We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
There are several references in the gospels of John and Matthew which indicate that members of the Pharisaic sect associated with the Jewish chief priests in a quasi-authoritative way to work for common religious or political purposes. Where these references have occurred, they have attracted attention – and indeed suspicion – as being historically inaccurate and the result of a retrojection of the role of the Pharisees in the later first century into the earlier periods of that century.
1 History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (2nd ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1979) 84.Google Scholar
2 Martyn, , History, 85.Google Scholar
3 Martyn, , History, 85.Google Scholar Martyn's wording implies that the combination is John's creation.
4 Martyn, , History, 85.Google Scholar This position has recently been adopted by Brown, R. E. in The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994) 1432–3:Google Scholar ‘In these scenes [7.32–49; 11.47; 11.57] through stress on the Pharisees John may be making tradition about the priestly opposition to Jesus more contemporary in the 80s and 90s, after the loss of priestly power through destruction of the Temple, when the Pharisees had emerged as the main Jewish opponents of the Johannine community.’ See also 249.
I would agree that the gospel of John incorporates material designed to deal with issues confronting the Johannine community at the end of the first century. The present discussion should in no way be construed as denying that. The present topic is whether the combination of the terms ‘Pharisees and chief priests’ is anachronistic and was created by the Johannine author to convey these two levels of the drama.
5 Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (BEvT 33; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1966) 15–17.Google Scholar
6 Hummel, , Auseinandersetzung, 16.Google Scholar
7 Hummel, , Auseinandersetzung, 16.Google Scholar
8 Martyn and Hummel fail to note that the combination also occurs in J.W. 2.17.2 §411.
9 Rengstorf, K. H., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1968ff.).Google Scholar
10 Quotations from Josephus are taken from Josephus (LCL, vols. 1–9; Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1926–1956).Google Scholar
11 The first mention of the γνωρίμοι is unspecified but it is clear from the second reference that the Pharisees are intended.
12 So also Saldarini, A., Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees (Wilmington: M. Glazier, 1988) 101–2.Google ScholarGoodman, Martin (The Ruling Class in Judea [Cambridge: University, 1987] 119)CrossRefGoogle Scholar argues that it was precisely because it was a matter of religious interpretation that the involvement of the Pharisees would be desired. While this could perhaps be argued in the present case and could also be seen as a reason for the Pharisaic involvement in Matt 26.62, it was not the case universally. See for example the following two cases cited from Josephus.
13 The Jewish War was probably published during the reign of Titus (79–81) and so only thirteen years after the events it reports. See for example, Attridge, H. W., ‘Josephus and His Works’, Chapter 5 of Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, 192–3;Google ScholarSaldarini, , Pharisees, 82.Google Scholar
Nor is it likely that the role of the Pharisees in this passage is a result of a pro-Pharisaic bias on the part of Josephus. Even a scholar such as Smith, M. (‘Palestinian Judaism in the First Century’, in Israel and Its Role in Civilization [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1956] 75–7)Google Scholar who proposed a pro-Pharisaic bias in Josephus confirms that this is hardly evident in the Jewish War but becomes apparent only in the Antiquities.
14 The phrase here is not precisely the one used in the Christian gospels. The Pharisaic participants are described as being ‘the leaders’ (οί πρώτοι) of the Pharisees. In J.W. 2.17.2 §409–17, where the combination also appears, it is not the Pharisees indiscriminately who are mentioned but the ‘notables’ (οί γνώριμοι). This will be discussed later.
15 Saldarini, , Pharisees, 102–3.Google Scholar
16 Saldarini, , Pharisees, 103.Google Scholar
17 Δημοτικοί(‘of the populace’) is probably intended to contrast with those of the priestly class.
18 Sanders, E. P. (Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 C E [Philadelphia: Trinity/London: SCM, 1992])Google Scholar generally supports a view that the Pharisees exercised a moderate influence within societal and political affairs. However to say that ‘they achieved a position of leadership’ (p. 412) during the revolt seems too strong. They continued to exert influence as they had in the period before, but this is not the same as leadership, something that is supported neither by the passages in Josephus nor by those in the gospels.
19 Cohen, S. J. D. (Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian [Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8; Leiden: Brill, 1979] 7–8)Google Scholar gives several examples.
