Jesus
the Pharisee
© The Revd Barry Drake M.A. March 2000
A number of scholars hold that Jesus was a Pharisee. Their claims are based on the similarity of his teaching methods as they are shown in the gospels and those offered by the rabbis and the sages in the Rabbinic texts [i]. There is considerable tension between this view, and the traditional view based on the many speeches of Jesus in the gospels which criticise the Pharisees [ii].
In addition, some modern scholarship after the school of Bultmann [iii], discounts the accuracy with which the sayings of Jesus are reported, and claims that what we have in the gospels is later construction written at a time after the destruction of the temple, and written against the emerging pharisaic leadership among the Jews. Recent opinions, with which I would align, hold that the sayings of Jesus are reported with great accuracy for the following reasons:
Firstly, the high view of Jesus that is held by all four evangelists makes it very unlikely that they would wish to distort what was known of the actual sayings of Jesus as they were handed down [iv]. Secondly, the events of the gospels all took place in a society that was for the most part non-literate, and there is modern anthropological evidence to the effect that transmission of information in such a culture has a very high degree of accuracy [v]. From this, I conclude that the words that Jesus spoke to, and about the Pharisees are very probably accurately reported.
If Jesus were a Pharisee, there seems to be a problem when we see "the Pharisees" presented in an apparently negative light in the gospels, and in particular when we read Jesus' own words about them. A number of scholars point us to the difference in teaching between the different pharisaic schools - in particular between Bet Shammai, and Bet Hillel. Some sayings of Jesus in the gospels are similar to sayings of Hillel and his followers, while Shammai usually takes a harder line. If we assume from this that Jesus is of the school of Hillel, then there is an argument for saying that Jesus is always in confrontation with Shammaites, and simply engaging in the style of debate that the Mishnah presents to us. Varner speaks of the practice of public debate between pairs [vi] of Pharisees of differing views.
Whilst this view may be part of the reason, we would expect at least one of the gospels to have made reference to these differing views among the Pharisees if it were the whole story. Since this does not occur, we may conclude that when the gospels speak of "the Pharisees" they are not referring simply to Shammaite Pharisees.
The earliest documents we possess about "the Pharisees" of the time of Jesus are the gospels themselves, and some texts from Josephus. Rabbinic sources are not able to be dated with any certainty, but much of the content is probably of much later authorship than the gospels. Most of the information we have about the Pharisees at the time of Jesus thus comes from Christian biased sources[vii], and we cannot be certain that we have any early writings from the Pharisees themselves. It can be argued that the Rabbinical texts offer a good account of what the Pharisees were like, but helpful though they are, these texts carry little which tells of the way in which the Pharisees of his own time viewed Jesus, or what they said about him[viii]. We are hearing one side of a debate, and not the other.
If we hold to the view that Jesus was trained as a Pharisee, and taught as a Pharisee, what was it that his fellow Pharisees were doing and saying to provoke the strong responses from Jesus that the gospels show?
To get behind this situation, we need to look at what the Pharisees were doing, and saying. The gospels say that they were trying "to test Jesus [ix]" or "to trap him [x]". This seems a good starting point. Why might they want to do this - especially to a fellow Pharisee [xi].
A question that has been around from the very beginning of Christianity is about the offence[xii] that Jesus had committed. Just what was its nature? Scholars have spoken much about the claim of Jesus to be "the Messiah". In fact, the gospels do not hold evidence that Jesus made such a claim [xiii], or even that his disciples had made such a claim at the time that the Pharisees were in conversation with Jesus.
Very little, if anything is known about Jesus before he begins his ministry, and the first event recorded on which all of the gospels have something to say is his meeting with John the Baptist. It is clear that something profound happened. The synoptics speak of the "voice from heaven", and show Jesus withdrawing for a time, no doubt to make some kind of sense of this experience. The experience itself - described as heaven being opened, and in Matthew[xiv], as lightning coming down on Jesus - has similarities to the call of Ezekiel, in which a cloud and lightning are described[xv]. I believe that at this point, Jesus, the orthodox Pharisee, received the call to be a prophet.
