Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS §13.5
term, a term of vituperative insult, a dismissive 'boo-word' to warn off members
of the in-group against conduct outside the boundaries which defined the
group. 191 This is precisely what we find in much of the literature of the Second
Temple period. Already in Dan. 12.10 'the sinners' (r^sa'im) who fail to understand
Daniel's revelation are contrasted with 'the wise' (maskkilim) who do understand.
In 1 Maccabees, the 'sinners and lawless men' certainly included those
whom the Maccabees regarded as apostates, as Israelites who had abandoned the
law (1 Mace. 1.34; 2.44, 48). 192 Similarly the 'sinners' in the various early
Enochic writings are opponents of the self-styled 'righteous', 193 who 'sin like the
sinners' in that they use what the Enochians regard as the wrong calendar and so
fail to observe the feasts aright (7 En. 82.4-7). In just the same way, in the Dead
Sea Scrolls rs'm refers to the sect's opponents, 194 where again it is the sect's interpretation
of the law which determines that those who do not accept that interpretation
are to be numbered among the wicked. 195 In some ways most striking of all
are the Psalms of Solomon, where repeatedly the 'righteous', the 'devout', 196 inveigh
against the 'sinners', where again it is clear that the latter often denotes the
opponents of the righteous, that is, probably the Hasmonean Sadducees who controlled
the Temple cult. 197 In all these cases the term 'sinners' does not denote
non-practising, law-defiant Jews, those who would be generally regarded as lawbreakers,
but Jews who practised their Judaism differently from the writer's faction.
198 They were 'sinners', that is, law-breakers, but only from a sectarian viewpoint
and only as judged by the sectarians' interpretation of the law. 199
191. In what follows 1 again (as in §9.4) draw on my earlier 'Pharisees, Sinners and Jesus'
73-76; more briefly my Partings 103-105. On the factionalism of Second Temple Judaism
see further above, §9.4, including n. 56. Crossan criticizes Sanders, with some justice, for treating
sin only in individual terms and ignoring systematic evil and structural sin; but Crossan in
turn, despite distinguishing between invective and portrayal, pays no attention to the way the
term 'sinner' was actually used at the time {Birth 337-43).
192. J. A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees (AB 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976) 123-24.
193. 1 En. 1.7-9; 5.4, 6-7; 22.9-13; and 94-104 passim.
194. lQpHab 5.1-12; 1QH 10[= 2].10-12; 12[= 4].34; CD 2.3; 11.18-21; 19.20-21;
4QFlor (4Q174) 1.14.
195. E.g., 1QS 5.7-13; 1QH 15[= 7]12; CD 4.6-8. Note the citation of Dan. 12.10 in
4QFlor (4Q174) 2.3-4a, where the sect presumably identified itself with the maskkilim of Daniel.
196. E.g., Pis. Sol. 3.3-7; 4.1, 8; 9.5; 10.3, 6; 13.6-12; 15.6-7.
197. Pss. Sol. 1.8; 2.3; 7.2; 8.12-13; 17.5-8, 23. See again above, §9.4 at n. 131.
198. 'When viewed through the prism of the prevailing purity system, the dissident is
seen clearly as outside the realm of what is holy and exclusive to the group' (Malina, Social
Gospel 60); cf. Buchanan: 'outcasts from a liturgical point of view' (Jesus 132).
199. Sanders recognizes this aspect in talk of 'sinners' (Jesus and Judaism 210; and earlier
in his Paul and Palestinian Judaism, index 'The Wicked'), but he fails to integrate it into his
treatment of Jesus. On the seriousness of the charge see again above, §9.4.
530