of God’s salvation or wrath, yet he places insufficient emphasis on the significance of the origin of that sign, wrath and salvation with God.93 Finally, although Gibson notes the use of d¸dyli in both 8:12 and 13:22, he does not acknowledge that whereas the verb in the latter instance is active and has named human subjects, the example in 8:12 is passive, most probably connoting a divine subject.94 In contrast to Gibson, I maintain that the source of Jesus’ authority is the key issue here. The Markan Pharisees want Jesus, like the prophetic figures of the Old Testament, to prove that his authority is heavenly in origin by providing a sign, and so they demand more than merely another miracle.95 “From heaven” is a peri91 J. Gibson, ‘Jesus’ Refusal to Produce a “Sign” (Mark 8:11 – 13)’, JSNT 38 (1990), 37 – 66, on p. 42. 92 Idem. 53. 93 Idem. 45. 94 Idem. 43. 95 Pesch Markusevangelium, 1.406 – 7, claims that the Pharisees assess Jesus as an eschatological prophet cf. Guelich, Mark, 414 and Mann, Mark, 331. Both Hooker, Mark, 191 and France, Mark, 312, note that the Pharisees’ search is misguided since the Torah warns that omens and portents are no guarantee of a prophet’s authenticity (see Deut 13:1 – 3). For France this means not only that the Pharisees’ conduct is inherently wrong but also that their motive is disingenuous.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

A Request and a Warning

55

phrasis for “from God” and so what they seek is God’s own intervention to verify Jesus’ divine authority.96 It confirms that the Pharisees have not inferred the divine origin of Jesus’ power from his previous miracles. They display here the same lack of faith as the scribes who came down from Jerusalem “He has Beelzebul and by the ruler of demons he casts out demons.” (3:22). Although the Pharisees may display a legitimate Jewish concern, within the context of Mark’s Gospel their suspicion regarding the source of Jesus’ authority can only have negative connotations.97 The fact that they seek a sign demonstrates that they have not viewed Jesus’ ministry thus far as the breaking–in of the kingdom (1:15). They should be counted alongside those who have mistaken Jesus’ authority to forgive as blasphemy (2:7), his healing on the Sabbath as transgression of the law (3:2) and his power to exorcise demons as collusion with Beelzebul (3:22). Their test confirms their failure to understand that Jesus acts on God’s authority (2:7) and that he is the “Lord of the Sabbath” (2:28) who has bound the strong man (3:27).98 I will now develop Morna Hooker’s suggestion that in 8:11, Mark’s Pharisees are given a similar role to the doubting Israelites in the wilderness who refused to believe and continued to test God, ignoring the great signs they had already been granted.99 [The people] have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have tested me these ten times and have not obeyed my voice. (Num 10:22, see also 10:11)

There is, in this respect an especially interesting parallel with the situation in Exodus 16 – 17. After the Israelites have been miraculously fed with manna in the wilderness, they quarrel with Moses and demand water from him, that is they test the Lord (Exod 17:2) and the Lord grants their request at Massah and Meribah (Exod 17:6 – 7). Compare Mark 8 when, after the great miraculous feeding, the Pharisees test Jesus by seeking from him a sign from heaven but he refuses their request. There are several clues in the context of Mark 8:11 – 13 which support this parallel. For example, in 8:4 the disciples ask, “How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert (1p’ 1qgl¸ar)?” This question differs from the disciples’ question in the account the feeding of the 5000 (6:37) and it is not necessitated by the narrative because the remote situation and 96 So Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.306; Guelich, Mark, 414; and Kingsbury, ‘Religious Authorities’, 46. 97 Note also the suggestions of Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.307; Guelich, Mark, 414 and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.408 that Jesus’ reaction in 8:12 (!mastem²nar) may echo the prophets’ response to obduracy or else prophetic spiritual excitement (cf. 1:41). 98 For Hooker, Mark, 191, these actions of Jesus are demonstrations of the kingdom and the activity of God, that is they are signs from God/heaven. 99 Idem. 192.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

56

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

desperate need of the crowd have already been conveyed to the reader by Jesus’ statement in 8:3. It is possible then, that Mark has placed this question on the lips of the disciples in order to emphasise the wilderness setting of the second feeding miracle and thus strengthen its association with the gift of manna to the Israelites. Furthermore, Jesus responds to the Pharisees’ test with a denial addressed to “this generation”. The phrase which occurs twice within Jesus’ brief reply suggesting that it is of particular significance to Mark. It is possible that this significance lies in the fact that Psalm 95 condemns the doubtful and proof–seeking Israelites who tested the Lord at Massah and Meribah with a curse on “this generation”. “Your ancestors tested me and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work … therefore in my anger I swore, ‘They shall not enter my rest.’” (Ps 95:9, 1). If so, this further strengthens the parallel between the Pharisees in Mark 8:11 – 12 within its immediate context and the Israelites who tested God in the wilderness.100 This parallel also means that the Pharisees’ testing of Jesus is not incidental to the narrative but confirms them in the role of faithless Israel. When seen in this light, the order of events is crucial to convey the irony of what takes place. The act of testing by Israelites and Pharisees occurs immediately after an undeniably miraculous feeding in the desert which should have made any further sign or proof unnecessary. In the light of this, discussions about whether the Pharisees in Dalmanutha had witnessed the miracle in the desert become irrelevant.101 The juxtaposition of these two events in Mark (as in Exodus) serves to magnify the extent of the Pharisees’ obtuseness. The events of Jesus’ ministry so far are assumed by the narrative at 8:11 – 12. The denial of a sign to the Pharisees should be contrasted with the requests granted to those who ask in faith (e. g. the Syrophoenician woman in 7:29 – 30 and the friends of the deaf–mute in 7:35). Finally, the divine passive, doh¶setai in 8:12 suggests that God himself withholds the sign. The Pharisees have doubted and tested the action of God in Jesus’ ministry which lies at the heart of Mark’s Gospel. Their challenge is again based on a christological disagreement. They persist in assessing Jesus according to their own terms (of signs and expectations) rather than those of Jesus himself. The negative portrayal of the Pharisees in 8:11 – 13 is confirmed by Jesus’ warning a few verses later. 100 France, Mark, 311; Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.305, 307; Guelich, Mark, 414 – 15; Hooker, Mark, 191 – 2 and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.408 agree that “this generation” is intended pejoratively. While Gnilka seems to suggest that the designation is applied to the Pharisees in particular, Hooker and Guelich claim that the Pharisees are addressed as typical of their contemporaries. France argues that Jesus addresses the whole people through the Pharisees (8:38; 9:19). Pesch suggests that after the style of the Deuteronomistic History, the contemporary generation bear the accumulated guilt of the people. 101 Cf. Hooker, Mark, 190 – 1.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

A Request and a Warning

57

2.3.2 Jesus’ warning against the leaven of the Pharisees (8:15) Despite the preceding account, Jesus’ warning against the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod fits awkwardly into its context.102 The remainder of the pericope does not develop the warning but focuses on the disciples’ concern and misunderstanding about bread.103 I will suggest that Mark exploits the association of bread and leaven to link the misunderstanding of the disciples in 8:14 – 21 with that of the Pharisees in 8:11 – 13, and to integrate his criticism of the Pharisees with themes harvested from Mark’s accounts of Herod and the feeding miracles. The warning obviously places the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus but what are the grounds for that opposition? What is meant by the Pharisees’ (or Herod’s) leaven and what threat does it pose to the disciples? The first three evangelists and Paul all employ the motif of leaven but its connotations are ambiguous. In 1 Corinthians 5, for example, leaven carries negative associations derived from the prescription of unleavened bread for Passover and the grain offering. “Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Cor 5:8). New Testament authors also make use of the idea that “a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough” (Gal 5:9). In Galatians this refers to the corruptive influence of a few persuaders who prevent the whole congregation from “running well”. However, in Matt 13:33 (and its parallel in Luke 13:20) the same property of leaven makes it an excellent model for the impressive growth of the kingdom out of its modest beginnings “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.” (Although this use of leaven might conceivably be deliberately ironic or subversive, the image is a positive one.) In rabbinic texts the image of leaven is often used to describe the evil inclination of mankind.104 The context of Mark 8:15 suggests that leaven is used negatively here but its exact point of reference remains undisclosed.105 The warning refers to both t/r f¼lgr t_m Vaqisa¸ym and t/r f¼lgr gGq]dou. Does Mark thereby refer to one leaven common to the Pharisees and Herod or to 102 I advocate the widely attested reading: ja· t/r f¼lgr gGq]dou (evidenced in e. g. a A B C D) over the variant in e. g. Fraktur P45 G W and H: ja· t/r f¼lgr t_m gGq\diam_m. It is more probable that scribal error resulted in the introduction of Herodians at 8:15 corresponding to their appearance alongside the Pharisees at 3:6 and 12:13, rather than in the substitution of Herodians for an unprecedented pairing of the Pharisees and Herod. 103 So France, Mark, 316; Guelich, Mark, 422; and Mann, Mark, 334. 104 See H.L. Strack/P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vol.; Munich: Beck, 1922 – 28), 1.728. 105 Contrast the parallels to this passage in Matthew and Luke where the evangelists have identified the leaven of the Pharisees as their teaching (Matt 16:12) or hypocrisy (Luke 12:1).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

58

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

a different leaven for each group? The juxtaposition of the leaven belonging to each party and their combined application by Jesus in response to a particular situation does suggest their similarity. Moreover, the combination of the Pharisees and Herod is unusual (found nowhere else in the Synoptic Gospels), it is therefore likely that Mark included the pairing because he perceived some similarity between them.106 It therefore seems artificial to posit a difference between the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod at 8:15 without first exploring the possibility that the Pharisees and Herod pose a common threat to the disciples. Commentators have made various proposals as to the nature of this threat. Rudolf Pesch, for example, suggests that both Herod and the Pharisees, in opposition to Jesus, espoused a nationalistic agenda and a political role for the Messiah.107 This construal of the situation, however, is not apparent in Mark but depends on Pesch’s own assumptions about the opinions of historical Pharisees, Herod and Jesus. It is preferable to search for clues to the common threat in Mark’s portrayal of the Pharisees and Herod elsewhere. Mark’s only references to Herod apart from 8:15 are found in chapter 6 and so it is most straightforward to begin the search with an examination of that chapter. Such an examination yields two possibilities:

2.3.2.1. The Pharisees and Herod pose a mortal threat to God’s messengers Herod’s portrayal in Mark 6 focuses on his role in the execution of John the Baptist. Herod’s initiative in the destruction of John may be likened to the conspiracy between the Pharisees and Herodians to destroy Jesus at 3:6. Therefore, Jesus might justifiably warn his disciples to beware of the Pharisees and Herod because both desire the annihilation of God’s messengers.108 However, although Mark has made it clear that Herod equates Jesus and John (6:16), he has not indicated that Herod poses a mortal threat to Jesus, just as he does not record any animosity between the Pharisees and John. Furthermore, neither the Pharisees nor Herod have threatened the disciples, so caution on their parts is not urgently required. Alternatively, since exerting influence is the defining property of leaven, the warning may concern a trait of the Pharisees or Herod that the disciples themselves might adopt. It is then unlikely that the mistake it envisages is conspiracy against Jesus. Mark has given no indication (apart from references to “Judas who betrayed him”) that the disciples threaten Jesus’ life and it is certainly not implied by their discussion of bread on the boat. The warning is occasioned by the disciples’ discussion in the boat and prompts 106 So Guelich, Mark, 423 and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.413. 107 See Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.413. 108 See France, Mark, 315.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

A Request and a Warning

59

instruction concerning their lack of understanding. This observation leads to the second possible interpretation of “leaven”. 2.3.2.2 The Pharisees and Herod misunderstand the source of Jesus’ authority and power The only other information about Herod is his opinion of Jesus contained in 6:14 – 16 “King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known … he said, ‘John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.’” Herod heard of the activity of the disciples who were sent out by Jesus and presumably of Jesus’ own miraculous performances which had given rise to his fame (1:28, 45; 5:14 – 15, 20) and wrongly attributed Jesus’ power and authority to John the Baptist. He concurred with the group who claim “John the baptiser has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers are at work in him” (6:14). My interpretation of 8:11 – 12 suggests that the Pharisees also fail to understand the source of Jesus’ authority and the reason why powers are at work in him. The impressive miracles Jesus has already performed have not led to understanding on the part of either Herod or the Pharisees.109 This option makes more sense of 8:15 within its immediate context. Jesus’ warning against the Pharisees corresponds to the behaviour of that group in 8:11 and his criticism of them in 8:12. The prominence of the feeding of the 4000 in the broader context of the warning emphasises Jesus’ miraculous activity and thereby supports this interpretation of “leaven”. The discussion of the bread in the boat demonstrates that the disciples have misunderstood or are at risk of misunderstanding Jesus’ miracles which explains why Mark deemed the warning necessary at this point in the narrative. Morna Hooker advocates a similar interpretation of leaven as the “hardness of heart” displayed by the Pharisees at 3:5 and Herod’s “refusal to recognise and accept the truth” which was the cause of his hostility towards John.110 The disciples are similarly accused of “hardness of heart” in 8:17 which they exhibit particularly in their response to miracles … these men have been privileged to witness all Jesus’ mighty works and have still failed to recognize the power of God in them, they seem to share the hardened hearts of Jesus’ opponents, who cannot acknowledge the truth of what they see and hear.111

The disciples’ misunderstanding of Jesus’ miracles is the focus of 8:14 – 21. Hooker suggests that by recalling the details and size of the two miraculous 109 So Guelich, Mark, 423 – 4. 110 Hooker, Mark, 195. 111 Ibid.; Guelich Mark, 424, notes something similar.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

60

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

feedings, Mark presents the disciples as particularly obtuse. In light of the size of crowd that Jesus has fed on previous occasions, it is ironic that they should worry about his ability to feed thirteen people.112 The fact that they have “forgotten” to bring sufficient bread, and yet have brought one loaf with them creates a parallel with the circumstances of the feeding miracles (6:41; 8:6). It raises the possibility that the disciples provide Jesus with means and motivation to miraculously break the bread again.113 Like the Pharisees of 8:11, the disciples require further reassurance of Jesus’ power. They take on the role of Israel in the wilderness by distrusting Jesus’ provision for them and attempting to provoke him to perform another miracle. Vernon K. Robbins also adopts an interpretation of leaven as the disciples’ misunderstanding in his study of the Last Supper narrative. Robbins suggests that this narrative completes a drama of feeding stories in which Mark counters those Christians who focus on breaking bread as the act through which the power of the risen Lord is manifested. Mark dates the Last Supper to the feast of Unleavened Bread, despite the chronological tension this causes (i. e. the amalgamation in 14:12 of the first day of Unleavened Bread with the day of preparation contradicting 14:1), because, Robbins argues, “leaven” has a special significance for Mark.114 Leaven pervades the mistaken perceptions held by the Pharisees, Herod and the disciples that the risen Lord is manifested in signs and miracles, especially miraculous feedings, and their refusal to internalise the meaning of death.115 Herod, for example, mistook Jesus for John (raised from the dead) on account of the powers at work in him (6:14 – 16), while the Pharisees seek a sign to verify Jesus’ authority and are rejected. Mark employs the literary medium of bread to implicate the disciples in the same desire for miracles which Jesus counteracts by emphasising the necessity of suffering (8:31).116 The account of the Last Supper begins the drama of the feedings again but without the leaven of miraculous power envisaged by the Pharisees and Herod. Instead the setting is pervaded by betrayal and death because, Robbins argues, the church must accept Jesus’ absence.117 However, many of the passages that Robbins attempts to hold together are not obviously connected, e. g. 8:31 is not obviously a response to 8:14. Moreover, I find no allusions to Jesus’ presence, absence, 112 Hooker, Mark, 193 – 4; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.414 and cf. J. M‚nek, ‘Mark viii 14 – 21’, NovT 7 (1964) 10 – 14, on p. 10. 113 Cf. Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 1.310; and Guelich, Mark, 421 – 2. 114 V.K. Robbins, ‘Last Meal: Preparation, Betrayal and Absence (Mark 14.12 – 25)’, in W.H. Kebler (ed.), The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14 – 16 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 21 – 40, on p. 26. 115 Idem. 27 – 8. 116 Idem. 28, 35. 117 Ibid.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Requests for Instruction

61

death or resurrection in 8:11 – 21. Instead the issue is that of Jesus’ authority. The Pharisees and Herod have demonstrated their failure to understand the significance of Jesus’ miracles. Jesus warns the disciples that they too risk this failure by their hard heartedness concerning the loaves. The misunderstanding of the Pharisees and Herod may also work within the disciples as leaven works within dough, to destroy their perception and understanding.

2.4

Requests for Instruction

The two final pericopae involving the Pharisees (10:2 – 9 and 12:13 – 17) differ in many ways from what has gone before.118 They do not describe Pharisaic challenges to Jesus’ behaviour but requests for his instruction on a given subject, for this reason Rudolf Pesch calls them Schulgespräche.119 However, there are grounds in both cases to interpret the Pharisees’ requests as disingenuous. For this reason Dieter Lührmann calls these pericopae “Pseudoschulgespräche”.120 Mark creates an especially tense atmosphere in 12:13 – 17. The combination of Pharisees and Herodians reminds the reader of the earlier combination of these groups in the conspiracy at 3:6. Their previous opposition to Jesus makes it unlikely that they approach Jesus out of mere curiosity but rather in 12:13 they resume their earlier plan. Whereas their activity in 3:6 seemed unsuccessful and removed from the events of Jesus’ passion, in 12:13 they are located in Jerusalem (the place of Jesus’ crucifixion) and are sent to Jesus by those who would arrest him, namely the “chief priests, the scribes and the elders” of 11:27.121 Thus Mark portrays the Pharisees as colluding with those who eventually succeed in delivering Jesus to Pilate. They flatter Jesus as did²sjake (12:14) but their com-

118 Several 4th and 5th century manuscripts (including D, ita, b, d, k and syrs) omit oR Vaqisa?oi, while others (e. g. A, B) omit the article and still others that include both vary their position in the sentence. The Pharisees could, therefore, be a secondary addition to Mark’s text possibly assimilating it to Matt 19:3. This possibility is endorsed by France, Mark, 387 and acknowledged by C.A. Evans, Mark 8.27 – 16.20 (WBC 34B; Dallas: Word Books, 2001), 82 and Hooker, Mark, 235. However, the majority of manuscripts do not support omission (so Mann, Mark, 390) and the inclusion of the Pharisees fits into Mark’s portrayal, especially alongside 12:13 – 17. I will, therefore, accept the majority reading which places Pharisees at this scene. 119 Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2.120, 225. Pesch notes (122) that the Pharisees’ question in 10.2 is not introduced as a controversy or a reproach but as a testing. 120 Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 170. 121 The collusion of the Pharisees and Herodians with the Sanhedrin parties is noted by Evans, Mark, 245; France, Mark, 464; Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 2.150, 154; Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 169; Mann, Mark, 468 and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2.225.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

62

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

pliments are insincere as Jesus himself reveals “But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, ‘Why are you putting me to the test?’” (12:15).122 Mark’s reference to hypocrisy recalls Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees in 7:6 although in 12:15 it is probably an assessment of their strategy.123 They appear to admire Jesus’ teaching and solicit his instruction but their purpose is actually to test and trap him; there is again a discrepancy between appearance and reality The intention of testing Jesus is also attributed to the Pharisees in 10:2. As I have already noted, this is not necessarily hostile but could indicate a desire to discover whether Jesus is able to answer the question, the nature of his opinion and then to discern whether his teaching is sound. However, the two other occurrences of the verb in Mark (1:13 and 8:11) associate it with a desire to compromise Jesus’ ministry.124 The nature of the test is different in each case. In Chapter 10 the Pharisees attempt to test Jesus’ opinion or legal skill with regard to an issue of contemporary debate. The Mishnah tractate Gittin preserves a wide range of halakhic rulings pertaining to divorce, including a dispute between the houses of Hillel and Shammai (c. 10 – 80 CE) over the legitimate grounds for divorce (m. Git. 9:10). It is conceivable that the Pharisees’ question is a routine enquiry to discover which side Jesus chooses. Yet the Pharisees do not ask Jesus about grounds for divorce (contrast the Matthean parallel) but about the legality of divorce itself eQ 5nestim !mdq· cuma?ja !pokOsai. This question is strange because the Pharisees’ own statement in 10:4 shows they are aware that Deuteronomy 24:1 permits divorce.125 Is this episode rendered nonsensical because the Pharisees ask a question which they already know can only be answered in the affirmative? Do the Pharisees test Jesus to see if he can be provoked to voice extreme views against Torah?126 Alternatively, their question may be read within a context that does not assume the legitimacy of divorce. A prohibitive attitude to divorce had already emerged in Mal 2:16 and CD 4:20. Craig Evans argues that divorce (and not just the grounds for divorce) was a controversial and disputed issue.127 Indeed, Evans (along with many other commentators) notes that it was John the Baptist’s objection to Herodias’ remarriage which provoked his arrest and led to his execution. Jesus’ recent return to Judea (10:1) places him under Herod’s jurisdiction and so the Pharisees’ question might be considered an attempt to prompt 122 Elsewhere in the Gospel individuals who approach Jesus as teacher refuse to accept his teaching (9:17; 10.17 – 22; 12:19 – 24). Therefore, the use of did²sjake does not always indicate a positive response to Jesus (see France, Mark, 467). 123 So Evans, Mark, 245. 124 See above, pp. 52 – 6. Also France, Mark, 390. 125 So Hooker, Mark, 235 and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:122. 126 A possibility acknowledged by France, Mark, 390 and Mann, Mark, 390. 127 Evans, Mark, 80.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Requests for Instruction

63

Jesus to endanger himself by speaking against Herod.128 It is likely, however, since there are no references to Herodias’ case in the context of 10:2, that Herod’s situation is not the primary framework for interpretation of the Pharisees’ enquiry. The Pharisees request Jesus’ legal opinion and a sense of hostility is created by their ulterior motive and enhanced by the currency of the divorce debate (see Mark 6). The sweeping nature of their question and their acknowledgement of its widely accepted answer suggests that they test the extent of Jesus’ radicalism (or how far Jesus’ opinion differs from their own). The nature of the test in 12:13 is clarified by the Pharisees’ intention aqt¹m !cqe¼sysim kºc\ (12:13). They attempt to trick Jesus into giving an answer that would trap him like an animal (the normal usage of the verb !qce¼y).129 The possible answers to their question, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them or should we not?” had the potential either to incriminate Jesus in the eyes of Rome or to divide Jewish opinion. It is likely that some Jews believed that payment of the Roman tax was idolatrous whereas others thought that co–operation with Rome did not compromise Jewish piety. It is, however, difficult to categorise the stance of the Pharisees and the Herodians with regard to the tax. Morna Hooker suggests that both would have advocated payment of the tax because both groups benefited from the status quo.130 Alternatively, Craig Evans speculates that whereas Herodians supported the tax because it was paid through Herod, the Pharisees may have considered it idolatrous.131 In any case, Mark himself does not attribute a particular opinion to either party, it may be assumed that Roman taxation was generally controversial and that by forcing Jesus to reveal his stance on a controversial issue, his questioners hoped to alienate him from that portion of his audience – Jewish and Roman – which advocated the opposing view.132 This interpretation of the situation finds support in Mark’s presentation of a similar tactic employed by Jesus in 11:29 – 32 to trap the chief priests, scribes and elders

128 So Idem. 82; France, Mark, 390; Mann, Mark, 390. An allusion to Herodias may be supported by Jesus’ reference to the remarriage of a woman (10.12). Herodias’ case demonstrates that this is not an exclusively Gentile concern (so Evans, Mark, 85). 129 France, Mark, 467. 130 Hooker, Mark, 280. She also notes (281) that the since the Pharisees and Herodians are able to produce a denarius on Jesus’ demand, they are accustomed to using Caesar’s coinage and paying his tax. However, Roman currency was ubiquitous and difficult to avoid in Judea (see Luke 7:41; Matt 18:28; 20.1 – 15), and so possession of the coin does not necessarily indicate positive assent to the tax. 131 Evans, Mark, 244. He cites the example of Saddok the Pharisee (A.J. 18:4) although Josephus claims that Saddok’s opinions were not typically Pharisaic. Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’ 173, also raises the possibility that objection to Roman taxation could reflect a zealot ideology. 132 So Evans, Mark, 245; France, Mark, 465; Hooker, Mark, 280 and Mann, Mark, 469.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

64

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

Jesus said to them … “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin? Answer me.” They argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven’, he will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But shall we say, ‘Of human origin’?” They were afraid of the crowd, for all regarded John as truly a prophet. So they answered Jesus, “We do not know”.

On both occasions Jesus is able to confound the Pharisees’ test, confirming his own superiority and turning the question back on his examiners. In this way, as in the challenges of chapters 2 and 3, Jesus repeatedly demonstrates his superiority to his opponents. Jesus’ reply in 10:3 begins with a counter question “What did Moses command you?” However, instead of answering Jesus’ question, the Pharisees answer their own and answer in terms of permission rather than command “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.”133 Jesus highlights their mistake by interpreting the laws on divorce as concessionary. Divorce is allowed but, Jesus explains, it is not consistent with the will of God.134 God’s intention is outlined elsewhere in Torah, in the story of creation “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (10:8 – 9).135 As in the discussion of korban in Mark 7, Jesus juxtaposes different parts of Torah, not to abrogate one, but to draw out the will of God and the purpose of Torah. Thus Jesus deftly passes the Pharisees’ test, if they hoped to make him contradict Torah, they have failed. Mark does not describe the Pharisees’ response but proceeds to an account of Jesus’ private instruction to his disciples on the subject of remarriage. This is perhaps the most controversial part of Jesus’ teaching and his withdrawal from the Pharisees could represent either his shrewd avoidance of Pharisaic hostility or indicate that the prohibition of remarriage is an issue of particular interest to the Christian community and a radical demand of discipleship.136 The Pharisees’ question and their reply in 10:4 have demonstrated their ignorance of the real purpose of Torah and their failure to comply with it.137 They have tested Jesus’ ability to interpret the law but it is they who fail the test. Jesus answer amounts to a condemnation of sin – departure from the will of God – which he attributes to the Pharisees on account of their sjkgqojaqd¸a, their hard–hearted response to

133 134 135 136

So France, Mark, 390 and Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2.123. So Hooker, Mark, 236. Cf. 2:27 where Jesus also appeals to creation to reveal God’s true intention for the Sabbath. So France, Mark, 387; Gnilka, Evangelium nach Markus, 2.69; Hooker, Mark, 236. For Kingsbury, ‘Religious Authorities’, 58, this is an example of how the Jewish authorities serve as a foil for teaching the disciples. 137 So Lührmann, ‘Pharisäer’, 172.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Requests for Instruction

65

God.138 Yet again, their evaluation of Jesus fails to recognise the authority he demonstrates by teaching the will of God. The Pharisees’ attempt to ensnare Jesus in 12:13 is also a failure. Jesus is not fooled by their insincere flattery and refuses to fall into their trap of dividing the audience.139 He supports neither opinion and yet gives an unequivocal answer by redefining the issue. The denarius carries Caesar’s image and title and so Jesus’ statement, “give to Caesar the things of Caesar” suggests that the tax should be paid and at least, says nothing to contradict Roman policy. However, the corollary of this, “Give to God the things of God”, implies a far greater obligation which the Pharisees and Herodians have failed to acknowledge as the more pressing issue. Jesus’ answer thus continues the theme of what is owed to God from the parable of the wicked tenants.140 The Pharisees (and Herodians) pose the wrong question and thereby demonstrate again their skewed priorities.141 The Pharisees (and Herodians) respond to Jesus’ teaching with utter amazement, 1jhaul²fy. Morna Hooker suggests that the audience are amazed at the authority of Jesus’ unequivocal answer as the synagogue had been amazed by his authority in Capernaum (1:22 and 27).142 Her suggestion is unconvincing, however, because 12:17 makes no reference to authority as there is in 1:22 and 27, moreover chapter 1 uses 1jpk¶ssolai and 1jhaub´olai, not 1jhaul²fy. Therefore, the Pharisees’ amazement at 12:17 could indicate that Jesus has said something unusual or shocking or it may refer to their surprise that Jesus was able to escape their trap.143 It marks the definitive defeat of the Pharisees; they pose no further questions to Jesus. The requests for instruction in 10:2 – 9 and 12:13 – 17 do not result in conflict and the Pharisees do not challenge Jesus’ opinion once it has been given. Nevertheless, the Pharisees are set in stark opposition to Jesus. They are hypocrites who seek Jesus’ opinion but ask trick questions and do not wish to learn. Their foolishness is emphasised by the adept manner in which Jesus avoids their traps and reveals the true nature of the debate, at the same time demonstrating that the Pharisaic questioners had been asking the wrong questions.

138 So France, Mark, 391 and Mann, Mark, 391. 139 Cf. 2:8 and 5:30 where Jesus also demonstrates an awareness of his opponents’ thought (see France, Mark, 468). 140 So Hooker, Mark, 281. 141 Not least, France, Mark, 46, suggests, by their ability to produce the idolatrous coin although see above, n. 130. 142 Hooker, Mark, 281. 143 So Evans, Mark, 248 and France, Mark, 465. For Pesch Markusevangelium, 2.228, the motif of amazement constitutes part of the Schulegesprach form of the narrative as in 12:34 and 37.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

66

2.5

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

Conclusions

The foregoing analysis of Markan material has revealed a univocally negative portrayal of the Pharisees. They are consistently presented as Jesus’ opponents. Mark does describe some Jews who are sympathetic to Jesus, e. g. Jairus, Joseph of Arimathea and the so–called friendly scribe of 12:28, but none of these is a Pharisee. In the terminology of Elizabeth Struthers Malbon their characterisation is “flat” (that is, without differentiation or mitigation) and unequivocally “bad”.144 The Pharisees’ opposition to Jesus is not incidental or inconsequential. In the first instance, the Pharisees challenge Jesus only through his disciples or approach Jesus himself but only in relation to his disciples’ behaviour. It is not long, however, before their attention turns to Jesus and a plot against him is forged. The nature of their opposition changes in 8:11 – 12. Having failed to ensnare Jesus through surveillance in chapters 2 and 3 they openly test him, first by seeking a sign from heaven and then with legal questions in 10:2 – 9 and 12:13 – 17. J. D. Kingsbury convincingly claims that the opposition of the Jewish leaders (treated as a single character) gradually intensifies as the narrative progresses.145 It is clear that the hostility of the Pharisees alone also displays a similar pattern of intensification. The Pharisees, like many other Jewish groups, contribute to the opposition which culminates in Jesus’ crucifixion. The Pharisees are Jesus’ main opponents in the opening chapters of the Gospel. These chapters are not remote from the passion narrative but serve to introduce and explain it, often by foreshadowing subsequent events. For example, the plot to destroy Jesus (3:6) prefigures the successful conspiracy of the chief priests, scribes and elders (11:18 and 27). Although the Pharisees are entirely absent from the passion narrative and passion predictions (8:31; 10:33), they are located in Jerusalem (12:13) and are portrayed as allies of the chief priests, scribes and elders who eventually succeed in condemning Jesus. In 12:13, for example, they are commissioned by these authorities to question Jesus and in 7:1 they act alongside “the scribes who came down from Jerusalem” (cf. 3:22). These isolated interruptions to the dichotomy which seems elsewhere to confine the Pharisees to Galilee and scribes to Jerusalem could represent deliberate attempts on the part of the redactor to break down the distinction between the opponents of Jesus in his early ministry and those in the passion narrative.146 It is difficult to uphold the suggestion that the

144 Malbon, ‘Jewish Leaders’, 277 – 9. 145 Kingsbury, ‘Religious Authorities’, 54 – 6, 58 – 9. 146 So Cook, Mark’s Treatment, 58 – 67 and Hultgren, Jesus and his Adversaries, 182.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

67

Conclusions

significance of the Pharisees’ opposition is mitigated by their absence from the events of Jesus’ passion.147 The clustering of references to the Pharisees at the beginning of the Gospel allows the nature of their opposition to Jesus to be readily discerned. In most cases the Pharisees oppose the nature and hence the authority of Jesus’ ministry of the kingdom. They challenge the identity of its proper recipients (2:15 – 17), the practices which accompany it (2:18 – 22) and the source of its authority (8:11 – 12). Jesus’ warning against the leaven of the Pharisees (8:15) may be understood as a reproach to the disciples, lest they like the Pharisees misunderstand the events of his ministry. The Pharisees’ attempts to test Jesus (8:11; 10:2; 12:15) are attempts to undermine and discredit him. It is clear that attempts to damage Jesus’ ministry are often derived from suspicion over his authority and this is most apparent in 2:23 – 8 and 3:1 – 5 where the Pharisees demonstrate their failure to recognise Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath and his Davidic prerogative to extend his authority to his disciples. They, like the demons and unclean spirits in chapter 1, stand opposed to Jesus, but whereas the spirit in 1:24 and demons in 1:34 know and acknowledge Jesus, the Pharisees remain ignorant and obdurate. The issue of authority also becomes explicit in the diatribe of chapter 7 where Jesus casts doubt on the authenticity of the Pharisees’ own teaching and behaviour and displays his own affinity to the higher authorities of Scripture and the commandment of God. Dieter Lührmann’s claim that the Pharisees do not engage Jesus on issues of christological significance is therefore unfounded. Mark’s presentation of the Pharisees’ objections to Jesus is brief, ambiguous and demonstrates relatively little interest in the matters of conduct and law that they concern. This is because the Gospel is not an historical record of conflicts or a collection of legal disputes (such as is found in the Mishnah) but a narrative that Mark shapes to his own theological purposes.148 Jesus’ encounters with the Pharisees are consistently

147 E.g. Riddle, Jesus, 12 – 13, argues that “It is only by such a gratuitous assumption [that the Pharisees are implicated in the events of the passion narrative because the scribes in that material are Pharisaic] that a consistent anti–Pharisaic tendency may be found in Mark.” Riddle is right to claim that assuming a Pharisaic identity for Markan scribes is a gratuitous assumption but his viewpoint has clearly ignored the collusion of these two groups in opposition leading to Jesus’ crucifixion and similarity between the Pharisees’ activity and that of the passion antagonists. Note that for Bowker, Jesus, 42, the fact that Pharisees have no role in the trial of Jesus is explained by his reconstruction of Markan Pharisees as an extremist minority, insufficiently significant to merit representation on the Sanhedrin. 148 As also in the judgement of Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 123, the Gospel is not a treatise on Jesus’ attitude to the Torah, hence his teaching and authority to do not relate primarily to this but to Jesus’ own mission.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

68

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Mark

resolved in such a way as to illustrate Jesus’ significance and authority and to display the Pharisees’ ignorance in this regard. The Pharisees contribute to the portrayal of Jewish opposition to Jesus which pervades the Gospel and their role certainly overlaps with that of other Jewish groups. The Pharisees’ challenges to Jesus illustrate their misunderstanding of Jesus’ identity and authority, as do the criticism of the scribes in 3 :22 and the exclamation of the High Priest (14 :63 – 4). Similarly (contra Lührmann), the Pharisees cannot be detached from other groups on the basis of geography since Mark allows for interchange (albeit limited) between Galilee and Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the Pharisees are distinct from other opponents of Jesus. They with the scribes, dominate the opposition to Jesus’ early ministry where the elders and chief priests are not represented. Moreover, the opposition of Pharisees and scribes even within Galilee is not uniform. The difference between the two may lie not in the nature of their concerns, which are complementary, but in the manner of their challenges. The Pharisees challenge Jesus directly, whereas the scribes are not so inclined to address Jesus (see 2 :6 ; 3 :22). Moreover, when they are juxtaposed, the scribes appear to have authority over the Pharisees, either as a delegation from Jerusalem or as commissioners of the Pharisees and Herodians in 12 :13. Moreover, while Pharisees may appear outside Galilee they are certainly most associated with this region just as the scribes are frequently and explicitly associated with Jerusalem. Pharisees and scribes are not the same but nor is their rigorous distinction an overriding concern of the evangelist. A thorough analysis of Mark’s portrayal of the Pharisees might be considered essential to an accurate understanding of many of the issues and puzzles that have excited Markan scholarship. Mark did not write a book about the Pharisees but about Jesus Christ, yet the Pharisees are not detached from that principal concern of the Gospel. This survey has highlighted how both sides of the coin of Markan christology are thrown into sharp relief. The Pharisees fail to recognise the authority of Jesus and wish to obstruct his works of power. They witness demonstrations of Jesus’ identity as Son of God but, like so many others in Mark’s Gospel, who Jesus is remains a mystery to them. The Pharisees, alongside the other Jewish leaders, propel Jesus towards the ultimate demonstration of his identity as the suffering Son of Man. They agree with the Herodians that Jesus death is necessary (3:6) but do not understand, as the evangelist believed, that this necessity will show Jesus to be the Son of God (15:39) who must “give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45). Finally, the evangelist juxtaposes the Pharisees’ response to Jesus with those of tax-collectors, sinners and Gentiles and thereby contrasts their obstinacy with the acceptance of Jesus by of those who follow him. Conversely, similarities between the disciples and the Pharisees (8:14 – 15) draw attention to the failure of

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

69

Conclusions

the former.149 Mark’s audience is therefore warned not to follow the example of the Pharisees, as the disciples themselves risked doing, but to emulate those sinners and outcasts who turn to Jesus. The Pharisees are representatives of an old order which is incompatible with the new kingdom that Jesus brings. They are like old wineskins, unable to contain the fresh wine of Jesus’ ministry because it confounds their definitions of legality and propriety. They are dedicated to outdated understandings of the Torah and so fail to understand the new and authoritative interpretation that Jesus offers. They maintain that the Sabbath should be rigidly observed and thus confound the purpose for which it was created. They claim that divorce reflects the law of God but fail to recognise that it does not fulfil the will of God. They refuse to embrace the new order that Jesus inaugurates and reject his authority to do so.

149 D. Rhoads/D. Mitchie, Mark as Story : An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 118.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

3.

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

3.1

Introduction

A study of the portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew might be expected to pose fresh and particular challenges to the exegete because so many Matthean references to the Pharisees pertain to the distinctive concerns and themes of the Gospel. Matthew’s relationship to Judaism seems to provide New Testament scholars with limitless food for thought. The Gospel seems to assume a reverence for the Torah and Moses (23:2 – 3) and is keen to place Jesus’ story within the narrative of Israel’s salvation. At several points the evangelist quotes from Jewish scripture to demonstrate how the events of Jesus’ life fulfil God’s promise to Israel and Jesus’ will that his disciples’ mission be directed first towards “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6). All this is well documented and discussed and scarcely requires a more detailed rehearsal here. Nor is it necessary to alert the reader to Matthew’s ambivalent, even hostile attitude towards Jews. The following study will encompass the harsh invectives of chapter 23 and elsewhere. These with the redactional labelling of synagogues as “their” or “your” synagogues and accounts such as 28:15 seem to reflect some sense of the otherness of Judaism on the part of the evangelist. Indeed, Graham Stanton famously suggested that Matthew envisaged the transfer of the kingdom of God from Israel to a “new people” including Gentiles (see 21:41; 8:5 – 13; 15:13).1 Of course, none of these observations or arguments is straightforward or uncontested. I raise these points very briefly simply in order to place my investigation of a particular party of Jews within the context of this larger scholarly endeavour. As was observed also in the case of Mark’s Gospel, an apparently narrow study like the one here presented can make a valuable contribution to the broader issues and concerns which dominate scholarship. The analysis in this chapter will require a detailed engagement with certain aspects of the broad 1 G. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T& T Clark,1992), 124 – 31.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

71

Introduction

arguments and theories I have mentioned relating to Matthew and Judaism. In this way, I hope, a study of the Pharisees might offer some modest but fresh perspectives.

3.1.1 Structure and Organisation of this Chapter Matthew’s arguable preference for the term Vaqisa?oi and the unique and unusual contexts in which he employs it results in an impression of the Pharisees which is distinct from other ancient portrayals. It is this portrayal that this chapter will investigate by exploring some themes with which they are associated. I hope that this approach (rather than the roughly narrative order I adopted in the previous chapter) will provide the most lucid organisation of the vast substance of Matthew. In contrast to Mark, Matthew provides many more references to the Pharisees, which are dispersed throughout the Gospel to such an extent that a sequential narrative treatment of Matthean Pharisees might at times read almost like a commentary and tire the reader with repetitions, without offering clear holistic evaluations. In order to maintain a focus which enables exegesis at all times to elucidate the portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew’s Gospel as a whole, I have selected themes which I perceive to recur throughout Matthew’s Gospel. It is through this structure that I propose to draw conclusions about the Matthean Pharisees per se, rather than a case by case explanation of pericopae. Consequently, readers will note that especially rich passages like Matt 23 will not be comprehensively treated here. Full length studies of such passages already exist, but in these studies the portrayal of the Pharisees can only be a subsidiary concern.2 In this chapter, however, a concern with textual units is sidelined and exegesis of the Gospel is not intended to be exhaustive but only to address the Pharisees’ portrayal. The chapter proceeds with a discussion of issues raised in research into Matthew’s portrayal of the Pharisees, particularly pertaining to the group’s identification or otherwise with other leaders in the first Gospel; other issues in Matthean research will be addressed in the context of my thematic handling of Matthew’s text. The first theme under examination is the commonly held assertion in much Matthean scholarship that the Pharisees constitute part of the Jewish leadership and occupy an official or unofficial role as teachers of the populace. Later sections will address the sources of tension between Jesus and the Pharisees, the Pharisees’ failure to recognise the identity of Jesus and Matthew’s focus on their culpability. 2 Not least in commentaries and e. g. D.E. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23 (NovTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1979).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

72

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

Despite the distinctive flavour we might expect from Matthew’s Gospel, a survey of material involving the Pharisees will encounter many questions and challenges similar to those addressed in my analysis of Mark’s portrayal. This is unsurprising since Matthew includes parallels to all of Mark’s material on the Pharisees. I intend to avoid repeating my exegesis of phrases common to both Gospels and such discussions from chapter 2 that are relevant to Matthew, for example, general analyses of the background to the controversy stories of Mark 2:15 – 3:6//Matt 9:11 – 17; 12:1 – 14 and Mark 12:13 – 17//Matt 22:15 – 22. I will not overlook those elements of Matthew’s portrayal which follow Mark but priority in discussion will be given to distinctive elements of Matthew’s portrayal, such as non–Markan material and redactional alterations in Markan material which may reveal the evangelist’s attitude to the Pharisees. This is not to suggest, as is certainly not the case, that Matthew’s opinion is confined to his redactional alterations and unique material. In fact the whole of the Gospel including material derived from Mark and Q is the work of the redactor and the re–framing of traditional material in this new setting means that all must be reinterpreted in the light of the whole. I will avoid repeating information already highlighted in the previous chapter but I do not underestimate the relevance of this information for a proper investigation of Matthew. The following examination will not provide a comprehensive analysis of Matthew’s redactional activity but will focus only on more specific redactional activity with a direct impact on the Pharisees’ portrayal. I will, therefore, offer no comment on examples of typical Matthean redaction e. g. abbreviation and clarification of mistakes or ambiguities. The focus of this chapter is on the Pharisees but I will begin by discussing some issues that arise from how their portrayal relates to that of other Jewish groups in the Gospel.

3.2

Matthew’s Portrayal of the Pharisees in Research

3.2.1 Predominance of the Pharisees in Matthew Several studies of the Jewish leadership in Matthew claim that Pharisees are the most prominent of all the leadership groups in the first Gospel and that Matthew redacted his sources to increase their prominence.3 A brief appraisal of Mat3 Advocates of this argument include: R.T. France, Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter : Paternoster, 1989), 220 – 1; R. Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1966), 17 and especially 13 “Matthäus die Pharisäer so oft wie möglich als Gegner Jesu auftreten läßt.” G.D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946), 120 – 1; U. Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 84;

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Matthew’s Portrayal of the Pharisees in Research

73

thew’s redaction of Markan material would seem to support this view. Matthew certainly retains all Markan references to the Pharisees and replaces Mark’s scribes, elders and/or chief priests with Pharisees in 21:45; 22:15, 34 f., 41.4 However, it is not a hard and fast rule. The scribes are omitted from Matthew’s parallels to Mark 9:14; 11:27; 14:43 and 15:1 yet they are neither replaced nor leave the Pharisees as sole opponents, but rather focus attention on the chief priests and elders. Moreover in Matt 26:3, Mark’s scribes are substituted for elders and at Matt 9:14 the evangelist replaces Mark’s anonymous speakers with the “disciples of John” rather than the Pharisees from Mark 2:18.5 Also, Matthew often adds elders rather than Pharisees to Mark’s opponents, especially in the passion narrative at 26:3; 27:12, 20, 41. Walker, therefore, has grounds for challenging the hypothesis of “eine bewußte einseitig ,pharisäische’ Tendenz des Evangelisten”.6 It is more difficult to conjecture about Matthew’s redaction of Q material because Matthew cannot be compared with its source but only with Luke’s version of the common tradition and it is possible only to speculate about the significance of similarities and differences between the two. Matthew 3:7 speaks of “Pharisees and Sadducees” where the Lukan parallel (Luke 3:7) has “crowd”. This difference is probably due to Matthean redaction because oR Vaqisa?oi ja· Sadduja?oi is peculiarly Matthean, occurring five times in that Gospel but only there in the New Testament. (The same argument could be made with regard to Matt 16:1//Luke 11:16, 29.) There is, moreover, no reason to suppose that the Lukan redactor removed Pharisees that he found in his sources.7 Such passages, therefore, support the claim that Matthew emphasises the role of Pharisees and increases their prevalence by adding to those he found in his sources. However, it remains possible here and elsewhere that Matthew has retained the opponents in Q while Luke has modified his source. The analysis of two further sets of parallels with Q material is complicated both by doublets in Matthew and by overlap with Markan material: see Matt 9:32 – 4; 12:22 – 4//Luke 11:14 – 15//Mark 3:20 – 2 and Matt 12:38 – 42; 16:1 – 4//

4 5 6 7

J.A. Overmann, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 80; Pickup, ‘Matthew’s and Mark’s’, 93 – 5, 108; Riddle, Jesus, 142; P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 21974), 176 An alternative of this view is that the pair, scribes and Pharisees, is given special attention in Matthew and is favoured by D.C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T& T Clark,1998), 119. Note that Pharisees also replace the scribes of the Pharisees (9:11) and disciples of the Pharisees (9:14 and 22:15). This does not, however, distance the Pharisees from potential opposition to Jesus, see below pp. 99 – 100. R. Walker, Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (FRLANT 91; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 21 and see 22 contra Hummel, Auseinandersetzung. See below, pp. 168 – 74.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

74

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

Luke 11:16, 29 – 33//Mark 8:11 – 13. In the latter set, both Matthean versions bear a striking similarity to the Q tradition represented in Luke, although some parallels between Matt 16:1 – 4 and Mark 8 can be identified.8 In my analysis of the passage I will assume that Matt 16:1 – 4 was influenced by both Mark and Q and evaluate his redactional activity accordingly. Concerning the first set of parallels, in Mark 3:20 – 2 the accusation that Jesus exorcises demons by the power of the ruler of demons is voiced by scribes whereas Luke places it on the lips of “some” of the crowd but Matthew attributes it to the Pharisees. Two possible explanations would account for this difference: 1. Matthew changed Mark’s “scribes” to “Pharisees” in the accusation at 12:24 in order to draw attention to the Pharisees’ role in their request (with the scribes) for a sign in 12:38. Emphasis on the Pharisees at 12:38 is needed to harmonise this first sign request with the second sign request in 16:1 (also by the Pharisees, this time with the Sadducees). The alteration in 12:24 is prefigured in 9:34 for reasons of consistency. This suggestion, however, is problematic because it requires that the evangelist pre–empted an alteration he was to make in a later part of the Gospel (assuming, perhaps unduly, that the work was composed sequentially). Moreover, there is limited evidence that Matthew made efforts to check the consistency of details in his narrative. 2. It is more probable that Matthew was influenced by the immediate context of 9:34. The acceptance and rejection of Jesus’ miracles is a dominant theme of chapters 8 and 9. The accusation of 9:34 echoes the scribes’ accusation in 9:3 since both groups have failed to recognise that God has granted authority to Jesus. Therefore, Matthew’s redaction could reflect an attempt to attribute the mistake of the scribes in 9:3 to yet another branch of opposition. This is consistent with the fact that in this chapter Jesus is criticised by scribes (9:3), Pharisees (9:11), the disciples of John (9:14) and mourners (9:24). It is therefore unlikely that Matthew redacted 9:34 in an attempt to unify Jesus’ opponents. Matthew describes the widespread fame of Jesus but balances this with opposition to his work from many sides. A striking difference between Matthean and Lukan parallels of Q material may be observed in the sequence of woes in Luke 11:39 – 52//Matt 23:6 – 36. If both authors have derived their woes from Q either one or both of them has made major alterations to that source.9 The Matthean and Lukan woes differ with 8 Ibid. 9 W.D. Davies/D.C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vol.; ICC; Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1991), 3.282, hypothesise that Q contained a series of “isolated” woes but that the discrepancy between Matthew and Luke is so marked that attempts to discern the original number, order or wording are futile. They thus echo the judgement of B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: a study of origins, treating of the manuscript

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Matthew’s Portrayal of the Pharisees in Research

75

regard to their setting, order, structure, wording and even substance (e. g. Matt 23:27//Luke 11:44). The Matthean Jesus addresses all seven woes to the pair cqlallate?r ja· Vaqisa?oi, whereas Luke directs three woes towards the Pharisees, three towards the lawyers (molijo¸) and includes the content of the remaining woe as a criticism of the Pharisees. The parallel content of the woes allows for a variety of redaction hypotheses, which will be addressed in subsequent analysis insofar as it affects his portrayal of the Pharisees. However, it is the identity of the addressees which is relevant to the discussion here. If all woes were addressed to the scribes and Pharisees jointly in Q, then it may be inferred that this combination of two leadership groups and their shared guilt on a wide variety of charges was amenable to Matthew’s understanding of the Pharisees. If, however, Luke’s division of blame better represents the substance of his source, then Matthew’s redactional redistribution of the woes has certain implications for his portrayal of the Pharisees. Hypothetical Matthean redaction at once broadens the Pharisees’ sphere of concern and culpability to all seven charges and de–emphasises their particular guilt by pairing them with the scribes. Nevertheless, the prominence of the Pharisees in Matt 23 is ensured by the use of language which echoes earlier denunciations of the Pharisees by Jesus and the Baptist (e. g. rpojqita¸, tuvko¸, cemm¶lata 1widm_m). In many cases Matthew’s probable redaction of his sources suggests that the evangelist increased the prevalence of the Pharisees. They are not ubiquitous however, nor does Matthean redaction serve to include the Pharisees at the expense of all other opposition. The chief priests, elders and sometimes scribes feature prominently in the events leading to Jesus’ passion without the addition of the Pharisees. In most cases, Matthew places scribes alongside Pharisees and yet occasionally he refers to the action of Jewish scribes apart from either Pharisees or chief priests and elders e. g. 7:29; 9:3 and 17:10.10 A similar picture tradition, sources, authorship, & dates (London: Macmillan and Co, 1924), 254 – 7. Nevertheless, Davies/Allison, Matthew, 286, suggest that Matthew’s combination of scribes and Pharisees may reflect a primitive form since it is corroborated in Gos. Thom. 39, which may be independent of Synoptic tradition. J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (2 vol.; AB 28; Garden City : Doubleday, 1981/1985), 2.943, contends that Q was Luke’s source but that the third evangelist is responsible for the two part Pharisee/Lawyer structure, although he ventures no decided opinion on whether Luke represents the original Q addressees for each woe. J.M. Robinson/P. Hoffmann/J.S. Kloppenborg, The Critical edition of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 266 – 83, favour a single addressee in their Q text, reflecting Luke’s version more closely than Matthew’s combination of “Scribes and Pharisees”. Alternatively, the analysis undertaken by D. Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1993), 262 – 70, considers the woes concerning burdens, the prophets’ tombs and the key of knowledge (all of which are directed against lawyers in Luke) to have contributed to the criticism of Pharisees in Q. 10 Pickup, ‘Matthew’s and Mark’s’, 95, suggests that, since “scribes of the Pharisees” in Mark 2:16 may have influenced Matthew’s strong association (even identification) of the two groups, “scribes” is only retained in Matt 9:3 because it precedes Mark 2:16.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

76

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

emerges in material unique to the first Gospel. At 5:20 Matthew adds a reference to the Pharisees with the scribes and in 27:62 – 6 to the Pharisees with the chief priests. However, he does not include them in his unparalleled references to the Jewish leadership at 2:4; 27:3 – 10 and 28:11 – 15. On the basis of this preliminary survey, I concur with David Garland that, although the Pharisees certainly receive greater prominence in Matthew than the other Gospels, they are not always the focus of the opposition.11

3.2.2 The Pharisees as distinct from other Jews Several scholars have argued that Matthew ignores any distinction – historical or otherwise – between the different groups of Jewish leaders so that they have become interchangeable designations for members of an homogenous group.12 For example, J. D. Kingsbury asserts of the religious leaders in Matthew (as he did of their Markan counterparts) “Because all of these groups are presented in Matthew’s story as forming a united front opposed to Jesus, they can be treated as a single character”.13 Matthew furnishes all Jewish leaders with the same characteristics manifesting their “root trait” of evil.14 The conclusions of Kingsbury’s literary/narrative critical study had been pre–empted by Rolf Walker’s study of Matthean redaction “Nach Ausweis seiner bewußten redaktionellen Arbeit bilden die Repräsentanten für Matthäus eine homogene Einheit.”15 In support of his claim, Walker highlights Matthew’s seemingly indiscriminate application of certain characteristics and criticisms to different groups or combinations of Jewish leaders.16 For example, the epithet, “brood of vipers” is levelled at Pharisees and Sadducees (3:7), Pharisees (12:34) and scribes and Pharisees (23:33). Similarly, several different leaders are described as testing Jesus: the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:1), some Pharisees (19:3), Pharisees and Herodians (22:15, 18) and a Pharisaic lawyer (22:35). Both the scribes and Pharisees (12:38) and the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:1) request a sign from Jesus and thereby show themselves as representatives of an evil and adulterous generation. Consequently, Walker argues … die „Pharisäer und Sadduzäer“ bei Matthäus in keiner Weise von den anderen gennanten Repräsentanten Israels unterscheiden und derselben negativen und ster11 Garland, Intention, 45. 12 So Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, 39. 13 J.D. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (2nd Rev. edn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 17 and see 115 and Kingsbury, ‘Developing Conflict’, 58, suggests that the leaders form a “monolithic front”. 14 Kingsbury, ‘Developing Conflict’, 60, 64. 15 Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 12 – 13; so also Van Tilborg, Jewish Leaders, 1. 16 Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 12.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Matthew’s Portrayal of the Pharisees in Research

77

eotypen Charakterisierung unterliegen, erlaubt das vorläufige Urteil: Die „Pharisäer und Sadduzäer“ sind im Matthäus–Evangelium keine besondere, individuell qualifizierte Gruppe, sondern lediglich Spielart der einen Führerschaft Israels.17

Walker also refers to Matthew’s indiscriminate use of different designations for a uniform Jewish leadership and his frequent alternation of those designations (especially of scribes and Pharisees) in the same context.18 For example, the scribes, who were combined with the Pharisees in 15:1, drop out of the picture in 15:12. Conversely, the scribes are combined with the Pharisees at 12:38 following a sequence of three controversies in which the Pharisees were Jesus’ sole opponents (12:2, 4 and 24). Also, scribes who appear alongside the chief priests in 21:15 are swapped for the Pharisees at 21:45.19 Furthermore, the woes of Matthew 23 are directed toward the Einheitsbegriff, “scribes and Pharisees” and, so Walker argues, the address “blind Pharisee” (23:26) does not interrupt chapter 23 or denote an individual Israelite but is synonymous with the combination, scribes and Pharisees.20 Matthew’s alleged failure to distinguish between different parties of the Jewish leadership, emerges most clearly in his combination of Pharisees and Sadducees. According to other first century sources, these groups held very different, even opposing, opinions (see e. g. Acts 23:5 – 6; B.J. 2:162 – 5; A.J. 18:12 – 17; m. Yad. 4:6 – 7). Matthew, on the contrary, not only presents them as co–operators (16:1) but seems unaware that Pharisees and Sadducees espoused very different teachings. He identifies the common leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees as their singular teaching (t/r didaw/r).21 The Sadducees appear without the Pharisees only at 22:23 ff., where the redactor may have removed Mark’s indication that Sadducees deny the resurrection outright. Matthew alters Mark’s relative clause so that his phrasing implies that these particular Sadducees (and not Sadducees per se) deny the resurrection, thus explaining the puzzle these particular Sadducees set Jesus.22 Matthew also adds that the whole crowd 17 Idem. 12 – 13; see also Van Tilborg, Jewish Leaders, 3. 18 Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 18 – 20; cf. Van Tilborg, Jewish Leaders, 2. 19 Weiß regards Matthew’s frequent “interrelation” of scribes and Pharisees to reflect his contemporary situation when all scribes are Pharisees (Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, 39). 20 Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 18; Also Garland, Intention, 42 and Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, 15. 21 So Ibid. 15 and Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, 19. However, note Repschinski’s objection that “[The Pharisees and Sadducees’] teaching in this context might not necessarily be their interpretation of the Law … [but] their scepticism concerning Jesus” (Controversy Stories, 36 – 7). France, Evangelist and Teacher, 106, maintains that the phrase need not imply identity of teaching but is a collective warning against the teaching of both. Riddle, Jesus, 136, claims the combination of Pharisees and Sadducees makes 16:5 – 12 tantamount to a warning against the teaching of Judaism in general. 22 This interpretation is favoured by Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, 19; Kilpatrick, Origins, 20;

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

78

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

were astonished at Jesus’ teaching, which may imply that denial of the resurrection is not distinctively Sadducean. Matthew has made a significant addition at 22:34 oR d³ Vaqisa?oi !jo¼samter fti 1v¸lysem to»r Saddouja·our, but its implication is unclear. It is possible that Matthew’s description which follows Jesus’ espousal of a Pharisaic doctrine against its opponents echoes the judgement of the scribe in the Markan parallel that Jesus had answered the Sadducees well (12:28). However, the passage conveys no affinity between the Pharisees and Jesus and ignores the commonality of their belief in the resurrection; instead it draws attention to their role in the Jerusalem leadership’s attempt to demolish Jesus’ credibility. The conclusion of Reinhart Hummel is therefore much more likely Es ist ganz willkürlich, aus diesem Satz die Schadenfreude der Pharisäer heraushören zu wollen. Es steht vielmehr da, das die Schlappe der Sadduzäer die Pharisäer auf den Plan rief.23

In other words, the Sadducees’ failure prompts the Pharisees to make a similar attempt to undermine Jesus. Nevertheless, the argument that names for the Jewish leadership are applied indiscriminately by Matthew has not found universal assent. I have highlighted several counter–arguments in footnotes (above ns. 21 – 2) and Kingsbury admits that the implied author does make some distinctions between different leaders, e. g. that while the chief priests and elders are linked to the Temple, the scribes and Pharisees are usually associated with the synagogue, law and tradition.24 Repschinski also observes that in accordance with the role of their counterparts in Mark’s Gospel, the Matthean Pharisees are absent from the trial and passion narrative (including passion predictions).25 Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 13; However, Repschinski protests that since the participle construction is one of Matthew’s preferred editing techniques it is inadvisable to read too much into its substitution in 22:23 (Controversy Stories, 33). France, Evangelist and Teacher, 106 and R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Wm B. Eerdman, 2007), 110, 835 – 7, also argues that Matthean redaction in this case is inconclusive and that the Sadducees, in any case, formulate their challenge in accordance with their beliefs. Sim, Gospel of Matthew, 118, and D.A. Carson, ‘The Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Reappraisal’, JETS 25 (1982) 161 – 74, on p. 167, also maintain that the attribution of the resurrection dispute to the Sadducees separate from the Pharisees shows Matthew’s differentiation between the two groups. 23 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, 19; followed by Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 13. Note more recently Luz’s conclusion that Matthew arbitrarily combines the different leadership groups because “he is fairly indifferent to what these groups really were and how they related to each other. The only thing that matters to him is that they are all enemies of Jesus.” (Theology, 84). 24 Kingsbury, ‘Developing Conflict’, 58 – 9; France, Evangelist and Teacher, 222, agrees that disputes involving the Pharisees concern the law and religious observance, at least on some level as does Sim, Gospel of Matthew, 118. 25 Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 323 – 4.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Pharisees as Leaders or Teachers

79

The distinctiveness or otherwise of the Pharisees among the different Jewish groups in Matthew is not, therefore, a foregone conclusion but will warrant further discussion in the course of this chapter. The combination of Pharisees with other Jewish leaders and homogenisation of different Jewish leaders does not undermine a study of the Pharisees’ portrayal but contributes to that portrayal. What does Matthew seek to convey about the Pharisees by presenting them alongside the scribes, Sadducees or chief priests. As I have similarly argued in the introduction to chapter 2, Matthew’s preservation of the term Vaqisa?or is sufficient justification for my study. What purpose is served by Matthew’s alternation and combination of the terms he uses for the Jewish leadership if they are synonymous and the leadership an homogenous concept?

