Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:52:03.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pharisaic Dominance Before 70 CE and the Gospels' Hypocrisy Charge (Matt 23:2–3)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Steve Mason
Steve Mason
Affiliation:
York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following study treats two distinct but related questions. First, were the Pharisees the dominant party in Palestinian Judaism before the destruction of the temple? And second, did Jesus of Nazareth engage in controversy with them? Many scholars today would answer one or both of these questions negatively. My thesis, however, is that both should be answered affirmatively and, further, that it was precisely the status of the Pharisees as the dominant party that makes intelligible Jesus' charge of hypocrisy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 83 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 363 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wellhausen, Julius, Die Pharisäer und die Saddücäer (Greifswald: L. Bamberg, 1874) 17.Google Scholar

2 Geiger, Abraham, Das Judenlum und seine Geschichte, vol. 1: Bis zur Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels (Breslau: Schletter, 1865) 93Google Scholar.

3 Finkelstein, Louis, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of their Faith (2 vols.; Philadelphia: JPS, 1938) 1.3. 80.Google Scholar

4 Meyer, Rudolf, “Φαρισαĩoσ,” TDNT 9 (1974) 31Google Scholar.

5 Cf., for example, Neusner, Jacob, From Testament to Torah: An Introduction to Judaism in its Formative Age (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988) 41–65Google Scholar.

6 See the discussion below.

7 War 1.110, 571; 2.162; Ant. 13.288-98, 400-431; 17.41-45.

8 Smith, Morton, “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in Davis, Moshe, ed., Israel: Its Role in Civilization (New York: JTSA/Harper & Brothers, 1956) esp. 74–77Google Scholar, and Neusner, Jacob, “Josephus's Pharisees,” in Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 224–53.Google Scholar The hypothesis has attracted impressive support from, for example: Cohen, Shaye J. D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his Vita and his Development as a Historian (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 237–42Google Scholar; Blenkinsopp, Joseph, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” JJS 25 (1974) 256Google Scholar n. 80; and Wild, R. A., “The Encounter Between Pharisaic and Christian Judaism: Some Early Gospel Evidence,” NovT 27 (1985) 110–11.Google ScholarLevine, Lee I. (“On the Political Involvement of the Pharisees under Herod and the Procurators,” Qatedra 8 [1978] 12–28Google Scholar [Hebrew]) has attempted to publicize the theory for a Hebrew-speaking audience but also to qualify it by showing that some individual Pharisees had great political power before and during the revolt. The editors of the new Schiirer—Geza Vermes, Millar, Fergus, and Black, Matthew (The History ofthe Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ [ 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979] 2. 389 n. 20Google Scholar; cf. 402)—claim to agree with Smith but cite him in support of the view that he rejects, viz., that the Pharisees “represented not a sectarian viewpoint but the main outlook of Judaism.”

9 Smith, , “Palestinian Judaism,” 71–73.Google Scholar He adduces evidence for various baptist sects, including the Essenes, and for the activity of many magicians.

10 Ibid., 74-77.

11 Ibid., 76.

12 Josephus, dates Antiquities at 20.267,Google Scholar where he defines “the present day” as the thirteenth year of Domitian's reign and the fifty-sixth year of his own life. Since Josephus was born in the year of Caligula's accession, both of these data put Antiquities at 93/94 CE.

13 The terminus a quo is the dedication of the Temple of Peace in 75 CE (Dio's Roman History 66.15), mentioned in War 7.158. The terminus ad quem is the death of Vespasian in 79 (cf. Life 359-61).

14 Smith, , “Palestinian Judaism,” 76Google Scholar.

15 Ibid.

16 Rasp, Hans (“Flavius Josephus und die jüdischen Religionsparteien,” ZNW 23 [1924] 27–47)Google Scholar had also viewed Antiquities’ portrayal of Pharisaic power as a peace offering to Josephus's erstwhile compatriots. Unlike Smith, however, Rasp thought that the Pharisees really had been powerful before 70 but that Josephus had obscured this fact in the Jewish War. Nor did Rasp think that the Romans were in a quandary about whom they should endorse as leaders in Palestine.

17 I.e., War 2.119-66: Ant. 13.171-73; 18.11-25.

18 , Smith, “Palestinian Judaism,” 79–80Google Scholar. He goes on to adduce parallels between the Phari-sees and the Greek philosophical schools.

19 , Neusner, “Josephus's Pharisees,” 224–25Google Scholar.

20 Ibid., 238.

21 Ibid.

22 Cf. Mason, Steve, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (Leiden: Brill, 1991) 222–27Google Scholar.

23 Cf. War 1.571, where the Pharisees’ refusal to cooperate with Herod the Great is put on a par, in its impact, with opposition from his own family members; also Life 21-22, where the Pharisees are assumed to be among the leaders of the people before the revolt.

