The Pharisees and Figured Speech in Luke-Acts

467 Pages·2016·2.58 MB·English

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

THE PHARISEES AND FIGURED SPEECH IN LUKE-ACTS

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

BY
JUSTIN R. HOWELL

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
JUNE 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES.........................................................................................................................................vii

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
PART ONE: CONTEXTUALIZING THE QUESTION
Chapter One: Defining Figured Speech.............................................................................6

1. Allusion (ἔμφασις).............................................................................................9

2. Discretion (εὐπρέπεια).....................................................................................15

3. Security (ἀσφάλεια).........................................................................................17

4. Freedom of Speech (παρρησία).......................................................................20

5. Irony (εἰρωνεία)...............................................................................................21

6. Indirect Speech (ὁ πλάγιος λόγος)...................................................................23

7. Figured Speech as an Art (τέχνη)....................................................................26

Chapter Two: Methodological Approach........................................................................30

1. Redactional Analysis.......................................................................................30

2. Intertextual and Interconceptual Analysis.......................................................33

3. Rhetorical and Literary Analysis.....................................................................35

4. Historical Analysis...........................................................................................41

5. The History of Reception.................................................................................49

Chapter Three: Scholarly Perspectives on the Historical Pharisees................................52

1. The Authority of the Pharisees: Political, Religious, Neither, or Both? ......... 54
2. The Pharisees in the Roman Empire................................................................70

Chapter Four: The Provenance of Luke-Acts..................................................................81

1. Judea................................................................................................................81

ii
2. Ephesus............................................................................................................84

3. Antioch in Syria...............................................................................................86

4. The Question about Diaspora Pharisees..........................................................95

Chapter Five: Luke and His Readers.............................................................................103

1. Authorship and Date......................................................................................103

2. Luke and Ethnic Perspective.........................................................................109

3. God-fearers in Luke-Acts..............................................................................117

4. The Question about Pharisaic Readers..........................................................127

PART TWO: THE PHARISEES AND THE SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH
Chapter Six: From Figured to Free Speech....................................................................132

1. Framing the Narrative of Luke-Acts..............................................................132

2. The Lukan Pharisees as Spies........................................................................140

3. Conclusions....................................................................................................150

Chapter Seven: Paul and Other Former Pharisees.........................................................152

1. Paul’s Feigned Ignorance about the High Priest (Acts 23.5).........................153

2. Ananias as Ruler of the People......................................................................162

3. Paul’s Appeals to his Pharisaism (Acts 23.6; 26.5).......................................166

4. The Lukan Paul and his Alleged Roman Citizenship....................................176

5. The Other Former Pharisees (Acts 15.5).......................................................179

6. Conclusions....................................................................................................186

Chapter Eight: Gamaliel and the God-fighters..............................................................188

1. Theudas, Judas, Gamaliel, and Their Respective Followers.........................193

2. Obedience to God versus Obedience to Gamaliel.........................................197

iii
3. The Sanhedrin among Other God-fighters.....................................................200

4. Distinguishing Gamaliel from the Apostles...................................................202

5. Theudas, Judas, and Jesus..............................................................................205

6. Persecution for (Speech in) the Name...........................................................213

7. Conclusions....................................................................................................221

PART THREE: LUKE’S MORAL DIAGNOSIS OF THE PHARISEES
Chapter Nine: The Initial Symptoms of Illness.............................................................224

1. The Pharisees who Remain Seated (Luke 5.17-32).......................................225

2. The Folly of the Scribes and Pharisees (Luke 6.6-11)...................................228

3. The Textual Variant at Luke 5.17c................................................................235

4. The Lukan Jesus as a Doctor of the Soul (Luke 4.23; 5.31-32).....................238

5. Conclusions....................................................................................................242

Chapter Ten: The Passions of Injustice.........................................................................244

1. The Passion for Money..................................................................................245

2. The Passion for Glory....................................................................................247

3. The Passion for Luxury..................................................................................249

4. Passions of Injustice in Moral Philosophical Traditions................................252

5. The Rulers of the Pharisees and the Question of Justice...............................261

6. Conclusions....................................................................................................269

Chapter Eleven: The Evil Eye and its Cure...................................................................271

1. The Pharisees and the Evil Eye of Predatory Greed......................................272

2. Curing the Evil Eye........................................................................................276

iv
3. The “Some” and “Others” in the Beelzebul Controversy..............................280