3.3

The Pharisees as Leaders or Teachers

Matthew often portrays the Pharisees as distinct from the populace, enjoying privilege and influence compatible with leadership status.26 The chief priests occupy an undoubtedly privileged and authoritative position: they sit on the Sanhedrin, have access to both the High Priest and governor and command a guard of soldiers (27:65 – 6). The Pharisees, when paired with the chief priests at 21:45 and 27:62 – 6 share their power and influence.27 Matthew’s redaction of Mark 12:13 replaces chief priests with Pharisees as commissioners of a deputation to entrap Jesus (22:15 – 16). Matthew has thereby increased the eminence of the Pharisees and given them authority over the Herodians. They are not merely the agents of the chief priests, scribes and elders but opponents in their own right.28 Authoritative status is explicit in Jesus’ criticism (which in Mark applies to only the scribes but it has been extended to the Pharisees by Matthew)

26 See for example, S. Sandmel, Anti–Semitism in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress,1978), 69: “It seems to me that for Matthew the scribes and the Pharisees represent what we would today call ‘the establishment’ … ”. 27 U.C. Von Wahlde, ‘The Relationships between Pharisees and Chief Priests: Some Observations on the Texts in Matthew, John and Josephus’, NTS 42 (1996) 506 – 22 on pp. 518 – 20, argues the combination of chief priests and Pharisees in these verses gains historical verisimilitude from similar combinations in Josephus and John’s Gospel. He claims that the Pharisees were a group with influence but lacking in political power and so were required to combine with the chief priests to take direct action. 28 The classification “disciples of the Pharisees” (which appears only here in Matthew) seems to have no particular significance. It was probably included as a result of identifying the commissioners as Pharisees, in order to avoid a clumsy expression that the Pharisees send themselves, whilst clarifying that they sent some of their own number.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

80

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

They love to have the place of honour at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, and to be greeted with respect in the market–places, and to have people call them rabbi. (23:6 – 7)

Indeed the association of Pharisees with scribes may also be understood to set them apart from the general population as Matthew frequently associates scribes with the Jerusalem hierarchy. Moreover, the scribes probably represent a learned class. They teach, although without authority (7:29), which probably means without appealing to their personal authority, and their opinion is both sought (2:4) and widely known (17:10). There are also many indications that Matthew’s Pharisees form opinions, instruct others in them and that their teaching is to be cautiously regarded. Matthew describes various ways in which the Pharisees influence others. They impose obligations “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others.” (23:4). They encourage others to join their number “For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” (23:15). It is not merely that the scribes and Pharisees do not guide people towards the kingdom but that they actively prevent them from entering “You shut up the kingdom of heaven before people. For you do not enter, neither do you allow those entering to go in.” (23:13). All of these accusations assume that the scribes and Pharisees enjoy some degree of influence, even authority, which allows them to promulgate their opinions among followers and potential converts.29 The influence of the scribes and Pharisees is a malign alternative to that offered by Jesus and the disciples. Whereas the scribes and Pharisees shut off the kingdom, Peter will possess the keys to it. The same teaching role of the Pharisees is implied by Jesus’ denunciation of them as “blind guides” in 15:14, 23:26 and with the scribes in 23:24. L.T. Johnson suggests that Jewish rhetoricians adopted figurative “blindness” as a standardised charge against their opponent and cites examples from the works of Josephus (C. Ap. 2:142; B.J. 5:343, 572), Philo (Contempl. 2:10) and 1QS 4:14. Johnson argues, “first century Jews who disputed with one another used language conventional to their world” and this language is “connotive not denotive.30 It signifies simply that they are opponents and such things should be said about them.” Therefore, that Jesus calls the Pharisees “blind” (and so applies to them a polemical convention) indicates simply that Jesus opposes them but it 29 A.J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian–Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 49, argues that the woes against the scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23 are not arbitrary but aimed at key aspects of leadership roles. 30 L.T. Johnson, ‘The New Testament’s Anti–Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic’, JBL 108 (1989) 419 – 41, on p. 440.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Pharisees as Leaders or Teachers

81

would be inappropriate to infer any detail about the Pharisees from the charge itself.31 I suggest, however, that the accusation of blindness does have some “denotive” value. Johnson is right to claim that one function of this accusation is to identify the Pharisees as opponents but it is significant that Matthew has decided to employ this particular aspect of standard polemic here. Johnson lists a variety of typical accusations which are used elsewhere by Matthew, including demon possession and hypocrisy, and yet here Matthew refers to the Pharisees’ blindness. The accusation is elaborated at 15:14 where the scribes and Pharisees are called “blind guides”. The description “guide” assumes their role as leaders, teachers or exemplars. Teaching is a prominent theme in both chapters 15 and 23. Therefore, Matthew uses a rhetorical convention but demonstrates its application to the (scribes and) Pharisees in particular. Jesus implies that the Pharisees are unable to perceive the right course and so are unqualified to guide others.32 By using this analogy Jesus indicates the weight of responsibility that the Pharisees have assumed. A blind person is entirely dependent on his guide and if his guide is also blind then “both will fall”; the consequences of assuming the role inappropriately are serious.33 It is implied that the Pharisees’ claim to the leadership of the people will have similar consequences.34 An explicit warning against the Pharisees’ teaching is made in 16:12. Matthew’s redaction of Mark again raises several questions. He has replaced Herod with the Sadducees and removed the ambiguity inherent in Mark’s t/r f¼lgr t_m Vaqisa¸ym ja· t/r f¼lgr gGq]dou by referring to a single common leaven, t/r f¼lgr t_m Vaqisa¸ym ja· Saddouja¸ym. This need not imply that the groups or their teachings are to be identified in every respect but the significance of this passage for the portrayal of the Pharisees (and Sadducees) may be elucidated by the identification of their common teaching in this instance.35 The starting point for ascertaining the nature of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ teaching are their four joint appearances in Matt 16:1 – 12 and once in 3:7.

31 Idem. 441. 32 Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 215, finds support in this criticism of the Pharisees as guides for his conclusion that the Matthean Jesus’ opposes the mistaken interpretation of Torah rather than the Torah itself. 33 Note that the act of misleading the blind is condemned in Lev 19:14 and Deut 27:18. 34 Matthias Konradt, Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 215; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 394, implies that such serious consequences are depicted figuratively in Jesus’ healing of blind people to whom blindness has been transmitted by their blind guides. 35 See above, p. 77 n. 21.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

82

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

3.3.1 Saying “We have Abraham as our ancestor” John the Baptist admonishes the Pharisees and Sadducees when they first appear together in 3:7 – 10. He criticises them for many flaws but mentions only one teaching “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” (3:9). This verse is the only one in the Gospel that gives substance to a Pharisaic–Sadducean teaching. The Baptist accuses them of complacency in the face of his call to repentance because they rely on their Abrahamic descent. This is folly because their privileged position is not assured; God can replace them by raising up other children for Abraham. However, it is difficult to interpret 16:12 as a reference to the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ conviction that they have Abraham as their ancestor. The call to repentance which prompts the Baptist’s reference is not clearly present in the context of 16:12. Moreover, the Pharisees and Sadducees’ teaching in 16:5 – 12 is likely to be most directly informed by their behaviour in the preceding verses 1 – 4 rather than chapter 3. The warning of 16:6 continues Jesus’ comment on the Pharisees’ request for a sign.

3.3.2 “Leaven” and the implied criticism of the disciples in 16:5 – 12 It is significant that the denunciation of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ teaching is couched in terms of a warning to the disciples.36 As I suggested in chapter 2, the image of leaven often draws on the property of leaven to influence from within.37 It is therefore likely that in 16:6 – 12, leaven denotes some teaching which could or does influence the disciples. It is possible that the warning and the discussion of bread in the boat are juxtaposed merely because of the association of %qtor with f¼lg, yet the evangelist has woven repeated warnings in 16:11 and 12 into this conversation with the disciples. Matthew has made several redactional changes which emphasise the disciples’ preoccupation with their own physical wellbeing. Their reception of Jesus’ teaching on leaven is dominated by their concern that they have forgotten to bring any bread (16:7). Matthew omits the confusing note about the single loaf (Mark 8:14) and so it cannot be inferred from Matthew’s account that the disciples hope to prompt another feeding miracle from Jesus. Instead the disciples seem to doubt that any provision can be made for them. Jesus responds with a reminder that God provided surplus for the miraculous feedings of the 36 Arguably Matthew intensifies Mark’s bk´pete to suggest a more real and present threat: gOq÷te ja· pqos´wete. 37 See above pp. 57 – 8.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Pharisees as Leaders or Teachers

83

crowds (14:15 – 21; 15:32 – 8) and thereby explains the disciples’ concern in terms of God’s provision. His generosity towards the crowds renders the disciples’ concern nonsensical. Jesus calls them akicºpistoi, a term which occurs three more times in Matthew, each time in response to the disciples’ unnecessary concern for their welfare. For example Why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies … if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you akicºpistoi (6:28 – 30 and cf. 8:25 – 6; 14:30 – 1).

How then is the little–faith of the disciples related to the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, especially in the immediate context? The disciples have little faith because they have not learned the lesson of the feeding miracles which Jesus must teach again in 16:9 – 10. Similarly, in 16:1 – 4 the Pharisees and Sadducees failed to perceive that the feeding of the 4000 was a sgle?om 1j toO oqqamoO – that is, a demonstration of God’s authority and power in providing for his people. The Pharisees and Sadducees do not perceive that the kingdom of heaven has been manifested in Jesus’ ministry. They imply that the miracles of Jesus have not revealed his identity or legitimacy and that further proof is needed (16:1).38 Failure to trust in divine provision of bread (the obstinacy and no–faith displayed by the Pharisees and Sadducees) is the leaven that influences the disciples’ faith.

3.3.3 Moses’ Seat Another explicit reference to the Pharisees’ (and scribes’) teaching, or rather to their speech (eUpysim) is made in Jesus’ introduction to an extended diatribe against them The scribes and the Pharisees sit (1j²hisam) on Moses’ seat; therefore, do and keep everything whatever they tell (eUpysim) you; but do not do according to their works, for they speak (k´cousim) and do not do (23:2 – 3).39 38 Similarly, Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 36 – 7: “The leaven which is their teaching is probably in this context their scepticism concerning Jesus”. For D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina 1; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), 244 – 5, the corrupting effect of their teaching is exemplified in their request for a sign. See also Carson, ‘Jewish Leaders’, 168. Alternatively, France, Matthew, 609 – 10, defines leaven as ideological opposition to Jesus and his message but states that this is seemingly unconnected to the disciples’ predicament since their concern has not been brought to Jesus’ attention. He argues that 16:7 – 8 do not comment directly on Jesus’ warning, rather, this is delayed until 16:11 and in the meantime Jesus addresses the disciples’ misplaced concern but implies that understanding of the miracles and the warning coincide. 39 The aorist 1j²hisam is here rendered by the English present tense “sit” because I assume that

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

84

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

Remarkably, the first part of this reads like an endorsement of the scribes and Pharisees’ teaching, which is at odds with the denunciation of Pharisaic teaching in the remainder of the Gospel.40 The first phrase posits a special relationship between the scribes and Pharisees and Moses. It has given rise to any number of interpretations: that the scribes and Pharisees are the heirs of Mosaic authority, the inheritors of the Torah, the authoritative custodians and/or interpreters of the latter.41 Yet elsewhere Matthew has undermined scribal authority (7:29) and contradicted Pharisaic teaching (certainly in 16:12 but also in 12:1 – 8; 15:3 – 11; 22:41 – 5 and 23:4, 8, 10 and 16). Is it possible, then, that here he proclaims the reverse and advocates whatever they might say? Several commentators dismiss Jesus’ apparent endorsement of the scribes and Pharisees as a rhetorical preparation for the denunciation of them in the rest of the chapter. It is merely a de facto acknowledgement of the scribes’ and Pharisees’ authority ; authority which is annulled by their behaviour and undermined by Jesus’ criticism. In the words of Garland, 23:2 – 3a is a “stratagem which sets the scene for an impeachment”.42 R.T. France argues that in light of the rest of the chapter the apparently positive acknowledgement must be con-

its past action has a current effect (see e. g. Garland, Intention, 47, argues that the aorist here expresses a general truth. Harrington, Matthew, 320 suggests that the verb is a Semitism “in which the perfect is used for the present”. See also B.T. Vivano, ‘Social World and Community Leadership: The Case of Matthew 23.1 – 12, 34’, JSNT 39 (1990) 3 – 21 on p. 12. Moreover, I have translated the two occurrences of the verb k´cy in 23:3 in fairly neutral terms whereas other translations enrich the meaning as far as the verb allows. For example, “bid you observe” (ASV; KJV) or “preach” (RSV; NAB; NIV; NJB). Several translations also substantially identify the objects of the two verbs in k´cousim c±q ja· oq poioOsim. For example “for they do not practise what they teach” (NRSV cf. NIV; NJB), “for they say things, and do not do them” (NASB). 40 S. Mason, ‘Pharisaic Dominance Before 70 CE and the Gospels’ Charge (Matt 23:2 – 3)’ HTR 83 (1990) 363 – 81, on pp. 376 – 9, attributes 23:2 – 3a to the Historical Jesus or to the earliest strand of Jewish–Christian tradition, which acknowledged the popular influence of Pharisees at the time of Jesus alongside its critique of their dominance. This does not, however, resolve the tension that 23:2 – 3 creates in Matthew’s portrayal of the Pharisees of which these verses are just as much part as the rest of the chapter. There are similar problems with the solution of G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus (FRLANT 82; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 138, who assigns 23:2 – 3 to pre–Matthean tradition on the grounds that 16:11 – 12 is attributable to the redactor. 41 Harrington, Matthew, 320, suggests that Moses’ seat is best understood as a metaphor for teaching and ruling within the Jewish community. It is irrelevant whether or not the roles and activities here outlined correspond to occupation of an actual piece of furniture – a Moses’ seat – since the significance of this seat would in any case have been determined by the role and activity of its occupants. 42 Garland, Intention, 55. See also, M.J. Cook, ‘Interpreting “Pro–Jewish” passages in Matthew’, HUCA 54 (1983) 135 – 46, on p. 144; U. Luz, Matthew (3 vol.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007/2001/2005), 3.101; Harrington, Matthew, 320 and Overmann, Matthew’s Gospel, 145.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Pharisees as Leaders or Teachers

85

sidered “ironical” and he freely renders 23:2 “Follow their teaching if you must but be sure not to follow their example”.43 Others attempt to reconcile Jesus’ instruction, “Do and keep everything whatever they tell you” with his attitude elsewhere by considering 23:2 – 3 a positive affirmation, not of the scribes and Pharisees per se but only insofar as they occupy Moses’ seat. William Loader contends that the verses are most naturally understood as Jesus’ acknowledgement of the teaching authority of the scribes and Pharisees, that is their public role, yet he does not thereby endorse their ethics or interpretation of the law. The situation may be analogous to the controversy concerning the payment of taxes to Caesar, in which Jesus accepts the status and function of Caesar in public life but accords him no higher authority.44 In a similar yet alternative vein, the occupants of Moses’ seat may be respected not only for their public function but for what they teach insofar as they convey the law of Moses. In this way, Jesus’ endorsement is no different from his reassurance that “not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law” (5:18). This kind of interpretation is advocated by Mark Allan Powell who understands “Moses’ seat” to refer to the control of access to the Torah in an illiterate society. Since the disciples did not possess copies of Torah they were dependent on the scribes and Pharisees to discover what it says. Jesus commends the scribes’ and Pharisees’ citation of the Torah (which they do accurately in 2:4 – 6; 19:7; 22:42 as indeed does Satan in 4:6) but not, as the rest of chapter 23 suggests, the scribes’ and Pharisees’ interpretation of it.45 As Powell explains, they do not “do” the law of Moses when they interpret it either in their teaching word or deed. Powell’s explanation is compatible with the remainder of Matt 23, and indeed the Gospel, which implies that there is something amiss in the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law (and results in their failure to keep Torah). Jesus describes the scribes and Pharisees’ reluctance to exempt others from heavy burdens (23:4) and this is demonstrated by their repeated criticism of the disciples for failing to conform to their interpretation of the law.46 In chapter 15 Jesus criticises the Pharisees for propagating their tradition at the expense of God’s commandments. The language of 23:4 echoes that of 11:28 – 30 and therefore the

43 France, Matthew, 859. 44 Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 238 – 9. 45 So M.A. Powell, ‘Do and keep what Moses says (Matthew 23.2 – 7)’, JBL 114 (1995) 419 – 35, on pp. 431 – 3. Pickup, ‘Matthew’s and Mark’s’, 105 – 6, agrees that Jesus endorses their teaching of Scripture but not their behaviour, halakhah or tradition. Although Garland, Intention, 49, accurately observes that Matthew gives no advice about the limitation of p²mta in 23:2. 46 Garland, Intention, 50 – 1. This interpretation makes better sense of the verb jim/sai (remove) than that which accuses the scribes and Pharisees of failing themselves to undertake their own legal obligations.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

86

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

burdens proffered by the Pharisees are set in direct opposition to Jesus’ easy yoke and light burden.

3.3.4 The Pharisees as representative of the Jewish people Finally, the portrayal of the Pharisees as leaders and teachers is reinforced by the many passages in which Matthew’s condemnation of the Pharisees extends to encompass the Jewish people as a whole. They become either representative of the wickedness of the people or else in some way responsible for it. For example, the scribes and Pharisees fill up the measure of their ancestors by persecuting and killing God’s emissaries (23:32 – 4), yet in 23:36 Jesus predicts that blood–guilt will come upon this generation and he laments the whole city of Jerusalem. Although the Jewish leaders initiate the events leading to Jesus’ crucifixion, the crowd assume responsibility for his blood in 27:25. Furthermore, the Pharisees’ request for a sign in 12:38 is equivalent to the request of an “evil and adulterous generation”. It is not clear whether the Pharisees display an attitude otherwise manifested in the population or that by their flaws they corrupt the generation of which they are a part and provoke judgement on the whole people.47 In either case the influence wielded by Pharisees over the population is malign and their teaching contradicts Jesus’ own. I will now survey instances of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees in an attempt to determine the root of this contradiction.

3.4

The Source of Tension between the Teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees

Encounters between Jesus and the Pharisees normally take the form of a conflict over Jesus’ teaching and behaviour or the Pharisees’ own interpretation of the law. They question, for example, why he eats with tax–collectors and sinners and why his disciples do not fast, do what is not lawful on the Sabbath, and eat with 47 Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 139: In 12:38 – 45 the Pharisees are responsible for the “horrendous” state of Israel. Pickup, ‘Matthew’s and Mark’s’, 102, similarly holds the scribes and Pharisees responsible for the judgement of Jerusalem because they have provided poor religious models. Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 154, cites 21:43; 23:37 – 9 and 27:25 as examples of occasions when polemic directed at Jewish leaders is broadened out to all Israel. S. McKnight, ‘A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s polemic with Judaism in theological perspective’ in C.A. Evans/D.A. Hagner (ed.), Anti–Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress,1993) 55 – 79, on p. 60 also cites several of the same passages as examples where larger portions of the Jewish people are tied into anti–Pharisaic polemic.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Source of Tension between the Teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees

87

unwashed hands. Even Jesus’ ministries of healing and exorcism are subject to challenges from his Pharisaic opponents. The precise reason for the Pharisees’ objection is often unclear (as in Mark, see above pp. 40 – 1) but their hostility toward Jesus is never far from the surface. Matthew implies that when entering the synagogue, Jesus is entering enemy territory by his description “their synagogues”. The possessive pronoun in 12:9 most naturally refers to the Pharisees of 12:1 – 8 but also invites association with the hostile synagogues of 10:17; 13:54 and 23:34 where sumacyca?r aqt_m/rl_m is used. The Pharisees respond negatively to Jesus’ explanations they take counsel against him (12:14 and 22:15), take offence at what he says (15:12) and wish to arrest him (21:46). In 22:22 Matthew describes their amazement (1ha¼lsam) at Jesus’ teaching but, in contrast the amazement of the crowd and disciples at the miracles of Jesus (8:27; 9:33; 15:31 and 21:20), the Pharisees are astonished that Jesus has eluded their trap. In general the Pharisees do not accord Jesus any title/description, except on four occasions when they refer to him as teacher (vocative in 12:38; 22:16 and 36 and did²sjakor rl_m in 9:11). Matthew removes “teacher” from the lips of Jesus’ disciples in Markan material (Mark 4:38; 10:35) but it retains its use by the Sadducees (22:24) suggesting that the term is a derogatory one in his Gospel.48 However, as Hagner admits, did²sjake continues to be used by those whose response to Jesus is neutral or positive (8:19; 17:24; 19:16) and by Jesus himself (23:8; 26:18). The title Nabb¸ is prohibited at 23:7 – 8 and applied to Jesus only by Judas Iscariot in 26:25 and 49, but although Nabb¸ and did²sjakor are equivalent in meaning, the negative connotations of one need not automatically transfer to the other. Nevertheless the Pharisees’ use of did²sjakor never coincides with a genuine recognition of Jesus as teacher. The Pharisees and scribes at 12:38 respond (!pejq¸hgsam) to Jesus’ teaching with a request for a sign introduced by did²sjakor but their words must be considered in the light of Jesus’ warning “By your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned.” (12:37). Moreover on other occasions when the Pharisees address or describe Jesus as did²sjakor or request his teaching (as they do concerning divorce, the payment of taxes to Caesar or the greatest commandment of the law) their requests are not genuine but intended to entrap Jesus (22:15) and test him (16:1; 19:3; 22:18, 35). On each occasion the Pharisees attempt to compromise his ministry and undermine his credibility by exposing his teaching as unsound. Jesus is not fooled by them but uses the opportunity to demonstrate the fallacy of the Pharisees’ own opinions. A survey 48 The negative connotations of did²jakor are noted by e. g. D.A. Hagner, Matthew (2 vol.; WBC 33; Dallas: Word Books, 1993/1995), 1.139, 216, 353 and Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 206.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

88

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

reveals several factors underlying the conflict between Jesus’ teaching and that of the Pharisees, one of which is the recurrent theme that the Pharisees do not understand the Scriptures.

3.4.1 The Pharisees’ flawed understanding of Scripture and the will of God The Pharisees in Matthew often demonstrate their knowledge of Scripture yet they do not interpret it as Jesus does and it is repeatedly quoted against them in controversies. This is most clear where Scriptural passages are overtly discussed as in the following examples. 3.4.1.1 The Question about Divorce (19:3 – 9) Matthew’s redactional addition of the phrase jat± p÷sam aQt¸am means that the Pharisees’ question does not concern the legality of divorce in general (contrast Mark), but the acceptable grounds for divorce. Jesus is not confronted with a radical question about the validity of Torah but invited to engage in a contemporary debate about its interpretation (cf. Mark 10:2 – 9 and m. Git. 9:10).49 The question, however, despite Matthew’s remodelling along less controversial lines, is designed to test (peiq²fomter) Jesus. Moreover, Matthew reorders Mark so that the Jesus’ reply begins oqj !m´cmyte fti … ; and thereby emphasises the Pharisees’ failure to apply Scripture (cf. 12:3, 5 and 22:43). The reordering also provides an opportunity for the Pharisees to respond to Jesus’ teaching (19:7) so that the pericope takes the form of a legal debate. As a result, the pericope emphasises that the Pharisees have a different understanding (which from Matthew’s perspective must be a misunderstanding) of Torah. In Mark the discussion of Genesis is included to justify Jesus’ initial subordination of Deuteronomy 24:1 – 4 (“Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you”) whereas in Matthew, Jesus is required to explain Moses’ concession to divorce because the Pharisees’ have not understood his teaching on Genesis. Furthermore, the Matthean Pharisees appeal to Deuteronomy 24:1 – 4 as the command of Moses (1mete¸kato contrast Mark’s 1p´tqexem – “permitted”). This highlights the difference between the Pharisees’ understanding of Deut 24:1 – 4 and Jesus’ interpretation of it. For the Pharisees, the conduct of divorce is commanded in Torah; for Jesus, divorce is a concession to the hardness of heart exemplified by the Pharisees. “It was because you were 49 This lends further support to the contention of Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 260, 511, that the Matthean Jesus affirms the validity of Torah and its practice but condemns false and distorting interpretations of the same.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Source of Tension between the Teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees

89

so hard–hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (19:8). The Pharisees are shown to be unreceptive to God’s will as it is outlined by Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah. 3.4.1.2 Question about the Greatest Commandment (22:34 – 40) In this pericope one of the Pharisees, a lawyer, poses another question about Torah and Jesus replies with two quotations.50 Matthew does not include the scribe’s praise for Jesus’ reply (the substance of which Matthew endorses elsewhere cf. 9:13) or Jesus’ reciprocation from Mark 12:32 – 4 but portrays only unmitigated hostility ; the Pharisee seeks only to test him.51 Although Matthew does not directly describe the Pharisee’s reaction, his portrayal of the Pharisees elsewhere suggests that they do not prioritise love of God and neighbour but emphasise different commandments. Their concern is for tithing (23:23) and the purity of vessels (23:25) at the expense of the law’s weightier commands (23:23) which might, in view of 22:37 – 8, be expanded to include love.52 Jesus and the Pharisees prioritise different aspects of Torah and in the eyes of Matthew, Jesus’ opinion is authoritative and definitive. 3.4.1.3 Question about David’s Son (22:41 – 5) This is the final explicit discussion of Scripture between Jesus and the Pharisees. It is the climax to a series of hostile encounters between Jesus and the Jewish 50 The overlap of Mark and Q material for this pericope makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions about Matthew’s redactional activity. If, Matthew’s version follows Mark’s and Q featured non–Pharisaic opponents (e. g. the “lawyer” of Luke 10.25), then this episode can be counted alongside 9:34; 12:24 and 21:45 where Matthean redactional activity gives a more prominent role to the Pharisees. Certainly in Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, 37, Weiß contends that Matthew’s redaction has transformed this pericope into a controversy. Moreover, that Matthew’s juxtaposition of this exchange with the Sadducees’ question serves to implicate the Pharisees in the controversy. “Mk bietet an dieser St zweifellos die ursprünglichere Form der Überlieferung, die von Mt u Lk erst sekundär im antipharisäischen Sinne umgestaltet worden ist.” Alternatively, if the Q tradition involved Pharisees, Matthew’s identification of the Pharisee as a lawyer may be an early assimilation to Luke 10.25 as has been argued by Hagner, Matthew, 2.644, who appeals to the fact that this is the only appearance of molijºr in Matthew and is absent from several ancient witnesses. 51 I have argued above, pp. 77 – 8, that the evangelist betrays no desire in 22:34 to exploit the common opposition of Pharisees and Jesus to Sadducean denial of the resurrection. 52 Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian–Jewish Community, 57, considers Jesus’ reply to be an implicit rejection of the Pharisaic understanding of Torah. R. Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 21, suggests that Jesus differs from the Pharisees most sharply in the priority he gives to the love command.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

90

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

leadership in Jerusalem, and the introduction to Jesus’ diatribe against the scribes and Pharisees in chapter 23. In contrast with the pattern of other encounters, Jesus initiates the discussion here. Matthew transforms Mark’s rhetorical question about scribal opinion into a direct question addressed to the Pharisees. The question is again exegetical but is pertinent to Jesus’ identity. The Pharisees’ answer seems well informed; it reflects Scriptural material and Jewish tradition (such as 2 Sam 7:12 – 13; Isa 11:1 – 10; Jer 23:5; Ps 89:4 and Ps. Sol 17:21). Indeed, the same tradition may stand behind the strand of Matthean christology which identifies Jesus as Son of David (1:1, 6, 17, 20; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30 – 1; 21:9, 15). However, any possibility that the Pharisees have interpreted Scripture correctly by Jesus’ standard is soon shattered. Jesus demonstrates that they have not considered all the law properly and their stance cannot be reconciled with Ps 110:1. His argument hinges on the deference that David, as Psalmist, implies when he calls the Messiah j¼qior lou. The Messiah, as David’s lord must be his superior and so cannot be his son. The Pharisees are no match for Jesus’ interpretive prowess. What this implies about Matthean christology is not relevant to this study. What the pericope implies about the Pharisees is much clearer. The Pharisees know the content of the law and the prophets but are unable to meet Jesus’ challenge to defend their opinion (22:46) and are completely defeated. They are silent and from that day no one dared ask him any more questions.

3.4.2 Plucking Grain on the Sabbath (12:1 – 8) The Pharisees’ misunderstanding of Scripture and the will of God is also demonstrated by their objection that Jesus’ disciples illegally pluck and eat grain on the Sabbath. Jesus introduces his arguments with statements insinuating that his opponents have failed to consider the very Scriptures they claim to uphold “Have you not read what David … ?” (12:2), “or have you not read in the law that … ?” (12:5) and “if you had known … ” (12:7). Matthew retains the Markan Jesus’ appeal to the precedent of David’s behaviour and strengthens its parallels with the disciples’ situation.53 The two cases remain dissimilar in many respects (as in Mark), but in both a demonstration of authority means that the law does not apply. To this Matthew adds another example 1m t` mºl`, that of priests, who seem to work – indeed Jesus states categorically, t¹ s²bbatom bebgkoOsim – and 53 Matthew supplements Mark’s version with the note in 12:1 that the disciples (like David’s companions) were hungry and began to eat. According to the reading of 12:4 in 4 and B, Matthew also replaces Mark’s 5vacem (he, that is David, ate) with 5vacom (they, that is David and his companions, ate).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Source of Tension between the Teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees

91

yet are guiltless. Theirs is a special case where work on the Sabbath as prescribed in Torah fulfils the will of God.54 By analogy Jesus’ disciples also represent a special case because, it is implied, they fulfil the will of God, perhaps through their participation in Jesus’ ministry. Just as the priests are exempted from the Sabbath commandment for their Temple service, Jesus’ disciples are granted the same dispensation for their service of something greater (le?fºm) than the Temple (12:6). Matthew employs this “something greater is here” formula twice elsewhere.55 In 12:41 and 42 the reference is to something greater than Jonah and Solomon. This comparison to great figures from Israel’s past might encourage a selfreferential interpretation of Jesus’ phrase, that Jesus himself is greater than the Temple, Jonah and Solomon. He shares David’s authority to transgress the law and his ministry carries the same significance as the Temple service – both fulfil God’s will so their demands override the Sabbath commandment. Jesus’ reply here, as in the 22:41 – 6, insinuates that the Pharisees misunderstand both the Scripture and Jesus’ identity and significance. (The concluding statement about the Son of Man lends a christological focus to the pericope especially given Matthew’s omission of Mark 2:27.) Alternatively, Ulrich Luz suggests that the subsequent quotation from Hosea 6:6 identifies the something greater (which is neuter so does not refer to Jesus himself) than the Temple as mercy.56 If the Sabbath can be overruled for the Sabbath sacrifice, it may be all the more transgressed for the sake of mercy, which God desires more than sacrifice. The quotation of Hosea 6:6 is an explicit use of Scripture against the Pharisees and is peculiar to Matthew’s Gospel. It is first quoted in 9:13 where it is used by Jesus to imply that the Pharisees have misread the Scriptures “Go and learn what this means … ”. At 12:7 we find that the Pharisees have ignored his instruction.57 Their attitude demonstrates that they still do not understand that God desires mercy not sacrifice. “If you had known what this means … you would not have condemned the guiltless”. The Pharisees’ failure to understand this Scripture lies at the root of their mistakes in both cases, namely the false accusations against those engaged in Jesus’ ministry. However, the application of the quotation to these situations is strange since neither context deals with sacrifice nor provides an unambiguous opportunity for mercy. This has prompted many commentators to seek special definitions of hus¸a and 5keor as they function in Matthew. 54 Hagner, Matthew, 1.329, remarks on the exceptional nature of this case, suggested in part by the strong language Jesus employs – bebgkoOsim (they desecrate). 55 A very few MSS read “someone greater (le¸fym) than the Temple is here” but I choose to follow the majority reading which does not necessarily preclude the interpretation “someone”. 56 Luz, Matthew, 2.181 – 2. 57 So Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 80.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

92

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

The term hus¸a is not found outside the quotations in 9:13 and 12:7 and we might best determine its meaning from the immediate context.58 Donald Hagner represents a common view that in 9:13 and 12:7, hus¸a represents strict obedience to all the commandments; the laws of table purity and of Sabbath observance.59 It is this construal of God’s will that the Pharisees rise to defend against contravention by Jesus and his disciples. Most importantly the two terms hus¸a and 5keor form a contrasting pair in this saying, like sick/well and righteous/sinners in 9:12. If hus¸a is understood in terms of the Pharisees’ rigid obedience to their interpretation of the law what is the corresponding meaning of 5keor ? In 9:10 – 13 the quotation may be considered an exhortation to forgiveness. Jesus encourages the Pharisees to show mercy to sinners and taxcollectors by admitting the propriety of table–fellowship with them, as Jesus himself has done. However, the case is a little more difficult to argue in 12:1 – 8. It is possible that plucking grain shows mercy by prioritising the demands of hunger over the dictates of Torah, but if the disciples are indeed “guiltless” (12:7) as Jesus’ scriptural arguments also suggest, then it requires no mercy of the Pharisees to refrain from criticism.60 The pericope likewise resists attempts to define the dichotomy between hus¸a and 5keor in terms of an opposition between ritual and moral law. As Barth observes, the moral law is not kept by plucking corn.61 David Hill speculates that Matthew may have been familiar with the original context of the quotation and transferred some of Hosea’s meaning to the Gos-

58 7Ekeor h´ky ja· oq hus¸am may be construed as a call for abolition of the Temple cult, but this makes little sense in context. Furthermore, despite Jesus’ prophetic words against the Temple, his references to its processes are positive (8:4) or at least neutral (5:23 – 4). Moreover, Matthew usually uses the word d_qom for Temple offerings (cf. 23:18 – 19). The prevalence of the Temple in the Mishnah and the writings of Josephus show that at least some Jews considered it a relevant topic following the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. However, it is also the case that at the time of Matthew’s composition any objections to the cult were to some extent academic (so, Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 78 – 9) and best understood as explanations of the events of 70 CE from a later perspective. 59 Hagner, Matthew, 1.239. See also France, Matthew, 354, 461, who understands hus¸a as a preoccupation with e. g. ritual purity, rather than a reference to the sacrificial cult itself. Also Harrington, Matthew, 129, proposes an allusion “to the Pharisaic program of extending the rules of ritual purity for priests in the Jerusalem Temple to all Israel … the program of [Matthew’s] rivals”. 60 As France, Matthew, 461, suggests, a positive concern for others overrides compliance with ritual regulations. G. Barth, ‘Matthew’s Understanding of the Law’ in G. Bornkamm/G. Barth/ H.J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London: SCM, 21982) 58 – 164, on p. 83, observes that in order for the Pharisees to show mercy by not accusing the disciples, it would have to be assumed, against 12:7, that they had sinned. 61 Ibid.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Source of Tension between the Teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees

93

pel.62 Matthew’s 5keor translates the Hebrew dsx which, Hill claims, Hosea uses in a “Godward” sense to refer to covenant loyalty (see Hos 6:1 – 10). The only other occurrence of 5keor in Matthew at 23:23 supports a “Godward” interpretation by its juxtaposition with p¸stir.63 Therefore Hosea 6:6 expresses a desire for that “compassionate attitude and merciful action which give concrete expression to one’s faithful adherence to and love for God”.64 The cult is useless unless it expresses covenant loyalty, thus dsx and sacrifice are not mutually exclusive.65 Hill agrees with other commentators that in 9:13, Hosea becomes a resource for halakhah and so the Pharisees are instructed to learn its meaning with respect to the current situation.66 The quotation aligns God’s will with Jesus’ mission to sinners. Therefore, Jesus’ action is not simply compassionate or merciful but expresses “fidelity to his divinely appointed task”. The Pharisees’ attitude is at odds with Hosea and consequently, they are presented as poor interpreters of Scripture.67 Boris Repschinski follows Hill in his exegesis of the quotation and draws out the further implication that the Pharisees, by opposing Jesus’ behaviour, oppose the very covenant that they claim to uphold.68 Elements of Hill’s analysis are problematic. If he were incorrect in either or both of his conjectures that Matthew himself translated this quotation and that he was familiar with its original context, then the interpretation of 5keor in terms of Hosea’s use of dsx would be somewhat arbitrary. Matthew was under no compulsion to ascribe to the quotation the same meaning it has in Hosea but hus¸a and 5keor occur so rarely elsewhere in Matthew that there is no sufficient basis for determining independent definitions. Nevertheless, when a more cautious attitude to the presence of Hosea’s covenantal overtones in Matthew is adopted, the impact of the quotation on the portrayal of the Pharisees is similar to that suggested by Hill and Repschinski. The quotation demonstrates the scriptural and therefore, divine sanction of Jesus’ behaviour. Moreover, since the Pharisees have yet to learn what it means, they have failed to understand this Scripture and have questioned the propriety of Jesus’ behaviour which is the outworking of God’s will. In chapter 9 Jesus has shown mercy and compassion by turning towards outcasts – something of the straightforward meaning of 5keor remains – whereas 62 D. Hill, ‘On the Use and Meaning of Hosea VI.6 in Matthew’s Gospel’, NTS 24 (1977 – 8) 107 – 19, on p. 110. 63 If 23:23 is considered an allusion to Mic 6:8, the word 5keor again renders dsx. 64 Hill, ‘Use and Meaning’, 110. 65 If, however, Matthew had wanted to suggest complementary operation of cult and dsx it is odd that he did not favour the rendering found in the LXX – E instead of ja· oq. 66 Hill, ‘Use and Meaning’, 111. 67 Ibid. 68 Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 78 – 80.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

94

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

the Pharisees fail to recognise his role and to enact God’s will themselves. The most satisfactory explanation of 12:1 – 8 is that “something greater” refers to a new sphere of holiness which is served not by sacrifice but the recognition and fulfilment of God’s will. The appeal to Hosea 6:6 may have been prompted by the association of sacrifice with priests and Temple (12:5 – 6) rather than by the relevance of mercy in this particular situation. Matthew’s emphasis in 12:6 – 7 is not on mitigating circumstances or even human need but on a radical change in situation – the “something greater than the Temple” – which demands new behaviour. Ultimately the new situation and demands are christologically based. In these pericopae Jesus is not only a superior interpreter of the law but the Son of Man who is Lord of the Sabbath.

3.4.3 Healing on the Sabbath (12:9 – 14) This pericope is an important one for the portrayal of the Pharisees for a variety of reasons, but is included at this point because it contains Jesus’ direct attack on the methods and outcomes of Pharisaic legal interpretation and his accusation that the Pharisees do not recognise the implications of their own interpretation. In contrast with Mark, the Matthean Pharisees do not employ passive but active entrapment methods, posing the initial question of the debate. It concerns the same legal issue as the previous pericope eQ 5nestim to?r s²bbasim heqapeOsai; Matthew will demonstrate that they still refuse to accept Jesus’ teaching from 12:6 – 8, which renders their question redundant. Matthew makes a substantial addition to Jesus’ response from Mark; he constructs a qal wehomer argument which highlights his opponents’ hypocrisy. Jesus implies that they will work to save an animal on the Sabbath but doubt the propriety of helping a fellow human being. Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep. (12:11 – 12)

Jesus’ argument presents the Pharisees’ halakhah as permitting one logical implication, that permitting the sheep to be saved on the Sabbath entails the legality of showing similar compassion to the man.69 Matthew also reformulates Jesus’ question in Mark 3:4 into a concluding statement, “so it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (12:12). This has the effect of distancing Jesus from his 69 I refer of course to Pharisaic halakhah as Matthew presents it and not to historical Pharisees and their hypothetical agreement or disagreement with the opinions expressed in e. g. m. Yoma 8:6 or CD XI.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Source of Tension between the Teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees

95

opponents; rather than petitioning their opinion, Jesus offers them the definitive answer to their enquiry. They are defeated by Jesus’ interpretive prowess not only with regard to the Torah but also in halakhic discourse. He does not debate with the Pharisees but adopts the role of their teacher thus highlighting their inferiority.

3.4.4 Hand–washing and Pharisaic Tradition (15:1 – 20) The bone of contention in Matt 15 is again the extra–Scriptural elements of Pharisaic teaching. The Pharisees’ question is overtly critical of the disciples’ behaviour and arguably sharper than the Markan parallel since the redactor has replaced Mark’s oq peqipatoOsim with paqaba¸mousim “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” (15:2). Matthew omits the redundant description of the disciples’ behaviour and Mark’s parenthetical explanation of hand–washing and thereby diverts attention away from the second half of the Pharisees’ complaint so that the controversy becomes focused on the tradition of the elders. Jesus replies with a counter–attack, a question accusing the Pharisees and scribes (although the latter drop out of the narrative by 15:12) of a transgression similar to the one they have levelled at the disciples (note paqaba¸mete in 15:3 as in 15:2, cf. other verbs in Mark 7:8 – 9). The Pharisees transgress Torah for the sake of a tradition, which in Matthew is always paq²dosim rl_m (Matt 15:3 and 6) following Mark 7:9 and 13 but not 7:8. The tradition is thus presented not as universally applicable even to Jesus’ disciples but as a special concern of the Pharisees and scribes, whom Jesus is addressing. The charge levelled at the Pharisees and scribes is far more serious than the accusation they have made against the disciples. The Pharisees and scribes are attentive to their tradition but thereby transgress tµm 1mtokµm toO heou. Jesus illustrates his claim using an example that Matthew has taken from Mark with little modification. He accuses his opponents of abusing the process of dedicating property to God in order to deprive their parents of that property. This does not honour father and mother and so opposes God’s commandment (note 15:4 b c±q he¹r eWpem, cf. Mk. 7:10 Ly{s/r c±q eWpem). As Matthew presents it, Pharisaic/scribal tradition allows this commandment to be annulled and the word of God to be disregarded (15:6). The charge reaches its zenith in 15:6 where Jesus claims that the activity of the Pharisees and scribes actually makes void (!juqºy) the word of God. The Pharisees’ (and scribes’) concern for the disciples’ piety appears nonsensical, almost ironic, against the magnitude of their own transgression.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

96

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

The first portion of Jesus’ response concludes with an appeal to Isaiah 29:13 which Matthew has taken over from Mark generally unaltered, but repositioned Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said “This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines”.

In Mark, the quotation seems barely relevant to the Pharisees’ and scribes’ question but Matthew’s reordering clarifies its function as an explanation of Jesus’ counter accusation. The charge of hypocrisy (15:7) summarises the preceding korban example as much as it introduces the Isaiah quotation. The Pharisees’ hypocrisy in this case lies in the fact that the Torah which the Pharisees claim to uphold, is abrogated by their own tradition.70 The Pharisees’ teaching is dominated by 1mt²klata !mhq¾pym and not B 1mtokµ toO heou. The worship offered by the scribes and Pharisees is in vain because they pay only ‘lip service’ to God. Therefore, the Pharisaic and scribal behaviour, as it has been evaluated by Jesus, is authoritatively condemned in Scripture as interpreted by Jesus. The question about hand–washing may seem innocuous but from the perspective of Jesus’ response it becomes yet another example of the Pharisees’ adherence to tradition that has proved so devastating in other cases. In 15:10 however, following Mark 7:14, Jesus returns to the matter of hand–washing which prompted the controversy and addresses the crowd, although this change in audience does not signal the end of conflict with Pharisees. Matthew inserts a report by the disciples “Do you know that the Pharisees took offence when they heard what you said?” (15:12). The position of this report suggests that the cause of offence is Jesus’ teaching about defilement to the crowd, rather than his preceding criticism of the Pharisees. Thus, the issue of defilement becomes a source of conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus in a way that it is not in Mark. Jesus answers (!pojqihe¸r) their report with a personal attack. He scorns their ability to instruct others, giving them the epithet “blind guides” and threatens them with judgement – they will be uprooted like an unproductive plant.71 Peter’s question about the parable and Jesus’ answer on the true nature of defilement (Matt 15:15) appears to resume Markan material (cf. Mark 7:17) but has a distinctive meaning in Matthew’s Gospel. If Peter’s question draws the conversation back to the topic of defilement, the subject of the first parable in 15:11, the flow of Matthew’s narrative is interrupted by the lengthy criticism of the Pharisees (15:12 – 14) which is afterward forgotten. Instead, Matthew’s order 70 So Garland, Intention, 114 – 15. 71 See above p. 80 – 81 on “blind guides”. I discuss the image of the uprooted plant in detail below, pp. 114.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Source of Tension between the Teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees

97

has Peter’s question in response to Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees, referring to the parable of the blind leader or the fruitless tree.72 Therefore, 15:17 – 20 not only defends the neglect of hand–washing before meals (15:20) but also serves as a further comment on the Pharisees. In this context “what comes out of the mouth” and “what proceeds from the heart” may be taken as a further reference to the Pharisees’ teaching. They uphold tradition but thereby transgress the commandment of God. They teach others to avoid defilement but their teaching has the potential to defile its proponents. They adopt the role of guide to the blind while they themselves are blind and equally in need of guidance. Matthew offers a sustained critique of the Pharisees’ teaching and portrays them as incapable of fulfilling their duty as teachers. Jesus and the Pharisees both base their teaching on Scripture but have very different understandings of how Scripture should be interpreted and the nature of divine will that is revealed in the Torah.73 Matthew portrays Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture and so the Pharisees’ disagreement with him shows their misunderstanding and incompetence. They can quote Torah but cannot apply it. Matthew presents their priorities as misplaced; they regard the minutiae of the law – they tithe herbs – but neglect its weightier matters i. e. justice, mercy and faith (23:23). Indeed Matthew states twice that the Pharisees have not learned from Hosea 6:6 that mercy is just what God desires. Since they do not comprehend what God desires they are unable to render to him what he is due. This is nowhere more apparent than when the Pharisees with the Herodians attempt to entrap Jesus with a trick question about the legality of paying taxes to Caesar (22:17).74

3.4.5 Question about payment of taxes to Caesar (22:15 – 22) Jesus again proves his superiority to the Pharisees by demonstrating extraordinary perceptiveness (cmo»r d³ b YgsoOr tµm pomgq¸am aqt_m) so that they are unable to conceal their wicked (pomgq¸am) intentions from him. His answer deftly avoids their trap by throwing the Pharisees and Herodians’ question back at them

72 Kilpatrick, Origins, 108: Through the addition of verses 12 – 14, the section 15:1 – 20 becomes an attack on Pharisees rather than on unwritten tradition. 73 Compare the discussion of this episode by Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 214 – 5, whereas the Markan Jesus challenges the validity of written Torah, the Matthean Jesus upholds written Torah as interpreted by Jesus and not by the Pharisees. 74 See above, pp. 63 – 5 on the Markan parallel for an explanation of the Pharisees’ trap.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

98

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

“Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose inscription?” They answered, “Caesar’s.”

Jesus then suggests that they have answered their own question “Give therefore to the Caesar the things that are the Caesar’s”, but further implies that they have not recognised the real issue of giving “to God the things that are God’s”. The Pharisees again pose unnecessary questions and fail to perceive God’s will. Matthew reinforces his prior suggestions that the Pharisees refuse to give to God the things that are God’s; they do not render to the lord of the vineyard his due of the fruits in their seasons (21:41 cf. 3:8). The Pharisees are foiled again in their attempt to test Jesus and the inferiority of their teaching, argumentation and understanding of the will of God is exposed.

3.5

The Pharisees’ failure to recognise the identity and significance of Jesus

It has already been suggested that many controversies over Jesus’ teaching and behaviour arise not only from misunderstanding of Scripture and the will of God but from their failure to acknowledge Jesus properly. For example, they do not recognise that he possesses David’s prerogative over the law (12:3 – 4) and the Son of Man’s authority over the Sabbath (12:7). They fail to see the inauguration of the kingdom in Jesus’ ministry – something greater than the Temple (12:6) which makes new demands in the fulfilment of God’s will. This Pharisaic deficiency is evidenced in other controversy stories.

3.5.1 Question about eating with Tax–collectors and Sinners (9:10 – 13) The Pharisees ask Jesus’ disciples why he eats with sinners and tax–collectors, but give no reason for their objection (contrast 15:2 where the Pharisees define their protest more closely).75 However, Jesus’ response reveals that the real issue of controversy is his own role and relationship to those around him. He begins with a proverb “Those who are well have no need of a Physician, but those who are sick”. This implies that the Pharisees have correctly identified the tax–collectors and sinners at the table. However, by questioning Jesus’ place among them they have failed to recognise his role as a “physician” who ministers to those in need and makes them well. Their challenge is as ridiculous as the 75 See above, pp. 38, 40 – 3 on the Markan parallel for possible rationales behind the Pharisees objection and the ultimate irrelevance of these for exegesis of the passage.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Pharisees’ failure to recognise the identity and significance of Jesus

99

suggestion that a physician should concern himself only with healthy patients. The quotation from Hosea 6:6 that follows aligns Jesus’ activity with God’s will for mercy and not sacrifice (see above pp. 91 – 4). His ministry has received divine sanction. The final part of Jesus’ response “For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners”, confirms the interpretation of this pericope in terms of Jesus’ mission (what he “has come” to do) and the recipients of his ministry (who he has come to call). The Pharisees are thus shown to be at odds with Jesus’ ministry because they have not recognised him as physician or understood his reason for coming.

3.5.2 Question about fasting (9:14 – 18) In 9:14 the disciples of John approach Jesus to ask, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?” The Pharisees are not portrayed as challengers here, but it may be argued that Matthew’s redactional decision to cast the disciples of John and not the Pharisees as questioners has the effect of more closely associating the latter with the act of fasting. Repschinski argues that the pronoun referring to the disciples of John recedes into the background, allowing the Pharisees to emerge.76 Moreover, Jesus’ response indicates that not only the question, but the act of fasting itself demonstrates a failure to understand. Like Mark, Matthew justifies the disciples’ behaviour in terms of their circumstances, which are like those of a wedding and so it is inappropriate to fast or display anything other than joy (9:15). Moreover, to a greater extent than in Mark, Matthew emphasises that those circumstances are dependent on Jesus’ presence as bridegroom. His alteration of Mark’s mgste¼eim to pemhe?m focuses attention on the bridegroom, since the act of mourning (unlike fasting) is necessarily prompted by a person, namely one who has been “taken away”.77 Just as the behaviour of wedding–guests depends on the presence of the bridegroom, the disciples’ behaviour reflects Jesus’ presence with them and correspondingly, they will fast when Jesus has been taken away. In fasting the Pharisees display a different form of piety from the disciples of Jesus but more importantly demonstrate that they have not recognised the company of Jesus as an occasion for joy.78 76 Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 85. 77 Also Idem. 86. 78 The absence of Jesus is a probable christological rationale for fasts within the Matthean community, although this is somewhat in tension with assurances elsewhere in Matthew of the continued presence of Jesus e. g. 18:20 and 28:20. Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 86, suggests that the evangelist allows the inconsistency between this passage and 6:16 – 18 to stand in order to defend his church’s practice. See also Kee ‘Question’, 161 – 73, who suggests

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

100

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

Jesus’ parables about the garments and the wineskins reiterate the message that appropriate behaviour is determined by context. The new patch and fresh wine represent the ministry of Jesus and his presence with the disciples. The old represents the established behaviour e. g. fasting, of John’s disciples and the Pharisees. The parables imply that like new wine in new skins the new situation of Jesus’ presence should be marked by new and different kinds of practice ergo, the disciples are right to celebrate Jesus’ presence instead of fasting. The Pharisees’ attempt to impose fasting on the ministry of Jesus is folly because the new will pull away like a new patch on an old garment and what is more, the old will be “destroyed”. The Matthean redactor adds ja· !lvºteqoi sumtgqoOmtai to the conclusion of Jesus’ response. As in the two previous examples (9:16 – 17), the result “both are preserved” applies to the latest combination, i. e. “new wine is put into new skins”.79 On this reading, 9:17 cannot be submitted as evidence of Matthew’s concern to protect traditional practices.80 It suggests instead that the new modes of behaviour and the new situation are appropriately combined.81 The Pharisees’ failure to adopt practices appropriate to the new situation and thus preserve what is new, confirms that they have not acknowledged the new situation occasioned by the presence of Jesus. As in 9:10 – 13 what on the surface appears to be a simple difference of halakhah or piety, at its centre reveals the Pharisees’ deficient recognition of Jesus and his purpose.

3.5.3 The ‘Beelzebul’ controversies (9:32 – 4; 12:22 – 37) The same deficiency of the Pharisees is again demonstrated in the two pericopae where they attribute Jesus’ exorcising power to collusion with the prime demonic power.82 The longer treatment of this controversy is found in Matt 12:22 –

79 80 81

82

that 9:14 – 17 has been allegorised by the later church so that the opinion of the historical Jesus (represented in 6:16 – 18) can no longer be discerned. So Hagner, Matthew, 1.244; Luz, Matthew, 2.37; Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 88. Contra Harrington Matthew, 129 who interprets “both” to mean old and new, which “may reflect Matthew’s conviction that the tradition of pre–70 Judaism is best preserved by the movement centred around Jesus”. A redaction–critical evaluation of the addition “and both are preserved” suggests that Matthew thus clarifies Mark’s conclusion. In Mark’s version the “new wine is put into new skins” arguably to save the old skins as much as the new wine, cf. Mark’s concern for the worse tear made in the old garment. Although Matthew shares Mark’s concern for the tear, his addition clarifies his primary aim as the preservation of the new wine and new skins. A few manuscripts (including Codex D which normally has longer readings) omit 9:34. However, it is included by the vast majority of ancient witnesses and is unlikely to have been inserted by later copyists since it does not match the parallel accusations in Matt 10.25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22 or Luke 11:15. In fact, the inclusion of 9:34 may provide the “harder” reading

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Pharisees’ failure to recognise the identity and significance of Jesus

101

37 but is foreshadowed by a brief report in Matt 9:32 – 4. In both cases the accusation is prompted by Jesus’ exorcism of mute demoniacs (the demoniac in 12:22 is also blind) so that they are able to speak (and see). The descriptions of the cures are brief so that the reader’s attention is focused on the subsequent evaluations of Jesus’ activity. On both occasions the crowds respond with amazement and affirmations of Jesus’ power and authority “Never has anything like this been seen in Israel” (9:33). The exorcism of the mute in 9:32 – 4 completes the cycle of ten miracles and sets the scene for the commissioning of the twelve in which Jesus grants them “authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out” (10:1). The demonstration and recognition of Jesus’ authority and power is therefore central to this section of the narrative. In 12:23 the crowds consider the possibility that Jesus is the Son of David, with whom they associate acts of healing (cf. 9:27; 15:22; 20:30 – 1). Their conjecture is supported by the identification of Jesus as “Son of David” and the association of this title with the Messiah in Matt 1:1. Furthermore, the ability to heal is a feature of ‘Messianic’ expectation as Matthew presents it in 8:17 and 11:5 – 6. The question in 12:23 should therefore be answered in the affirmative by the reader of the Gospel; the crowd are on the verge of correctly deducing Jesus’ identity from his activity.83 The Pharisees, by contrast, deliberately counter the crowd’s assessment – oR d³ Vaqisa?oi !jo¼samter (12:24) – and twice attempt to undermine the exorcism by claiming that although Jesus has cast out a demon, this was accomplished only by his collusion with the “ruler of demons” who is given the name Beelzebul in 12:24. They fail to recognise the divine source of Jesus’ power in contrast to the crowd which glorified God “who had given such authority to human beings” (9:8). They express not only opposition to Jesus and the presence of God in his activity but also divergence from the popular reception of Jesus. This may explain Jesus’ comment that the crowds are “like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36).84 They are incapable of recognising the divine authority of Jesus that is obvious to so many others. At 9:34 the Pharisees have the last word but, following the second accusation, Jesus makes a lengthy response beginning with a rebuttal of the Pharisees’ charge (12:25 – 30//Luke 11:17 – 19). Jesus argues that a sphere of power (represented by a kingdom, city or house) cannot be “divided against itself” and yet maintain its integrity (12:26). The demon must have been cast out by a power since copyists may have preferred to conclude the miracle cycle of Matt 8 – 9 with the crowd’s positive response in 9:33 instead of allowing the Pharisees to have the last word. The accusation may also be reflected in Jesus’ subsequent warning to his disciples in 10.25. 83 Luz, Matthew, 2.50, acknowledges that, while the crowd’s reaction does not demonstrate its faith it is “basically positive” see also p. 202. 84 So Konradt, Israel, 395, highlights the direct contrast between the authorities and the crowd at 9:33 – 4; 12:23 – 4 and 21:1 – 17. This contrast prepares the ground for the flock/shepherd metaphor since the failure of their leaders has left the crowd in a desperate position.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

102

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

that opposes demons and their ruler. The further example in 12:29 reiterates the argument “How can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered.” Moreover it explains that Jesus is able to interfere in Satan’s kingdom because he has first defeated Satan. Jesus’ activities are not confined to the periphery of Satan’s dominion but strike at the source of the hostile power. Furthermore, Jesus argues, the Pharisees’ interpretation of exorcism is not only illogical but also inconsistent since, presumably, they would not attribute to Beelzebul the ability of their own exorcists (uRoi rl_m) to cast out demons (12:27). Jesus then offers the definitive interpretation of the exorcism and thus reveals the issue at the root of the Pharisees’ error. “If (eQ) it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then (%qa) the kingdom of God has come to you.” (12:28). Although Jesus’ statement is conditional there are many indications that in the evangelist’s opinion, Jesus did indeed cast out demons by the Spirit of God. Firstly, in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Matt 12:18) the Spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism in 3:16 and led him into the wilderness at 4:1. Secondly, the phrase here 5vhasem 1v’ rl÷r B basike¸a is bolder than Eccijem B basike¸a elsewhere.85 Matthew emphasises that the kingdom has not merely drawn near but has reached (vh²my) the Pharisees.86 The Pharisees are under God’s jurisdiction (his kingdom is upon them) but they have not recognised its manifestation in Jesus’ exorcisms. The immediate proximity of the kingdom serves only to highlight the Pharisees’ irrevocable exclusion from it and to indict their extraordinary blindness. The person of Jesus is so central to the events of the kingdom that there can be no neutral attitude towards him “Whoever is not with me is against me and whoever does not gather with me scatters (sjoqp¸fy).” (12:30). Matthew also uses “scatter” (diasjoqp¸fy) at 26:31 referring to a shepherd and his flock, and so 12:30 might allude to the shepherd–like protection from the strong man that Jesus offers to those in the kingdom. Alternatively, the term “gather” (sum²cy) could be borrowed from the imagery of the harvest (cf. 3:12; 6:26; 13:30; 25:24, 26) which represents the threat of divine judgement. The Pharisees, by their failure to acknowledge the Spirit of God as the source of Jesus’ power, demonstrate that they are not with him and so they must be against him. They are thereby placed alongside all other opponents of Jesus, including the demons and their ruler, who do not gather to him.87 The Pharisees’ accusation has been

85 So Hagner, Matthew, 1.343. Pace France, Matthew, 480; Luz, Matthew, 2.204. 86 The centrality of the kingdom’s arrival to Jesus’ miracles is advocated by Harrington, Matthew, 187. 87 Hagner, Matthew, 1.344, offers the alternative interpretation that Jesus indicts specifically the Pharisees’ exorcists who appear to engage in the same work but have not gathered to Jesus.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Pharisees’ failure to recognise the identity and significance of Jesus

103

turned back on them; it is they, rather than Jesus, who choose the same side as Satan. Jesus issues a warning which is linked to the preceding material by di± toOto and continues to refer to the Spirit as the source of Jesus’ power. Jesus contrasts the exceptional severity of unforgivable blasphemy against the Spirit with every other "laqt¸a ja· bkasvgl¸a (12:31). Matthew adds force to this assertion with the clarification that even blasphemy against Jesus (the Son of Man) will be forgiven but not blasphemy against the Spirit.88 Response to Jesus is determinative – whoever is not with him is against him – yet it is the attitude to the source of his power, i. e. to the Spirit, that is ultimately at stake. Matthew implies that the Pharisees’ allegation that Jesus has colluded with Beelzebul not only constitutes blasphemy against the Son of Man but has significance beyond the christological. It is also an unforgivable blasphemy because they have misattributed the work of the Spirit of God (12:28). Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of an analogous mistake in 23:16 – 22. They evaluate oaths based on the relative holiness of the sanctuary, altar, gift and gold by which they are sworn and thereby demonstrate their failure to recognise that God is the only source of holiness and good since “Whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.”

3.5.3 Requests for a sign (12:38 – 42; 16:1 – 4) The Pharisees’ inexcusable failure to recognise the true authority and significance of Jesus is confirmed by Matthew’s two descriptions of their request for a sign from Jesus. As is the case in the two Beelzebul controversies, Matthew’s repetition of the sign request indicates that the Pharisees fail to learn from their mistakes.89 In 12:38 the scribes and Pharisees wish to see a sgle?om from Jesus and Jesus replies that no sgle?om will be given except the sgle?om of Jonah the prophet. The meaning of sgle?om in these verses is unclear but is clarified in Jesus’ reply (12:40 – 1). I propose to use references to sgle?a elsewhere in the Gospel (beginning with those in the immediate context) to elucidate the meaning of sign in 12:38 – 40.

However the broader frame of reference which I have proposed (including demons etc) has the advantage of continuing to distinguish different spheres of power. 88 Given the centrality of Jesus’ authority to this passage and especially the christological emphasis of 12:30, it is likely that “Son of Man” in 12:32 refers to Jesus (cf. 8:20; 9:6; 10.23; 12:8, 40). 89 So too Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 170.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

104

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

3.5.3.1 The Sign of Jonah the Prophet The sign of Jonah is associated with the sign request at both 12:38 – 42 and 16:1 – 4, the first of these passages includes an interpretation of this sign which is found only in Matthew and appeals to Jonah 1:17 For just as Jonah was for three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. (12:40)

Matthew thus compares Jonah’s sojourn inside the fish with the death of Jesus and (by implication) Jesus’ resurrection with Jonah’s return to life, although the death/burial aspect is emphasised. The analogy is imperfect because Jonah does not die and the timescales do not coincide but such minor discrepancies do not concern Matthew (Jesus’ resurrection on the third day already appears to be entrenched, see 16:21; 17:23; 20:19, but note the alternative timescale in 27:63.) It is enough that both Jesus and Jonah return to life following real/apparent death and that this parallel is assisted by some association with three days. Therefore, the sign of Jonah that will be granted to this generation is the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Pharisees’ request is futile, they desire a sign and yet are destined to reject it when it is granted to them (see 28:13 – 14). The rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees here foreshadows the Jewish rejection of Jesus’ death and resurrection.90 This interpretation of the sign of Jonah, however, does not necessarily elucidate the meaning of sgle?om in the scribes and Pharisees’ request. In fact the formula “no sign will be given except … ” suggests that the request is refused despite the gift of the sign of Jonah which (although an authentic sign in Matthew’s eyes) is by implication quite different from the sgle?om sought by the Pharisees. I will now investigate the other uses of sgle?om in Matthew with a view to determining the kind of sign that the scribes and Pharisees wished to see. 3.5.3.2 A Sign as Authentication Matthew’s use of sgle?om outside 12:38 – 42 and 16:1 – 4 is confined to 26:48 and three uses in the eschatological discourse.91 The first of these three concerns “the sgle?om of your coming and of the end of the age” (24:3) and refers to the fall of the Temple prophesied by Jesus in the previous verse. This use of sgle?om is readily understood as a portent of future events and is not readily applied to 90 Many commentators agree that the sign request indicates rejection of Jesus. See: Hagner, Matthew, 1.352; Harrington, Matthew, 188. Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 141 – 2, notes that the extra explanation lends a christological focus that is not present in Luke. 91 The occurrence in 26:48 describes Judas’ signal to the arresting party. This is quite different from the any other use of sgle?om in the Gospel and contributes nothing to the discussion of 12:38 – 42.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Pharisees’ failure to recognise the identity and significance of Jesus

105

12:38 – 42 which has no eschatological content. However, the other occurrences of sgle?om refer to a means of authentication.92 The arrival and sgle?a of xeudºwqistoi and xeudopqov/tai are compared to the coming of the Son of Man, which will be like lightning and marked by a sgle?om in heaven (24:30). It is probable that the scribes and Pharisees in 12:38 wish to see such a sign, which would demonstrate the origin of Jesus’ ministry. Like the chief priests and elders in 21:23 who ask, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” they seek confirmation of his credentials.93 Their response (!pejq¸hgsam) to Jesus’ explanation that he casts out demons by the Spirit of God (12:25 – 9) is to request further evidence of the origin of Jesus’ ministry. They have already witnessed several indications that through Jesus’ ministry, the kingdom of God has come to them – e. g. Jesus’ fellowship with tax-collectors and sinners, his lordship of the Sabbath, the healing of the man with a withered hand and the exorcisms in 9:33 and 12:22 – but to no avail. They do not accept that Jesus has proved the heavenly origin of his activity. The divine passive doh¶setai in 12:39 (and 16:4) suggests that although the request is addressed to Jesus the sign they seek is God’s authentication and is refused by God since to grant it would be fruitless – the scribes and Pharisees have shown themselves to be incapable of recognising the authority of Jesus. This interpretation of the sign request is confirmed when the Pharisees and Sadducees qualify the kind of sign they desire, specifically a sgle?om 1j toO oqqamoO (16:1). In other words, they seek a sign from God indicating divine approval of Jesus. The Pharisees and Sadducees have therefore failed to perceive that God is at work in the activity of Jesus (contrast the crowds of 15:29 – 31 who recently acknowledged Jesus’ miracles a reason to praise the “God of Israel”). The second request appears ironic because of its context in the aftermath of Jesus’ feeding of the 4000 – a miracle with overtly heavenly overtones calling to mind God’s gift of manna in the wilderness. In the context of this pericope and the Gospel as a whole, where the divine authority of Jesus’ behaviour is selfevident, such a request is inexcusable. A further remark on the Pharisees’ inability to perceive signs is found in 16:2 – 3.94 Jesus complains that although the Pharisees and Sadducees can forecast the weather they are unable to interpret “the signs of the times” which, 92 For a detailed description of the significance of an Old Testament background to this interpretation see my discussion of the Markan parallel, above, pp. 52 – 6. 93 Many commentators interpret the Pharisees’ sign request in 12:38 as a demand for authentication. See: France, Matthew, 487; Hagner, Matthew, 1.353; Harrington, Matthew, 188. 94 These verses are not found in all manuscripts. See Luz, Matthew, 2.347, for convincing arguments against the originality of the verses. Nevertheless, I make a note of these verses in my study because if it is secondary it constitutes an early gloss on Matthew’s use of sgle?a which might allow insights into the understanding of his earliest readers.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

106

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

by analogy with the appearance of the sky, are best understood as portents of what will soon take place (cf. 24:3, 30). The sense of the complaint implies that “the signs of the times” are available to the Pharisees and Sadducees, but do these include the sign they desire from Jesus? On the one hand, the evangelist has described many clues to the divine sanction for Jesus’ ministry (see 11:4 – 5), including the recent feeding of 4000 people, but the Pharisees are unable to discern the meaning of these signs. On the other hand, Jesus’ statement that “no sign will be given” suggests that the sign the Pharisees and Sadducees seek will not be granted. If it were granted, the Pharisees and Sadducees would be incapable of interpreting it just as they are incapable of interpreting the signs of the times.