I want to suggest that the claim made by Jesus and by his followers that he was a prophet, is the pivotal issue in his future dialogue with the Pharisees. The gospels tell of a number of occasions where his claim to be a prophet is unambiguous [xvi].
With this possibility as a starting point, how would we expect the Pharisees to react to the claim that Jesus was making? First of all, they would need to test that claim. If he were truly a prophet, he would be speaking the message of the Lord, and it would be their duty to support him in every way, and to allow the Lord's message to be proclaimed. On the other hand, if he were a false prophet, it would be their solemn duty to denounce him and to find some way of removing him from the situation. A false prophet would be guilty of blasphemy. To allow such a false prophet to continue to speak would have very dangerous consequences. This would be especially true in the fragile political climate that existed [xvii].
In this reasoning, the Pharisees were acting correctly and properly in their questioning of Jesus [xviii]. We can see from the gospels that they needed to be assured of his orthodoxy. And the questions that the Pharisees asked, and the answers that Jesus gave to them were always supported by the Torah - both written and oral [xix].
Some modern scholars contend that the gift of prophecy had been withdrawn from Israel before the time of Jesus [xx]. I question that thinking, and suggest that their assertion refers to a later Rabbinic reaction to Christianity's claim that it had the gift of prophecy. My suggestion here is supported by the reference in Luke to a prophet called Anna [xxi], and also by the writings of Paul on the use and discernment of prophecy [xxii]. Paul, himself a Pharisee, is, I feel, unlikely to promote prophecy if his training had shown him that the gift had been withdrawn. Indeed, if prophecy no longer had a place in Israel, the Pharisees in the gospels would have spoken out against Jesus because he had claimed to be a prophet. As far as we know they didn't. Instead, as we have seen, they tried to test him and his claim[xxiii].
The gospels show the prophetic claim of Jesus as being confirmed by the works he performed. In the Hebrew Bible, miracles, healing and other works are associated with the task of the prophet. In some cases these works are proof that the person concerned was indeed a prophet of the most high. In two of the gospels, Pharisees ask for a sign from heaven to be given by Jesus "to test him" [xxiv]. It is hard to imagine any other reason for this than the claims that Jesus was a prophet.
From the above, I conclude that Jesus was a Pharisee who, at around the age of thirty began a prophetic ministry. His fellow Pharisees needed to test his claim because he was one of their number, and because they were rightly concerned about the potential for harm that a false prophet would have.
The likelihood that Jesus himself was a Pharisee ought at first glance be a very positive one for Jewish-Christian relations. Modern-day Judaism claims to be rooted in first century Pharisaism, and that in itself could move dialogue forward. However, it would be far too easy to oversimplify the issue and suggest that the conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus were simply arguments between different schools within the Pharisaic party. Nevertheless, the idea that the Pharisees were acting appropriately in testing the claims of Jesus is a possibility that should be considered in full by Christians. Such a possibility removes us some way from the traditional Christian view of Pharisees as a party of shallow nitpickers[xxv]. In fact, we can identify with them in what must have been a very difficult dilemma. At the same time, it allows Christians to realise that Jesus, far from bending the requirements of the written and oral Torah, taught that these ought to be interpreted into the present time, and observed.
Similarly, perhaps the claim that Jesus was a prophet could warrant consideration of what he was saying in that capacity to his fellow Jews. Does anything he said in his day have relevance to Jews in the present day?
Revelation is always difficult to handle - and it has evidently always been so. The prophets were never popular figures in the days before Jesus, and Christianity has had, and still has, problems with those who say that they are speaking "the Lord's word". Nevertheless, prophecy is the way in which the Lord has chosen to speak to His people and whether we like it or not, we have to learn to live with it - or to deny it. The question is still open: was Jesus a false prophet, or was he indeed a prophet of the Most High? It seems that the Pharisees were never in complete agreement on that issue. At the parting of the ways, one could almost say that the Christians took Prophecy out of Israel - and left the Torah behind![xxvi] Overstatement perhaps - but if there is any truth in it at all, as I believe there is, the implications for dialogue are immense.
