N.T. Wright:
The Gospels thus also tell the story of corruption within Israel itself, as the people who bear the solution have themselves become (with terrible irony that causes Paul to weep every time he thinks of it) a central part of the problem. The Pharisees are offering an interpretation of Torah which pursues a kind of holiness but only makes matters worse. The priests in the temple are offering the sacrifices which should speak of God's grace but which instead speak of their own exclusive and corrupt system. The revolutionaries try to get in on the act of God's in-breaking kingdom (Matthew 11:12), but their attempt to fight violence with violence can only ever result in a victory for violence, not a victory over it. This means that the death of Jesus, when it comes, is bound to be seen as the work not only of the pagan nations but of the Israel that has longed . . . to become "like all the nations" (1 Samuel 8:5, 20) and now is reduced to saying that it has no king but Caesar (John 19:15). - N.T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God(Wright is describing what he takes to be the portrayal of the Gospels, but it appears that he agrees with it.)(IVP, 2006), 80-81.
E.P. Sanders:
The various actors in the period that we have surveyed are often the objects of moral censure. We shall understand them better if we view them sympathetically. I rather like the chief priests. I think that on the whole they tried hard and did better at staving off revolt and protecting the Jewish population from Roman troops than any other group could have done -- except a succession of Herods. . . . I rather like the Pharisees. They loved detail and precision. They wanted to get everything just right. I like that. They loved God, they thought he had blessed them, and they thought that he wanted them to get everything just right. I do not doubt that some of them were priggish. This is a common fault of the pious, one that is amply displayed in modern criticism of the Pharisees. . . . Mostly, I like the ordinary people. They worked at their jobs, they believed the Bible, they carried out the small routines and celebrations of the religion: they prayed every day, thanked God for his blessings, and on the sabbath went to the synagogue, asked teachers questions, and listened respectfully. What could be better? - E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE - 66 CE(SCM, 1992), 493-4.
My question: Do the Gospels present the Chief Priests, Pharisees and rebels as corrupt for the reasons Wright cites, or is it--as Sanders has argued elsewhere--a case of solution to plight? In other words, the main thing the Gospels find wrong with the Chief Priests and Pharisees is not their piety (or hypocrisy) but their rejection of the Messiah.
24 comments:
I do not see Wright's view and Sanders' view as mutually exclusive. Rather, both descriptions seem to apply. We might view evangelicals in particular or Christians in general as fitting those descriptions today.
Hypocrisy is always much easier to recognize in others than it is in ourselves, which is why Nathan spoke to David about the Bathsheba issue in the fashion that he did.
yes, i'd agree with mike. in one respect, the pharisees and religious leaders are a commendable bunch given their moral-spiritual aspirations. we see evidence of this in the Scriptures as you've pointed out. in another respect, though, their _way_ of following the law tends to result in pride, presumption, blindness, hypocrisy, etc. there's lots of evidence in Scripture for this too. yes, their big fault may have been that they rejected Jesus' claims concerning who he was. but isn't this connected in a way to the tendency of their morality/spirituality to result in the above?
Thanks for your comment, Mike. I agree that Wright's and Sanders's descriptions need not be mutually exclusive. It seems to me, though, that it is easier for Sanders to admit that some Pharisees were hypocrites, than for Wright to admit that some Pharisees did not make matters worse. This is because Wright thinks there is something built into the structure of the way Pharisees pursued their piety that is fundamentally wrong.
Sean, I take seriously what the Gospels say about Jesus' criticism of Pharisees, but my working assumption is that the Pharisees' basic approach to piety is a valid extrapolation from the OT, that Jesus generally agreed with the Pharisees on what the OT required, and that the Pharisees agreed with Jesus on the importance of sincerity, the evils of hypocrisy, and the centrality of love for God and neighbour, etc. For heuristic reasons, then, it is better to frame Jesus' criticisms as an inner-Pharisaic affair, rather than Jesus' universal judgement against the Pharisaic way of piety.
Where do you see the differences?
Still processing...Jesus radicalized the tradition. He insisted, after all, that the righteousness of his follows must exceed that of the Pharisees (Matt 5). But this was not so much a move back to the ethics of the OT prophets--a morality that the Pharisees had lost sight of--as an apocalyptic innovation. Jesus' requirements had everything to do with his proclamation of the Kingdom of God and his own role within it. So the fundamental problem, again, was Pharisaic rejection of Jesus, not their interpretation of the OT.