20 For example, Noaros (J.W. 2.18.6 §481) is Varos (Life 11 §50); Annaios (J.W. 2.21.3 §597) is Iannaios (Life 26 §131). The names of fortified cities are different in J.W. 2.20.6 §573–4 and in Life 37 §187–8. These examples are taken from Cohen, Josephus, 7.
21 For example, there is the awkward comment in Ant. 13.10.5 §288 which is best quoted in full: ‘As for Hyrcanus, the envy of the Jews was aroused against him by his own successes and those of his sons; particularly hostile to him were the Pharisees, who are one of the Jewish schools, as we have related above. And so great is their influence with the masses that even when they speak against a king or high priest, they immediately gain credence. Hyrcanus too was a disciple of theirs …’
The reference to the Pharisees' opposition to ‘a king or high priest’ does not fit the time of Hyrcanus, nor the time of Josephus as he writes but only the time of Schwartz, Herod. D. R. (‘Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees’, JSJ 14.2 [1983] 157–71)Google Scholar has argued that this passage is in fact not Josephus' composition but a passage taken from Nicolaus of Damascus, one of his sources. Even if the passage is not from Nicolaus, it should not be treated as a parallel to texts which combine Pharisees with chief priests. The terms used are not in themselves inaccurate; they are ‘simply’ anachronistic and identifiable as such by the keen observer.
22 Saldarini, , Pharisees, 261–4.Google Scholar Other biblical passages where scribes appear include 1 Chron 23.1–6; 2 Sam 24.1; Esther 6.1; 9.3; Ezek 7.24.
23 Ant. 6.6.4 §120.
24 Schwartz, ‘Josephus and Nicolaus’.
25 Saldarini, , Pharisees, 128–32.Google Scholar
26 Mason, S., Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees (Studia Post-Biblica 39; Leiden: Brill, 1991) esp. 325–71.Google Scholar
27 Again we are not able to enter into detailed discussion, but Mason in his conclusions provides four significant reasons for arguing that it is unlikely ‘Josephus’ assumption of Pharisaic predominance is his (post-70) invention’: (a) Pharisaic predominance ‘is an assumption which appears even in incidental comments; (b) it is presupposed by stories which must have had a pre-Josephan origin; (c) Josephus was only directly acquainted with the pre-70 state of affairs in Palestine; (d) most importantly, Josephus’ tendency is to lament the popularity and influence of the Pharisees. But this ongoing lament over Pharisaic predominance would be unnecessary – indeed it would make no sense – if the Pharisees did not hold a dominant position in pre-70 Palestine. Josephus had no discernible reason to invent their popularity, since he regarded it as an unpleasant fact of life’ (Josephus, 372– 3).
28 Josephus portrays the Pharisees as being involved politically from his first mention of them at the time of Alexandria Salome, the wife of Alexander Jannaeus. They were portrayed at that time as having been entrusted with the actual running of the government by Alexandria Salome. At the time of Herod, they are viewed much as another political party.
See Neusner, J., From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973) 52;Google Scholar but see also Saldarini, , Pharisees, 98–101.Google Scholar
29 In John, it seems that the Pharisees and the chief priests together wield internal power, that is, both together send attendants in 7.32 and both together seem to call together the Sanhedrin. Does this mean that the Pharisees have direct executive power? I think not, at least in these matters. I think it is precisely the fact that they must join together with the chief priests in each case that shows they do not have independent power. It should be remembered that, according to the portrayal in Josephus, there were Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. But these Pharisees represented a distinct viewpoint. That is why the delegation to Josephus from Jerusalem was made up as it was. This indicates that even though one could be both a Pharisee and a chief priest, the fact that one was a Pharisee would mean that the individual would be responsive to and agitated by certain issues that one would not be if one was not a Pharisee. Thus both views are present and represented on the Sanhedrin. When the arrest is said to be achieved by both, this indicates the influence of both groups and the fact that this action was perceived as appropriate by both leading ideologies within the Sanhedrin.
