1985 - E.P. Sanders - Judaism and the Grand Christian Abstractions - Love, Mercy, And Grace

Interpretation nterpretatio n http://int.sagepub.com/

Judaism and the Grand ''Christian'' Abstractions: Love, Mercy, and Grace E. P. Sanders Interpretation 1985 39: 357 DOI: 10.1177/002096438503900404

The online The online version of this article can be found found at: http://int.sagepub.com/content/39/4/357

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Union Presbyterian Seminary

Additional services and information for Interpretation can be found at: Email Alerts: http://int.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://int.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Oct 1, 1985 What is This?

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on December 11, 2011

Judaism and the Grand "Christian" Abstractions: Love, Mercy, and Grace

E. P. SANDERS

Professor of Exegesis of Holy Scripture, Oxford University Professor of Religious Studies, McMaster University

The body of Rabbinic material that has been relied upon for the view that Pharisaism was legalistic point s ra th er towar d confidenc e in God's grace and toward obedience as one's appropriate response.

F

IRST CE NTU RY JUD AIS M has, on the whole, ha d a remark ably bad press. Th er e have been apologists, such as Jo se ph us an d Geo rge Foot Moore; 1 but the Gospels above all, and following them other Christian aut hor s, have depicte d Ju da is m in the time of Jes us as an un fo rtu na te religion, one wide open to the attacks of any reformer who believed in love, mercy, and grace. 2 Fu rth er, many Jewish scholars have joi ne d their Christian colleagues in criticism of aspects of ancient Judaism. The de scription of Ju da is m, as we shall see, has seldom b een objective. It has bee n taint ed with eithe r polemic against Ju da is m (or aspects of it) or apologetics for it. In an attempt to avoid or minimize bias, I should indicate my own starting viewpoint: Judaism is one of the world's great religions, and as such, it is presumably noble in its main goals and intentions. Professing Jews have been human beings and therefore subject to frailty and mis1. George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era The Age of the Tannaim, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927—1930). 2. See E. P. Sand ers, Paul and Palestinian Judaism- A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London/Philadelphia: SCM/Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 33-59.

357 Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on December 11, 2011

direction. Thus Jews have run the full gamut from utter depravity to sainthood. It is possible, however, to study a religion or a way of life and to reach some conclusions about the professed values and the attainment of them at any given time. Even great religions have their bad moments (witness the later crusades), and concrete study of a given period may reveal that unfortunate elements have taken over even the noblest faith. I shall divide discussion by focusing on major groups in the first century: priests, Pharisees, common people. We shall consider first the negative view of each group and then the positive, noting the bias of our sources as we go. The conclusion will attempt to reach fair generalizations. THE NEGATIVE VIEW

The Priests. Before the birth of Jesus the priests were already accused of impiety and, indeed, of heinous sin:

They wrought confusion, son with mother and father with daughter; They committed adultery, every man with his neighbour's wife . . . . They plundered the sanctuary of God, as though there was no avenger. They trode the altar of the Lord, (coming straight) from all manner of uncleanness; And with menstrual blood they defiled the sacrifices, as (though these were) common flesh (Psalms of Solomon 8:9-14). These charges are from the time of the invasion by Pompey in 63 B.C., and they are directed against the Hasmonean priest/kings, who may well have "transferred" money from the temple to the state and who could be depicted as coming to the altar straight from battle, and thus imp ur e. T h e pious author or authors doubtless belonged to a group which wished to extend the period during which a menstruating woman was considered impure; and they could thus accuse the priests, who kept the biblical law (Lev. 15:19), of being made unclean by contact with "menstrual blood." T h e charges of adulte ry an d incest are ha rd to evaluate, tho ug h we should note that accusations of sexual immorality are very common in religious polemic (see Paul's accusations of Gentiles in Rom. 1:18—32). There are similar charges in other literature. In the Dead Sea Com mentary on Habakkuk the "Wicked Priest" is accused of committing abominable deeds and defiling the temple (IQpHab 12.8). This priest, whose identity is not quite certai n, was on e of the H as mo ne an priest/ki ngs. The Covenant of Damascus accuses the priests of having intercourse with women who are menstruating and of incest (CD 5.6—8; cf. 4.18). Accord ing to Mishnah Niddah 4.2, the Pharisees accused the "daughters of the Sadduc ees" of not observing the correct rules con cern ing purification 358 Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on December 11, 2011

