Chapter 354 of 404

Notes to Chapter 16

1 If we compare these other teachers with modern academicians, in the hope of portraying them as simply dialoguing dispassionately, without any emotional commitment to the outcome, I fear that we idealize academicians. I suspect that I am not the only academician frustrated when those we consider populist demagogues hijack public discourse while we academicians languish isolated in the academy.

2 See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 95-96. Mack, Myth, 375, attributes the conflict narratives to Mark’s imagination.

3 Sanders, Figure, 217.

4 Cf. Lk 3:7.

5 Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 31.

6 It is his interest in Jerusalem that dictates most of his references to Pharisees, though his interest in the sects is probably not geographically based (cf. Life 11-12). He claims to have joined the Pharisees in Jerusalem (Life 12), but writes after Jerusalem’s destruction, which Pharisees, unlike Sadducees, seem to have survived amply.

7 Horsley, Galilee, 150-52, 256; Witherington, Christology, 61, 66 (with some possible evidence in Jos. Ant. 20.34-49).

8 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 56.

9 Simon son of Gamaliel, presumably a Pharisee, is among the Jerusalem leaders interested in events in Galilee and sending persons there (Life 190, 309). Three of the four sent were Pharisees (though one, like Josephus, was both a Pharisee and a priest; Life 197).

10 See Freyne, Galilee, 181. Horsley, Galilee, 144-46, challenges the contention that they made pilgrimage three times annually; but he undoubtedly overstates the rarity of visits from Judeans and Galileans.

11 Such as in Mk 7:5; 8:11; 10:2; Mark does place Mk 12:13 in Jerusalem. It would not account for the more readily Galilean settings of many of these stories in the Gospels (local synagogues, meals with tax gatherers, or a grainfield) that seem inseparable from the conflict itself.

12 Pharisees did exercise power freely in an earlier period (see e.g., Jos. Ant. 13.405).

13 See especially Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 294-318.

14 Apart from the complaint in Jn 12:19 and synagogue influence in 12:42, the Pharisees explicitly appear in the Fourth Gospel after ch. 9 almost exclusively in summaries of the Jerusalem leadership (11:47, 57; 18:3; though cf. 11:46). The priestly elite, by contrast, dominates (Jn 12:10; 18:3, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 24, 26, 35; 19:6, 15, 21).

15 Witherington, Christology, 60. Morton Smith and (at least in his earlier works) Jacob Neusner have argued that Pharisaism was much less significant in the pre-70 period, and that Josephus magnified it in his later Antiquities, when Pharisaism was more popular. But cf. War 2.163, and note that Josephus may have had apologetic reason to downplay the Pharisees’ role in his earlier War (Witherington, Christology, 83-84, following Dunn).

16 One could postulate a Sitz im Leben for polemic against a Pharisaic faction within the church in the late 40s (Acts 15:5), but would such polemic generate stories about enemies of the earthly Jesus, and if traditionaries took that much liberty, would they not introduce current controversies like circumcision?

17 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 230-31. Theissen’s evidence for Pharisaic toleration in the 60s (Jos. Ant. 20.200-1; cf. War 2.162; Life 191) and late 50s (Acts 23:9) is fairly secure, as is his evidence for some hostility in the 30s (Acts 7:54-60; Gal 1:13, 23). His evidence for hostility in the early 40s (Acts 12:2 with Jos. Ant. 19.332; Gospels in Context, 231-32) is less secure. Luke’s portrayal of Pharisaism seems more ambivalent than hostile (cf. Gowler, Host, Guest, 177-296; Mason, “Chief Priests,” 134-42; Ziesler, “Luke and Pharisees”; Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 84-106; even Harnack, Acts, xxiv-xxv), but this could reflect his characters’ experience with Pharisaism rather than his pro-Pharisaic bias: what evidence we do have from him coheres with what we have from Josephus against the traditional critical expectation of conflict in the 40s-60s.

18 This is our earliest extant Christian mention of Pharisees, unless one dates Mark before the mid-50s. For Paul’s involvement in the persecution, see also 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13, 23.

19 Some find here an interpolation (Bruce, Thessalonians, 49-51; Setzer, Responses, 16-19), but more scholars today are skeptical (Collins, “Integrity”; Donfried, Thessalonica, 198-99; Witherington, End, 101; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 177, citing esp. Hurd, “I Thess. 2:13-16”). There is no textual evidence for an interpolation, so the interpolation proposal appears suspiciously like “content criticism”; the passage may reflect pre-Pauline tradition later reported in the Synoptics (see Wenham, “Apocalypse,” 361-62; Donfried, Thessalonica, 203).