3.6

The Culpability of the Pharisees

Matthew refers to the guilt of the Pharisees according to two main themes: their rejection of God’s emissaries and their insufficient righteousness, that is, their inability to “bear fruit” worthy of repentance. The two themes are certainly interrelated. The Pharisees’ failure to respond to John the Baptist is bound up with their refusal to repent and their ignorance concerning Jesus’ authority contributes to their failure to conform to his standard of righteousness. However, for ease of presentation I will somewhat arbitrarily divide my discussion between these two themes.

3.6.1 For the rejection of God’s emissaries This prominent theme in Matthew’s portrayal of the Pharisees finds a variety of expressions. 3.6.1.1 The indictment of this generation Jesus responds to both requests for a sign with an indictment of this generation (12:39 and 16:4). Matthew introduces the adjective loiwak¸r (not found in either of the synoptic parallels) and in so doing, echoes the indictment by Old Testament prophets of personified Israel as an adulterous wife, who has abandoned her faithful husband YHWH in favour of foreign gods and idols (see for example: Hos 1 – 3; esp. 2:13; Jer 3:6 – 10 and cf. 9:2 and Ezek 16:32). Against this background, Jesus’ charge of adultery is tantamount to an accusation of faithlessness

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Culpability of the Pharisees

107

and apostasy.95 See also 17:17 where Jesus rebukes a “faithless and perverse generation” and explains the disciples’ inability to cure the demoniac as due to their “little faith”. This characterisation of the Pharisees is reinforced in Matt 16:1 – 4 where the denunciation of the sign seeking generation echoes Old Testament indictments of the wilderness generation who, despite God’s gift of manna, tested him in the wilderness. Here as in Mark 8:11 – 13 (see above pp. 55 – 6), the denunciation is bracketed between the feeding of the 4000 and a discussion of the feeding miracles and, moreover, includes the motive of testing Jesus. These elements, however, are not found in Matt 12:38 – 42 but a reference to the sign of Jonah in 12:39 instead provides Matthew with an opportunity to develop the characterisation of “this generation” as those who reject God’s emissaries, using Q material (cf. Luke 11:29 – 32). Jesus appeals to the positive response of the Ninevites to Jonah’s message (12:41 see Jon. 3:4 – 5) and compares it to the consistently negative response to his own call for repentance (see 4:17). The people of Nineveh will be able to condemn “this generation” in the judgement by virtue of their repentance (12:41). This reiterates the argument of 11:20 – 4 that those outside Israel (even Tyre, Sidon and Sodom) receive Jesus’ message while he is rejected by his own people including the scribes and Pharisees. Matthew underlines the same point in 12:42 with the example of the Queen of Sheba from 1 Kings 10:1 – 10 and 2 Chron 9:1 – 9. She, a Gentile, expended great effort to hear the wisdom of Solomon, whereas “this generation” is unwilling to listen to the wisdom of Jesus even when it is brought to them (compare the response of Jesus’ home town in 13:54 – 7). The queen, like the Ninevites, may condemn “this generation” at the judgement by virtue of her readiness to hear the wisdom of Solomon. The already unfavourable contrast is magnified in both cases by the concluding formula ja· Qdo» pke?om Yym÷/Sokol_mor ¨de which echoes Jesus’ claim in 12:6. The evangelist indicates that Jesus’ wisdom and his preaching of repentance exceed their Old Testament counterparts. The message of Jesus is more obvious, available and significant than what has gone before. Consequently, the failure of “this generation” to recognise Jesus, here exemplified by the scribes and Pharisees, becomes even more inexplicable. The indictments of this generation number the Pharisees not only among the faithless of Israel, but alongside previous generations who rejected the prophets (see Matt 5:12; 23:30 – 1, 34, 37).96 They have failed to show a response equal even to that of the

95 See Hagner, Matthew, 1.354; Harrington, Matthew, 188. 96 Note that in Matt 12:39 (although not 16:4 or the Lukan parallel) Jonah is described as a prophet.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

108

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

Gentiles (cf. 8:10) and so they will be condemned.97 The first sign request and indictment of this generation are bracketed between a report of an exorcism (12:22) and a parable (12:43 – 5) which compares “this generation” to a demoniac who having once been exorcised is subsequently repossessed by the same and other unclean spirits. In a similar way, “this generation” benefits from Jesus’ miraculous healings and exorcisms but will revert to its original state and be liable to greater condemnation because it has rejected Jesus.98 These uses of “this generation” in indictments of the Pharisees raise interesting questions about the relation of Pharisees to this generation. The popular response to Jesus is occasionally positive e. g. 9:33; 12:23 and so not all of Jesus’ contemporaries deserve this condemnation but only the Pharisees (and their particular companions) whose response is one of rejection. These questions will be raised again with regard to how the guilt of Pharisees relates to the guilt of their contemporaries in Matthew 23.

3.6.1.2 The Pharisees reject John the Baptist The first appearance of the Pharisees in Matthew’s Gospel illustrates their characteristic rejection of God’s messengers. The evangelist reports that Pharisees (and Sadducees) 1qwol´mour 1p· t¹ b²ptisla, i. e. as spectators, but gives no indication that they were themselves baptised by John.99 Consequently, the Pharisees’ visit to John shows that although they were definitely aware of John’s preaching, they did not respond to it. In this the Pharisees (and Sadducees) follow the pattern of the chief priests and elders rather than the ordinary people who regarded John as a prophet (21:25 – 6, 32). John’s preaching indicates that their rejection of him renders the Pharisees liable to judgement. He launches a vehement attack on the Pharisees and Sadducees labelling them cemm¶lata 1widm_m. The label identifies those ripe for judgement and condemnation, in John’s words, for “the wrath to come”. He warns “Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (3:10). John’s use 97 This interpretation of the passage is favoured by Harrington, Matthew, 190. 98 So France, Matthew, 494; Hagner, Matthew, 1.357; Harrington, Matthew, 191 – 2; Luz, Matthew, 2.221. 99 Matthew’s choice of words may be contrasted with those of Luke 3:7: to?r 1jpoqeuol´moir awkoir baptish/mai rp’ aqtoO. If Luke’s version better represents Q then Matthew’s rephrasing may have been a deliberate attempt to avoid the suggestion that the Pharisees (and Sadducees) wished to be baptised themselves. Pace Pickup, ‘Matthew’s and Mark’s’, 97, who claims that John’s speech assumes that the Pharisees and Sadducees seek baptism. I would argue, on the contrary, that John exhorts them to repent precisely because of their failure to acknowledge their own need.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Culpability of the Pharisees

109

of this description prefigures Jesus’ own denunciation of the Pharisees at 12:34 which also evokes the theme of impending judgment. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? … I tell you, on the day of judgement you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter ; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. (12:34, 36 – 7)

See also 23:33 where cemm¶lata 1widm_m introduces the question “How can you escape being sentenced to hell?” Jesus repeats John’s message because the Pharisees did not accept it when they first heard it from John.

3.6.1.3 The scribes and the Pharisees murder the prophets (23:29 – 39) Jesus’ imperative pkgq¾sate t¹ l´tqom t_m pat´qym rl_m (23:32) indicates the inevitability that the scribes and Pharisees will conform to their ancestral nature despite their attempts to disguise it with protests and pious veneration of their ancestors’ victims. Their denial (23:30) and activities that promulgate their innocence, i. e. building and decorating monuments (23:29) are only a faÅade covering their failure to recognise and receive those sent by God. By acknowledging their ancestors’ involvement they reveal that they have inherited their fathers’ murderous nature. Jesus then predicts the manner in which the scribes and Pharisees will fill up the measure of their ancestors. As in 5:11 – 12 those responsible for the persecution of the prophets – those whom God sent – will also be responsible for the persecution of Jesus’ followers and more particularly in 23:34, those whom he sends. Therefore I send you prophets, sages and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. (23:34).

The scribes and Pharisees have repeatedly criticised Jesus’ disciples in chs. 9 and 12, and Jesus predicts that their hostility will continue and increase.100 In 23:35 – 6 the charges against the scribes and Pharisees assume a broader scope. As descendents of murderers they are responsible not only for the blood of Jesus’ envoys but for “all righteous blood” from that of Abel, the first victim of murder (Gen 4:8, 10) to Zechariah son of Bachariah who is best identified with the 100 Harrington, Matthew, 328, suggests that as a Roman punishment, crucifixion would not have featured in the persecution of early Christians by Jews. It is likely, therefore, that stauqºy is here used figuratively as a paradigm of discipleship (cf. 10.38 and 16:24). See also Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian–Jewish Community, 52. Pace Garland, Intention, 177, who infers that the scribes and Pharisees are responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

110

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

prophet son of Jehoida, stoned in the court of the house of the Lord (2 Chron 24:20 – 2) and the last murder victim recorded in the ketubim of the Hebrew Scriptures.101 The accusation of responsibility for innocent blood against the Pharisees is damning; it is an abomination to the Lord (see Prov 6:16 – 17; Gen 9:6). Nevertheless, the charge is not levelled at the scribes and Pharisees alone but foreshadows the statement of the crowd in 27:25, t¹ aXla aqtoO 1v’ Bl÷r. The Pharisees are again portrayed as representatives of a faithless generation and the blood guilt that has come upon them will also come upon this generation (23:36). The final verses of Matt 23 confirm that the guilt of the scribes and Pharisees is not theirs exclusively but also belongs to “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!” (23:37).102 Jesus again criticises the behaviour of his addressees and warns of the terrible judgment that awaits them but now his warning is overlaid with sorrow for the city that rejected him, despite his desire to gather its “children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings” (23:37). The city was given the opportunity to receive Jesus but did not and so it will suffer the desolation of its house (which e. g. R.T. France understands as a possible allusion to the fall of the Temple in 70 CE) and will acknowledge Jesus only when he returns as judge.103 3.6.1.4 Three Parables of Rejection and Judgement (21:28 – 22:14) The explicit charges of rejection and murder against the scribes and Pharisees in 23:29 – 39 are supported by the implicit accusations contained in three parables addressed to the Jewish leaders. Matthew redacts the conclusion to the parable of the wicked tenants from Mark 12:12 signalling a change in audience from the “chief priests and elders of the people” at 21:23 and to indicate that the preceding parable and that of the two sons relate to the Pharisees. When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realised that he was speaking about them. They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet. (21:45 – 6) 101 Alternatively the figure may be identified with Fawgaq¸ar uRºm B²qeir who was murdered by the zealots in the midst of the temple in 69 CE, as described by Josephus in B.J. 4:334 – 43. However, it is likely that the evangelist and his audience were more familiar with the biblical figure than the story of Fawgaq¸ar. See discussions in France, Matthew, 880 – 1; Garland, Intention, 182 – 3 and Harrington, Matthew, 328 – 9. 102 Luz, Theology, 123, argues that the end of Matt 23 nullifies the distinction between Israel and her leaders. Konradt, Israel, 396, agrees that all Jerusalem is responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Contra France, Evangelist and Teacher, 218. 103 France, Matthew, 885, although France discerns no reference to the Parousia in these verses, pace Garland, Intention, 205 – 6. Konradt, Israel, 396, similarly suggests that for Matthew, the perceived judgement on the city in 70 CE signifies that its opposition to Jesus amounted to opposition to God.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Culpability of the Pharisees

111

For the first time in the Gospel the Pharisees are portrayed as understanding Jesus’ teaching. They realise that they have been unfavourably represented in terms of the second son (21:30) and the tenants. Yet they have failed, as they always do, to accept Jesus’ teaching. They comprehend its allegorical references but do not appreciate its message. The parable calls its audience to repentance following their failure to repent when John came in the way of righteousness (21:32) but the chief priests and Pharisees do not repent. Instead they wish to seize Jesus as the tenants of the Parable seized the landlord’s son, and so begin to fulfil the prophetic elements of the parable. Having established that the three parables are relevant to the Pharisees’ portrayal, I will examine their contents in closer detail.

3.6.1.5 The Parable of the Two Sons (21:28 – 32) Jesus explains this parable in terms of entry into the kingdom dependent on response to the Baptist (references to John bracket the parable on either side). The tax–collectors and prostitutes, whose repentance was demonstrated by their belief in John, are represented by the first son who repents and does the will of his father. The second son who voices assent to his father’s will but does not obey it, therefore represents those who do not respond to John or the success of his preaching. These are identified as the chief priests and elders of 21:23 and the Pharisees who will respond to this parable in 21:45 and rejected John in 3:7 – 9. The phrase pqo²cousim rl÷r allows for the possibility that the Jewish leaders will eventually enter the kingdom but there is no guarantee.

3.6.1.6 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (21:33 – 46) The parable allegorises behaviour that is attributed to the chief priests and Pharisees elsewhere in the Gospel. The description of the vineyard (21:33) draws on the imagery and language of the vineyard of the Lord of hosts that is the house of Israel from Isaiah 5:1 – 5. It follows then that the oQjodespºtgr represents God (cf. 13:27; 20:1, 11) and the tenants of the vineyard stand for those who have charge and authority over Israel, including the Pharisees. These tenants refuse to grant the landlord his share of the harvest, just as the Pharisees have been criticised for their failure to produce “fruit” (3:8 – 10, 12:33). The tenants mistreat the slaves of the oQjodespºtgr (21:35) reflecting Israel’s persecution of the prophets of God. Moreover, the murder of the landlord’s son by the tenants (21:39) corresponds to the crucifixion of Jesus. There is, however, a major difference between the behaviour of the tenants and that of the chief priests and Pharisees. Whereas the tenants murder the son because they rec-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

112

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

ognise him (21:38), Jesus’ opponents do not recognise his sonship or expect to gain anything apart from his destruction. Matthew transforms Mark’s rhetorical question, “What then will the owner of the vineyard do?” into an actual question about the tenants (21:40) addressed to his audience thus forcing them to condemn their own behaviour (cf. 21:31). This they do accurately and in stark language “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.” (21:41). Thus a motif of replacement emerges which is associated with the Pharisees at various points in the Gospel; they are unworthy and their privileged position will be assumed by those who are more deserving. For example, the Baptist warns the Pharisees and Sadducees not to trust in their election through Abraham since “God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (3:9). In other words, the Pharisees and Sadducees can be easily replaced as members of God’s elect. At the conclusion of the parable of the wicked tenants Jesus quotes Ps 118:22 “The stone the builders rejected has become the corner stone; this was the Lord’s doing and it is amazing in our eyes.” (21:42). The juxtaposition of this quotation with the description of the tenants’ fate supports its interpretation in terms of the replacement of the tenants/Jewish leaders. According to Graham Stanton the quotation is elucidated by 21:43 (note di± toOto) so that the stone that becomes the head of the corner is the 5hmor – the replacement people – of the next verse “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people (5hmei) producing its fruits.”104 It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the full implications of the verse other than that it extends the threat of judgement explicitly to the chief priests and Pharisees who are Jesus’ addressees. The identification of Jesus’ audience with the wicked tenants is confirmed since they will share the fate of eviction that awaits the tenants. In contrast with the allegory in Isaiah 5, Matthew does not envisage a new vineyard but new tenants; there will be a new leadership for Israel, rather than a replacement of Israel itself.105 The references to b jaiq¹r t_m jaqp_m in 21:34 and 41, which like the kingdom is said to come near (1cc¸fy 104 So Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 152. See also, Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian–Jewish Community, 62. An alternative interpretation (favoured by e. g. Harrington, Matthew, 303) is that the quotation highlights the role of the son, who was rejected by the tenants as Jesus is rejected by the chief priests and Pharisees. However, this does not suit its position in the midst of a description of the replacement of the tenants. See also France, Matthew, 811, who combines these views, considering the stone to represent the rejected son who will replace the current leadership (although this subordinates the significance of the replacement 5hmei in a way that is not obvious from 21:43). 105 Harrington, Matthew, 302; Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 41; Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian–Jewish Community, 58 – 9, 64. Saldarini challenges the translation of 5hmor as nation, claiming that it may denote several different kinds of subdivision of people.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Culpability of the Pharisees

113

cf. 3:2; 4:17), and the coming of the Lord of the vineyard lend an eschatological flavour to the parable. The Jewish leaders, including the Pharisees, have failed, like the tenants, to repent in the face of impending judgement and have failed their people. The suggestion that Pharisees are the target of this parable on account of their leadership role is supported by their unusual combination with chief priests (more frequently accompanied by the scribes and/or the elders of the people), which enhances their own status. 3.6.1.7 The parable of the wedding banquet (22:1 – 14) The third parable follows from the report of a plot in 21:46 with no discernible change in audience. It likens the kingdom of heaven to a wedding banquet, but the original guests have declined their invitation (22:5) and abused those slaves sent by their royal host to summon them to the feast (22:6). The behaviour of the invited guests provokes the angry king to send his troops, destroy those murderers and burn their city (22:7). Then original guests are replaced with other guests, “both bad and good” gathered from the streets by the king’s slaves. Parallels with the parable of the wicked tenants are immediately apparent and as far as the Pharisees are concerned, both parables convey the same message. The Pharisees who were originally invited to enter the kingdom have failed to fulfil its demands (as the guests refused to attend the banquet) and have abused and killed the messengers of the kingdom (here represented by the king’s servants). Their behaviour will result in judgement; they will be pronounced unworthy (22:8), destroyed (22:7 contains possible allusions to the burning of the Temple in 70 CE) and replaced. Their access to the kingdom was only a temporary privilege which they have forfeited by their rejection of God’s messengers. However, the parable of the wedding banquet differs from the parable of the wicked tenants in one important respect. Whereas the tenants are replaced with those who will give the landlord fruits in their seasons, the eventual wedding guests are both good and bad (22:10). This sharpens the critique of those who will be replaced and reminds the Pharisees that even tax–collectors and prostitutes will go into the kingdom ahead of them (21:31).

3.6.2 Bearing fruit worthy of repentance The failure of the Pharisees consists not only in their failure to recognise God’s emissaries but in their refusal to do God’s will. This fault is demonstrated from their first appearance in Matthew’s Gospel where John urges the Pharisees and Sadducees to “bear fruit worthy of repentance” (3:8) because failure to do so will make them vulnerable to condemnation (3:10). Matthew again states that

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

114

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

judgement is contingent on bearing fruit at 7:19. Similar imagery is employed in the parable of the wheat and tares in 13:24 – 30 where the wheat is gathered into the barn after the tares have been burned. Jesus’ threat in 15:13 employs similar imagery “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.”106 The image of uprooting, which occurs alongside those of planting and gathering, describes the devastation that will be wreaked on those, exemplified by the Pharisees, who have not found favour with God (see e. g. 13:29). In 15:13 Jesus echoes John’s warning about the root in 3:10 and clarifies that the production of worthy “fruit” is contingent on being planted by God. The matter of judgement based on fruits is related to Matthew’s use of “fruit” as an indicator of true identity “You will know them by their fruits.” (7:16). False prophets for example are exposed as such because they bear “bad fruit” and therefore must be like “bad trees” since grapes are not gathered from thorns nor figs from thistles (7:16 – 20). This use suggests that “fruits” might be understood in terms of behaviour, for example, a false prophet does not act like a true one; he might prophesy in the name of j¼qior but does not do the Father’s will (7:21). The same connotations are clear at 12:33 “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.” (12:33). In the context of the Beelzebul controversy the imperative poi¶sate can be read as an instruction to the Pharisees on how to interpret Jesus’ activity. If the Pharisees recognise that Jesus’ exorcism of the demon is good “fruit”, then they must admit that Jesus as the “tree” that bears “good fruit” is also good.107 Alternatively, 12:33 can be read as an assertion that the Pharisees are known by their “fruit”, in this case by their words of blasphemy because “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (12:34). They are unable to speak well of Jesus because their wicked nature precludes them from producing such good fruit.108 3.6.2.1 The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees Matthew’s warnings about judgement contingent on fruit indicate that the Pharisees’ words and deeds will determine whether or not they will enter the kingdom of heaven; whether they will be gathered into the barn or thrown into the fire. Jesus speaks of entry into the kingdom more directly in 5:19 – 20 and here too it is contingent on words (of teaching) and deeds.109 Jesus asserts that 106 The identification of a faithful (often remnant) community as “the planting of the Lord” is found in a variety of biblical and post biblical Jewish literature including: Isa 60.21; 61:3; Jer 2:21; 11:17; 24:6; 31:27; 32:41; 42:10; 1QS VIII; XI; CD I; Jub 1:16; 7:34; 21:24; 1 Enoch 10.16; 84:6; 9:2; Ps. Sol 14:3. 107 This interpretation is suggested by e. g. Harrington, Matthew, 184; 108 This second interpretation is favoured by e. g. Hagner, Matthew, 1.350. 109 Note that here, as Powell argued for 23:2 – 3 (see above, p. 85), the Pharisees’ teaching is

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Culpability of the Pharisees

115

those who keep the least of the commandments and teach others to do the same will be called great (l´car) in the kingdom of heaven. Moreover, those who break the least of the commandments and teach others to do the same will be called least (1k²wistor) in the kingdom. This latter group is a cause for confusion. Does Jesus, during a discourse which confirms the enduring validity of the law, imply that even those who disregard that law will occupy the kingdom, albeit without merit (being called 1k²wistor)? Alternatively, does Jesus imply that those in that kingdom will view the former (who are implicitly excluded from it) as 1k²wistor? This problem is enhanced by the addition of the warning “Unless your righteousness abounds more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter (oq lµ eQs´khgte) into the kingdom of God.” The scribes and Pharisees set the standard for entry but do they meet it? In other words, have they just sufficient righteousness to occupy the position of least within the kingdom or is that entry requirement in excess of their righteousness? Both interpretations are possible but on balance I find the second more convincing.110 Jesus’ ethic is defined in 5:17 – 18 as one that fulfils the law and the prophets. Therefore when the Pharisees reject Jesus’ exposition of Torah in subsequent controversies they place themselves at odds with this fulfilment. The exclusion of scribes and Pharisees from the kingdom is explicitly confirmed in 23:13 “For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them.” They are here accused not only of pursuing and advocating an insufficient righteousness but also of taking steps to inhibit the practice of righteousness demanded by Jesus. Their efforts in this regard are demonstrated in their attempts to obstruct Jesus’ table–fellowship with sinners and his healing on the Sabbath. Jesus’ criticism sets the Pharisees in direct opposition to the righteousness of Jesus and his disciples, those who will enter the kingdom of heaven. 3.6.2.2 The Pharisees’ complicity in the deadly opposition to Jesus In Matthew, as in Mark, the Pharisees do not feature in the passion narrative; nevertheless, Matthew does portray their involvement in the opposition that led to Jesus’ death. Their responsibility is implied by the allegorical representation of them as wicked tenants who kill the landowner’s son (21:39) and is reinforced by their representation as murderers in the parable of the wedding banquet (22:6).111 The charge of murder is levelled against them in 23:34 – 5. Furcounted alongside their practice, in this respect they are judged for what they say as much as what they do. 110 So too does e. g. France, Matthew, 188 and McKnight, ‘A Loyal Critic’, 65. 111 See France, Matthew, 809 and Harrington, Matthew, 302, who suggest that Matthew’s re-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

116

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

thermore, the combination of the Pharisees with the chief priests in 21:45 and 27:62 and with the scribes elsewhere, connects them with the principal opponents (and thereby with the events) of the passion narrative. Although they do not accomplish the eventual capture and trial of Jesus, Matthew indicates that they wish to arrest Jesus (21:46), plot to entrap him (22:15) and make accusations against him throughout the Gospel.112 Matthew retains (while omitting the Herodians) Mark’s notice that the Pharisees conspire to bring about Jesus’ destruction (Matt 12:14//Mark 3:6). This foreshadows the plot of the chief priests and elders of the people at 26:3 – 5. The Pharisees’ opposition to Jesus is not trivial; they pose a mortal threat to Jesus which contributes to the hostility that culminates in the crucifixion. The Pharisees’ conspiracy against Jesus demonstrates cunning and portrays them as underhanded.113 This aspect of their portrayal is reinforced by references to their testing (peiq²fy) of Jesus (16:1; 19:3; 22:18 and 35). Moreover, these descriptions implicate the Pharisees in an activity attributed to the devil (b peiq²fym) in 4:1 – 11.114 The Pharisees might be considered to act from similarly wicked motives. For example, the devil’s first two suggestions in 4:1 – 11 urge Jesus to exploit his status as the Son of God. Similarly the Pharisees and Sadducees who test Jesus at 16:1 ask him to exploit his relationship to God by producing a sign from heaven. However, unlike the devil, the Pharisees and Sadducees suspect Jesus is unable to produce a sign, despite indications to the contrary.115

3.6.2.3 The Deputation to Pilate (27:62 – 6) The final appearance of the Pharisees is unique to Matthew and reaffirms their complicity in the deadly opposition to Jesus. Here they are paired for a second time with the chief priests whose reappearance recalls their desire to arrest Jesus and their powerful status (they have direct access to the Roman governor). The

112 113

114 115

dactional alteration of Mark’s order so that the son is thrown out and then killed was influenced by Jesus’ crucifixion outside the city (27:33). Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, 13, argues that 21:45 and 22:15 in particular connect Pharisees with the passion. B.R. Doyle, ‘A Concern of the Evangelist: Pharisees in Matthew 12’, ABR 34 (1986) 17 – 34, on pp. 19 – 22, argues that the Pharisees’ portrayal at 12:14 forms a contrast with that of God’s servant in the Isaiah quotation (Matt 12:18 – 21). The justice proclaimed by the servant is not evidenced in the Pharisees’ unfounded criticism of Jesus in 12:2, 14 and 24. The servant’s quietness and humility may be contrasted with the Pharisees’ concern with public image (23:5 – 6), their eagerness to initiate controversy and to plot Jesus’ destruction. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 117, considers the diabolic temptations to anticipate later encounters with Jewish leaders and their affinity with Satan (see also Kingsbury, ‘Developing Conflict’, 66 and 72). So Harrington, Matthew, 243.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Culpability of the Pharisees

117

Pharisees’ opposition to Jesus is not limited to trivial and ineffective bickering; they are in league with those who condemned Jesus and equally willing to use their influence to oppose him, despite their absence from the passion narrative. The deputation gathers on the Sabbath and thereby evokes earlier conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Gospel. However, Matthew’s use of a circumlocution – the day after the day of preparation – de–emphasises this. The dating of the deputation with respect to the preceding day indicates the importance of that day’s events. Graham Stanton asserts that their accusation that Jesus was a deceiver (pk²mor) is common in Jewish and Christian literature. Moreover, that it was often linked to demon possession or magic and so it might recall the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus’ colluded with Beelzebul.116 They have learned nothing from Jesus’ teaching and again fail to perceive that Jesus’ power and authority is genuine. The chief priests and Pharisees also conjecture that the disciples “may go and steal him away and tell the people ‘He has been raised from the dead.’” (27:64), thus extending the accusation of deception to Jesus’ followers. The structure of 27:62 – 6 suggests that Jesus’ claim, let± tqe?r Bl´qar 1ce¸qolai, constitutes the “first deception”, which will be surpassed by the disciples’ attempt to accomplish it. These accusations demonstrate that the Pharisees do not act out of ignorance; they remember Jesus’ words from e. g. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19 and see 28:6, but reject them as lies. To echo Stanton’s evaluation, there can be no excuse for their behaviour which is solely attributable to lack of faith and this seals the indictment of their character.117

3.6.3 Hypocrisy The final word in this investigation into the culpability of the Pharisees must go to a recurring feature of the Pharisees’ portrayal which has excited much scholarly discussion, namely their hypocrisy. It is a fault that seems to unite the varied criticisms of the Pharisees in Matthew. Hypocrisy features much more prominently as both an accusation and a character trait in Matthew than in Mark. Matthew retains the references from Mark 12:15 and 7:6 but transforms them into vocatives; the form which also appears throughout Matt 23. The vocative form means that rpojqita¸ becomes a label which designates the Pharisees and their companions. However, its frequent and varied use casts doubt on its descriptive value. L.T. Johnson cites rpojqit¶r as another example of the conventional denotive but not connotive language of polemic. It does not 116 Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 172. See for example, Justin, Dialogue 69; b. Sanh. 43a and 107. 117 Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 179.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

118

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

refer to their particular behaviour but merely marks them out as opponents.118 This usage is evident in 24:51 where rpojqita¸ seems to have become an allembracing expression for the damned, just as d¸jaior and dijaios¼mg convey the opposite. Similarly in 6:1 – 6 the hypocrites like the Gentiles (5:47 and 6:7) represent those who do not meet the standard of perfection demanded by the perfect heavenly Father. So does the charge transfer any content to the portrayal of the Pharisees? The modern English sense of a hypocrite as a person who says one thing and does another, who fails to practise what he preaches, is probably derived from an interpretation of Matt 23:3. This kind of hypocrisy is attributed to the Pharisees by Matthew several times. For example, in the parable of the two sons, the second son says he will work for his father but fails to keep his promise. Also, in the quotation of Isaiah in Matt 15:8 – 9, the hypocrites (15:7) are those whose lip–service to God is not realised in heartfelt worship. Furthermore, the scribes’ and Pharisees’ denunciation of the murder of the prophets does not reflect their own complicity in the persecution and murder of God’s messengers. However, despite these examples Matthew provides relatively few grounds for levelling this accusation – so interpreted – at the Pharisees. There is no suggestion in other parts of the Gospel that the Pharisees literally say one thing and do another, i. e. that they eat with sinners, neglect to wash their hands and heal on the Sabbath whilst voicing their disapproval of these activities. Moreover, the interpretation of 23:2 – 3 that I have offered above (pp. 83 – 6) argues that these verses are best reconciled with the rest of the Gospel when they are understood to refer to the scribes and Pharisees’ custody of the Torah which they fail to uphold in their behaviour and teaching. Although their interpretation of the Torah is flawed, the Pharisees are generally portrayed as adhering to their own teaching and traditions. This interpretation of Pharisaic hypocrisy should therefore be nuanced so that it is not a discrepancy between what the Pharisees do and what they say, but that what they do and say does not reflect their inner selves.119 The hypocrite presents an outward appearance – plays a role – to which his inward disposition does not correspond. Georg Strecker agrees that Pharisaic hypocrisy is “Die Diskrepanz zwischen der äußeren Erscheinung und der wahren Haltung zeigt sich in der Übung frommer Werke.”120 This use of rpºjqisir appears in the Sermon on the Mount. The hypocrites make an outward show of piety in alms–giving, prayer and fasting (6:2 – 6, 16 – 18) but they do not act from pious 118 Johnson, ‘Anti–Jewish Slander’, 439 – 40. See above, (pp. 80 – 1). He cites another use of the charge in Jewish polemic in Ps Sol. 4:7. See also Overmann, Matthew’s Gospel, 18. 119 Pace the contention of Weiß that the target of the chapter is not only the Pharisees’ interpretation but also their hypocritical practice (Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, 44). 120 Strecker, Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 140.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Culpability of the Pharisees

119

motives, they desire rather to be seen and praised by others. Similarly the Pharisees are accused of pursuing ostentatious piety from the same ulterior motives “They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long.” (23:5). The wearing of phylacteries and fringes is prescribed in the Torah (Num 13:37 – 9; Deut 6:8; 11:18; 22:12) and Jesus himself wears fringes (9:20; 14:36). Their purpose was to remind the wearer of their obligations under the law of Moses, especially “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (Deut 6:5). The Pharisees, however, have other loves which are served by the broadness of their phylacteries; they love to have the place of honour, the best seat, to be greeted and called Rabbi (23:6 – 7).121 They may satisfy the commandment but subvert it in their desire to be seen by others.122 The scribes’ and Pharisees’ scrupulous approach to tithing (23:23) could also be understood as a manifestation of ostentatious piety, which Jesus condemns because it is not accompanied by a similar concern for weightier matters of the law – justice mercy and faith. The Torah demands the tithing of grain, fruit, wine and oil (see Lev 27:30 and Deut 14:22 – 3) and so by tithing herbs the Pharisees go beyond the commandments of the law. Jesus denounces the Pharisees not because they keep their tradition (“these you ought to have practised”) or because they have failed to tithe after the manner of their teaching, but because they do so at the expense of the commandments of God (15:1 – 9). Their scrupulous exterior masks a casual attitude to the most important aspects of Torah. The final statement in 23:24 ridicules the Pharisees’ failure to consider the weightier matters of the law. Their concern for minutiae is futile – like straining gnats from a drink but ignoring the camel that will be swallowed. The same interpretation of hypocrisy could also apply at 7:5 and 22:16. Outwardly, the hypocritical Pharisees honour God with their lips but inside their hearts are far from him. The Pharisees with the Herodians flatter Jesus and appear to acknowledge his status as teacher but they are unable to conceal their wicked intentions (their inner disposition) from him. He recognises their insincerity and labels them hypocrites.123 The interpretation of hypocrisy as a discrepancy between appearance and 121 It may be significant that 23:5 – 7 follows so closely after Jesus’ teaching on the commands to love (!cap²y) God and neighbour (22:34 – 40). There is a contrast to the prestige and reverence loved (vikoOsim) by the Pharisees. Therefore, Matthew may even imply that the Pharisees fail to keep those commandments on which “hang all the law and the prophets” (22:40). 122 See Garland, Intention, 56, who claims that this verse not only demonstrates ostentation but also the Pharisees’ failure to obey the law. 123 The attribution of ulterior motives to the Pharisees contradicts Pickup’s assertion that the hypocrisy charge does not imply duplicity on their part (‘Matthew’s and Mark’s’, 107).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

120

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

reality is similar to the use of the charge in Mark.124 The idea emerges several times in Matt 23, firstly at 23:25 – 6 where Jesus discusses the inside and outside of vessels.125 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self–indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean.

It is possible to interpret this criticism at face value as a reprimand that the Pharisees are concerned with the cleanliness of vessels but they ignore the more important matter of their own corruption.126 However, the references to greed and self indulgence and Jesus instruction to cleanse the inside so that the outside may be clean are not easily applied to utensils. The Pharisees’ concern for the outside of the cup is analogous to their preoccupation with their own outward “cleanliness” at the expense of their inner purity. The woe recalls Jesus’ teaching about the internal source of defilement (15:19 – 20). Like the cup that is clean on the outside but not within, the scribes and Pharisees appear pious but are greedy and self indulgent. This interpretation is supported by the juxtaposition of this relatively ambiguous analogy with the explicit comparison (note, paqaloi²fete) of Pharisees to whitewashed tombs. Matthew explains the simile in just those terms I have applied to 23:25 – 6, that is a discrepancy between outward appearance and inward state. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

This imagery is, however, problematic. The practice of marking graves is referred to in the Mishnah tractate Shelakim 1:1 where its purpose is to alert pilgrims to the risk of defilement. Therefore a whitewashed tomb advertises rather than disguises its inner corruption and this is reflected in Luke 11:44 “For 124 See above, pp. 48, 65. 125 Garland, Intention, 142 and Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian–Jewish Community, 49, cite some of the woes as providing the strongest evidence for interpreting hypocrisy in terms of a distinction between inner attitudes and outward behaviour. 126 And indeed this face–value interpretation still has force. As in 23:23, the Pharisees’ priorities are misplaced, to echo Garland, Intention, 149, their scruples are reduced to absurdity and they have failed as teachers. J. Neusner, ‘“First Cleanse the Inside” The “Halakhic” Background of a Controversy Saying’ NTS 22 (1975 – 6), 486 – 95, has suggested that 23:25 – 6 reflects a halakhic debate between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai concerning the interdependence of the inside and outside of a vessel for its cleanliness. If Matthew’s original audience were aware that such a debate existed, 23:25 – 6 would have suggested to them that this debate avoids the real issue, that the relationship between inside and outside is important only when it concerns people.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Culpability of the Pharisees

121

you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without realising it.” The key to Matthew’s woe, however, is his assertion that, regardless of its purpose, the whitewashing of graves makes them appear ¢qa?oi. He draws on the irony of the real–life situation, that once painted, the graves look beautiful even though they contain “all kinds of filth”. This focuses Jesus’ criticism on the Pharisees’ appearance in particular. This focus is also upheld by Samuel Tobias Lachs’ alternative suggestion that Matthew alludes to the beautification of monuments (cf. 23:29) and the appearance of whitened ossuaries (citing the use of tav¶ in Sophocles’ Orestes).127 In any case the Pharisees are not what they seem; they are not righteous but lawless. Matthew has already provided several examples of the Pharisees’ disregard for the law (15:1 – 9; 19:1 – 9; 23:3b, 16 – 22, 23 – 4), now he claims that this lawlessness defines their inward state. Of course this interpretation of the hypocrisy charge is clearer in some cases than others and does not exhaust the meaning of the woes against the scribes and Pharisees. Their inability to interpret the law, misplaced priorities, failure to recognise God as the source of all holiness (see 23:22) and above all their unsuitability as teachers are all prominent features of chapter 23. In all cases, the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees underlines their guilt and liability to damnation. Jesus adopts the role of a prophet who like the ancient prophets of Israel condemns the sins of the people and announces their imminent judgement. His prophetic role is underlined by repeated use of the form oqa· rl?m … + fti clause, which may be considered as divine judgements on the lips of Jesus. This form is used elsewhere in the Gospel for references to the inadequacy of the addressees and the announcement of their impending doom on the day of judgement (e. g. 11:20 – 1). Jesus’ woes may express sorrow but are most often reproachful and vengeful in tone. For example, a trace of sorrow and sympathy may be detected in Jesus’ statement “woe to the world because of stumbling blocks” (18:7) since the world does not cause stumbling but represents the unfortunate state of affairs in which “occasions for stumbling are bound to come” and includes the little ones who are victims of stumbling (cf. 24:19). The following woe “to the one by whom the stumbling–block comes” refers to the terrible judgement that awaits them which was indicated in the preceding verse, “it will be worse for them than if they drowned with a millstone around their necks” (18:6 cf. 26:24). Here, there is no hint of sorrow only vengeance on behalf of the little ones.128 The diatribe of Matt 23, moreover, prepares for the eschatological discourse of Matt 24 – 5 which details the coming of the Son of Man to 127 S.T. Lachs, ‘On Matthew 23:27 – 28’, HTR 68 (1975) 385 – 8. See also Garland, Intention, 154. 128 Pace Garland, Intention, 68 – 9 who does not distinguish between the contrasting tones of the two woes in 18:6 – 7, allowing the gentler implications of the first woe to override his interpretation of the second.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

122

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

separate the wicked from the righteous, sending the former to eternal punishment and the latter to eternal life (25:46).129 Indeed David Garland suggests that more than prophetic warnings and laments of impending doom, Jesus’ woes are direct pronouncements of judgement.

3.7

Conclusions

Matthew’s portrayal of the Pharisees, like Mark’s, is consistently negative. Every appearance of the Pharisees in the narrative becomes the occasion of their denunciation and humiliation and at no point does Matthew attempt to counteract this impression. The Pharisees’ righteousness does not meet the entry requirements of the kingdom (5:20) and they prevent others from entering (23:14). For this reason, although Jesus acknowledges them as custodians of the Torah, their teaching and behaviour are not consistent with the will of God (23:2 – 3). They seek Jesus’ teaching but only to test and entrap (16:1; 19:3; 22:18, 35), they recognise that he has spoken about them but do not accept his message (21:45). Neither does Matthew reduce the negative implications of his source material. On the contrary, he takes ideas that are latent in Mark and develops them. For example, Mark’s parable of the wicked tenants, which indicts the Jewish leaders for the rejection of God’s emissaries, is taken over by Matthew and applied to the Pharisees. Moreover, the rejection of God’s messengers becomes a recurring theme in Matthew’s portrayal. The Pharisees, through their ancestors, bear responsibility for the blood of Israel’s prophets (23:35) and have confirmed their ancestral nature by rejecting John the Baptist who was sent ahead of Jesus (3:7 – 9; 21:32). Throughout the Gospel narrative Matthew describes the Pharisees’ rejection of Jesus and his disciples. They criticise the operation of Jesus’ ministry, misattribute his power to Beelzebul and fail to recognise the signs of his authority that are placed before them. Their rejection of God’s envoys will continue in their rejection of those prophets, sages and scribes whom Jesus will send (23:34). It is remarkable that, although Matthew does not introduce Pharisees to the events of Jesus’ passion, they are not exonerated of responsibility for the crucifixion. Like Mark, Matthew describes the Pharisees’ desire to arrest Jesus (21:46), their plots to entrap him (22:15) and even to destroy him (12:14) and their accusations against him throughout the Gospel. Thus, although they do not participate in the successful arrest and execution of Jesus, they are associated with the attitude, behaviour and indeed, people (e. g. 21:45; 27) that do engineer the crucifixion. The parables of the wicked tenants and the wedding 129 This context is crucial to the interpretation of Matt 23 by Garland, Intention, 72.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

123

Conclusions

banquet are allegorical indictments of the Pharisees’ behaviour which present the violent reaction to the Son of God as the climax of their murderous treatment of prophets throughout history. Matthew’s presentation of an history of the rejection of God’s emissaries underlines a feature of his portrayal of the Pharisees which was not developed by Mark. The opposition of Matthean Pharisees does not emerge over the course of Jesus’ ministry but is assumed from the beginning of the Gospel. Mark’s Gospel charts an intensification of Pharisaic hostility against Jesus, vilifying and denouncing them only after their opposition to Jesus has been repeatedly demonstrated (Mark 7). Matthew, by contrast, because he sets Pharisaic rejection of Jesus within a broader history of opposition to those sent by God, can introduce the Pharisees as a “brood of vipers” (3:7). Before their next appearance Jesus evaluates their righteousness as insufficient for entry into the kingdom (5:20). Their opposition, therefore is not a feature of Jesus’ ministry only, but is predicated of them before they encounter Jesus and even after the crucifixion (27:62 – 6). Pharisaic hostility is not merely a reaction to Jesus’ behaviour but an entrenched attitude. The portrayal of the Pharisees throughout the Gospel appears to confirm and reiterate the depiction (and even the language used) of them in chapters 3 and 5. These definitive condemnations in programmatic sections of the Gospel pre–empt the future behaviour of the Pharisees during Jesus’ ministry and the full extent of the judgement it will engender. I argued that the causes of opposition between Jesus and the Markan Pharisees are mainly christological. The controversy stories in Mark’s Gospel, although ostensibly following from the Pharisees’ objection to some aspect of Jesus’ or his disciples’ behaviour, ultimately displayed the Pharisees’ failure to recognise the significance of Jesus; that his unique role and identity made fresh demands for those in the kingdom of God. Matthew’s controversies also demonstrate the Pharisees’ failure to recognise Jesus and the new demands of the kingdom. For example, they do not recognise that Jesus is a physician who comes to those who are sick; that he is the bridegroom whose presence is a reason for celebration or that he is Lord of the Sabbath who works in the spirit of God and has bound the strong man. However, Matthew’s redaction emphasises, to a greater extent than in Mark, that the cause of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees is their different understandings of the law which for Matthew reveals the Pharisees’ misconstrual of the will of God. Matthew adds quotations from Hosea 6:6 (Matt 9:13; 12:6 – 7) and instructs the Pharisees to “Go and learn what this means … ”. He refines the legal cases to which Jesus makes appeal in 12:2 – 8, shows that the Pharisees have misinterpreted the nature of Moses’ consent to divorce (19:3 – 9) and implies elsewhere that they do not prioritise the greatest commandments (23:23 – 4, 26 cf. 22:34 – 40). The Pharisees’ answer concerning David’s son reveals their inability to interpret Scriptures (22:43 – 6) and their

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

124

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

attitude to healing on the Sabbath shows that they do not understand the implications of their own halakhah (12:11 – 12). The theme of the Pharisees’ flawed interpretation of Scripture and the will of God contributes to another aspect of the Pharisees’ portrayal which is discernible in Mark but emphasised by Matthew. The Matthean Pharisees are counted among the Jewish leadership and exercise a particular role as teachers. They love status and privilege (23:6 – 7) and yet they are blind guides whose teaching is burdensome (23:4) and their converts inherit their faults (23:15). The Pharisees set a poor example to the people in their charge because they are hypocrites. This accusation is found in Mark but has been so developed by Matthew that it becomes a major feature of their portrayal. Pharisaic hypocrisy admits several different interpretations but one prevalent facet is that the Pharisees’ outward appearance and behaviour does not reflect their inner state and attitude. They appear pious and law–abiding but act from ulterior motives and deny their own opposition to the will of God. Just as their piety is illusory, so their status is transitory. Matthew repeatedly threatens that the Pharisees will be replaced. He takes over Mark’s parable which warns that the vineyard will be given to other tenants (Mark 12:9) and clarifies its relevance to Jesus’ audience of chief priests and Pharisees “The kingdom will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom.” (Matt 21:43). The same warning is reiterated in the subsequent parable of the wedding banquet. Matthew’s portrayal of the Pharisees reflects their role and status but denies either that they deserve it or that they may rely on it since God is able from stones to raise up children for Abraham. The Pharisees’ position is further undermined by Matthew’s unfavourable comparison of them with tax–collectors, prostitutes (21:31 – 2), Ninevites and the Queen of the South (12:41 – 2). These have repented and accepted those sent by God whereas the Pharisees remain obdurate.

3.7.1 The Historical Setting of Matthew and his Relationship to “Judaism” The portrayal of the Pharisees ought to be viewed within the context of Matthew’s much debated treatment of Judaism in general. The evangelist’s presentation of the life of Jesus is steeped in the language and expectations of the Hebrew Scriptures but his attitude towards the Jewish people is ambivalent. He describes the fierce opposition of the Jewish leadership toward Jesus which eventually spreads to the whole Jewish people who reject their prophet and demand Jesus’ blood (23:37; 27:25). It has been convincingly argued that the force of Matthew’s polemic indicates an opposition that transcends the literary sphere and responds to opposition faced by the evangelist and his community. Note that Jesus refers to the persecution and suffering of his future followers/

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

125

Conclusions

emissaries (5:11 – 12; 23:34).130 Furthermore, Matthew’s expressions: their synagogues, their scribes explicitly distinguish these entities from his own. The Pharisees typically fall into this category, indeed they become representative of the form of Judaism in opposition to which the evangelist identifies himself. Their synagogue in 12.9 is specifically the synagogue of the Pharisees and the setting for Jesus’ dispute with them. The Pharisees are therefore one of the many devices Matthew employs to represent those who oppose Jesus, not only during his ministry but even after his death and in the experience of the contemporary church. The Pharisees rejected John the Baptist and failed to recognise Jesus during his ministry and continue in their opposition to the church to fill up the measure of their ancestors. It is incontestable then that the portrayal of the Pharisees is an important feature of Matthew’s polemic, yet it might also enable Matthew to pursue his more apologetic aims, defending the legitimacy of “Judaism” and the inheritance of the law and the prophets by his own community. It is an argument well rehearsed in Matthean scholarship that Matthew’s vilification of certain Jews does not amount to a rejection of the law, the prophets and God’s covenant with his people. The “lost sheep of the house of Israel” are not lost irrevocably, and although this generation is certainly condemned by Jesus, Matthew’s presentation also suggests that they have been led astray by their leaders and teachers. Matthew maintains a hope for the Jewish people because it remains to some extent the victim of those who would impose “heavy burdens” upon individuals, preventing them from entering the kingdom. In this way we see that Matthew’s presentation of Pharisees as leaders and teachers is essential to how he expresses his attitude to Jews and Judaism more generally. The Torah is not abolished and Moses continues to have authority but the Pharisees fail to understand the scripture and prioritise their own tradition over the will of God. The Jews of Matthew’s time deny the resurrection of Jesus but it was the chief priests and Pharisees who first suggested that Jesus’ body might be stolen. If, therefore, the communication of Matthew’s attitude towards non-Christian Judaism depends on the teaching and authorative role of the Pharisees, it is possible that his theological presentation of them relies on their status in his historical context. In the next chapter on Luke and Acts, I shall present the 130 See for example: D.R.A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 96; Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, 14; Kilpatrick, Origins, 109 – 10; Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian–Jewish Community, 45; Sim, Gospel of Matthew, 121; Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 156 – 7; Winter, On the Trial, 175. Although e. g. Garland, Intention, 210 – 11, claims that Matthew’s polemic in chapter 23 does not attack contemporary Judaism but serves his ethics and Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 23, claims that Matthew is no longer interested in a debate with contemporary Judaism but only with the theological entity, Israel.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

126

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Matthew

evidence of Josephus for the respected social position occupied by the Pharisees and their reputation for piety and accuracy with regard to the law. I will not repeat that material here but note that this together with the association of Pharisees with an authoritative interpretation of the law in the Gospel of Matthew supports a reconstruction of historical Pharisees as teachers of the law.131 I tentatively suggest, furthermore, that the rhetorical function of the Pharisees in Matthew’s Gospel – as blind guides of lost sheep – would be enhanced if the authoritative position of the Pharisees were not merely a construct or perception of Matthew and Josephus but had some basis in historical reality. If the Pharisees were generally perceived to wield influence over the populace then not only would Matthew’s narrative have appeared more credible to his earliest readers but also his polemical and apologetic arguments would have been more persuasive. If the influential role of the Pharisees is acknowledged it follows that their corruption is transferred to the people as a whole. By emphasising the role of an influential Jewish party, Matthew can distinguish more effectively between those aspects of Judaism which he wishes to uphold (i. e. those left free from the Pharisees’ distortion) and those from which he would distance himself. It has further been suggested that the prevalence of the Pharisees in Matthew reflects the prominence of actual Pharisees in Matthew’s environment.132 We observed a similar argument in relation to Mark’s presentation of the Jewish leadership and will encounter the same hypothesis in relation to John.133 Namely that although a variety of Jewish parties existed at the time of Jesus, the fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE marked a watershed after which many Jewish parties dwindled and those that remained became subject to an early Rabbinic programme to impose uniformity on Judaism. This programme ensured the survival of Pharisaism by its evolution into Rabbinic Judaism but was the death knell for Sadducees and Essenes and posed a threat to Jews who were also Christians, that is Jews like Matthew. The prevalence of Pharisees in Matthew’s Gospel therefore reflects a post 70 CE situation in which this party prevailed over and threatened its contemporaries. 131 On the Pharisees’ reputation see e. g. Josephus: “The Pharisees, a body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in the observances of religion, and as exact exponents of laws” (B.J. 1:110); “The Pharisees, who have the reputation of being unrivalled experts in their country’s laws” (Vita 191). Moreover, and more significantly, Josephus describes the considerable influence wielded by Pharisees even over rival groups: “[The Sadducees] accomplish practically nothing however. For whenever they assume some office, though they submit unwillingly and perforce, yet submit they do to the formulas of the Pharisees, since otherwise the masses would not tolerate them.” (A.J. 18:17). It is this influence which plausibly also convinced Josephus to engage in his public life following the school of the Pharisees (Vita 12b). 132 See for example, Luz, Theology, 84; Repschinski, Controversy Stories, 327. 133 Cook, Mark’s Treatment, and see above pp. 29 – 30.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

127

Conclusions

In the fifth chapter of this study, I will discuss this and related hypotheses in relation to the Gospel of John. There I will re-evaluate the assumption of Pharisaic dominance of Judaism at the conclusion of the first century. I shall contend that variety in Judaism persisted beyond 70 CE, moreover that the early Rabbinic academies preserved some of that variety. In particular I shall challenge the popular construal of the birkath ha–minim in Synagogue liturgy as a device for expelling Christians from the synagogue. I therefore endorse Graham Stanton’s judgement that the birkath ha–minim is a “red herring” which may be of little relevance to Jewish–Christian relations in the New Testament period.134 I shall not repeat these arguments here; it is enough, for the time being, to note that the explanation of Matthew’s portrayal in terms of the Pharisees’ dominance of his environment rests on several dubious assumptions about historical Pharisaism and the nature of Judaism during the formative decades of the church. Moreover, this hypothesis is not necessarily upheld by the text. The Pharisees are an important leadership group in Matthew but they are not the only one. The Pharisees’ role overlaps with that of other groups. For example, the scribes are also accused of murdering prophets (23:29 – 39), the Sadducees’ teaching is illogical and their interpretation of Scripture is false (22:23 – 33) and the chief priests will also be replaced as leaders (21:45) and initiate ongoing opposition (28:11 – 15). Nevertheless, the Pharisees are distinguished by the fact that only they collaborate with all the other opponents of Jesus – Sadducees, scribes, chief priests, Herodians – except the elders of the people. Furthermore, the presence of the Pharisees with all these groups need not be explained by Matthew’s deliberate representation of Pharisaic dominance but may reproduce and develop collaborations already found in Mark and Q. The Jewish leadership operate as a united front and it is collaboration with the Pharisees that binds them together. The number and widespread distribution of references to the Pharisees in the Gospel make them definitive but not sole or even primary opponents of Jesus in Matthew. The evangelist’s selection of Pharisees for the role which they fulfil in the Gospel is derived from existing tradition and, plausibly reflects the historical reality of Pharisaism, not as the dominant face of an ever more uniform Judaism but as representatives of its leadership who were notable for their reputation and influence. We shall note in the next chapter, Luke also reflects this role and status of the Pharisees and in his presentation too, the reputation of the Pharisees is central to his apologetic purpose.

134 Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 142.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

4.

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

4.1

Introduction

The pair Luke and Acts is a unique combination in the New Testament; whereas we have access to only one work by Mark or Matthew, the third evangelist furnishes both a lengthy Gospel and its sequel. The exegete therefore has access to a comparatively huge quantity of material to represent the attitudes and concerns of a single author.1 As well as a prolific author, Luke is popularly considered to be a competent one, and self–consciously so. He provides a preface to both his works, the first of which outlines his explicit purpose “to write an orderly account … so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed” (Luke 1:3 – 4). How this prologue ought to be interpreted and the tortured question of the genres of Luke and Acts will not be answered here. A working hypothesis, however, may be that the contents of Luke and Acts reflect their author’s broadly historical undertaking, to give an account of events that have taken place. While the books may not meet all the requirements of ancient bioi or histories, it is clear that Luke has a clear sense of historical narrative.2 This narrative transcends the period of Jesus’ life and earthly activity, looking back from events to the Scriptural promises that they fulfil and continuing his story into the lives of the apostles. The Pharisees of Luke and Acts therefore take their part in a variety of scenes on a large stage. The continuation of Acts into the period of the early church places Pharisees in an entirely new setting. The portrayal of the Pharisees is again interwoven with some major themes of the author’s presentation. The following discussion will discover the location of Pharisees in a world where values and expectations are reversed. How do 1 For convenience I will refer to the author of Acts as “Luke” and, in order to avoid confusion, I will usually refer to the third Gospel as “the Gospel” except in the phrase “Luke and Acts”. 2 See L.C.A. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 210 – 12.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

129

Introduction

Pharisees fare at the hands of an author who is sympathetic to Gentiles, women and the poor but who describes a world where God brings down the powerful from their thrones (1:52)? What role do these Jews, who are not located outside of Judea and Galilee by any Gospel, play in a story which charts the dissemination of the Gospel from Jesus’ rejection in his home town, to the cross in Jerusalem and then through the regions of the Mediterranean to Rome? The portrayal of the Pharisees may cast new light on aspects of these well–trodden paths of New Testament scholarship as well as on the relationship between Luke and Acts.

4.1.1 The Structure and Organisation of this chapter and some Methodological Observations My decision to treat Luke and Acts in the same chapter raises several new methodological questions. My combined treatment assumes the unity of the two books insofar as most scholarship upholds their common authorship and audience. This raises the question of whether they should be treated discretely or as a single extended work. The latter approach raises the expectation that the two together will yield a consistent and coherent picture and prompts the interpreter to find agreement and correspondence between the Gospel and Acts where none exists. If, however, the books are treated in isolation from each other then the interpreter may see only half of the picture and miss material which illuminates and nuances the author’s presentation. In order to avoid the dangers of both approaches it is necessary to steer a careful middle course in which the individuality of the Gospel and of Acts may be recognised whilst allowing each to be viewed in the light of the other so that common patterns, similarities and differences may emerge. I therefore propose to organise the Pharisee material according to three broad themes and will analyse the material relevant to each theme as it appears first in one book and then the other, without subordinating the evidence of the Gospel to that of Acts or vice versa. I will then be able to draw comparisons across the two portrayals and suggest possibilities for mutual elucidation. A thematic approach carries dangers of its own; the interpreter may see only part of the portrayal at any one time and never the whole picture. S.G. Wilson warns that it may “give a false impression of coherence to material which is recorded in a haphazard way”.3 A thematic treatment also obscures the development of themes as a narrative progresses and any significance in the order of material. These concerns prompted J.T. Sanders in The Jews in Luke–Acts, to 3 Wilson, Luke and the Law, 12.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

130

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

supplement his thematic overview with a “systematic analysis”, a “commentary–like” treatment of relevant material. I maintain that a thematic approach offers the best way of organising the material in this chapter and will enable a comparison of Luke with Acts (it is difficult to see how such a comparison could naturally arise from a sequential treatment). I will, however, take steps to avoid the pitfalls noted by Wilson and Sanders. Any organisation of the material is inevitably contrived and risks imposing its own structure onto the text to the exclusion of any other understanding. It is tempting to find similarities and patterns and to force cases into those patterns, although this danger would not be precluded by the adoption of a commentary–like approach. Therefore, each appearance of the Pharisees must be examined in its own right and tested with regard to the theme in question and it ought to be remembered that a single appearance of the Pharisees might highlight a variety of ideas. The volume of material relevant to my study is substantially smaller than that covered by Sanders. This means that it is feasible to keep a limited watch over the sequential literary development of the portrayals and note any significant observations within the thematic context. It would be, I think, unnecessarily repetitious to undertake two separate treatments as Sanders did. In any case the portrayal of the Pharisees cannot be reduced to a handful of themes or to the order of a number of discrete appearances. Luke’s portrayal is not limited to themes but is interwoven with them. I will take as my first theme that aspect of the Pharisees’ portrayal which has the most in common with those of Mark and Matthew and emerges in the Gospel rather than in Acts, namely, the overtly negative portrayal of the Pharisees which Luke centres on their rejection of the kingdom of God. Next I will address those elements of the Pharisees’ portrayal present in both Luke and Acts which suggest their apologetic function. As the first and second themes highlight differences and similarities between Luke and Acts, the third will assess the frequently recurring contention (which seems to have become a popular assumption in some literature) that the Pharisees in Luke and Acts are portrayed as somehow akin to Jesus and/or to early Christianity. My discussion of existing research on Lukan Pharisees and other issues will be integrated into a treatment of these themes. Since the range of issues and volume of material addressed by scholarly studies relevant to this chapter is so broad, it seems preferable, from the perspective of both expediency and critical engagement, to highlight current debates as and when appropriate to the exegesis. For example, alternative understandings of the significance of the dinner table setting of Jesus’ several encounters with the Pharisees will be discussed at different points in the chapter, since my aim is not to explain the setting per se but to determine what that setting might contribute to an explanation of Pharisees in the Gospel.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

First Theme: The Pharisees forfeit their place in the kingdom

4.2

131

First Theme: The Pharisees forfeit their place in the kingdom

4.2.1 Gospel Luke’s Gospel frequently indicates that the Pharisees have forfeited or are on the brink of forfeiting participation in the kingdom of God. They have failed to recognise the nature of the kingdom and the necessity of their own repentance in the light of this failure. The importance of this theme is suggested by its recurrence in Jesus’ teaching addressed to the Pharisees (e. g. the parables in chs. 14 and 15) and in descriptions of the Pharisees provided by the narrator. 4.2.1.1 The Pharisees’ rejection of John’s baptism of repentance Luke describes the various responses to Jesus’ teaching concerning John the Baptist: And all the people who heard this, including the tax–collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptised with John’s baptism. But by refusing to be baptised by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves. (7:29 – 30)

The Pharisees are shown in poor contrast with the tax–collectors (cf. 18:10 – 14). While the latter have recognised the demands of the kingdom and John’s work to prepare the way for Jesus, the Pharisees reject both.4 This rejection is so serious that it is construed as a rejection of God’s purpose. John’s baptism is characterised as one of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (3:3) and so the Pharisees’ rejection of John is a rejection of their need for repentance which is demanded by the kingdom. For Robert Tannehill, the Pharisees “did not join the ‘people prepared’ through repentance for ‘the stronger one’ who has come after John”.5 For J.T. Sanders it is evidence that Pharisees do not consider repentance and faith sufficient to gain righteousness which can only be achieved through their halakhah and that this misunderstanding “spells ultimate doom for the Pharisees”.6 It is an indication of their complacency ; they assume their place in the kingdom is assured so they require no intervention of John or Jesus. The 4 For Carroll, ‘Luke’s Portrayal’, 607, Lukan interactions between the Pharisees and Jesus and the alternation of Jesus’ audience between Pharisees and the disciples illustrate conflicting understandings of the kingdom (see also 611). 5 R.C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation (2 vol.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986/1990), 1.176. 6 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 110, who also suggests that 7:30 may have been anticipated by the Pharisees’ absence from Luke 3:7 (cf. Matt 3:7). However, it is equally likely in this case, he admits, that Matthew has added the “Pharisees and Sadducees” to his own account (p. 374 n. 85).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

132

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

evangelist, however, consistently displays the precariousness of their situation not least through his description of Jesus’ table–fellowship with the Pharisees, to which I now turn.