Judaism

and the Grand "Christian" Abstractions: Love, Mercy, and Grace Interpretation

after the menstrual period. Thus ¿he priesthood had plenty of critics. The high priest plays a major role in the Gospels, since it is he who interro gates Jesu s (Mark 14:60; Matt. 26:62; cf. J o h n 18:15 -24), but t he trial scene does not offer a view of the religious and mor al cha rac ter of the high priest or of the priesthood in general. That comes, however, in the temple scene: The statement that "you have made it a den of robbers" (Mark 11:17) has made an indelible impression on subsequent Christians an d Jews alike. T h e priests have been de pic ted as expl oitin g their office to "rip o f f the pious who br ou gh t sacrifices an d, conse quen tly, as bei ng commer cial an d imp ious . Years ago a Jewis h scholar, I. Ab ra ha ms , wro te that "When Jesus overturned the money-changers and ejected the sellers of doves from t he Te mp le h e did a service to Ju da is m. "3 Joac him Jer emía s offers the standard Christian evaluation: The priests "misuse their calling . . . by carrying on business to make profit."4 Recently another Jewish scholar, Nahman Avigad, describes the priests of the time of the Jewish War (A.D. 66 -70 ) as havi ng "abu sed thei r position . . . th ro ug h nep oti sm and oppression." 5 Thus it is not at all difficult to draw a completely negative picture of the priests aro un d the time of Je sus (in this case the evide nce span s the pe rio d from approxima tel y 65 B.C. to A.D. 70): Th ey were insinc ere a nd imp ious, using their inherited positions for personal gain; they were not even scrupulous to keep the laws; they committed gross immorality. At the same time, we should note the source of these accusations: They all stem from enemies. 1. The authors of the Psalms of Solomon belonged to a pious group obviously out of power and deeply resentful of the Hasmonean govern ment . Thi s is clear in Psalms of Solomo n 17:6—8, wh er e the Jewish leaders are accused of casting "us " out a nd of establishing a worldly mona rch y. As Gray put it, "we are dealing with a strongly partisan work. Neither the righteousness of the righteous, nor the sinfulness of the sinful, must be accepted too literally."6 2. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls belonged to a pious group which had bro ken entirely with the Jer usa lem establishment an d which had been 3. I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospel, First an d Sec ond Ser ies (Ca mbridge: University Press, 1917, 1924; repr. New York: KTAV, 1967), I, 88. 4. Joachim Jeremías, New Testament Theology I: The Proclamation of Jesus, Eng. trans. (London: SCM, 1971), p. 145. 5. Naham Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1983), pp. 130—31. I evaluate these charges and discuss the role of trading in connection with the temple in Jesus and Judaism (London/Philadelphia: SCM/Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 61-67. 6. G. Buchanan Gray, "The Psalms of Solomon," in The Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles (Oxford: University Press, 1913), p. 628.


persecuted by at least one of the Hasmonean priest/kings. 3. Th e Pharisees were the principal opposition "part y" to the Sadduce es, who dominated the chief priesthood after the destruction of the Hasmoneans by Herod. 4. The early Christians were subject to persecution by the chief priests (e.g., Acts 4:6 ; 5:17) and wan ted to depi ct Je su s as hav ing been e xec ute d at the behest of an iniquitous leadership. The Pharisees. T h e ne gative view of the Pharise es is der ive d largely from the New Testament. There is, first and foremost, Matthew 23, with its repeated refrain of "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," and especially verse 23: The Pharisees tithe minor herbs but neglect the weightier matt ers of scri ptu re, justi ce, mercy, and faith. The y wash the outsi de of dishes, but within they are full of "dead men's bones and rottenness" (Matt. 23:25—28). Up to the Passion narrative, the Pharisees are Jesus' principle oppo ne nts , and they are depicted as harra ssing him about trivia: letting his disciples pick grai n on t he Sabba th, allowing th em to eat with out washing their hands, and the like (Mark 2:24; 7:1—5). This has led nat urally to dep icti ng the m as co nce rne d only with exte rnali sm, triviality, an d legalistic observance. A great deal of effort has been expended in the attempt to prove, on the basis of Rabbinic lite rat ure , tha t the Pharisees wer e in fact legalistic.7 It has long been thought (though not entirely correctly) that Rabbinic literature (all written after A.D. 70) re pr es en ts t he views of pre -70 Pharisaism. Early Rabbinic literature is largely concerned with the details of observing the law, and these details can be brought forward as proving a preoccupation with legalistic minutiae . This arg ume nt , however, gives ina deq uate atten tion to the question of literary genre. A law code is necessarily concerned with legal detail, but that does not prove that its authors were legalists in the pejorative sense (escaping moral responsibility by casuistry, valuing trivia more highly than "weightier matters," preoccupied with soteriological bookkeeping). A fair study of early Rabbinic literature shows that the view that th e rabbis believed in co un tin g deed s for de te rm in in g salvation is not correct, that the "trivia" were pursued on the basis of higher com mitments (loyalty to God, who gave the commandments), and that the great religious abstractions (love, mercy, grace, repentance, and for giveness) were given preeminent place by the rabbis. 8 Thus Rabbinic literature must be dropped from the material which 7. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, pp. 33—59. 8. Ibtd., pp. 125-82; 233-38. 360 Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on December 11, 2011