4. Conclusions....................................................................................................291

PART FOUR: THE PHARISEES AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Chapter Twelve: The Kingdom within Reach...............................................................294

1. Previous Interpretations of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν (Luke 17.21)....................................295

2. The Kingdom “within you”...........................................................................298

3. The Governing Part of the Soul.....................................................................302

4. The Kingdom “among you”...........................................................................307

5. The Lukan Jesus as Kingly Benefactor..........................................................309

6. Conclusions....................................................................................................313

Chapter Thirteen: Simon the Pharisee and the Feet.......................................................315

1. The Repetition of πόδας.................................................................................315

2. Psalms of Solomon 8 and Luke 7...................................................................318

3. The Pharisees in Luke 7.24-50.......................................................................323

4. Conclusions....................................................................................................328

Chapter Fourteen: The Pharisees and the Abandoned House........................................330

1. Inside and Outside the House (Luke 13.22-14.24)........................................330

2. The Function of ὑμῖν (Luke 13.35a)..............................................................337

3. “This Fox” and the Pharisees.........................................................................339

4. Conclusions....................................................................................................343

Chapter Fifteen: The Pharisees and the Kingly Entrance..............................................345

1. Silencing the Disciples (Luke 19.39-40).......................................................346

2. The “Citizens” and the Nobleman.................................................................351

v
3. Conclusions....................................................................................................366

Chapter Sixteen: Zacchaeus and the Pharisees..............................................................368

1. The Sycamore Tree........................................................................................369

2. To Climb and Come Down............................................................................375

3. Zacchaeus and Yohanan ben Zakkai..............................................................379

4. Conclusions....................................................................................................391

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................................. 393
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 402
vi
TABLES
Table 1: Sitting and Standing in Luke 5.17-32..........................................................................225

Table 2: Comparing Psalms of Solomon 8 and Luke 7..............................................................319

Table 3: Chiasm signaled by ἰδού..............................................................................................325

vii
INTRODUCTION

A scholarly consensus holds that the author of Luke-Acts is ambivalent toward the Pharisees, or
at least that he has left readers with an ambiguous depiction of them. Even though Jack Sanders
views the Jews of the Lukan narrative “as being rejected by God because they have rejected
him,” he regards the Lukan Pharisees as an exception, contending that this group either “falls
outside this general pattern” or else “fits into it is a strange way.” According to Sanders, while
the author displays a “variegated portrait of the Pharisees in the Gospel,” in Acts all the
Pharisees are “friendly” except the so-called “Christian Pharisees.” Thus, as Sanders reads the
evidence, the author displays “ambivalence” toward the Pharisees in both Luke and Acts.1
Robert Brawley argues that the author paints an “ambivalent picture” of the Pharisees and
specifically that “Luke alludes to positive relationships” between Jesus and the Pharisees and
that “Pharisees and Christians are kindred spirits” in Acts. Brawley claims that “in spite of the
ambiguities, the Gospel already tends to present the Pharisees in comparatively favorable light
and anticipates their posture in Acts. In the two volumes, Luke presents the Pharisees as
possessing serious character flaws, but nevertheless as respected and authoritative
representatives of Judaism who can hover close to the edge of Christianity.”2 John Carroll

1 Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 84, 94-95,
127. As Steve Mason claims about the episode involving Gamaliel (Acts 5.33-40), “the narrative
could go two ways” (“Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian
Setting [ed. Richard Bauckham; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster Press,
1995], 115-77, here 151), which echoes Sanders’ larger position that “Luke’s Pharisees can ‘go
either way’” (Jews in Luke-Acts, 130). In analyzing the question about “friendly Pharisees,”
Raimo Hakola holds that “Luke’s portrait of the Pharisees is ambiguous” and furthermore argues
that “both negative and positive appraisals of the Pharisees contribute to an early Christian
identity” (“‘Friendly’ Pharisees and Social Identity in Acts,” in Contemporary Studies in Acts
[ed. Thomas E. Phillips; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2009], 181-200, here 193).
2 Robert Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1987), 84. As J. Patrick Mullen views the evidence, “Luke’s unique information”
1
observes that the author’s presentation of the Pharisees is “puzzling” and “complex.” Although
claiming that in his Gospel, the author does not “turn antagonists into friends,” Carroll also holds
that in Acts not once “does Luke portray Pharisees as antagonists.”3 Similarly, Anthony Saldarini
explains that “Luke’s attitude toward the Pharisees is complex and cannot be simply
characterized as friendly or hostile.”4 David Gowler opens his study on the Lukan Pharisees with
the statement that “the text of Luke-Acts seems to paint an ambiguous portrait of the Pharisees,”
but then he concludes that the “portrait of the Pharisees in Luke is primarily negative, whereas
the portrait of the Pharisees in Acts is primarily positive.”5 In asking whether the author and his
contemporary readers might have encountered Pharisees, Mary Marshall explains, “His differing
portrayals in the Gospel and Acts may indeed cultivate an ambivalent attitude to actual Pharisees
(which may represent his own attitude) but if his contact with actual Pharisees was limited, then
this ambivalence may have had only limited practical implications.”6 And in a recent survey of
the Lukan Pharisees, Amy-Jill Levine asserts, “Whether approached primarily by literary or