4.2.1.2 Dining with the Pharisees from a Symbolic, Eschatological Perspective Shared meals are a favourite setting for Luke who also depicts Jesus as the guest of Levi (5:29), Zacchaeus (19:7), Cleopas and his friend (24:29 – 30), the dinner companion of his disciples (22:8 and 24:42 – 3) and of “sinners and tax–collectors” (15:1). The dinner table is a device for bringing disparate people together and provides an occasion for interaction between characters. On three occasions Luke describes Jesus accepting the hospitality of a Pharisee (Luke 7:36 – 50; 11:37 – 54; 14:1 – 24). This situation is not found elsewhere in Gospel tradition and so an account of this material is essential for the delineation of a distinctively Lukan portrayal of the Pharisees. Luke’s Gospel is also pervaded by allusions to a celebratory meal in the coming kingdom of God.7 Jesus refers at the last supper to his eating and drinking after the coming of the kingdom (22 :15 – 18) and 13 :29 employs even clearer imagery of feasting with the patriarchs in the eschatological kingdom. Lazarus, in the parable, is twice depicted after his death as being “in the bosom of Abraham” (16 :22, 23) which may allude to his reclining at a banquet.8 Moreover, since the situations of Lazarus and the rich man who feasted sumptuously every day are reversed, it is reasonable to suppose that Lazarus enjoys similar feasting after his death. The promise of feasting as a blessing of the kingdom is further expressed in 6 :21 “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.” and 1:53 “He has filled the hungry with good things.” This “eschatological banquet” can function as a lens through which to read the banquets of this world, including Jesus’ dinners with the Pharisees. Some meals shared with Jesus foreshadow his banquet in the kingdom. This is explicit at the Last Supper and implied by the “great feast” at 5:29 and in Jesus’ announcement as a guest of Zacchaeus, “Today salvation has come to this house.” (19:9). Nevertheless, those who eat and drink with Jesus and receive his teaching are not guaranteed a welcome in the kingdom. The excluded guests in the parable of the householder expect to gain admittance because of their former table fellowship with the host (a probable allusion to table–fellowship with Jesus) but they are not admitted (13:26 – 7). The parable reflects negatively on those who in 7 See above, p. 42 n. 51. 8 It is for J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (London: SCM, 1954), 129, “a designation of the place of honour at the heavenly banquet at the right–hand of Father Abraham”.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

First Theme: The Pharisees forfeit their place in the kingdom

133

the very next chapter dine with Jesus at the house of the leader of the Pharisees (14:1). Moreover, the Pharisee’s guests demonstrate, by vying for seats of honour (14:7), that they have not understood Jesus’ warning at the conclusion of the householder parable “Indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.” (13:30 cf. 14:11). The excluded guests of the householder and the guests of the Pharisaic leader are at odds with this reversal principle of the kingdom and so their dinners do not foreshadow or guarantee participation in the kingdom banquet.9 This suspicion is supported by the parable of the Great Banquet (14:16 – 24), which is addressed first to the guest who speaks in 14:15 and then to all present (see rl?m in 14:24). It echoes the parable of the householder and describes a host who replaces guests at his banquet after the initial invitees refuse his invitation. Although space remains after the admission of replacement guests (the poor, crippled lame and blind) the host does not resort to his original guests but sends his slave to compel other new guests to attend (14:22 – 3) so that “none of those originally invited will taste my dinner” (14:24). The identity of the speaker in verse 24 is ambiguous; the words could belong to either the host of the parable or Jesus himself. If the latter, it makes explicit the relevance of the parable to Jesus’ own banquet in the kingdom. Luke’s framing of the Great Banquet parable leaves little doubt that the fate of the original invitees in the parable applies to the Pharisaic fellow–guests of Jesus in Luke 14. The parable is Jesus’ reply to the statement of a guest in 14:15 “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God.” The guest’s comment expresses his confidence that he will be among those to participate in the kingdom banquet but Jesus’ reply confounds his expectation.10 The replacement guests in the Great Banquet parable – the poor, the blind, the crippled and the lame (14:21) – are the very same groups that Jesus advises the Pharisaic host to substitute for his current guests. The implication is that these groups will take their place in the kingdom banquet as well. Use of the Hebraism cave?m %qtom to designate both the Pharisee’s dinner (14:1) and the eschatological banquet (14:15) serves to reinforce the inverse correspondence between the two.11 9 See J.H. Neyrey, ‘Ceremonies in Luke–Acts: The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship’ in J.H. Neyrey (ed.), The Social World of Luke–Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody : Hendrickson, 1991) 361 – 87, on pp. 378 – 80, for a discussion of this reversal theme in relation to meals and table fellowship. 10 This interpretation of 14:15 is advocated by e. g. G.B. Caird, Saint Luke (PNTC; Middlesex: Penguin, 1963), 177 and Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1054. See M. Marshall, ‘“Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God.” A brief study of Luke 14:15 in its context’, in C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Feasts and Festivals (Leuven: Peeters, 2009) 97 – 106, for an interpretation of 14:15 alongside other beatitudes and sayings where the speaker’s expectation is confounded. 11 R.J. Karris, Luke: Artist and Theologian. Luke’s Passion Accounts as Literature (Mahwah:

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

134

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

The dinner–table setting of Jesus’ interaction with Pharisees in chs. 7 and 11 allows these scenes also to be read in the light of the eschatological banquet. In both cases it is clear that the Pharisees’ dinners do not reflect the life of the kingdom. Simon does not welcome the sinful woman and fails to recognise his own need to repent despite the fact that Jesus’ ministry calls sinners to repentance (5:32). Neither is the Pharisees’ table in 11:37 – 52 a reflection of the eschatological banquet but an occasion for hostility and a demonstration of the Pharisees’ inadequacy when contrasted with Jesus’ concerns and priorities. On all three occasions, Luke is able to display, to great effect, the Pharisees’ distance from the kingdom of God by placing the Pharisees in a situation that elsewhere reflects the realities of that kingdom.

4.2.1.3 Jesus’ teaching to the Pharisees in parables When Jesus encounters the Pharisees at 15:1, they again complain about his table–fellowship with tax–collectors and sinners and thereby demonstrate that they refuse to recognise, despite the Great Banquet parable and teaching to Simon, that unexpected guests, the tax–collectors and sinners, occupy a rightful place at Jesus’ table. Jesus responds to their grumbling with three parables which endorse the assertion “There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous people who need no repentance” (15:7 cf. v. 10). The parables may be interpreted with reference to the Pharisees’ and scribes’ grumbling at 15:1 as yet another comment on the Pharisees’ failure to understand the kingdom. The first two parables provide a contrast between the joyful response of heaven over the repentant sinner and the uncharitable response of the scribes and Pharisees to the tax–collectors and sinners who display their repentance through fellowship with Jesus.12 The lost coin/sheep which represents the sinner is placed in opposition to the never–lost sheep/coins representing the righteous who have no need for repentance. Although the repentant sinner is preferred over the never–lost, the latter are not rejected. Similarly the prodigal son is juxtaposed with an “elder son” who, like the righteous people of 15:7, needs no Paulist Press, 1985), 75 n. 50, argues that the double occurrence of the phrase “seems quite significant in a passage where Luke clearly distinguishes various kinds of feasting with different vocabulary” (see c²lour in 14.8; %qistom C de?pmom in 14.12; dow¶m in 14.13 and de?pmom in 14: 16, 17 and 24). 12 Pace A.–J. Levine, ‘Luke’s Pharisees’ in Neusner/Chilton (ed.), Quest, 113 – 30, on p. 126, who claims that Luke does not deny that “Pharisees would welcome repentant sinners” only that, unlike Jesus, the Pharisees do not seek sinners. However, Levine fails to give sufficient weight to the grumbling of the Pharisees in Luke 15:2 and Simon’s surprise in Luke 7:39. The Pharisees do fail to welcome these sinners, whose response to Jesus is sufficient indication of their repentance.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

First Theme: The Pharisees forfeit their place in the kingdom

135

repentance since he has never disobeyed his father’s command (15:29). The elder son is not condemned; rather his relationship with his father and his inheritance is affirmed (15:31). Again the father’s celebration in this parable may be contrasted with the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees in 15:2. However, in the third parable (and not the others) there exist further clues that the scribes and Pharisees also correspond to the never–lost element, the elder son. He, like the scribes and Pharisees of 15:2, questions the propriety of a meal and his father, like Jesus, indicates that he dines in celebration of the sinner’s repentance (15:32). The juxtaposition might imply that the scribes and Pharisees resent this, just as the elder son resents his father’s celebration For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him! (15:29 – 30)

Once this correspondence between the parable and its context has been recognised it is possible to draw out other characteristics of the elder son and apply them to the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes and Pharisees like the elder son have a prior claim to their inheritance, not only as the party of longer standing but also because they have never departed from their father’s ways. It may be argued that the scribes and Pharisees’ place in the kingdom was assured long before the repentant sinners were welcomed and has been maintained by their obedience. Jesus here echoes his teaching from 5:31 – 2 “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.” However, it is not clear that the Pharisees have “never disobeyed” since Jesus has accused them of neglecting the justice and love of God (11:42). Moreover, the behaviour of both the Pharisaic host and his guests in chapter 14 is at odds with Jesus’ ideal. The Pharisee of 14:15 and the prodigal’s brother both assert their entitlement: the former expects to eat in the kingdom; the latter expects his father to respect his loyalty over the irresponsibility of his brother. Nevertheless, the Pharisee’s place at the kingdom banquet hangs in the balance and can only be assured if the Pharisee accepts the realities of the kingdom. The Pharisees of 15:2 do not accept these realities just as the elder son protests against them. Yet despite the elder son’s refusal to celebrate his brother’s return he is always with his father and all that is his father’s is his; this reassurance may correspondingly apply to the Pharisees. The parable concludes with the father’s statement and cue for the elder son’s participation in the kingdom “It is necessary (5dei) to celebrate and to rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.” (15:32). If the elder son acknowledges this necessity he will have

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

136

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

obeyed his father and recognised the nature of the kingdom. If not, he excludes himself from the kingdom celebration. The parable issues the same demand to the Pharisees and scribes. Therefore, despite the element of hope in this parable, its conclusion and its implications for the Pharisees are open–ended; the Pharisees are currently at odds with heavenly attitudes because they refuse to rejoice over repentant sinners. Their participation in the kingdom celebration becomes contingent on their own repentance. 4.2.1.4 The Pharisees are vik²qcuqoi After the parable of the prodigal son Jesus tells the parable of the dishonest steward and teaches on the subject of money. He addresses his disciples although Luke indicates in 16:14 that the Pharisees “heard all this”. Jesus advises the disciples to “Make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest mammon so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes.” (16:9) and warns “If then you have not been faithful with dishonest mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches?” His teaching may be summarised in the phrase of 16:13 “You cannot serve God and Mammon.” (16:13). The Pharisees ridicule this teaching, further demonstrating their inadequacy in the face of the kingdom’s demands. Luke then provides a reason for this inadequacy ; the Pharisees are vik²qcuqoi, lovers of money. Robert Brawley suggests that Luke here adopts a Hellenistic literary convention that was used to characterise the opponents of philosophers. He cites an example from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 6:56, where the vik²qcuqor stands as a foil to the superiority of the vikºsovor.13 L.T. Johnson cites other examples from Hellenistic rhetoric suggesting that the accusation of loving money was a standardised topos in ancient philosophical disputes.14 J.T. Sanders correspondingly contends that there is no justification in the Gospel or Acts for labelling the Pharisees vik²qcuqoi and so the description is insubstantial and primarily indicative of Luke’s dislike of the Pharisees.15 Luke wished to criticise the Pharisees and the accusation, vik²qcuqoi fitted best into the context which contains several teachings on !qc¼qiom.16 However, some Lukan criticisms of the Pharisees do seem to employ at least the language of money, for example, “inside [they] are full of greed” (11:39); “give for alms those things that are within” (11:41) and “you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice” (11:42). These accusations do not 13 R.L. Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 86. 14 Johnson, ‘Anti–Jewish Slander’, 430, 432, cites Aelius Aristides, Platonic Discourses, 307:15 and passages in Appollonius of Tyana, Letters. Levine ‘Luke’s Pharisees’, 127, agrees, citing 1 Tim 6:10. 15 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 93, 199. 16 Ibid. 107, 199.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

First Theme: The Pharisees forfeit their place in the kingdom

137

corroborate the charge of ‘loving money’; indeed, verses 41 – 2 suggest that the Pharisees do part with their money by giving alms and paying tithes. Yet Jesus’ advice to the Pharisees in chapter 11 is couched in terms of attitudes towards and dealings with material wealth. Moreover, the juxtaposition of the accusation in 16:14 with teachings about !qc¼qiom suggests that the label engages with more than rhetorical convention and should be illumined by its context. It is possible in this way to understand Luke’s application of the charge without positing slander or a shift in Luke’s portrayal of the Pharisees. Jesus exhorts his disciples to make friends by means of dishonest mammon so that they may be welcomed into eternal homes. This may be contrasted with the Pharisaic host’s behaviour in Luke 14. He spends his money in the hope that his hospitality will be reciprocated on earth by his wealthy guests (14:12). He has missed the opportunity to make other friends – the poor, crippled, lame and blind – by means of his wealth. As a result he will not be rewarded in an eternal home at the resurrection of the righteous. The vik²qcuqoi charge is linked with the Pharisees’ attempts to “justify [them]selves in the sight of others” (16:15). Luke implies that such attempts are futile since “God knows [their] hearts” and thus repeats the criticism of 11:44 that the Pharisees’ outward appearance does not reflect their inner state. The charge vik²qcuqoi might then refer to the Pharisees’ misunderstanding that they can use money – alms and tithes – as a means of self justification whilst neglecting the things that are within. Their concern with tithing the mint and rue is not evidence of their faithfulness with dishonest mammon since they prove themselves untrustworthy with the true riches of God’s justice and love. Money is given as one example of something “prized by human beings [but] an abomination in the sight of God” (16:15). The Pharisees have consistently displayed attitudes and values which are at odds with those of Jesus and the kingdom of God. They value their own status and reputation (“love to be greeted in the marketplaces … ”) above welcoming sinners and tax–collectors. They reject their own need for repentance and shun the sinners who have sought forgiveness. It is then no surprise that their attitude towards money should also be at odds with the kingdom. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus that follows depicts the bleak afterlife that awaits those vik²qcuqoi who, like Simon, the host of chapter 14 and the Pharisees who opposed healing on the Sabbath (6:11), fail to extend love and justice to their impoverished neighbour. Although the grounds for the description in 16:14 are unclear, its significance is not. Luke labels the Pharisees as devoted to money and so they must be unable to serve God.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

138

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

4.2.1.5 The Pharisees’ question concerning the kingdom The short apocalyptic discourse in 17:22 – 37 is introduced by Jesus’ brief exchange with the Pharisees where they solicit Jesus’ teaching with no ulterior motive; they are not described as provoking, testing or trapping. The scene presents an opportunity for the Pharisees’ position with regard to the kingdom of God to be resolved by Jesus’ explicit albeit ambiguous reply. The evangelist has emphasised behaviour which places the Pharisees at odds with the kingdom and yet here the Lukan Jesus says, “the kingdom of God 1mt¹r rl_m 1stim” (17:21). Does this statement assure the Pharisees that they are not excluded from the kingdom after all? There are, however, many different interpretations of 1mt¹r rl_m. It might imply that the kingdom is a ‘spiritual’ reality within the Pharisees rather than a cosmic transformation marked by outward signs. But this understanding of the kingdom is somewhat at odds with the depiction of the coming of the Son of Man in 17:22 – 37. Moreover, Luke has done little to suggest that the Pharisees are inwardly disposed to the kingdom but quite the opposite “inside [they] are full of greed and wickedness” (11:39). It is plausible that 1mt¹r rl_m is here used idiomatically to convey a sense of suddenness; the kingdom is right there in the Pharisees’ midst without any advance notice.17 This meaning is not explicit but does fit the context in which Jesus refuses to speculate on when the kingdom will come and describes the sudden arrival of the Son of Man (17:20 – 37). However, the most likely rendering of 1mt¹r rl_m at 17:20 is “among you/in your midst” suggesting that the kingdom is present in the ministry of Jesus. This idea is certainly present elsewhere, not least in 11:20 “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you (1v’ rl÷r).”18 If the Pharisees had any understanding of or sensitivity to the nature of the kingdom they would have realised that the kingdom was in their midst in the ministry of Jesus. Instead they have questioned his ability to forgive sins (5:21) and the propriety of his association with tax–collectors (5:30). If they had recognised Jesus as the bridegroom they would not have wondered why his disciples do not fast (5:33). The kingdom is already here but the Pharisees cannot perceive it.19 Jesus’ answer could therefore be a warning, the presence of the kingdom lends urgency to its demands which the Pharisees have failed to satisfy. The warning is heightened by the subsequent discourse on future judgement. The 17 R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963), 121 – 2; J. Nolland, Luke (3 vol.; WBC 35; Dallas: Word Books, 1989/1993/1993), 2.850, 853 – 4. 18 See e. g. E.E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (Rev. edn; New Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1974), 211; L.T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina 5; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), 263. 19 So Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 114.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

First Theme: The Pharisees forfeit their place in the kingdom

139

Pharisees’ enquiry may be neutral but they are not neutral enquirers.20 Instead, Jesus’ teaching here highlights the antagonism that exists between the Pharisees and the kingdom. I have shown that the same idea pervades much of the evangelist’s portrayal of the Pharisees and so it is especially surprising that the Pharisees of Acts are not similarly blind to the kingdom.

4.2.2 Acts The theme of exclusion from the kingdom is present in Acts but it is related to Jews in general rather than the Pharisees in particular. At various points, Luke refers to the Jewish rejection of both Jesus and the church’s Gospel. For example, Peter says to the congregation in Jerusalem But you rejected the holy and righteous one and asked to have a murderer given to you, and you killed the author of life, whom God raised from the dead. (Acts 3:14 – 15)

He acknowledges that their actions were the product of ignorance and the fulfilment of prophecy (Acts 3:17), but this concession is less apparent in other passages where Jewish rejection of the Gospel amounts to self condemnation. Then both Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you reject it and judge yourselves to be unworthy of eternal life, we are now turning to the Gentiles.” (Acts 13:46) When [the Jews] opposed and reviled [Paul], in protest he shook the dust from his clothes and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” (Acts 18:5 – 6)

At the conclusion of Acts, Paul describes the Jews’ obstinacy using a quotation from Isaiah. Their ears are closed to Paul’s message and for that reason the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles who will listen (Acts 28:29). J.T. Sanders interprets Paul’s concluding words as a resolution to abandon the Jewish mission, its initial success (2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 21:20) has come to an end. Luke had thus far set up an “alternating pattern of rejection and mission, a circle of going repeatedly to the Jews”.21 Paul had after 13:46 and 18:6, continued to preach to the Jews despite their rejection of him and his resolution to go to the Gentiles. Sanders argues that 28:29 breaks this pattern “The book of Acts is here at an end, 20 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 104, contends: “In this pericope the Pharisees function at worst as neutral inquirers who give occasion for Jesus’ teaching, at best as recipients of the kingdom.” 21 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 299.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

140

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

and so is the cycle.”22 For Sanders the Jewish people as a whole, despite the receptiveness of some in the early days of the church’s mission have conformed to the obdurate character that was predicted by Isaiah and foreshadowed in their first appearance (Luke 4:28 – 9).23 Jacob Jervell agrees that the apostles have completed the mission to the Jews so that Acts 28:29 ends the cycle of returning to the Jews.24 However, on his reading the last picture of the Jewish people in Acts is one of division “Some were convinced by what he had said, while others refused to believe” (Acts 28:24).25 Jervell maintains that Israel consists of repentant Jews who have joined the church.26 Whether or not Acts 28:26 – 9 has (to echo the words of Ernst Haenchen) written the Jews off once and for all, it seems clear that Paul’s comments do emphasise the rejection of the Gospel by Jews.27 It is a contingency that has haunted the success of the Jewish mission throughout Acts. The Pharisees, of course, are Jews and as such may be implicated in Luke’s portrayal of the Jewish rejection of Jesus. However, as Pharisees in particular, Luke does not associate them with rejection of the church’s message. On the contrary, the Pharisees of Acts display a considerable degree of openness to the Gospel and are never mentioned in relation to Jewish persecution of the church. It will emerge in parts 2 and 3 of this chapter that of all the Jews in Acts, the Pharisees are the most sympathetic to Christianity, so much so that it is doubtful whether or not general statements about the Jewish rejection of the Gospel apply to them.

4.2.3 Summary of First Theme The foregoing analysis has indicated one of several differences between the portrayal of the Pharisees in the third Gospel and the same in Acts. While the Pharisees in the Gospel fail to recognise the presence of the kingdom in the 22 23 24 25 26 27

Ibid. Idem. 83. Jervell, People of God, 68. Idem. 49. Idem. 68. E. Haenchen, ‘The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Early Christianity’ in L.E. Keck/J.L. Martyn (ed.), Studies in Luke–Acts: Essays presented in honour of Paul Schubert (London/Nashville: SPCK/Abingdon, 1968) 258 – 78, on p. 278; J.B. Tyson, ‘The Problem of Jewish Rejection in Acts’, in J.B. Tyson (ed.), Luke–Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives (Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1988) 124 – 37, on p. 137, also concludes that the previous successes of the mission to the Jews do not counteract the overwhelming rejection of the Gospel by Jews (Idem. 133). Luke describes the deterioration of the Jewish–Christian community in Jerusalem which becomes increasingly irrelevant to his narrative (Idem. 136).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Second Theme: The reputation of the Pharisees and their apologetic function

141

ministry of Jesus, its nature, demands or their own need for repentance, I will later suggest that the Pharisees in Acts seem relatively perceptive. The Pharisees do not function in the same way in each book. Luke’s portrayal of the Pharisees’ inadequate response to the demands of the kingdom, like the rejection of the Gospel by Jews in Acts, explains the prevalence/predominance of Gentiles in the church. Luke is aware that Christianity springs from Jewish roots, but also that many Jews have not accepted the Gospel and that Christian mission has turned to the Gentiles. This is, he explains, not the result of an unconvincing message or an inadequate Jewish mission but rather the inevitable consequence of Jewish obduracy on which Isaiah remarked centuries before. In this way, Luke’s portrayal of the Pharisees’ rejection of the kingdom performs an apologetic function. The second theme will cover several other aspects of the Pharisees’ portrayal in both books which serve a complementary apologetic. I will begin with a brief discussion of the reputation of the Pharisees, which, in my opinion, means that they are ideally placed for their apologetic role. I will then examine passages in Acts which illustrate Pharisaic sympathy towards the church.

4.3

Second Theme: The reputation of the Pharisees and their apologetic function

4.3.1 The reputation of the Pharisees Luke and Acts give several indications that the Pharisees were held in high esteem by the general population. Luke describes Gamaliel as both a Pharisee and “a teacher of the law, respected by all the people” (Acts 5:34).28 Furthermore, Paul expects Agrippa to recognise the reputation of all Pharisees as adherents to “the strictest (!jqibest²tgm) sect of our religion” (Acts 26:5). Pharisees occupy positions of some power and influence, for example, in the council at Acts 23:6 and “have the seat of honour in the synagogues” and are “greeted with respect in the market–places” (Luke 11:43). The leader of the Pharisees in Luke 14:1 has rich neighbours to whom he extends his hospitality. On several occasions they assume the position of arbiters overseeing correct adherence to the law (e. g. Luke 6:7; 6:11; 11:53 – 4). The picture that Luke creates in this respect is supported by his contemporary, the Jewish historian Josephus and Paul who cites Pharisaism as a ground for his confidence in the flesh which he has come to regard “as loss because of Christ” (Phil 3:7).29 Paul’s argument requires that from certain 28 For Gowler, Host, 300, this characterisation grants Gamaliel a “voice of authority”. 29 See B.J. 2:162; A.J. 13:401, 409; 18:12, 15.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

142

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

non–Christian perspectives, Pharisaism conferred a special status.30 But regardless of whether or not the elevated status of the Pharisees reflects an historical reality, there can be no doubt that Luke makes use of this status. The Pharisees’ reputation and the respect they are able to command means that they may be used to persuade the Gospel’s audience of the value of Luke’s point of view, that is as an apologetic device. I will show how this is done in several very different ways, beginning with an examination of Acts since it contains the most straightforward demonstration of how the reputation of the Pharisees is exploited for an apologetic purpose.

4.3.2 Acts References to the Pharisees’ reputation in Acts are overt and positive and so they are ideally placed to offer a defence of Christianity on two occasions. 4.3.2.1 Gamaliel In Acts 5, Peter and the apostles are brought before the high priest and the Sanhedrin accused of disobeying the council’s order not to teach in Jerusalem (5:28). The apostles’ response, “We must obey God rather than any human authority … ” (5:29), provokes a murderous rage among the council members “When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.” (5:33). However, the Pharisee Gamaliel advises the council to exercise caution “so in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone” (5:38) and the council are “convinced by him” (5:39). The apostles are flogged but are ultimately released (5:40). Thus the intervention of Gamaliel the Pharisee rescues the apostles from almost certain death.31 Gamaliel argues from the premise that if movements lack divine sanction, they decline following the death of their founders. This presupposes the belief that God intervenes in human history. Josephus describes such a conviction in terms of fate and claims it is typically held by Pharisees as distinct from Sadducees (see B.J. 2:162 – 3 and A.J. 13:172; 18:13). If Josephus’ claim is taken seriously, then Gamaliel is not only called a Pharisee by Luke but also portrayed adopting a typically Pharisaic position. There are of course problems with this view. The intervention of fate or providence is a conviction underlying the story of Israel in the whole of scripture and so it is not surprising that many different 30 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 96. 31 Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 256, agrees that Gamaliel’s intervention has saved the apostles’ lives.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Second Theme: The reputation of the Pharisees and their apologetic function

143

Jews including the Pharisees should acknowledge it.32 Gamaliel compares the Jesus movement with other uprisings Theudas rose up … but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up … he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. (5:36 – 7)

From Luke’s perspective there is an obvious difference between these movements and the church. Theudas and Judas were thwarted but the church has increased. Gamaliel spells out the implications of this. He speaks of two possibilities regarding the origin and fate of the Christian movement: that it is either from man and will fail or from God and must succeed. I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them – in that case you may even be found fighting against God! (5:38b–39a)

When considered in its context, Gamaliel’s statement becomes an interpretation of the apostles’ escape from prison (which Luke described in Acts 5:19 – 24). The prisons could not contain the apostles because they are from God. Furthermore, when viewed from the author’s perspective the continued success of the Christian movement after Jesus’ death and into Luke’s own time, renders Gamaliel’s advice a verification of Christianity.33 This is reinforced for Robert Brawley by his observation that Luke uses “a grammatical structure that makes the position of Christianity favourable. The form of Gamaliel’s advice gives a higher degree of probability to the possibility that the activity of the apostles may be from God.”34 The possibility that the apostles’ undertaking is “from humans” is expressed using 1±m + subjunctive, but the possibility that it is “from God” takes the form eQ + indicative. R. Tannehill, following Brawley, explains that if the two conditional clauses were intended to express merely the conflicting hypothetical claims of the council and the apostles, then we might expect the same grammatical construction for both. Instead, Tannehill clarifies, the second clause comes close to the causal meaning “since it is from God … ”.35 32 If Acts supposes as Josephus does that Sadducees are distinguished by their denial of fate (B.J. 2:164 – 5; A.J. 13:173) then it is difficult to understand how Sadducees in the council were convinced by Gamaliel’s arguments (5:39). 33 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 90, 98. 34 So Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 89. Haenchen, Acts, 253, n. 1, asserts that Luke here uses the subjunctive to express possibility but the indicative to express fact. H. Conzelmann, The Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 43, suggests that this change of mood indicates that God’s advice is being spoken through Gamaliel. For Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2.67, and L.T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina 3; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 100, Gamaliel is a spokesperson for the implied author. 35 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2.67 following F. Blass/A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

144

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

John A. Darr, whose earlier essay was cited by William John Lyons, offers an alternative negative appraisal of Gamaliel’s speech.36 Darr begins from the premise that the negative portrayal of Pharisees in the third Gospel may be assumed in and read into Acts and, once this is established, Gamaliel’s argument can only demonstrate his misunderstanding and denigration of the Christian movement.37 Gamaliel compares support for the apostles with the doomed movements of Judas and Theudas thereby indicating that he expects the similarly misplaced popularity of the Jesus movement also to wane. The people have supported Peter and John hitherto (see Acts 4:2, 21) but this will not endure. On Darr’s reading, Gamaliel does not represent the implied author. Success and favour in the realm of history do not indicate the will of God, instead it is an eschatological reversal of fortunes – “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly.” (Luke 1:52) – which will vindicate the apostles. Gamaliel’s emphasis on history at the expense of eschatology has led him to reject the apostles.38 Although Darr’s reading issues a valuable caution against overstating the role and attitude of Gamaliel, his thoroughly negative interpretation is ultimately unconvincing because it is not so firmly rooted in the context of Acts as the alternative interpretations of Brawley et al. The negative reading assumes the a priori and complete unity of Luke and Acts which is repeatedly challenged by several other features of the portrayals of the Pharisees presented in this study. Moreover, although the author is certainly concerned with eschatological vindication, it would misrepresent Acts to claim that he is disinterested with the historical success and progress of the apostles. Although the conclusion of Acts is notoriously open–ended, leaving Paul in chains and still rejected by many of Israel, the author repeatedly describes the triumph of the apostles against the odds. The escape (5:19) and release of Peter and the apostles (5:40), in such close proximity to Gamaliel’s speech, serve as illustrations of the principle he outlines. Furthermore, the purpose of Gamaliel’s speech is certainly to counteract the council’s murderous plans. He does not apply his principle to suggest that the execution of Peter and John by the council might serve God’s will, as did (he Press, 1961), 189, §372 (1). See also Conzelmann, Acts, 43 and R.I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 147. 36 J.A. Darr, ‘Irenic or Ironic? Another Look at Gamaliel before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5.33 – 42)’ in R.P. Thompson/T.E. Philips (ed.), Literary Studies in Luke–Acts. Essays in honour of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998) 121 – 39; cf. W.J. Lyons, ‘The Words of Gamaliel (Acts 5.38 – 39) and the irony of indeterminacy’, JSNT 68 (1997) 23 – 49, especially pp. 43 – 8, citing J.A. Darr, ‘Observers observed: The Pharisees, the Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterisation in Luke–Acts’ (Unpublished paper to AAR/SBL, 1989, cited by Lyons, ‘Words of Gamaliel’). 37 Darr, ‘Irenic or Ironic?’, 131 – 4. 38 Cf. Lyons, ‘Words of Gamaliel’, 48.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Second Theme: The reputation of the Pharisees and their apologetic function

145

claims) the slaughter of Theudas, Judas and their followers. His aim is to preserve their lives, which is a sensible course only if he lends greater weight to the possibility that the apostles’ undertaking is from God and not to be overthrown. His argument is not issued as a theoretical speculation but as a quite explicit warning “I tell you keep away from these men and let them alone … you may even be found to be fighting against God.” (5:38 – 9). Gamaliel’s appreciation of the apostles is not perfect; it is rooted in his experience of other movements and perhaps fails to recognise, as Darr might wish him to, that the eschatological action of God transcends historical success. Moreover, the precedents which he chooses to cite, uprisings against Rome, do not address the current circumstances in a Jewish court of law and, it is difficult to maintain the position that he succeeds in convincing the council against the report that the apostles were punished.39 Nevertheless Gamaliel is placed on the verge of a Christian proclamation.40 He sides with the apostles against the hostile leaders of Judaism and is thereby exonerated from the latter’s opposition to the church in Acts.41 Luke’s report not only shows that Gamaliel’s intervention saved the apostles’ lives but also claims the support of a respected and influential Pharisee for his own opinions. Gamaliel’s status as a Pharisee suggests the reliability of his advice and lends credence to his opinion. Moreover, the episode demonstrates that the acceptance (or near acceptance) of the divine sanctioning of the apostles is compatible with faithfulness to Judaism. If it is defended by respectable Jews, the church cannot be considered an aberration of Judaism, in this way Brawley contends, “Acts takes advantage of Gamaliel’s respectability already firmly established in the Jewish tradition in order to bestow respectability on Christianity”.42 4.3.2.2 Pharisees of the Council Gamaliel’s behaviour is not atypical but is joined by the Pharisaic scribes’ defence of Paul before Ananias and the council in 23:9 “Certain scribes of the Pharisees’ group stood up and contended, ‘We find nothing wrong with this man.’” On this occasion the Pharisees’ defence speech does not precipitate Paul’s release but causes a clamour which prompts the removal of Paul to the protection of the Roman authorities, eventually allowing the progression of his mission to Caesarea and Rome (cf. 23:11, 23). As was the case with Gamaliel, the Pharisees’ defence is grounded on convictions that distinguish Pharisees from Sadducees. 39 Pervo, Acts, 148. 40 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 98; cf. Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 130, 243. 41 Pervo, Acts, 148, notes that Gamaliel is distinguished from the council by the second–person form of his address and that he is excluded from the “they” of 5:40. 42 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 98.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

146

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

In 23:8 Luke explains to his audience “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.” It is these three contentious issues that provoke and inform the Pharisees’ defence of Paul. Their intervention is prompted by Paul’s claim to be on trial as a Pharisee concerning the resurrection of the dead. Moreover, they admit the possibility of Paul’s legitimacy on the grounds “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” (23:9). 4.3.2.3 The distancing of Pharisees from involvement in persecution of the church The Pharisees’ role as defenders of the church is confirmed by the fact that Luke nowhere explicitly suggests their involvement in any of the arrests and martyrdoms of Christians. Instead, he implicates Sadducees and the party of the high priest, as well as King Herod (5:17 – 18; cf. 4:1 – 3; 12:1 – 2). It is true that Luke identifies Paul as Saul, a persecutor of the church, and thereby provides a potential link between Pharisaism and hostility to Christianity. However, in these earlier parts of Acts, no reference is made to Saul’s Pharisaism. Moreover, when Paul’s Pharisaism becomes apparent in his defence speeches, no explicit connection is made between Pharisaism and his previous zeal for persecution. It may not be justifiable to isolate information about Paul given in Acts 8 from that given in e. g. Acts 23, Paul was a Pharisee when he persecuted the church. However, a comparison with Phil 3:5 – 6, where Paul juxtaposes Pharisaism and persecuting zeal as elements of his former life, highlights the distinctive nature of Luke’s stance. Luke consigns Paul’s role as persecutor and indeed his original name to life prior to his conversion but does not consider Pharisaism to be at odds with Paul’s new life in Christ. The Paul of Acts 23 remains a Pharisee but has become the victim of persecution. Therefore any connection that might be found between Paul as a Pharisee and his persecuting zeal is not made explicit by the author ; Luke does not present Saul’s persecution of the church as typically Pharisaic.43 The Pharisees then are ideally placed as defenders of Christianity. Luke’s portrayal equips them not only with beliefs that allow them to admit the potential legitimacy of Christian claims, but also with a reputation for respectability and expertise. The credibility of arguments defending Christianity is enhanced by the emergence of those defences from Pharisaic lips. If Pharisees – the strictest sect of Judaism – support Christians then the church must be innocent of any transgression against Judaism. The Pharisaic defences of Christianity therefore contribute to Luke’s concern to demonstrate that Chris43 So Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 99, 369 n. 23.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Second Theme: The reputation of the Pharisees and their apologetic function

147

tianity is not incompatible with Judaism, but rather, its fulfilment. This apologetic concern may also be discerned in Paul’s appeals to his own Pharisaic convictions. 4.3.2.4 Paul’s appeals to Pharisaism in his defence speeches In his defence speeches, Paul not only refers to himself as a Pharisee (23:6 cf. 22:3), but also names fidelity to Pharisaic teaching as the cause of his imprisonment and trial. He tells Felix “It is about the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.” (24:21) and informs Agrippa “It is for this hope that I am accused by Jews.” (26:7). Yet the narrative account of accusations against Paul does not corroborate his claim. This suggests that his appeals were included to answer charges different from those explicitly put to him in the narrative. The charges against Paul and his response in terms of Pharisaism combine to serve a characteristically Lukan concern. Paul expresses a relationship of expectation and fulfilment. The Pharisees trust “a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain” (26:7), the fulfilment of which has been announced in the raising of Jesus Christ from the dead. This theme of fulfilled expectations is prevalent throughout the Gospel and Acts. Luke is continually enthusiastic to show that the events of his story fulfil the scriptures and prophecies of Israel (e. g. Luke 3:4 – 6; 4:21; Acts 2:17 – 21; 4:11; 8:32 – 3). In this way he demonstrates that the church, including the Gentile church, is a legitimate heir to the inheritance of Israel.44 J.T. Sanders agrees To the degree that Luke brings out that Pharisees believe in the resurrection, he shows the straight–line development of Christianity from ‘biblical Israel’ – that is, Christianity does not represent a break with tradition, since even non–Christian Pharisees believe, as do Christians, in the resurrection.45

A similar purpose may underlie Paul’s claims to be a Pharisee. Robert Brawley claims “Paul himself then becomes the example of a Pharisee most faithful to the hopes of Israel – he remains a Jew by becoming a Christian.”46 As a consequence Brawley argues that Acts does not portray the triumph of Gentile Christianity and the demise of Jewish Christianity, but “a struggle for the legacy of Israel as the people of God”, which appeals to Jews while binding Gentile Christianity to 44 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2.289 – 90, challenges this view, alleging that the church finds its validation by placing Christ in a Jewish and Scriptural context but here Paul appeals to a general resurrection of the dead. Paul’s defence speeches therefore envisage a Jewish reader and his appeals to the resurrection are an attempt to build bridges with his Pharisaic audience before relaying the Christian message proper. They provide a link between Christians and Pharisees in practical rather than theological terms. 45 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 99. This point echoed by Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 146. 46 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 158.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

148

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

its Jewish roots.47 Christianity is therefore the true Pharisaism, and Paul as a Christian is a true Pharisee who has remained loyal to his Pharisaic upbringing. When Paul’s Pharisaism is understood as a device to show his fidelity to Judaism, the reason for its inclusion in the defence speeches becomes clear. A review of the few recorded charges against Paul (they are undefined in 21:34, 22:30 and 25:27) shows them to be unconcerned with the resurrection; rather that Paul is accused of teaching against Judaism and the Torah. This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place. (21:28) We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, and so we seized him. (24:5 – 6)

Finally, the violent response in 22:22 to Paul’s comments on a mission from God to the Gentiles may be explained if these arguments were understood by the audience to diminish the status of Israel. Luke answers these accusations by portraying Paul as a loyal and devout Pharisee who, far from defiling the Temple, proved that he observed and guarded the law by accompanying four men of Jerusalem on the completion of their vow (22:23 – 4, 26). This defence of Paul personally also demonstrates that membership of the church is compatible with membership of Israel – there has not been a breach of God’s promise and Christians are its legitimate heirs.48 Paul is himself an illustration of the principle that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism; it is the true Pharisaism. At first sight this hypothesis may seem to be undermined by the Gospel. In contrast to the situation in Acts, Luke sets Jesus and his disciples in constant opposition to the Pharisees. Jesus rejects their practices, challenges their legal interpretations and displays no reverence for their status. S.G. Wilson suggests that the difference between Jesus’ and Paul’s attitudes to the Pharisees is symptomatic of a change in the situation of the author or his church between the compositions of his two books.49 He hypothesises that when the Gospel was written, Jesus’ attitude to the law was not a controversial issue and so Luke was free to include the indictments of Pharisaic halakhah that he found in his 47 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 159. Pace, Haenchen, Acts, 102, who claims “Luke has abandoned hope of converting Israel.” and Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 81 – 3, 303, for whom Luke–Acts describes the process of Jews “becoming” the obdurate people that e. g. Jesus’ speeches revealed them to be from the beginning of the story. 48 J.A. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian: Aspects of his Teaching (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989), 195, contends that Luke writes for a predominantly Gentile church to explain how they as Gentiles have come to share Israel’s promises. 49 Wilson, Luke and the Law, 112.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Second Theme: The reputation of the Pharisees and their apologetic function

149

sources. However, charges of antinomianism against the church and especially against Paul which arose prior to the composition of Acts prompted Luke to find “as many supporters for Paul as he could muster” in his second work. Luke and Acts do not, however, reflect radically different attitudes to the law. William Loader observes that Luke assumes fidelity to the Torah and the legitimacy of Jewish piety in the opening chapters of his Gospel and among the first apostles in Acts. Jesus’ dining in the company of Pharisees implies sufficient commonality with regard to the law to make this fellowship possible.50 Yet alongside this he stresses the incompatibility of the old order with the new; of Jesus with the Pharisees. Jesus criticises their distortion of the law’s priorities, which would compromise compassion.51 Sanders observes that both Luke and Acts report the rejection of Christianity by those who uphold the necessity of traditional Jewish halakhah (see Acts 15:5).52 Moreover, plenty of Acts material reflects tension and opposition between Christianity and Judaism (as does Pharisees material in the Gospel). For example: Peter accuses the Israelites in Jerusalem of killing Jesus (Acts 2:22 – 3); Christians are imprisoned and martyred by the Jewish authorities (e. g. Acts 5:18; 7:57 – 60; 12:1 – 3) and even at the close of the narrative some Jews still refuse to believe (Acts 28:24). Similarly, Christianity’s continuity with Judaism, which is illustrated by the portrayal of the Pharisees in Acts, also pervades the Gospel. For example, in references to the fulfilment of Scripture, the centrality of Jerusalem and the positive evaluation of genuine Jewish piety in the infancy narratives, 22:7 – 8 and 24:53. It is therefore unnecessary to sift through Luke’s portrayals of the Pharisees in both books to arrive at his viewpoint because the author includes material pertaining to both messages in each book. Luke has not altered his attitudes or concerns, just the opposite; he maintains in Luke and Acts the importance of two themes that check and balance each other. It is, however, undeniable that the Pharisees in the Gospel are very different from those in Acts. Nevertheless, Luke exploits the Pharisees’ reputation in the Gospel as well as in Acts albeit, as I will now demonstrate, in a very different way and to a different end.

50 Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 318, 360, 379. 51 Idem. 382 – 5. 52 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 127; but see below, 175 – 9.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

150

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

4.3.3 Gospel 4.3.3.1 Luke’s exploitation of the Pharisees’ reputation to show Jesus to advantage The Pharisees are regular interlocutors of Jesus and foils for his teaching. The impact of these scenes is considerably enhanced if we recognise that the Pharisees enjoyed influence and a reputation for legal rigour. In controversy after controversy Jesus demonstrates his superiority over opponents, who are not merely ordinary Jews but those reputed to be the “strictest” of that religion.53 For example, at Luke 6:9 the Pharisees give no answer to Jesus’ question “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?” This is not a lofty refusal to answer, nor are they silenced by fury (6:11); rather the question Jesus has posed places them in an impossible situation. They cannot claim that it is lawful to do harm but if they agree that it is lawful to do good they can offer no argument against Jesus’ rationale for healing the man with a withered hand. This interpretation is supported by the similar episode at 13:15 – 17 where Jesus’ question, couched in similar terms, puts his opponents (not Pharisees on that occasion) “to shame”. Robert Brawley highlights another Sabbath controversy (14:1 – 6) as a further encounter where “Luke uses the eminence of the Pharisees on this occasion to the advantage of Jesus. Even they can offer no opposition to Jesus’ rationale.”54 This time Luke explains their silence; they are unable to reply (oqj Uswusam !mtapojqih/mai pq¹r taOta). The inclusion of a “ruler of the Pharisees” in this group of opponents further emphasises Jesus’ superiority. Simon the Pharisee, by contrast, does answer Jesus and answers him correctly (Luke 7:43) but by answering exposes his own lack of love and faith (7:46 – 8). The Pharisees fall short of Jesus’ expectations and do not deserve the reputation they nurture since “All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” (14:11). The parable of the Pharisee and the tax–collector (18:10 – 14) is one that presupposes and is somewhat dependent on Pharisees being held in high esteem. The parable establishes a contrast between the two characters. The tax–collector is held in contempt alongside adulterers and thieves (not least by the Pharisee). Correspondingly, the Pharisee is renowned and respected for his piety (“I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.”). Yet Jesus declares that the tax–collector rather than the Pharisee went home justified. The impact of the parable depends on frustration of the audience’s expectation that the Pharisee, 53 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 158, suggests “The Pharisees set Jesus off to advantage … he contrasts them as superior over reputable.” 54 Idem. 102. Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 1.171, identifies 6:1 – 11; 13:10 – 17 and 14:1 – 6 as occasions when Jesus is left unanswered by his critics.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Second Theme: The reputation of the Pharisees and their apologetic function

151

who is respected for his piety, will be justified. If the Pharisee is not thus respected the parable loses some of its force. It is, however, important to recognise that just as the Good Samaritan is not typical of all real–life Samaritans per se, the Pharisee in the parable is not necessarily typical of all real–life Pharisees. Jesus describes the behaviour of the Pharisee in the parable and this, without any other information, is sufficient to understand the moral of the story that all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted. The parable does not grant licence to infer that all tax-collectors are humble and justified or that all Pharisees exalt themselves. The parable is a polemic against self–righteousness, not against Pharisees.55 Nevertheless, arguably the parable would have been more effective if at least some elements of it – such as the reputation of the Pharisee – rang true for its audience. In all cases in the Gospel, and in contrast to Acts, the Pharisees’ reputation is never openly commended but criticised and exposed as fraudulent (see Luke 11:39 – 44). It is recognised only in order to undermine it and to show Jesus to advantage. He is able to defeat even the best opponents and thereby expose the fragility of their position. How then can we account for this difference between Luke and Acts? The Pharisees are justifiably held in high esteem in Acts but not in Luke; surely this betrays a different attitude to the Pharisees in each book!

4.3.3.2 The Pharisees’ “defence” of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel J.A. Ziesler suggests that the absence of the Pharisees from the passion narrative contributes to and is consistent with a generally sympathetic portrayal of Pharisees in the third Gospel, also exemplified by certain passages which seem to imply Pharisaic concern for Jesus’ safety.56 However, I will argue that Pharisaic attempts to protect Jesus are not what they seem and that, despite their absence from the passion narrative, Luke does not acquit them of involvement in the crucifixion. The Pharisees are frequent opponents of Jesus and do little, or nothing, to protect him and his ministry. They do not assume the same role – that of defending Christianity – as the Pharisees in Acts. The Pharisees, as a distinct character group, are absent from the passion narrative in Luke.57 However, this is also the case in the other synoptic Gospels 55 So Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 151. 56 Idem. 154. E. Franklin, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew (JSNTSup 92; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 179 – 80, considers Luke’s omission of Pharisees from his passion narrative to be in keeping with his redactional tendency to mellow the antagonism between Jesus and the Pharisees (below, 168 – 75). 57 H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (London: Faber & Faber, 1960), 78; Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 88.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

152

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

(except Matt 27:62 and Mark 12:13 cf. parallel in Luke 20:20). The absence of Pharisees from the Lukan passion narrative, therefore, follows a well established tradition which, rather than exonerating the Pharisees, indicates that at this stage in the story the united actions of Jewish officials in Jerusalem become more important than any distinction between Jews that Luke reflected in his account of Jesus’ ministry.58 Elsewhere in his Gospel Luke makes no effort to disassociate the Pharisees from the crucifixion of Jesus altogether. In 5:17 and 19:39 the Pharisees are associated with Jerusalem, the city of Jesus’ death.59 Their resolutions against Jesus, although they make no overt reference to Jesus’ destruction, cannot be entirely disassociated from the opposition that leads to the crucifixion. They watch Jesus, attempting to trap him, and in this way resemble the scribes and chief priests at 20:20 who engineer Jesus’ death. The scribes with the priests are companions of the Pharisees (e. g. in Luke 5:30) and exhibit Pharisaic characteristics.60 For example in Luke 20:39, some of the scribes acknowledge the merit of Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection, which as I have shown is cited in Acts 23 as a characteristically Pharisaic belief. The scribes in 20:46 are subject to the same criticism as that of the Pharisees in 11:43. The chief priests, scribes and elders in 20:1 – 7 like the Pharisees at 7:30 did not believe John the Baptist.61 It has, furthermore, been suggested that Luke has redacted Mark and introduced other uniquely Lukan elements in such a way as to distance Pharisees from the cause of Jesus’ death. The explicit aim of the Lukan Pharisees’ plots (6:11; 11:53 – 4), unlike the conspiracy in Mark 3:6, is not to kill Jesus (above, p. 37). However, Luke’s redaction may reflect his understanding that “it is impossible for a prophet to be killed away from Jerusalem” (13:33 see also 9:31 and 58 Carroll (‘Luke’s Portrayal’, 606 n. 11) claims that the omission of the Pharisees from Luke’s parallel to Mark 12:13 – 7 suggests that Luke deliberately further excluded them from the Jerusalem narrative. See also, Franklin, Luke, 179 – 80; Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 148 – 9. Powell, ‘Religious Leaders’, 94 especially n. 4 and n. 6, describes how Luke interweaves Pharisees with the religious leadership responsible for the crucifixion. This is a valid point; the Pharisees cannot be isolated from the behaviour of their colleagues. Nevertheless, Luke does not blur all distinctions between them; the Pharisees are not directly involved in the crucifixion. 59 Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke, 22. 60 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 105, recognises that Luke preserves Pharisees from involvement in the crucifixion and killing the prophets (11:47 – 51). Nevertheless, he argues: “If the Jews could have understood their own scripture they would not always have rejected the purposes of God and killed the prophets, including Jesus. But the Pharisees, who are never said to be guilty, participate in that wrong interpretation of scripture. So where does that leave them?”. 61 Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 1.176 – 7. Also Carroll, ‘Luke’s Portrayal’, 605, who further notes that Luke is aware that Pharisees sometimes participated in the same council which condemned Jesus (see Acts 5:34 and 23:6). Moreover in Acts 7:52 and 13:27, Luke seems to regard the Jews in general as responsible for the crucifixion without exonerating the Pharisees.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Second Theme: The reputation of the Pharisees and their apologetic function

153

18:31 – 3). Therefore, any plots against Jesus which take place outside Jerusalem cannot have Jesus’ death in view. The significance of Jerusalem as the appointed place of Jesus’ death also affects the interpretation of 13:31. According to Ziesler, this verse shows that Pharisaic opposition to Jesus is not monolithic and that at least “some Pharisees” attempt to preserve Jesus’ life “At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, ‘Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.’”62 Jesus’ response to the Pharisees indicates the irony of their warning “Yet today, tomorrow and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed away from Jerusalem.” (13:33). They urge Jesus to escape death by getting away and yet it is by leaving and going toward Jerusalem that Jesus arrives at the cross. David B. Gowler suggests that the focus of this episode is not on the Pharisees’ benevolence but their failure to acknowledge Luke’s conviction that it is “necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory” (24:26).63 Luke does not reveal the Pharisees’ motives and the evaluation of their warning may be informed by their behaviour in the narrative so far. If the Pharisees are hypocrites (12:1), then their seemingly benevolent action may be derived from less than honourable intentions. Do the Pharisees simply want Jesus to “Get away from here”?64 J.T. Sanders suggests that 19:38 – 9 may also be interpreted as an example of the Pharisees’ benevolence If in 13:31 [the Pharisees] warned Jesus away from Jerusalem out of fear for his safety, then the same motive might prompt them to encourage Jesus to quiet those who would make such claims for him as to get him into difficulty with the authorities.65

This reading, however, is unconvincing and seems to be prompted by his exercise of explaining away Jesus’ non–halakhic conflicts with the Lukan Pharisees (below, pp. 175 – 9). Instead, Jesus’ response reveals that gross misunderstanding underlies the Pharisees’ comment. Jesus affirms the necessity of that praise which the Pharisees wish to stifle “Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to 62 Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 149 – 50. Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1030, agrees that these Pharisees at least are well disposed to Jesus. See too the bold assertion of Weiß in Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, 37, that the positive portrayal of the Pharisees on this occasion is counter to the tendency of the evangelist and so might be assumed authentic. On the contrary, I shall argue that this episode may be understood as consistent with Luke’s portrayal of the Pharisees elsewhere and so provides no basis in that regard for evaluating its historical authenticity or otherwise. 63 Gowler, Host, 240 – 1. 64 So I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 571. Also Carroll, ‘Luke’s Portrayal’, 604 – 5, n. 3, suggests that Luke 12:1 casts doubt over the sincerity of the Pharisees at 13:31. 65 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 92.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

154

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

him, ‘Teacher, order your disciples to stop.’ He answered, ‘I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out.’” Their warning is not born of a desire to prevent Jesus’ destruction but is the culmination of that blindness they have so far displayed. They have failed to recognise Jesus’ real identity as King and the divine origin of his ministry. The attitudes and behaviour which lead to Jesus’ crucifixion at the hands of non–Pharisees are also exhibited by Pharisees. Moreover, Luke attributes to those responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion, faults that the reader has come to associate with the Pharisees. The Pharisees’ absence from the passion narrative cannot, therefore, be adduced as evidence of their complete innocence with any greater conviction than for Mark’s or Matthew’s Gospels. Consequently, there is no real parallel in Luke’s Gospel to those aspects of Acts which depict Pharisees as defenders of Christianity.

4.3.4 Summary of Second Theme The author of Luke and Acts presents the Pharisees as a group with a degree of power and influence and enjoying a considerable reputation and exploits this reputation for his own purpose. I have demonstrated that in Acts Pharisees are ideally placed to defend of the church. In this way they serve Luke’s apologetic concern to show that Christian missionaries and their message did not deviate from Judaism but are in continuity with it.66 The apostles are innocent of transgression and the possible validity of their authority is acknowledged by highly respected Jews. Conversely, in the Gospel, Jesus’ authority is enhanced because he is able to criticise and confound even the strictest and most influential parties of Judaism whose reputation is thereby undermined. The Pharisees of the Gospel do not foreshadow the role of their counterparts in Acts. Luke’s Pharisees make no unambiguous attempt to defend or protect Jesus and, although they are absent from the passion narrative, Luke gives no indication that the Pharisees oppose Jesus’ crucifixion. As before, two very different portrayals of the Pharisees emerge from Luke and Acts. Although both books appeal to the Pharisees’ reputation, their appeals serve different purposes. This is not to say that Luke is inconsistent. The concerns addressed by the portrayal of the Pharisees in each book are found in both books. For example, Luke’s apologetic concern to demonstrate the compatibility of Christianity and Judaism is evident not only in the Pharisaic defences of the 66 Carroll, ‘Luke’s Portrayal’, 618, concludes that the Pharisees’ positive role in this respect does not indicate their standing in Luke’s esteem but merely that they are a useful apologetic tool.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

155

apostles but in the positive presentation of Jewish piety in the Gospel. The third theme will address the extent to which the Pharisees may be considered akin to the Jesus movement/church. Again, it will become clear that the author adopts a different stance on this issue in each book. The Pharisees’ defence of Christianity in Acts contributes to the impression that of all Jews, Pharisees have the most in common with the church and are the most likely to join it. Conversely, there is little in the Gospel to suggest that the Pharisees are anything other than opponents of Jesus.

4.4

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

Several scholars have argued that Luke’s portrayal of the Pharisees gives them points in common with Jesus and his followers. Their interactions with, and similarities of opinion to, Jesus and the apostles betray that, if not members of the same movement, the Pharisees and Jesus/the church share some common ground, perhaps even common roots. Their affinity is such that Robert L. Brawley suggests “Luke ushers the Pharisees right up to the portals of the Christian faith.”67 In the words of F. C. Baur So far is [Luke] misled by the efforts which he makes to represent the cause of the Apostle as a party affair of the Pharisees, that he almost makes the Pharisees into Christians.68

I will begin with an examination of the evidence of Acts, which provides the most convenient and explicit starting point for the elucidation of this theme.

4.4.1 Acts Acts involves a variety of Jewish and Gentile groups and of these the Pharisees seem to be the most sympathetic and appear to have most in common with the early church. One way in which this commonality is manifest is a shared belief in the resurrection of the dead.69

67 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 158. 68 F.C. Baur, Paul: The Apostle of Jesus Christ, his Life and Work, his Epistles and his Doctrine (2 vol.; London/Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 21876), 1.208. 69 For R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke–Acts (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1982), 40, this is the only ground for some degree of affinity or sympathy between Christians and Pharisees.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

156

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

4.4.1.1 Resurrection of the Dead As I have already noted (above, pp. 147 – 8), a belief in the resurrection of the dead is presented as characteristic of the Pharisees “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.” (Acts 23:8 cf. Luke 20:27 – 33). Resurrection also forms a core part of the apostles’ proclamation. Peter declares God raised [Jesus of Nazareth] up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power. (Acts 2:24) … the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead. (4:10)

See also 1:22; 2:32; 3:15, 26; 4:33; 5:30; 10:40. Paul also preaches “the good news about Jesus and the resurrection” (17:18 also 13:30, 37; 17:3, 31). Furthermore, as noted above, in his defence speeches Paul often claims that “the resurrection of the dead” is the focus of his message and the reason he stands accused (23:6; 24:15, 20 – 1; 26:5 – 8; 28:20).70 His claim is supported by Festus’ retelling of the situation to Agrippa When the accusers stood up, they did not charge [Paul] with any of the crimes that I was expecting. Instead they had certain points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who had died, but whom Paul asserted to be alive. (25:18 – 19)

In Luke’s presentation, belief in resurrection characterises both Christians and Pharisees and distinguishes them from those who deny resurrection. The latter function is clear where the unwillingness of Gentiles to accept “resurrection of the dead” leads to their rejection of the Christian message. For example in 17:32 “When [Athenians at the Areopagus] heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, ‘We will hear you again about this.’” Also, in 26:23 Paul speaks of Christ as “the first to rise from the dead” and “while he was making this defence Festus exclaimed ‘You are out of your mind, Paul! Too much learning is driving you insane.’” (26:24) The prominence of resurrection in the apostles’ proclamation may also explain clashes between Sadducees and Christians as suggested in Acts 4:1 – 2 70 Haenchen, Acts, 638, 722, understands Paul to cite two elements of shared belief: [Messianic] hope and resurrection. However, Conzelmann, Acts, 192, suggests that 1kp¸r and !m²stasir form a hendiadys and should not be distinguished. Moreover, in 24:15 the “hope” is explicitly identified with the resurrection. In 26:5 – 8 the “hope” which the twelve tribes hope to attain (jatamt/sai) is more likely to refer to a resurrection (the subject which Paul then takes up in 26:8) in which they will participate, rather than the arrival of a Messiah, who they will not, strictly speaking, “attain”. Therefore, if in 24:15 and 26:5 – 8 “hope” is in the resurrection, the same is likely at 23:6 and at 28:20 where only “hope” is mentioned.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

157

The priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came to [Peter and John] much annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

It would, however, be unrealistic (both historically and within the presentation of Acts) to suppose that proclaiming the resurrection of the dead was, in itself, deserving of arrest since this would entail the arrest of all Pharisees (of which there is no indication in Acts or elsewhere). The grounds for arrest must have been the teaching in Jesus’ name (which is a cause for complaint in 4:18; 5:28 and 5:40) and yet the reference to resurrection, especially in juxtaposition with the Sadducees, implies that this may have served as an additional provocation. There is an important difference between Christian and Pharisaic teaching about the resurrection of the dead. For the apostles, the crucial point is that Jesus has been raised from the dead, whereas Pharisees probably looked forward to a general resurrection of all the dead to reward or punishment (see A.J. 18:14).71 It is significant that when appealing to the Pharisees, the Lukan Paul makes no mention of Jesus’ resurrection but describes it according to Pharisaic expectation “I have a hope in God – a hope that they themselves also accept – that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (24:15). Paul appeals to the Sanhedrin as a Pharisee defending his Pharisaic belief and Luke seems to overlook the discrepancy between this stance and Paul’s conviction about the risen Jesus. This discrepancy casts doubt on “resurrection of the dead” as substantive common ground between Pharisees and Christians. It might be argued that affinity is found between Pharisees and Christian Pharisees like Paul. If so, it is no common ground at all, since the Pharisees concur with Christian teaching only in its Pharisaic aspects (i. e. not including that Jesus has been raised). Such a challenge finds support in the interpretation of Paul’s appeal in 23:6 as a ploy which divided the council and disrupted proceedings.72 On this reading Paul is not alerting his audience to a point of contact between Pharisees and Christians but playing a trick to save his skin (like his claim to be a Roman at 16:37) and to expose the Jews as divided with regard to their own beliefs. It is, however, difficult to maintain this explanation when Paul persists in appealing to Pharisaic teaching even when this no longer provokes disruption (24:15; 26:5 – 8; 28:20). He presents it not as a point of controversy but one that unites “the twelve tribes” (26:7; 28:20). Indeed, Richard Pervo argues that the dis71 So Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 88 – 9, 292. 72 This interpretation is favoured by Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 289; Pervo, Acts, 564 and Conzelmann, Acts, 192: “Paul’s action is navely portrayed as an adroit chess move”. But Haenchen Acts, 638, 641, considers such a ploy to be unworthy of Paul whose defence of Pharisaic doctrine is sincere.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

158

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

agreement between Pharisees and Sadducees in Acts 23 supports the suggestion that denial of the resurrection by Sadducees is a product, not of their Torah interpretation but their scepticism. Paul returns to the theme of resurrection again and again and attempts to make it the focus of accusations against him, although this issue nowhere provoked his arrest. Paul’s words, therefore, are more than tactics; he attempts to change the issue of his trial.73 He does recognise similarity between Christians and Pharisees although it is on Pharisaic terms. J.T. Sanders observes Of course the two beliefs in a resurrection are not the same … This difference Luke glosses over in the interest of emphasising the propriety of Christianity as the true Judaism.74

Christians share the Pharisees’ belief in the resurrection of the dead, although it is not clear that non–Christian Pharisees affirm that Jesus has been raised. There are in Acts, of course, some Pharisees who are also Christian. These are arguably the most explicit illustration of affinity between Pharisees and Christians and it is to them that I now turn. 4.4.1.2 Pharisees who are also Christians Paul Paul is not only a Christian missionary, preacher and founder of churches but also, as I have noted, presents himself as “a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (23:6), educated under Gamaliel who was identified as a Pharisee in Acts 5:34. I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law, being zealous for God, just as all of you are today. (22:3) All the Jews know my way of life from my youth, a life spent from the beginning among my own people and in Jerusalem. They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I have belonged to the strictest sect of our religion and lived as a Pharisee. (26:4 – 6)

Regardless of whether or not these introductions serve a rhetorical purpose (to appease or dupe his audience), it is clearly possible and plausible for Luke’s Paul to claim that he is a Pharisee whilst at the same time being a Christian, standing trial for preaching the Gospel. The depiction of his Pharisaic endeavours is positive: he is “zealous for God” and has been “educated strictly” (22:3). The Lukan Paul has not relinquished Pharisaism in favour of his newfound faith in 73 So Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2.286 – 7. 74 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 292.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

159

Jesus; rather, this new faith is the fulfilment of his Pharisaic hopes (above, pp. 147 – 9). “Some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees” (15:5) This is the first appearance of the Pharisees as a group in Acts and the first reference to them since 5:34. All of the evidence I have so far adduced for Pharisaic sympathy to the Christians and their proclamation is found after chapter 15. Note that although Luke has described the ‘conversion’ of Saul/Paul the reader does not learn that he is a Pharisee until (arguably) 22:3 or explicitly in 23:6. Luke has scarcely prepared the reader for the Pharisees’ involvement in the church in Acts 15:5. On the one hand, the prevalence of Pharisees in Luke’s account of Jesus’ ministry may entail that the presence of Pharisees among the Jewish population in Acts is taken for granted. On the other hand and as I have argued above pp. 131 – 9, the Gospel presents the Pharisees as unable to perceive or participate in the kingdom of God. Therefore, the appearance of specifically Pharisees is a new and surprising development as far as Luke and Acts is concerned. It may be argued that the specific identification of the “believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees” is explained by their role in chapter 15. The chapter concerns a division in the church over how the Gentile mission should be conducted. The Christian Pharisees assert, “It is necessary for [converted Gentiles] to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.” This is reminiscent of the cause of dissension in 15:1 “Certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’”75 They extol a definitively Jewish perspective and like the Pharisees of the Gospel, their challenge is legal and restricts membership of the kingdom/church. This prompts J.T. Sanders to suggest that Pharisees in Acts fall into one of two classifications.76 “When Pharisees are seen as Jews they are viewed as a very special and almost separate part of Judaism.”77 They are in fact “not so very far removed from Christianity”,78 but as Christians, the Pharisees become trouble–makers who subvert the mission of the church. However, Sanders’ view is problematic and overlooks the nuances of Luke’s 75 I will accept the identification of believers as Pharisees in Acts 15:5 since the absence of Pharisees from Western variants of the text is probably the result of an omission prompted by the incredulity that these well–known opponents of Jesus could be members of the church. See Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 148 n. 1. Also Haenchen, Acts, 444. 76 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 94, 101. 77 Idem. 242. 78 Idem. 243.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

160

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

portrayal; his twin categorisation of Pharisees in Acts is difficult to uphold for a number of reasons. First, Sanders admits Paul as an exception to the category of obstructionist Christian Pharisees. He is right to recognise that Paul is both a Pharisee and a Christian who advances the church’s cause, yet this places his categories in jeopardy. While Acts describes many occasions where nonChristian Pharisees adopt a benevolent role, Sanders’ second category is based on only one case (15:5) and admits the (by no means insignificant) exception of Paul. Secondly, Sanders’ interpretation demands too a harsh reading of Acts 15 and its implications for the Gentile mission. The Pharisaic believers express a concern for the law of Moses but do not object to the conversion of Gentiles per se. Sanders understands their “essential position” as being that all Gentiles must become Jews in order to be Christians and that this stance is rejected in the apostolic decree. In his words, the Gentile church could have arrived at the laws in the apostolic decree without a compromise.79 The decree requires them, as Gentiles, to keep those commandments which are laid down for Gentile sojourners in the land of Israel (note the similarity of the decree to Lev 17 – 18). Robert Brawley, however, interprets the decree along more conciliatory lines. It “validates Gentile Christianity without invalidating nomistic Jewish Christianity. It even enjoins Gentiles to keep certain prescriptions as a concession to Jews.”80 The Christian Pharisees’ demand for circumcision is not the sum total of their concern, they also promote the law of Moses and elements of the latter are upheld by the decree. Moreover, and most importantly, the decision of Peter, James and the Council not to circumcise Gentiles meets with the approval of the whole church. There is no outcry against Peter’s speech but rather The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. (15:12) The apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas … with the following letter [that is, the apostolic decree]. (15:22 – 3).