20 This punishment may have been rarer in Diaspora courts (cf. p. Mak. 1:8, §1). If our later rabbinic sources shed light on earlier tradition here, it could apply to technical blasphemy (cursing with God’s name, Pesiq. Rab. 22:6), breaking ritual law (tos. Tem. 1:1), including violating festivals (p. Besah 5:2, §11; cf. m. Pes. 7:11), or breaking a Nazirite vow (m. Naz. 4:3). But one could also be beaten for more questionable infractions (as Akiba presumably was in Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; but the punishment is not corporal in the parallel in Sipre Deut. 1.3.2), including questionable teaching (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3; Gen. Rab. 7:2; Num. Rab. 19:3, 19; Eccl. Rab. 7:23, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 14:9). At least Hillelite Pharisees may have supported the later custom of making certain the person was warned before flogging him (p. Ter. 7:1) and being conservative on the offenses for which flogging was appropriate (b. Pes. 24b). The flogging could be repeated more than once if necessary, in extreme cases (b. Ker. 15a; Pes. 24a).

21 Hare, Persecution, 44; cf. Acts 5:40. Some rabbinic accounts suggest that beatings could be justified if one could demonstrate that the transgressor violated Torah (though much later, cf. the tradition in Pesiq. Rab Kahana 4:3; Pesiq. Rab. 14:9).

22 Hare, Persecution, 45-46. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:183 note reports of floggings in synagogues (Matt 10:17; 23:34; Acts 22:19; Euseb. H.E. 5.16) but suggest that, if rabbinic reports are relevant here, the language may be used loosely (perhaps instrumentally) for discipline at the order of synagogue officials, since it took place outside the synagogue building proper (citing m. Mak. 3:12, on the reasonable assumption that the person was not bound to a pillar and whipped inside).

23 Borg, Conflict, 139-43; Witherington, Christology, 66.

24 Cf. Jos. War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191.

25 See e.g., Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 84-89.

26 Vermes, “Jesus the Jew,” 118, attributing this lack of halakic concern to Galileans in general.

27 Vermes, “Jesus the Jew,” 119.

28 Le Cornu, Acts, 388, cites 4QpNah ff3 + 4i.6-8; Jos. Ant. 13.372ff; War 1.88ff, 96-98.

29 E.g., Life 272-75, 302-3. Cf. other violence in Ant. 20.180, 206-7; War 2.441-42.

30 E.g., 1QpHab 8.8-12; 9.4-7; 12.5; 4QpNah 1.11; cf. also sources in Le Cornu, Acts, 388 (adding 1QpHab 1.13; 5.9-10; 8.16; 9.2, 9-10; 11.4-5; 12.2-3; 4Q171 2.18-19; 4.8). The “Wicked Priest” has been identified (for example) with Jonathan (Rost, Judaism, 163); John Hyrcanus (Brownlee, “Messianic Motifs,” 13-15); or “the false priesthood of the Temple at any time between the Maccabean period and the fall of the Hasmonean dynasty” (Fritsch, Community, 83-84). Some have identified the “Young Lion” of 4QpNah 1.5 with Alexander Jannaeus (Allegro, “Light,” 92; Eisenman, Maccabees, 35); opined that a specific identification is impossible (Rowley, “4QpNahum”); or (utterly implausibly) even identified him with Pontius Pilate (Thiering, Hypothesis, 70). As the original teacher of righteousness became a model for the future one (CD 6.10-11) and the title probably applied to all his successors (Buchanan, “Office”), the identity of the original “Wicked Priest” may have applied to the priesthood in perpetuity. Overman, Crisis, 224 cites 4QMMT as a sample of halakic debates at Qumran. Some scholars find clues of Essene antagonism toward Pharisaism (Roth, “Subject Matter of Exegesis,” 65; idem, “Reference”; Dupont-Sommer, Manuscrits, 33; Flusser, Sage, 46-47) or Pharisaic or rabbinic opposition to the Essenes (Lieberman, “Light,” 396-400). The rabbis nevertheless reflect legal or cultural traditions often shared with Qumran, though reasons for those parallels are debated (e.g., Baumgarten, “Qumran Studies,” 256; Neusner, “Testimony”; Schiffman, Law).

31 Conflicts with Sadducees, e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.17; m. Yad. 4:7; tos. Hag. 3:35; Nid. 5:3; ARN 5A; 10B; b. Nid. 33b; Suk. 48b. As with Jesus, conflicts with Sadducees sometimes involved purity (e.g., m. Yad. 4:7; cf. Nid. 4:2).

32 Harvey, History, 51.

33 Stanton, New People, 98-102.

34 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 37-87 (for the most prominent cases, see 53; for developments in the Maccabean period, see 76). For earlier critiques of Sanders’ suspicion of conflict in the tradition, see e.g., the important essay of Dunn, “Pharisees,” and sources he cites.

35 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 88-332.

36 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 90-106.

37 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 98-99. I doubt that Jesus was actually “indifferent” toward sabbath practice (as Holmén concludes on 105), which was grounded in creation and was one of the ten commandments; but Jesus lacked the rigor of his critics in application.