30 Only the phrasing here is awkward in the way the police are described as being ‘of the chief priests and the Pharisees’. Certainly the Pharisees as such would not have the authority with regard to these police. However the fact that the portrayal of what the Pharisees are able, and not able, to do independently is maintained so consistently elsewhere throughout the gospel argues for seeing this simply as awkward phrasing. See below.
31 It should be noted that the argument here is that the portrayal is ‘harmonious’ with the portrayal in these texts in Josephus. It is not impossible that other groups could join with the chief priests to approach the Roman authorities. For such an event, see Josephus, J.W. 2.14.8 §301–2 which is discussed below in the treatment of the Matthean texts.
32 It should also be noted that it is not argued or concluded here that all action of the Pharisees requires the cooperation of the chief priests. Such a conclusion is beyond the scope of this study, which is intended to demonstrate that the portrayal of coalitions from time to time among the Pharisees and chief priests are historically verisimilar and not a Johannine, Matthean, or Josephan invention.
Nevertheless some observations can be made on further dimensions of the relationships. First, the Pharisees are presented as acting in religious ways without the presence of the chief priests. For example in 1.24 and 4.1 the Pharisees are presented as engaged in religious inquiry and act in these religious ways alone; the same is true of 9.13–34. In fact even in 11.46, the people first go to the Pharisees and then it is the Pharisees who go to the chief priests in order to convene the Sanhedrin. Conversely, it is only in matters of official action: arrest (7.32; 11.57), trial (7.45–52), conviction and sentencing to death (11.47–50), that the interaction with chief priests becomes necessary. Whether the action of 9.22 would be conceived of as requiring the cooperation of the chief priests is in itself debatable.
Moreover, a number of aporiai indicate that 9.18–22 is not part of the original text of the episode. Here the religious authorities are identified as Ίουδαῖοι (rather than Φαρισαῖοι). Only here is the fact of the man being born blind questioned. Only here in the episode do people fear the authorities; the man himself talks back to them quite forthrightly. It will also be noted that in all instances where people are said to fear the authorities, the term Ίουδαῖοι is used (7.13; 9.22; 19.38; 20.19) never Φαρισαῖοι. Only in these verses are the authorities presented as already having reached not only unanimity of opinion but also a formal decision regarding excommunication – as opposed to the part of the passage where the authorities are described as Pharisees and where they are still indicating uncertainty and division (cf. 9.16). Nor is the action of the Pharisees in v. 34 formal excommunication (which used the term present in v. 22) but simply removing him from their sight in disgust.
12.42 suggests that the Pharisees alone could make the decision about expelling a person from the synagogue. Although the text shows signs of editing and a combination of material from separate editorial strata, nevertheless it may have been possible for Pharisees to reach such decisions unilaterally, in the light of the distinction between religious actions and those involving arrest, trial, etc. See above.
33 Brown, , Death, 1432.Google Scholar
34 The fact that the occurrences in Josephus take place at the time of the revolt could suggest that the Pharisees assumed such an active role only at a time of national crisis.
If then John portrays them as actively engaged with the chief priests over the issue of Jesus, does this mean that John wants to portray the situation as so critical as the revolt? This is possible. Certainly at 11.48 the Pharisees and chief priests speak as if a national disaster is imminent: ‘If we leave him thus, all will believe in him and the Romans will come and will take away our Temple and our nationhood.’ Also in 12.19 the alarm of the Pharisees seems to be extreme: ‘Look, you are not accomplishing anything. The whole world is going after him.’
However it is also true that the evidence of Josephus, as extensive as it is, could not claim to portray all such instances of collaboration. While we can say that they did collaborate at the time of the revolt, and therefore at times of national crisis, we cannot be sure this is the only time they did so.
35 Matthew does not show a consistent pattern of either editing Marcan parallels to introduce or to emphasize the role of the Pharisees. At times Matthew seems to emphasize the role of the Pharisees over against Marcan parallels. In 9.11 (Mark 2.17), he changes Mark's ‘scribes and Pharisees’ to ‘Pharisees’; in 12.14 (Mark 3.6) he leaves out Mark's ‘Herodians’ retaining only ‘Pharisees’; in 22.15–16 (Mark 12.13) he attributes the planning to trap Jesus in word to the ‘Pharisees’ alone but retains the ‘Herodians’ as being among those who actually try to do so. In 22.34 (Mark 12.28) he changes Mark's ‘scribes’ to ‘Pharisees’.
