Authenticity of the Conflict Accounts
Authenticity of the Conflict Accounts
Now that we have registered and qualified these caveats, however, the substance of these accounts is likely authentic. First of all, the accounts must predate the major Jewish-Christian conflicts to which some wish to attribute them. Mark’s accounts clearly precede the major breaches in the post-70 era;15 because they appear in Mark, they could not have been composed far enough after 70 merely to respond to Pharisaic dominance after the temple’s destruction. Further, such stories would not have arisen in a period when Pharisees were not the Christians’ primary enemies, and perhaps were on good terms, in the late 40s (Acts 15:5)16 through the early 60s.17 These stories probably would not have arisen much in most of the early period of the Jerusalem church, either (cf. Acts 5:17, 33-34).
Second, some Pharisaic opposition in the early period existed and probably had earlier roots: at least some Pharisees in the very earliest part of this period joined ranks with the Sadducees to persecute Christians (Phil 3:5-6),18 and it is unlikely that the conflicts simply began shortly after Jesus’ cruxifixion. Jesus’ movement was popular before his execution as well as afterward, so we need not infer, against the only documentary evidence we have either way, that conflict must reflect the disciples’ rather than Jesus’ life-setting.
Moreover, some other early persecution by some Judean opponents against Jesus’ Jewish followers is certain (e.g., 1 Thess 2:14-16).19 We know that some of Jesus’ followers were whipped as a form of synagogue discipline; while the tradition could have transferred the attitudes of synagogue leaders more generally to Pharisees, it is also possible that some Pharisees may have been involved. Paul, maintaining his solidarity with the synagogue, suffered this public disgrace at least five times (2 Cor 11:24).20 Although the fair-minded Pharisees apparently officially opposed corporal punishment for matters of theological disagreement, 21 popular sentiments sometimes could yield to violent actions (cf. Jer 20:1-2; 37:15), and even Pharisees might permit floggings for disrupting public order.22 The persecution started at some point, and accepting the claims of some of the documents that it started in Jesus’ own lifetime is just as reasonable as placing it afterward. Regarding the Pharisees, Gospel reports of the conflict are generally more verbal than violent anyway, which is even less problematic.
Together these first two observations suggest authenticity: Some sort of conflicts appeared in the earliest Jesus tradition, but these were not all conformed to the primary opponents of Christians in the early years after the resurrection (Sadducees), nor were they all added after 70 when the heirs of Pharisaism are thought to have become the dominant competition. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that the original opponents in these traditions may have been usually correctly transmitted.
Third, multiple attestation supports the thesis that Jesus did have Sabbath conflicts.23 They appear in Mark (e.g., Mk 2:23-28), apparently independently in John (Jn 5:1-9), and perhaps independently in special Lukan material (Lk 13:10-17). Lack of clear narrative attestation in Q (unless Matthew simply omits the tradition of Lk 13:10-17) is not surprising given how few narratives from Q appear in our Gospels, but as we have noted, Jesus clearly denounces Pharisees in Q material (Matt 23:6, 23-28//Lk 11:39-44), and such a challenge to honor would initiate conflict even if none existed beforehand. Because Pharisees were the most “meticulous” interpreters and non-priestly observers of the law with whom Jesus would have come in contact,24 it is reasonable to trust the Gospels’ claim that these conflicts were with Pharisees.
Fourth, conflict over the interpretation of the law was common.25 Vermes thinks that Jesus’ lack of halakic (though not biblical) concern would lead to the situation that he “cannot have been greatly loved by the Pharisees.”26 He notes that in normal times Jesus’ debates with the Pharisees would seem mere “infighting” of related “factions,” but eschatological tension meant that times were not normal.27
Indeed, surprising as it may be to readers in some parts of the twenty-first century world, such conflicts sometimes even turned violent, whether this behavior had any official sanction or not. Not only in intra-Jewish strife nearly two centuries earlier (during the civil war during Alexander Jannaeus’ reign),28 but also during the subsequent war with Rome, Judeans massacred fellow-Judeans of rival parties. Josephus faced life-threatening opposition from rivals within his own social class,29 and both such passages in Josephus and the history of other early Jewish groups such as the Essenes (violent conflicts with the priesthood)30 and Pharisees31 indicate the pervasiveness of intra-Jewish strife.
Finally, Jesus’ theological kinship with the populist Pharisees may have led to open disagreements. One may note that Jesus’ teaching more closely resembles that of the Pharisees than any of the other “parties” mentioned by Josephus (Sadducees, Essenes, or revolutionaries); yet dissimilarities are also striking.32 But like most of his contemporaries, Jesus undoubtedly did not belong to any of these “parties,” and in any case such a marginal kinship would hardly preclude conflict. Social conflict theory illustrates that conflicts become most severe among groups most closely connected.33
The Gospels charge the elite, mainly Sadducees, with abuse of power and engineering Jesus’ execution. But while the Pharisees were probably not violently against Jesus, it is likely that they sometimes had conflict with him.