38 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 221-51 (for food laws, 237-50); cf. Regev, “Individualism.” Holmén argues that Jesus was uninterested in purity; I would argue that Jesus instead dealt with it effectively by removing rather than merely separating from it.

39 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 275-329 (esp. 280-84). Holmén regards such behavior as challenging the law (330), but I would see it as a matter of priority rather than rejection. He also argues that Jesus’ teaching on divorce and oaths prove harsher than the law (157-87); but Jesus’ contemporaries did not regard it as against the law to be stricter than the law (hence, the Pharisaic fence around the law).

40 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 106-28.

41 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 128-57 (on fasting as a pious act stemming from this period, see 129; on its distinctive Jewishness, 133).

42 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 200-20 (esp. 205).

43 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 220.

44 See Lk 19:9, though this is an especially Lukan interest (Lk 13:16, 28; 16:23-30). Cf. the notion that all of Israel (except the worst transgressors of the covenant) would be saved (m. Sanh. 10:1).

45 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 251-74.

46 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 331-33.

47 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 335.

48 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 337. He doubts that contemporary Judaism emphasized the “new covenant” much, apart from possibly the Damascus Document (Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 336).

49 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 338 (noting that he sometimes relaxed and sometimes radicalized it; but that he avoided the path markers).

50 E.g., tos. Shab. 1:13; see further Abrahams, Studies 1:129-35; Safrai, “Religion,” 804-7; Sanders, Judaism, 208-11; in Asia Minor, see Trebilco, Communities, 17-18; I also discussed Sabbath practices in general in Keener, Matthew, 353-55.

51 See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 7-8.

52 See Sherk, Empire, 252-53, §198.

53 See e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.9.68-69; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 95.47; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 57; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 63-71; Jewish people were also well aware of Roman hostility toward the Sabbath (p. Hag. 2:1, §8). Hellenistic Jews emphasized it (Kraabel, “Judaism,” 142) and created apologetic for it (e.g., Aristob. frg. 5 in Euseb. P.E. 13.12.9-16).

54 E.g., Jub. 2.

55 Jub. 2:21, 30.

56 P. Ned. 3:9, §3; cf. Lev. Rab. 3:1. Later rabbis regularly extolled the Sabbath (e.g., Gen. Rab. 10:9-11:10; Pesiq. Rab. 23:7-8); some even suggested that the Messiah would come if all Israel kept the Sabbath together (Ex. Rab. 25:12).

57 Jos. Apion 2.175. Josephus heavily emphasizes sabbath observance (cf. e.g., Weiss, “Sabbath”). Second-century rabbis also expected at least some children to study Torah under a teacher on Friday evenings (Safrai, “Education,” 954, cites m. Shab. 1:3; tos. Shab. 1:12).

58 Jos. Life 279.

59 E.g., tos. Ket. 1:1; b. Shab. 12b; see further Westerholm and Evans, “Sabbath,” 1031-32.

60 1 Macc 2:34-38, 41. Neikiprowetzky, “Sabbat,” contends that the situation of war helped generate sabbath casuistry. One could also kill a threatening animal (p. Shab. 14:1, §2).

61 M. Pes. 6:2 (Akiba); tos. Pisha 5:1; with regard to warfare, Jos. Life 159, 161 (other peoples had also observed holy days that disallowed offensive warfare; e.g., Xen. Hell. 6.4.16; Thucyd. 5.54.2-4; 5.75.5; 5.82.2-3; 8.9.1; Ovid Fasti 3.811-12). The later practice of a Sabbath goy (e.g., Deut. Rab. 1:21; for sheep-tending, tos. Shebiit 2:20; p. Shebiit 3:3, 34c) would not have been viewed favorably (CD 11.2; m. Shab. 16:8; tos. Shab. 13:9; cf. Ex 20:10; Deut 5:14).

62 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 13; cf. Falk, Pharisee, 149, on tos. Shab. 17:14; see further, e.g., m. Yoma 8:6; tos. Shab. 12:12-13; p. Erub. 10:11; M.S. 2:1, §4; Shab. 6:3; further discussion in Keener, Matthew, 357-58. Later rabbis preferred death to Sabbath violation if to pagans the latter would imply apostasy (b. Sanh. 74b).

63 See Keener, John, 716-17. Against many commentators, Jesus may not even be opposing Sabbath law in Jn 5:17-18 (see Keener, John, 645-47).

64 Vermes, Religion, 13.

65 Probably true today as well as earlier in history. Levine, “Theory,” rightly observes that scholars sometimes use their models (in the case she discusses, sociological ones) to arrive at a Jesus perfectly amenable to modern liberals.

66 E.g., p. Meg. 1:6, §2; such punishment had biblical warrant (e.g., Num 15:32-36).

67 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 18-19.

