D'autres articles de cet numéro | En anglais | En français
The Woes Against the Scribes and Pharisees
Mary Kelly
With respect to liturgical readings, care will be taken to see that homilies based on them will not distort their meanings, especially when it is a question of passages which seem to show the Jewish people as such in an unfavourable light. Effort will be made so to instruct the Christian people that they will understand the true interpretation of all the texts and their meaning for the contemporary believer (Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration «Nostra Aetate a No. 4 [1975])•
Matthew 23 is appointed to be read in the liturgy of the Church during the Eucharist.' It is therefore necessary to discover the gospel which is addressed to Christians today in this text. The immediate impression is that Jesus makes a virulent attack on an alien group called « Scribes and Pharisees using abusive language and roundly condemning them. It is undoubtedly one of those passages referred to in the Vatican instruction quoted above.
The gospels are complicated documents. On the one hand they are timeless for they are addressed to all generations of Christians in every place. On the other hand they are time-bound for they are ancient writings from the Jewish and Hellenistic world of the first century. Moreover, the gospels are not simple biographies of Jesus but the end product of an extended process of transmission. They contain the authentic memories of some of the events in the life of Jesus and his teaching, but they also reflect the situations of the early Christian communities in which the traditionabout Jesus was remembered and handed down, both orally and in written forms. It is necessary to uncover the time-bound situations that gave rise to the events and the text before the gospel which is enclosed therein and is still addressed to the Church can be discovered.
Certain features in Matthew 23 are found in other Jewish literature from about the same period. For instance the sectarian writings of the Dead Sea community contain frequent references to their opponents whom they call « sons of darkness », « hordes of satan seekers of smooth things « congregation of traitors », scoffers », « builders of the wall », « sons of the pit », spouter of lies *, « men of falsehood », violent men », etc. These are all pejorative metaphors which set those they refer to over against the sect and its members who are called a sons of light », a community of God », « holy congregation *, * the elect *, a house of truth ». In spite of the overt hostility it is clear that the sect and its opponents are closely related. Both identified themselves with Israel and based their life on the written Torah and the prophets. Ultimately al/ the accusations are about the interpretation of Torah, the ethical way of life and the forms of worship resulting from it.' W.D. Davies' has shown that the community of Matthew's gospel shared a common world of thought with the sect of the Scrolls and used a terminology that is similiar. Both interpreted prophecy of current events as they experienced them, interpreted their existence eschatologically and used biblical literary categories. Both engaged in bitter polemics with groups closely related to them. Though there is some difficulty in comparing the language of the Greek gospels with the Hebrew sources, invective is a characteristic of the disputes in Matthew 23 and the Dead Sea Scrolls. One term of abuse, « seekers of smooth things » (dorese hdakot), has been said to be the Hebrew equivalent of the a hypocrites* of the New Testament.5
The rabbinical literature also contains evidence of controversy between different schools of thought. Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, this is concerned with balakhah (way of acting) arising out of different interpretations of the biblical text. The sharpness of the earlier invective is still discernible in the Mishnah, though this dates from the second century and has been influenced by the unification effected after the destruction of the Temple. There is evidence of much acrimony and verbal abuse though hardly any formal excommunications took place before 70 A.D. There is reference to « hatred without cause » which led to the destruction of the Temple, to the quarrels which had « caused the Torah to become two Torahs 9 and the existence of twenty-four different sects which led to Israel's exile. A similar pattern is reflected in other literature, for example in the curses and accusations of the Psalms of Solomon and the Assumption of Moses.
In conclusion it can be said that disputes about interpretation and manner of life were common in first century Judaism. They often led to quarrels, verbal abuse and bitter accusations. The conflicts in Matthew 23 show many characteristics in common with these controversies.
WHO ARE THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES OF MATTHEW 23?
The groups with whom Jesus and his disciples came into conflict are called Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes, chief priests, elders, Herodians and lawyers. The Pharisees are named more frequently than any other group as the opponents of Jesus, and in Matthew's gospel more often than in Mark and Luke. In the first gospel their name is sometimes substituted for another or it is added to another group, for example « Pharisees and Sadducees « scribes and Pharisees 9.5 The Pharisees have become for Matthew the opposition party par excellence. They appear only as hostile to Jesus in this gospel.