It seems difficult to deny that there was something wrong re: how "the Pharisees" approached piety from passages like Mt. 3:7ff, Mt. 5:28; 16:5ff, 23:2ff. This isn't to deny that there were godly, sincere, upright men among the Pharisees who lived in humble obedience to God (the sympathetic portrayal of Nicodemus in Jn. 3 stands out in this respect). It's just to say that their approach led to patterns of attitude and behavior that ran counter to their ideals and aspirations. Reading the gospels, I get the impression that "the Pharisees" as a stock group struggled to see the forest for the trees--pretty much in all the matters confronting them. They were so intensely and narrowly focused on this teaching or that practice that they ended up blinded to the more weighty matters. It seems that they took themselves and their God too seriously (rather than not seriously enough) and that this led inadvertently to some very bad fruit--i.e. self-satisfaction in some contexts, pride and hypocrisy in others, and invulnerability in still others. If you'd stopped them at any point to ask what they really cared about, it might sound a lot like what Jesus preached. But they'd likely struggle in the same moment (as we see them so often doing in the gospels) to notice how their lives were actually failing to match the standard.
What else could Jesus be getting at by using "the Pharisees" as an epithet of sorts. Rather than suggesting that all Pharisees are bad or evil, he's drawing attention to certain patterns of attitude and behavior that tragically ran counter to the principles and aspirations that the Pharisees themselves had.
I think this actually accounts for the peculiarity of Jesus' teaching style in a way. It's not what Jesus said about moral-spiritual matters that the Pharisees would have resisted. They were unsettled by how he taught. His way of teaching/living served to break up the sort of presumption that the Pharisees were prone to. They didn't have the wrong values. They approach to piety just made ongoing reform and transformation a challenge. Everything that the gospel writers have them say in their interaction with Jesus reveals this.
What informs your own assumptions about the Pharisees? You may take issue with Wright's theologically driven interpretation (and I think there is reason to do this), but it seems that you've got a cultural-historical driven interpretation that may function in a similar way.
Btw, what does it look like for you to take Jesus' criticism of "the Pharisees" seriously--i.e. specifically his criticism of their apparent blindness, hypocrisy, pride, and "bad fruit" generally.
The disciples' righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees how? Having thought this through a little, I think the Pharisee's tendency to a kind of self-satisfaction in their law-keeping is what may underwrite Jesus' subtle critique of the Pharisee's in Mt. 5:20 and the manner of his teaching in the following verses. So in his teaching on murder/anger and adultery/lust in Mt. 5:21ff, Jesus seems to be 1) breaking up the reigning presumptions concerning the fulfillment of these laws, and 2) stirring up a hungering and thirsting after a more full and true righteousness, a hungering and thirsting which he's just highlighted in the beatitudes.
Thanks for going at this with me, Sean....
Both Sanders and Wright are ideologically driven in their own way. I, of course, am completely objective. : )
Seriously, one of my concerns is to be fair to the historical Pharisees. The Pharisees of the Gospels are obviously stick figures. To assume Matthew's Pharisees equal first century Pharisaic reality in all respects is a failure of historical imagination that boomerangs into a misreading of the NT. For example, one could read Matthew and conclude that all Pharisees are hypocrites, but this runs up against sincere Pharisees such as Nicodemus and Paul. The misreading is pernicious because it is easy to dissociate ourselves from stick figures and thereby to evade the force of Jesus' teaching.
My assumption is that Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees--such as a failure to see the forest for the trees--were not new to the Pharisees. Although we don't have much, if any, specifically Pharisaic literature to go on from the Second Temple period, early Jewish literature recognizes the importance of the weightier matters of the law--no surprise, since it is there in the OT.
I see Matthew 5 as an apocalyptic radicalization of the Law.
Hear you d. So "the Pharisees" in the gospels are caricatures in a way ... With you. But what's the function of a caricature like this? Surely we don't want to neutralize Jesus' critique by saying this was a common way of stereo-typing religious figures in the period. If we're to believe the gospel, we have to acknowledge that the caricature is significant somehow, no? I mean significant not only rhetorically, but also historically in a way. Surely there has to be some historical warrant for the caricature.