There is no suggestion that the unanimity here excludes the Pharisees of 15:5. They too must have acquiesced to the majority opinion, opposing the circum-

79 Idem. 117 – 8. 80 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 81 and see 158. Contrast Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 386, who argues that the decree does not represent a compromise between Jews and Gentiles but an accommodation of Luke’s desire to affirm the validity of Torah, within his ambivalent attitude to its ritual demands. Yet the nuance implied in Loader’s reading, does not, I think, affect the portrayal of the Christian Pharisees which emerges. Whatever the thrust of the decree, it achieves unanimous assent.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

161

cision of Gentile converts.81 The Christian Pharisees demonstrate their unity with other Christians and prepare the ground for the friendly appearances of non–Christian Pharisees in later chapters. I must agree with J. A. Ziesler that … it is notable that there are Christian Pharisees; no other NTwriter even hints at such a thing … and the viewpoint that there is no total incompatibility between the two groups is thus reinforced. Of course the Christian Pharisees hold to a tough line on the observance of the law … Nevertheless these differences preclude neither a degree of sympathetic understanding, nor membership of both groups at once.82

The acknowledgement that Pharisees can also be Christians is inherently positive about the relationship between Pharisaism and Christianity. These Pharisees, like Paul, have recognised Christianity as the fulfilment of their Jewish beliefs. This view is bolstered by the observation strongly associated with Jacob Jervell, that Acts, instead of ‘writing the Jews off ’, describes the acceptance of the Gospel by a significant portion of Israel.83 Jervell extrapolates his argument to the more contentious claim that it is this Jewish acceptance that enables the Gentile mission. The conversion and restoration of Israel is the basis for the extension of salvation to the Gentiles; the promises to Israel must be fulfilled for Israel first.84 The latter claim, however, is difficult to reconcile with 13:46 and 18:6 where Jewish rejection of the Gospel is the cue for turning to the Gentiles. Moreover, the inclusion of ‘Christian Pharisees’ places an obstacle (albeit temporary) in the path of Gentile converts. However, it cannot be denied that Acts repeatedly emphasises the success of the Christian mission among Jews e. g. 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 21:20 some of whom must be Pharisees.85 Acts 15 focuses on the Christianity of these Pharisees rather than their Pharisaism insofar as it describes a dispute within the church. Their view is problematic and causes dissension because they are Christians. That it is Pharisees who hold this opinion may be incidental, rather than any comment about their particular corruption, hypocrisy or whatever. Aside from any historical rationale, Luke’s decision to make Pharisees the advocates of a traditionally ‘Jewish’ standpoint on circumcision may have been driven by his conviction that Pharisees, out of all the Jewish parties, were most likely to become Christians. Luke demonstrates this conviction elsewhere by displaying continuity between Pharisaism and Christianity. Acts 15 does not give an account of 81 So Gowler, Host, 283 – 4, 300; cf. Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2.183 – 4, 191 – 2 and Johnson, Acts, 278, all of whom highlight the council’s unanimity. Pervo, Acts, 369 – 72, refers to Luke’s decisive portrait of enduring agreement, church unity and utterly reasonable compromise. 82 Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 147 – 8, this point echoed also in Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, 48. 83 Jervell, People of God, 42. 84 Idem. 43, 55. 85 Idem. 44 – 6.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

162

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

the annihilation but rather, the accommodation of Jewish Christianity within the church. Whatever the status of non–Christian Jews by the end of the book, there is no hint that Christian Pharisees will be excluded from the hopes of Israel. The portrayal of the Pharisees in Acts shows that Pharisees over and above any other Jewish party exhibit the greatest kinship with the early church. In contrast with Sadducees, they share a belief in the resurrection (although not necessarily in the resurrection of Jesus Christ) and display the greatest tolerance to the Christian message. This is most clearly illustrated by the existence of Pharisees who are also Christians, including Paul, a hero of the church. I will now undertake an examination of Luke’s Gospel on the same theme. There are several traits which suggest that of all the Jews to feature in the third Gospel, the Pharisees are the most sympathetic to, or else display the greatest interest in, the Jesus movement. In the words of Robert Brawley, they “hover close to the edge of Christianity”.86 The following analysis, however, will argue that, in contrast with Acts, much material in the Gospel minimises any affinity between Pharisees and the Jesus movement.

4.4.2 Gospel 4.4.2.1 Jesus Dining with Pharisees I have already offered an analysis of the dinner table setting as a means to discuss their participation in the eschatological banquet (above, pp. 132 – 4), yet there is another perspective from which these scenes may be viewed. The Pharisees oppose Jesus and enter into disputes with him and yet the fact that they invite Jesus to their table suggests that they do not consider him an outsider. Their shared table fellowship might presuppose some common ground between them or at least implies that the Pharisees had first–hand experience of his teaching. In the following section I will draw out these social rather than eschatological implications of Luke’s presentation.87

86 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 84. 87 Table–fellowship with Jesus is not unique to Pharisees among Jesus’ opponents. The guests of Simon are not identified as Pharisees (7:49) and the diner who interrupts in 11:45 is a lawyer. The guests at 14:3 are also a mixed bunch of lawyers and Pharisees. It is reasonable to expect a leader of the Pharisees to number other Pharisees among his friends and neighbours (14:12) but the assumption that all guests of a Pharisee would themselves be Pharisees (e. g. Johnson, 1991, 228, 231) may be founded on the unjustified identification of Pharisees as a dining club or haverah. The behaviour of the guests in 14:7 is similar to that attributed to Pharisees in 11:43, but also to scribes in 20.46, and even to disciples at 22:24.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

163

The similarity between Luke’s accounts and the symposium literary genre lends support to the case for understanding the Lukan dinner parties within the context of the wider ancient world. This genre details the conversation which accompanied ancient meals and is exemplified in the works of Plato, Xenophon and later by Luke’s near–contemporary Plutarch, among others. E. Springs Steele summarises the essential elements of the symposium genre as follows. The dramatis personae are typically comprised of a distinguished host, a wise chief guest and a variety of other guests of high social standing. Its structure follows a typical pattern which includes an explicit reference to the invitation of the chief guest, a fait divers e. g. a news item which serves as a point of departure for speeches and debate and a discussion which gradually introduces the guests.88 Steele then demonstrates that at least some of these elements may indeed be found in each of Luke’s three ‘symposia’ involving Jesus and the Pharisees.89 On each occasion Jesus is the only named, and therefore, chief guest. He dominates the discussion and the wisdom of his teaching confounds the other participants.90 The noteworthiness of all three hosts and their guests may be inferred from Luke’s presentation of the Pharisees’ reputation (see above, pp. 141 –2, 150 – 1, 154 – 5). Moreover, the host in 14:1 is a leader of that party who invites his rich neighbours (see Jesus’ reprimand in 14:12).91 His guests display concern for their personal honour and status as it is represented by their position at the table (14:7).92 Luke makes explicit reference to the invitation issued to Jesus in 7:36, and 11:37, also it is implied at 14:1 and by the discussion of invitations at 14:12 – 13.93 In each passage Steele identifies a fait divers: Simon’s unspoken reaction to the woman’s action (7:39), the Pharisee’s amazement at Jesus’ failure to wash (11:38) and the healing of the man with dropsy (14:4).94 It is true that not every characteristic of the classical symposium is found in all three Lukan accounts; the evangelist has un88 E.S. Steele, ‘Luke 11:37 – 54 – A Modified Hellenistic Symposium?’, JBL 103 (1984) 379 – 94, on pp. 380 – 1. 89 The earlier studies of X. De Mee˜s, ‘Composition de Lc., XIV et Genre Symposiaque’, ETL (1961) 847 – 70, and J. Delobel, ‘L’onction par la p¦cheresse: La composition litt¦raire de Lc. 7:36 – 50’, ETL 42 (1966) 415 – 75, each argue that the passage with which he deals exhibits characteristics belonging to the symposium genre. Steele, ‘Hellenistic Symposium?’, builds on these findings and extends the theory to include Luke11:37 – 54. I refer the reader to this article for a detailed treatment of the Symposium genre and its application to the Gospel. 90 Steele, ‘Hellenistic Symposium?’, 383 – 4, 387. 91 Idem. 382, 387. 92 The matter of ranking at the table provides a further link with the Symposium genre since it is also discussed in Plato’s Symposium 177 D–E; Plutarch Table Talk 617F–618E; Philo Contempl. 67; 1QSa II. For further references and analysis see D.E. Smith, ‘Table Fellowship as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke’, JBL 106 (1987), 613 – 38, on pp. 617 – 18. 93 Steele, ‘Hellenistic Symposium?’, 387, 389. Although, Steele claims the invitation in Luke 14 is also explicit, I do not consider it to be so when compared with the examples of chs. 7 and 11. 94 Idem. 386, 389.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

164

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

deniably modified and abbreviated the genre. However, Steele concludes that each Gospel pericopae contains a sufficient number of elements typical of the Hellenistic symposium for Luke 7:36 – 50; 11:37 –54 and 14:1 –24 to be considered examples of this genre.95 What then is the effect of viewing the three Lukan dinners as symposia in the Hellenistic style? Symposia are not situations of conflict but convivial social occasions where lively debate does not reflect deep social divisions or hostility. The conversation depicted by Plutarch in Dinner of the Seven Wise Men and Table Talk is apparently convivial and the dinner table is a meeting place for friends.96 Plutarch underlines that the aim of dinner conversation is to entertain rather than quarrel. … their spirits are harmoniously and profitably stirred by subjects of enquiry that are easy to handle; but one must banish the talk of ‘wranglers’ as Democritus calls them, and of ‘phrase–twisting’ sophists, talk which involves them in strenuous argument about complex and obtuse subjects and irritates those who happen to be present.97

Therefore by placing Jesus and the Pharisees within this context, it has been argued that Luke not only suggests a friendly relationship between them but also minimises the extent of their dispute. Jesus’ teaching and disagreements with his fellow guests are not hostile but part of the lively debate which features in such accounts as a matter of course. This kind of reasoning begins to emerge in Robert Brawley’s observations The setting at a meal in the home of Simon … presupposes conviviality. The dialogue reflects the amenities of proper social relationships … The strong affinity between 7:36 – 50 and the genre of the Hellenistic symposium shows that Simon provides the foil for Jesus’ teaching about forgiveness.98

Simon’s invitation suggests both that he is amicably disposed towards Jesus and that differences of opinion between the two men should be ascribed to Simon’s role as host rather than as representative of the Pharisees. Ziesler claims that “there is little doubt that [Luke] deliberately modifies his inherited anti-Pharisaic tradition by creating these host–guest contexts” and this “suggest[s] a greater friendliness towards the Pharisees on the part of Luke than we find in Mark or Matthew”.99 On closer inspection, however, this evaluation of the table setting seems less 95 Idem. 387, 389 – 90. 96 The same is true of the banquet described centuries earlier by Plato which exerted a considerable influence on later manifestations of the genre. Note how Agathon approves Socrates’ extension of an invitation to Aristodemus in Plato’s Symposium 174 E. 97 Plutarch Table Talk I 1:614. 98 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 100. 99 Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 150.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

165

persuasive. Despite the medium in which the evangelist has presented his material, the picture he paints is, nevertheless, one which denigrates Jesus’ Pharisaic hosts. Instead of fulfilling the expectations of this genre, Luke subverts them by juxtaposing Jesus’ thoroughgoing criticism of the Pharisees with his presentation of their host–guest relationship. These meals should be contrasted with the example of Zacchaeus in 19:5 – 10 where the relationship has a very different function. Zacchaeus is happy to welcome Jesus into his home and fulfils this potential by responding positively to his guest, thereby earning Jesus’ praise. Jesus’ scathing reproaches of his Pharisaic hosts have all the more impact because they seem incongruous with their setting. Moreover, the Pharisees who dine with Jesus are consistently shown in poor comparison with other characters that appear on the scene. The portrayal of Simon the Pharisee begins on a positive note when Jesus accepts his invitation to dine but this promising start is dashed after a woman “intrudes and anoints and kisses Jesus’ feet and washes them with her tears” (7:37 – 8). Luke describes Simon’s unvoiced criticism of Jesus for acquiescing to the woman’s attentions (7:39). Simon fails to understand the significance of the woman’s actions and Jesus’ forgiveness of her.100 The woman’s devotion to Jesus is contrasted with Simon’s shortcomings I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. (7:44 – 6).

The woman’s response of love is one of faith (7:50) and is sufficient for her salvation whereas Simon’s offence is more than a breach of etiquette for he has shown only a little love and therefore has received little forgiveness (7:47). Any openness Simon might have displayed by inviting Jesus is thus shown to be inadequate.101 Robert Brawley identifies a “subsidiary theme” of this pericope. Simon’s willingness to accept Jesus at his table together with his refusal to sanction the company of sinners, places sinners on one side of a divide which has Jesus with the Pharisees on the other. The Pharisees’ assumption that Jesus would be ‘on their side’ is also implicit in their question at 5:30 “Why do you eat and drink with tax–collectors and sinners?” In this indirect way, Brawley suggests “The fellowship between Jesus and the Pharisees distinguishes Jesus from the outcasts 100 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 177, suggests that the Simon’s thoughts are typical of Pharisees and for this reason are known to Jesus without them being expressed. 101 According to Sanders, Idem. 176, Simon, like other Pharisees, makes a superficial response to Jesus.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

166

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

even though he often associates with them.”102 While this is true from Simon’s perspective – the Pharisee addresses Jesus as “Teacher” (7:40) and feels a greater affinity with Jesus than with the woman – the pericope also demonstrates that his perspective is skewed. It is the repentant sinner who is the proper recipient of Jesus’ forgiveness and ministry in preparation for the kingdom. It is difficult to see how the table–fellowship setting of 11:37 – 54 could soften its negative impact on the portrayal of the Pharisees. The dinner becomes the scene of Jesus’ harsh attack on the Pharisees. Rather than presenting Jesus and the Pharisees as associates, the setting seems to display their differences in even sharper relief. Barriers are constructed between Jesus and the Pharisees from the very beginning of the episode when Jesus neglects to wash before meals. This is a source of amazement to his host, although, as with Simon, Luke does not indicate that the Pharisee gave voice to his opinion. Jesus’ subsequent criticism of Pharisees, therefore, is not a response in kind and seems disproportionate to its provocation.103 The social setting of the diatribe does not mitigate its impact but rather increases its shock value. The Pharisees are “full of greed and wickedness”, they “neglect justice and the love of God” and “are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without realising it”. Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for setting the minutiae of the law above the love of God and for being more concerned with their outward command of respect than with their inner state. The episode concludes with an overt display of the Pharisees’ hostility toward Jesus When [Jesus] went outside, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile towards him and to cross–examine him about many things, lying in wait for him, to catch him in something he might say. (11:53 – 4)

The intensity of the Pharisees’ response suggests that the setting has not mitigated the offensiveness of Jesus’ words in their eyes. The atmosphere of the third meal is tense from the beginning. In contrast with 7:36 and 11:37 the narrative does not begin with a reference to the Pharisee’s invitation but with Jesus being watched closely on his arrival (14:1). In chapter 14 therefore, suspicion seems to override any receptiveness to Jesus’ message that might be implied by the setting. This suspicion develops into hints of legal controversy when Jesus heals a man with dropsy despite the implied disapproval of his fellow guests. Jesus further reproaches his fellow diners for seeking places of honour (14:7 – 11). We assume from Jesus’ instructions to his host (14:12 – 4) and the guests’ behaviour that the Pharisaic leader has not invited those unable 102 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 101. Levine, ‘Luke’s Pharisees’, 120, similarly infers from the Pharisees’ invitations that Jesus’ associations and behaviour are not a barrier to their table–fellowship with him. The Pharisees were therefore able to associate with those who did not share their halakhic opinions (Idem. 122). 103 So Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 187.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

167

to return his hospitality and so has fallen short of Jesus’ ideal. They, like the initial guests in the parable of the Great Banquet, ought to be replaced with other, more deserving guests. All three dinner parties have the semblance of kinship but none of its substance. Their cordiality is illusory ; they are occasions for suspicion and criticism on both sides.104 The Pharisaic hosts in chapters 7, 11 and 14 are poor examples for Luke’s readers.105 They welcome Jesus but not his message since they “neglect justice and the love of God” and do not extend their invitations to sinners, the poor, the crippled, the blind or the lame. Any argument that Luke “suggest[s] a greater friendliness towards the Pharisees” in these scenes is entirely dependent on assumptions about their setting and cannot account for their content.106 It is, then, necessary to reassess the significance and impact of the dinner table setting. The framework of the eschatological banquet appears to override that of the symposium so that the primary effect of Jesus’ table–fellowship with the Pharisees is to underline the theme that Pharisees forfeit their place in the kingdom of God. Rather than countering or mitigating negative aspects of Luke’s portrayal, the depiction of the Pharisees in these dinner table episodes is consistent with what the evangelist has established elsewhere in the Gospel. I cannot, therefore, agree with the somewhat hasty conclusion of K. Weiß that these traditions run counter to the (redactional) tendencies of Luke and the Synoptic Gospels more broadly and so there is no reason to doubt their (historical) authenticity.107 On the contrary, a sensitive exegesis of these passages demonstrates that the Pharisees who join Jesus in table–fellowship conform to Luke’s insistence that the Pharisees reject the kingdom of God.

4.4.2.2 The internal or limited nature of Jesus’ disputes with the Pharisees There are other possible indications of a positive relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees. They address Jesus as “Teacher” in 7:40 and 19:39, perhaps acknowledging his authority and wisdom like the others who use the same address in 3:12; 9:38; 12:13 and 21:7. However, just as the title “Teacher” is not used sincerely by the lawyers and spies who test and rebuke Jesus in 10:25; 11:45; and 20:21, so too the Pharisees’ use of this title need not signify that they respect him or that they adhere to his teaching. The Pharisees travel “from every village of 104 So Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 105; Carroll, ‘Luke’s Portrayal’, 604. 105 Contra Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 103, who suggests that the leader of the Pharisees could “serve as a paradigm for present participation in the eschatological order” since, in the manner of Jesus’ advice, he issues an invitation without hope of reciprocation. However, Jesus makes it clear that his host does not generally act out of humility or unselfishness. 106 So Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 150. 107 Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, 37.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

168

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem” (5:17) to hear Jesus’ teaching but this may reflect Jesus’ widespread notoriety and the Pharisees’ curiosity rather than their respect. They call him teacher, listen and yet they misunderstand his teaching and challenge his activity. It cannot be denied that Luke portrays the Pharisees’ engagement in a number of disputes with Jesus but some have argued that the third evangelist has redacted his material in such a way as to reduce the extent of the conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus. J. A. Ziesler suggests that Luke … does not always modify his anti–Pharisee material, but when he does it is almost always in the same direction, i. e. towards a more favourable view of them, or towards ascribing to them a less hostile attitude to Jesus.108

Robert L. Brawley also claims that Luke “already tends to present the Pharisees in a comparatively favourable light” and that Lukan redaction does not “increase the controversy” between the Pharisees and Jesus and sometimes decreases it.109 Eric Franklin also states In Mark there is considerable hostility expressed between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees. While Matthew’s version is such as to deepen that to make it more explicit, Luke consistently tones it down in such a way as to enable some dialogue between them.110

In order to assess the credibility of these claims it is necessary to analyse Luke’s redaction. 4.4.2.3 Lukan Redaction of Markan Material A survey of Luke’s redaction of Markan material, in pericopae which feature the Pharisees in either Gospel or both, reveals a variety of contradictory tendencies which are summarised below. 1. Luke omits Mark’s references to Pharisees thereby arguably reducing the extent of opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees. (a) The parallel to Mark 8:11 in Luke 11:16 replaces the Pharisees with an anonymous party.111

108 109 110 111

Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 154 (my italics). Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 84, 86. Franklin, Luke, 176 and see 179. Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 152. Note that Luke may not be dependent on Mark 8:11 but on Q or some other source, although the anonymous enquirers are not included by Matthew who places the request on the lips of the scribes and Pharisees (12:38) and the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:1).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

2.

3.

169

(b) Luke isolates Jesus’ pronouncement on divorce (cf. Mark 10:11) from its Markan context of the Pharisees’ question (Mark 10:2) and places it in a discourse at Luke 16:18.112 (c) The Pharisees are absent from the Lukan parallel to Mark 12:13 in Luke 20:20 – 1. The enquirers are more readily associated with chief priests and scribes of 20:19.113 Luke replaces “the Pharisees” in Mark with “some Pharisees” in descriptions of conflict with Jesus e. g. Mark 2:24//Luke 6:2. Ziesler suggests “It could have been a way of indicating that not all the Pharisees were hostile.”114 However, this change could be attributed to Luke’s historical and literary sensitivity which judged it more credible to portray the Pharisees as acting in small groups (as he also does in unparalleled material at 13:31 and 19:39). These verses still involve the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus and so it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from this modification. Luke takes conflict material which is not associated with the Pharisees in Mark and places it on the lips of the Pharisees in his own Gospel. Brawley suggests that this activity “confirm[s] Luke’s intent to present the complete block of material as consecutive confrontations between Jesus and the Pharisees”115 without increasing the controversy. Yet these redactions inevitably contribute to the impression of enmity between the Pharisees and Jesus and demonstrate that Luke does not consistently replace the Pharisaic opponents of his sources with anonymous parties or smaller groups of Pharisees. (a) In Mark 2:6 the scribes “question in their hearts”, yet in Luke 5:21 the complaint is attributed to the scribes and the Pharisees.116 They are, however also included in the audience at Luke 5:26, which has more positive connotations, “They glorified God and were filled with awe, saying, ‘We have seen strange things today.’”117 (b) In Mark 3:2 the watchers who intend to accuse Jesus are unidentified, although Mark 3:6 places Pharisees at the scene as conspirators against Jesus and the identity of Jesus’ interlocutors may, despite the change of scene at Mark 3:1, be carried over from the immediately preceding

112 Ibid. Also Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 89. 113 Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 152; Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 89. 114 Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 151 – 2. See also, Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 91; Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 89. 115 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 85. 116 Noted by Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 153; Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 87; Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 89. 117 So Levine, ‘Luke’s Pharisees’, 116; Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 92.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

170

4.

5.

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

controversy in the grainfield. Nevertheless, Mark 3:2 at most only implies the Pharisees’ involvement whereas Luke 6:7 makes it explicit. Luke moderates the directness of the Pharisees’ challenge to Jesus in two distinct ways.118 (a) The scribes of the Pharisees in Mark 2:16 criticise Jesus’ choice of dining companions “They said to his disciples, ‘Why does he eat with tax–collectors and sinners?’” In Luke’s version the disciples rather than Jesus are the target of criticism “Why do you eat and drink with taxcollectors and sinners?” (Luke 5:30) (b) Whereas the Lukan Pharisees address their question in 6:2 to the disciples, in Mark the Pharisees’ question is addressed to Jesus “The Pharisees said to him ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?’” (Mark 2:24) Luke makes other modifications (in addition to point 3 above) which transform an unspoken criticism of Jesus into a direct challenge issued to Jesus by the Pharisees, sometimes concerning his own actions. (This redactional tendency is also supported by the same direct criticism of Jesus in material unique to the third Gospel e. g. 15:2; 16:14 and 19:39.119) (a) Mark 2.6 – 8 Gsam d´ timer t_m cqallat´ym 1je? jah¶lemoi ja· diakocifºlemoi 1m ta?r jaqd¸air aqt_m, T¸ oxtor ovtyr kake?; bkasvgle?· t¸r d¼matai !vi´mai "laqt¸ar eQ lµ eXr b heºr; ja· eqh»r 1picmo»r b YgsoOr t` pme¼lati aqtoO fti ovtyr diakoc¸fomtai 1m 2auto?r, k´cei arto?r, T¸ taOta diakoc¸feshe 1m ta?r jaqd¸air rl_m;

Luke 5.21 – 22 ja· Eqnamto diakoc¸feshai oR cqallate?r ja· oR Vaqisa?oi k´comter, T¸r 1stim oxtor dr kake? bkasvgl¸ar; t¸r d¼matai "laqt¸ar !ve?mai eQ lµ lºmor b heºr; 1picmo»r d³ b YgsoOr to»r diakocislo»r aqt_m !pojqihe·r eWpem pq¹r aqto¼r· T¸ diakoc¸feshe 1m ta?r jaqd¸air rl_m;

In Mark the scribes’ challenge is not addressed to Jesus, nor perhaps is it even spoken aloud since the evangelist emphasises Jesus’ supernatural perception of their complaint. By contrast the Pharisees in Luke begin “to question” with no indication that their questioning is private, in fact Luke 118 Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 86. 119 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 89.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

6.

171

adds the participle k´comter as if to clarify that their questions were spoken aloud. Clues to the supernatural nature of Jesus’ perception are diminished; it is not of private questioning nor is it done “in his spirit”. Jesus’ question still refers to what is “in their hearts” but this on its own is not enough to suggest that the Pharisees did not give voice to their questions. Therefore, we must allow that Luke here deliberately modified his sources to show direct criticism of Jesus by the Pharisees. (b) Whereas the Markan Pharisees notice the disciples’ behaviour in Mark 7:2, Luke’s Pharisee observes the practice of Jesus in Luke 11:38. Although the Lukan Pharisee (contrast to Mark 7:5) does not speak, Luke adds the description that he is amazed (1ha¼lasem) at Jesus (11:38). (c) Luke retains the Pharisees’ criticism of Jesus’ disciples which is addressed directly to Jesus, e. g. Mark 2:18//Luke 5:33 note the Pharisees in 5:30.120 In addition to the above, other modifications appear to ease conflict and controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees. (a) Luke avoids Mark’s explicit reference to the Pharisees’ intention to destroy (!pºkkuli) Jesus (Mark 3:6) substituting the ambiguous, “what they might do to him” (Luke 6:11).121 Nevertheless, the Pharisees remain conspirators against Jesus (as also in Luke 11:53 – 4). (b) Ziesler argues that Luke’s decision not to include the tradition found in Mark 7:18 – 23, is further evidence that the author distances the Pharisees from conflict with Jesus.122 The Lukan Jesus does not decry the Pharisees’ adherence to their tradition nor does he declare “all foods clean”. Yet Luke’s narrative in 11:37 – 54 does not cut short a Markan story to diminish conflict but instead follows a non–Markan tradition in which the matter of hand–washing prompts a different conflict with the Pharisees. Luke’s version does not attempt to avoid a particular confrontation so much as to present another. The question of why he did not include both controversies can only be a matter for speculation, perhaps the purity concerns of Mark 7 were of little interest/relevance to Luke. Moreover, in contrast with both Mark and Matthew, Luke

120 Note that here too it may be argued that Luke has removed Mark’s reference to John’s disciples thus intensifying the role of the Pharisees. 121 So Brawley, Luke–Acts and the Jews, 86; Levine, ‘Luke’s Pharisees’, 119; Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 88; Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 152. Sanders further suggests that although “they” in 6:11 “are certainly still the scribes and Pharisees from v.7 … Luke has reduced their presence at the end of the episode by mentioning them earlier instead of later and by writing only ‘they (aqto¸)’ at the end, and he has furthermore, turned a clear plot against Jesus into something rather more vague.” 122 Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 152.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

172

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

includes less material concerning the Pharisees’ tradition. It seems instead to be lawyers as distinct from the Pharisees who “load people with burdens hard to bear” (see below, p. 173 – 4). The overall picture of confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees remains. (c) Luke 12:1 – 2 retains a warning against the leaven of the Pharisees from Mark 8:15 (//Matt 16:6) but removes the reference to Herod (see below, p. 177). 4.4.2.4 Lukan Redaction of Q Material I now propose to compare material in Luke with parallels in Matthew and by virtue of the comparison, gain some insight, if not into Luke’s modification or preservation of a Q original, at least into the distinctive elements of Luke’s presentation. The previous examination of Markan material confirms that for the most part Luke has followed Mark’s version of Markan material, i. e. there are no significant so-called “minor agreements” of Matthew and Luke against Mark to be found in material involving the Pharisees. This leaves only a few pericopae involving Pharisees for which Luke depended on a non–Markan source that was probably also known to Matthew. First, I will deal with two traditions from which the Pharisees are absent in Luke despite their appearance in Matthean parallels: the Beelzebul controversy and the request for a sign. Each of these traditions is represented in two Matthean pericopae, the former in Matt 9:34 and 12:22 – 30 (with a parallel in Mark 3:22 – 7) and the latter in Matt 12:38 – 42 and 16:1 – 4. Lukan parallels to these traditions are found in 11:14 – 15, 16, 17 – 23, 29 – 32. Additionally, the Pharisees appear in Matthew’s version of the preaching of John the Baptist (Matt 3:7) but not in Luke’s almost verbatim parallel (3:7). As I argued on p. 73 with regard to Matt 3:7, the appearance of Pharisees in Matt 16:1 is probably attributable to Matthean redaction; note the typically Matthean pair “Pharisees and Sadducees”. Moreover, the double mention of the Pharisees in Matt 12:22 – 30, 38 – 42 may have been influenced by their prominent role in the closely preceding Matt 12:1 – 15 and prefigured in the other Matthean Beelzebul controversy in Matt 9:34 for reasons of consistency (see above, pp. 74). Similarly, Matthew may have introduced the Pharisees to Matt 9:34 as well in an attempt to align it with the controversies involving Pharisees in 9:10 – 18. It is, however, difficult to offer a reason why Luke might have omitted the Pharisees from Q material. Luke associates the Pharisees with seeking a sign at 17:20 – 1 and he does not shrink from controversy involving the Pharisees in the material following 11:14 – 32. On balance, it is more convincing to view the discrepancy between Matthew’s inclusion of the Pharisees and Luke’s exclusion of them in these passages as attributable to Matthew’s redactional introduction of the Pharisees rather than

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

173

Luke’s redactional removal of them. These passages, therefore, do not reveal any Lukan redactional strategy concerning the Pharisees in particular, other than Luke’s general fidelity to his source. The only other Lukan material involving the Pharisees that may be ascribed to Q is found in Luke 11:39 – 52. It consists of a sequence of reproaches and “woes” directed first against the Pharisees and then against the lawyers, all of which have parallels of some kind or other in Matthew 23 as “woes” against the scribes and Pharisees jointly. Luke inserts this material into a Markan context from Mark 7:1 – 6 which differs from the Matthean context of the parallel material. Moreover, the two versions differ with regard to order, substance and even the target of criticism. It is beyond the scope of this investigation to address the question of which evangelist (if either) reflects a more primitive tradition at this point. The parallels admit several possible redactional decisions but these are relevant for my analysis only insofar as Luke’s hypothetical changes imply a particular attitude towards the Pharisees. I will therefore confine my discussion to the implications of such redactional decisions for the portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke’s version as distinct from Matthew’s, without suggesting that these differences result from a redaction or preservation of the Q version.123 If Luke did derive this material from Q, it is clear that he was not reluctant to take over at least some unflattering material from his source and apply it to the Pharisees or to retain an existing association with the Pharisees. The most striking difference between Luke and Matthew is Luke’s division of criticism between Pharisees and lawyers. If Luke’s arrangement reflects that of Q then this merely reinforces my earlier point. If, however, the Lukan redactor has deliberately divided between two targets the criticism that was levelled at a single group in his source (which would be better represented in this respect by Matthew), this may be construed as an effective reduction in the number of accusations against the Pharisees and restriction of the kinds of charges made against them. Moreover, it is the lawyers rather than the Pharisees who seem to attract the harshest criticism e. g. 11:47. Although “this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world” (11:50), the position of this indictment within a sequence of woes against lawyers suggests that within that generation, they are particularly to blame. It is the lawyers and not the Pharisees who exert a negative influence over the people. They “load people with burdens hard to bear” (11:46) and “have taken away the key of 123 Weiß suggests that Luke’s differentiation between woes to lawyers and to Pharisees reflects his historical sensitivity to the relationship of these groups at the time of Jesus, whereas Matthew reflects the contemporary situation. However, little independent evidence is given in support of either of these assertions (Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, 39 – 40).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

174

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

knowledge” (11:52). In comparison with these charges, the woes against the Pharisees seem muted. Jesus does not deny the validity of Pharisaic teaching or practice as such. The Pharisees are right to be concerned with cleanliness but instead of focusing on the outside of the cup and dish they should “give for alms those things that are within; and see everything will be clean for you” (11:41). Jesus does not instruct them to discontinue their diligent tithing in order to do full justice to the love of God, but rather “these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others” (11:42). The criticism that they love the best seats in synagogue and to be greeted in the marketplace suggests nothing more sinister than their pride and vanity. The final woe against the Pharisees in 11:44 may be more serious as this, like the woes against the lawyers in 11:46 and 52, implies that the Pharisees’ behaviour has a harmful effect on other people. The Pharisees are compared to graves and although the precise point of comparison differs from its Matthean parallel the criticism is the same. The Pharisees are inwardly like graves, i. e. as Matthew says, they are “full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth” (Matt 23:27). The comparison therefore echoes the charge in Luke 11:39 that the Pharisees are “full of greed and wickedness”. Jesus’ concern is that the Pharisees do not display their true inner nature on the outside; they are “unmarked”. It is because of this that the Pharisees pose a danger to others who are unaware of their true nature. The people respect Pharisees and greet them in the marketplace, but have no idea what they are actually like and that their respect is misplaced. The charges against the Pharisees are pale in comparison to those against the lawyers but the final woe against them reveals that the Pharisees are not faced with trifling charges. Their outside does not reflect their inside; their show of piety provides no indication of their disregard for “justice and the love of God”. Since the discrepancy between their inside and outside is hidden, it poses a danger to those around them. Ultimately, their misdirected practice reveals a misdirected attitude towards God himself since “Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?” (11:40). Jesus’ criticisms are neither petty nor arbitrary but reflect the Pharisees’ position before their creator. 4.4.2.5 Some Comments on the Value of Comparing Luke with other Gospels The preceding discussion has demonstrated that comparing parallel passages between the Gospels can draw out the distinctive elements of an evangelist’s composition that might otherwise be missed. Moreover, some speculation about redaction of sources may reveal an evangelist’s covert attitudes and strategies. For example, a comparison of Luke 5:21 – 2 with Mark 2:6 – 8 might disclose Luke’s concern to show that the Pharisees did not conceal their complaints about

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

175

Jesus’ behaviour but expressed them openly. However, it is not always possible to discern the motive underlying a redaction; a variety of factors come into play. For example, Luke’s repeated use of “some Pharisees” which at times replaces “the Pharisees” in Mark is not necessarily a device to diminish the extent of Pharisaic opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees. Luke’s decision may have been made on stylistic grounds; he may have wished to create a more realistic narrative or a more elegant prose. Similarly, Luke’s decision to insert unflattering material into contexts where Jesus dines with the Pharisees could be explained in a variety of ways. Luke prefers the dinner table as a means of bringing characters together but also affords it significance as the proper place for discourse and values it as an eschatological symbol. The desire to ameliorate conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees by placing them in a host–guest relationship is only one of many possible reasons that Luke may or may not have had for adapting his source material in this way.

4.4.2.6 Halakhah as the subject of Luke’s polemic against the Pharisees: A Response to J.T. Sanders J.T. Sanders suggests that Luke has redacted his inherited material in order to limit the scope and scale of disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees.124 Luke’s decision either to remove the Pharisees from controversies in his source material or to feature them in other controversies of his own is determined, Sanders argues, by the subject of the controversy.125 In most cases, and in all pericopae where Pharisees also appear in Mark or Q parallels, Sanders claims that the Pharisees oppose Jesus on halakhic grounds. Luke has … so it would appear, gone to considerable lengths to define the Pharisaic opposition to Jesus, over against Mark and Matthew, as being limited to questions of halakhah or Torah interpretation.126

The bone of contention in Luke’s portrayal of Pharisaic opposition to Jesus is the different interpretations of Torah advanced by Jesus and the Pharisees. Sanders notes this particularly in the resolve of the scribes and Pharisees “to cross–examine him about many things, lying in wait for him, to catch him in something he might say” (11:53 – 4). They are provoked by Jesus’ rejection of Pharisaic washing and tithing practices which were key topics of halakhic discussion. The dispute in 5:30 about dining with tax–collectors and sinners arises from Jesus’ neglect of Pharisaic regulations for table fellowship and this theme recurs in 124 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 88 – 93, 102 – 3. 125 Idem. 89. 126 Idem. 91.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

176

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

material peculiar to Luke at 15:2. The controversies in 6:1 – 11 reflect a difference of opinion concerning what activities constituted a breach of Sabbath law. Sanders finds only three exceptions to this rule. One is the Pharisees’ deriding of Jesus at 16:14 and Jesus’ accusation that they are vik²qcuqoi. Sanders contends that this does not constitute an exception to the rule since no dispute, halakhic or otherwise, is in view here; it is groundless polemic and slander. The other two exceptions of 5:21 and 19:39 may be explained, according to Sanders, by the fact that on both occasions the Pharisees are provoked by Jesus’ assumption of a “divine” role (forgiving sins and fulfilling Psalm 118:26). These passages indicate Luke’s awareness that Pharisees also raise objections to this kind of claim about Jesus. Moreover, it may be argued that the possibility of Pharisaic hostility has been overplayed in each of these pericopae. The Pharisees share the crowd’s amazement in 5:26 and Sanders suggests that 19:39 may be understood as a friendly warning to Jesus. Sanders’ suggestion that Luke confines dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees to halakhic subjects has twin and complementary repercussions for Luke’s portrayal of their relationship. It not only diminishes the amount and scope of opposition between them but locates that opposition firmly in the sphere of an internal dispute. In order to debate halakhah, there must be considerable common ground between the two parties. They must share a common law and the conviction that the correct interpretation of that law is important. The dispute presupposes that either side can reasonably expect the other to adhere to their interpretation (and is surprised that they do not) which amounts to a recognition of substantial similarity with one’s opponent. Sanders’ reading would fit well (although this is not the case for Sanders himself) into a view that claims affinity between Pharisees and the Jesus movement in Luke. It is possible, however, that Sanders’ interpretation takes too narrow a view of the dispute in Luke.127 If Luke’s intention is to portray the Pharisees as Jesus’ halakhic opponents, it is strange that he does not include two Markan pericopae where this interest is overt. Luke omits both the Pharisees’ question on the interpretation of the Torah concerning divorce and remarriage (Mark 10:1 – 12) and excludes the criticisms from Mark 7:6 – 23 that the Pharisees set their traditions above the law and pursue a false understanding of purity. Furthermore the significance of Jesus’ table–fellowship with tax–collectors and sinners (5:30; 15:2), although presented in terms of a halakhic dispute is, for Luke, not restricted to a difference in legal interpretation. The Pharisees’ objection betrays their misunderstanding about Jesus’ ministry of the kingdom. Jesus has not 127 Franklin, Luke, 195, agrees that to consider the Lukan disputes as purely halakhic is to “narrow unduly” and “ignore” aspects of these disputes, especially in their “deeper aspects”.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

177

come to debate details of halakhah but “to call sinners to repentance” (5:32 cf. 15:7). Their question about fasting highlights not only that they differ in practice from the disciples of Jesus but, more importantly that they have not recognised the presence of the bridegroom (5:34). The disputes that Sanders labels as halakhic may therefore be considered as primarily christological. The crux of Sanders’ construal of the overall portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts hinges on another instance where Luke has redacted Markan material. Luke 12:1 – 2 retains a warning against the leaven of the Pharisees from Mark 8:15 (//Matt 16:6). However, whereas Mark offers no clarification of what that leaven is (and Matthew identifies the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees as their teaching), Luke’s interpretation is quite different “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.” The charge of hypocrisy alludes to the discrepancy between the Pharisees’ inward and outward states (Luke 11:39 – 44). Jesus’ warning does not claim that Pharisaism per se necessitates hypocrisy but rather, and in light of 11:39 – 44, criticises the attitude of the Pharisees in Luke’s narrative, whose outward appearance does not reflect their true nature. Since the charge is couched in terms of a warning to the disciples, it may be argued that they are at risk of making the same error as the Pharisees but also that it might be possible (even for Pharisees) to avoid this pitfall.128 Nevertheless, the contribution of 12:1 to Luke’s portrayal of Pharisees is inevitably negative. J.A. Ziesler acknowledges One could then argue that this is hostile only to insincere Pharisaism. On the other hand it is a blanket statement with no qualification like ‘some of ’, so that in the end one cannot say whether or not hostility is softened.129

J.T. Sanders interprets Luke 12:1 with Acts 15:5 so that together they form a key to Luke and Acts’ portrayals of the Pharisees.130 He argues that “leaven” in Luke 12:1 implies that the hypocrisy of the Pharisees is found within the church and not outside it, just as leaven works within the dough. This prompts him to locate the Pharisees’ hypocrisy within Acts’ narrative of early Christianity. He finds it in the Christian Pharisees of Acts 15 who, although they appear to be Christian, are pervaded within by the same halakhic concerns as the Jewish Pharisees of the Gospel which exclude others from the kingdom/church. Sanders then reads hostile Pharisees throughout Luke’s Gospel as a cipher for Jewish Christians. While the non–Christian Pharisees in Acts behave benevolently towards the church, the Christian Pharisees of Acts 15:5 who are outwardly members of the 128 So Idem. 182 – 3. 129 Ziesler, ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, 152. 130 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 111.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

178

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

church erect obstacles to Gentiles who wish to join them. Sanders sees a parallel between their behaviour and the hypocrisy of the Gospel Pharisees; they wish to be in Jesus’ company but desire the exclusion of others (e. g. sinners, tax–collectors or Gentiles). They promote their own understanding of Torah fidelity at the expense of justice and the love of God. What situation can Luke have in mind in the early Christian Church that would justify this warning against the leaven of Pharisaic hypocrisy, if it is not the problem of the traditionally Jewish Christians within the Church? Leaven works within the dough not outside it.131

According to Sanders, the portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts serves to illustrate both the rejection of Christianity by those who uphold the necessity of traditional Jewish halakhah, and the transfer of salvation to the Gentiles. The episode in Acts 15 shows how the Pharisaic leaven in the church is annihilated as the council does not sustain their demand for the circumcision of Gentile converts. For Sanders any positive material concerning the Pharisees is supplementary to the main thrust of their portrayal and is intended to indicate how Christianity grew out of Judaism and eventually left it behind. Like the young Jesus, the early church originated in and sought a home in Judaism, but it was rejected and so turned away from the Jews and to the Gentiles. However, here too, Sanders has missed some important aspects of Luke’s portrayal which undermine the identification of obstructive Pharisees in Luke’s Gospel with the Christian Pharisees of Acts.132 As I argued above, pp. 159 – 62 Sanders’ interpretation does not accommodate the fact that the Christian Pharisees (as part of the whole church) accede to the apostolic decree. Their response cannot be compared with the superficial response of Pharisees in the Gospel, who seek Jesus’ company but do not accept its demands. The Christian Pharisees seek to maintain their membership of the church and so they abandon their initial position and accept the teaching of the church and the implications of the gift of God’s grace to the Gentiles (15:8 – 11). They may not, therefore, be considered as hypocrites or leaven which is expunged from the church. Furthermore, the Christian Pharisees in Acts 15 advocate that Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses but these are hardly the primary concerns of the Gospel Pharisees. The former is never mentioned in the Gospel and although the Gospel Pharisees do display concern for the Torah, it is not expressed in these very general terms. Moreover, it is inaccurate as I have argued above, pp. 175 – 7 to follow Sanders in his assertion that the opposition of Pharisees in the third Gospel is predominantly concerned with legal inter131 Ibid. (italics original). 132 Franklin, Luke, 195, employs similar arguments to those in the following pages in his own challenge to Sanders’ interpretation.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Third Theme: The Pharisees’ Affinity with Jesus and/or Early Christianity

179

pretation. Sanders subordinates all other evidence to that of Luke 12:1 with Acts 15:5, yet on closer inspection, the link he posits between these two verses is unconvincing. It is more likely that the leaven of the Pharisees alludes to Jesus’ recent criticisms of the Gospel Pharisees’ attitude and their piety in Luke 11:39 – 44. 4.4.2.7 Summary: on the nature of Jesus’ disputes with the Pharisees In conclusion, the Pharisees of Luke’s Gospel engage with Jesus directly and show him some respect. The Pharisees distinguish Jesus from those groups that are alien to their own – the tax–collectors and sinners – since unlike those Jesus can be welcomed into the Pharisees’ own homes. The fact that they expect Jesus to conform to their own attitudes and practices is disclosed by their incredulity when he does not do so. Nevertheless, despite these observations, I find little evidence that the evangelist portrays an affinity between Jesus and the Pharisees. Instead, I suggest that Luke uses this faÅade of Pharisaic openness to Jesus as a means to demonstrate the differences between them. The Pharisees call Jesus teacher and hear his teaching but they neither understand nor accept it. They fail to recognise that Jesus’ proper place is with sinners and outcasts and that, if they do not welcome these, their hospitality is meaningless (14:12 – 14). Luke does not locate Jesus within or even on the fringes of the Pharisaic group; he is instead to be found among those repentant sinners who are shunned by the Pharisees.

4.4.3 Summary of Theme 3 Acts portrays the Pharisees as akin to the church. Pharisees defend individual Christians and both the Pharisees and Paul recognise their shared belief in the resurrection of the dead. This belief is sufficient to unite the two groups over and against the Sadducees and the high priest’s party. The congruity of Christianity and Pharisaism is most clearly illustrated by the existence of Christian believers from the sect of the Pharisees including Paul himself. Luke’s Gospel, however, presents a very different picture. The Pharisees are portrayed as Jesus’ main opponents and there is little to mitigate their opposition to him. Any suggestion of common ground or kinship between Jesus and the Pharisees is subverted to display their differences. Again we find that Luke and Acts present strikingly different pictures of the Pharisees.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

180

4.5

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

Conclusions

The author of Luke and Acts does not provide a single portrayal across his two works. The foregoing analysis of his depiction of the Pharisees has repeatedly shown that the Pharisees in the third Gospel are dissimilar to those in Acts. The Pharisees appear as a distinct character group in each book but they do not have the same characterisation in both. They are recognisable in both works as a party of influential Jews which enjoys a reputation for strictness and piety among the general populace. However, Luke associates them with different concerns and their behaviour serves different purposes in Luke and Acts.133 In the Gospel Luke has, for the most part, followed the tradition that he inherited from Mark; the Pharisees are Jesus’ frequent and unsuccessful opponents. However, it may be argued that the Pharisees’ social status and reputation are more significant in Luke. For example, he adds the parable of the Pharisee and the tax–collector which may deliberately subvert the Pharisees’ reputation for righteousness and three times he depicts them as respected hosts of honourable guests (after the manner of a Hellenistic symposium). This aspect of the Pharisees’ portrayal does not alter what is found in Mark but rather enhances what is already clear ; that Jesus is able to defeat even the most formidable opponents – his authority is unquestionably superior to that of any of his contemporaries. A subsidiary result of this aspect of Luke’s (over Mark’s) portrayal of the Pharisees is that considerable wealth and status may be ascribed to them. They have sufficient means to enjoy the relative luxury of extending hospitality to those outside their household. They are called vik²qcuqoi and worry about how they are perceived by others; they love recognition (see Luke 11:43) and fear disgrace (e. g. Luke 7:39). It is, however, necessary to exercise caution when weighing the significance of this depiction. Although, Luke certainly portrays Pharisees living above the level of subsistence, there is nothing in Luke that depicts marvellously wealthy Pharisees. They do not shun the pursuit of wealth, desire the eminence that accompanies it and seek the favour of their rich neighbours (see Luke 14:7, 12). Luke implies that it is not the extent of wealth so much as the way even a small amount is used that is determinative. The Lukan Jesus instructs his disciples to make friends by means of dishonest mammon and it is in this that the Pharisees are at fault. They fail to extend their hospitality to the sinner (Luke 7:39) or to the poor, crippled, lame and blind (Luke 14:12 – 13). They criticise Jesus’ association with tax–collectors and sinners because they do 133 Gowler, Host, 303, admits that many of the differences between the two portrayals (which are internally consistent) are due to a different focus of attention, as might be expected in a sequel.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

181

Conclusions

not understand that the kingdom calls sinners to repentance. They do not acknowledge that unless they repent themselves they will not cause joy in heaven but refuse their invitation to the kingdom banquet. The Pharisees are first–hand witnesses to Jesus’ activity and preaching and yet they fail to perceive the kingdom of God which emerges in their midst. A consistent picture therefore emerges from the Gospel’s portrayal of the Pharisees. They represent those who do not recognise the coming kingdom despite its obvious manifestation. They are entrenched opponents of Jesus who trust in their own righteousness and position and do not acknowledge their need for repentance. In this way they resemble those Jews in Acts who look without seeing and listen without understanding (cf. Acts 28:26 – 7). Luke offers little hope that the Pharisees will ever repent or “turn” so that they can be healed. Like the Sadducees and priestly party in Acts, the Gospel Pharisees attempt to protect the status quo without realising that it is redundant in the changed situation. The Gospel Pharisees serve Luke’s purpose to explain that even Jews who encountered Jesus in his life failed to recognise him as the Messiah because of their hard hearts, as was prophesied by Isaiah. In the light of this, the rejection of the church by Jews in Luke’s own time is not surprising. The portrayal is explained, in the words of J.T. Sanders Luke is at pains to show how the early Church like the early Jesus sought a home of piety and devotion in Judaism, but it would not. And so Jesus and the Church turned from Judaism and the Jews to the Gentiles, and Christianity became a Gentile religion … 134

Luke addresses this concern in both his Gospel and Acts and yet it seems to be unconnected with his portrayal of the Pharisees in the latter. On the contrary, the Pharisees in Acts display a degree of openness to the church.135 They defend the apostles and Paul and, of all the Jewish groups referred to in Acts, they have the most in common with Christianity and are the most likely to become Christians. Luke did not, therefore, shape the Pharisees’ portrayal in Acts to serve the same function that it had in the Gospel, indeed the portrayal in Acts seems to undermine that function. Instead, the sympathetic and Christian Pharisees in Acts indicate continuity between Judaism and Christianity despite the rejection of the latter by many Jews.136 Christianity fulfils Judaism and the hope of the twelve tribes of Israel 134 Sanders, Jews in Luke–Acts, 128. 135 Weiß observes “Der Gegensatz zwischen Jesus und den Pharisäern spielt in der Apostelgeschichte kein Rolle mehr.” (Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, 47 – 8). 136 In this respect my interpretation of Luke’s portrayal differs markedly from Eric Franklin’s reading. Franklin, Luke, 174, labels Wilson’s positive evaluation (Wilson, Luke and the Law, 111 – 12) of the Pharisees in Acts an “oversimplification”. The Pharisees of Acts, Franklin argues, follow their Gospel counterparts in their failure to recognise the radical nature of the demand placed upon them and the inadequacy of their response. Although it cannot be

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

182

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

(most obviously in the raising of Jesus from the dead). Christians are therefore the legitimate heirs of God’s promises to Israel. Christianity is not at odds with but has its roots in Judaism. This continuity validates the Christian claim to the Jewish Scriptures and the promises made to Israel. The Gospel also advocates this idea by asserting that its narrative describes the fulfilment of Hebrew prophecy. More than this, the Pharisees as devout Jews renowned for their legal stringency are able to vouch for the innocence of Christians in Acts. Just as Luke displays a positive evaluation of Jewish piety in the Gospel’s infancy narrative, Luke 22:7 – 8 and 24:53, the Pharisees’ defence of the apostles and Paul shows that they have not transgressed the Torah and that Christianity is compatible with Judaism.137 The portrayal of the Pharisees in Acts again serves what might be considered an apologetic purpose since it defends the church from any accusation that it has departed from its Jewish roots. The appeal to Pharisees is especially remarkable since it is without parallel in the New Testament.

4.5.1 The Relationship of Luke’s Portrayal to Historical Pharisaism The question of the historicity of Luke’s narrative is not a trivial one. The prefaces to Luke’s work suggest a self-consciously historical awareness, independent of the disputed genre of the books, and this author provides the majority of explicit information about the relationship between the church and non-Christian Judaism in this earliest period. What has been observed concerning the portrayals of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts inevitably raises an historical question: is either portrayal historically credible? Can both portrayals be historically credible and if not, what are the implications of this for the use of Acts as a source for church history? Firstly, it is worth noting, as was demonstrated in the discussion above, that the portrayal in Acts of Pharisees as respectable Jews with a reputation for piety and rigour is echoed in the writings of Josephus and possibly assumed by Paul in Philippians 3. Although, all three authors have apologetic purposes which are served by this reinforcement of the Pharisees’ good reputation, they do corroborate one another. It is in the interests of Josephus to emphasise the high esteem in which Pharisees are held in order to commend them to his Roman denied that Pharisees who do not convert to Christianity are not Luke’s ideal, Franklin’s argument does not acknowledge the way in which Pharisaism is presented as a step toward Christianity (as Paul’s Pharisaic education schooled him in the hopes that are fulfilled by Christ). This much is clear from the existence of Christian–Pharisees who have responded adequately, even acceding to the Apostolic Decree. 137 Tyson, ‘Jewish Rejection’, 129 – 30, correctly observes that Luke’s insistence on Christianity as the fulfilment of Judaism lends poignancy and irony to the rejection of the former by the majority of Jews.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

183

Conclusions

audience and to contrast them with the transient and malign influence of the Jewish parties which led the rebellion against Rome. Paul’s argument assumes that his Pharisaic zeal provided grounds for his confidence in the flesh and Luke appeals to the irreproachable character of the Pharisees to endorse their sympathy for (and even alliance with) the church. Each author has reason to emphasise the Pharisees’ status but none has a reason to concoct it. In order for the apologetic purposes of each to operate, it is reasonable to assume some basis in historical reality.138 This reputation and respectability might be one factor in Luke’s choice of Pharisees to illustrate continuity between Judaism and Christianity. It may have been the most historically plausible course because the well attested Pharisaic belief in the resurrection means that they have more in common with the church than e. g. the Sadducees. As has been observed, this provides Luke with real grounds for an affinity between Pharisees and Christians, albeit somewhat shaky ground since the Pharisees’ belief in the resurrection is not the same as the confession of the risen Christ. Or else Luke may have been aware of actual Pharisees, at least Paul, who had converted. In assessing the historical plausibility of Christian Pharisees the example of Paul, who was raised a Pharisee, cannot be disregarded. The Gospel traditions vilifying Pharisees render the existence of Pharisees in the church counterintuitive to the modern reader but it would be hasty to dismiss Acts’ portrayal on these grounds alone. If the existence of Pharisees in the church or sympathetic to the church of Luke’s time were implausible and the case of Paul utterly anomalous, then Luke’s apologetic would lose much of its force. The author’s defence of Christianity as the continuation of God’s promises in Judaism is supported by his portrayal of Pharisees who were sympathetic Paul and the apostles. If in reality Pharisees were recognised as being so opposed to the church as to make his portrayal implausible, then the efficacy of his apologetic would be diminished. On the other hand, it is not certain that Luke’s audience had any contact with, or awareness of, actual Pharisees who may not have been ubiquitous nor even particularly numerous. If Luke is considered to have written in the Diaspora then his own descriptions of Paul’s origins in Tarsus constitute the only evidence for the presence of Pharisees outside Palestine. Biographical information about Paul in Acts is far from uncontested and even Luke suggests that Paul gained his 138 Indeed our understanding of the apologetic role of Pharisees could profit from a more widespread study of the apologetic function of Pharisees in roughly contemporary texts, e. g. Josephus who was also engaged on a number of apologetic purposes in his writing. However, although Josephus’ references to the Pharisees have nourished a great deal of discussion and inevitably attract the interest of New Testament scholarship, it must be recognised that this material makes up only a very small proportion of the author’s lengthy corpus (so Mason, ‘The Narratives’, 4).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

184

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

Pharisaic education in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). In fact, the explanations in Acts 23:8 (cf. 4:1 – 2 and Luke 20:27) might suggest that Luke was consciously providing at least some relevant information for an audience with only a limited knowledge of these sects. There is no way of knowing whether or not Luke wished to nurture any particular attitude toward real–life Pharisees. His differing portrayals in the Gospel and Acts may indeed cultivate an ambivalent attitude to actual Pharisees (which may represent his own attitude) but if his contact with actual Pharisees was limited, then this ambivalence may have had only limited practical implications. Indeed, the author’s willingness to convey two quite different depictions of the group is in itself an argument against the attribution to Luke of any desire to nurture among his readers an attitude to Pharisees qua Pharisees, as they might be encountered by his contemporaries. The selection of Pharisees as characters to convey various messages in the Gospel and Acts may be motivated by literary expediency rather than an opinion about the Pharisees themselves. Their established role in the Gospel tradition means that they may have seemed the most useful characters from a rhetorical point of view since they were already well–known to his readers. Yet it is certainly remarkable that the author has selected the Pharisees to demonstrate the legitimacy of Christianity as the continuation of Judaism, since it prompts an unusually positive portrayal (when compared with other Christian texts). I am inclined to think that the prominence given to a Pharisaic belief in the resurrection of the dead (which is also noted by Josephus) may go some way to explain the appeal to Pharisaic reputation and authority to defend the authenticity of the church’s claim to the inheritance of Israel. Perhaps controversy surrounding the Christian belief in the resurrection was an issue of particular interest or in contention for Luke and his community. In any case it is clear that Luke did not feel so bound to every detail of the Gospel tradition that it affected his second volume, or so protective of his portrayal of the Pharisees in Acts that he was prompted to mitigate the Gospel portrayal. This would seem to suggest that for Luke, his portrayals of the Pharisees were means to ends rather than ends in themselves.

4.5.2 Significance of this study for the unity of Luke and Acts It may be clear from the differences and explanations I have already presented that the portrayals of the Pharisees as I have expounded them may influence discussion of the unity of Luke and Acts. This is an example of the wider significance and value of relatively narrow redaction critical studies like this one. A study of the portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts can contribute to broader New Testament scholarship and shed new light on established questions. While

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

185

Conclusions

it is certainly beyond the scope of this chapter to explore this contribution to its full potential, I shall suggest some directions in which my study of the portrayal of the Pharisees could further a discussion of the unity of Luke and Acts. I have suggested that Luke did not feel so bound to every detail of the Gospel tradition that it affected his second volume and so, on the assumption that Luke predates Acts, it seems that the author composed the later work with some independence, although not isolation, from the earlier. The author of Acts is apparently at liberty to differ from the Gospel on a number of details and the portrayal of the Pharisees joins a number of more widely discussed discrepancies. For example, the ascension narratives in Luke 24 and Acts 1 differ with regard to timescale (the former occurring on the same day as the resurrection and the latter, 40 days later) and the two men in white who appear only in the Acts version. Moreover, the words of Jesus quoted by Paul in Acts 20:35 “it is more blessed to give than to receive” do not feature in the third Gospel. The different portrayals of the Pharisees are further evidence that the author of Acts was not constrained by the content of his Gospel, neither did he necessarily assume it. This is not to say that the author was bound by his sources in the Gospel and then free to expound his own view in Acts. Rather, that Luke made an active decision to include the portrayal of the Pharisees found in his Gospel sources because it illustrates his perception of the rejection of Christianity by some Jews. When composing Acts he chose a different way to convey the same thing, possibly because similar sources were unavailable. Luke wrote related works but in this aspect did not feel bound by characterisations in either. In all this it must be remembered that Luke was composing a story and expediency of character and plot may have taken precedence over finding a consistent way to express his ideas. The story of Acts requires that the Pharisees play a different role. In searching for Luke’s reasons it is possible only to speculate, but the key point is that the details of the story in the Gospel do not dictate to Acts with regard to either how it relays the Gospel story or the way in which it tells its own. Luke’s freedom to mould the portrayals of the Pharisees to his own narrative and apologetic purposes might be viewed alongside other discussions of the unity of Luke and Acts which compare the two books at the level of discourse. M.C. Parsons has employed narratological analysis to demonstrate that the role of the narrator in each text is different.139 The extent to which this difference in narration reflects a change in the implied author – let alone a deliberate mod139 In M.C. Parsons/R.I. Pervo (ed.), Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 45 – 83, especially 81 – 3. On the narrative unity of Luke and Acts see Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 2.5 – 8, and on literary style, J. Dawsey, ‘The Literary Unity of Luke–Acts: Questions of Style – A task for Literary Critics’, NTS 35 (1989) 48 – 66, on pp. 52 – 66; pace H.J. Cadbury, ‘Four Features of Lucan Style’, in Keck/Martyn (ed.), Studies in Luke–Acts, 87 – 102.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

186

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts

ification on the part of the real author – is unclear, yet the apparently different characterisation and function of Pharisees is evidence alongside narrative critical studies that at least in terms of story, the transition from Luke to Acts is not seamless. Nevertheless, the differing portrayals of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts are not a mark of Luke’s inconsistency. On the contrary, the “unity” of Luke and Acts or at least unity of purpose may be upheld insofar as Luke exhibits similar concerns and purposes in both volumes but he uses different means to express and serve them.140 In both books the author pursues twin apologetic aims: first to explain why the Christ has not found universal acceptance in Israel, to whom he was promised and second (and not unrelated), to firmly establish the foundations of the church in Judaism; it is not an innovation but an authentic continuation of the Old Testament and Jewish story. In Acts the portrayal of the Pharisees is principally focused on the second of these aims whilst in the Gospel, the Pharisees are a prime example of unreceptive Israel. The same element of each story – the character of the Pharisees – is used to convey two different messages but this need not be problematic. First, the reverse of this is also the case in Luke, i. e. many motifs are used to address a single point. For example, as noted above, both Scripture and pious Jews are used to illustrate the church’s continuity with Judaism. There is no one–to–one correspondence between an element in Luke’s stories and the message he wishes to convey but rather Luke’s purposes pervade the whole of his writings. Second, there is no need for Luke to describe and explain the transformation of the Pharisees as he does with reference to Peter and Paul. The change in Peter’s character is significant since it was caused by the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Whereas the change in the Pharisees’ characterisation is not the result of transformation but allowed by the fact that characterisation of the Pharisees in Acts does not assume their characterisation in the Gospel. Unlike Peter and Paul, who are distinguishable as individuals with personal traits, the Pharisees are an amorphous group. This conclusion should promote the exercise of caution in relation to any attempt to cross–reference the two portrayals as e. g. J.T. Sanders does.141 The alternative portrayals of the Pharisees are problematic only if we wish to infer from them something about Luke’s attitude towards the Pharisees themselves. It is not at all clear, however, that Luke’s composition was influenced by any attitude towards Pharisees outside of his narrative. I have suggested that Luke is not primarily interested in conveying his attitude toward the Pharisees as 140 The difference between the two portrayals does not require a change in situation, pace Wilson, Luke and the Law, 112. (above, p. 148 – 9). See also R.F. O’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology : An Analysis of Luke–Acts (Wilmington: M. Glazier, 1984) in favour of the view that a unified theological outlook and purpose pervade the whole of Luke and Acts. 141 Above, pp. 175 – 9.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

187

Conclusions

Pharisees but uses them to address other broader and overarching concerns in each book. Luke wrote two stories, which, although related to each other, did not bind their author to make all elements of both stories consistent. Therefore, in the light of very different characterisations, it is legitimate to consider the Pharisees in Luke and the Pharisees in Acts separately and discern the purpose behind the portrayal of each independently. In the Gospel they represent the rejection of Christianity by some Jews, explaining how the church came to include Gentiles. In Acts they express continuity between Judaism and Christianity and thus, why the promises to Israel are extended to the Gentile church. The consistency of the author’s mind may be upheld because both of these messages pervade both of his books.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

5.

