Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§13.5 For Whom Did Jesus Intend His Message?
nals, 'deliberate and unrepentant transgressors of the law'. 187 It was not used to
refer to the ordinary or common people. 'The common people were not irreligious'.
188 Jeremias's treatment gave too much weight to the unacceptable view
that Jesus brought a message of grace and forgiveness to an unfeeling or merely
formalistic Judaism. Jesus' real offence, in Sanders's view, was that he consorted
with law-breakers, those who disregarded their covenant obligations, and that he
promised them the kingdom without requiring them to repent. 189
Sanders, however, left himself equally vulnerable to criticism. If Jeremias
had operated with a too undifferentiated definition of 'sinners' in Second Temple
Judaism, Sanders was operating with an equally unnuanced view of why individuals
might be described as 'sinners' within the Judaism of that day. It is true, of
course, that 'sinner' (rasa') means one who breaks or does not keep the law, as its
regular use in the OT makes clear. 190 But the understanding of what the law required
was by no means uniform or wholly agreed within Second Temple Judaism.
Consequently there were many aspects of conduct where there would be
dispute as to whether the action in question was in fact a breach of the law. The
point is now nicely illustrated by the recently published 4QMMT. It itemises a
range of issues where it is clear that the Qumran sect believed their halakhoth to
be what the law required (Bl-82). The letter seeks to persuade others that they
should follow these rulings and thus be accounted righteous before God (C26-
32), with the obvious corollary that failure to agree with and practise these rulings
would leave them in breach of the law, that is, as sinners. Such is ever the
way when points of doctrine or praxis become of such importance in a group that
it finds it necessary to separate itself from others (C7) and to maintain a identity
distinct from the others. The unavoidable conclusion for such a group is that others
are 'sinners' because they fail to observe the doctrine or praxis which is of
such self-definitional significance for the group.
In other words, 'sinners' was not an absolute term, such as could always be
demonstrated in any law-court in the land. 'Sinner' also functioned as a. factional
187. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism 385 n. 14 cites Jeremias approvingly here.
188. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism 177-80, 182; Sanders is followed by Meier, Marginal
Jew 2.149, 211-12; 3.28-29; Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus 119 ('the deliberately, continuously,
and obstinately wicked . . . those who are irrevocably evil').
189. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism 198-206; also Historical Figure 226-37; also with
W. D. Davies, 'Jesus: from the Jewish Point of View', in Horbury et al., eds., Judaism 3.618-77
(here 636-43). Sanders' polemic against Jeremias drew vigorous protest from his former
McMaster colleague Ben Meyer, 'A Caricature of Joachim Jeremias and His Work', JBL 110
(1991) 451-62, with response from Sanders, 'Defending the Indefensible', JBL 110 (1991)
463-77; and from Hengel and Deines, 'Sanders' Judaism' 68-69, speaking somewhat on behalf
of German scholarship.
190. E.g., Exod. 23.1; Deut. 25.2; Pss. 1.1, 5; 10.3; 28.3; 37.32; 50.16-18; 71.4; 82.4;
119.53, 155; Prov. 17.23; Ezek. 33.8, 11, 19; Sir. 41.5-8.
529