Such a situation reflects a date after the wars of 66 A.D. Before that time the Pharisees were one party among others. The revolts of 66 and 135 gave rise to a different situation for Judaism. Political defeat and the destruction of the Temple effectively suppressed the Zealot party, reduced the importance of the priests and the Sadducees, and scattered the sect established on the shores of the Dead Sea. If Judaism were to survive there was urgent need for the reinterpretation of the fundamentals to suit a situation without a cultic and political center. The pharisaic movement with its scholars, its attitude to biblical interpretation, its openness to change, contained within itself the necessary resources to effect this renewal.
The term “ scribes 9 is best understood of the body of men who continued the work of Ezra as teacherand interpreter of the Law. In earlier times this task belonged to the priests. Many scribes joined the pharisaic party. In the Mishnah, priests who were scholars of the Law are included among the rabbis responsible for the reconstruction of Judaism. Unlike the term « Pharisee A, scribe 9 is not used exclusively for the enemies of Jesus in the first gospel. indeed it is used in Matthew 8:19, 13:52 of the followers of Jesus and in 23:34 for his messengers. The leaders of the pharisaic party, the scribes and priests are grouped together as the Sages whose discussions are recorded in the Mishnah. By this time they can no longer be divided into separate groups as perhaps they could have been in earlier times. These Sages are the guardians and interpreters of the Law, roles which formerly belonged to the priests and the prophets (cf. Mishnah Avot I. 1). They effected the transference of authority from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin to the rabbinical schools, adapted the observances dependent on the Temple, and regulated worship to suit a non-sacrificial system.
The character of the Jewish community changed somewhat after the destruction of the Temple. The striking pluralism of former times with the bitter controversy that accompanied it could no longer be tolerated. Unification came about automatically to some extent. As already mentioned, the Zealots were defeated, priests lost their role and Sadducees their power, but to some degree unity had to be deliberately fostered. Steps were taken to prevent contact with heretics, and the practice of excommunication from the synagogue was adopted. This latter measure affected Jewish Christians. The gospels show Jesus and his disciples engaged in controversy from the beginning. The destruction of the Temple and the loss of political autonomy alone did not threaten their identity as Jews but the unification measures did. D.R.A. Hare' considers that conflict between Jews and Jewish Christians in this situation was inevitable. The Christian interpretation of many individual laws, the authority of Christ alongside or above that of the Torah, the attitude to gentiles, as well as their eschatological and apocalyptic tendencies ran counter to the outlook and activity of the Sages at Jabneh. Though there was still room within Judaism for differing opinions on some questions, it is evident that the gap between Jewish Christians and the leaders of the Jewish community was too great to allow of their coexistence within the one Judaic community by the time of the redaction of the first gospel. The references to the minim in the Talmud, the twelfth benediction of the Amidab prayer, the policy of social ostracism as well as the references in the Christian sources show that the Jewish authorities demanded a greater conformity. This seems to be the situation that is reflected in the outburst against the scribes and Pharisees in Chapter 23 of the first gospel.
MATTHEW 23
In Matthew 23 traditions of different origin are brought together and fashioned into a single speech of Jesus.° Its effect as a complete single unit is different from that of the isolated traditions. It can be divided as follows:
verses 1-12: Prologue;
verses 13-36: Seven Woes;
verses 37-39: Lament.
When the text is compared with its parallels in Mark and Luke it is found that though the tone of Matthew is more bitter and hostile, yet the author and those he attacks are very closely related. The legitimacy of the authority of the scribes and Pharisees is recognized (v. 3) and a more exact knowledge of their way of life is shown. For example, details of their religious dress are mentioned which are absent from the other gospels. The religious practices referred to in the « woe » passages (vv. 13-36) and the terminology correctly reflect the usage of first century Judaism. Moreover, in many instances the concerns and the teaching of the rabbis agree with the ideal underlying Matthew's text. In fact the criticism levelled against the scribes and Pharisees is made of the followers of Jesus elsewhere (compare 23:11 and 20:26-27). However the gospel cites the abuses, which the rabbis also condemned, as if they were the norm. Derogatory terms are predicated of the scribes and Pharisees in every verse from 13 to 36. The most frequent is « hypocrite » which occurs seven times, but as the intensity of feeling mounts so the invective terms multiply. They include « sons of gehcnna », « offspring of vipers », « this generation », « blind fools », blind guides x (used twice), « blind men », « blind Pharisee >>. In some cases it is difficult to discern the exact nature of the accusations made, sometimes they concern an inner attitude or a hidden motive, in other cases they are of a very generalized nature. These are characteristics of polemic. Each woe passage will be briefly examined.