Bauckham, Richard "The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting" - Michigan, Eerdmans (also UK, Paternoster) - 1995
Bowker, John "Jesus and the Pharisees" - Cambridge, Cambridge University Press - 1973
Fry, Helen P. "Christian-Jewish Dialogue" - Exeter University - 1996
Haley, Alex "Roots" - Vintage Books - ISBN: 0099362813 - 1994
Maccoby, Hyam - "Early Rabbinic Writings" - Cambridge University Press - 1998
Neusner, J. - "Invitation to the Talmud" - San Francisco, Harper Collins - 1973, 1984
Neusner, J. "The Mishnah" - New Haven and London, Yale UP - 1998
Strack, H. L, with G. Stemberger - "Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash" - Edinburgh, T & T Clark - 1991
Wilson, Stephen G. - "Related Strangers" - Minneapolis, Fortress Press - 1995
Young, Brad - "Jesus the Jewish Theologian" - Massachusetts, Hendrickson - 1995
Reference
Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica - Oxford, Blackwell - 1992
Encyclopaedia Judaica
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church - London, OUP - 1957
Internet
Anon "What you never knew about the New Testament's view of the Law" - http://www.centralcal.com/crist7.htm
Anon "Perspective on the World of Jesus" - 14 quotations from Josephus, Talmud, Mishnah etc with references. - http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/pharisee.html
Anon "Current Scholarship on the Pharisees" - ftp://ftp.lehigh.edu/pub/listserv/ioudaios-l/Articles/smpharis
Kelly, Edward J. (University of Notre Dame) "Pharisees" - http://www.nd.edu/~theo/glossary/pharisees.html
de Lacey, Douglas R. "The Pharisees" http://members.aol.com/twarren13/pharisees.html
Rabbi Lipman " Jesus and the Development of Christianity" - http://www.jewishgates.org/history/jewhis/jesus.stm
Rabbi Lipman "Josephus on the Conflict Between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees"
Http://www.jewishgates.org/personalities/joseph.stm
Rabbi Lipman "Who Were the Pharisees?" - http://www.jewishgates.org/taland/talmud/rabbis/phar.stm
Setzer, Claudia "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" Reprinted from TIKKUN MAGAZINE, A Bi-Monthly Jewish Critique of politics, culture and society. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/tikkun.html
Varner, William C. "Jesus and the Pharisees - A Jewish Perspective" - Internet - http://www.pfo.org/pharisee.htm
Venour, S. H. 1998. "Jesus and the Pharisees" - http://www.lastdays.org.uk/jesuspha.html
Endnotes
[i] Babylonian Talmud, “Shabbat”, 31a. tells of a man who came to Hillel asking to be taught the entire Torah during the time he could stand on one foot. He was told, “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman. This is the entire Torah. All the rest is commentary — now go and study.” This shows similarity to Matthew 7:12 and Galatians 5:14. There are several other parallel passages, for instance Tosefta, Menachoth 13.21 is very similar to "the Woes" that Jesus offers in Matthew 23:13ff and Luke 11:39ff.
[ii] See especially Matt 23:13ff, and Luke 11:39ff (the Woes)
[iii] Bultmann was convinced that many of the sayings of Jesus in the gospels are actually later prophetic writings. He wrote: "The Church drew no distinction between such utterances by Christian prophets (ascribed to the ascended Christ) and the sayings of Jesus in the tradition for the reason that even the dominical sayings in the tradition were not the pronouncement of past authority, but .sayings of the risen Lord, who is always a contemporary for the Church." (History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 127).
[iv] I admit that some Gospel passages need separate consideration - especially from John's Gospel. John 17 for example cannot have been reported verbatim for obvious reasons. The Jewish writers may well have felt it appropriate to add to the words of Jesus, either as writers "from the house of Jesus", or as writers of later revealed truths. The book of Revelation includes prophetic words as being those of Jesus and there is no reason to suppose that Gospel writers were not inclined to do the same. However, I do not imagine that Luke, a gentile, culturally a Greek, and a scholar would have given himself this freedom. Luke, in both the gospel and in acts, seems to be striving for accuracy in all that he reports.