68 See CD 10.14-11.18, prohibiting talk of work (10.19) and lifting dust (11.10-11); cf. Jos. War 2.147-49, prohibiting even defecation; Jub. 50:1-13 and comments in Finkelstein, Making, 205-11; 4Q251, frg. 1; 4Q265 frg. 7, 1.6-9); those who forgot the Sabbath were apostate (1Q22, 7-8; Jub. 1:10). Some argue the Scrolls represent broader Jewish tradition before Akiba (Kimbrough, “Sabbath”), but parallels in Philo may suggest that the more lenient customs, while not universal, predate the Tannaim (see Belkin, Philo, 192-203).

69 Jub. 50:8.

70 Jub. 50:12-13.

71 Contrast pagans who associated the Sabbath and fasting (e.g., Mart. Epig. 4.4.7; Suet. Aug. 76; Strabo 16.2.40), perhaps confusing the Sabbath with Yom Kippur.

72 See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 18; Sanders, Judaism, 367, citing CD 12.3-6.

73 See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 22-23, 90; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 266. The Pharisees tolerated all sorts of disputes, including concerning varied interpretations of Sabbath law (cf. Riesenfeld, Tradition, 117-18).

74 E.g., tos. Shab. 16:22; b. Shab. 5b, bar., early second century.

75 E.g., tos. Shab. 16:21; cf. b. Shab. 18b.

76 The priestly Sadducean aristocracy appears to have clashed with both Essenes (1QpHab 8.8- 12; 9.4-7; 12.5; 4QpNah 1.11) and Pharisees (Jos. Ant. 18.17; m. Yad. 4:7; tos. Hag. 3:35; Nid. 5:3; ARN 5A; 10B; b. Nid. 33b; Suk. 48b).

77 See Keener, Matthew, 351-54; cf. also Borg, Conflict, 139-43.

78 Jos. Life 302; but this provoked a backlash of the common people in Josephus’ defense (Life 303).

79 Besides Holmén, noted above, see Borg, Conflict, 145-62.

80 Public prayer and study of Torah must have consumed some of each Sabbath (Jos. Apion 1.209; 2.175). Even in more hellenized cities, around 6 p.m. Friday evening religious Jews left secular activities, including political assemblies, and began their Sabbath dinner (Jos. Life 279). Most Jewish people seem to have observed traditional limits on Sabbath day’s journeys (CD 10.20-21; Acts 1:12; cf. Num. Rab. 2:9; Ruth Rab. 6:4; for circumventing by means of Sabbath residences, e.g., p. Maas. 2:3; m. Erub. passim). Bowker (Pharisees, 39) suggests that the Pharisees made use here of their permitted Sabbath-day’s journey (something Sadduccees apparently prohibited), about 1100 meters (2000 cubits, based on Num 35:5; m. Sot. 5:3; m. Erub. 4:3; 5:7; b. Erub. 45a; Suk. 44b; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 10); perhaps seeing Jesus take his disciples to the fields, they confronted them there. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:307 cite b. Shab. 127a for a rabbi in the field on the Sabbath. Witherington, Christology, 67 suggests that Mk 2:24 does not actually identify the Pharisees’ location (Matthew is more explicit, but elsewhere abbreviates accounts by omitting clarifying details, e.g., omitting messengers in 8:5-8; 9:18-19). Wheat was ready for harvest and gleaning in April (Stauffer, Jesus, 84).

81 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 198, 265; idem, Jesus to Mishnah, 1, 20-21; Anderson, Mark, 109.

82 Jeremias, Theology, 278-79; Stauffer, Jesus, 85, 207. Powerful Jerusalemites could send aristocratic delegations, which could include Pharisees, to Galilee (Jos. Life 21, 28-29, 72-73, 196).

83 Casey, “Culture,” accepts the account as authentic; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 21; idem, Jesus and Judaism, 265 accepts the exchange as authentic, rejecting only its narrative frame.

84 Prohibited in m. Shab. 7:2; though cf. m. Peah 2:7-8; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:307 cite Philo Vit. Mos. 2.22; p. Shab. 9c. Essenes (probably the strictest Jewish Sabbath-keepers) forbade so much as scooping up drinking water in a vessel (CD 11.1-2)!

85 On normal days one could glean, picking heads of standing grain (Deut 23:25). Whereas the law forbade preparing food on the Sabbath (Ex 16:22-30; 35:3; Jos. War 2.147; CD 10.9), they were not technically “preparing” it; and the law certainly did not forbid eating it (cf. Jos. Life 279).

86 Contrary to pagan views (Strabo 16.2.40; Mart. Epig. 4.4.7; Suet. Aug. 76; cf. Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 130-32), Jewish tradition even prohibited fasting on the Sabbath (CD 11.4-5; Jub. 50:12-13; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 13 cites Jdt 8:6; Jos. Life 279; m. Taan. 1.6).

87 Cf. Borg, Conflict, 154.

88 Cf. Borg, Conflict, 152-53.

89 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 20.