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

5.1

Introduction

The Gospel according to John provides the fifth and final portrayal of the Pharisees to be examined in this study. Whereas the other three authors were in some sense united by their common use of Markan tradition and the similar shape of their narratives, the fourth evangelist stands alone. In John’s Gospel are unique episodes involving the Pharisees which correspond to his distinctive depiction of the life of Jesus. It is surely the case that christology, who Jesus is and what he accomplishes, is a principal if not the principal concern of all four evangelists. Nevertheless, John’s preoccupation with this theme is overt and expressed in a way that sets him apart from the other evangelists. The Gospel begins with a detailed and poetic clarification of Jesus’ identity as the Word made flesh and much of the discourse material pertains to who Jesus is, instead of ethical or legal instruction as is often the case in Matthew or Luke. The christological emphasis also shapes the events of the narrative. John includes fewer legal controversies, which were the commonplace settings for the Pharisees in the Synoptics, since all controversy ends in an affirmation or denial of Jesus and so John makes this christological dispute the explicit cause of conflict. The strength of John’s conviction is expressed in the contrasts which pervade his Gospel: dark and light, inside and outside, “of the world” and “not of the world”. John’s habit of contrast, an all–or–nothing perspective, is also apparent in his portrayal of Jesus’ opponents. John’s descriptions and denunciations of Jewish opponents are to many modern ears distasteful, even horrific, particularly because his blanket condemnation of Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries (particularly 8:44) has nourished anti–Jewish and anti–Semitic attitudes in John’s readers over successive centuries.1 John’s treatment of Judaism is con1 The concerns of a wide variety of scholars are included in the essays collected by R. Bieringer/ D. Pollefeyt/F. Vandecasteele–Vanneuville (ed.), Anti–Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

189

Introduction

troversial and its interpretation is not without hazard or consequence. It is in this context of John’s attitudes toward Jews and Judaism more generally, that my investigation of Johannine Pharisees takes place.

5.1.1 Structure and Organisation of this chapter Johannine material concerning the Pharisees is briefer and displays less variety than that of the synoptic Gospels. In this chapter I will again identify different aspects of the Pharisees’ portrayal in John and assess its consistency. A potential disadvantage of this thematic approach, which I have also noted with regard to other Gospels, is that developments in John’s portrayal from one appearance to the next are more difficult to trace and the role they play in the unfolding plot of the Gospel less easy to discern. I hope to compensate for this by highlighting any inconsistencies in the Pharisees’ portrayal and by cross referencing the Gospel text. The aspects I have highlighted concern the association of Pharisees with belief, unbelief and a divided response to Jesus; their authorative role; the nature of their opposition to Jesus and the reason for their hostility toward him. I will also investigate the presence of similar characteristics in the portrayals of other characters, especially the Youda?oi. Several exegetes have argued that John uses the terms Youda?oi and Vaqisa?oi interchangeably, at least in certain sections of the Gospel and for D. Moody Smith the two terms seem to be “virtual synonyms”.2 Wayne A. Meeks argues that the Pharisees in John are a conventional group and indistinguishable from other Jews.3 In which case, Youda?oi and Vaqisa?oi are simply alternative names for a single group that dominates opposition to Jesus. This hypothesis will be tested by an investigation of the concerns and behaviour which are typical of the Pharisees to see whether any is typical of only the Pharisees or if there is indeed nothing to differentiate the Pharisees from other Jews. The behaviour and concerns of other characters may elucidate the same concerns and behaviour attributed to the Pharisees. John’s Gospel is also distinguished by its detailed portrayal of an individual identified as “of the Pharisees”, Nicodemus. The 2 D.M. Smith, The Theology of the Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 48. See also D. Rensberger, Overcoming the World: Politics and Community in the Gospel of John (London: SPCK, 1989), 42 (re. John 9); C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 21978), 360 (re John 9). B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1972), 345 – 52 refers to “the Pharisees” throughout his discussion of John 9. 3 W.A. Meeks, ‘Breaking Away : Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from the Jewish Communities’ in J. Neusner/E.S. Frerichs (ed.), “To see ourselves as others see us”: Christians, Jews, “others” in late antiquity (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985) 93 – 115, on p. 98.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

190

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

exegetical portion of the chapter will conclude with an analysis of Nicodemus’ portrayal and a discussion of its significance. The chapter will conclude with an extended engagement with current historical-critical research on John’s Gospel and the relationship of the evangelist to his contemporary synagogue. It is noteworthy that although John’s material is generally neglected in quests for the historical Pharisees, the history of John’s community maintains its prevalence in Johannine study and tends to dominate research into Jews and Judaism, including Pharisees, in the Fourth Gospel. In the context of this discussion I shall survey examples of scholarship, not already highlighted in the exegetical discussion. This section also affords the principal opportunity in this study to contribute directly to historical debate, whilst maintaining (as ever) a focus on elucidating the text, rather than reaching behind or beyond it to historical Pharisaism.

5.1.2 A Note on Terminology The identity and appropriate translation of oR Youda?oi is, and is likely to remain, a disputed question in Johannine scholarship. In his article, ‘Who were the YOUDAIOI?’ Malcolm Lowe outlined a variety of options.4 OR Youda?oi could denote “the Jews” or “the Judeans” or “members of the tribe of Judah” and these terms in turn might connote the whole Jewish or Judean people or just a section of those populations, e. g. the leadership of the same or residents of a particular area. Moreover, these different options may coalesce in an ancient context where religious and political/national identity could be mutually defining. It is far beyond the scope of this chapter to attempt to answer this vexed question although I tentatively suggest that the standard translation “Jew” is probably sufficient provided the reader recognises that it entails an overlap of “political”, “national” and “religious” categories. In this chapter, however, I find it convenient to use the English terms “Jew” and “Jewish” without thereby implying John’s portrayal of oR Youda?oi. Note that John himself also uses Youda?oi in a general sense (even encompassing Jesus) distinct from his description of the opposition group oR Youda?oi (2:6, 13; 4:9; 6:4; 11:55.) Therefore, in order to avoid ambiguity I will not translate Youda?oi when referring to the opposition group from the Gospel.

4 M. Lowe, ‘Who were the YOUDAIOI?’ NovT 18 (1976) 101 – 30.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Belief, Unbelief and Division

5.2

191

Belief, Unbelief and Division

The Pharisees are often portrayed in uniform opposition to Jesus but on occasion they display a neutral or even sympathetic attitude towards him. For example, the deputation to John the Baptist is not aggressive or critical and so it seems probable that the Pharisees commissioned it out of curiosity rather than any hostile intention.5 A relatively positive portrayal of the Pharisees is also apparent in their questioning of the man born blind. They accept that the miracle has taken place (9:16) in contrast with the Youda?oi who “did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight” (9:18). The Pharisees solicit the man’s opinion in what seems to be a genuine spirit of enquiry “So they said again to the blind man, ‘What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened.’” (9:17). So they may again be contrasted with the Youda?oi who have already drawn their own conclusions (9:24) and hold the man’s opinion in contempt (9:34). The Pharisees approach Jesus in 9:40 and their question “Surely we are not blind, are we?” may be interpreted as a genuine appeal for clarification and reassurance.6 An initial clue to the Pharisees’ sympathetic position is implied by their mixed reaction to the testimony of the man Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not observe the Sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And they were divided. (9:16)

The question posed by the second group implies that since Jesus does perform such signs he cannot be a sinner, i. e. contradicting the conclusion of the first group who label Jesus a transgressor of Sabbath law. It is possible that the second group are not Pharisees (they are called simply %kkoi) and that the verse sets the Pharisees’ hostile evaluation against a more open–minded public opinion, but such a reading proves unconvincing on several grounds. John has created a scene in which the man has been brought to the Pharisees (9:13) and this is not explicitly interrupted until 9:18 by the judgment of the Youda?oi. Moreover, in 9:24 the Youda?oi unanimously agree with the first group of 9:16 and so the second group cannot be identified with Youda?oi. John’s phrasing 5kecom owm 1j t_m Vaqisa¸ym tim´r … %kkoi d³ 5kecom … suggests that %kkoi like tim´r proceeds from 1j t_m Vaqisa¸ym. Finally, John’s comment that “They were divided” makes more sense if it refers back to an aforementioned group – i. e. the Phar5 See discussion below, p. 193 – 4. 6 So J. Ashton, Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 57, although an alternative interpretation is more credible, see below, pp. 209 – 11.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

192

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

isees – who are divided among themselves over whether or not Jesus is incriminated by his behaviour. This passage allows variation to enter the Pharisees’ portrayal; they are not an homogeneous mass, uniformly opposed to Jesus but may disagree among themselves and even pass judgements in Jesus’ favour.7 Nevertheless, these “positive” elements are insufficient to counter the negative picture that prevails elsewhere. Every other appearance of the Pharisees portrays them criticising Jesus, plotting against him or posing some kind of threat. The implied acknowledgement that a sinner is unable to perform signs like those of Jesus is far from a recognition that Jesus does the work of him who sent him (9:4), let alone a confession of faith leading to worship (cf. 9:38). Moreover, although the portrayal of the Pharisees in 9:15 – 17 differentiates them from the Youda?oi in 9:18 – 34, it does not distinguish them from the Youda?oi elsewhere in the Gospel (10:19; 11:36 – 7) or the crowd (7:12, 40 – 3) all of whom are divided in their opinion of Jesus. Nevertheless, the portrayal of the Pharisees does differ consistently from that of the Youda?oi concerning belief in Jesus. On three occasions, John states that (some of) the Youda?oi believe (piste¼y) in Jesus (8:30 – 1; 11:45; 12:11). The opinion of the Youda?oi is sometimes divided on these occasions and their belief soon dissolves into hostility and unbelief (8:40, 46; 9:18) and yet these traces of a positive reaction to Jesus remain.8 Such belief is never attributed to the Pharisees; on the contrary, they implicitly deny that any of their number believes l¶ tir 1j t_m !qwºmtym 1p¸steusem eQr aqt¹m E 1j t_m Vaqisa¸ym; (7:48).9 In this respect the portrayal of the Pharisees, although not unique (Jesus’ brothers in 7:5 and the crowd in 7:30 do not believe in him either), is different from that of the Youda?oi. In summary, John never states that the Pharisees believe eQr aqtºm, although some infer from his signs that he cannot be a sinner. The division among the Pharisees at 9:17 is not distinctive nor does it imply that they, more than any other group, show support or sympathy for Jesus but neither are they the only group who fail to believe in Jesus. Therefore, rather than viewing belief, unbelief 7 H.J. de Jonge, ‘“The Jews” in the Gospel of John’ in Bieringer/Pollefeyt/Vandecasteele–Vanneuville (ed.), Anti–Judaism, 121 – 40 on p. 133, finds in 9:16 support for his contention that John’s Pharisees represent a type of non–Johannine Christian. The second group of Pharisees in v. 16b come closest to the Johannine view. It is difficult to sustain this reading, however, in the light of the excessively negative depiction elsewhere which suggests direct opposition to, not simply misunderstanding of, Jesus. 8 W.E.S. North, The Lazarus Story within the Johannine Tradition (JSNTSup 212; Sheffield: JSOT, 2001), 126, treats the Lazarus story as an independent tradition and argues that the Youda?oi in this story belong to the same type as Nicodemus – that is, ambivalent Jews. They sympathise and believe because of a sign but not all are trustworthy. 9 Neither is it attributed to a Pharisee, Nicodemus, see below pp. 223 – 5.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Authoritative Role of the Pharisees

193

or divided opinion as a distinctive or typical characteristic of the Pharisees, we may conclude that since most groups display both acceptance and rejection of Jesus, belief and unbelief, division is typical of any and all responses to Jesus.10

5.3

The Authoritative Role of the Pharisees

5.3.1 The Authority to Send The Pharisees seem to occupy a position of authority over other Jews at several points in John. In their very first appearance at 1:24 it is possible to identify them with the Youda?oi of 1:19, who are the commissioners of priests and Levites to John the Baptist. This reading requires !pestakl´moi Gsam 1j t_m Vaqisa¸ym … to be translated “they having been sent from the Pharisees … ”.11 However, this is complicated by the fact that elsewhere the preposition 1j (rather than !pº) denotes membership of a group (e. g. 1:35; 3:1, 25; 6:8, 60; 7:48, 50).12 Therefore 1:24 may be rendered “they having been sent were of the Pharisees” so that the Pharisees comprised a second deputation or were included alongside the priests in 1:19 as they are in many passages.13 C.K. Barrett favours the translation “from the Pharisees” which depicts the Pharisees as commissioners of the deputation to John. He argues that a textual variant clarifying the Pharisees as those sent rather than the senders (the addition of oR before the participle in e. g. W, H, vg) represents a scribal attempt to “palliate” the historical “difficulty” of ascribing to the Pharisees authority over 10 D.F. Tolmie, ‘The YOUDAIOI in the Fourth Gospel: A Narratological Perspective’, in G. Van Belle/J.G. Van der Watt/P.J. Maritz (ed.), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar (BETL 184; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005) 377 – 97, on p. 396 concludes that the characterisation of the crowd, the Youda?oi and the Pharisees is ranged on a continuum of responses to Jesus and discerns, as I have, a distinction between the groups in this regard. He states that in comparison with the Youda?oi some of whom believe in Jesus, “the Pharisees show almost no positive response to Jesus at all”. J. Bowker, ‘The Origin and Purpose of St. John’s Gospel’, NTS 11 (1965) 398 – 408, on p. 400 similarly observes that it is the Pharisees, not the Youda?oi who represent “unwavering opposition”. 11 So R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vol.; AB 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966/ 1970), 1.44; A.T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John (BNTC; London: Continuum, 2005), 111 and Lindars, John, 105. Cf. “they had been sent from the Pharisees” (NRSV, NASB, ASV); “now these men had been sent by the Pharisees” (JB). 12 See E. Haenchen, John (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1.145. 13 So G.R. Beasley–Murray, John (WBC 36; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 20 and C.G. Kruse, The Gospel According to John (TNTC; Leicester : Inter–Varsity, 2003), 77. Cf. “they which were sent were of the Pharisees” (KJV); “some Pharisees who had been sent” (NIV); “some Pharisees who were in the deputation” (NEB).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

194

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

priests and Levites.14 His argument suggests that the reading which depicts the Pharisees as commissioners prompted scribal interference so must have originally prevailed. If Barrett’s arguments are accepted then the Pharisees of 1:24 are to be identified with the Youda?oi of 1:19. These early references to Pharisees and Youda?oi raise an important methodological question: can the hostility towards Jesus, which becomes associated with these groups in later chapters, be transferred to their earlier appearances before this characteristic has been established in the narrative? The first part of John’s narrative gives little or no indication of the enmity between Jesus and the Youda?oi that is to follow in later chapters. Nevertheless, the Gospel may have been the subject of repeated reading/hearing and any audience already acquainted with the Gospel would certainly associate Youda?oi and Pharisees with the rejection of Jesus. Moreover, even a first–time audience may bring to the text unfavourable assumptions about Youda?oi and Pharisees on the basis of tradition or their own experience. There is, however, a case to be made for giving full weight to the fact that John has so far provided little suggestion of the hostility that will characterise the Youda?oi in later chapters.15 For this reason it seems premature to supplement the portrayal of the Pharisees in 1:24 with characteristics of the Youda?oi which will emerge later in the Gospel (especially when such characteristics, e. g. hostility, are not apparent at 1:24). Therefore, the identification of Pharisees in 1:24 with ‚the Youda?oi of 1:19 may imply no more than that the Pharisees were ‘Jewish’ (Iouda?oi is primarily used in a general sense in John 1 – 2 to describe Jewish festivals and rites) rather than to identify them with the Youda?oi.

5.3.2 Powerful Allies and Distinction from the Crowd The authority of the Pharisees may also be inferred at 7:48 – 9, where although they distinguish themselves from the authorities/rulers, they assume a common status with oR %qwomter and their own superiority over the crowd “Has any one of the authorities or (E) of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd, which does not know the law – they are accursed.” On two occasions John describes other groups bringing their concerns to the Pharisees. The neighbours of the man born blind present the healed man himself to the Pharisees (9:13) and the Youda?oi inform the Pharisees about the raising of Lazarus (11:46). This referral 14 Barrett, John, 174. 15 Contra J.H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 49, who argues on the basis of “classical rhetoric” that the Pharisees’ questions “are intended to expose and belittle John”. It is, I suggest, more likely that the evangelist uses the questions as a device enabling the Baptist to impart information.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Authoritative Role of the Pharisees

195

seems to acknowledge some (official or unofficial) function of the Pharisees, perhaps to arbitrate in legal disagreements (note the issue of the Sabbath in 9:14) or keep peace and order in the populace (see 11:48). The Jewish informants of 11:46 prompt the Pharisees to assemble in a council (sum´dqiom) with the chief priests and so their role could here be construed as liaising between the people and the chief priests. On other occasions the Pharisees act alongside the chief priests assuming an equal role.16 This association is a strong indication of the Pharisees’ authority since they are thereby juxtaposed with figures of undoubted influence such as Caiaphas (11:47 – 53) and Annas (18:13, 19). In 7:32, 45 and 18:3 the Temple police are under the joint jurisdiction of the chief priests and the Pharisees. Moreover in 11:57 the chief priests and Pharisees issue general commands (1mtok²r) precipitating Jesus’ arrest (11:57; also 7:32, 45) and pass a capital sentence in the interest of the “whole nation” (11:50, 53). The Pharisees are therefore accorded a role in enforcing law and order in Jerusalem alongside recognisable authorities. However, they are not thereby distinguished from the Youda?oi who act alongside the chief priests in the course of the Jesus’ arrest and trial. Furthermore, John does not consistently depict the Pharisees in an official role and acting in tandem with official leaders of the people. On the contrary, in one passage they are sharply distinguished from at least some of the authorities and their influence is based on fear rather than status. It is to this passage that I now turn.

5.3.3 Fear and the Ability to Expel Others from the Synagogue Nevertheless many, even of the authorities, believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue. (12:42)

This verse seems to imply that the Pharisees possess some power over those who fear them, i. e. the ability to put them out of the synagogue. Yet in this case, those who fear the Pharisees are identified with the authorities. Does this suggest that the Pharisees oversee the whole Jewish leadership or that they are distinct from the authorities and wield influence in an unofficial capacity? Or, in the light of the Pharisees’ authoritative position in many passages, does John suggest that the Jewish authorities are divided over Jesus and that the Pharisees comprise the 16 U.C. Von Wahlde, ‘Relationships’, 513 – 18, argues that the interaction of chief priests and Pharisees in John reflects a probably historical relationship which is also illustrated by Josephus. Von Wahlde suggests that the Pharisees had influence but not political power and so they joined with the chief priests in order to take direct action. Weiß in Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?oi’, 46, sees in the combination of Pharisees and chief priests a reflection of parties who held positions of power in the Sanhedrin.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

196

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

hostile faction? In any case, this passage cautions against assuming a one-to-one correspondence between Pharisees and the Jewish authorities. It is only in this verse that the Pharisees are said to strike fear into their contemporaries; elsewhere this motif is associated with the Youda?oi (see 7:13; 9:22; 19:38 and 20:19). It is the Youda?oi moreover, and not the Pharisees who are ascribed the decision to put people out of the synagogue (whatever this might entail) His parents said this because they were afraid of the Youda?oi for the Youda?oi had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. (9:22)

The only other use of !posum²cycor is found at 16:2 where the perpetrators are anonymous. I have hitherto assumed that the driving out of the man born blind (9:34 – 5) was undertaken by the Youda?oi, but this conclusion is not incontrovertible. The last named group before 9:34 is the Youda?oi in 9:22 who may justifiably be assumed as the subject of the subsequent passage (which contains several plural pronouns and verbs with no explicit subject). However, there is no further occurrence of oR Youda?oi in chapter 9 but only of the Pharisees in 9:40. Furthermore, there is an awkward transition from 9:22 – 3 to 9:24, because 9:24 states “they called for a second time” although the text records no previous call by the Youda?oi but only a hearing by the Pharisees (9:15 – 17). Nevertheless, the Youda?oi remain the most likely subjects of 9:34 because their contempt for the man born blind contrasts with the attitude of the Pharisees at 9:16. Also, the Pharisees of 9:40 do not avoid the man but are close enough to overhear Jesus’ conversation with him. This seems strange – although not implausible – behaviour if they had themselves driven him out (whether this refers to expulsion from the synagogue or merely dismissal from their presence). The initial decision to put people out of the synagogue is made by the Youda?oi (9:22) who are frequently identified as the object of fear, whereas these characteristics are attributed to the Pharisees only once. In the light of this observation, 12:42 might be considered an anomaly, in which the Pharisees are given a role normally taken by the Youda?oi. How relevant then, is this verse to the portrayal of the Pharisees and what are its implications for how the relationship between the Vaqisa?oi and Youda?oi should be understood?17 Did John abandon his usual reference to the Youda?oi because it was insufficient to convey the Pharisaic involvement he wished to highlight at 12:42? What reason could John have for substituting Vaqisa?oi for Youda?oi if both terms denoted the same group? Alternatively, was John free to exchange Youda?oi for Pharisees because he did not distinguish between the two, making 12:42 a reiteration of 9:22? 17 See Ashton, Studying John, 58.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

The Authoritative Role of the Pharisees

197

The application of these characteristics to the Pharisees at 12:42 may be explained as John’s attempt to conform the motifs of fear and expulsion from the synagogue to the surrounding material. The Pharisees’ plot with the chief priests to kill Jesus (11:47 – 53, 57; 12:10, 19) in this part of the narrative forms a more plausible background to the fear of the authorities at 12:42 than does the mixed reaction of the Youda?oi in Bethany (11:36 – 7, 45 – 6; 12:9 – 10).18 In fact the most recent reference to the hostility of the Youda?oi is found in a cross reference to 10:31 at 11:8 and since then the chief priests and Pharisees have comprised the total opposition to Jesus. Nevertheless, the Youda?oi have not permanently relinquished their hostile role but play a major part in bringing charges against Jesus, ensuring his crucifixion (18:28, 31 – 2, 36, 38 – 40; 19:4, 7, 12, 14 – 15, 20, 21) and are again the object of fear at 19:38 and 20:19. The transfer to the Pharisees in 11:45 – 12:43 of characteristics associated with the Youda?oi does not, therefore, represent a permanent change in the characterisation of either the Youda?oi or the Pharisees. The assertion that both the Pharisees and Youda?oi are able to instil fear and to expel others from the synagogue could indicate the synonymy of the two groups for John, but not necessarily. The Gospel narrative at least remains comprehensible when the two groups are considered separate entities. The Pharisees become the object of fear only after they have decided to kill Jesus (11:53). Until this point it is only the Youda?oi who are feared since they made the same decision much earlier (5:18). 5.3.3.1 The Good Shepherd, the thieves and the hired man In the paqoil¸a of the Good Shepherd (10:1 – 18) Jesus compares his leadership to that of a good shepherd.19 He contrasts his rightful custody of the flock with that of other figures who claimed leadership over the sheep but, like thieves, had no right to do so. The juxtaposition of this teaching with Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees in 9:40 and the possibility that Pharisees are included in Jesus’ audience suggests the relevance of this teaching for them.20 The teaching about the sheep and shepherd reinforces the suggestion that the Pharisees occupy an authoritative role in John and presents them in a very poor light. They have also 18 Note that Jesus’ decision no longer to walk about openly among the Youda?oi (11:54) does not necessarily implicate the Youda?oi in the chief priests’ and Pharisees’ plot of 11:53. It may indicate merely that Jesus withdraws from public view where he risks arrest. There is, however, no suggestion that the Youda?oi /crowds would not comply with the chief priests’ and Pharisees’ requests (11:57). 19 Presumably of Israel which is frequently represented by a flock e. g. Num 27:17; Pss 74:1; 78:52; 79:13; 100.3; Ezek 34; Matt 10.6). 20 Lincoln, John, 291, considers the address to the Pharisees in 9:40 to continue into the good shepherd teaching of chapter 10 (see also Kruse, John, 231). Brown, John, 1.388 – 9, notes two objections to the unity of chapters 9 and 10 and dismisses both of them.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

198

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

claimed to lead the sheep and so are included in the description “all who came before me are thieves and bandits”.21 They neglect their responsibilities like a hired–hand who will not endanger himself for the good of his employer’s flock. The Pharisees’ attitude to those in their charge is, therefore, entirely at odds with that exemplified by Jesus, the good shepherd; he knows his sheep and will lay down his life for them. The Pharisees perform authoritative functions but this is also true of other groups in the Gospel. In particular, the Youda?oi also send envoys (1:19); threaten to put others out of the synagogue (9:22) and associate (in the passion narrative) with the chief priests. Therefore, while the Pharisees may plausibly be classified as Jewish authorities, the same role may also be accorded to the Youda?oi.22 The Youda?oi are feared by other Jewish characters who although Jews are distinct from those called oR Youda?oi Therefore oR Youda?oi might denote a group with authority over the former (7:13; 9:22; 20:19). It is then difficult to ascribe an authoritative, quasi–official, role to the Pharisees in distinction from other groups. Yet the possibility that Pharisees might wield power without occupying an official position should not be overlooked. They may influence popular opinion (enabling them to put undesirable individuals out of the synagogue), exert pressure on the chief priests (and thereby on their deputations and police) and command respect without being official leaders or even the only powerful Jewish faction.

5.4

Opposition to Jesus: plans to Arrest and Attempts to Kill

Most appearances of the Pharisees show them engaged with the chief priests in a plot to arrest Jesus, often involving their rpgq´tai, that is, servants, or possibly police. The chief priests and Pharisees sent rpgq´tai to arrest (pi²sysim) him. (7:32) Then the rpgq´tai went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, “Why did you not bring (oqj Ac²cete) him?” (7:45) The chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who knew where Jesus was should let them know, so that they might arrest (pi²sysim) him. (11:57) 21 Brown, John, 1.393; Lindars, John, 355 – 9; pace R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 376 n. 2, who claims that “coming” cannot be predicated of Pharisees or similar. Therefore, 10.8 may only be understood as a reference to “Pseudo–Revealers”. 22 U.C. Von Wahlde, ‘The Johannine Jews: A Critical Survey’, NTS 28 (1982) 33 – 60, on pp. 41 – 2, but note that several of Von Wahlde’s arguments assume that oR Vaqisa?oi denotes an authoritative group.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Opposition to Jesus: plans to Arrest and Attempts to Kill

199

As this plot nears fruition they are mentioned again So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with rpgq´tai from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and they came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. (18:3)

John also describes the attempts or desire of other groups to arrest Jesus: the crowd (7:44), non–specific groups (7:30; cf. 8:20) and the Youda?oi (10:39). The Youda?oi are also linked to Jesus’ arrest by virtue of their connection with the rpgq´tai who had previously been associated with the chief priests and Pharisees and their plot.23 So the soldiers, their officer, and rpgq´tai t_m Youda¸ym took (sum´kabom) Jesus and bound him. (18:12)

There is, however, a perceivable difference between these arrest attempts by other groups and the activity of the chief priests and Pharisees. The decision of the chief priests and Pharisees to arrest Jesus is a continuing endeavour. Their plot emerges every time they appear together over the course of the Gospel and it is their servants who finally accomplish the task. Conversely, the attempts of the crowd, the Youda?oi and others are spontaneous reactions to Jesus at a particular time. Their decision to arrest Jesus was not ongoing but confined to particular moments; it failed in 7:30 because that moment did not correspond to the appropriate “hour” for Jesus’ arrest (cf. 8:20). It is likely that 10:39 describes such reaction to Jesus’ teaching on a particular occasion. The use of p²kim in 10:39 seems to indicate that the Youda?oi have tried to “arrest” Jesus before, but John gives no report of an earlier attempt. Consequently, it is perhaps preferable to interpret 10:39 as a reference not to a previous attempt to arrest Jesus but the attempted stoning of Jesus by the Youda?oi in 10:31. The Youda?oi considered Jesus’ claim, “I and the Father are one” to be blasphemous and it is likely that they evaluated his subsequent comments in the same way. It seems odd, however, that teaching similar to that which provoked an attempt on Jesus’ life, should prompt a more lenient resolution to arrest him in 10:39. Moreover, Youda?oi unlike the chief priests and Pharisees, already have first–hand experience of Jesus and so do not require Jesus to be brought to them in order that they might hear him for themselves (cf. 7:45). For this reason it is more likely that 10:39 suggests a reiteration of the reaction in 10:31, so that pi²fy carries the implication “seize” with violence, rather than “arrest” without necessarily violent overtones. The threats of violence in 10:31 and 39 are just two of several reports of the hostile, often murderous attention directed by the 23 Ashton, Studying John, 59, claims that the Pharisees drop out of the narrative after Jesus’ arrest and the Youda?oi and chief priests emerge as the true villains of the passion. The rpgq´tai of 18:3 can probably be identified with those of 18:12 where the evangelist has substituted the Youda?oi to ease the transition to the trial narrative.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

200

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

Youda?oi toward Jesus. Further descriptions of their active hostility are found in 5:18; 7:1 and 8:59 and their attempts to kill Jesus are mentioned both by Jesus (8:37, 40) and his disciples (11:8). Alongside these examples, the Youda?oi in the trial narrative make continual efforts to bring about Jesus’ crucifixion (18:28 – 32, 40; 19:7, 12, 15). Prior to the trial and passion narratives, other groups are generally distanced from the desire to kill Jesus. The crowd are unaware of any attempt to kill Jesus in 7:20 although their ignorance appears inexcusable or fraudulent since Jesus himself has informed them of the threat (7:19). Moreover, their fear of the Youda?oi who seek Jesus (7:13 cf. 7:11) could suggest their awareness of the murderous intention underlying the search (7:1). The people of Jerusalem are aware of a desire to kill Jesus but attribute it to another anonymous group (presumably the Youda?oi of 7:1) “Some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, ‘Is not this the man whom they are trying to kill?’” (7:25). The Pharisees, although embroiled in an ongoing plot to arrest Jesus, are only once mentioned in connection with any decision to kill him. Whereas John frequently records the resolution of the Youda?oi to put Jesus to death, his attribution of the same aim to the Pharisees in 11:53 is never repeated. They initiate a plan with the chief priests “From that day on they planned to put him to death.” Therefore the chief priests and Pharisees’ activity after this point (the plan to arrest Jesus in 11:57 and the fulfilment of this in 18:3) might assume the final goal of Jesus’ death but it is not again made explicit. Furthermore, their activity prior to “that day” of their resolution (e. g. at 7:32 and 45) was not motivated by the desire for Jesus’ execution. The arrest of Jesus in 18:3 by the servants of the chief priests and Pharisees leads to his crucifixion but these rpgq´tai are identified as agents of the Youda?oi (18:12) and the Pharisees are not mentioned again after 18:3.24 John also detaches the Pharisees from their regular companions, the chief priests, when the latter conspire to destroy Jesus and Lazarus (12:10) and when they call for Jesus to be crucified in 19:6 and 15.25 There are several possible explanations for the sudden disappearance of Pharisees from material involving chief priests; I will summarise four : 1. The different combinations of opponents – the presence or absence of Pharisees – are entirely attributable to the traditions at John’s disposal. The 24 I discount of course the appearance of Nicodemus in 19:38, for a discussion of Nicodemus’ relationship to the Pharisees see below, pp. 227 – 8. 25 The absence of the Pharisees in 12.10 is particularly surprising in light of the similar concern they express about Lazarus in the surrounding material (11:46 – 7 and 12.19). It is therefore unlikely that their absence from the conspiracy against Jesus is intended to position the Pharisees alongside Youda?oi who are sympathetic to Jesus on account of the raising of Lazarus.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Opposition to Jesus: plans to Arrest and Attempts to Kill

201

Pharisees disappear from John’s passion narrative because they did not feature in the passion source(s) available to him. Likewise, the solitary mention of their involvement in a conspiracy to execute Jesus is due to his singular adoption of this tradition from a source or sources. The absence of the Pharisees is therefore coincidental. However, this explanation appears to assume John’s slavish adherence to sources and ignores the likelihood that John was at liberty to select and redact the material he included in his Gospel. It is impossible to discover or prove the extent of John’s loyalty to his sources or how far the portrayal in his sources matched his own understanding of the Pharisees. Furthermore, an appeal to John’s sources does not explain the significance of the Pharisees’ absence for John and its impact on his portrayal of the Pharisees. 2. Similar to the first explanation is the suggestion that John’s exclusion of the Pharisees from the passion narrative reflects some historical awareness on his part. In other words, John believed that the Pharisees had not played a major role in the actual trial and crucifixion of the historical Jesus and for this reason he did not introduce them to his version of events. John’s knowledge of historical events, however, was probably derived from Christian tradition and the sources mentioned under point 1. As a result this explanation is subject to the same pitfalls as the previous one. John’s Gospel is suffused with his interpretation of historical events and any dichotomy between his historical and theological/christological awareness would be artificially imposed. Alternatively, John excludes the Pharisees from the passion because they represent a group (e. g. one known to his audience) who cannot justifiably be associated with the crucifixion.26 However, this disassociation might be undermined by the inclusion of Pharisees at 11:53. 3. The Pharisees’ participation in the plot to execute Jesus and involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus is implied by the presence of their regular collaborators, the chief priests. The Pharisees are present for half of all appearances of the chief priests in the Gospel (i. e. all references to the chief priests before 12:10 and in 18:3). As a result, earlier sections of the Gospel establish an association between the two groups which can be assumed in chapters 18 and 19. Consequently wherever the chief priests appear alone (12:10; 18:35; 19:6, 15 and 21) the presence of the Pharisees is implied. The Pharisees are, however, able to act independently (8:13 – 21; 9:13 – 17) and John never indicates that their collaboration with the chief priests is a permanent arrangement. This explanation, moreover, offers no account of why John decided that the explicit mention of the Pharisees after 18:3 was superfluous

26 See further discussion below, pp. 235 – 9.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

202

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

when it had not been so previously and why the other groups – chief priests, Youda?oi and ewkor – are retained. 4. The basis of the third argument may lead to the contrary conclusion that, after the evangelist has established a strong connection between the chief priests and Pharisees, the absence of the latter from 12:10; 18:35; 19:6, 15 and 21 is all the more striking. The separation of the chief priests from the Pharisees represents a departure from the evangelist’s regular presentation which is difficult to dismiss as coincidental or insignificant. Instead it is possible that John has separated the Pharisees from the chief priests in a deliberate attempt to distance (even exonerate) the Pharisees from the conspiracy to kill Jesus and his eventual crucifixion. However, such an undertaking on John’s part would appear to be contradicted by the fact that all appearances of the chief priests with Pharisees outside the passion narrative refer to their joint plans to arrest or destroy Jesus.27 5.4.1 Summary In common with most other groups in John’s Gospel, the Pharisees display some measure of hostility towards Jesus. However, the nature of the Pharisees’ opposition and their activity are kept remarkably distinct from the activity of other groups throughout the Gospel narrative. I have argued that, for the most part, the Pharisees express their hostility towards Jesus in a different manner from the Youda?oi. In most cases the Pharisees (often with the chief priests) are described as commissioning the arrest of Jesus, whereas most of the attempts on Jesus’ life (before the passion narrative commences) are made by the Youda?oi. Once the passion narrative is underway moreover, the desire to kill Jesus is extended to the chief priests (11:53; 12:10) and yet the Pharisees do not appear after 12:42 and their association with the rpgq´tai, still evident at 18:3, is no longer apparent at 18:12 and 19:6. The Pharisees only express their desire to kill Jesus explicitly in 11:53 which prompts further plans to arrest Jesus in 11:57. Distinctions between the activities of the opposition groups are, admittedly, not rigidly maintained. The particular exceptions at 11:53 and 18:3, to the “rule” I have proposed mean that the absence of the Pharisees from the passion narrative is not sufficient to exonerate them of responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. Although they do not take an active role in his trial and execution, they desire and plot Jesus’ destruction. Additionally, the chief priests collaborate with both the Pharisees and the Youda?oi and so are a common factor in the plot to arrest Jesus and the call for his execution. Nevertheless, the commissioning of rpgq´tai to arrest Jesus is typical of Pharisaic opposition to Jesus and they do not exhibit the 27 So Ashton, Studying John, 61.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Reasons for hostility towards Jesus

203

spontaneous and violent impulses frequently associated with the Youda?oi. The Pharisees do not respond to Jesus in a manner unique to them nor are they entirely disassociated from the reactions to Jesus typically displayed by other opponents of Jesus (in particular the Youda?oi). However, although the modes of opposition to Jesus do not absolutely differentiate the Pharisees from other groups, a fluid distinction may be perceived over much of the narrative. There are other features that seem to distinguish the Pharisees’ plot to destroy Jesus from that of the Youda?oi. The Pharisees appear to conduct their plot along more considered, even “official”, lines than the Youda?oi.28 The Pharisees and chief priests continue to seek Jesus’ arrest as a necessary precursor to his execution (11:57). They do not rely on the spontaneous efforts of the Youda?oi to stone Jesus. Also the Youda?oi decide to kill Jesus at a much earlier point in the narrative (i. e. before 5:18 where they seek “all the more” to kill him) than the Pharisees who resolve to put Jesus to death in 11:53. The earlier appearance of the Pharisees in 4:1 – 3 does not necessarily hint that the Pharisees already pose a threat to Jesus “When Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, ‘Jesus is making and baptising more disciples than John’ … he left Judea and started back to Galilee.” It is possible that this verse describes Jesus hiding or fleeing from his opponents after the manner of 6:15 or 12:36 (cf. 7:1; 8:59; 10:39). If so, Jesus must perceive some danger from the Pharisees even before they plot to arrest him (7:32) and to put him to death (11:53). However, the possibility that Jesus avoids the Pharisees in 4:3, moreover that he avoids them because they pose a danger to him, is by no means explicit. John gives no indication of where the Pharisees are in 4:1 – 3. The Pharisees have heard the news from a third party and so are not necessarily in Judea themselves. It is also unclear whether or not the Pharisees welcomed the news that Jesus baptises more disciples than John. Therefore, the first indication of a Pharisaic plot against Jesus occurs in 7:32 after the threat from the Youda?oi has been established in 5:18. Further differences between the Pharisaic opposition to Jesus and that of other groups including the Youda?oi, may also be discerned in the factors which give rise to hostility towards Jesus in John’s Gospel.

5.5

Reasons for hostility towards Jesus

I will now analyse the issues and events which provoke opposition towards Jesus among the various groups in John. It is not my aim to offer a thorough discussion 28 See Lincoln, John, 252, for whom 7:32 describes “a further and more official attempt to arrest Jesus”.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

204

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

of how issues which arise in conflicts between Jesus and his opponents are treated in the Gospel as a whole. Furthermore, since the focus of this chapter is the portrayal of the Pharisees I will not provide an exhaustive survey of the reactions of every Johannine character to Jesus. I intend rather, to investigate the particular concerns and contentious issues associated with the Pharisees, the way in which their opposition to Jesus is incited and how these factors contribute to their portrayal. A brief examination of factors which prompt the opposition of other groups (in particular the Youda?oi) may reveal whether or not certain concerns are typical or unique to the Pharisees.

5.5.1 Factors leading to opposition from the Pharisees The Pharisees first encounter Jesus during the Feast of Tabernacles when they order his arrest. Jesus’ teaching in the Temple has provoked a mixed reaction but John gives no indication that the Pharisees (here with the chief priests) respond to anything Jesus has taught. Indeed it appears that neither group is included in Jesus’ audience which is comprised variously of the Youda?oi, the crowd or the people of Jerusalem. They do not hear Jesus’ words for themselves but only the mutterings of the crowd and are spurred into action not by their own experience of Jesus and objections to his claims but on account of the attention he is paid by other Jews and their speculation about whether or not he is the Messiah in 7:25 – 7, 31. “The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering such things about him, and the chief priests and Pharisees sent temple police to arrest him.” (7:32). Furthermore, the chief priests and Pharisees’ experience of Jesus remains second–hand. They do not join Jesus’ audience but must again, in 7:46, rely on a report, this time from the rpgq´tai who have failed to deliver Jesus to them. Moreover, the focus of the Pharisees’ interrogation (now without the chief priests) is not on what Jesus has said but on how he has been received and different opinions about him. First they enquire about the attitude of the rpgq´tai towards Jesus and then pose a question about their own allegiance which implies that they, unlike the crowd, have not believed in Jesus. Surely you have not been deceived too, have you? Has any one of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd, which does not know the law – they are accursed. (7:47 – 9)

Note that the Pharisees do not supply the content of the belief that they implicitly deny here. They do not ask, for example, “Has any one … of the Pharisees believed that he is the prophet, or that he is the Messiah or that he does signs?” Their question functions to identify those who respond negatively to Jesus rather than to outline their evaluation of Jesus in precise terms. The reference to

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Reasons for hostility towards Jesus

205

the law (7:49) could be interpreted as a hint that the Pharisees do not subscribe to the crowd’s evaluation of Jesus because they consider the legal reasoning underlying it to be unsound but this possibility is not developed. Instead, the crowd may be thus described in order to distinguish them from the speakers and to express the Pharisees’ contempt for those who hold different opinions about Jesus. Nicodemus’ intervention draws attention to the fact that the Pharisees have no first–hand experience of Jesus.29 He confirms that they judge on the basis of hearsay rather than on Jesus’ own testimony as demanded by the law “Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?” (7:51)30 John emphasises that the Pharisees, rather than reacting to Jesus themselves, are concerned with the reactions of other people to Jesus. They depend on second–hand accounts of Jesus and are ignorant as a result and incapable of delivering a fair and legal judgement concerning him. Nicodemus’ criticism implies that they, not Jesus, transgress the law. Nevertheless, the Pharisees’ concern is not wholly confined to Jesus’ effect on the crowd. The episode concludes with the Pharisees’ assertion “No prophet is to arise from Galilee” (7:52), which betrays their objection also to the content of claims that the crowd has made about Jesus (7:40). The plot to arrest Jesus by the chief priests and Pharisees resurfaces in 11:46 after Jesus has raised Lazarus from the dead. Again they rely on reports from other parties for information about Jesus “Some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what he had done. So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council.” John then gives a detailed account of the discussion that followed, in which the reasons for the council’s hostility to Jesus are divulged What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation. (11:47 – 8)

29 On Nicodemus see below pp. 220 – 1. 30 S. Pancaro, ‘The Metamorphosis of a Legal Principle in the Fourth Gospel: A Closer Look at Jn 7,51’, Bib 53 (1972) 340 – 61, has suggested that Nicodemus’ double condition for passing judgement has no precedent in biblical or rabbinic literature. Instead, John has forced the underlying legal requirement to reflect his two modalities of revelation: hearing the words and understanding the deeds of Jesus. This is impossible apart from the conviction that Jesus does not speak his own words or do his own works but those of the Father who sent him (7:16). In effect, John proposes that, since only faith can identify Jesus, belief is a prerequisite of the legal demand to hear and establish the facts. However, since this is not explicit on Nicodemus’ lips, his statement may be compared to the prophecy (11:49 – 52) in which Caiaphas unwittingly gives voice to Christian truths couched in the language of Jewish concerns.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

206

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

The chief priests and the Pharisees acknowledge that Jesus “is performing many signs” but their complaint does not concern Jesus’ activity – the raising of Lazarus – per se. Instead they are troubled by the reaction his activity has engendered from the people – that is, their belief in Jesus. It is this response of the crowds, of the Youda?oi that is likely to provoke Rome to “come and destroy” them. Caiaphas then identifies this risk as justification for destroying Jesus “You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” (11:50). The evangelist interprets this as an unwitting prophecy that “Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God.” (11:51 – 2). John has thus superimposed his soteriological perspective onto Caiaphas’ statement, and yet it remains possible to discern a political motive behind the plot. Correspondingly, the ultimate goal of the chief priests and Pharisees is not to punish Jesus or to silence him per se but rather to curb the effect he is having on the people.31 This impetus is also discernible at several other points in the text. For example, the Pharisees’ cry at 12:19 You see, you can do nothing. Look, the world has gone after him!

their resolution at 12:42 Nevertheless many, even of the authorities, believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess it; for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue.

and even in the motivation of the chief priests at 12:10 – 11 So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, since it was on account of him that many of the Youda?oi were deserting and were believing in Jesus.

In all of the passages so far discussed, the chief priests and Pharisees have no contact with Jesus but conduct all their plans through emissaries or the people. They are reliant on others for information about him. Moreover, they are spurred into action not by the claims and conduct of Jesus himself but by the popular opinions of Jesus and the positive response to him. There are, however, three passages which do not conform to this pattern.

31 Neyrey, John, 221, “Pharisees are the certified enemies of Jesus trying to arrest or suppress public loyalty to him.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Reasons for hostility towards Jesus

207

5.5.2 Exceptional Passages 5.5.2.1 Dialogue with Jesus (8:12 – 20) This passage is unusual, not only because it contains a face–to–face dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees, but also because the Pharisees’ presence is so brief. They emerge without warning and then vanish as suddenly as they appeared. The notice in 8:12, “again he said to them” referring to the Pharisees, fits awkwardly into the narrative since John has not described the Pharisees’ arrival or any prior address to them which would warrant the inclusion of “again”. A similar notice in 8:21 refers to an audience of Youda?oi. Furthermore, John indicates no change of scene, but only the Pharisees’ presence in the Temple setting (7:14; 8:20) from which they have otherwise been absent; acting “behind the scenes” and through their emissaries. The evangelist may have introduced the Pharisees to this tradition so that it would blend more easily with the material concerning Pharisees in 7:45 – 51.32 If so, the presence of the Pharisees in 8:12 – 20 would be due to the narrative flow of the Gospel rather than the relevance of the material in 8:12 – 20 for the portrayal of the Pharisees. Nevertheless, their sudden appearance, although surprising, is evidently not at odds with John’s understanding or presentation of the Pharisees. Since, however, various aspects of the Pharisees’ portrayal in this passage are not reflected elsewhere in his Gospel, it is reasonable to suppose that these features were not especially important to John’s portrayal of the Pharisees. Therefore, 8:12 – 20 provides evidence that according to John, the Pharisees were at least able to interact with Jesus directly, although most of the time they are not depicted doing so. With these issues in mind I turn to the content of the passage. The Pharisees do not question the “christological” content of Jesus’ claim “I am the light of the world” but rather the legality of his testimony.33 They perceive no second witness to corroborate Jesus’ statement in accordance with Deut 19:15; cf. 17:6 and Num 35:30.34 However, Jesus demonstrates that the Pharisees are mistaken and he has acted in accordance with the law “In your law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid. I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me testifies on my behalf.” (8:17 – 18 cf. 5:31). The Pharisees do not know where 32 Lindars, John, 316. Note that I have taken the Johannine narrative as proceeding from 7:51 to 8:12; the pericope about the woman caught in adultery (8:1 – 11) is a non–Johannine interpolation. 33 The adjective “christological” is here used in the sense of pertaining to the person of Jesus Christ rather than to ideas surrounding the title/figure of the Christ or Messiah. 34 J. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 176 – 7, also suggests that the Pharisees challenge the form rather than the content of what he describes as Jesus’ “prophetic utterance”. Jesus speaks as a prophet and the Pharisees request his legitimation.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

208

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

Jesus comes from or where he is going (8:14). Consequently, they know neither Jesus nor his Father (8:19) and so do not perceive the Father as a second witness to Jesus’ testimony. The Pharisees’ question “where is your father?” demonstrates that they have not understood Jesus’ teaching (cf. 10:6). The Pharisees’ legal complaint is thus turned on its head. They have not exposed any transgression on Jesus’ part but only their own inadequacy. They “judge by human standards” (8:15), not those of the Father. The Pharisees’ initial complaint skirted Jesus’ christological claim but Jesus’ response reinterprets their challenge in terms of their failure to recognise Jesus’ true identity which lends authority to his words. Finally John notes “no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come” (8:20). The implications of this are unclear. It might be that the Pharisees attempted to arrest Jesus, in line with their decision at 7:32 but were unsuccessful but this is not obvious in the text. Instead it is probable that on this occasion Jesus provoked the Pharisees to criticise him but not to arrest him. 5.5.2.2 Concerning the healing of the man born blind (9:13 – 17) The second exceptional passage follows the healing of the man born blind in John 9. The Pharisees here, like those in chapters 7 and 11, do not witness Jesus’ actions themselves but rely on a report from others in 9:13, and yet the subject of their discussion is Jesus’ action (and not the reactions of other people to it). In common with the Pharisees at 8:12 – 13 their initial objection to Jesus in 9:16 is a legal one, they accuse Jesus of transgressing the Sabbath law.35 However, their assessment of Jesus’ stance with regard to the law affects how his identity should be construed.36 Is he a sinner or is he from God, that is, in the words of the man born blind, a prophet (9:17)? The Pharisees seem interested in the opinion of the man born blind, but for its relevance to their evaluation of Jesus, rather than as proof that “the world has gone after him”. Ernst Bammel suggests that the Pharisaic material in John 9 consists of traditions which reflect disputes between the Christian community and “shades of opinion in the Jewish world”.37 Contrastingly, Bammel argues, material involving the Youda?oi (e. g. 9:18 – 23), represents a later tradition which has been inserted into passages involving the Pharisees. Interactions with the Youda?oi do not attempt to resolve halakhic controversies between the church and its critics but highlight differences between Jesus and the Youda?oi creating a “rift” between 35 R.A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 131. 36 Their objections soon reveal christological implications so Brown, John, 1.379. 37 E. Bammel, ‘“John did no miracle” John 10.41’, in C.F.D. Moule (ed.), Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History (London/Oxford: A.R. Mowbray and Co, 1965) 179 – 202, on p. 197; Ashton, Studying John, 56 and Understanding, 179 – 80.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Reasons for hostility towards Jesus

209

the two. I have argued in the case of the synoptic Gospels that halakhah is only the superficial content of many controversies which are fundamentally concerned with attitudes to and ideas about Jesus himself. The same is probably true of controversies in John where claims made about Jesus are often the overt topic of dispute. Indeed, some scholars have suggested that all debate in John is fundamentally christological. Wayne Meeks, for example, asserts that although John may retain the “memory of controversy” about adherence to the Sabbath law (5:9c–16), differences in halakhah are not a major bone of contention in John’s Gospel. Jesus’ behaviour on the Sabbath prompts criticism but the resulting debate becomes christologically focused.38 This position is also maintained by D. Moody Smith, “Jesus debates with the Pharisees, not about the interpretation of the law but about who he is.”39 Meeks and Smith discuss the Gospel itself, and not the sources underlying John, but they do not distinguish between controversies involving the Youda?oi and those involving the Pharisees. 5.5.2.3 An Encounter with Jesus (9:39 – 41) The aftermath of the healing of the man born blind concludes in 9:39 – 41 with Jesus’ only other face–to–face encounter with the Pharisees. Jesus said “I came into this world for judgement so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.” Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not blind, are we?” Jesus said to them “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see’, your sin remains.”

The Pharisees’ approach is surprising because John has not hitherto given any indication that the Pharisees overhear Jesus’ seemingly private conversation with the man born blind.40 Moreover, the Pharisees do not appear overtly hostile and their question may be understood in one of two ways. On the one hand, it is possible that the Pharisees have understood Jesus’ statement in 9:39 and are troubled by its implications for them. They realise that they have seen, and that consequently Jesus’ judgement must render them blind. It is for this reason that they ask “Surely, we are not blind are we?” On the other hand, the question may be considered to challenge Jesus’ statement. The Pharisees declare that they have never been, and still are not blind. Although they expect a negative answer to their question, John’s context ensures that the Gospel audience responds affirmatively. The Pharisees have witnessed the effect of Jesus’ sign but do not perceive him with the clarity of the vision attained by the man born blind. The difference between these two interpretations is a subtle one; in both cases the 38 Meeks, ‘Breaking Away’, 98. 39 Smith, Theology, 21. 40 So Lindars, John, 352.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

210

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

Pharisees are not so convinced of Jesus’ words that they recognise their current “blindness”. Yet on the first reading the Pharisees will at least allow the possibility that they do not see.41 Jesus’ reply, however, indicates that he has understood the Pharisees’ question according to the second of the two interpretations I have outlined. He equates their question with a declaration “we see”, and suggests, proceeding from the disciples’ question in 9:2, that sin and blindness are related after all.42 Elsewhere in the Gospel John defines sin in terms of a lack of belief concerning Jesus (e. g. 8:24 cf. 16:8 – 9). The Pharisees do not recognise that Jesus is the agent of change in individuals and do not confess belief concerning Jesus as the man born blind has done (9:38). Therefore they sin and are liable to judgement, they “will die in their sins”. Jesus echoes the warning from 9:41 at 15:22 – 4 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin. But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.43

This passage posits a relationship between seeing and responding to Jesus and seeing and responding to the Father ; which is also evident in chapter 9. Jesus does the work of him who sent him (9:4) and so the Pharisees’ failure to recognise Jesus’ work is a failure to recognise the work of the Father and to acknowledge that Jesus is from God. The passage also reinforces the crux of Jesus’ statement at 9:41. The Pharisees do not fail to believe for lack of cause or opportunity ; they have witnessed Jesus’ transforming judgement at work in the case of the man born blind. They do not appeal to “blindness” as an excuse for their unbelief but admit that they see and yet do not believe. Their sin will remain because they have rejected Jesus’ transforming power to overcome it.44 Despite the apparent openness of some of the Pharisees towards Jesus, they are not spared his damning evaluation of them. They fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah which Jesus quotes in 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they might not look with their eyes, and understand with their heart and turn – 41 I will argue that the Pharisees’ question is ironic and functions as a denial of Jesus’ transformative power. Ashton, Studying John, 57, accepts that this is indeed the function of the verse in its Johannine context but notes that it may have originated as “a genuine plea for enlightenment”. 42 Thus the conversation with the Pharisees forms an inclusio with the exchange in 9:2 – 3, so Rensberger, Overcoming, 47; J.L. Ressiguie, ‘John 9: A Literary–Critical Analysis’ in K.R.R. Gros Louis (ed.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982) 295 – 303, on p. 301. 43 Barrett, John, 366; Brown, John, 1.379. 44 S. Freyne, ‘Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Matthew’s and John’s Anti–Jewish Polemic in Focus’ in Neusner/Frerichs (ed.), To see ourselves as others see us, 117 – 431, on pp. 136 – 9; Lindars, John, 352.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Reasons for hostility towards Jesus

211

and I would heal them.” They have rejected Jesus and placed themselves at odds with the divine plan unfolding in the life of Jesus. John records nothing of the Pharisees’ response to Jesus’ negative evaluation. In this passage, as in chapter 8, the Pharisees among the audience vanish into the background to be replaced by Youda?oi.

5.5.3 Factors leading to opposition from the Youda?oi In order to isolate factors leading to Pharisaic opposition as typical or distinctive, it is necessary to compare them with factors leading to opposition from the Youda?oi. The Youda?oi instigate their persecution of Jesus in chapter 5 on the basis of the testimony of a man who was healed on the Sabbath but they do not remain dependent on witness reports. They approach Jesus and his defence against their initial legal charges refocuses their attention on his claim about himself “They were seeking all the more to kill him because … he was calling God his own Father thereby making himself equal to God.” (5:18).45 A similar scenario may be observed at 8:59 where the Youda?oi “picked up stones to throw at [Jesus]” provoked by his claim “Before Abraham was, I am.” (8:58). The exact significance of this claim is disputed, but it is pertinent and sufficient here to note that it constitutes an elevated teaching about Jesus’ own person and significance. It is only when the Youda?oi hear Jesus’ claim about himself (rather than the several hostile remarks that he has already made about the Youda?oi) that their opposition, for a second time, takes a fatal turn. On a third occasion the Youda?oi explain that it is Jesus’ claims about himself (rather than his behaviour) that have provoked their violent opposition. “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” (10:33). Jesus persists in his claims nonetheless until the Youda?oi attempt to seize him in 10:39. John also reports the intention of the Youda?oi to kill Jesus in 7:1 following the discourse (let± taOta) in chapter 6. It is therefore probable that the Youda?oi of 7:1 share the objections of the Youda?oi at 6:41 – 2 and 52 to Jesus’ elevated claims about himself. They consider them incompatible with what they know of his origins (compare 6:42 and the Pharisees in 7:52). Furthermore, when the Youda?oi call for Jesus’ crucifixion they assert that Jesus has transgressed the law 45 Note, in agreement with Meeks (1985, 98) that the remnants of halakhic controversy are not, therefore, restricted to Pharisaic material. Pace Bammel, ‘John did no miracle’, 197 and Ashton, Understanding, 179 – 80 and Studying John, 56. And see above p. 208 – 9.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

212

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you. (18:30)

Yet in evidence of this transgression they do not cite Jesus’ behaviour but the “christological” claims that Jesus has made. For example We have a law and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God. (19:7) If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor. (19:12 cf. 18:33)

In 9:18 the Youda?oi take over from the Pharisees as Jesus’ opponents and are hostile from the start, refusing to believe that Jesus has healed the man born blind.46 They label Jesus a sinner (9:24) and suggest that being his disciple is incompatible with discipleship of Moses (9:28). However, the decision of the Youda?oi to put everyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah out of the synagogue (9:22) suggests that their primary concern is the christological claim being made for Jesus rather than legal issues arising from the healing. Their disapproval of Jesus’ behaviour is based on the fact that they do not know “where he is from” (9:29 cf. 7:41). Consequently, they react fiercely to the man’s implication that Jesus is “from God” (9:33 – 4) and emphasise their superiority over Jesus and the man born blind (9:28 – 9, 34; cf. 7:15). The accusation that Jesus has a demon is also made by the Youda?oi after they hear Jesus’ claims about himself. For example Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and so did the prophets; yet you say, “Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.” Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? (8:52 – 3)

Similarly, the paqoil¸a about the good shepherd includes several claims concerning Jesus’ own authority, mission and relationship to the Father (10:7, 9, 11, 17 – 18) and these claims nurture controversy among the Youda?oi Again the Youda?oi were divided because of these words. Many of them were saying, “He has a demon and is out of his mind. Why listen to him?” Others were saying, “These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” (10:19 – 21)

A third accusation that Jesus is demon–possessed (8:48), however, is provoked by Jesus’ statement concerning the Youda?oi themselves “The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.” (8:47). However, this in turn is based on his own claim “I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me” (8:42).

46 On the transition to 9:24 see above, p. 196.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Reasons for hostility towards Jesus

213

5.5.4 Summary The Pharisees and the Youda?oi find several grounds for conflict with Jesus. Some causes for concern are more clearly associated with one party than the other. For example, the Pharisees do not join with the Youda?oi and crowd (7:20) in their accusation that Jesus has a demon. Other objections are shared by both sets of opponents: both the Pharisees and the Youda?oi criticise Jesus’ neglect of the law (5:18; 8:13; 9:16, 28 – 9) and both groups regard Jesus’ followers with contempt (7:49; 9:34). Moreover, all opposition groups oppose the claims made about Jesus’ identity and authority. The Pharisees, the Youda?oi and other groups consider Jesus’ earthly origins (6:42; 7:27, 52; 9:29) and behaviour (9:16, 24) to be incompatible with these elevated claims. It may have been possible to group John’s sources according to their concern for either halakhic or christological arguments (perhaps even linking each with a different opposition group)47 but in the fourth Gospel all opposition to Jesus reflects a rejection of the claim that Jesus is the Messiah sent down from heaven by the Father. All accusations made against Jesus demonstrate the failure of the Pharisees and Youda?oi to perceive Jesus’ relationship to the Father who testifies on Jesus’ behalf and whose work Jesus is doing (5:17; 8:18; 9:4). Nevertheless, christological controversy appears to provoke different concerns among Pharisees and Youda?oi. I have argued that, for the most part, the Pharisees plot against Jesus from behind the scenes and are rarely direct recipients of Jesus’ teaching. It is, rather, the Youda?oi who are Jesus’ regular interlocutors; they hear his teaching first–hand and respond spontaneously with violence especially to the claims he makes about himself. Note how frequently they react to what Jesus himself says (examples may be found at 6:41, 52; 7:15, 35; 8:22, 59; 10:33). In contrast with the Pharisees then, they do not seem particularly interested in how Jesus is received by others; there is no indication that they stone Jesus for any other purpose than to punish his “blasphemy” (10:33). This is not to deny that the Youda?oi are troubled by the positive reception Jesus has found in some quarters, on the contrary, their anxiety on this matter is made more than plain by their resolution that “anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue” (9:22). However, the characteristic (albeit not invariable) response of the Youda?oi differs from the overriding concern displayed by the Pharisees in the majority of cases. The Pharisees are not motivated by objections to Jesus’ teaching but protest against the claims made about Jesus by other people. They are concerned with the mutterings of the crowd (7:32) and the state of the nation (11:48; 12:19). Their 47 See Bammel, ‘John did no miracle’, 197; Ashton, Understanding, 179 – 80 and Studying John, 56.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

214

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

ultimate goal is not merely to silence Jesus but to curb the increase in the number of his followers; to preserve the population from “going after him”. If this observation is taken seriously then a difference between the portrayals of the Pharisees and of the Youda?oi may be admitted. This difference is not absolute; the Pharisees come into contact with Jesus and object to his teaching and the Youda?oi take measures against the positive popular reaction to Jesus. But a few exceptional and unusual cases are insufficient to undermine my tentative hypothesis that in general each group is more strongly associated with one or the other kind of opposition. The typical concerns of each group may be recognised and a fluid distinction between the two may be inferred.48 These characteristics of the Pharisees’ opposition do not distinguish them from all of Jesus’ opponents; on the contrary the chief priests collaborate with the Pharisees and share their concerns. However, since there are major differences between even the portrayals of these allies, they cannot be dismissed as simply two faces of a single opposition. (Note that the chief priests, unlike the Pharisees take an active role in the passion narrative.49 Also that while some Pharisees allow the possibility that Jesus is sent from God in 9:16, the chief priests display nothing but unanimous hostility towards Jesus.)