Judaism and the Grand "Christian" Abstractions: Love, Mercy, and Grace Interpretation

points to a negative view of the Pharisees, and we are left with the Synoptic Gospels. About these it should be observed that the early Christian move ment, or at least some sections of it, found the heirs of the Pharisees to constitute the most formidable competition. I cite a small but significant point: Matthew several times refers to "their synagogues," apparently indicating thereby the synagogues dominated by the opponents of (or competition of) the Christian movement (e.g., Matt. 4:23; 9:35). It is in "their synagogues" that the persecution of the early Christian missionaries takes place (Matt. 10:17). In Matthew 23, directed against "the Pharisees," Jesus is depicted as saying that "you" will scourge the evangelists in "your synag ogues ." Th is reflects n ot the lifetime ofJe su s but th e situation of o ne wing of the early church. We see here the hostile and competitive context of part of the early Christian mission, and so we realize that the attacks on the Pharisees are not disinterested description but more likely the sort of polemic that two contenders often mount against each other. The Common People. Here the negative view comes from Rabbinic litera ture. Hillel is reported to have said that no common person (K am ha-arets) can be pious (hasîd) (Aboth 2.5; ET 2.6), and we also read of certain restrictions placed on relations between the "associates" (those who were strict with regard to purity and tithing) and the common people. Thus Mishnah Demai 2.3: An associate may not be the guest of a common person, nor receive him unless the latter changes his garment. This rule has to do with ritual purit y, which the associates were co nc er ne d to ke ep as part of their program to live secular life as if it were life in the temple, thus sanctifying all of life. Despite the nobility of the intention, it implies a criticism of the common people for not being strict or pious enough, and thus it may be read as an attack on their level of observance. The rabbis favored their own brand of piety and in doing so implicitly depicted the common people as relatively impious. This depiction is obviously partisan. A thorough investigation of Rabbinic comments on the common people reveals that the rabbis granted that the commoners were members of Israel in good standing and would share in the world to come. 9 Nevertheless, from reading Rabbinic literature we would have no idea of the devotion and piety of the common people. Summary. All the evid ence which we have thus far con sid ere d h as its setting in a party program of some sort or other, which led to denigration of others. We should pause for a moment to consider the nature of polemic 9. Ibid., pp. 155-57.


and the degree to which it is not fair description of the otherfrom the other's point of view. I offer an example from a dispute between Paul and Peter. Peter had come to Antioch and had eaten with gentile converts to the Christian mov emen t. After the arrival of a message from Ja me s, however, Peter wit hdrew and ate only with Jews. Paul writes, "the othe r Jews joi ne d him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel. . ." (Gal. 2:13-14, NIV). Should we allow this to persuade us that Peter was two-faced, a man-pleaser and untrue to the gospel? Let us reverse the situation in Antioch. Let us suppose that Peter first ate only with Jews and, when Paul sent a message, changed and began to eat with Gentiles. Paul would not then have called him a hypocrite but would have ap pla ude d his aligning his behavior with the gospel. Ja me s mig ht have called him a hypocrite for changing his practice to suit present company. So what was Peter really? He was a man torn between two commitments. We understand nothing about him by calling him a hypocrite or untrue to the gospel. We should assume that he was doing the best he could in difficult circ umsta nces and th at he was pe rs ua de d by Ja me s's emissaries that he was hurting his mission to the circumcised by eating with Gentiles. The passage is polemical and is not descriptive of Peter's own motivation and intention. We can see through the passage to a historical conflict of major significance: The early church was a Jewish messianic movement, some of the chief spokesmen of which were involved in a mission to Gentiles', and this led to anguish and conflict. We should note that Paul too was caught in the conflict between competing principles and com mit men ts. It was he who enu nc iat ed the prin cipl e of living like a Je w to win Jews and like a Gentile to win Gentiles (I Cor. 9:19—23). For him to criticize Peter because he could not do both simultaneously shows that he did not, 10 in th e heat of the mo me nt , pu t himself in th e shoes of th e fisherman. The negative depictions of the priests, Pharisees, and common people which we have ju st sur veyed ar e no less biased and un inf orm ati ve th an Paul's accusation of Peter . We may be able to look th ro ug h t he polemic an d find out some things about priests, Pharisees, an d comm on pe ople ; but the polemic itself canno t be taken as straigh tforwar d rep ort ing . T H E P O S I TI V E V I E W

The principal positive depictions of all three groups are found in the writings of Josephus. Josephus was a Palestinian Jew, who was born ar ou nd A.D. 37—38 an d who die d early in the sec ond c en tury . H e was a 10. The example is taken from Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, pp. 337—38.