24 What that leadership meant concretely is not entirely clear. Josephus explicitly mentions prayers (or vows) and sacred rites, perhaps intending to encompass temple and synagogue life (Ant. 18.15), but he also suggests that the Pharisees’ interpretation of civil and criminal law was predominant. Cf. Ant. 13.294; 20.199, which indicate that the Sadducees were “savage” and the Pharisees more lenient in prescribing punishments, and Ant. 13.296, which claims that John Hyrcanus's abrogation of the Pharisees’ ordinances caused a popular outcry. According to the sequel, Alexandra Salome was compelled by this popular feeling to reinstate the Pharisaic laws (Ant. 13.408). The issue, therefore, seems to have been broader than merely ritual technique.

25 Bultmann, Rudolf, History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Marsh, J.; New York: Harper & Row, 1976) 12–27Google Scholar, 39-54, esp. 48-52. Similarly, on p. 113 Bultmann argues that many simple sayings were turned into “woes” against the Pharisees by Matthew. See now Hultgren, Arland, Jesus and his Adversaries: the Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979) 186Google Scholar, on Matthew's creation of conflict stories.

26 For example: (1) the controversies in Mark 2:18-28 are between the Pharisees and Jesus’ disciples (all unnamed)—an indication of intergroup conflict. (2) Mark 7:1-23 includes: (a) an explanation of Jewish customs for gentile readers; (b) the citation of Isa 6:9-10, which was a favorite passage of the church, used to decry Jewish resistance to Christianity, rather forcibly applied to the Pharisees; and (c) a declaration, implausibly attributed to Jesus (7:19), that no food is unclean. (3) The parable of the tenants (12:1-12) quotes Ps 118:22 against the Jews, but that verse clearly refers to Jesus’ resurrection and probably only became current in early Christianity after the resurrection.

27 Winter, Paul, On the Trial of Jesus (2d ed., rev. Burkill, T. A. and Vermes, Geza; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974) 188.Google ScholarCf. , Hultgren, Adversaries, 197–99Google Scholar.

28 Cf. Flusser, David, Jesus (trans. Walls, R.; New York: Herder and Herder, 1969)Google Scholar; Finkel, Asher, The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth (Leiden: Brill, 1974) 134Google Scholar; Vermes, Geza, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) 223–25Google Scholar; Sanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 270–93Google Scholar.

29 , Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 292Google Scholar.

30 , Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority (ConBNT 10; Lund: Gleerup, 1978).Google Scholar, Hultgren (Adversaries, 198)Google Scholar also denies the form-critical view that the Jewish-Christian conflict was the first impulse for the creation of conflict stories, but he does not deal with Matt 23:2-3.

31 , Westerholm, Scribal Authority, 126–27Google Scholar.

32 Merkel, Helmut, “Jesus und die Pharisaer,” NTS 14 (1968) 198–99Google Scholar.

33 Cope, O. Lamar, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (CBQMS 5; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1976) 65, 127Google Scholar.

34 Gundry, Robert H., Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 453–55Google Scholar.

35 Dobschütz, Ernst von, “Matthew as Rabbi and Catechist,” in Stanton, G. N., ed., The Interpretation of Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1983) 25Google Scholar.

36 Günther Bornkamm, “End-Expectation and Church in Matthew,” in idem, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (trans. Scott, Percy; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 24; cf. 21Google Scholar.

37 Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964) 106Google Scholar.

38 , Gundry, Matthew, 454Google Scholar.

39 , Davies, Setting, 292Google Scholar.

40 Neusner, Jacob, From Politics to Piety: the Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973) 67–68Google Scholar.

41 Cf. Garland, David E., The Intention of Matthew 23 (NovTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 41–44Google Scholar.

42 Ibid.

43 War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191, 196, 198, 274.

44 Ant. 13.297-98, 400-401; 18.15, 17.

45 By the substitution of “transgress” (παραβαίνω) for Mark's “leave.”

46 A convenient summary of these and other allusions to Moses is given by Kingsbury, Jack Dean, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 89–90Google Scholar and accompanying notes. Kingsbury lists the allusions only to dispute that Mosaic imagery is central to Matthew, for he thinks that “Son of God,” rather than “new Moses,” is Matthew's chief category for Jesus (90-92). We may respond that, while Kingsbury is doubtless correct about the importance of the "Son of God” motif, his exclusionary “either/or” seems unwar-ranted.

47 , Hultgren, Adversaries, 187Google Scholar.

48 Cope, So, Scribe, 65, 127Google Scholar; Hare, Douglas R. A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew (SNTSMS 6; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 142Google Scholar.

49 Hummel, So Reinhart, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäus evangelium (BEvTh 33; Munich: Kaiser, 1966) 31Google Scholar.