5.6

Nicodemus

This chapter has so far addressed John’s descriptions of a group called Vaqisa?oi. I will now address another potential component of the Pharisees’ portrayal in the fourth Gospel. In 3:1 John introduces Nicodemus as %mhqypor 1j t_m Vaqisa¸ym, this description (rather than Vaqisa?or) identifies Nicodemus precisely as a member of the Pharisaic group. It is reasonable to assume, given the prominence of this description (it is mentioned before even his name) that the classification of Nicodemus within this group is significant and that other references to the Pharisees in the Gospel have some a priori application to Nicodemus.50 However, although Nicodemus is associated with several groups – the Pharisees, the leaders of the Jews, the assembly of chief priests and Pharisees 48 Described above, pp. 202 – 3. 49 See above, pp. 198 – 202. 50 The introduction of Nicodemus in 3:1 raises the same methodological questions which were discussed in relation to the Pharisees at 1:24 above, p. 194. Are the negative characteristics of Vaqisa?oi and Youda?oi, which are established later in the narrative, applicable at 3:1? As before, I maintain that it would be rash to anticipate my analysis by ascribing hostility to Nicodemus on the basis of his association with Pharisees and Youda?oi alone, especially when the hostility of these groups is not prevalent in the context of John 3. Pace M. Goulder, ‘Nicodemus’, SJT 44 (1991) 153 – 68 on p. 154, who argues that Nicodemus is implicated in the rejection of Jesus by his association with these groups.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

215

Nicodemus

– he is an individual distinct from those around him. The extent to which he represents those groups with which he is associated is debatable. The initial description of Nicodemus in 3:1 might entail that his portrayal necessarily contributes to and nuances the portrayal of the Pharisees as a group. Conversely, there may be sufficient differences between Nicodemus and the Pharisees to warrant the conclusion that Nicodemus is a Pharisee in name only. In the latter case, is it justifiable to include a section on Nicodemus in a study of Vaqisa?oi? In this section I will attempt to answer these questions by examining the extent to which Nicodemus exhibits Pharisaic characteristics, his relationship to the (other) Pharisees and whether or not he may be considered to represent them. I will begin with a brief exegesis of the three passages concerning Nicodemus to demonstrate the concerns, attitudes and patterns of behaviour that are associated with Nicodemus and elucidate his function in John’s composition. This exegesis is by no means comprehensive but intended to offer a representative sample of arguments that are already well rehearsed in scholarly discussion. I will highlight the variety of interpretations that pertain to aspects of his portrayal, the persistence of double meanings and alternative conclusions which may be drawn.

5.6.1 The Visit to Jesus by Night 5.6.1.1 “He came to him by night” “Darkness” for John symbolises Jesus’ absence (12:35) and the world into which he came (cf. 1:5).51 Nicodemus stumbles because he walks at night; the light is not in him (11:10) and he does not know where he is going (12:35). The work of the Father is done during the daylight hours (9:4) whereas Judas chooses to do Satan’s work at night (13:30, cf. 13:27). Therefore, Nicodemus may act at night because he is more comfortable with the darkness of Jesus’ absence than the light of his presence and he has been overtaken by darkness.52 However, such an interpretation risks applying Johannine symbolism too one–sidedly. In chapters 9 and 11, “day” and “night” are determined by Jesus’ presence as “the light of the world” (8:12; 12:46). If the same applies in 3:2 then Nicodemus has, by coming to Jesus, come to the light. John accentuates the contrast between the world of darkness from which Nicodemus emerges and the light of Jesus’ presence into which he enters. The significance of the nocturnal 51 C.R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning Mystery and Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 5 – 6. 52 Goulder, ‘Nicodemus’, 154 and see W.A. Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972) 44 – 72, on p. 54 and Neyrey, John, 76.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

216

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

setting is ambiguous and ultimately dependent on whether or not Nicodemus visits Jesus as the light of the world.53 The reference to “night” must therefore be clarified by the conversation that follows it.

5.6.1.2 Nicodemus’ Statement Concerning the Identity of Jesus Rabbi, we know that you have come from God, a teacher ; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him. (3:2)

Nicodemus makes statements that are conceded by Jesus and placed on the lips of those who recognise Jesus’ identity more fully elsewhere and merit a positive or at least neutral response from Jesus. For example, Nicodemus’ assertions that Jesus is !p¹ heoO 1k¶kuhar and b he¹r let’ aqtoO are similar to claims which meet with comparative approval in 6:38; 8:29; 13:3; 16:30, 32.54 However, Jesus’ ambivalent response suggests that Nicodemus’ statements do not evince the same christological understanding as similar expressions on the lips of Jesus and his followers. It should not be assumed, for example, that because Nicodemus and Martha both acknowledge Jesus as teacher, Nicodemus also shares Martha’s fuller confession (11:27). Nicodemus’ acknowledgement of Jesus as Nabb¸/ did²sjakor, although it does not appear to be incorrect or inappropriate, is conspicuous as the only title he uses. Nevertheless, Nicodemus’ statements may be considered partial acknowledgements of Jesus’ true origin and the first step towards fuller understanding. Jouette M. Bassler claims that Nicodemus’ statement is at least as substantive as those of Andrew (1:41), Philip (1:45) and Nathanael (1:49). None of these confessions contain the assertion that Jesus has come from God and that God is with him and yet, Andrew and Philip are invited to follow Jesus and Nathanael is labelled a “true Israelite” who will see “greater things”.55 Their confessions are a starting point for faith and discipleship so why should not Nicodemus’ statements yield similar results? It is remarkable that Nicodemus’ faith is based on Jesus’ sgle?a, like that of the group in 2:23 (who are arguably linked to Nicodemus also by the repeated use of !mhqypor in 2:25 and 3:1).56 The group’s belief eQr t¹ emola aqtoO is 53 The nocturnal setting may have a purely chronological function, as is arguably the case in 21:3 (so F.P. Cotterell, ‘The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal’, ExpTim 96 (1984 – 5) 237 – 42, on pp. 238 – 9), exemplifying the common rabbinic practice of discussion well into the night (so Brown, John, 1.130). 54 Meeks, ‘Man from Heaven’, 54. 55 The description of Jesus’ identity, J.M. Bassler argues, is full and accurate in the eyes of the evangelist (‘Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 108 (1989) 635 – 46, on p. 637). 56 See Brown, John, 1.135, 137; Haenchen, John, 1.199 – 200; Meeks, ‘Man from Heaven’, 55.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

217

Nicodemus

positively advanced elsewhere, and so it may be inferred that the basis, rather than the content of their confession is the reason why Jesus does not entrust himself to them (2:24 – 5).57 Similarly, the content of Nicodemus’ identification of Jesus is received more positively elsewhere, whereas the basis of his faith – sgle?a – is frequently the subject of ambivalent treatment by the evangelist. John acknowledges that Jesus’ signs do not necessarily lead to faith in him (9:40 – 1; 11:46; 12:37; 15:24) or else, spectators cannot determine the true significance of miraculous deeds and the wrong kind of faith results (6:26 cf. 7:4 – 5). This contingency may explain why Jesus sometimes refuses an initial request for a sign (2:4; 4:48 and 7:8) and why faith without signs is so highly praised in 20:29. The guarded response of Jesus in 2:24 – 5 fits comfortably into this aspect of John’s treatment of signs and once this caution is established it is easily applied to Nicodemus in the following verses.58 What is not immediately clear, however, is why Nicodemus’ initial response to Jesus’ signs does not develop into belief and discipleship, after the example of the disciples at 2:11, the royal official at 4:53 – 4 (cf. 9:38; 11:45) and presupposed by the evangelist in 20:30.

5.6.1.3 Nicodemus’ misunderstanding and the necessity of being cemmgh0 %myhem (3:3 – 10) This is a complicated section in which the interpretation even of certain words is in dispute yet my discussion here will be strictly focused on its contribution to Nicodemus’ portrayal. Jesus does not respond directly to Nicodemus’ statement but sets a new agenda for the conversation and thus asserts his superiority.59 He offers a re–interpretation of Nicodemus’ claim: the kingdom is a reality just as Jesus is a teacher who has come from God and who has God with him but in order to see these things it is necessary to be cemmgh0 %myhem. Nicodemus implies that he has not (3:4) and thus undermines his claim to perceive the presence of God as it has been revealed in Jesus’ signs. Jesus’ subsequent teaching refers to and contrasts several different kinds of birth: birth from the womb and birth %myhem, from water and the spirit (3:5), birth of the flesh and birth of the spirit. The relation of these different births to 57 The phrase eQr t¹ emola occurs elsewhere only in 1:12 and 3:18. In both cases it describes a wholly positive response to Jesus which will be rewarded. Also note that the Father will send the Paraclete in Jesus’ name (14:26), that Jesus promises to “do whatever you ask in my name” (14:13 cf. 14:14; 15:16; 16:23 – 4, 26) and that “you may have life in his name” (20.31). 58 Goulder, ‘Nicodemus’, 155, 156 – 7. 59 According to Cotterell, ‘Nicodemus Conversation’, 240, Nicodemus reluctantly accepts Jesus’ alternative topic but his brevity and eventual disappearance show that he opted out of the conversation in a “display of pique”.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

218

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

each other is unclear and many questions are left unresolved.60 The opacity of Jesus’ language arguably makes Nicodemus’ confusion unsurprising and unavoidable and his questions demonstrate an earnest desire to understand. However, Jesus’ replies (3:7 – 8) show that Nicodemus’ ignorance is inexcusable. His comment “do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You (pl) must be born from above … ’” (3:7) implies that there is nothing in his teaching to warrant Nicodemus’ confusion.61 Moreover, the proverb in 3:8 suggests that since Nicodemus is accustomed to the action of the wind, he should not be astonished by the spirit/one born of the spirit who behaves in the same way. Nicodemus’ question “How can these things be?” (3:9) is not limited in scope and demonstrates that he has not understood anything Jesus has taught him; it cannot be defended as an earnest attempt to understand. Finally, Jesus’ question “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?” suggests that Nicodemus’ incomprehension undermines his claim to a role which is rightfully held by Jesus (cf. 3:2).62 The scandal of Nicodemus’ misunderstanding is underlined by a comparison with the portrayal of the Samaritan woman of John 4. We might expect Nicodemus’ social and religious advantages (as a male Jew and educated member of the authorities) to place him in a better situation than the Samaritan woman to understand Jesus, and yet she displays greater progress than he. Her initial ignorance (4:10, 22) is replaced by tentative claims which are implicitly verified by Jesus (4:26) and her question in 4:29 suggests that she has at least begun to understand that Jesus is the Messiah. However, the positive aspects of her portrayal should not be overstated. She refuses Jesus’ request when he first approaches her and her question l¶ti oxtºr 1stim b Wqistºr; is posed doubtfully despite the fact that Jesus has already answered it in explicit terms. She meets Jesus at midday but, as I have already suggested, the interpretation of such settings is not straightforward; she may see Jesus in the light of day and yet be 60 For detailed comment of the meaning of cemmgh0 %myhem in relation to cemmgh0 1n vdator ja· pme¼lator and cecemmgl´mom 1j t/r saqj¹r see: Barrett, John, 205 – 11; Beasley–Murray, John, 47 – 50; Brown, John, 1.138 – 44; Bultmann, John, 135 – 43; Haenchen, John, 1.199 – 202; F. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina 4; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), 91 – 4, 98 – 9; L. Morris, The Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 212 – 20 and R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (3 vol.; New York: Herder & Herder, 1968/1980/1982), 1.366 – 74. 61 Arguably, Jesus’ teaching on spiritual birth can be elucidated by references to the outpouring of God’s spirit to renew the people of Israel in biblical prophecy. Moreover the combination of water and spirit here recalls the Baptist’s juxtaposition of his own baptism with water and future baptism with the Holy Spirit (1:26, 33 cf. 3:23 and 34). As an educated Jew and an associate of groups that contacted the Baptist (1:19, 24), Nicodemus might have been expected to understand this teaching. 62 Goulder, ‘Nicodemus’, 155.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

219

Nicodemus

unable to perceive “the light of the world”. The woman, unlike Nicodemus, progresses in her recognition of Jesus but the extent to which her final understanding surpasses that of Nicodemus is debatable. 5.6.1.4 Jesus’ Testimony (3:11 – 21) Jesus’ use of oUdalem in 3:11 like that of did²sjakor in 3:10 echoes Nicodemus’ use of the same words in 3:2, thus drawing attention to their contrasting claims d oUdalem kakoOlem ja· d 2yq²jalem laqtuqoOlem, ja· tµm laqtuq¸am Bl_m oq kalb²mete.

Jesus adopts plural pronouns and verbs just as Nicodemus did so that they seem to represent two groups.63 Moreover, the “testimony” in 3:11 may be understood to refer not only to Jesus’ teaching about being born %myhem but also to the evangelist’s message because of the overtly “Christian” content of 3:13 – 18 (following 3:12 where plural pronouns become more prevalent). Jesus has thus become a spokesman for John’s community ; it is their activity, as well as his own, which Jesus describes in 3:11.64 Jesus adopts Nicodemus’ language and thereby usurps his claim and redefines Nicodemus as the representative of those who do not “know” and fail to accept John’s claims. The conversation may be considered to parody a revelation discourse because heavenly things are not withheld from Nicodemus and yet he remains ignorant. Note the two occurrences of the noun oqqamºr in 3:13 which mark out 3:13 – 18 as containing the “heavenly things” (1pouq²mia) of 3:12.65 Nicodemus’ failure to believe is not for want of opportunity and he has no excuse for his unbelief (3:12). He is therefore the agent of his own condemnation as one who “has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (3:18). Jesus is the light that has come into the world but since Nicodemus does not believe, he must love darkness rather than light (3:19). He therefore visits Jesus at night so that his evil “deeds may not be exposed” (3:20). He comes to Jesus but he has not come to the light.

63 So Brown, John, 1.131; Haenchen, John, 1.199 and Lincoln, John, 148 – 9. Contra Kruse, John, 109 n. 1, who argues that Jesus’ plural pronoun denotes him and his father. John’s use of pronouns is inconsistent. There seems to be no correlation between the emergence of first and second person plurals nor between the emergence of plurals and the content of the speech, e. g. the instruction about the necessity of being born %myhem is addressed to soi (3:3) and rl÷r (3:7). 64 Haenchen, John, 1.202. 65 Pace Beasley–Murray John, 50, who suggests the 1pouq²mia are an eschatological message which is not given to Nicodemus. Brown, John, 1.145, identifies these as objects of faith for the community represented by Jesus but not for those represented by Nicodemus.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

220

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

5.6.2 Nicodemus’ Petition to the Council (7:50 – 2) When he next appears, Nicodemus challenges the Pharisees after they accuse the rpgq´tai, who have failed to capture Jesus (7:45), of succumbing to his “deceit”. Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus before, and who was one of them, asked, “Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?” They replied, “Surely you are not also from Galilee, are you? Search and you will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee”. (7:50 – 2)

On the one hand the evangelist’s cross–reference to Nicodemus’ previous appearance in 3:1 may be interpreted as an invitation to compare and contrast the two episodes. On the other hand it functions as a reminder simply that Nicodemus has been encountered before and suggests that John did not rely on his audience’s memory. The reappearance of Nicodemus might mean that 3:19 – 21 is not the endpoint of his definitive condemnation. However, a reference to the occasion when Nicodemus was condemned as a lover of darkness might cast a shadow over his portrayal in 7:50 – 2. This kind of interpretation requires the outcome and nuances of one episode to be accurately recalled and applied to the later episode since there is no reminder in 7:50 that Nicodemus’ initial visit had taken place at night (contrast 19:39). Nevertheless, the evangelist seems to assume awareness throughout the Gospel of the Johannine interpretation of events which take place in its closing chapters (e. g. the glorification of the Son of Man on the cross). This might entail that earlier events can be clarified by later ones as well as vice versa. There seems to be no justification for treating the Nicodemus episodes discretely ; yet it is by no means clear that elements of his portrayal should be viewed through the lens of his latest, first, last or any one appearance. I will therefore attempt to treat each appearance of Nicodemus in its own right, while admitting the possibility that John composed each episode with an eye to the whole that encompasses two other appearances of Nicodemus, and will ask whether or not 7:50 – 2 reveals any development in Nicodemus’ characterisation since chapter 3. Nicodemus appears to caution the Pharisees against passing judgement on Jesus based not on their own experience but only the murmuring of the crowd (7:32).66 He does not, however, mention Jesus by name, there is no indication that the Pharisees are passing any kind of formal judgement on Jesus and his intervention is immediately preceded by the Pharisees’ condemnation of the crowd (and perhaps the rpgq´tai) in 7:49.67 It may be argued, moreover, that Nicodemus’ criticism is redundant since the chief priests and Pharisees, by 66 So for example: Barrett, John, 315; Beasley– Murray, John, 120; Brown, John, 1.325; Haenchen, John, 2.18 – 19; Lindars, John, 304. 67 See Pancaro, ‘Metamorphosis’, 342 – 3.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

221

Nicodemus

ordering Jesus to be brought to them, have demonstrated their intention to question him themselves. While it remains likely that Nicodemus’ intervention, like the rest of the chapter, is primarily concerned with the evaluation of Jesus, there is no indication that Nicodemus was moved to speak by a concern for, or desire to benefit, Jesus in particular rather than any other unwitting ‘defendant’. He advocates a legal principle for which Jesus may be his primary reference, but his concern for justice does not amount to a profession of faith. The basis of his intervention is not Jesus’ recent teaching, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement.” (7:24), but the same mºlor (in particular Deut 1:16 cf. 13:14; 19:18 – 19) to which the Pharisees have just made appeal.68 There seems to be little justification so far for considering Nicodemus as an exception to the Pharisees’ assumption that none of their number has believed in Jesus (7:48). Nicodemus does not profess faith in Jesus but in the Torah. Nevertheless, the intervention does drive a wedge between Nicodemus and the Pharisaic party of which he is a member and which is so strongly opposed to Jesus. He implies that they transgress and neglect the law. He is eXr £m 1n aqt_m but not in this case, the same as them. This episode thus foreshadows, to some extent, the divided opinion about Jesus among the Pharisees and Jewish leadership in later chapters (9:16; 12:42; 19:38).69 The division between Nicodemus and the Pharisees is confirmed when they ask him, Lµ ja· s» 1j t/r Cakika¸ar eW; (7:52) which can be interpreted on two levels. Superficially, their expectation of a negative answer suggests that they consider it unusual if not unthinkable to find a “Galilean” in their number. They therefore use 1j t/r Cakika¸ar to denote something distinct from themselves. However, the Gospel boasts several examples of questions for which the speaker expects a negative answer but which, from the evangelist’s perspective, should be answered in the affirmative (e. g. 4:12; 9:40). It is therefore possible that Nicodemus, although a Pharisee, may be considered a Galilean in the eyes of the evangelist.70 At the end of the chapter it is not clear that Nicodemus remains eXr £m 1n aqt_m (7:50 cf. 3:1) and if he does not, has he ceased to be a Pharisee?71

68 So Bassler, ‘Mixed Signals’, 640; Goulder, ‘Nicodemus’, 155. 69 Nicodemus personalises division among the Jews and brings the irony of 7:47 – 52 to the surface (so Culpepper, Anatomy, 135) 70 The respective function and significance of Judea and Galilee or Judeans and Galileans has prompted a good deal of discussion which cannot be rehearsed here. Note, however, the arguments of J.M. Bassler, ‘The Galileans: A Neglected Factor in Johannine Community Research’, CBQ 43 (1981) 243 – 7, on pp. 254, 257, who suggests that in 7:52; 8:48 and 18:35 the epithets “Galilean”, “Samaritan” and “Jew” convey primarily symbolic information concerning an individual’s response to Jesus. Although “Galilean” should not be equated with “disciple” or “believer”, it is generally associated with a positive response to Jesus. 71 Pace M. de Jonge, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God. Jesus Christ and the Christians

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

222

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

5.6.3 The Burial of Jesus (19:38 – 42) The burial account raises two main issues concerning Nicodemus: 5.6.3.1 Is Nicodemus a “Secret Disciple” and how would this affect his portrayal? It is likely that Nicodemus, like his companion Joseph of Arimathea, is a “disciple of Jesus, though a secret one for fear of the Youda?oi” (19:38).72 He is engaged in the same task as Joseph and is not the object of fear he would have been if he were still to be considered one of the Youda?oi. The cross–reference in 19:39 may inform the concept of ‘secret–discipleship’ by reminding the reader that Nicodemus first approached Jesus under cover of darkness.73 However, “night” is not a pervasive element of Nicodemus’ portrayal and John gives no indication that Jesus’ burial took place when it was already becoming dark (contrast ax¸ar cemol´mgr in Mark 15:42 and parallels).74 Joseph and Nicodemus are nonetheless subject to the harsh criticism of “secret believers” at 12:42 – 375 Nevertheless many, even of the authorities, believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved human glory more than the glory that comes from God.

The portrayals of characters who fear the Youda?oi (e. g. the crowd in 7:13 and the parents in 9:22), although not explicitly critical, are certainly not as positive as that of the man born blind, who conquers this fear and publicly defends Jesus.76 Nevertheless, fear is hardly a ground for definitive condemnation since the disciples also lock the doors of their house “for fear of the Jews” (20:19). Moreover any negative impact on Nicodemus’ portrayal may be mitigated by the extent to which he and Joseph have overcome their fear. They do not lock themselves away as the disciples do, but choose to perform an act which at least begins to disclose their discipleship in public.77 In fact the description lahgt¶r

72

73 74 75 76 77

in Johannine Perspective (SBLSBS 11; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 36, who argues that there has been no development in Nicodemus’ attitude since chapter 3. M. Krenkel, ‘Joseph von Arimathäa und Nikodemus’, ZWT 8 (1865) 438 – 45, suggests that “Joseph” and “Nicodemus” were two different names for the same person in different traditions. His hypothesis does not, however, affect the meaning of John’s text as it stands, in which the names refer to two distinct characters. So Barrett, John, 559. This also allows chapter 3 to be interpreted as a foreshadowing of Nicodemus’ “secret–discipleship”. De Jonge, Stranger from Heaven, 33; Bassler, ‘Mixed Signals’, 642. Goulder, ‘Nicodemus’, 155. Meeks, ‘Man from Heaven’, 55. The public nature of the burial is noted by Bassler, ‘Mixed Signals’, 642; Beasley–Murray, John, 358; Lindars, John, 592. Although Brown, John, 2.939, maintains that Pilate’s assent to

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

223

Nicodemus

(19:38), which is not used at 12:42 – 3, could indicate that Joseph (and by implication Nicodemus) has progressed further than those who “loved human glory more than the glory that comes from God”. Nicodemus’ participation in the burial of Jesus indicates that he is no longer “one of the Pharisees” but a “secret disciple” of Jesus. Moreover, he is perhaps beginning to escape the pitfalls of fear and secrecy to emerge as a “public–disciple”. But is his discipleship genuine? Does he understand Jesus any better than he did in chapter 3?

5.6.3.2 Do Nicodemus’ Actions Demonstrate a Correct Understanding of Jesus? It has been argued that Nicodemus’ participation in the burial of Jesus demonstrates his gross misunderstanding of Jesus.78 It cannot, therefore, be considered an act of discipleship and Nicodemus remains eXr £m 1n aqt_m. Although Joseph’s and Nicodemus’ action appears superficially to serve Jesus they (like Nicodemus in 7:51 – 2) ultimately serve a Jewish concern for proper burial (19:40).79 Like the Youda?oi (19:31), they are keen to complete their task before the Sabbath begins (19:42).80 The act of burial has also been considered to demonstrate a profound lack of faith in the resurrection.81 Dennis D. Sylva observes By his use of d´y in 19:40 the author has Nicodemus and Joseph participate in the handing over of Jesus to the power of death. By shedding the garments in which he was wrapped, the resurrected Jesus disassociates himself from this action of Nicodemus and Joseph. These features support the interpretation of the abundant spices as manifesting a lack of understanding of Jesus’ life beyond death.82

There are however, several difficulties with Sylva’s argument. His language of death as a power to which Jesus is handed over and which is/will be defeated does not correspond to John’s depiction of the crucifixion as the means by which the Son of Man is glorified. His suggestions are also largely dependent on the parallel

78 79 80 81 82

the burial of a convicted criminal (especially a revolutionary or royal pretender) must have been contingent on its private/secret performance by those who were not sympathetic to the revolutionary cause. However, these conditions are not apparent from John’s description and Brown’s construal of John is somewhat undermined by frequent hints of Pilate’s own sympathy for Jesus. Meeks, ‘Man from Heaven’, 55. Bassler, ‘Mixed Signals’, 642 – 3. John certainly presents the burial as according to Jewish custom although Haenchen, John, 2.196, affirms Billerbeck’s claim that the customs John describes are not attested in Jewish literature. De Jonge, Stranger from Heaven, 33. Idem. 34. Neyrey, John, 314 – 5, agrees that Nicodemus’ actions show that he expects Jesus to stay dead. D.D. Sylva, ‘Nicodemus and his Spices (John 19:39)’, NTS 34 (1988) 148 – 51, on p. 149.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

224

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

he perceives between the resurrections of Lazarus and of Jesus, but the descriptions in chapters 11 and 19 differ particularly in the details to which Sylva makes appeal.83 Moreover, the resurrection of Jesus and the raising of Lazarus are very different kinds of events in the eyes of the evangelist and need not be mutually interpretive. For example, one function of Lazarus’ wrappings, like Martha’s reference to the stench (11:39), is to convince the audience that Lazarus had really died and was not merely revived from illness. This function is redundant in the “Easter” narrative since Jesus’ death has already been narrated. The empty shroud, like the empty tomb, seems instead to emphasise that Jesus’ body (and nothing else) is missing. The idea that Jesus discards the “bindings” in a token rejection of his burial is alien to John 20 and so there is no reason to read this interpretation into the burial narrative. Joseph and Nicodemus’ actions are, to some extent, paralleled by Mary’s anointing of Jesus at Bethany (12:3). Jesus seems to approve of Mary’s action and defends her against Judas Iscariot. Furthermore, his words in 12:7 seem to envisage a second anointing after his death 7Aver aqt¶m, Vma eQr tµm Bl´qam toO 1mtaviasloO lou tgq¶s, aqto (Let her alone, in order that she might keep it for the day of my burial).

The fact that Jesus considers “anointing” appropriate to his burial arguably lends positive significance to the actions of Joseph and Nicodemus.84 However, Mary’s action so differs in almost every particular from that described in chapter 19, that approval of one does not necessarily entail approval for the other. Additionally it may be argued that Jesus’ reply to Judas in 12:8 means that Nicodemus and Joseph would have done better to perform their act of service before Jesus’ death as Mary did, when Jesus was still “with them”. Joseph and Nicodemus perform an act that is appropriate to Jesus’ burial but do they do it in the spirit exemplified by Mary at 12:3?85 The abundant spices “weighing about a hundred pounds” (19:39), which Nicodemus has provided, suggest a lavish burial, like that of a king (cf. 2 Chron 16:14 and A.J. 17:196, 199). It may, therefore, be argued that Joseph and Nicodemus’ action disassociates them from the High Priest’s claim “We have no 83 None of John’s terms for the bindings – ahom¸oir (19:40; 20.5, 6, 7) jeiq¸air (11:44) and soud²qiom (11:44; 20.7) – are common to the Lazarus and burial pericopae. 84 Pace Goulder, ‘Nicodemus’, 155 – 6: the first anointing precludes a second and renders Nicodemus’ act “an extravagant error”. 85 Lincoln, John, 486 argues that the parallel between the actions of Mary and Nicodemus is false because Nicodemus would not have anointed Jesus’ body but sprinkled powdered spices. Also, Mary’s proleptic anointing of Jesus for his burial means that Nicodemus’ action is unnecessary. However, Lincoln’s observations about powdered spices cannot be inferred from the text of John alone and it might be argued that Nicodemus and Joseph bring Mary’s action to completion.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

225

Nicodemus

king but Caesar.” (19:15). They have, in effect, affirmed Pilate’s inscription “Jesus of Nazareth [is] king of the Jews.” Is this then, from the evangelist’s perspective, an indication of genuine faith and understanding on their part? Jesus does not accept the title “king” when questioned by Pilate but he does acknowledge his kingdom (not of this world) and in 12:12 – 15 fulfils the prophecy of Zech 9:9 concerning the king of Israel. Many allusions to Jesus’ kingship in the trial narrative and after are tinged with irony. The soldiers crown Jesus with thorns and clothe him in royal garb so that they might mock him (19:2 – 3), yet the description gains its force from recognising that what they consider so ridiculous is in fact the case; Jesus is the king of the Jews. It is therefore possible that if Joseph and Nicodemus acknowledge Jesus’ kingship they, like the soldiers, do so unwittingly. The description of Joseph and Nicodemus, however, is not obviously ironic and no ulterior motive (e. g. mockery) is attributed to them. They are presented as disciples, albeit in secret, and do not undermine their actions with violence or disrespect (contrast 19:2 – 3). The provision of spices is demanded by Jewish custom (according to John) but made in such abundance here that it is most plausibly viewed as an act of generosity, respect or piety. Nicodemus’ provision of spices therefore reflects his understanding that Jesus should be accorded a particularly lavish burial, even that of a king (cf. the crowd of 12:12 – 13). This does not imply that Nicodemus’ understanding is complete and yet his attitude to Jesus, whilst imperfect, is far from the worst that John portrays. If Joseph and Nicodemus do fail to understand Jesus’ resurrection, they are not alone. Although Jesus predicts the raising up of the Temple of his body his disciples do not understand until after he has been raised from the dead (2:22). Mary Magdalene mistakenly assumes “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” (20:13, 2). Even Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple “did not understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead” (20:9).86 In contrast to the High Priest and other Jews, Nicodemus recognises Jesus’ kingship. In contrast to Peter who denies Jesus and the other disciples who desert him, Nicodemus acknowledges Jesus and serves him. In contrast to Judas (12:4 – 5), Nicodemus knows that anointing is appropriate to Jesus’ burial. If Nicodemus fears the Jews, he is no different from the disciples (20:19). Nicodemus’ flaws, as they are portrayed in this passage, must be acknowledged but they do not make him peculiarly villainous (especially when compared with other characters) and are ameliorated by positive aspects of his portrayal.

86 Bassler, ‘Mixed Signals’, 642 – 3.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

226

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

5.6.4 How Distinctive is an Ambiguous Portrayal? In the foregoing analysis I have demonstrated a variety of ways in which these three passages may be interpreted and the persistent ambivalence of Nicodemus’ behaviour. Most details of Nicodemus’ words or deeds are open to either positive or negative interpretation. Michael Goulder is, I would argue, mistaken in his assertion John’s writing is notoriously ambiguous but about Nicodemus I do not think it is as ambiguous as that. An overall view suggests rather that John’s attitude to him is solidly negative … 87

In some cases the balance shifts in favour of one or other interpretation, yet for the most part, Nicodemus’ positive response to Jesus is tempered by material which has a negative effect on his portrayal and vice versa. We might then conclude with Wayne Meeks that “ambiguity is doubtless an important and deliberate part of the portrait of this obscure figure”.88 It is not, however, a property that distinguishes him from other characters or one that renders him, in the words of Jouette M. Bassler, a tertium quid (neither an insider, nor an outsider, nor in transition). “Ambiguity” is not the property of a tertium quid but may be perceived to some extent in the portrayal of every “insider” figure in the fourth Gospel – each understands something and yet does not understand everything. If the opinion of the evangelist sets the standard against which faith and understanding should be measured then we must reckon with the probability that none of the characters (excepting Jesus) consistently meets this standard. For example, Martha is eager to believe (11:27) but soon forgets Jesus’ promise that she “would see the glory of God” (11:39 – 40) and her confession (11:27) is surpassed by that of Thomas “My Lord and my God.” (20:28). Thomas is himself surpassed by “those who have not seen and yet have come to believe” (21:29). Even the Beloved Disciple does not maintain a perfect understanding throughout. Nicodemus’ portrayal is a continuation of this pattern; his understanding of Jesus and Jesus’ teaching is seriously lacking at times and yet he certainly shows some glimmer of understanding.89 The pervasiveness of ambivalent responses to Jesus in John also suggests that it is intentional and requires no resolution. If Nicodemus’ portrayal at 19:39 – 40 87 Goulder, ‘Nicodemus’, 153. 88 Meeks, ‘Man from Heaven’, 54. See also M. Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup 69; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 37: “Nicodemus is the only named character who fails to make a decision.” 89 Nicodemus has still more room for improvement. I am forced to disagree with Kruse, John, 374, for whom Nicodemus is an “example of the sort of belief that the evangelist hoped his Gospel would evoke in his readers”.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

227

Nicodemus

remains unresolved, then it is no different from Thomas’ portrayal at 20:24 – 5. Resolution remains a future possibility for the latter (20:28) and the same may be true, although not narrated, in the case of Nicodemus. This challenges Gabi Renz’s expectation that after the glorification of the Son of Man, which is Jesus’ “highest and final revelation”, characters must adopt a position either for or against Jesus.90 Renz presents ambiguity as a rhetorical device which demands resolution by the audience and yet traces of ambiguity persist in the portrayals of almost all Johannine characters. Should we allow that ambiguity might transcend rhetoric and instead reflect John’s perception of response to Jesus?

5.6.5 Nicodemus and the Pharisees Nicodemus conforms to several Pharisaic traits. Like the Pharisees he associates with powerful Jews, such as the chief priests in 7:50 – 2 and Joseph who has direct access to Pilate in 19:38. He is a leader of the Youda?oi and so, like the Pharisees, seems to occupy a position of authority and Jesus questions Nicodemus’ competence as a “teacher of Israel” (3:10) just as he challenges the Pharisees’ ability to lead the sheep (10:1 – 10). My interpretation of 3:13 – 18 suggests that since Jesus does not withhold his heavenly testimony from Nicodemus, the latter has no excuse for his lack of understanding (3:18). Similarly, Jesus implies that the Pharisees have become blind since they do not perceive his true identity despite plentiful opportunity (9:40 – 1). Finally, legal concerns are placed on the lips of both the Pharisees and Nicodemus (7:51; 8:13; 9:16); often as John’s means of highlighting a christological point which may not be acknowledged by the speakers. There are also many Pharisaic traits which Nicodemus does not share. Whereas the Pharisees depend on second–hand information about Jesus, Nicodemus converses face–to–face with Jesus in chapter 3 and criticises the Pharisees’ willingness to forego first–hand testimony in 7:50 – 1. There is, moreover, no indication that Nicodemus shares the Pharisees’ interest in the way others react to Jesus; he reacts to what Jesus himself says and does (3:2). Finally, Nicodemus does not seem to participate in attempts to arrest Jesus – in which the Pharisees are thoroughly embroiled – or in any plot to destroy him (contrast 11:53). On the contrary, he offers a rudimentary defence of Jesus to his would–be captors. The defence may not show a sufficient understanding of Jesus, nor does it prove that Nicodemus is wholly on Jesus’ side but it does set Nicodemus 90 G. Renz, ‘Nicodemus: An Ambiguous Disciple? A Narrative Sensitive Investigation’, in J. Lierman (ed.), Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 255 – 83, on p. 271.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

228

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

against those who would harm Jesus. The divided (9:16) and ambivalent response to Jesus within the Pharisaic group may be predicated of Nicodemus as an individual. He is never overtly hostile but, as is the case with the Pharisees, it is never explicitly asserted that Nicodemus believes in Jesus. Nicodemus clearly represents some Pharisaic traits more than others but does this have any bearing on the extent to which he represents the Pharisees themselves? In other words, is it possible to be a Johannine Pharisee and not display the characteristics that are typical of Johannine Pharisees and if so, how important are these characteristics to John’s portrayal of the Pharisees? What kind and degree of correlation should we expect between any representative and those they represent? It is misleading to seek an answer to these questions with reference to Nicodemus’ words and actions which are sometimes insolubly difficult to interpret and do not distinguish him from other characters in the Gospel. Instead, I suggest that a firmer assessment of Nicodemus’ relationship to the Pharisees may be obtained if attention is refocused on those characters with whom he is associated. This aspect of Nicodemus’ portrayal is both relatively unambiguous and changes over the course of his three appearances. John introduces Nicodemus with two explicitly relational descriptions: he is 1j the Pharisees (rather than a Pharisee) and a leader with respect to the Jews. When he next reappears he is again identified as “one of” the Pharisees (7:50) but, by the close of the chapter, the Pharisees indicate that from their perspective Nicodemus does not represent their opinion but that of a “Galilean” i. e. one sympathetic to Jesus. There has been a small yet perceptible shift; Nicodemus is disassociated from the rest of the group. A more striking change takes place in his final appearance. Here, Nicodemus’ alliance with a “secret disciple” displaces his previous associations. It could be that Nicodemus’ understanding of Jesus is the same when he buries Jesus as when he first visited him; we certainly cannot prove otherwise since Nicodemus does not voice a confession in chapter 19. However, he is not the object of fear (cf. 19:38) he would have been if he were still the associated with the Youda?oi and Pharisees (cf. 12:42). In other words, from John’s perspective Nicodemus may not yet be “one of us”, but he is “one with Joseph” and no longer eXr £m 1n aqt_m (cf. 7:50). It is then, no surprise that Nicodemus does not consistently represent Pharisaic traits – he ceases to be “one of them” and so does not represent the Pharisees qua Pharisees.

5.7

Conclusions: Explaining John’s Portrayal of the Pharisees

John’s depiction of the Pharisees contributes to his treatment of Jewish opposition both to Jesus and to the claims his followers make about him. Wayne

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Conclusions: Explaining John’s Portrayal of the Pharisees

229

Meeks observes that this issue is portrayed with a “peculiar intensity” and has shaped the evangelist’s perception of the world.91 In John’s Gospel Jews are the primary representatives of the unreceptive jºslor (1:10 – 11), be they oR Youda?oi, Pharisees, chief priests or individuals such as Caiaphas and Annas. The near unanimous and ubiquitous opposition of all these Jewish characters to Jesus might suggest that there is nothing to distinguish them one from another. This might also be implied by the frequency with which John describes his opponents as Youda?oi over and against the names denoting different kinds of Jews which are commonplace in the synoptic Gospels e. g. Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes. John uses the term Youda?or (noun and adjective) some 70 times, in comparison with only 20 occurrences of Vaqisa?or and 21 of !qwieqe¼r. Saddouja?or and cqallate¼r do not appear at all. This might suggest that the variegated nature of Judaism was of little interest to John; all Jews were united in their opposition to Jesus and so could be subsumed under a single name, Youda?oi. John’s experience of widespread Jewish opposition became ingrained in his manner of expression. It is vital, however, not to oversimplify the issue; John’s portrayal of Judaism cannot be equated with his portrayal of the Youda?oi. It is obvious from the foregoing discussion that, in the words of John Ashton “Important though their ‚ role is, the Jews [Iouda?oi] are not ubiquitous in the Fourth Gospel and it is worth asking why”.92 The Youda?oi dominate opposition to Jesus in John, but variety is not lost completely ; they do not subsume all other opponents, the Pharisees and chief priests still have a role to play. In addition there are several Jewish characters who are neither opponents nor included among the hostile party Youda?oi, for example: Jesus himself, the disciples, Lazarus etc. Furthermore, I have argued that, although the Pharisees share the hostile attitude of the Youda?oi and chief priests, they express their hostility in a different manner from the Youda?oi. The suggestion, sometimes made (by e. g. D. Moody Smith and Wayne Meeks) that Vaqisa?oi and Youda?oi are “virtual synonyms” should be called into question.93

5.7.1 John’s distinction between Vaqisa?oi and Youda?oi The differences I have attempted to highlight between John’s portrayals of Vaqisa?oi and Youda?oi are perhaps the greatest obstacle to their identification.

91 Meeks, ‘Breaking Away’, 94. 92 Ashton, Studying John, 56. 93 Smith, Theology, 48; see also Meeks, ‘Breaking Away’, 98.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

230

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

John Bowker considered the fourth Gospel to represent an advanced stage in developments which dissolved distinctions between Jewish groups In John the process toward an artificial treatment is carried even further and the term Vaqisa?oi virtually becomes a short–hand way of referring to those Jews who invariably opposed Jesus.94

Yet it is an oversimplification of John’s treatment of either group to view Youda?oi and Vaqisa?oi as synonyms (as Bowker’s “short–hand” might also imply).95 They share the same hostile attitude to Jesus and his followers but manifest their hostility in a different ways. It is also unjustified to equate the ‚ Pharisees/Iouda?oi with other groups or combinations of groups, as in John Ashton’s suggestion that the Youda?oi are equivalent to the combination of chief priests and Pharisees.96 The Youda?oi differ from chief priests and Pharisees just as greatly as from Pharisees alone with regard to e. g. their typical response (to arrest or to stone Jesus), their positions “onstage” and “offstage” and their interest in the reaction of other people to Jesus. I have attempted to demonstrate that the Pharisees in John are primarily, albeit not exclusively, associated with certain characteristics. I reiterate the following examples: 1. Most attempts to kill Jesus are carried out by the Youda?oi (5.18; 7:1; 8:59; 10:31 and see 8:37, 40; 11:8) and they reappear throughout the passion narrative. The Pharisees are not entirely exonerated of the desire to destroy Jesus, they resolve to do just this in 11:53 and their regular allies, the chief priests play a major role in the final condemnation of Jesus. However, apart from 11:53, the Pharisees are not associated directly or explicitly with the death of Jesus or his followers and they are not mentioned after 18:3. 2. Conversely, the Pharisees are frequently associated with the arrest of Jesus (7:32, 45; 11:57; 18:3) as are the crowd (7:44) and anonymous opponents (7:30). The desire to arrest Jesus is not a characteristic of the Youda?oi. 3. John repeatedly refers to the fact that various characters fear the Youda?oi (7:13; 9:22; 19:38; 20:19). The Pharisees are also an object of fear but John mentions this only once (12:42), so the motif of fear remains primarily associated with the Youda?oi. 4. The Youda?oi interact with Jesus directly. They question and criticise Jesus and his teaching and he addresses and censures them. In contrast, the Pharisees meet Jesus face–to–face only in 8:12 – 20 and 9:39 – 40 and apart from their conversation with the man born blind in 9:13 – 17; they act only through their own allies and servants behind the scenes. Perhaps as a con94 Bowker, Jesus, 51. 95 Ashton, Studying John, 60 contra Smith, Theology, 48. 96 Ashton, Understanding, 158.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Conclusions: Explaining John’s Portrayal of the Pharisees

231

sequence of this pattern, the Youda?oi most frequently take issue with Jesus’ christological claims and wish to silence him whereas the Pharisees monitor the reaction of the others to Jesus and endeavour to prevent “the world going after him”. It is not the case that any characteristic is exclusively attributable to the Pharisees or any other group, or that characteristics strongly associated with other groups are never ascribed to the Pharisees. However, the evidence is such that the Pharisees may be distinguished from other hostile groups. The various characteristics which John ascribes to Jesus’ opponents are distributed among the various sets of opponents but the distribution is by no means even. It is possible to discern features that are typical of the portrayal of a given group of opponents, despite the fact that these features are neither exclusive to nor consistently applied throughout the portrayal of that group. The depiction of opposition to Jesus is not homogeneous in John; the evangelist has not indiscriminately applied the same characteristics across the board.

5.7.2 The pre-eminence of Vaqisa?oi in John There is a recurrent claim among scholars that Pharisees are the principal or “real” opponents of Jesus in John’s Gospel. The suggestion takes several forms: one is that in John’s historical context, all the different group designations function as oblique references to the Pharisees.97 Alternatively, some exegetes suggest that although the Pharisees do not appear as often as e. g. the Youda?oi, all opposition to Jesus and the success of that opposition is ultimately traceable to them. Ernst Haenchen for example comments on John 11:46 that the “obdurate” Pharisees “function as the real enemies of Jesus”. He argues that whereas some of the Youda?oi believe in Jesus after he has raised Lazarus from the dead the Pharisees persist in their unbelief.98 R. Alan Culpepper draws attention to the authoritative role of the Pharisees in portions of the Gospel and their close association with the chief priests and leaders. He suggests that this reveals the Pharisees as the power behind each of these other groups. It is a pattern of characterisation, he argues, through which John blames the Pharisees for much of the Jewish opposition and locates the source of hostility to Jesus within their group.99 It is noteworthy, however, that the Pharisees are not the only group to occupy 97 I will deal with this suggestion below pp. 235 – 41. 98 Haenchen, John, 2.74. 99 Culpepper, Anatomy, 131.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

232

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

an authoritative role; if they masterminded all opposition to Jesus they may have done so only with the co–operation of their influential allies. This is particularly evident in their absence from the passion narrative. It is the pressure of the chief priests and the Youda?oi who secure Jesus’ execution with nothing to suggest that they acted under the aegis of the Pharisees. It is here possible again to discern the contribution which a relatively narrow study like this one might make to broader issues in New Testament studies. In particular, to the vexed issue of the identity of John’s Youda?oi and the not unpopular solution of equating them with the Jewish leadership or authorities. This position is most strongly associated with U. C. von Wahlde (1982) but has been defended in more recent essays by James H. Charlesworth and M. C. de Boer, who also blurs the distinction between Youda?oi and Pharisees … John’s use of ‘the Jews’ to designate certain authoritative learned (Pharisaic) Jews who, with their followers among the synagogue rank and file, rejected and opposed Jesus and his followers in the Johannine context … 100

My observations concerning the role of the Pharisees in the fourth Gospel, far from settling this issue, has re–emphasised the obstacles to any assertion which either identifies the Pharisees and the Youda?oi or clearly delineates their roles. Some of the conclusions advocated in this chapter support an attempt to cast Pharisees in a leadership role. They act off–stage through their informants and agents and are driven by an apparent sense of their duty to check and monitor influences on the people. If it is in these respects that – as I have suggested – Pharisees are distinguished from the Youda?oi, we might be cautioned against attempts to limit the referent of the Youda?oi to leaders and authorities, since this role is filled by the Johannine Pharisees. However, it remains clear that the Youda?oi and other groups do possess authority and adopt a leadership role in some parts of the Gospel narrative (e. g. 1:19; 9:22 see above p. 198), albeit sometimes different from that of the Pharisees.101 It exceeds the scope of a study like this to attempt to solve the Youda?oi identity problem; if at all, this chapter might cast doubt on whether any solution, as such, is possible. What does emerge, however, is a further challenge to reading either or both Pharisees and/ or Youda?oi as a straightforward cipher for the authorities and leaders of the Jewish people. The roles and interrelationship of these two groups is more 100 M.C. de Boer, ‘The depiction of “the Jews” in John’s Gospel: Matters of Behaviour and Identity’, in Bieringer/Pollefeyt/Vandecasteele–Vanneuville (ed.), Anti–Judaism, 141 – 57, on p. 156, my italics. See also, J.H. Charlesworth, ‘The Gospel of John: Exclusivism caused by a Social Setting Different from that of Jesus (11:54 and 14:6)’, in Bieringer/Pollefeyt/Vandecasteele–Vanneuville (ed.), Anti–Judaism, 247 – 78, on p. 277. 101 Although A. Reinhartz, ‘“Jews” and Jews in the Fourth Gospel’, in Bieringer/Pollefeyt/ Vandecasteele–Vanneuville (ed.), Anti–Judaism, 213 – 27, on p. 221 is surely correct in her warning that the translation of Youda?oi as “Jewish leaders” works in only a very few cases.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Conclusions: Explaining John’s Portrayal of the Pharisees

233

complicated than has been recognised by several studies which prioritise assumptions about John’s historical context over the portrayal of the text itself (discussed further below). Finally as I have noted earlier in this chapter, the Pharisees do not behave towards Jesus with consistent hostility, they are divided in their assessment of him at 9:16 and in contrast to the Youda?oi, they are not associated with attempts on his life (except 11:53). It is also possible that Nicodemus represents the Pharisees as potential sympathisers (“Galileans” or associates of secret disciples). Nicodemus is introduced as a Pharisee and certainly shares some of their characteristics but does not remain eXr £m 1n aqt_m. It is possible that John implies through his portrayal of Nicodemus that any Pharisee need not be irrevocably opposed to Jesus and is able to part from Pharisaic company. Sean Freyne claims the supremacy of Pharisaic opposition based on the fact that John makes particular mention of only the Pharisees – they are not entirely subsumed by his term Youda?oi – and not the Sadducees, scribes etc. He notes, “ … but insofar as the generalising expression ‘the Jews’ is not wholly adhered to … the Pharisaic element is singled out as constituting the real opposition”.102 Feliks Gryglewicz similarly suggests that John focuses the reader’s attention on the Pharisees by mentioning them and not other Jewish groups. Although he concludes that in so doing John implicates not just the Pharisees but Jews in general Durch das Eliminieren anderer jüdischer Sekten, welche wahrscheinlich ebenso gegen Jesus auftraten, und durch das Hervorheben nur der Pharisäer, welche ebenso an den Leiden Jesu schuldig waren, wie sie auch seine Bekenner in der Joh–Kirche verfolgten, lenkte der Autor die Aufmerksamkeit der Leser nicht auf die Hohenpriester, sondern auf die Pharisäer, d. h. allegemein auf die Juden.103

In my opinion, however, the idea that John emphasises the role of the Pharisees among Jesus’ opponents is not borne out by the text. It may first be noted that the Pharisees are not the only sub–section of Jews singled out by John. It is true that unlike the synoptic evangelists, John makes no mention of scribes or Sadducees; he does, however, refer to chief priests, priests and Levites. Furthermore, John’s failure to mention the Sadducees does not necessarily signify either his ignorance of them or his desire to emphasise another group; there may be other reasons why he did not include them. For the sake of speculation I note that most extant Christian references to the Sadducees (Mark 12:18 and parallels and most appearances of the Sadducees in Acts) involve their denial of the resurrection and a corresponding affirmation of 102 Freyne, ‘Vilifying the Other’, 135. 103 Gryglewicz, ‘Die Pharisäer’, 145 – 6.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

234

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

resurrection by Jesus and others on the basis of the Old Testament and, in the case of Acts, with reference to Pharisaic teaching. In chapter 11 John also affirms resurrection of the dead but on christological grounds “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live.” (11:25). If the church generally perceived the distinctiveness of the Sadducees in terms of their denial of the resurrection, then John may well have considered their contribution to be redundant since for him, the denial of the resurrection no longer sprang from Sadducean teaching but from the rejection of Jesus as the resurrection and the life. This explanation does not depend on John’s familiarity with the tradition preserved at Mark 12:18 but does assume that John’s knowledge of the Sadducees was based on similar traditions and that any interaction of John and his community with the Sadducees was focused on their resurrection denial. Significantly, however, it does not require the absence of Sadducees from John’s environment or their total submission to Pharisees. The supposed significance of the absence of non–Pharisaic parties from John’s story is an argument from silence and vulnerable to the criticisms that normally accompany such an argument. It is impossible to conclude from the absence of non–Pharisaic parties whether or not their absence may be attributed to John’s lack of awareness or to his decision to exclude them. The absence of non–Pharisaic parties is noteworthy only as a result of the unrealistic expectation that all descriptions of Second Temple Judaism should correspond to that of Josephus’ three (or four) “philosophies”. In other words, to the expectation that an evangelist familiar with the world Josephus describes would perceive it in the same way as Josephus. Moreover, that departure from Josephus’ model indicates either that the evangelist’s historical experience is different from that of Josephus or that the evangelist has manipulated his description to convey a particular point. However, it should be recognised that Josephus and the synoptic evangelists had very particular – and not necessarily historical – reasons for presenting Judaism as they did. Josephus chose to present the Pharisees and Sadducees as counterparts but it is possible that John may have perceived Pharisees as a type of Jew comparable to e. g. Levites as a type of Jew. This does not necessarily indicate that John and Josephus had different historic referents (e. g. from a later period or fulfilling a different role) but that they had different perceptions of that referent. John may have decided to exclude traditions about Sadducees in order to focus on the role of other Jews (like the Pharisees) but equally he may not have.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Conclusions: Explaining John’s Portrayal of the Pharisees

235

5.7.3 Reflecting the History of the Johannine Community J. Louis Martyn’s discussion of John 9 in History and Theology in the Gospel of John and his article ‘Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community’ (1977) have come to represent a classic exposition of the method whereby events in the life of John’s community are reconstructed from the way John shapes his story of Jesus.104 Martyn suggests that John bears witness on two levels: to an “einmalig event” in the life of Jesus and to the powerful presence of Christ and events in the life of the church.105 The examination of the man born blind purports to have taken place in the lifetime of Jesus but, Martyn argues, is modelled upon the interrogation of witnesses from John’s community. This context is revealed by, for example, the reference to a Messianic confession in 9:22 and the impossibility of dual commitment to Jesus and Moses (9:28).106 The most plausible Sitz im Leben for these elements is, Martyn argues, in a Christian community which has separated from the community of their Jewish contemporaries. Martyn specifies the period following the introduction of the birkath ha–minim to synagogue liturgy.107 According to Martyn’s interpretation, this liturgical change is symptomatic of a formal decision to expel Christians (identified as minim and ~yrcn = Nazarenes) from the synagogue.108 He perceives this same situation in John’s Gospel John 9:22 … refers to the action taken under Gamaliel II to reword the Birkath haMinim so as to make it an effective means for detecting Christian heresy. Thus “the Jews” in 9:22 would seem to be John’s way of referring to the Jamnia Academy.109 104 J.L. Martyn, ‘Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community’ in M. De Jonge (ed.), L’Êvangile de Jean: sources, r¦daction and th¦ologie (BETL 44; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1977) 149 – 75; J.L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 32003). 105 Martyn, History and Theology, 40, 46. 106 Idem. 47. 107 b. Ber. 28b–29b 108 For a similar understanding of the benediction see e. g. L.H. Schiffman, ‘At the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the Jewish–Christian Schism’ in E.P. Sanders/A. Baumgarten/A. Mendelson/B.F. Meyer (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self–Definition (3 vol.; London: SCM, 1980/1981/1982) 2.115 – 56, on 2.150 – 2; and to some extent Overmann, Matthew’s Gospel, 48 – 56. The widespread influence of Martyn’s hypothesis may be observed in e. g. R.E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1979), 174; Lindars, John, 49; Freyne, ‘Vilifying the Other’, 125; S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter (Carlisle: Paternoster, 21998), 143; Barrett, John, 137 – 8. Schnackenburg, John, 2.239, warns that Martyn may go too far but nevertheless affirms “the intention to relate the story to the situation of the evangelist’s readers”. 109 Martyn, History and Theology, 65. Martyn identifies four parallels in 9:22 to the introduction of the birkath ha–minim (cf. 16:2 and 12.42) which he summarises on p. 56 (and see p. 47): “(1) a formal decision, (2) made by the Jewish authorities, (3) to bring against Christian Jews, (4) the drastic measure of excommunication from the synagogue”.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

236

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

Martyn identifies this “Academy” with the Pharisaic party and the only Jewish faction to survive the destruction of the Temple.110 John, Martyn suggests, had little knowledge of Judaism before 70 CE, since he does not accurately represent its variety, internal relationships or power structures (e. g. the Pharisees are identified as commissioners of the priests and Levites in 1:24).111 Martyn also observes that the juxtaposition of chief priests and Pharisees is “strange”, “unhistorical” and does not correspond to Jewish society either before or after 70 CE. For this reason, he argues, the combination must bear witness to each of the two levels; to the chief priests who arrested Jesus and the Pharisees of Jamnia (Yavneh) who resolved to expel Christians from the synagogue.112 The two levels of witness are also served by term rpgq´tai in 7:32 and 45 (in the latter case they are questioned by the Pharisees alone about being led astray ; a concern which Martyn associates with the meeting at Jamnia).113 Note also that the Pharisees are uninvolved in the einmalig events of Jesus’ passion whilst the chief priests are never linked with the decision to put believers in Jesus (i. e. John’s contemporaries) out of the synagogue. Wayne A. Meeks acknowledges that Martyn’s reading has been widely accepted in broad outline; in as much as the confrontations between Jesus and his opponents reflect the experiences of John’s community. However, he admits that the details of Martyn’s proposal present several problems and rely on a reconstruction of the broader historical context which may not be accurate.114 More recently, Raimo Hakola has argued strongly against the very foundations of Martyn’s hypothesis. There is, he claims, very little evidence for either Pharisaic dominance of Judaism or the Jewish persecution of Christians and the latter’s expulsion from the Synagogue.115

110 Idem. 86. 111 See Barrett, John, 324, 360, 405; Lindars, John, 404; Smith, Theology, 49 – 50; M.W.G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller : Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel (SNTSMS 73; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 185; Gryglewicz, ‘Die Pharisäer’, 145, who treat many of John’s references to the Pharisees as anachronisms, reflecting his own situation rather than the time of Jesus. 112 Martyn, History and Theology, 86. 113 Idem. 86 – 7. 114 Meeks, ‘Breaking Away’, 95. 115 See the detailed rehearsal of the arguments in R. Hakola, Identity Matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness (NovTSup 118; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 41 – 86, of which the following discussion is only a sample. Davies, Rhetoric, 299, similarly finds that there is no support for the proposal that John’s portrayal of Christians’ persecution at Jewish hands is a reflection of a contemporary situation.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Conclusions: Explaining John’s Portrayal of the Pharisees

237

5.7.3.1 Re–evaluation of the Assumption of the Pharisaic Dominance of Judaism Martyn envisages a Judaism which is dominated by Pharisaism; the fall of the Temple has led to the demise of all other Jewish parties apart from the (proto–) rabbinic group meeting at Jamnia (Yavneh) which Martyn firmly identifies with the Pharisaic movement.116 This popular picture of post–70 Judaism has been challenged frequently, not least by Shaye J. D. Cohen who asserts that the gathering at Yavneh was not pervaded by an air of crisis or “dominated by an exclusivist ethic”.117 Instead he argues that it gave rise to a Jewish society that tolerated dispute without producing sects. The Mishnah testifies to the Rabbis’ ability to tolerate conflicting opinions within their movement. Moreover, Cohen asserts that according to available evidence, “At no point did [the rabbis] expel anyone from the rabbinic order or from the rabbinic synagogues because of doctrinal error or because of membership in some heretical group”.118 It need not follow therefore that the gathering at Yavneh, if they were aware of John’s community, would have perceived them as an heretical threat to be eradicated.119 Secondly, he notes that the Tannaitic Hakamim (Rabbis/Sages) do not identify themselves or their ancestors as Perushim (Pharisees) neither do they use Tsadukim as a synonym for heretic and reprobate.120 It is therefore anachronistic to assume a direct correlation between Pharisees and Rabbis – there are similarities between them but discontinuities as well.121 Martin Goodman accepts Cohen’s observation that the sages at Yavneh and throughout the Tannaitic period “showed little interest in excluding or attacking other types of Judaism” but he questions Cohen’s assertion that the fall of the Temple precipitated the quick decline and disappearance of Jewish “sectarianism”.122 He argues that since “Sadducees and Essenes are well attested up to 70, so the existence of these groups at some time is undisputed … the onus is on those who claim that they disappeared to justify their claim”.123 Goodman fur116 In his recent commentary Lincoln, John, 252, suggests that the prominence of Pharisees in John reflects their role after 70 and their opposition to the church. 117 S.J.D. Cohen, ‘The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the End of Jewish Sectarianism’, HUCA 55 (1984) 27 – 53, on p. 27. It is to this “popular picture” that I presume Weiß alludes as “obvious historical reasons” for the predominance of references to Pharisees in the Synoptic Gospels (Meyer/Weiß, ‘Vaqisa?or’, 36). 118 Idem. 41. 119 Idem. 28 – 9. 120 Idem. 39 – 40. 121 Overmann, Matthew’s Gospel, 37. 122 M. Goodman, ‘The Sadducees and the Essenes after 70’, in S.E. Porter/P. Joyce/D.E. Orton (ed.), Crossing the Boundaries. Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 347 – 56, on pp. 347, n. 2, 353. 123 Idem. 355 (italics original).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

238

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

ther argues that the fall of the second Temple did not for most Jews signal the destruction of Judaism as they knew it, any more than did the fall of the first Temple. Instead authors such as Josephus and those of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch were able to incorporate the destruction into their world–view. In fact we might expect such attempts at an explanation of the event to result in greater rather than lesser variety.124 Cohen and Goodman’s arguments therefore undermine the assumption that Judaism was dominated by a Pharisaic agenda during the period of John’s composition. Therefore, it cannot be argued on these grounds ‚ that any reference to Jews (Iouda?oi) necessarily connotes Pharisaic Jews or Jews led by Pharisees. Cohen makes a further suggestion which has implications for the portrayal of Pharisees in John and other ancient literature. He suggests that the name Vaqisa?or was pejorative, meaning “separatist” or similar, and dropped out of use among the Pharisees and their contemporaries as Pharisees gradually rose to prominence (hence the rarity of this term in the Mishnah).125 His suggestion entails that the opponents of John’s community were Pharisees called by a different name such as Youda?oi. However, Goodman’s picture of a more gradual decline in sectarianism in the post–Temple period also challenges this idea that sectarian names could be so quickly discarded. Cohen’s explanation is also undermined by the fact that it is found on the lips of those sympathetic to Pharisaism or portrayed as seeking the approval of a Pharisaic audience, e. g. Josephus Vita 12; Acts 23:6; 26:5.126 Furthermore, if Vaqisa?oi and Youda?oi represent a single (possibly Pharisaic) opposition why does John display an obvious preference for the term Youda?oi over a derogatory name for his opponents? Conversely, given John’s preference for Youda?oi, why does he retain Vaqisa?oi at all? Finally, it is difficult to view John’s Pharisees as representatives of the principal opponents on the stage of John’s community when they are typically offstage in his Gospel. It is the Youda?oi rather than the Pharisees who deny and criticise the beliefs and teachings of John’s community, which are placed on the lips of Jesus.127 Jesus’ debates with the Youda?oi presuppose a rift between them that is not evident in those rare interactions between the Pharisees and Jesus or his followers. The Youda?oi make decisions that would threaten John’s community (9:22) and voice objections and ideas which presuppose their opposition 124 Idem. 352. 125 Cohen, ‘Significance’, 41. 126 To this list might be added Phil 3:5 although it is plausible that Paul, in renouncing Pharisaism (3:7) would have no qualms about using a pejorative name for the group. 127 Martyn, History and Theology, 38 – 9, considers the Pharisees as primary representatives of the Jewish community opposing John’s own, which is represented in the Gospel by Jesus and his disciples.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Conclusions: Explaining John’s Portrayal of the Pharisees

239

to another group (9:27 – 8). The Pharisees with the chief priests orchestrate some opposition to Jesus and his followers but typically from a distance. 5.7.3.2 Re–evaluation of Martyn’s construal of the birkath ha–minim Cohen’s observations pose a particular challenge to Martyn’s proposal that sumet´heimto oR Youda?oi Vma 1²m tir aqt¹m blokoc¶s, Wqistºm, !posum²cycor c´mgtai reflects a formal resolution of the Jewish authorities leading to the introduction of the birkath ha–minim to the daily liturgy of the synagogue. Cohen’s reconstruction of the activity at Yavneh provides little motivation for an official and widespread move to purge Judaism of those who confessed Jesus as Messiah. Wayne Meeks seems to share this view, and is joined by Graham Stanton in labelling the birkath ha–minim a “red herring” which, although it has influenced much Johannine and Matthean scholarship, may be of little relevance to Jewish–Christian relations in the New Testament period.128 Reuven Kimelman asserts that the gathering at Yavneh did not have, at the time, the broad influence or authority ascribed to it by later Rabbis, and so it would be unreasonable to expect it to have a ubiquitous effect on Jewish/ Christian relations. It is difficult to justify a connection between the expulsion of Johannine Christians from a synagogue, probably some distance from Yavneh, and the hypothetical decisions of a rabbinic gathering which has left no trace of its impact in the records of other Christian authors.129 The connection becomes even more tenuous when we consider that John does not mention prayers or curses in connection with the expulsion and that the benediction formula does not necessarily entail the active exclusion of minim.130 We may infer from the protests of church leaders that the synagogue remained popular with at least some Christians. Such popularity would be difficult to explain if non–Christian Jews were hostile and synagogue liturgy required the daily cursing of Christians.131 If these authors accurately reflect a continuing and amicable relation128 Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 142; Meeks, ‘Breaking Away’, 102 – 3. See also an appraisal of “extratextual” evidence by A. Reinhartz, ‘The Johannine Community and its Jewish Neighbours: A Reappraisal’, in F.F. Segovia (ed.), What is John? (2 vol.; SBLSymS 3, 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996/1998) 2.111 – 38, on pp. 121 – 30, who also presents a brief two–level reading of John 11:1 – 44 and 12.11 which casts doubt on the expulsion theory (‘Jews in the Fourth Gospel’, 223). 129 Kimelman, R., ‘Birkath Ha–Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti–Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity’ in Sanders/Baumgarten/Mendelson/Meyer (ed.), Self–Definition, 226 – 44, on pp. 234 – 9. 130 Idem. 234 – 5. 131 Idem. 239. P. Van de Horst, ‘The Birkat Ha–Minim in Recent Research’, ExpTim 105 (1994) 363 – 8, on p. 368 agrees that “The original Birkat ha–Minim … was never intended to throw Christians out of the synagogues – that door always remained open”. S.T. Katz, ‘Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 CE: A Reconsideration’, JBL 103 (1984) 43 –

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

240

The Portrayal of the Pharisees in John

ship between at least some Churches and synagogues then we must posit either that the use of the birkath ha–minim did not become widespread until a later period, or that it was not applied to followers of Jesus, or that it did not require their exclusion. The challenge to Pharisaic dominance after 70 and theories surrounding the introduction of the birkath ha–minim necessitates a re–evaluation of Martyn’s hypothesis. The Jewish context of John’s community was perhaps more variegated than Martyn’s reconstruction allows. His association – bordering on identification – of the chief priests and Pharisees with the official authorities of the pre– and post–70 eras respectively requires further justification. According to Goodman, the fall of the Temple did not necessarily decimate the influence of the priesthood nor is it clear that Pharisees per se increased in power. If we are to posit the dominance of Pharisaism in the Jewish communities known to John, then the evidence for this can come only from the Gospel itself and cannot be assumed from any reconstruction of Judaism from other sources. However, the scarce appearance of Pharisees in the Gospel when compared to other groups means any hypothesis that John testifies to contemporary Pharisaic dominance is uncertain. The confession of Jesus as Christ cited in 9:22 suggests a probable Sitz im Leben in the distinction of the early church from the synagogue. Moreover, the repeated threats of expulsion from the synagogue suggest that this issue was of particular concern to John. However, the identification of this threat as a widespread action against Christians imposed by Jewish/Pharisaic authorities finds little support in historical sources except for a very little in the Gospel of John. Raimo Hakola warns that the evangelist’s picture may have been extrapolated from what he knew of early Christian martyrdom without necessarily witnessing persecution himself. It was natural, he argues, for Christians to see their own situation in the light of Jesus’ passion and so, although persecution was not invented, there was a tendency to overstate and dramatise it in their texts.132 John’s portrayal of conflict with the Youda?oi was his symbolic acknowledgement that he and his community no longer defined themselves in terms of Jewish identity. Margaret Davies also advocates the likelihood that John’s portrayal does not reflect the interaction of Jews with his community but is an extrapolation from Scripture to justify the severance of church from synagogue.133 The preceding discussion encourages caution when attempting to infer details of 76, on p. 74 suggests that rather than forced expulsion, the benediction may have prompted the gradual withdrawal of dissidents of their own volition. See also the critique of T. Nicklas, Ablösung und Verstrickung: ‘Juden’ und Jüngergestalten als Charaktere der erzählten Welt des Johannesevangeliums und ihre Wirkung auf den implitziten Leser (RST 60; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001), 49 – 72. 132 Hakola, Identity Matters, 76 – 8. 133 Davies, Rhetoric, 299.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Conclusions: Explaining John’s Portrayal of the Pharisees

241

John’s community situation from the way he writes his Gospel. It is possible that John portrays through the terms, Pharisees, Youda?oi, chief priests etc, different factions of the opposition to his own community or various activities and concerns undertaken by a single integrated opposition. Alternatively, the interactions with the Pharisees may not reflect a real-life opposition but a selfimposed separation of John’s community from Judaism. There are any number of possible reasons why John might have allocated certain traits to one Gospel character and other traits to another. Literary reasons (that a variety of characters makes for a more interesting drama), historical reasons (that John is sensitive, albeit inconsistently so, to the historical identity of Jesus’ opponents) or source–critical reasons (that John merely takes over from his source the names of Jesus’ opponents and traits attributed to them). However, I have suggested that the material involving Pharisees, if it originally reflected an earlier stage in the relationship between the church and Judaism has been remoulded by the evangelist. The appearance of Pharisees therefore represents the evangelist’s choice as much as it reflects the history of Jesus’ life or the tradition that mediated that history to John. Furthermore, an appeal to artistic licence to explain the variation of John’s composition ignores the other literary considerations which shape his Gospel. For example, if John is engaged in a polemic against a single opposition (real or ideological) his purpose would not be served, and could even be undermined, by the division of culpability between different character groups. The variety of the opponents’ actions and concerns would remain apparent if they were predicated of a single character. Moreover, the distribution cannot be an attempt to isolate certain concerns and activities from others since very few characteristics are unique to one group of opponents and John applies characteristics atypically on several occasions. Nevertheless, John normally reserves certain characteristics for the Pharisees and it is possible to discern differences between his portrayal of them and of other opponents of Jesus. The Jewish opposition John portrays in his Gospel may not accurately reflect any real life opposition to his community. It is possible that references to expulsion from the synagogue are framed for rhetorical effect and that Jewish violence is overstated. At the very least there seems to be insufficient justification to conjecture that John portrays a widespread and official opposition associated with the gathering at Yavneh. Nevertheless, it is significant that John’s portrayal of Jewish opposition to Jesus, although dominated by the Youda?oi, is not homogeneous. Some variation, albeit minor and inconsistent, may be found in John’s depiction. It is therefore possible that John perceives some variety in the threat that Judaism poses to his community ; whether this threat takes the form of external opposition or of internal ideological battles for the self–definition of John and his community.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

6.