priest by birth, as well as an aristocrat. He claims to have studied all the major religious parties of Ju da ism an d to have joi ne d t he Pharisees. 11 During the first revolt, he at first aided in the defense of Galilee but defected to the Romans when defense became impossible. He wrote The Jewish War shortly after 70 with the support of the Flavian imperial family, and the work was apparently intended to discourage other revolts by emp hasi zing th e invincibility of Roma n arm s. Late in the cent ury , after he lost imperial support, he wrote The Jewish Antiquities, a lengthy work of explan ation a nd defen se of Jud ais m. We also have from him an au to biography (The Life) an d a n answ er to criticisms ofJu da is m (Against Apion). We shall briefly recount his descriptions of the three groups which were considered in the first section. The Priests. Jo se ph us at tributes the adm inistratio n of Jewish law to t he priests, and his discussions indicate that they administered it fairly and evenhandedly. They exercised "a strict superintendence of the Law and the pursuits of everyday life; for the appointed duties of the priests include general supervision, the trial of cases of litigation, and the pun ishment of con dem ned persons" (Against Apion II. 187). After t he dea ths of Herod and Archelaus, he writes, "the constitution became an aristocracy, and the high priests were entrusted with the leadership of the nation" (Antiquities XX.251). Jo se ph us ' detailed an d circumstantial accounts of concrete events show that these summaries of the priests' authority are largely accu rate , for it is always the chief priests who un de rt ak e medi atio n between the Roman government and the nation of Israel, and it is always they who are held responsible by the Romans for the good behavior of the people.12 Further, we learn that they had no small influence with the Jewish people, even when they had to calm the crowds after a massacre by Roman troops. At the behest of Florus, the last Roman procurator, they even man age d to pe rsu ad e "the multit ude " to leave Jer usa lem a nd go along the road to meet arriving Roman troops. There was another mas sacre, however, and revolutionary forces then took charge. Even so their influence did not altogether evaporate. The former high priest, Ananus, had enough authority and influence to offer real resistance to the Zealots an d their I du ma ea n allies, who took Je ru sa le m only with gre at difficulty. According to Jos ep hu s, eighty-five hu nd re d died defen din g the te mple and the high priest against the insurgents (War I V . 3 1 3 ) . J o s e p h u s c o r n i l . Josephus, The Life 1 — 12. All quotations from Josephus are from the Loeb Classical Library edition (London/Cambridge, Mass.: William Heinemann/Harvard Univ. Press, 1926-1965). 12. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, pp. 314—17. 363 Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on December 11, 2011

ments: "the overthrow of the walls and the downfall of the Jewish state da ted from t he day on which the Jews behe ld the ir high priest, the ca ptain of their salvation, butchered in the heart of Jerusalem" (War IV.318). He furth er propo ses that, had An anu s lived, the Jews could have ob tained favorable terms from the Romans, "for he was an effective speaker, whose words carried weight with the people . . ." (War IV.321). We earlier noted the very hostile criticism of the priests at the time of Pompey's invasion, criticism voiced by the out-of-power pietists who stand behind the Psalms of Solomon. We have another picture of the same priests, or at least priests of the same generation, in Josephus. He writes: Pompey was filled with admiration for the invariable fortitude of the Jews, and in particular for the way in which they carried on their religious services uncurtailed, though enveloped in a hail of missiles. Just as if the city had been wrapt in profound peace, the daily sacrifices, the expiations and all the ceremonies of worship were scrupulously performed to the honour of God. At the very hour when the temple was taken, when they were being mas sacred about the altar, they never desisted from the religious rites for the day (War 1.148).

Finally, we note Josephus' statement about the intercessory prayers offered by himself and the other priests: "prayers for the welfare of the community must take precedence of those for ourselves; for we are born for fellowship, and he who sets its claims above his private interests is specially acceptable to God" (Against Apion 11.196). From Jos ep hu s, the n, one attains quite a different overall picture of th e priests from that which emerges from the Psalms of Solomon, the Dead Sea Scrolls, an d th e Gospels. One sees not insincere abu ser s of hig h office and callous usurpers who cynically milked the people but earnest and devoted servants of the Lord and his temple who sought only the welfare of the people and who were faithful to their commission and ordination, even to death. We shall, in part three, note that not all of the priests in Jo se ph us co me off so well, an d we shall ask wh et he r or not gener alizat ions about the priests can usefully be made. Just now we should note that Josephus had axes to grind and that he may also be accused of par tisanship. (1) He was himself a priest. (2) He wished to depict the Jews as basically loyal to Ro me , excep t for a radic al fringe. (3) He th er ef or e wanted to deny that the official Jewish leadership had anything to do with the revolt. 13 13. See, e.g., Shaye J.D. Cohen Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition VIII (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), pp. 154, 240-41.