[v] Alex Haley's "Roots" gave a good example of this ability to record information accurately. It is a talent that is lost in a literate society.
[vi] Varner suggests that pairs (he refers to them as "Zugot") are often found among Pharisaic leadership, and gives the example of Hillel and Shammai. Varner also points out that the Pharisees themselves were highly self-critical - using as an example the Babylonian Talmud (supplement), Aboth d Rabbi Nathan 37.4 which speaks of "the plague of Pharisees", and the seven types of (bad) Pharisees.
[vii] Josephus had much sympathy with the Christians. " Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ." Jos. Ant. 18 - 3:3
[viii] Granted that it is generally accepted that the Pharisees were the fathers of modern Judaism, nevertheless, we still have very little direct knowledge of their ways at the time of Jesus, or at any other time before the sages began to teach in Javne.
[ix] Matt 16:11, Mark 8:11
[x] Mark 12:13
[xi] I believe that this can only be because fierce debate was taking place at the time among the Pharisees over some important aspect of the ministry of Jesus - and we are not presented with teachings from him even in the gospels that are outside the very broad spread of Pharisaic teachings of his time insofar as we are able to know them.
[xii] Bowker (Jesus and the Pharisees) concludes that it is not easy to understand the exact nature of the offence. He points out that there was little that could have been problematic about the actual teachings that we know of.
[xiii] Bultmann, in his Theology of the New Testament seems to imply that Jesus did not consider himself to be the Jewish Messiah.
[xiv] Matt 3:17-17
[xv] Ezekiel 1:4
[xvi] Luke 4:24, 7:16, 7:26, 13:33 are particularly appropriate examples. There are many more.
[xvii] The Jews had won considerable freedom to pursue their religion and their lives. There was great unrest, and if political problems had occurred at that time they would surely have lost all that they had gained. We see how true this was in the revolts and the subsequent destruction of the temple that took place only a few years after the death of Jesus.
[xviii] If we are correct in the assumption that Jesus was a Pharisee, then we would expect that considerable debate took place with his fellows behind closed doors, in which case, the encounters between Jesus and "the Pharisees" in the Gospels tell part of the story only, and are far more easily understood as continuation of ongoing debate.
[xix] This would also serve to explain why there are times when the Pharisees are shown as being supportive of Jesus - again, no distinction is made between "the Pharisees" who offer help, and "the Pharisees" who seem to be in disagreement with him. See Luke 7:36 and 11:37 where Jesus is invited to dine with Pharisees, Luke 13:31-33 where the Pharisees warn Jesus that Herod is wanting to kill him, also Mark 14:1, 12:28-34 and Matt 23:1-2
[xx] Brad Young speaks of the decline of the latter prophets, and Hyam Maccoby (Early Rabbinic Writings p2) says "They (the Rabbis) denied that their works were informed by the holy spirit as they thought the Bible was; this may be otherwise expressed as the belief that the gift of prophecy had ceased and would not be renewed until the coming of the Messiah".
[xxi] Luke 2:36
[xxii] 1 Cor 12:28 shows Paul's expectation that there are prophets within Christianity. He makes it clear too that we need to discern what is prophesied.
[xxiii] In Luke 7:39, a Pharisee says "If this man were a prophet, he would have known .....", making it seem that they were looking for signs that Jesus was, or was not a prophet.
[xxiv] In Matt. 12:38 and Mark 8:11 the Pharisees ask for a sign.
[xxv] The internet currently carries a large number of Christian papers about "the Pharisees" that take the traditional view that all Pharisees were small-minded hypocrites.
[xxvi] There is a natural tension between law and prophecy. The Transfiguration (Matt 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-9, Luke 9:28-36) shows Jesus with Moses and Elijah each side of him. I see Jesus standing at a balance between Law, represented by Moses, and Prophecy represented by Elijah. I suggest that both Christianity and Judaism somehow lost that balance.