50 That is, one can hardly achieve the impression of moderation by indiscriminately tossing an enthusiastic appreciation of the Pharisees into the middle of an ongoing tirade against both their teaching and behavior!

51 , Westerholm, Scribal Authority, 127Google Scholar.

52 Cf. Matt 1:1, 17, 20; 2:4-5; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15.

53 Cf. the use of the same biblical proof text in Barn. 12.10-11.

54 In Josephus, see esp. Ant. 17.41-45; for the rabbinic passages see Rivkin, Ellis, “Defining the Pharisees: the Tannaitic Sources,” HUCA 40 (1969) 205–49Google Scholar; for the Qumran scrolls, see Flusser, David, “Pharisäer, Sadduzäer und Essener im Pescher Nahum,” in Grozinger, Karl-Erich et al., eds., Qumran (Wege der Forschung 410; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981) 121–66Google Scholar.

55 E.g., Matt 9:34; 12:24; 16:12; 23:13-36; Luke 15:2; 16:14; John 8:13-21; 9:13-41.

56 Streeter, Burnett H., The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (New York: Macmillan, 1925) 257.Google ScholarCf. Haenchen, Ernst, “Matthaus 23,” ZThK 48 (1951) 40Google Scholar; Barth, Gerhard, “The Interpretation of the Law,” 71, 86Google Scholar; , Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, 31Google Scholar; Beare, Francis W., The Gospel According to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981) 448Google Scholar; Brooks, Stephenson H., Matthew's Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (JSNTSup 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987) 61–62, 79, 120-21Google Scholar.

57 Trilling, Wolfgang, Das wahre Israel (Erfurter Theologische Studien 7; Leipzig: St. Benno, 1959) 203–4Google Scholar; Strecker, Georg, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 13 n. 1, 16, 138–39Google Scholar.

58 See , Barth, “Law,” 62–73Google Scholar.

59 The struggle is most clearly reflected in Galatians, esp. 2:1-10; Romans 1-4; 9-11; Acts 10-11; 15; 21:20-21. Sanders takes a different view, viz.: “If Jesus was really on record as saying that absolutely all the law must be kept, Paul could hardly have persuaded James and Peter to sanction his mission” (Jesus and Judaism, 261). But we have only Paul's word for the agreement. On the other hand, after the agreement (apparently), Peter still admits gentiles as followers of Jesus only if they become Jews (Gal 2:14); Jesus' brother continues to appear as a rigorist (Gal 2:12); and both of these men, who knew Jesus well, are still only willing to preach to Jews (2:7-9). Thus: (a) Paul did not exactly win them over to his point of view; (b) they did not commission Paul's gospel; (c) he was initially worried about their response to his mission (Gal 2:2); and so (d) their acceptance of Paul's mission, conditioned as it was by their insistence on the collection (Gal 2:10), may have been a grudging recognition of a fait accompli rather than a real philosophical commitment.

60 Cf. , Westerholm, Scribal Authority, 57–58Google Scholar.

61 Ibid., 59.

62 Cf. , Westerholm, Scribal Authority, 69–71Google Scholar; , Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 203–6Google Scholar.

63 Cf. , Westerholm, Scribal Authority, 117–25Google Scholar; , Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 256–60Google Scholar.

64 , Verities, Jesus the Jew, 223Google Scholar.

65 On these passages, see , Mason, Flavius Josephus, 300–305, 341-56Google Scholar; idem, “Was Josephus a Pharisee? A Re-examination of Life 12,” JJS 40 (1989) 31–45Google Scholar.

66 See especially MacMullen, Ramsay, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966) 46–94Google Scholar; also Dio's Roman History (trans. Earnest Cary; LCL; 9 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1914-1927) 62.24.1, 26.1; 65.12.1-2, 13.1-2Google Scholar.

67 Cf. , MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order, 63–69Google Scholar; Malherbe, Abraham, “Gentle as a Nurse: the Cynic Background to I Thess ii,” NovT 12 (1970) 203–17Google Scholar.

68 See , MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order, 63–69Google Scholar.

69 , Epictetus, Diss. 2.9.17Google Scholar: “Where did you get what you were just saying? From your lips, and that is all. Why, then, do you pollute the helpful principles that are not your own?” Cf. also , Lucian, Menippus 5Google Scholar.

70 Cf. O'Neil, Edward, trans., Teles (the Cynic Teacher) (SBL Texts and Translations 11; Graeco-Roman Religion Series 3; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977) 2–5Google Scholar; Chadwick, Henry, The Sentences of Sextus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959) 139–40, 144-46Google Scholar.

71 As has been argued by Breech, James, The Silence of Jesus: The Authentic Voice of the Historical Man (Toronto: Doubleday, 1982) 221Google Scholar.