Judaism


The Pharisees. Jo se ph us has two substantial descriptions of t he Jewish parties. The Pharisees are discussed in War 11.162-63, and Antiquities XVIII. 12—15. In the earlier account, they are named second and given only a paragraph. The Essenes are named first and receive forty-three (War I I. 119—62). Nev ert heless t he Pharisees ar e called "t he first," which is usually taken to mean "the most important," though it could mean "the oldest." They are said to be "the most accurate interpreters of the laws," to believe in both fate and free will, and to teach that the soul is immortal. In the Antiquities they are given pri de of place and th eir beliefs are spelled ou t in greater detail. From these descriptions they emerge as devoted to God and his law. In summarizing statements in the Antiquities, Josephus attributes great power and influence to the Pharisees. They are said to have the "support of the masses" (XIII.298), to be followed with regard to prayer and worship (XVIII. 12—15), an d to be believed "even whe n they speak against a king or high pr iest" (XIII .28 8). In such state ment s the re is implicit pra ise of their religious and ethical goals. As Morton Smith has pointed out, by the nineties, when the Antiquities was compos ed, th e Pharisees had em erg ed as the leaders of Ju da ism . T h e great influence which Jo se ph us assigns to the m before 70, the refo re, may be part of his general apologetic effort to depict the leaders of Judaism as not rebellious and so to win support from Rome for Israel's new leaders. Thus we may suspect the historian of exaggeration, at least of their influence. 14 The Common People. Jo se ph us several times discusses the laws, practices, and beliefs of Jews, that is, of Jews in general rather than of one party or another. The most compact and convenient discussion is in a late work, Against Apion 11.164-295. This section has the additional advantage of not including point-by-point discussion of very many of the particular laws (though some are emphasized) but instead focuses on the basic principles. In the first place, Jo se ph us emp hasiz es the unity of the Jewi sh peo ple in keeping the law. It is obedience to the law which produces the "admirable harmony" of the Jews (11.179). Religion (literally, "piety towards God") is the motive of actions and words (171). This is so throughout the nation: "Even our womenfolk and dependents would tell you that piety must be the motive of all ou r occ upati ons in life" (181). An ot he r way of pu tti ng this 14. See Morto n Smith, "Palestinian Jud ais m in the First Cen tur y" in Israel, Its Role in Civilization, ed. Moshe Davis (New York, 1956), pp. 6 7 - 8 1 ; repr. in Essays in Greco-Roman and Re fated Talmudic Literature, ed. Henry Fischel (New York: KTAV, 1967), pp. 183-97.


is tha t God in his grace has revealed his law an d bestowed nu me ro us blessings. The Jews naturally respond by worshipping him, and worship takes the form of "the practice of virtue" (192, 197-98). In part of this discussion, Josephus attributes the ability to perform the law to God's grace: "We should beseech God not to give us blessings, for He has given them spontaneously and put them at the disposal of all, but for capacity to receive, and, having received, to keep them" (197). Jewish fulfillment of the law include s hospitality to fore igne rs, unli ke the laws of some Greek city states (259—60); and consideration must be shown "even to declared enemies" (211). All Jews , arg ue s Jo se ph us , both know an d observ e the law. People in other nations find it necessary to employ professional lawyers (176—78), but that is not so of the Jews. Moses provided that once each week people "should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it" (175). Knowledge and training lead to observance: . . . should anyone of our nation be questioned about the laws, he would repeat them all more readily than his own name. The result, then, of our thorough grounding in the laws from the first dawn of intelligence is that we have them, as it were, engraven on our souls. A transgressor is a rarity; evasion of punishment by excuses an impossibility (Against Apion II. 178). T h e strongest arg um en t for universal observance is the Jewish readi ness to meet dea th r ath er t han to transgress the law. Jos ep hu s devotes appreciable space to this point. Even the Spartans surrendered their laws whe n they lost thei r liberty an d ind ep en de nc e (227), while Jews re ma in ed loyal to theirs "notwithstanding the countless calamities in which changes of rulers in Asia have involved us" (228). "Has anyone," he asks, "ever heard of a case of our people, not I mean, in such large numbers, but merely two or thr ee , provi ng traitor s to the ir laws or afraid of de at h, " even when faced with death by torture? (232-33). His answer is "no": Jews face "death on behalf of [their] laws with a courage which no other nation can equal" (234). He returns to the theme: "And from these laws of ours nothing has had power to deflect us, neither fear of our masters, nor envy of the institutions esteemed by other nations" (271); "Robbed though we be of wealth, of cities, of all good things, our Law at least remains immo rta l; an d th er e is not a Je w so dista nt from his cou ntr y, so mu ch in awe of a cruel despot, but has more fear of the Law than of him" (277). This is the description of a noble religion indeed, one in which the mass of the pe opl e, not ju st the professionally p ious and th e especially de vou t, recognized the love and mercy of God and responded to him by studying 366 Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on December 11, 2011