90 Borg, Conflict, 153; cf. ARN 32, §72B.

91 Because the high priest thought that David had companions with him (1 Sam 21:2-5), his actions indicate the kind of exceptions that both David and the high priest thought appropriate whether or not David was lying (he probably was). Matt 12:5-6 adds an analogy to which Jesus’ detractors could have offered less objection (cf. Saldarini, Community, 129).

92 M. Yoma 8:6; cf. p. A.Z. 2:2, §3.

93 M. Shab. 14:4; cf. m. Shab. 6:2.

94 Tos. Shab. 12:12.

95 M. Eduy. 2:5; Shab. 22:6; Yoma 8:6; Lachs, Commentary, 199-200 adds Mek. on Ex. 31:13.

96 Cf. this entire discussion in Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 13; idem, Figure, 208.

97 Cf. Danker, New Age, 77; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 21; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 84.

98 Tos. Shab. 16:22; cf. Sanders, Figure, 268.

99 Acts 5:34-40; 23:6-9; Jos. Ant. 20.200-1.

100 Stanton, New People, 98.

101 P. Shab. 1:4.

102 Falk, Pharisee, 118-27, limits this probably too narrowly to Shammaites, although as the dominant majority before 70 they probably did comprise the bulk of his Pharisaic opposition.

103 E.g., tos. Yoma 5:12; b. Sot. 41b-42a; Pes. 113b; in Odeberg, Pharisaism, 63.

104 M. Sot. 3:4; ARN 37A; 45, §124B; b. Sot. 22b, bar.; p. Sot. 5:5, §2. See further Moore, Judaism, 2:193; Sandmel, Judaism, 160-61; cf. Rubenstein, “Hypocrites.” For love as a motivation superior to fear, see also b. Sota 31a.

105 B. Yoma 72b.

106 Cf. Bonsirven, Judaism, 58.

107 B. Sanh. 103a; Yoma 86b; Moore, Judaism, 2:190 (citing, e.g., b. Sot. 41b; 42a).

108 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:260-67 (on Matt 23, the harshest of the critiques).

109 Cf. e.g., 1QS 1.22-24; CD 4.13, 16; 19.14; as the “congregation of Belial,” see 1QH 2.22-23.

110 See e.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.89-111; Tac. Hist. 5.5; Diod. Sic. 34.3; Raspe, “Manetho on Exodus.”

111 It is difficult to deny that Jesus authentically uttered at least some “woes” (Matt 11:21//Lk 10:13).

112 See especially Johnson, “Slander.” Thus, for example, Josephus complains that the accusations of a particular opponent of Judaism merely prove the accuser’s ignorance and inferior moral character (Apion 2.3); the accuser, he opines, is like a dog or an ass (2.85).

113 Overman, Gospel, 16-23; cf. McKnight, “Critic.”

114 Overman, Gospel, 17-18, including Qumran (1QpHab 7.1-5; Overman, Gospel, 24-25), 1 En. 99:10-12 and Psalms of Solomon (ibid., pp. 26-27). In 2 Baruch the law reveals who is wicked (41:3; 51:4; 54:14; ibid., p. 27), as in 4 Ezra (9:36-37; ibid., pp. 27-28). Josephus regards the Pharisees as the law’s most accurate interpreters (War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191; Ant. 17.41; cf. Acts 22:3; 26:5), further suggesting that this was a focus of debate within post-70 Judaism (ibid., pp. 68-71).

115 Jos. Ant. 17.41-42. Josephus is further known to inflate numbers (cf. Feldman, “Introduction: Josephus,” 45-46; Safrai, “Description in Works,” esp. 320-21).

116 Avi-Yonah, “Geography,” 109-10, argues for a population of about 2,800,000 for pre-70 Jewish Palestine; some estimate at about 2.5 (Jeffers, World, 213) or 3 million (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 83). But estimates vary between one and six million (McRay, Archaeology and NT, 123).

117 Boccaccini, Judaism, 215.

118 Jos. Life 291.

119 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:271.

120 See more fully Keener, Matthew, 536-37; cf. Bauer, “Characters,” 366; Luz, Matthew, 76; Viviano, “World.” Some Christian preachers have caricaturized ancient Pharisaic piety to avoid the demands Jesus’ condemnations otherwise would make on Christians today (see the critique of this caricature in Odeberg, Pharisaism).

121 Matt 23:6-7//Lk 11:43 overlaps with Mk 12:38-39.

122 This saying undoubtedly goes back to an original Aramaic saying of Jesus; Luke’s “rue” (Lk 11:42) translates an Aramaic word that resembles the Aramaic term for “dill” (Matt 23:23; Argyle, Matthew, 175; Borg, Conflict, 100). “Cummin” is a Semitic term (Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 7).

123 Cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 254.

124 Probably m. M.S. 4:5.

125 M. Demai 2:1.

126 Cf. Goulder, Midrash, 22. Hepper, Plants, 132-33 argues that the text refers to the horse-mint (M. longifolia; the traditional spearmint entered this region only later).