Conclusions

The foregoing examination of material concerning the Pharisees in the four Gospels and Acts has challenged the idea of a “New Testament” or even “Gospels” portrayal of the Pharisees. I have demonstrated the particularity of each book and its portrayal of the Pharisees. In short, the study has justified the plural “portrayals” of its title. The five books do not portray a monolithic body of evidence but each has its own style, occasion and purpose(s). Nevertheless, I do not deny that the different portrayals are similar. All four Gospels are critical of the Pharisees and set them in opposition to Jesus. Moreover, most of the references in the Synoptic Gospels are in material which is common to at least two Gospels. However, this undoubted similarity should not overwhelm the differences so that the subtleties of individual portrayals are ignored. For example, Matthew and Luke redact Markan material not so much as to place them at odds with Mark’s portrayal of the Pharisees, but emphasising certain characteristics (perhaps latent in Mark) in order to highlight their own particular concerns. The diverging emphases of the evangelists suggest that they were not bound by a single traditional presentation but felt free to mould their portrayals of the Pharisees in accordance with their own interests and understanding of opposition to Jesus and the kingdom. The authors’ freedom to fashion and re–fashion their portrayals of the Pharisees is most apparent where variation exists within the work of a single author. The portrayal of the Pharisees in Acts, for example, seems unrestricted by the features of the portrayal in Luke’s Gospel. The prevailing focus of twentieth century scholarship on reconstructing the Pharisees of history meant that the Pharisees of texts were of comparatively marginal interest. Redaction and literary criticism have taken second place to form criticism and historical enquiry. The assumption that the same historical group lies behind the portrayals in the four Gospels and Acts (whether they are recoverable or have been irrevocably distorted) has encouraged the homogenisation of this material. Treatments have tended in some cases to amalgamate the emphases of all five books which, while reflecting the richness of their descriptions, fail to acknowledge the peculiarity of certain features to a partic-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

A summary of the prominent features of each evangelist’s portrayal of the Pharisees

243

ular author. Alternatively, the nuances and subtleties of each book’s portrayal have been ignored in the attempt to find consensus among the evangelists. Both strategies warrant both criticism and defence with regard to their legitimacy as historical method but, more importantly for this study, their consequence has been to ignore and even disguise the contents of individual books and correspondingly what we might learn about those books. This study has attempted to show that by studying the portrayals of the Pharisees in Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts and John we might acquire a better understanding of the texts in which they are found and of the author who crafted them. The portrayals are not mere seams to be mined for evidence of an historical group, but crafted by authors and integral to the texts in which they feature. Other studies of material involving the Pharisees apart from an historical quest have tended to concern more general aspects of Jews and Judaism – investigations into the evangelists’ attitudes towards the Torah or their treatment of Jewish leaders. Such investigations set portrayals of the Pharisees within the context of the texts and demonstrated their contribution to presentations of the evangelists’ wider concerns, but were limited in scope. They inevitably discovered that the Pharisees’ portrayal contributed to the evangelists’ treatment of whichever broader subject was under discussion: Jews and Judaism, the Torah and Jewish leaders. My analysis of the portrayals of the Pharisees in the four Gospels and Acts has confirmed that indeed the portrayals of Pharisees do reflect attitudes toward Jews, Judaism, Torah and other related matters but this does not exhaust their significance. It has been demonstrated that material involving the Pharisees is related to a wide variety of issues including christology, ethics and ecclesiology.

6.1

A summary of the prominent features of each evangelist’s portrayal of the Pharisees

Mark’s portrayal of the Pharisees is entirely negative. They criticise Jesus and his disciples and attempt to test and trap him. The Pharisees’ opposition is symptomatic of their failure to recognise the true identity of Jesus and the nature of God’s kingdom. They share many of their characteristics with other named Jewish groups, especially the scribes with whom they collaborate, and yet they are distinguished from the other groups. The Pharisees are most prevalent in the early controversies of Jesus’ Galilean ministry and although they appear in Jerusalem they are conspicuously absent from the passion narrative. Nevertheless, the Pharisees are not the only opponents of Jesus in Galilee, neither are they exonerated of responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion, since they like Jesus’

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

244

Conclusions

eventual captors desire his death, endeavour to entrap him and collaborate with others who succeed in so doing. Matthew’s Pharisees exhibit all the flaws of their Markan counterparts and multiply them. Matthew develops themes, which in Mark are not particularly connected with the Pharisees, and includes them in his portrayal of the group. Matthew’s redaction of Q material and traditions unique to the first Gospel provide further features distinctive of his portrayal. For example, the Pharisees in Matthew are paradigmatic rejecters and murderers of God’s emissaries, including Jesus, despite their absence from the Matthean passion narrative. Matthew adapts Mark’s parable of the wicked tenants and includes the Pharisees among its addressees, moreover, he repeats this accusation throughout the narrative to show that the Pharisees have innocent blood on their hands. The Pharisees’ opposition is not confined to Jesus’ ministry but was manifested in the murder of the Old Testament prophets and assumed in their response to John the Baptist. Moreover, it continues even after Jesus’ death when they seek to guard his tomb and persecute the scribes, prophets and sages whom he sends. Matthew especially presents the Pharisees as leaders and teachers and their objection to Jesus’ teaching accounts for much of their opposition to him. Their misunderstanding is not only christological, in that they fail to recognise Jesus’ true identity, but is also a flawed interpretation of the law and the will of God. Their failures render them liable to judgement when they will be replaced by those people more deserving. Luke’s Gospel also incorporates material from Mark and Q to portray the Pharisees. The group is still recognisable as that of the same name in Mark and Matthew but again, Luke provides his own nuances to produce a third and different picture. As Matthew emphasised the Pharisees’ leadership role, Luke also displays the privileged status of Pharisees but emphasises their reputation and relative wealth rather than any teaching role. In this way he enhances what is already implied in Mark, that Jesus defeats even the most formidable of his contemporaries. Furthermore, since several of Luke’s descriptions of Pharisees involve their use of money, their portrayal is relevant to Luke’s treatment of wealth and possessions in his Gospel. The Pharisees enjoy relative privilege but fail to realise that the kingdom overturns the status quo. The portrayal of the Pharisees in Luke’s Gospel may be interpreted as an explanation of why those well placed to understand Jesus’ message of fulfilment of promises to Israel have failed to recognise and accept him. The portrayal of the Pharisees in Acts is very different and appears to address the other side of this issue. They, of all the non–Christian Jewish groups to feature in Acts, have the most in common with the church and are predisposed to accept the news that Jesus has been raised because of their belief in the resurrection of the dead. Some of these non–Christian Pharisees defend the apostles

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

A summary of the prominent features of each evangelist’s portrayal of the Pharisees

245

against Jewish opposition from non–Pharisees, i. e. the high priest and Sadducees. This portrayal of Pharisaic openness to the church’s message is most obvious in Luke’s presentation of believers who are also Pharisees including the hero of the piece, Paul. Paul proclaims that he is a Pharisee who preaches and defends a Pharisaic hope, that of the resurrection of the dead. In Acts, therefore, the author departs radically from the pattern of the Synoptic Gospels. In Luke’s depiction of Jesus’ ministry, Pharisees are fundamentally opposed to the kingdom of God, whereas in Acts, Pharisaism is not incompatible with membership or even leadership of the church. The portrayal of the Pharisees in Acts does not focus on Israel’s rejection of Jesus (this is exemplified by other Jews, the high priest and the Sadducees) but instead clarifies that the church exists in continuity with Israel and has inherited its promises so that even the most respected and fastidious Jews, namely the Pharisees, do not oppose it. Luke and Acts also depart from the Synoptic portrayal in another remarkable way. For the most part, all four Gospels and Acts portray the Pharisees as a group, they reason, discuss and act as a collective. However, the third evangelist introduces individual Pharisees to his presentation: Simon in the Gospel and Gamaliel (and Paul, although he is a special case) in Acts. Their portrayals contribute to that of the group in as much as they are its representatives and behave as Pharisees do elsewhere in Luke and Acts respectively. The fourth evangelist also associates an individual, Nicodemus, with the Pharisees, although Nicodemus’ behaviour does not always coincide with that of Pharisees in John and so his identification as a Pharisee depends on how he relates to the group. He is introduced as %mhqypor 1j t_m Vaqisa¸ym but his subsequent interaction with them and other characters suggests that he does not remain so. His behaviour is atypical of Pharisees as John portrays them. The Pharisees of the fourth Gospel resemble those of the Synoptics in that they perform some authoritative functions and are hostile towards Jesus. John does not, however, depict an homogenous mass uniformly opposed to Jesus. The Pharisees disagree among themselves (in response to the testimony of the man born blind) and even pass judgements in Jesus’ favour. Nevertheless, John does not suggest that the Pharisees believe in Jesus and their division is insufficient to counter their prevailing hostility. John attributes to the Pharisees a divided response – the juxtaposition of acceptance and rejection – that is typical of most responses to Jesus in his Gospel. I have also argued that John’s portrayal of the Pharisees does not treat them as a “virtual synonym” of oR Youda?oi. Much of the Pharisees’ activity takes place behind the scenes and although they occasionally encounter Jesus, they mostly rely on others to report news of him. They rarely confront Jesus directly (a role which is typically assigned to oR Youda?oi) but send emissaries to arrest him. They object, not to his own claims (as oR Youda?oi do) but to the claims that others make about him. John conforms to the Synoptic

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

246

Conclusions

pattern that Pharisees are absent from the passion narrative, and apart from John 11:53 they are not explicitly or directly associated with attempts on Jesus’ life (which are repeatedly made by oR Youda?oi). It is possible, therefore to discern nuances in John’s presentation in which certain characteristics are primarily associated with either Pharisees or Youda?oi.

6.2

Contribution of this Study

6.2.1 To the quest for the historical Pharisees The foregoing discussion begs one question which this study does not presume to answer. Given that the historical Pharisees have proved difficult to reconstruct either in the time of Jesus or over the subsequent decades which saw the formation and composition of traditions and texts concerning Jesus and his followers, how are we to account for the prevalence of Pharisees in New Testament texts? The foregoing chapters have argued that the Pharisees are by no means incidental to the texts in which they feature. Their portrayal is integrated into the apologetic and polemical concerns of the author and it is worth asking why this should be the case. While it has not been the aim of this study to establish any further theories about the historical Pharisees, it might, I suggest, be reasonable to require studies which do, to account for how and why this particular group of Jews acquires this function in Christian literature of the late first century. Indeed further research of the kind begun here but extended to other Christian and Jewish texts may enable scholars to discern the role played by Pharisees in conveying the concerns and purposes of other authors.1 This in turn might provide a sounder basis for speculation as to why the Pharisees were selected for these roles.

6.2.2 To an understanding of the Gospels The books I have examined each provide their own portrayal of the Pharisees. The Pharisees of one text are not dissimilar to their counterparts in another book, all New Testament portrayals occupy a good deal of common ground and yet the pictures they produce are not identical. Every one of the evangelists integrates the Pharisees into his own presentation of the Gospel emphasising 1 The Pharisees certainly have a role to play in the apologetic strategy of Josephus although it is important to recognise that despite the excitement Josephus’ references engender in modern scholars, they do not have a principal role in his narrative, so Mason, ‘The Narratives’, 4.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Contribution of this Study

247

those aspects of the Pharisees’ portrayal which serve his own particular concerns. This study of material from the Gospels and Acts has yielded multifaceted portraits of the Pharisees and disclosed the variety of christological, soteriological, ecclesiological and ethical concerns with which they are associated. It alerts the exegete both to the nuances within a given book and to the subtle differences between books. It has demonstrated the combination of fidelity and freedom with which the evangelists regarded their inherited tradition and sources. The evangelists reflect a common tradition of Pharisaic hostility toward Jesus but do not merely repeat the presentation of their predecessors. Luke preserved the negativity of his sources when portraying the Pharisees in his Gospel but apparently was unconstrained by this and able to offer quite a different picture in Acts. The way the Pharisees are portrayed in each Gospel is particular to that text and its purposes. Therefore consideration of the Pharisees’ portrayal is able to enrich our understanding of the text more generally. In the present study I have ventured several modest attempts to demonstrate how narrowly focused attention of the portrayal of the Pharisees might profit the broader concerns of New Testament scholarship. For example: the function of the Pharisees’ misunderstanding in relation to Markan christology, the contribution that differing portrayals might make to a consideration of the unity of Luke and Acts and, of course, the vexed questions of Matthean and Johannine attitudes toward Jews and Judaism. It is because the four Gospels and Acts neither offer a consensus on the particulars of Pharisaism nor shrink from redrawing a picture of Pharisaism appropriate to the concerns of the text in which they feature, that they have been regarded with suspicion by those who have embarked on a quest for the Pharisees of history. However, the features which are a source of frustration to the historian also make the Gospels a fruitful resource for those who would go in quest of the Pharisees of Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts and John.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Bibliography

1.

Primary Texts and Translations

Aland, B./Aland, K./Karavidopoulos, J./Martini, C.M./Metzger, B.M. (ed.), The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies 4th Rev. edn; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993). Babbitt, F.C./Sandbach F.H./Hembold, W.C./De Lacy, P./Einarson, B./Clement, P.A./Hoffleit, H.B./Minar, E.L./Fowler, H.N./Cherniss, H.F., Plutarch’s Moralia (15 vol.; Loeb Classical Library ; Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann, 1959 – 76). Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vol.; London: Darton, Longmann and Todd, 1983/1985). Colson, F.H./Marcus, R./Whitaker, G.H., Philo (12 vol.; Loeb Classical Library ; Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann, 1929 – 62). Danby, H., The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with introduction and brief explanatory notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). Epstein, I. (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud (35 vol.; London: Soncino, 1935 – 59). Falls, T.B./Halton, T.P./Slusser, M., Dialogue with Trypho (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2003). Hicks, R.D., Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers (Rev. and Repr. edn; Loeb Classical Library ; Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann, 1950). Kittel, R./Schenker, A., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th impr. edn; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). Lamb, W.R.M, Plato: Lisis; Symposium; Gorgias (Loeb Classical Library ; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967). Milik, J.T. (et al. ed.), Discoveries in the Judean Desert (39 vol.; Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1955 – 2002). Thackeray, H.St.J./Marcus, R./Wikgren, A. P./Feldman, L.H., Josephus (9 vol.; Loeb Classical Library ; Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann, 1958 – 65). Vermes, G., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin, 1998). Wansborough, H. (ed.), The New Jerusalem Bible (Standard edn; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1985).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

249

Reference Works

(Various), The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments, Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised, by His Majesty’s Special Command (‘Authorised King James Version’) (1611–). New American Standard Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). The Holy Bible: New International Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments: Revised Standard Version (London: Collins, 1952). The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments with Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized edn; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989/1995).

Note: Biblical quotations are taken in Greek from the United Bible Societies 4th rev. edn. English translations of the New Testament which depart from the NRSV are my own unless otherwise stated.

2.

Reference Works

Bauer, W./Arndt, W./Gingrich, F.W./Danker, F.W., A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2 1979). Blass, F./Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Rev. edn by R. Funk; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961). Brown, F./Driver, S.R./Briggs, C.A., The Brown–Driver–Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody : Hendrickson, 2000). Evans, C./Porter, S. (ed.), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000). Freedman, D.N. (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vol.; New York: Doubleday, 1992). Goodenough, E.R., Jewish Symbols in the Greco–Roman Period (13 vol.; New York/ Princeton: Pantheon/Princeton University Press, 1953 – 68. Green, J./McKnight, S., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992). Kittel G./Bauernfeind, O./Friedrich, G. (ed.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (10 vol.; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1932) Liddell, H.J./Scott, R., A Greek–English Lexicon (Rev. and augm. by Sir H.S. Jones, with a Supplement; Oxford: Clarendon, 91996). Martin, R.P./Davids, P., The Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997). Metzger, B.M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (fourth revised edition)(London/ New York: United Bible Societies, 21994). Singer, I./Adler, C. (ed.), Jewish Encyclopedia: descriptive record of the history, religion, literature, and customs of the Jewish people from the earliest times to the present day (New York/London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1901 – 6).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

250

Bibliography

Strack, H.L./Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vol. in 5; Munich: Beck, 1922).

3.

Secondary Literature

Abrahams, I., Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (First and Second Series; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917/1924). Alexander, L. C. A., The Preface to Luke’s Gospel (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Alter, R./Kermode, F. (ed.), The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987). Ashton, J., Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). – Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). Bammel, E., ‘“John Did No Miracle” John 10.41’, in C.F.D. Moule (ed.), Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History (London/Oxford: A. R. Mowbray and Co, 1965) 179 – 202. Banks, L., Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). Barrett, C.K., The Gospel According to John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 21978). – ‘John and Judaism’ in R. Bieringer/D. Pollefeyt/F. Vandecasteele–Vanneuville (ed.), Anti–Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 401 – 17. Barrett, C.K./Bammell, E./Davies, W. (ed.), Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in honour of David Daube (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978). Barth, G., ‘Matthew’s Understanding of the Law’ in G. Bornkamm/G. Barth/H.J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London: SCM, 21982) 58 – 164. Bassler, J.M., ‘The Galileans: A Neglected Factor in Johannine Community Research’, CBQ 43 (1981) 243 – 7. – ‘Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 108 (1989) 635 – 46. Bauckham, R. (ed.), The Gospels for all Christians: Rethinking the Gospel audiences (Edinburgh/Grand Rapids: T& T Clark/Wm B. Eerdman, 1998). – ‘Response to Philip Esler’, SJT 51 (1998) 249 – 53. Bauer, D./Powell M. (ed.), Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Baumgarten, A.I., ‘The Name of the Pharisees’, JBL 102 (1983) 411 – 28. – ‘Josephus and Hippolytus on the Pharisees’, HUCA 55 (1984) 1 – 25. – ‘Korban and the Pharisaic Paradosis’, JANESCU 16 – 7 (1984 – 5) 5 – 17. – ‘The Pharisaic Paradosis’, HTR 80 (1987) 63 – 87. – The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Baur, F.C., Paul: The Apostle of Jesus Christ, his Life and Work, his Epistles and his Doctrine (2 vol.; London/Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 21876).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Secondary Literature

251

Beare, F.W., The Gospel According to Matthew (Peabody : Hendrickson, 1981). Beasley–Murray, G.R., John (WBC 36; Waco: Word Books, 1987). Bennett Jr, W.J., ‘The Herodians of Mark’s Gospel’, NovT 17 (1975) 9 – 14. Berger, K., ‘Jesus als Pharisäer und frühe Christen als Pharisäer’, NovT 30 (1988) 231 – 62. Berliner, W., Christus und die Pharisäer (Vienna: Herder, 1959). Betz, H.D., ‘Wellhausen’s Dictum “Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew” in the light of present scholarship’, ST 45 (1991) 83 – 110. Bieringer, R./Pollefeyt, D./Vandecasteele–Vanneuville, F. (ed.), Anti–Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001). Booth, R.P., Jesus and the Laws of Purity : Tradition History and Legal History in Mk 7 (JSNTSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986). Boring, M.E., Mark: A Commentary (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2006). Bornkamm, G./Barth, G./Held, H.J. (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London: SCM, 21982). Bowker, J., Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) – ‘The Origin and Purpose of St. John’s Gospel’, NTS 11 (1965) 398 – 408. Box, G.H., ‘Survey of Recent Literature on the Pharisees and Sadducees’, RTP 4 (1908 – 9) 129 – 51. Brawley, R.L., Luke–Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology and Conciliation (SBLMS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). Brown, R.E., The Gospel according to John (2 vol.; AB 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966/ 1970). – The Community of the Beloved Disciple (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1979). – The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (2 vol.; ABRL; Garden City : Doubleday, 1966/1970) Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963). – The Gospel of John: A Commentary, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971). Burkill, T.A., New Light on the Earliest Gospel: Seven Markan Studies (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1972). Cadbury, H. J., ‘Four Features of Lucan Style’ in L.E. Keck/J.L. Martyn (ed.), Studies in Luke– Acts: Essays presented in honour of Paul Schubert (Nashville/London: Abingdon/ SPCK, 1966/1968) 87 – 102. Caird, G.B., Saint Luke (Pelican; Middlesex: Penguin, 1963). Cancik, H./Lichtenberger, H./Schäfer, P. (ed.), Geschichte–Tradition–Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (3 vol.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). Carlston, C.E., ‘The things that defile (Mark VII.14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark’, NTS 15 (1968 – 9) 75 – 96. Carroll, J.T., ‘Luke’s Portrayal of the Pharisees’, CBQ 50 (1988) 604 – 21. Carson, D.A., ‘The Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Reappraisal’, JETS 25 (1982) 161 – 74. Catchpole, D., ‘Paul, James, and the Apostolic Decree’, NTS 23 (1977) 428 – 44. – The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1993). Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). – ‘The Gospel of John: Exclusivism caused by a Social Setting Different from that of Jesus (John 11.54 and 14.6)’ in R. Bieringer/D. Pollefeyt/F. Vandecasteele–Vanneuville (ed.),

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

252

Bibliography

Anti–Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 247 – 78. Charlesworth, J.H./Johns, L.L. (ed.), Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). Chilton, B., ‘Exorcism and History : Mark 1:21 – 28’, in C.L. Blomberg/D. Wenham (ed.) Gospel Perspectives 6: The Miracles of Jesus (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986) 253 – 71. – ‘Review: Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus’, ThTo 42 (1986) 563 – 4. Chilton, B./Evans, C.A. (ed.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994). Chilton, B./Neusner, J. (ed.), Judaism in the New Testament: Practices and Beliefs (London: Routledge, 1995). – Types of Authority in Formative Christianity and Judaism (London: Routledge, 1999). Chilton, B./Evans, C.A./Neusner, J. (ed.), The Missing Jesus: Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Cohen, S.J.D., ‘The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the End of Jewish Sectarianism’, HUCA 55 (1984) 27 – 53. Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke (London: Faber & Faber, 1960). – The Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). Cook, D.E., ‘A Gospel Portrait of the Pharisees’, RevExp 84 (1987) 221 – 33. Cook, M.J., Mark’s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (NovTSup 51; Leiden: Brill, 1978). – ‘Interpreting “Pro–Jewish” Passages in Matthew’, HUCA 54 (1983) 135 – 46. Cotterell, F.P., ‘The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal’, ExpT 96 (1984 – 5) 237 – 242. Craddock, F.B., Luke (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990). Culpepper, R.A., Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). Darr, J.A., ‘Observers observed: The Pharisees, the Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterisation in Luke–Acts’ (Unpublished paper to AAR/SBL, 1989, cited by Lyons, W.J., ‘Words of Gamaliel’). – ‘Irenic or ironic? Another Look at Gamaliel before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5.33 – 42)’ in R.P. Thompson/T.E. Phillips (ed.), Literary Studies in Luke–Acts. Essays in honour of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998) 121 – 39. Davies, M., Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup 69; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992). Davies, W.D./Allison, D.C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vol.; ICC; Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1991). Davies, W.D./Daube, D. (ed.), The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956). Davies, W.D./Finkelstein, L./Horbury, W./Sturdy, J./Katz, S.T. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism (4 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984 – 2006). Dawsey, J., ‘The Literary Unity of Luke–Acts: Questions of Style – A task for Literary Critics’, NTS 35 (1989) 48 – 66. De Boer, M.C., ‘The depiction of “the Jews” in John’s Gospel: Matters of Behaviour and Identity’ in R. Bieringer/D. Pollefeyt/F. Vandecasteele–Vanneuville (ed.), Anti–Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 141 – 57.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Secondary Literature

253

Deines, R., Jüdische Steingefäße und pharisäische Frömmigkeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993). – Die Pharisäer : Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz (WUNT 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). De Jonge, H.J., ‘“The Jews” in the Gospel of John’ in R. Bieringer/D. Pollefeyt/F. Vandecasteele–Vanneuville (ed.), Anti–Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 121 – 40. De Jonge, M., Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God. Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective (SBLSBS 11; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977). DeLacey, D.R., ‘In Search of a Pharisee’, TynBul 43 (1992) 353 – 72. Delobel, J., ‘L’onction par la p¦cheresse: La composition litt¦raire de Lc 7:36 – 50’, ETL 42 (1966) 415 – 75. De Mee˜s, X., ‘Composition de Lc., XIV et Genre Symposiaque’, ETL 37 (1961) 847 – 70. Dewey, J., ‘The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mk. 2.1 – 3.6’, JBL 92 (1973) 394 – 401. Donahue, J.R., The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina 2; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2002). Doyle, B.R., ‘A Concern of the Evangelist: Pharisees in Matthew 12’, ABR 34 (1986) 17 – 34. Dunn, J.D.G., The Parting of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London/Philadelphia: SCM/Trinity Press International, 1991). Ellis, E.E., The Gospel of Luke (Rev. edn; NCB; London: Oliphants, 1974). Esler, P. ‘Community and Gospel in Early Christianity : A response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for all Christians’, SJT 51 (1998) 235 – 48. Evans, C.A., Mark 8.27 – 16.20 (WBC 34B; Dallas: Word Books, 2001). Evans, C.A./ Hagner, D.A. (ed.), Anti Semitism and Early Christianity : Issues of Polemic and Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). Falk, H., Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1985). Foakes Jackson, F.J./Lake, K. (ed.), The Beginnings of Christianity : Part 1, The Acts of the Apostles (5 vol.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Fiebig, P., ‘Pharisäer und Sadduzäer’, RGG 4 (1913) 1487 – 9. Finkelstein, L., The Pharisees: the Sociological Background of their Faith (2 vol.; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962). Fitzmyer, J.A., The Gospel According to Luke (2 vol.; AB 8; Garden City : Doubleday, 1981/ 1985). – Luke the Theologian: Aspects of his Teaching (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989). France, R.T., Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter : Paternoster, 1989). – The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdman; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002). – The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Wm B. Eerdman, 2007). Franklin, E., Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew (JSNTSup 92; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). Freyne, S., ‘Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Matthew’s and John’s Anti–Jewish Polemic in Focus’ in J. Neusner/E.S. Frerichs (ed.), ‘To See Ourselves As Others See Us’ Christians, Jews, ‘Others’ in Late Antiquity (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985) 117 – 43.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

254

Bibliography

Fuchs, A., (ed.) Probleme der Forschung (SNTSU Series A 3; Munich: Velag Herold Wien, 1978). Garland, D.E., The Intention of Matthew 23 (NovTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1979). Gibson, J., ‘Jesus’ Refusal to Produce a “Sign” (Mk 8.11 – 13)’, JSNT 38 (1990) 37 – 66. Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (2 vol.; EKKNT; Zurich: Benziger, 1978/1979). Goodman, M., ‘The Sadducees and the Essenes after 70’ in S.E. Porter/P. Joyce/D.E. Orton (ed.), Crossing the Boundaries. Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 347 – 56. – ‘A Note on Josephus, the Pharisees and Ancestral Tradition’, JJS 50 (1999) 17 – 20. Gould, E.P., Gospel According to St Mark (ICC; Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1896). Goulder, M., ‘Nicodemus’, SJT 44 (1991) 153 – 68. Gowler, D.B., Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 2; New York: Peter Lang, 1991). Grabbe, L.L., Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period (London: Routledge, 2000). – Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vol.; Minneapolis: Ausburg Fortress, 1992). Groh, D./Jewett, R., The Living Text: Essays in Honour of Ernest W. Saunders (Lanham: University Press of America, 1985). Gros Louis, K.R.R. (ed.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982). Gryglewicz, F., ‘Die Pharisäer und die Johanneskirche’ in A. Fuchs, (ed.) Probleme der Forschung (SNTSU Series A 3; Munich: Velag Herold Wien, 1978) 144 – 58. Guelich, R.A., Mark 1 – 8.26 (WBC 34 A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989). Gundry, R.H., Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdman, 1993). Guthrie, D., New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1970). Haenchen, E., ‘The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Early Christianity’ in L.E. Keck/J.L. Martyn (ed.), Studies in Luke –Acts: Essays presented in honour of Paul Schubert (Nashville/London: Abingdon/SPCK, 1966/1968) 258 – 78. – The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971). – John (2 vol.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). Hagner, D.A., Matthew (2 vol.; WBC 33; Dallas: Word Books, 1993/1995). Hakola, R., Identity Matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness (NovTSup 118; Leiden: Brill, 2005). Hanne, J.W., ‘Die Pharisäer und Sadducäer als politische Parteien’, ZWT 10 (1867) 239 – 63. Hare, D.R.A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967). Harrington, D.J., The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina 1; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1991). Harrington, H.K., ‘Did the Pharisees eat ordinary food in a state of ritual purity?’, JSJ 26 (1995) 42 – 54. Herford, R.T., The Pharisees (Boston: Beacon, 1962 [11924]). Heil, J.P., The Meal Scenes in Luke–Acts: An Audience Oriented Approach (SBLMS 52: Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999). Hengel, M., Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungversuch (WUNT 67; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Secondary Literature

255

Hill, D., ‘On the Use and Meaning of Hosea VI.6 in Matthew’s Gospel’, NTS 24 (1977 – 8) 107 – 19. Hooker, M.D., The Gospel According to St Mark (BNTC; London: A& C Blacks, 1991). Horbury, W./McNeil, B. (ed.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). Hultgren, A.J., Jesus and his Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1979). Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1966). Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (London: SCM, 1954). – The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (translated by Perrin; London: SCM, 1966). Jervell, J., Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke–Acts (Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1972). – The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke–Acts and Early Christian History (Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1984). – Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Johnson, L.T., ‘The New Testament’s Anti–Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic’, JBL 108 (1989) 419 – 41. – The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina 5; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991). – The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina 3; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992). Karris, R.J., Luke: Artist and Theologian. Luke’s Passion Accounts as Literature (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1985). Katz, S.T., ‘Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 CE: A Reconsideration’, JBL 103 (1984) 43 – 76. Keck L.E./ Martyn J.L. (ed.), Studies in Luke–Acts: Essays presented in honour of Paul Schubert (Nashville/London: Abingdon/SPCK, 1966/1968). Kee, A., ‘The Question about Fasting’, NovT 11 (1969) 161 – 73. – ‘The Old Coat and the New Wine: A Parable of Repentance’, NovT 12 (1970) 13 – 21. Keener, C.S., A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdman, 1999). Kelber, W.H. (ed.), The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14 – 16 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) Kiilunen, J., Die Vollmacht im Widerstreit: Untersuchungen zum Werdegang von Mark 2,1 – 3,6 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1985). Kilpatrick, G.D., The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946). Kimelman, R., ‘Birkath Ha–Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti–Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity’ in E.P. Sanders/A. Baumgarten/A. Mendelson/B.F. Meyer (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self–Definition (3 vol.; London: SCM, 1981) 2.226 – 44. Kingsbury, J.D., ‘The developing conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Literary Critical Study’, CBQ 49 (1987) 179 – 97. – Matthew as Story (2nd Rev. edn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). – Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989). – ‘The Religious authorities in the Gospel of Mark’, NTS 36 (1990) 42 – 65. – Conflict in Luke. Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Ausburg Fortress, 1991).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

256

Bibliography

Koester, C.R., Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning Mystery and Community (Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995). Kolenkow, A.B, ‘Healing Controversy as a Tie between Miracle and Passion Material for a Proto–Gospel’, JBL 95 (1976) 623 – 38. Konradt, M., Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 215; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Krenkel, M., ‘Joseph von Arimathäa und Nikodemus’, ZWT 8 (1865) 438 – 45. Kruse, C.G., The Gospel According to John (TNTC; Leicester : Intervarsity, 2003). Lachs, S.T., ‘On Matthew 23.27 – 28’, HTR 68 (1975) 385 – 8. Lane, W.L., The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdman, 1974). Levine, A.–J., ‘Luke’s Pharisees’ in J. Neusner/B. Chilton (ed.), In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (Waco: Baylor, 2007) 113 – 30. Levine, L.I., The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). Lierman, J. (ed.), Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Lightstone, J.N., ‘Sadducees versus Pharisees’ in J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and other Graeco–Roman cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (4 vol.; SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 3.206 – 17. Lindars, Barnabas, The Gospel of John (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1972). – ‘The Persecution of Christians in John 15:18 – 16:4a’ in W. Horbury/B. McNeil (ed.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) 48 – 69. Lincoln, A.T., The Gospel According to Saint John (BNTC; London: Continuum, 2005). Loader, W.R.G., Jesus’ Attitude Towards The Law: A Study of the Gospels (WUNT 97; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). Lowe, M., ‘Who were the YOUDAIOI?’, NovT 18 (1976) 101 – 30. Lührmann, D., ‘Die Pharisäer und die Schriftgelehrten im Markusevangelium’, ZNW 78 (1987) 169 – 85. Lumby, J.R., The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904). Luz, U., The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). – Matthew (3 vol.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007/2001/ 2005). Lyons, W.J., ‘The Words of Gamaliel (Ac. 5.38 – 39) and the irony of indeterminacy’, JSNT 68 (1997) 23 – 49. Maccoby, H., Jesus the Pharisee (London: SCM, 2003). Maddox, R., The Purpose of Luke–Acts (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1982). Malbon, E.S., ‘The Jewish leaders in the Gospel of Mark. A Literary Study of Markan Characterisation’, JBL 108 (1989) 259 – 81. M‚nek, J., ‘Mark viii 14 – 21’, NovT 7 (1964) 10 – 14. Mann, C.S., Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 1986). Marcus, J., Mark 1 – 8 (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Marshall, I.H., The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter : Paternoster, 1978).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Secondary Literature

257

Marshall, M., ‘“Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God.” A brief study of Luke 14.15 in its context’, in C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Feasts and Festivals (Leuven: Peeters, 2009) 97 – 106. Martyn, J.L., ‘Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community’ in De Jonge, M. (ed.), L’Êvangile de Jean: sources, r¦daction and th¦ologie (BETL 44; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1977) 149 – 75 – History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 32003). Mason, S., ‘Was Josephus a Pharisee? A re–examination of Life 10 – 12’, JJS 40 (1989) 31 – 45. – ‘Pharisaic Dominance Before 70 CE and the Gospels’ Hypocrisy Charge (Matt. 23.2 – 3)’, HTR 83 (1990) 363 – 81. – Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition Critical Study (StPB 39; Leiden: Brill, 1991). – Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (10 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 2000–). – ‘Josephus’ Pharisees: The Narratives’ in J. Neusner/B. Chilton (ed.), In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (Waco: Baylor, 2007) 3 – 40. McKnight, S., ‘A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s polemic with Judaism in theological perspective’ in C.A. Evans/D.A. Hagner (ed.), Anti Semitism and Early Christianity : Issues of Polemic and Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 55 – 79. Meeks, W.A., ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972) 44 – 72. – ‘Breaking Away : Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from the Jewish Communities’ in J. Neusner/E.S. Frerichs (ed.), To See Ourselves As Others See Us (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985) 93 – 115. Meier, J.P., ‘The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist Press, 1979). – The Quest for the Historical Pharisee: A Review Essay on Roland Deines, Die Pharisäer’, CBQ 61 (1999), 713 – 22. Meyer, R./Weiß, K., ‘Vaqisa?or’, in G. Kittel/O. Bauernfeind/G. Friedrich (ed.), TWNT 9 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1973) 11 – 49. Mitchell, M.M., ‘Patristic counter–evidence to the claim that “The Gospels were written for all Christians”’, NTS 51 (2005) 36 – 79. Mohrlang, R., Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Moloney, F., The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina 4; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1998). Moore, G.F., ‘Christian Writers on Judaism’, HTR 14 (1921) 197 – 254. – Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954). Morris, L., The Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972). Moule, C.F.D. (ed.), Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History (London/ Oxford: A. R. Mowbray and Co, 1965). Nicklas, T. Ablösung und Verstrickung: ‘Juden’ und Jüngergestalten als Charaktere der erzählten Welt des Johannesevangeliums und ihre Wirkung auf den implitziten Leser (RST 60; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001). Neusner, J., ‘The Fellowship (hrwbx) in the Second Jewish Commonwealth’, HTR 53 (1960) 125 – 42.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

258

Bibliography

–

Development of a Legend: Studies on the traditions concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (Leiden: Brill, 1970). – The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (3 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1971). – From Politics to Piety : The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood: Hentice–Hall, 1973). – (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and other Graeco–Roman cults: Studies for Morton Smith at sixty (4 vol.; SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975) – ‘“First Cleanse the Inside” The “Halakhic” Background of a Controversy Saying’, NTS 22 (1975 – 6) 486 – 95. – Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1981). Neusner, J./Avery–Peck, A.J. (ed.), Judaism in Late Antiquity : Where We Stand (5 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1999). Neusner, J./Frerichs E.S. (ed.), ‘To See Ourselves As Others See Us’ Christians, Jews, ‘Others’ in Late Antiquity (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985). Neusner, J,/Chilton, B. (ed.), In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (Waco: Baylor, 2007). Newport, K.G.C., ‘The Pharisees in Judaism prior to A.D. 70’, AUSS 29 (1991) 127 – 37. Neyrey, J.H., The Social World of Luke–Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody : Hendrickson, 1991). – ‘Ceremonies in Luke–Acts: The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship’ in Neyrey, J. (ed.), The Social World of Luke–Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody : Hendrickson, 1991) 361 – 87. – The Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Nineham, D., The Gospel of St Mark (Rev. edn; London: Black, 1968). Nolland, J., Luke (3 vol.; WBC 35; Dallas: Word Books, 1989/1993/1993). North, W.E.S., The Lazarus Story within the Johannine Tradition (JSNTSup 212; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2001). O’Toole, R.F., The Unity of Luke’s Theology : An Analysis of Luke–Acts (Wilmington: M. Glazier, 1984). Overmann, J.A., Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress; 1990). Parsons, M.C. and Pervo, R.I. (ed.), Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). Pancaro, S., ‘The Metamorphosis of a Legal Principle in the Fourth Gospel: A Closer Look at Jn 7,51’ Bib 53 (1972) 340 – 61. Pearson, B.A. (ed.), The Future of Early Christianity : Essays in honour of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) Pervo, R.I., Acts: a commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium (2 vol.; Freiberg: Herder, 1976/1977). Pickup, M., ‘Matthew’s and Mark’s Pharisees’ in J. Neusner/B. Chilton (ed.), In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (Waco: Baylor, 2007) 67 – 112. Poirier, J.C., ‘Why did the Pharisees wash their Hands?’, JJS 47 (1996) 217 – 33. Porter, S.E./Joyce, P./Orton, D.E. (ed.), Crossing the Boundaries. Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Powell, M.A., ‘The Religious Leaders in Luke: a Literary Critical Study’, JBL 109 (1990) 93 – 110. – ‘Do and keep what Moses says (Matthew 23.2 – 7)’ JBL 114 (1995) 419 – 35.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Secondary Literature

259

Priest, J., ‘A note on the Messianic Banquet’ in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 222 – 38. Rabbinowitz, N.S., ‘Matthew 23:2 – 4: Does Jesus recognize the authority of the Pharisees and does he endorse their Halakhah?’, JETS 46 (2003) 423 – 47. Rajak, T., Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Duckworth, 1983). Ravens, D., Luke and the Restoration of Israel (JSNTSup 119; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995). Reinhartz, A., ‘The Johannine Community and its Jewish Neighbours: A Reappraisal’, in F.F. Segovia (ed.), What is John? (2 vol.; SBLSymS 3, 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996/ 1998) 2.111 – 38. – ‘“Jews” and Jews in the Fourth Gospel’ in R. Bieringer/D. Pollefeyt/F. Vandecasteele–Vanneuville (ed.), Anti–Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 213 – 27. – Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John (New York: Continuum, 2001). Rensberger, D., Overcoming the World: Politics and Community in the Gospel of John (London: SPCK, 1989). Renz, G., ‘Nicodemus: An Ambiguous Disciple? A Narrative Sensitive Investigation’ in Lierman, J. (ed.), Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 255 – 83. Repschinski, B., The Controversy Stories In The Gospel Of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form And Relevance For The Relationship Between The Matthean Community And Formative Judaism (FRLANT 189; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). Resseguie, J.L., ‘John 9: A Literary–Critical Analysis’ in Gros Louis, K.R.R. (ed.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982) 295 – 303. Rhoads, D./Mitchie, D., Mark as Story : An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982). Riddle, D.W., Jesus and the Pharisees: A Study in Christian Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928). Rivkin, E., ‘Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources’ HUCA 40 (1969) 205 – 49. – A Hidden Revolution (Abingdon: Parthenon, 1978). Robbins, V.K., ‘Last Meal: Preparation, Betrayal and Absence (Mark 14.12 – 25)’, in W.H. Kelber, (ed.), The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14 – 16 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 21 – 40. Robinson J.M./Hoffmann P./ Kloppenborg, J.S., The Critical edition of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000). Roth, C., ‘The “Chair of Moses” and its survivals’, PEQ 81 (1949) 100 – 1. Saldarini, A.J., Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1989). – Matthew’s Christian–Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Sanders, E P., Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985). – ‘Defending the Indefensible’, JBL 110 (1991) 463 – 78. – Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London/Philadelphia: SCM/Trinity Press International, 1992). – Judaism: Practice and Belief 63BCE–66CE (London: SCM, 1992).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

260

Bibliography

Sanders, E.P./Baumgarten, A./Mendelson, A./Meyer, B.F. (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self–Definition (3 vol.; London: SCM, 1981). Sanders, J.T., The Jews in Luke–Acts (London: SCM, 1987). Sandmel, S., Anti–Semitism in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978). Schiffman, L.H., ‘At the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the Jewish–Christian Schism in E.P. Sanders/A. Baumgarten/A. Mendelson/B.F. Meyer (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self–Definition (3 vol.; London: SCM, 1981) 2.115 – 56. Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St. John (3 vol.; HNew York: Herder & Herder, 1968/1980/1982) Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.– A.D. 135) (3 vol. in 4; Rev. English edn Vermes/Millar/Black (ed.); Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1973/ 1979/1986/1987. Schwartz, D.R., ‘Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees’, JSJ 14 (1983) 157 – 71. Sim, D.C., The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1998). Smalley, S., John: Evangelist and Interpreter (Carlisle: Paternoster, 21998). Smith, D.E., ‘Table Fellowship as a literary motif in the Gospel of Luke’, JBL 106 (1987) 613 – 38. – ‘The Messianic Banquet Reconsidered’ in B.A. Pearson (ed.), The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in honour of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 64 – 73. Smith, D.M., The Theology of the Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Stanton, G., A Gospel For A New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1992). Steele, E.S., ‘Luke 11.37 – 54 – A modified Hellenistic Symposium?’, JBL 103 (1984) 379 – 94. Stemberger, G., Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995 [German original 1991]). Stibbe, M.W.G., John as Story–teller : Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel (SNTSMS 73; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus (FRLANT 82; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962). Streeter, B.H., The Four Gospels: a study of origins, treating of the manuscript tradition, sources, authorship, & dates (London: Macmillan and Co, 1924). Sylva, D.D., ‘Nicodemus and his Spices (John 19.39)’ NTS 34 (1988) 148 – 51. Talbert, C.H., Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982). Tannehill, R.C., The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation (2 vol.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986/1990). Tolmie, D. FranÅois, ‘The YOUDAIOI in the Fourth Gospel: A Narratological Perspective’ in G. Van Belle/ G.J. Van der Watt/P.J. Maritz (ed.), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar (BETL 184; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005) 377 – 97. Thompson, R.P. /Phillips, T.E. (ed.), Literary Studies in Luke–Acts. Essays in honour of Joseph B. Tyson (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Secondary Literature

261

Tuckett, C.M. (ed.), Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays (JSNTSup 116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995). – (ed.), Feasts and Festivals (Leuven: Peeters, 2009). Tyson, J.B., Luke–Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives (Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1988). – ‘The problem of Jewish rejection in Acts’ in J.B. Tyson (ed.), Luke–Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives (Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1988) 124 – 37. Van Belle, G./Van der Watt, J.G. /Maritz, H.J. (ed.), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar (BETL 184; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005). Van de Horst, P., ‘The Birkat Ha–Minim in Recent Research’, ExpTim 105 (1994) 363 – 8. Van Tilborg, S., The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972). Vivano, B.T., ‘Social World and Community Leadership: The Case of Matthew 23.1 – 12, 34’, JSNT 39 (1990) 3 – 21. Volz, P., ‘Pharisäer’, RGG 4 (1930) 1178 – 9. Von Wahlde, U.C., ‘The Johannine Jews: A Critical Survey’ NTS 28 (1982) 33 – 60. – ‘The Relationships between Pharisees and Chief Priests: Some observations on the Texts in Matthew, John and Josephus’, NTS 42 (1996) 506 – 22. Walker, R., Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (FRLANT 91; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). Wellhausen, J., Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer : Eine Untersuchung zu inneren jüdischen Geschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 31967 [11874]). Wilson, S.G., Luke and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Winter, P., On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 21974). Wirth, M., Die Pharisäer : Ein Betrag zum leichtern Verstehen der Evangelien und zur Selbstprüfung (Ulm: Stetten, 1824). Ziesler, J. A., ‘Luke and the Pharisees’, NTS 25 (1978 – 9) 146 – 57.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

Index

afterlife, Pharisees belief in 34, 137, 146 f., 156 – 158, 162, 183 f., 244 f. ancestral tradition 38, 41, 45 – 51, 78, 85 f., 95 – 97, 118 f., 125, 176, 178 angels, Pharisees belief in 146 anointing of Jesus 224 f. apostolic decree 160, 178, 182 Ashton, John 191, 196, 199, 202, 207 f., 210 f., 213, 229 f. authorities, Jewish 17 – 19, 30 – 34, 47 f., 64, 66, 68, 71 f., 75 – 81, 83 – 90, 101, 111 – 113, 124 – 127, 141 f., 145, 149, 152 f., 163, 193 – 198, 214, 227, 231 – 233, 239 – 241, 243 – 245. Bammel, Ernst 208, 211, 213 Banquet, Messianic/Eschatological 42, 132 – 134, 162, 167, 181 Barrett, C.K. 189, 193 f., 210, 218, 220, 222, 235 f. 2 Baruch 42, 238 Bassler, J.M. 216, 221 – 223, 225 f. Baur, F.C. 155 Beelzebul, see devil Birkath ha-Minim 127, 235, 239 – 241 blasphemy 37, 55, 103, 114, 211, 213 blind, man born 191, 194, 196, 208 – 210, 212, 222, 230, 235, 245 blind guides 80 f., 96 f., 124, 126 Booth, R.P. 17, 46 born again, from above 217 – 219 Bowker, J. 13 f., 29 – 31, 33, 67, 193, 230

Brawley, R.L. 17, 136, 139, 142 – 145, 147 f., 150, 155, 160, 162, 164 – 171 burial of Jesus 222 – 225 Caiaphas’ prophecy 205 f. Carroll, J.T. 19, 131, 152 – 154, 167 Chilton, B 14, 17, 19, 22 f., 30, 134 circumcision 160 f., 178 Cohen, S.D. 237 – 239 controversy, – Beelzebul 47, 55, 100 – 103, 114, 117, 122, 172 – divorce 29, 62 – 64, 69, 87 – 89, 123, 169, 176 – eating with sinners and tax collectors 35 f., 38, 42, 86, 98 f., 118, 165 f., 170 – fasting 35 f., 38 f., 43, 86, 99 f., 138, 177 – controversy, grainfield 35 f., 39, 44, 90 – 94, 170 – handwashing 29, 45 – 51, 87, 95 – 97, 118, 163, 166, 171, 175 – sabbath 35 – 45, 55, 67, 69, 90 – 94, 98, 105, 115, 117 f., 123 f., 137, 150, 170, 176, 191, 195, 208 f. – controversy, taxes to Caesar 63, 65, 85, 87, 97 f. Cook, M.J. 17, 30 – 32, 66, 84, 126 1 Corinthians 57 council, see Sanhedrin council, apostolic 160 f., 178 criticism, – form 242

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

263

Index

– narrative 22, 76, 236 – redaction 21, 242 – source 30, 241 – Tendenz 15 crucifixion 32, 37, 61, 66, 67, 86, 109 – 111, 116, 122 f., 151 – 154, 197, 200 – 202, 211, 223, 243 Culpepper, R.A. 208, 221, 231 Damascus Document (CD) 40, 62, 94, 114 Dead Sea Scrolls 40, 42, 62, 80, 94, 114, 163 demon, demonic possession 32, 37, 61, 66 f., 86, 109 – 111, 116, 122 f., 151 – 154, 197, 200 – 202, 211, 223, 243 demoniac 101, 107 f. Deuteronomy 39, 50, 54, 62, 81, 88, 119, 207, 221 devil 47, 52, 55, 85, 100 – 103, 114,116, 117, 122, 172, 215 Dewey. J 35 Diaspora 183 dining, – with Pharisees 132 – 134; 149, 162 – 167 – with tax collectors and sinners 35 f., 38, 42, 86, 98 f., 118, 165 f., 170, 175 elders 31, 33, 37, 45 – 47, 50, 53, 61, 63, 66, 68, 73, 75, 78 f., 95, 105, 108, 110 f., 113, 116, 127, 152, 160 1 Enoch 42, 114 Essenes 46, 126, 237 Exodus 39 f., 46, 53, 55 f. exorcism 47, 55, 87, 101 f., 105, 108, 114, 138 Fear, of the Jews and Pharisees 195 – 198, 200, 206, 222, 225, 228, 230 fluid distinction, description of 203, 214 Galatians 57 Gamaliel 14, 141 – 145, 158, 235, 245 Garland, D. 71, 76 f., 84 f., 96, 109 f., 119 – 122, 125 Genesis 88, 109 f.

Gentiles 18, 38, 41, 51 f., 63, 68, 70, 107 f., 118, 129, 139, 141, 147 f., 155 f., 159 – 161, 178, 181, 187 Goodman, M. 38, 47, 237 f., 240 Gowler, D.B. 18, 21, 141, 153, 161, 180 Gryglewicz, F. 19, 233, 236 Hakamim 29 f., 33, 237 halakhah 45, 62, 85, 93 f., 95, 100, 120,124, 131, 148 f., 153, 166, 175 – 179, 208 f., 211, 213 Haverim 46 Herod 37, 57 – 63, 81, 146, 153, 172 Herodians 28, 31, 33, 36 f., 47, 57 f., 61, 63, 65, 68, 76, 79, 97, 116, 119, 127 Hooker, M.D. 36 – 39, 41, 43 f., 46 f., 50, 52, 54 – 56, 59 – 65 Hosea 43, 91 – 94, 97, 99, 106, 123 hypocrisy, hypocrites 48, 57, 62, 65, 81, 94, 96, 117 – 121, 124, 153, 161, 177 f. Isaiah 42 f., 48 f., 53 f., 90, 96, 102, 111 f., 114, 116, 118, 139 – 141, 181, 210 Jamnia, see Yavneh Jervell, J. 17, 140, 161 Jew, translation in John 190John the Baptist, – execution of 58 – preaching of 82, 108 f., 112, 172, 194, 218 Joseph of Arimathea 66, 222 – 228 Josephus, Flavius 13 f., 16, 23, 38, 47, 54, 63, 79 f., 92, 110, 126, 141 – 143, 182 – 184, 195, 234, 238, 246 Kingsbury, J.D. 18, 32, 34, 36, 42, 48, 51, 55, 64, 66, 76, 78, 116, 152 Korban 49 f., 64, 96 Law, see Torah lawyers 75 f., 89, 131, 162, 167, 172 – 174 Lazarus, raising of 192, 194, 200, 205 f., 224, 229, 231 leaven 28, 51, 54, 57 – 61, 67, 77, 81 – 83, 172, 177 – 179

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

264

Index

Lightstone, J. 14, 23 Loader, W. 17 f., 44, 50, 67, 81, 85, 88, 97, 149, 160 Lovers of money 136 f. Lührmann, D. 19, 33, 37 – 42, 46, 48, 61, 63 f., 67 f. Luz, U. 72, 78, 84, 91, 100 – 102, 105, 108, 110, 126 Maccoby, H. 15 Malbon, E.S. 17, 32, 47 f., 66 Martyn, J.L. 140, 185, 235 – 240 Mason, S. 16, 23, 84, 183, 246 Meeks, W.A. 189, 209, 211, 215 f., 222 f., 226, 229, 236, 239 Messianic expectation 42 f., 53 f., 58, 90, 101, 156 methodology, discussion of 18, 21 miracles 35, 37, 51 – 61, 74, 82 f., 87, 101 f., 105, 107, 191, 208, 211, 213 Mishnah 23, 29, 39 f., 46, 62, 67, 77, 88, 92, 94, 120, 237 f. Neusner, J. 13 f., 16 f., 19, 22 f., 30, 120, 134, 189, 210 Nicodemus 189 f., 192, 200, 205, 214 – 228, 233, 245 parables 39, 43 f., 65, 96 f., 100, 108, 110 – 115, 118, 122, 124, 131 – 137, 150 f., 167, 180, 244 passion narrative 15, 37, 48, 66 f., 73, 78, 115 – 117, 151 f., 154, 198, 200 – 202, 214, 230, 232, 243 f., 246 Paul, – in Acts 139 – 141, 144 – 148, 156 – 162, 179, 181 – 183; 185 f., 245Paul, letters of 13 f., 20, 57, 141, 182 f., 238 Perushim 23, 29 f., 33, 237 Pesch, R. 36 f., 40 – 44, 48, 51, 54 – 56, 58, 60 – 62, 64 f. Pharisees, – as teachers 57,77, 79 – 86, 71, 95 – 98, 114, 118 f., 120 – 122, 124 – 126, 141, 147, 157, 174, 177, 216, 218, 234, 244, – Christian 158 – 162, 177 – 179, 181

– concern for purity 38, 45 – 47, 50, 89, 92, 120, 171, 176 – entrapment, testing 52, 55 f., 62 f., 64 – 67, 76, 79, 87 f., 89, 94, 97 f., 107, 116, 122, 138, 152, 167, 243 f. – historical 13 – 20, 22 – 24, 29 – 32, 58,126 f., 182 – 183, 190, 195, 231 – 234, 243, 246 – influence of 84, 86, 126 f., 141, 150, 154, 173, 183, 195, 198 – predominance post-70 84, 126 f., 237 – 241 – repuatation for accuracy, piety 38, 126, 141 f., 146, 150, 154, 158, 180, 182, – tithes 14, 97, 119, 136 f. Philippians 141, 146, 182, 238 Philo of Alexandria 80, 163 Plato 163 f. Plutarch 163 f. Powell, M.A. 17, 85, 114, 152 priests, 46, 90 – 94, 152, 157, 193 f., 233, 236 – high priest 37, 68, 79, 142, 146, 179, 224 f., 245 – chief priests 31, 33, 37, 53, 61, 63, 66, 68, 73, 75 – 79, 105, 108, 110 – 113, 116 f., 124 f., 127, 152, 169, 195, 197 – 206, 214, 220, 227, 229 – 233, 236, 239 – 241 Rabbinic, – literature, sources, 13 f., 16, 23, 29 – 31, 33, 38, 40, 57, 205 – movement 14, 30, 126 f., 216, 237, 239 Repschinski, B. 17 f., 77 f., 83, 86 f., 91 – 93, 99 f., 103 f., 112, 126 resurrection, – of Jesus 61, 104, 125, 157, 162, 185, 223 – 225, 234 – Pharisaic belief in 78, 146 f., 152, 155 – 158, 162, 179, 183 f., 244 f. – Sadducean denial of 34, 77 f., 89, 146, 156 – 158, 162, 233 f. rhetorical criticism, conventions 20, 80 f., 84, 126,136 f., 158, 184, 194, 227, 241 Rivkin, E. 13 f., 16, 23

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156

265

Index

Sadducees 16, 23, 31 f., 34, 73 f., 76 – 79, 81 – 83, 87, 89, 105 f., 108, 112 f., 116, 126 f., 131, 142 f., 145 f., 156 – 158, 162, 168, 172, 177, 179, 181, 183, 229, 233 f., 237, 245 sages, see Hakamim Saldarini, A.J. 13 f., 16, 80, 89, 109, 112, 120, 125 Samaritan woman 218 Sanders, E.P. 14, 30, 235 Sanders, J.T. 17, 129 – 131, 136, 138 – 140, 145 – 149, 151 – 153, 157 – 160, 165 – 167, 169 – 171, 175 – 179, 181, 186 Sanhedrin, council 61, 67, 79, 141 – 146, 152, 157, 195, 205, 220 Satan, see devil scribes 14, 16, 31 – 38, 41 f., 47 f., 53, 55, 61, 63, 66 – 68, 73 – 81, 83 – 87, 90, 95 f., 103 – 105, 107, 109 f., 113 – 116, 118 – 122, 125, 127, 134 – 136, 145, 152, 162, 166, 168 – 171, 173, 175, 229, 233, 243 f. Septuagint 48 f., 93 servants of the Jews (rpgq´tai) 195, 198 – 200, 202, 204, 230, 236 Stanton, G. 70, 86, 112, 117, 125, 127, 239 Sylva, D.D. 223 f. symposium 163 f., 167, 180 synagogue 65, 70, 78, 80, 87, 109, 125, 127, 141, 174, 190, 195 – 198, 206, 212 f., 222, 232, 235 – 237, 239 – 241

Tannehill, R.C. 131, 143, 147, 150, 152, 158, 161, 185 Temple 78, 91 f., 94, 98, 104, 148, 157, 195, 204, 207 destruction of 52, 92, 110, 113, 126, 236 – 238, 240 Torah, 17 – 19, 20, 28, 36, 38 – 41, 44 – 46, 49 – 51, 54 f., 62 – 64, 67, 69 f., 78, 81, 84 – 92 , 94, 95 – 89, 115, 121 – 126,129, 141, 145, 148 – 150, 158 – 161, 166, 170, 173, 175 f., 178, 182, 191, 194 f., 204 – 208, 211 – 213, 220, 243 f. Tradition 38, 45 – 47, 49 – 51, 78, 85, 95 – 97, 118 f., 125, 149, 164, 172, 176, 178 Unity of Luke and Acts 184 – 186 Van Tilborg, S.

129 – 131, 144,

17, 76 f.

Weiß, K. 15, 20, 76 f., 89, 118, 153, 161, 167, 173, 181, 195, 237 Wilson, S.G. 17, 129 f., 148, 181, 186 Yavneh (Academy)

235 – 237, 239, 241

Ziesler, J.A. 19, 147, 151 – 153, 159, 161, 164, 167 – 169, 171, 177

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525536155 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647536156