Verse 13
The scribes and Pharisees, « hypocrites x, are accused of preventing people from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. In both the gospel and the Jewish tradition the term A kingdom of heaven » is connected with the ethical life, is the ohject of prayer and is at the same time a present and future reality. The terms « to shut >> and « to open » occur in the rabbinic sources in a passage about halakhic discussions and the ruling of the rabbis. The notion of « entering the kingdom » is used with regard to behavior in Matthew 7:21 and 18:3. The kingdom of heaven could sometimes refer to the worldto come in the first gospel (cf. 8:11; 25:1). Chapter 10 of tractate Sanhedrin in the Mishnah included the Epicureans (i.e. those who reject traditional authority) among those who have no share in the world to come. This term could refer to Jewish Christians for steps were taken to exclude them from the synagogue. The kingdom of heaven is connected with fellowship with Jesus in the New Testament, and the gospels include within the kingdom those whom they imply were excluded by their Jewish contemporaries (cf. 8:11, 31:31). Though it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion about the historical background of this verse, it uses a religious concept common to the author and those attacked, and sharp controversy is reflected in it.
Verse 15
The second woe cry is about proselytism. There is no parallel to this verse in the synoptic gospels. Conversions to Judaism were frequent in the first century. Jewish sources show a positive attitude to proselytes though sometimes the evidence is more reserved. The second half of the verse implies judgment, for proselytizer and proselyte are declared « sons of gamine ». This term of abuse can be found in the Talmud also. Matthew 23:15 could fit a situation where the proselytizing activities of Jewish and Christian communities were in competition or where Jewish proselytizing was proving an obstacle. Alternatively it could reflect the reaction of someone who had been the victim of the fanaticism that is sometimes characteristic of the convert.
Verses 16 to 22
In verse 16 the woe is addressed to « blind guides », a blind fools » and « blind men ». The practice attacked is the abuse in taking oaths. It is difficult to understand the formulae used by the author's opponents as reported in these verses. The rabbinical sources record discussions about the right use of oaths, their validity and formulae. There was concern about the abuse of extra-juridical oaths. The Talmud records a saying similar to Matthew 5:33: « Let your yea be yea and your nay be nap> (B.M. 49a). The use of the divine name was avoided in Judaism and substitute words were found for it. These n substitute oaths » were declared to be binding though they could be annulled and there were differences of opinion about them. The teaching of the rabbis is ultimately the same as that of the first gospel with regard to oaths. Sincerity of speech without need for an oath is to be preferred. Vows and oaths are binding even when substitute formulae are employed. There is special legislation about the annulment of oaths and vows when circumstances warrant it. In these verses of the gospel an abuse which the rabbis recognized and tried to remedy is cited as if it were normal practice. This and the repetition of the invective terms once again suggest polemic. The term moron used in verse 17 is forbidden to the disciples in Matthew 5:22.
Verses 23 and 24
The scribes and Pharisees are called a hypocrites » and « blind guides » in the fourth woe passage. Its subject is tithing which merits a good deal of discussion in the Jewish sources. The observance of the tithing laws distinguished the Pharisees from others, and after the destruction of the Temple questions were raised as to the kinds of produce liable to the tithe, which lands outside Israel came under the law and which poor, priests and Levites were to receive the tithes. There were attempts in Judaism to distinguish between the greater and lesser commandments (cf. vs. 23) and to find a basic principle of the Law. However some reserve was expressed about such summaries lest important things be left out. The phrase a lighter and weightier commandments 4 is also found in the rabbinical sources. Matthew 23:23-24 reflects the same teaching and uses terminology similar to that of the rabbis. The passage confirms the legitimacy of the tithing laws and states that there are weightier and lesser commandments, all of which have to be obeyed. What the rabbis reprehended is again put forward as if it were the usual practice, and two abusive terms are used. This is typical of polemic.
Verses 25 and 26
In the fifth cry of woe a comparison is made between the outside and the inside in connection with the cleansing of vessels. It is not easy to discover which of the many purification laws this could refer to, but the early Pharisees were distinguished for their adherence to the Levitical purity regulations. The terms extortion » and a rapacity are more applicable to persons than to vessels and it has been suggested that the vessels are merely an image of the scribes and Pharisees. If this is so, the main intent of these verses is not a dispute about the purity laws. Rather, the author, giving vent to the bitterness he feels, accuses the scribes and Pharisees of not being what they appear to be. This type of accusation is typical of polemic. Two pejorative terms, « hypocrites 4 and a blind Pharisee », provide further evidence for this conclusion.