I can see what you're saying about evading the force of Jesus' teaching. With you. So if the caricature is not in the service of dissociation, what is it in the service of? (I would suggest that the gospels are written in such a way as to have the reader/listener identify with a variety of groups who don't get Jesus, including the Pharisees).
Yes, the sermon on the mount does seem to be a radicalization of the law. Makes sense. What do you think of my suggestion re: Mt. 5:20 and following? I'm trying to pay attention not only to what Jesus says, but also how he says it. I'm suggesting that the Pharisees would have found the former conventional (in line with what you're saying), but would have found the latter perturbing (given their struggle to be open and vulnerable to ongoing reform).
[I wish Blogger allowed threaded discussions and numbered comments.]
I am trying to keep us from reading criticism of Pharisees as criticism of the Pharisees. Careful attention to the whole NT invites this distinction.
I assume Jesus' critique is historically significant for Pharisees, but not necessarily for all Pharisees. (Here, perhaps, I may be employing a form of sach-criticism on Matthew, but I think it is invited by the NT.) It seems to me that the claim that there was something structurally wrong about the historical Pharisees in general comes from imposing a later Christian opposition between Christians and "the Pharisees" as a group onto the evidence. My attempt to link Jesus much more closely with the Pharisees encourages Christian readers to be more attentive to the implications of Jesus' criticisms for themselves.
On the other hand, there is a sense in which Jesus' apocalyptic message challenged all previous forms of piety. I take it that Paul concluded from the death of Jesus that the human condition was much worse than he had previously imagined. Whereas he had previously concluded that the law could be kept easily enough (with sacrifices for sin), he realized after his conversion that the problem was much worse than he had realized and that the death and resurrection of Jesus was the apocalyptic solution. I'm suggesting here--and it is a new idea for me to connect Jesus and Paul in this way--that Jesus' demand for a greater righteousness is also an apocalyptic message.
My only discomfort with your reading of Matt 5:20 is the implication that the Pharisees were wrong to think they could keep the law, when they had reason enough in the OT to think they could keep the law.
d: "My only discomfort with your reading of Matt 5:20 is the implication that the Pharisees were wrong to think they could keep the law, when they had reason enough in the OT to think they could keep the law."
Sean: I'm not meaning to suggest that. I'm suggesting that "the Pharisees'" approach to law-keeping was inadequate ...
d: I am trying to keep us from reading criticism of Pharisees as criticism of the Pharisees. Careful attention to the whole NT invites this distinction.
Sean: I hope you can see that I'm agreeing with you ... while try to honor the caricature for what it is and how it is meant to function.
d: I'm suggesting here--and it is a new idea for me to connect Jesus and Paul in this way--that Jesus' demand for a greater righteousness is also an apocalyptic message.
Sean: Gotcha. So in a sense the Pharisees, like everyone else, could not have been prepared for such a radical ethic and its implications for life. So the Pharisees ought not to be made out to be the bad guys.
Still why does Jesus single out "the Pharisees" negatively? What's the point? And why didn't he caricature "the Pharisees" positively on occasion, treating them as his allies since their approach to moral-spiritual matters was closest to his own radicalization?
d: My attempt to link Jesus much more closely with the Pharisees encourages Christian readers to be more attentive to the implications of Jesus' criticisms for themselves.
Sean: So with you on this implication. Wondering though ... In the context of the gospels, don't we want to have a closer identification with caricatured Pharisee too rather than simply the "real" one who pursues righteousness sincerely and earnestly? Otherwise, those harsh words in Matt. 23 are just for those "stick figures" rather than for me too.
Sean: Still why does Jesus single out "the Pharisees" negatively? What's the point? And why didn't he caricature "the Pharisees" positively on occasion, treating them as his allies since their approach to moral-spiritual matters was closest to his own radicalization?
An eye-opener for me in Seminary was the observation by one of my profs that Jesus was closest theologically to the Pharisees. This makes their rejection of him all the more striking. Also, there are hints in Luke, especially, that Jesus actually hung out with the Pharisees (e.g., Luke 7; cf. semi-positive spin on Pharisees in Acts), so it can't have been all bad.
Sean: In the context of the gospels, don't we want to have a closer identification with caricatured Pharisee too rather than simply the "real" one who pursues righteousness sincerely and earnestly? Otherwise, those harsh words in Matt. 23 are just for those "stick figures" rather than for me too.
d.: Yes. For me it is in recognizing that the Pharisees pursued righteousness that I feel the sting.