Judaism and the Grand "Chnstian" Abstractions: Love, Mercy, and Grace Interpretation

and observing his commandments, even in the face of torture and death. The setting of this description is in an apologetic work, one explicitly formula ted to answer calumny against the Jews and their "constitution" (the law). Exaggeration is readily proved: It is not true that all Jews everywhere agree with one another (170—71, 179), nor that no Jew ever defected, but preferred death (232-33), nor that there was not a single Jew who feared the law mo re t ha n a des pot (277). Does this apologetic an d exag gerat ed setting destroy the value of the section for un de rst an di ng the piety of the mass of Israel? It is now time to try to find the reality behind the arguments of enemies and apologists. I N SEARCH OF FAIR GENERALIZATIONS

We have seen that all the evidence is biased one way or another. Dispassionate and disinterested description of fundamental beliefs and ways of life was even r are r in the ancient world t ha n it is to da y— an d toda y it is rare enough. We can never entirely overcome the limitations imposed by th e evidence , bu t I think t hat it is possible to rea ch r easo nabl e an d even convincing conclusions on some crucial points. The Priests. I earlier r ef er red to the fact that not all of Jo se ph us ' refe renc es to the priests were favorable. It will be useful to cite some examples in order to help us attain perspective on his bias. He tells us that the high priests Ananias (A.D. 47—59)

. . . had servants who were utter rascals and who, combining operations with the most reckless men, would go to the threshing floors and take by force the tithes of the [ordinary] priests; nor did they refrain from beating those who refused to give. The chief priests were guilty of the same practices as his slaves, and no one could stop them (Antiquities XX.206—07). This does not quite save the reputation of Ananias, who evidently con doned the practice. Further, other members of the aristocratic priestly houses ("the chief priests") ar e directly said to have commi tted robb ery . In the years jus t prec edi ng the revolt, the high prie sthood became somet hing of a political football, and high priests came and went with considerable frequency. King He ro d Ag ripp a II depo sed on e Jesu s as high priest a nd appointed another. Each priest "collected a band of the most reckless sort and it frequently happened that after exchanging insults they went fur ther and hurled stones" (Antiquities XX.213). We see that Josephus, despite his undoubted partiality to the priestly caste, was capable of pointing out the grave failings of some of its mem bers. This perhaps makes us more willing to credit his general view of the 367 Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on December 11, 2011

priesthood, namely, that its members were conscientious and devout. It is note wort hy t hat th e result of the theft of tithes was tha t some of the prie sts, many of whom depended completely on the tithes, starved to death (Antiquities XX.207). Th ey did n ot, it app ear s, resort to theft in tu rn . Th us the corruption into which some of the aristocratic priests fell seems not to have infected the lower orders. It is worth noting that the Ananus whose death was so bemoaned by Josephus, and to whose memory he dedicated a moving panegyric (War IV.319—22), was the same Ananus who was a Sadducee and who had James the brother of Jesus executed. The action, Josephus notes, caused offense to those who were "strict in observ ance of the law" —pro bab ly the Pharisees 15 —and as a result the high priest was deposed. In this context Jos ep hu s rema rks that the Sadducee s were "savage" in ju d gm en t and that Ananus shared that character. Besides, he was "rash in his temper" (Antiquities XX. 199-203). We see that even the priest whom Josephus most lauds was not immune from criticism. We can gra nt th at his tri but e to An an us m ad e him ou t to be a greater and more democratic statesman than he was, and that there may have been no small nu mb er of the priests who were not as dev ote d as could be desired, and yet find that Josephus has not substantially misled us. On the whole the priests were devot ed to the service of God a nd took seriously their role as intercessors for Israel and, further, for the other nations of the world. 16 The Pharisees. Evidence about the Pharisees in the time of Jesus which is both detailed and firm is hard to obtain. From Josephus we learn that they believed in some form of life after death and that they were "strict" in observan ce of th e law.17 We can take these two general points as completely firm. Supporting evidence may be quickly cited: (1) Josephus, who says that he himself followed the views of the Pharisees (Life 12), believed in "a renewed existence" (Against Apion 11.218; cf. War III.374) and in the immortality of the soul (Against Apion 11.203). (2) He repeats the term "strict" or "accurate" so often in his discussions of the Pharisees that we must accept that he took it as a primary fact. (3) Paul had been a Pharisee, and in the context of that description of himself he says that he 15 I am indebt ed to my colleague A. I. Ba umg ar te n for this sugges tion. Th e wor d "strict" or "accurat e" (akribeia) and its cognat es are consistently used for the Pharis ees: A I. Baumgarten, "The Name of the Pharisees," JBL 102 (1983), 41 1- 28 . 16 Wh en th e prie sts ref use d to co nt in ue the sacrifices for Rom e, war was "officially declared". War 11.409-10 17 Life after de at h: War 11.162-63; Antiquities XVIII. 14. "Strict", see n. 15. 368 Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on December 11, 2011