Verses 27 and 28
The same comparison between the outside and inside is made again in the sixth woe passage. The simile is between tombs which were whitewashed so that peoplecould avoid walking over them ° and the scribes and Pharisees. No criticism of the practice is intended but criticism of the persons attacked. The intensity of the author's feeling is indicated by the rather horrific parallel between the accused and the bones of the dead inside the white graves, and by the numerous insulting terms contained in the passage — hypocrites, uncleanness, hypocrisy, lawlessness. The last mentioned seems particularly inapplicable to the Pharisees who were known for their zeal for the Law.
Verses 29 to 36
In the last woe cry a parallel is made between those who « were partakers in the blood of the prophets 4 in the past, and the scribes and Pharisees in the present. It is difficult to follow the argument; the wording is lengthy, the sequence of thought is interrupted in verses 32 and 33, and the moods of the verbs change. The piling up of invective terms, of accusations and threats (vv. 33-36), the black and white comparison between the scribes and Pharisees, the persecutors, and the messengers of Jesus, the persecuted, suggests that the author, under the stress of a particularly painful situation, breaks out into a bitter polemic. The concepts contained in this passage are also found in Jewish sources and would have been understood in a Jewish environment.
THE LITERARY FORM OF flit PASSAGE
Matthew 23:13-36 uses a prophetic speech form, the cry of woe. The author might have found this a particularly effective form for his words, or perhaps he wished to claim prophetic authority. Research into the prophetic speech forms suggests that the cry of woe was originally concerned with accusations which were the result of the prophet's own observations. Only the announcement of judgment is proclaimed as « the word of the Lord n." The cry of woe is uttered against the guilty, those committing the crime, and not against the whole group. Neither are the prophetic woe cries uniquely judgment speeches. When uttered against the nations they are prophecies of salvation for Israel.
The cry of woe in Matthew 23 is not used in exactly the same way as in the prophets. The gospel text is composed of accusation; judgment is present mostly by implication only. There is also a difference in the type of accusations. In the prophetic texts they usually concerned crimes violating the Covenant Code which constituted an objective norm against which the prophet judged his people. The accusations in the gospel text are concerned with religious customs, conflicting interpretations and inner dispositions. They are not subjected to reasoned argument based on an objective moral norm but belong to the sphere of religious polemic.
The relationship between the author and the scribes and Pharisees is ambiguous. It is not as incompatible as between Israel and the pagan nations. However, neither is it certain that the author identified himself with those accused, as the prophets did with Israel. There can be no exact parallel with the prophetic woe cries in this respect.
SOME CONCLUSIONS
If it is true that Matthew 23:13-36 is a piece of religious polemic arising out of a particular historical situation of persecution and pressure, this means that the followers of Jesus gave vent to their hostility and frustration in a typically human way, nor different from their contemporaries. However, whatever the pre-history of this text, its final form incorporates it into the gospel. It is no longer a spoken word spontaneously arising out of particular circumstances, but has been deliberately written down and handed on to posterity. Either the situation continued long enough and was sharp enough to give rise to this literary composition, or it has been included in the canonical gospel because it has a message extending beyond its own historical setting. In this case the context must be taken into account in trying to determine its meaning. In the prologue (vv. 1-12) the authority of the scribes and Pharisees is recognized and a lament (vv. 3739), which is found in another context in Luke, concludes the speech. In it is expressed the grief and the goodwill of Jesus towards Jerusalem, and it ends with the wish to be greeted with the traditional blessing as it was given to those coming up to Jerusalem. It has been placed in the first gospel before the account of the crucifixion and resurrection. This might indicate that the redactor of the gospel finally knew that the scribes and Pharisees were not going to accept Jesus as Messiah, and that the two groups would develop as separate communities though alongside each other. The situation is left open ended.
A GOSPEL FOR TODAY
1. Nature of the text
As part of the canonical gospels this text is still addressed to Christians of all times. Nevertheless its meaning is never divorced from that intended by the author. The character of the text has not changed. If it was polemic in the first century it remains such within the gospel. This discovery of polemic in the gospel shows that the disciples of Jesus were not lifted out of their human situation nor rendered immune fromthe usual emotional reactions. Christians today also remain subject to the limitations of their social and cultural environment and typical human passions. Their responses are not automatically disinterested but must be examined, judged and changed in the light of Jesus' life and teaching. This text can remind Christians that they are always subject to and challenged by their human situation. Their own attitudes need examination and call for repentance.
