In Quest of the Historical Pharisees

CHAPTER 4. Luke's Pharisees

CHAPTER 4 LUKE’S PHARISEES Amy-Jill Levine 113 The third gospel’s presentation of the Pharisees is “puzzling,”1 lacking consistency,2 “complex,”3 and “disputed.”4 Whether approached primarily by literary or by historical questions, Luke’s Pharisees elude clear answers. The reasons for this confusion are several, of which the following four are major. First, the relationship between this gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, Luke’s second volume, complicates assessment of figures that appear in both texts. Pharisees in Acts include Gamaliel, “a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people,” Gamaliel’s student Paul, “a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees” (5:34; 23:6), “believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees” (15:5), and “the scribes of the Pharisees’ group” (23:9). However, the Pharisees in Acts similarly elude definitive assessment: is Gamaliel admirable because he cautions against persecuting Jesus’ followers or the villainous mentor of the arch-persecutor Paul? Do Pharisees demonstrate Scriptural fidelity or do they block the Holy Spirit by insisting Gentile Christians follow the Mosaic Law? Moreover, their depictions impact any assessment of the Gospel of Luke if one seeks a consistent presentation.5 Second, source-critical questions remain uncertain. Most New Testament scholars propose that Luke relied on both Mark’s gospel and a (hypothetical) source shared with Matthew, labeled Q. A minority of scholars argue that Luke directly depended on Matthew and that Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke. Assessment of Luke’s sources impacts understanding of Luke’s Pharisees. Assessed in terms of Markan priority, Luke adds references to Pharisees in 5:17; 7:30; 7:36; 11:53; 13:31; 14:1, 3; 16:14; 17:20; and 18:10-14. Compared to Mark and Matthew, Luke highlights the Pharisees’ love of money and their rejection of Jesus’ association with tax collectors and sinners. But 114 AMY-JILL LEVINE Luke lacks the odd Matthean (27:62) combination of “chief priests and Pharisees,” for Luke mentions no Pharisees in the Passion narrative . Absent is Mark’s note that the chief priests, scribes, and elders (Mark 11:27) sent “Pharisees and Herodians” (12:13) to trap Jesus; Luke speaks only of “spies” who pretended to be righteous (dikaivou~; 20:20). Did Luke suppress this information? Was Luke aware of it? Third, Luke’s historical and social contexts remain speculative. The Pharisees may represent “Jewish Christians” of Luke’s own day.6 Or, they may be ahistorical foils designed to teach the author’s audience by negative example. The invectives may be conventional (hypocrites , lovers of money), with no basis in reality. Or, they may reflect the redactor’s use of sources, themselves of unclear historical worth. Nor are these options mutually exclusive. Further complicating this issue: scholars have yet to reach any firm agreement on the composition of the intended audience or the identity of the author: Gentile (the most common identification), proselyte, God-fearer, Jew. Finally, all readers bring to the text their own presuppositions and values. Some interpreters find Pharisaic presence implied where Luke mentions none and ascribe to Pharisees implied concerns that Luke does not note. Some begin with the view that all Pharisees are the same; others conclude that these figures should be assessed as individuals , like the Gentiles and the Twelve.7 In recognition of such considerations, this essay takes the following steps. First, it looks at Luke’s gospel apart from Acts. Second, it does not emphasize possible redactional changes. Third, eschewing reconstruction of Luke’s social context, it focuses on the narrative: what the gospel’s Pharisees do and how the narrator describes them. Finally, to enable readers to assess the data themselves, it addresses each pericope in which the Pharisees appear rather than organizing the information into categories, such as “Sabbath observance,” “economic status,” or “table fellowship.” LUKE 5:17-26 (MATT 9:1-8; MARK 2:1-12) Luke’s Pharisees are introduced in a narrative context that already depicts the fulfillment of Simeon’s prediction: “this child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that LUKE’S PHARISEES 115 will be opposed” (2:34). Falling are those in the Nazareth synagogue who, incensed by Jesus’ remark that they would not receive the benefits he offers others, “drove him out of the town . . . so that they might hurl him off the cliff...