had been zealous and righteous according to the law (Phil. 3:5-6). (4) Paul believed in the resurrection, and he does not seem to have come to this opi ni on only as the result of his en co un te r with th e re su rr ec te d Lo rd (for belief in the resurrection, see, e.g., Phil. 3:11). (5) Acts depicts Paul as claiming to have been zealous for the law (Acts 22:3) and to be a Pharisee in his belief in the resurrection (23:6). We r e the Phar ise es in th ei r zeal for t he law "legalistic"? T h a t is, di d the y observe the law in the hope that they could compile enough good deeds to win merit and obligate God to save them? This is the accusation that generations of Christian "historians" have thrown at them, but there is simply no evidence for it. I have pointed out the enduring attempt to prove, on the basis of Rabbinic literature, that the Pharisees were mired in legalism, but that Rabbinic evidence points the other way. There is not space here even to begin to survey the vast corpus of Rabbinic material, and I shall have to be content to repeat the conclusion which comes at the e n d of suc h an effo rt: God has chosen Israel and Israel has accepted the election. In his role as King, God gave Israel commandments which they are to obey as best they can. Obedi ence is rew ard ed a nd disobedience puni shed . In case of failure to obey, however, man has recourse to divinely ordained means of atonement, in all of which repentance is required. As long as he maintains his desire to stay in the covenant, he has a share in God's covenantal promises, including life in the world to come. The intention and effort to be obedient constitute th e condition for remaining in the covenant, but they do not earn it. This general understanding of religion, although not systematically de veloped, in fact lies behind all the Tannaitic [early Rabbinic] literature. It accounts for the principal emph ases in that litera ture , as well as for ap pa re nt contradictions on crucial points. It appears to have informed the religious 18 thinking of the Tannaim consistently and thoroughly. We ca nn ot say tha t th e view tha t Rabbini c lit er atu re perfectly reflects pre-70 Pharisaism is unquestionable. This is the body of literature, how ever, that has been relied on for the view that Pharisaism was legalistic, and my ar g um e nt is tha t th e evi denc e of Rabbini c mat eri al points tow ar ds confidence in God's grace and obedience as the appropriate response. Further, this understanding of the relationship between works and grace is so wi de sp re ad in the li te ra tu re of t ha t pe ri od ( abo ut 200 B.C. to A.D. 200) tha t we mu st ass ume it to have bee n co mm on in th e Ju da is m of the time of

J

19

esus. 19. Ibid., pp. 426-28. 18. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 180.


The Common People. There is very solid evidence that indicates that in the first century the common people, considered as whole, hungered and thirsted for righteousness and political freedom, trusted in the promises of God, and were loyal to the law and the covenant. I again resort to enumeration. (1) They repeatedly rallied to prophets, whether to those who required righteousness and repentance (John the Baptist; for the crowds that flocked to him, see Jo se ph us , Antiquities XV III . 116- 19), those who promised that a miracle would inaugurate the kingdom (Josephus, War 11.258-63; Antiquities XX .9 7- 98 , 16 7-72 ), or those who more quietly looked for the Kingdom of God and promised it to the meek and lowly of heart (Jesus). (2) Large numbers (Josephus, "tens of thousands") were pr ep ar ed to die rat he r tha n have a statue of Caligula erecte d in the temp le (Antiquities XVIII.262; cf. Philo, Legat. 192, referring to the same threat: "We will die and b e no mor e, for th e truly glorious de at h, me t in defe nce of laws, might be called life"). One should especially note that on this occasion there was no hint of a revolt. The delegation of Jews carried no arms, and they offered the ir lives with out th e thr ea t of bein g willing to die fighting (though Philo does, after the fact, threaten the possibility of a world-wide revolt, Legat. 213—15). (3) There were numerous other instances in which large numb ers of Jews indicated th at they pre fer red dea th to allowing transgression and disregard of the law. Pilate, for example, introduced into Jer usa lem Roma n stan dar ds bearin g the bust of Caesar. Ta ki ng the m to be "graven images," a delegation of Jews followed him to Caesarea and lay prostrate around his house for five days and nights. He had them surrounded by troops, and they "extended their necks, and exclaimed that they were ready rather to die than to transgress the law" (War II. 169—74). (4) On on e point we have archaelogical evide nce of wid esp rea d obser vanc e of the law. Excavations in Jer usa lem have uncove red nu me ro us miqvaoth, immersion pools, required for purification before entering the temple. Many of these were attached to private houses. 20 Further, a miqveh has been found at Masada, 21 and others are scattered around Palestine. This archaelogical evidence confirms literary evidence from Josephus that people generally kept the laws of purity. Tiberias was founded on a graveyard, which made all of its residents impure and unable to worship in the temple (without a fairly elaborate cleansing process). According to Josephus, it proved very hard to populate the city, and Herod the Tetrarch, its founder, had to use coercion and bribes. Even so, it was 20. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, pp. 139, 142. 21 . Yigael Yadin, Masada: Herod's Fortress and the Zealots' Last Stand (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966), pp. 166-67. 370 Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on December 11, 2011