But Matthew takes over the Marcan text without change in many other instances: 9.14 (Mark 2.18), 12.2 (Mark 2.24); 15.1 (Mark 7.1); 17.10 (Mark 9.11); 19.3 (Mark 10.2); 20.17 (Mark 10.33).
In still other instances he changes Mark to introduce other groups. In 16.1 (Mark 8.11) he adds ‘Sadducees’ to Mark's ‘Pharisees’; in 16.6 (Mark 8.16) he substitutes ‘Sadducees’ for Mark's ‘Herod’.
36 One of the more curious of Matthew's combinations appears in 16.12, where he refers to the teaching ‘of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ although even here it is not necessary to assume that the teaching of both groups is being viewed as identical.
37 Saldarini, , Pharisees, 169–70.Google Scholar
38 Pharisees, 161 n. 17.
39 The term νομικός which occurs in v. 35 in a considerable number of manuscripts is omitted on the grounds that it is unique here in Matthew and likely to be a copyist's insertion on the basis of Luke 10.25.
40 Were those others (or at least some of them) Pharisees? Josephus does not say. It is possible that at least some of them were. We have seen the Pharisees themselves described as γνώριμοι in J.W. 2.17.2 §409–17. Certainly it was common that the chief priests would have members who were also Pharisees.
In J.W. 2.15.1–2.16.2 §309–37, the chief priests also appear before Florus together with the βουλή and other groups. See the discussion in Sanders, , Practice, 485–6.Google Scholar
41 Sanders, (Practice, 486)Google Scholar agrees, calling the impression ‘overwhelming’.
42 This is a common criterion for determining historicity of events. For a recent discussion of it as applied to Jesus of history research, see Meier, J. P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 174–5Google Scholar and notes there.
That the sources are ‘multiple’ is of course obvious. That they are ‘independent’ is also clear. That they are all of equal weight as evidence is not claimed. Particularly the usage in Matthew is so infrequent and the combinations of various religious groups so varied and at times seemingly random that the evidence from Matthew alone would not be persuasive. However, two claims can be made for the usage in Matthew on the basis of the available evidence. First, it should be clear from the evidence and argument presented above that there is no foundation for a position which argues that the combination is a deliberate creation by Matthew as an attempt to address two historical periods simultaneously (the position of Hummel). Second, the presentation in Matthew is verisimilar, that is, there is nothing in Matthew's portrayal of the way the two groups associate which is incompatible with the view of the interrelationships as discovered elsewhere in Josephus and John.
43 The parallel instances in Josephus occur immediately before and during the Jewish Revolt. Should it be concluded from this that such a coalition took place only at times of national emergency? It is difficult to say since it is dangerous to argue from the silence of Josephus about other times. That silence could mean that the two groups did not ‘ordinarily’ enter into such arrangements or it could mean only that Josephus chose not to mention them.
I do think there is evidence for arguing that John intended to portray the religious authorities as viewing the success of Jesus as just such a national crisis. First, it will be recalled that in 11.47–50 the chief priests and Pharisees portray the success of Jesus precisely as presenting such a threat: ‘… this man performs many signs. If we allow him to continue thus, all will believe in him and the Romans will come and will destroy our Temple and our people’. Second, Caiaphas in turn says (11.49–50) ‘You know nothing. Do you not think that it is beneficial for you that one person die for the people lest the entire nation die.’ The presentation of the reaction of the authorities is clearly one of national emergecncy.
Third, a curious parallel to John 11.47–8 appears in J.W. 2.17.4 §421 where in the portrayal of the interaction of the chief priests and Pharisees (cf. 2.17.3 §411), Agrippa is asked to intervene to stop the rebels who support refusal of sacrifices for the emperor and is described as anxious that the Jews not lose ‘their Temple and their mother city (τό ίερόν καί τήν μητρόπολιν)’. The attitude and the phraseology bear significant similarity to those of Caiaphas in the Johannine account.
If we could be sure that Pharisees and chief priests worked together only on such occasions, we would be justified in drawing this conclusion. But the evidence is not sufficient for that.