about the Pharisees “is sometimes negative,” at other times “neutral,” and in other cases
“potentially positive” (Dining with Pharisees [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004], 80).
So also Leo Michel Abrami claims that the author “is ambivalent with respect to the Pharisees”
(“Were All the Pharisees ‘Hypocrites’?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 47 [2012]: 427-35, here
428).
3 John T. Carroll, “Luke’s Portrayal of the Pharisees,” CBQ 50 (1988): 604-21, here 604,
616. Similarly, David A. Neale asserts, “Luke is ambivalent in his treatment of the Pharisees and
this fact is evidenced in an almost bewildering array of interpretations by scholars of Luke’s
attitude towards Pharisees” (None but the Sinners: Religious Categories in the Gospel of Luke
[JSNTSup 58; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991], 103); and Laurence L. Edwards,
“Luke-Acts, certainly more than any other New Testament work, presents a complex and
ambivalent view of the Pharisees” (“Luke’s Pharisees: Emerging Communities,” in Contesting
TEXTS: Jews and Christians in Conversation about the Bible [eds. Melody D. Knowles et al.;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 119-35, here 133).
4 Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A
Sociological Approach (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988), 179.
5 David Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and
Acts (New York: P. Lang, 1991), 1, 301.
6 Mary Marshall, The Portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts (FRLANT 254;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 184.
2
historical questions, Luke’s Pharisees elude clear answers,” which leads her to conclude that this
author’s view of the Pharisees “will remain debated.”7
What these previous evaluations of the Lukan Pharisees have left unanswered is why the
author would present himself as ambivalent toward these characters, and also what might lie
behind the rhetorical effects of “ambiguity.” Was he undecided or vacillating in his attitude
toward the Pharisees? Did he view some of them positively and others negatively? When we
analyze the evidence, it becomes clear that even in those seemingly positive characters, there is
also an element of negativity in their portrayals. Can we therefore explain these ambiguous
depictions on rhetorical grounds, and if so, what are those rhetorical grounds more specifically?
If we can attribute this ambiguity to a deliberate rhetorical purpose, does this purpose also point
to the author’s position on the Pharisees?
One piece of evidence that may inform these questions appears in Demetrius, De
elocutione 287-95, where he explains what is “so-called figured [ἐσχηματισμένον] in speech”
(Eloc. 287).8 In some instances, Demetrius explains, statements can carry ambiguity
(ἐπαμφοτερίζειν) and leave hearers uncertain about what the speaker meant. As an example,
Demetrius describes Aeschines’ characterization of Telauges. “Almost the entire account
[διήγησις] about Telauges,” Demetrius states, “might cause confusion as to whether it is
admiration or ironic mockery [χλευασμός]. Such an ambiguous [ἀμφίβολον] form of speech,
although not irony [εἰρωνεία], nevertheless has some hint [ἔμφασις] of irony” (Eloc. 291). Does
the ambiguity scholars have noticed in the portrayals of the Lukan Pharisees reflect the author’s
use of this kind of speech? This dissertation aims to reevaluate the Lukan Pharisees in order to

7 Amy-Jill Levine, “Luke’s Pharisees,” in In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (ed. Jacob
Neusner and Bruce D. Chilton; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2007), 113-30, here 113,
130.
8 Unless otherwise noted, all translations of ancient sources are mine.
3