127 M. Uktzin 3:6; for this information, see Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 48. By the second century, rabbis exempted “rue” (Lk 11:42) from requirement for tithe, suggesting to some that Matthew may preserve the more original wording here (m. Sheb. 9:1; McNamara, Judaism, 204; Gundry, Matthew, 463, who usually favors Luke).

128 See Odeberg, Pharisaism, 43.

129 Sipra VDDeho. par. 1.34.1.3, par. 12.65.1.3; ARN 1, §8B; b. Men. 43b; cf. Johnston, “Least of Commandments,” 207. Some texts offered summaries of fundamental principles (e.g., Deut 10:12-13; Mic 6:8).

130 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 32.

131 Cf. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 38. Some (Schweizer, Matthew, 441; Gundry, Matthew, 464; Lachs, Commentary, 370, citing b. Hul. 67a; cf. Shab. 20a) also claim that Pharisees strained everything “through a cloth.” While this practice may have occurred (on the use of cloths and other filters in antiquity, see e.g., Hurschmann, “Filter”), it appears unclear how widespread it was in this period.

132 Ach. Tat. 2.21.4-5; 2.22.

133 Babrius 84.

134 Cf. b. Ket. 67a. Jesus uses a camel in a graphic image in Mk 10:25 whereas Babylonian sages used an elephant; possibly Jesus shared the camel image with other Judean teachers (cf. Abrahams, Studies 2:208; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 230; Jeremias, Parables, 195; Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 166). That Jesus there uses a camel as hyperbole for something impossibly large is consistent with his usage here.

135 Black, Aramaic Approach, 175-76; Stein, Method and Message, 13; Chilton, Approaches, 119. Prophets had often used puns to foretell judgment (the Hebrew of Amos 8:2; Mic 1:10-15; Jer 1:11-12).

136 The Mishnah regularly distinguishes between inner and outer parts of vessels with respect to cleanness (McNamara, Judaism, 197, cites m. Kel. 25:1-9; Par. 12:8; Toh. 8:7), and some discussions of cleanness go back to the first-century disputes between the schools of Shammai and Hillel (b. Shab. 14b, bar.).

137 Neusner, “Cleanse,” 492-94; m. Ber. 8:2. Cf. b. Ber. 51a; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 39; though cf. also the skepticism here of Maccoby, “Washing.”

138 Neusner, “Cleanse,” 495, thinks that the Gospel writers after 70 did not understand the original application. Yet while Matthew probably writes after 70, his own learning in the law probably predates 70, and he may have known earlier Pharisaic views. Given Jesus’ larger range of teachings on purity, he undoubtedly intended his saying metaphorically, as Matthew infers.

139 Black, Aramaic Approach, 2; Burney, Origin, 9; Argyle, Matthew, 176. Luke, who may have known translations from both versions, may have adopted the version most useful to him (utility supplying the dominant ancient Jewish criterion for text criticism). By contrast, Gundry, Matthew, 466 suggests an original play on words by Jesus himself.

140 Touching a bier (Lk 7:14) would also have this effect.

141 Num 19:11-14; Jos. Ant. 18.38; m. Kel. 1:4. Pharisees extended this further than Sadducees (m. Yad. 4:7; cf. ARN 41A).

142 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 34, 232. Cf. CD 12.15-17 (wood, stone, nails, or dust in a room); 4QMMT section B, lines 72-74 (a piece of a bone); Maccoby, “Corpse”; for later exceptions, probably following the purported cleansing of Tiberias (on which see e.g., Levine, “Purification”), cf. e.g., b. Bek. 29b; Ber. 19b; B.M. 114b. In “cases of doubt” (e.g., Sipra Taz. pq.1.123.1.6), as in Lk 10:30-32, the priest and Levite might well avoid the possible corpse (cf. Borg, Conflict, 104-5; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 41-42), in practice if not in theory (cf. ARN 11A); though cf. p. Nazir 7:1, §§7, 15; Abrahams, Studies 1:110.

143 M. M.K. 1:2; M.S. 5:1; Shek. 1:1; b. B.M. 85b; p. M.K. 1:2, §7; for other warning markers see tos. M.S. 5:13.

144 Argyle, Matthew, 176; Schweizer, Matthew, 442; Meier, Matthew, 271; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 39.

145 Borrowing the image from Ezek 13:10-12. Luke’s form of the saying is thus probably closer to the original wording (Gundry, Matthew, 466; Borg, Conflict, 113-14), although Jesus may have originally alluded to the way first-century Jews treated the exterior of the very common limestone ossuaries to beatify them (Lachs, “Matthew 23:27-28”). Flusser, Sage, 45, argues that Essenes called Pharisees “whitewashed” (CD 8.12; 19.25), and a Sadducean sympathizer denounced them as “painted” (b. Sot. 22b).

