Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§9.4 The Historical Context
resent themselves as being righteous' and who 'with hand and mind... touch unclean
things', even though they themselves say, 'Do not touch me, lest you pollute
me' (7.3, 9-10). Here too we may have to recognize an attack on Pharisees,
by means of caricaturing Pharisaic concern to maintain purity, 128 although, if Ep.
Arist. 139, 142, Josephus, War 2.150 and Col. 2.21 are of any relevance, the concern
for purity and fear of defilement by touch was a good deal more widespread
within first-century Judaism. The point here, however, is that a Jewish document
characterizes such concern as the concern of 'godless men'!
Jubilees is directed to Israel as a whole, a plea for a more rigorous observance
of the covenant, 129 but includes the conviction that many sons of Israel
will leave the covenant and make themselves 'like the Gentiles' (15.33-34). Here
too the calendar was a bone of contention: observance of the feast or ordinance,
wrongly computed, counted as non-observance, as failure to maintain the covenant,
as walking in the errors of the Gentiles (6.32-38).
Finally we may simply note how thoroughgoing is the polemic in the
Psalms of Solomon on behalf of those who regarded themselves as 'the righteous',
the 'devout', over against the 'sinners'. 130 It is clear enough that 'the righteous'
were not Israel as a whole, but those who believed that they alone 'live in
the righteousness of the commandments' (14.2). The 'sinners' were not only
Gentiles or the blatantly wicked, but the Jewish opponents of the 'righteous',
probably the Hasmonean Sadducees who had usurped the monarchy and (in the
eyes of the devout) defiled the sanctuary (1.8; 2.3; 4.1-8; 7.2; 8.12-13, etc.). 131
When Messiah came such sinners would be driven out from the inheritance
(17.23).
How serious was all this polemic? The range of opinion here is of some interest,
particularly as it bears on the position of Christianity within the spectrum
of first-century Judaism. At one end, for example, it may be argued that the disagreements
are simply those of vigorous halakhic dispute, so that Jesus and the
Pharisees of his day should be seen simply as friendly disputants. 132 At the other
end, the polemic of Matthew 23 and John 8 would normally be regarded as indicating
that a decisive breach with Judaism had already taken place. 133 In fact,
however, the character of denunciation and quality of vituperation is remarkably
128. So, e.g., Flusser, Jesus 60; Jeremias, Jerusalem 250.
129. See, e.g., 2.17-33; 15.25-34; 22.10-24; 23.22-31; 30.7-23; 50.
130. E.g., 3.3-12; 4.1, 8; 13.6-12; 15.4-13.
131. So, e.g., R. B. Wright in OTP 2.642; Schürer, History 3.193-94; Sanders, Judaism
453. See further the analysis by M. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study
of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul's Letters (ConBNT 26; Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell,
1995) findings summarized 125-36.
132. This is the position of Sanders maintained in his writings since Jesus and Judaism.
133. See further below, vol. 3.
283