Judaism


populated by the offscourings of Israel (Antiquities XVIII.36-38). Ritual purity is often seen as proof that Judaism was externalistic and obsessed with trivia. The important thing to remember, however, is that it is commanded in the Bible and thus was viewed as the will of God. Paul, surely no petty legalist, is dep ict ed as observ ing t he laws of purifi cation before en ter ing the templ e (Acts 21:26). Whate ver ou r pre sent theological evaluation of purity, we can see that in the first century the observance of the purity laws indicates loyalty to God and his Torah. We also learn from the story about Tiberias that not everyone was observant. Despite the exaggerat ion oí Against Apion II , we can be sur e t hat there were Jews who were contemptuous of the law and who ignored it. Yet we may also be sure that the mass of the common people loved God and kept his commandments. Can we extend our conclusions to cover Judaism as a religion and a way of life which embraced an entire nation, many resident in the land and many more dispersed throughout the Mediterranean? Judaism as a Whole. I treated Josephus' discussion of Judaism in Against Apion II as evidence for the common people. He intended it more gen erally, as emb rac ing "us ," all Jew s. Is it, desp ite t he obvious exa gge rat ion and idealization, true? I think that it is, and I shall cite two considerations which seem to me decisive. 1. Jo se ph us ' description focuses on motivation and princi ple: Th e Jews are loyal to the law because God has been gracious to them. He even gives them the power to respond to his grace by accepting and obeying his ordinances. The decisive consideration is this: Josephus derived that elevated theology from somewhere. He shows no sign of bein g a creative theol ogia n himself, and here he is passing on what he perceives to be the standard view of the relationship between grace and works. This indicates, I think, that it was the standard view. That does not prove, of course, that every indivi dual Jew always had this theology in mind no r th at every act of every Jew was consciously perceived to be the response to God's grace. Yet I think that it is certain that this was the theology which Josephus had been tau ght , ju st as his claim tha t priests mad e intercessio n principal ly for others, not themselves, was the "official" priestly view. They were taught not jus t to be exp ert b utch ers, an d not ju st to perf orm the sacrifices an d 22 the other elements of worship in a dignified way, but to view their service 22. For th e beaut y and dignity of th e service, see The Letter of Aristeas, trans. Herbert T. Andrews in The Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charl es (Oxf ord: T h e University Press, 1913; repr. 1963), pp. 92-99.


as service to God on behalf of Israel. We find, in this section of Against Apion, the standard Jewish theology, which was generally taught and generally believed, though individuals (naturally) did not universally live up to it. 2. We know from pa ga n criticism of Ju da is m an d Jews that dev otio n to the law was common and widespread. In the face of criticism and ridicule, and despite considerable inconvenience, they pe rfo rme d circumcision, kept the Sabbath, an d refrained from certain foods.23 Why did they do so? Josephus gives the answer: They feared the law more than any human. Does this pro ve tha t they were obe die nt only becau se of superstiti ous fear? Only if belief in God is superstitious. They feared the law because it was given by God. Th ey t rus ted in his prom ises, they accepted the election, a nd they were loyal to his co mm an dm en ts even to de at h, firm in the ir faith t ha t God would give them "a renewed existence." In Against Apion II, Josephus exaggerates by saying that all Jew s wer e always loyal to the law, bu t th e whole thr ust of the ar gu me nt d ep en ds on the fact that Jews were famous (or notorious) for their loyalty to their own laws. Pagan criticism confirms that this was the case. We en d whe re we beg an. No t every Jew was obse rvant , and no t e ver yon e correctly un de rs to od the grea t princip les of the faith. Yet Ju da is m in the time of Jesus and Paul was a noble religion, based on belief in God's mercy and grace, and inculcating in its members virtuous action and con sideration to others. Mercy, in Judaism as in Christianity, begets mercy.

23 . These were the three principal points in pagan criticism, which shows that they were tenaciously observed. For bibliography, see E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 117 nn. 27, 28.


1985 - E.P. Sanders - Judaism and the Grand Christian Abstractions - Love, Mercy, And Grace

Recommend Documents