146 Abrahams, Studies, 2:30, citing similar puns in Ps 5 and Jer 5:16.

147 This is not to suggest that ancient Judaism simply conflated ritual and moral impurity (see Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin”; Klawans, “Impurity”; idem, “Idolatry”); Klawans, “Purity,” 283, argues that only Qumran actually identified the two (in 275, he argues that the rabbis normally distinguish impurity from sin).

148 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:7; Pesiq. Rab. 14:14; Jeremias, Theology, 211. On the authenticity of Mk 7:15, see Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 245-49 (supporting it).

149 Cf. Philo Migr. Abr. 89-93; probably Ps.-Phoc. 228. This could be a temptation especially in the Diaspora, as later Gentile Christianity could be used to illustrate.

150 I treat these in greater detail in Keener, Matthew, 540-54.

151 E.g., suspending the sabbath for defensive warfare (1 Macc 2:34-38, 41).

152 Sipre Deut. 175.1.3.

153 E.g., remains of synagogues suggest seating by rank: the elders sat on the raised platform with the Torah scroll, facing the congregation (tos. Meg. 4:21; Lachs, Commentary, 367). In the same way esteemed sages were granted special rank (tos. Sanh. 7:8; b. Hor. 13b, bar; p. Sanh. 1:2, §13; Taan. 4:2, §§8-9). Most of the people respected sages and their disciples (Goodman, State, 77-78), and honors for rabbis seem to have grown in time (cf. e.g., Neusner, Sat, 76, 101). Later rabbis believed that the whole town must mourn when a sage died (tos. M.K. 2:17); disciples served rabbis (ARN 25A; Gen. Rab. 22:2) and could not give legal rulings in the presence of their own teachers (Sipra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.5.6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:6/7).

154 The Eighteen Benedictions also emphasize God’s “power” to raise the dead. They do not, however, connect this power with the martyr tradition of offering oneself completely as a sacrifice for martyrdom.

155 In Scripture, see e.g., 1 Kgs 18:4, 13; 2 Chron 25:16 (esp. relevant for Matthew’s context); Jer 26:20-23; for more general persecution, Amos 2:12; 7:12-13; Is 30:10. Jewish tradition amplified prophetic martyrology further (e.g., Jos. Ant. 10.38; 1 En. 89:51; Jub. 1:12; Liv. Pr. passim; see Urbach, Sages, 1:560; Michel, Prophet und Märtyrer; Schoeps, “Prophetenmorde”; Hare, Persecution, 137-38; Jeremias, Theology, 280; Manson, Sayings, 126-27; Tilborg, Leaders, 46-72; Amaru, “Killing”; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:465), as did later Christian (the interpolation in Sib. Or. 2.248) and Islamic (Qur’an 4.155; 5.70) tradition.

156 Jos. Ant. 14.22-24; this is rabbinic literature’s “Honi the Circle-Drawer” (m. Ta?an. 3:8).

157 So also Jeremias, Theology, 146. The “tombs” of Matt 23:29//Lk 11:47 may appear here by means of a verbal link with Matt 23:27//Lk 11:44 (early Christians undoubtedly linked Jesus’ sayings as Jewish interpreters linked biblical texts). Veneration of holy persons’ and ancestral tombs is an ancient practice in the Middle East (Diod. Sic. 17.17.3; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.24.6; 11.10.1; Argyle, Matthew, 176; Hill, Matthew, 313), but Judean care for prophets’ tombs seems to have particularly flourished around Jesus’ time (Jeremias, Theology, 146 n. 2; Schweizer, Matthew, 442-43). Herod’s and Hyrcanus’ detractors accused them of violating David’s tomb (near Jerusalem; Neh 3:16; ARN 35A; tos. B.B. 1:11; cf. Acts 2:29; see Jos. Ant. 7.392-94; 13.249; 16.179-84; War 1.61) whereas others reported only his monument for David (Jos. Ant. 16.183-84); notable monuments for others who were deceased also appear in this period (Ant. 18.108; 20.95; Carmon, Inscriptions, 120, 252, §255).

158 Cf. Keener, “Brood of Vipers,” 9-10.

159 The order of the Hebrew canon was not yet fixed in this period (though cf. Beckwith, Canon, 211-22; Nowell, “Order”); unlike codices, scrolls could not normally accommodate all the Tanakh in any case. Nevertheless, this saying apparently reflects a milieu following a Hebrew rather than a Septuagint sequence adopted by later Christians (an observation that might be counted in favor of the saying’s antiquity).

160 E.g., L.A.B. 16:2; Test. Ab. 13:2A; 11:2B; Life of Adam 23; Apoc. Mos. 2-3; 40:4-5; 1 Clem. 3; Asc. Isa. 9:8.

161 Test. Iss. 5:4.

162 See also Heb 11:4; 12:24; Jub. 4:3; 1 En. 22:6-7; ARN 31A; Gen. Rab. 22:9. Jewish tradition naturally amplified the judgment on Cain (e.g., Jub. 4:31-32; Test. Benj. 7:3-5; ARN 41A; Gen. Rab. 97 NV). Blood crying out for vengeance becomes an accepted principle (Sib. Or. 3.310-13; Pesiq. Rab. 24:1; cf. Deut 21:9; Aqhat in ANET 154; 1 En. 9:1-2).