2. Limitations of the gospel
If Matthew's community lived in close proximity to the scribes and Pharisees they had access to other sources of information about them. Other sources of information about Judaism in the first century are also available to the Christian today. To fail to advert to them might mean and of ten does mean that this text is interpreted as an objective description of the scribes and Pharisees or as a divine judgment on the Jewish leaders. This would be to misunderstand the text and its message. It would distort the gospel for it would be taken as a text about others and not about
oneself. The gospel message cannot be discovered without a knowledge of the wider environment within which the text emerged and was transmitted. The gospel is inserted into and belongs within human society.
3. Today's situation
Matthew 23:13-36 is not appropriate as an example of a relationship to be imitated but is a constant reminder that Christians are not different from other contemporary groups and stand in need of forgiveness and the healing action of the Lord. More particularly, the Church is not in the same situation with regard to Judaism as the community of Matthew was. Nevertheless its relationship to the Jewish community has remained strained and of ten hostile. Only in our own times are Christians beginning to understand the distinctiveness of Judaism, to try to discern the divine purpose in the existence of the Jewish people alongside the Church and to appreciate their continuing spiritual vitality. This text of Matthew can remind Christians that the Church is rooted in Judaism and that the task of fostering a new relationship with the Jewish people is urgent and necessary.
4. A prophetic text
The recognition of prophetic speech forms in this chapter does not necessarily make the text a « Word of the Lord » nor classify it as announcement of judgment. The use of prophetic forms has continued in the liturgy of the Church. For example, the reproaches in the form of questions citing past events of salvation history as found in the prophetical books are used in the Good Friday liturgy. It is by no means certain that they are correctly understood by the worshipping community. Though the woes of Matthew 23 were first addressed to a community that is now distinct from the Christian one, as part of the gospel they are meant for the Church and its members. The text speaks to and about them. It can be argued that it has a particular significance for leaders in the Church. At some point in the transmission history of the text the scribes and Pharisees were the legitimate leaders of the community for their authority is recognized (v. 3). Leaders in the Church perhaps ought to see themselves in the scribes and Pharisees addressed by Jesus and by Matthew.
5. A speech of Jesus?
Some of the content of Matthew 23 is found in different contexts and in less extensive form in the other gospels. This means that its framework was not fixed in the earliest tradition. Though the author speaks in the name of Jesus and with his authority, form and redaction critical studies do not regard this text as the ipsissima verba of the historical Jesus. However the use of his name and authority confirms the identification of Jesus and the community that claims to follow him. It also permits the argument that Jesus is at the mercy of his Church. His words and deeds are preserved only as they are remembered by those who have handed them on. He continues to live for many only through the lives of people who call themselves Christians. Jesus Christ lives on in the worldcircumscribed by the human frailty of his Church, yet he is also the risen Lord. This text reminds us of the limiting and ambivalent factor of the human witness.
Sr. Mary Kelly of the Congregation of Our Lady of Sion, who works at the Study Centre /or Christian-Jewish Relations in London, studied theology in Rome and Biblical Hermeneutics for an MA, degree at Bristol University in England.
1. « The Woes against the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23: What did they mean for the Author and what do they mean in the Gospel today?* is the title of an unpublished M.A. thesis by the author, 1971.
2. Thirty-first Sunday of the year, Year 1; Saturday of the twentieth week; Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of the twenty-first week; Tuesday of the second week in Lent.
3. See section I of thesis.
4. W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge 1964), P. 219.
5. M. Gentler, « Terms: Pharisaioi, Gazaranoi, Hupokritai: their semantic complexity and conceptual correlation s+, Bulletin of School of Oriental and African Studies, XXVI (1963), pp. 245-247.
6. For further details see thesis pp. 20, 21 and 61.
7. D.R.A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to Matthew (Cambridge 1967).
8. See section II paragraph 5 of thesis.
9. Contact with a dead body rendered a person unfit for the Temple ritual. See Israel Abrahams, « Whitened Sepulchres *, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, Vol. I (Cambridge 1917), pp. 29-31.
10. Claus Wcstermann, Bask Forms of Prophetic Speech (London 1967).
