Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§9.7 The Historical Context
against Pharisees and lawyers in reference to tithing and washing of cups (Matt.
23.23, 25/Luke 11.42, 39) presume local knowledge on the part of the (Galilean?)
audiences of Pharisaic practices. 239 Luke's indication that there were
those in Galilee who followed the Pharisees' way of life and who were friendly
towards Jesus should not be wholly discounted (especially Luke 13.31). And,
given the likelihood that the Pharisees were principally located in Judea, the testimony
of Mark 7.1, that Pharisees and some scribes came down from Jerusalem
to take stock of what Jesus was about, has a very plausible ring. 240 Nor should we
forget that Paul's conversion while on some mission to Damascus as a Pharisee at
least confirms that there were Pharisees in the 30s who saw themselves as responsible
— or were authorized by the Jerusalem hierarchy, as Luke has it (Acts
9.1-2) — to monitor Torah fidelity even beyond the promised land (cf. Gal.
2.12).
None of this, however, bolsters the other assumption mentioned at the beginning
of §9.7a, that Pharisees were actively involved in developing and ordering
the synagogue. 241 There is no evidence for this assumption whatsoever. 242
The natural inference is rather that such gatherings were presided over by the local
priest(s) or village elders, of whom one would have been chosen to serve as
head/president (archisynagögos). 243 It was only subsequently, when rabbinic Judaism
had become more established, that is, from the third century CE onwards,
that rabbis became significantly involved in synagogue affairs and the traditional
picture of Pharisees/rabbis controlling the synagogue even begins to become re-
239. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q 174.
240. It does not follow that such Pharisees acted for the priestly aristocracy in this, as
Saldarini (Pharisees 296) and Horsley (Galilee 151-52) maintain. In their own view the Pharisees
would presumably be representing the interests of Israel and Torah — not the same thing.
Sanders's doubts on the question reflect his vigorous polemic against the view that the Pharisees
'ran' Judaism (Jesus and Judaism 265; Jewish Law 79-81; Judaism 388-402; see further
below §17.2).
241. See, e.g., Gutmann: 'the synagogue, one of the unique Pharisaic institutions' (Ancient
Synagogues 4); Hengel and Deines, 'Sanders' Judaism' 32-33; Horsley refers to Kee and
Freyne (Galilee 340 n. 29). See also above, n. 218.
242. The traditions referred to above, that the Pharisees loved the prötokathedrias
('places of honour, best seats') in the synagogue (Mark 12.38-39/Luke 20.46; Matt. 23.6/Luke
11.43), indicate desire for respect and honour, not recognized status in the organisation of the
assembly. On 'Moses' seat' see S. J. D. Cohen, 'Were Pharisees and Rabbis the Leaders of
Communal Prayer and Torah Study in Antiquity?', in Kee, ed., Evolution of the Synagogue 89-
105 (here 93-96).
243. In citing the Theodotus inscription as proof that 'the synagogue was a thoroughly
Pharisaic institution', Schaper ('Pharisees' 421-22), for example, ignores the fact that the one
(Theodotus) who constructed the synagogue 'for the reading of the law and the teaching of the
commandments' identifies himself as 'priest and archisynagögos, son of an archisynagögos,
grandson of an archisynagögos'.
307