163 So e.g., Gundry, Matthew, 471-72; France, Matthew, 330-31; Urbach, Sages, 1:559; Lachs, Commentary, 372. By calling his father “Berechiah,” Matthew probably conflates this Zechariah with the prophet who wrote the book of Zechariah (see Gundry, Matthew, 471; for conflation of these two Zechariahs in later Jewish tradition, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:319; for later Byzantine conflation surrounding Zechariah, see Puech and Zias, “Tombeau”). But that Matthew’s conflation here is accidental is no more likely than in the transformation of “Amon” and “Asa” into “Amos” and “Asaph” in Matt 1:7-8, 10.

164 B. Git. 57b; p. Taan. 4:5, §14; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:7; Lam. Rab. 2:2, §4; 4:13, §16; Eccl. Rab. 3:16, §1; 10:4, §1; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:559. The tradition appears in later sources, but our largest body of texts (rabbinic literature) includes less haggadah in the earlier collections, and Jesus’ words in Q (Matt 23:35; Lk 11:51) may well presuppose a tradition like this one.

165 Even Matthew’s report that Jesus invited his opponents to “fill up” their ancestors’ propheticidal deeds (Matt 23:32) may reflect early traditional language (cf. 1 Thess 2:16; Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 90).

166 Lives of Prophets 23:1; Sipra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.1; p. Taan. 4:5, §14; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:7; Lam. Rab. 2:20, §23.

167 Cf. Jos. Ant. 20.165-66; Krieger, “Feuer.” After 70, Jewish prayers also confessed that Israel’s sins had brought on the calamity of exile (noted by Neusner, Beginning, 19-20, although he disagrees with their verdict). While some sources blame Rome or Israel as a whole, Josephus joins some of the Gospels in blaming the religious leaders (Hearon, “Read”). Later rabbis used this model to chart their own course for Israel (see e.g., Rubenstein, “Narrative”).

168 Sib. Or. 3.312; Test. Zeb. 2:2; b. Shab. 33a; Yoma 9b.

169 E.g., 2 Chron 23:14-15; cf. Matt 27:6. Shrines often functioned as sanctuaries of refuge (Ex 21:14; 1 Kgs 2:28-29; Diod. Sic. 11.89.6-8; 16.58.6; 17.41.8), and bloodshed there both revealed the wickedness of the killers, inviting judgment (e.g., Diod. Sic. 13.90.1; 17.13.6; Paus. 7.24.6; Jos. Apion 2.57), and desecrated the shrine (e.g., Dio Cass. R.H. 51.15.5; Diod. Sic. 14.4.6-7; 38/39.17.1).

170 Typically in the Mediterranean world people honored the sanctity not only of sanctuaries but also of ancestral tombs (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 11.10.1; Appian R.H. 8.12.89); thus, for example, destroying such tombs was hideous (Jos. Apion 2.58).

171 Jesus here utters another lament (the Aramaic fits the rhythm of a funeral dirge — Manson, Sayings, 126; Minear, Hope, 107). In contrast to the woes earlier in Matthew’s context (Matt 23:13-29), Jesus’ words in Matt 23:37 represent a true lament (cf. Baum, Jews and Gospel, 54).

172 E.g., Ex 19:4; Deut 32:11; Ps 17:8; 36:7; 63:7; 91:4; 1 En. 39:7; Sipre Deut. 296.3.1; 306.4.1; 314.1.1- 6; Pesiq. Rab. 4:1.

173 Cf. 2 Bar. 41:4; ARN 12A; Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.1.4; Sipre Num. 80.1.1; b. A.Z. 13b; Shab. 31a; Gen. Rab. 47:10; Song Rab. 1:1, §10; 1:3, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 14:2 (probably these sources develop Ruth 2:12). For the expression in general, cf. 3 En. 7:1.

174 Jer 8:21-22; 9:1, 10; Lam. Rab. Proem 24; Stern, Parables, 126-27; contrast Gentile Christian tradition as early as the second century (cf. Bokser, “Justin,” 205-6). Judaism never forgot the biblical picture of God’s special love for Israel (see e.g., the sources in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 58- 85).

175 Glasson, Advent, 96-98; Goppelt, Judaism, 96; Aune, Prophecy, 176; Patte, Matthew, 329.

176 Cf. e.g., Ezek 36:33; Amos 9:8-12; Tob 13:6; Jub. 1:15-18; Rom 11:25-27; b. Sanh. 97b.

177 Cf. Allison, “Prophecy.”

↑ Back to top