For me the sting comes not only in the recognition that the Pharisees pursued righteousness, but that they somehow tended to produce "bad fruit" as they did so. This is stinging because Jesus demands that we pursue righteousness even more vigorously rather than give up on it ...
d: "so it can't have been all bad ..."
Sean: surely not. but this leaves me thinking that there must be a really good reason for the generally negative caricature. i'm wide open to what you are saying about the "real" Pharisees and the similarity between their theology and the theology of Jesus. with you. but still ... the text tends to give an overwhelmingly negative portrayal of "the Pharisees", and not just because they rejected Jesus for who he said he was. i'm still interested in that. what's going on there? there does seem to be a connection between the (im)piety of "the Pharisees" and their rejection of Jesus ....
So we've come full circle! Good point, Sean. I'll try to give it some more thought this week...
So what's a caricature for? How is it meant to function? It seems to me that caricatures (like stereotypes and cliches)have roots in something that's real, and we know that critique by means of a caricature can be profound, but obviously caricatures do not serve the purpose of accurate historical representation. So how do appreciate them and remain open to their critical and explanatory power without assuming that they provide an isomorphic representation of a whole class of people?
...And is there a visible quantifiable difference between life in the Kingdom and life without so that, speaking anachronistically, Christians as a whole are quantifiably better than members of other religions. (Barth comes to mind here.) On the one hand, Jesus seems to say yes, there must be, but Matthew's rendition of the caricature is clearly meant to challenge his "Christian" audience.
It seems to me that our tendency is to neutralize the critical and explanatory power of a caricature when we've pointed it out as such. "Oh, that's _only_ a caricature," we say, and then move on to something more "real" or "factual" (a variation on Bultmannian demystification?) Surely we'd want to avoid this tendency in recognizing "the Pharisees" as a kind of caricature.
Yeah, that's good d. Can you say more about Matthew's rendition of the caricature and how it challenges his Christian audience?
I wonder if there isn't a parallel here to conservative evangelicalism in the U.S. It's really easy to cast those "fundamentalists" in a negative light with cruel epithets and disparaging caricatures. And given what happened during the Bush years and the association of his government with conservative evangelicalism, it would be entirely understandable if not commendable to do so. Now we know that there are many simple, warm-hearted, godly Christians tracking in evangelical circles who wouldn't merit the epithets or bear out the caricatures. In fact, most would likely live in a way that runs counter to the self-serving aggression of the Iraq war even while expressing ardent support for it. Can you see how pointing out the exceptions through a careful, sympathetic account of conservative evangelicalism would kind of miss the point in a situation like this?
In lieu of working through the primary texts myself--something I may return to presently--I quote from Stephen Westerholm: "The broad picture of Pharisees in conflict with Jesus seems well rooted in the Gospel tradition. It also seems consistent with, and inevitable in the light of their different understandings of the divine will....Again, the attention to the minutiae to tithing and ritual purity required by Pharisaic scruples would inevitably appear to an opponent with a different focus as evidence of distorted perspectives . . . . Charges of this sort are rooted in different view of Israel's task and opportunity, and were certainly raised already in the lifetime of Jesus. . . . Gospel texts depicting certain Pharisees, when detached from their historical context and seen as portraying Jewish piety as a whole, have prevented Christians from arriving at a sympathetic understanding of Judaism. The concern of much contemporary scholarship to portray Judaism (and Pharisaism) in its own terms represents an important corrective. But it must be combined with an insistence on reading the Gospels in their historical setting. Pharisees and the earliest followers of Jesus--all Jews--stood for alternative visions of the destiny and responsibilities of Israel." - Stephen Westerholm, "Pharisees," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP, 1992), 609-614.
Westerholm: "Gospel texts depicting certain Pharisees, when detached from their historical context and seen as portraying Jewish piety as a whole, have prevented Christians from arriving at a sympathetic understanding of Judaism."
Davidson: I get the concern about understanding every individual Pharisee according to Jesus' critique of "the Pharisees." At the same time, I think Matthew's Jesus is addressing certain patterns and tendencies that he sees among the Pharisees generally. That is, he's addressing a general problem among the Pharisees rather singling out "certain Pharisees" for censure.
Post a Comment