Chapter 3 Jesus and His Opponents Introduction In this chapter, I study portrayals of Jesus’ opponents in the Synoptic Gospels. How do the Synoptic Gospels portray the opponents of Jesus? How does this portrayal affect their masculinity? What does the way in which the opponents are depicted tell about the ideal masculinities of the Synoptic Gospels? As we will see, the opponents are presented as examples of unideal behavior and consequently as unmasculine. In the Synoptic Gospels, all of the Jewish groups are united in their opposi- tion to Jesus: scribes, Pharisees, Herodians, chief priests, elders, and Sadducees. For the Gospel writers, the opponents are almost a homogenous group, even though theological differences between the groups are occasionally men- tioned. What matters for the Gospel writers is that all of these groups are against Jesus.1 What is less often noted is that the opponents of Jesus are men. Therefore, studying them from the point of view of masculinity could lead to 1 See Driggers 2007, 233; Overman 1990, 142. This does not mean that the portrayal of the op- ponents is completely negative. Mark has a positive remark about a good scribe (Mark 12:28– 34), and Matthew mentions a “scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 13:51–52). Luke’s portrayal of the Pharisees is occasionally positive. The Pharisees warn Jesus against Herod (Luke 13:31–33). Whereas Mark notes that “the Pharisees” question Jesus (Mark 2:24), Luke changes the reference into “some of the Pharisees” (Luke 6:2). Jesus dines with the Pharisees three times (Luke 7:36–50; 11:37–54; 14:1–24). Nevertheless, on each of these occa- sions, his behavior or speech scandalizes the host. See also Hakola 2013, 53–55. Green (1997, 307) argues that Luke portrays the Pharisees negatively only when in company with scribes, the off-duty priests, on whom Luke places the blame of Jesus’ death (cf. Luke 11:53). Matthew, on the other hand, expands the tradition of Pharisees being Jesus’ opponents. Matthew mentions the Pharisees 30 times, compared to 12 times in Mark. The reason for the differences in Matthew’s and Luke’s portrayal of the opponents may lie in their different writ- ing contexts. Matthew was hostile to the Jewish leaders because of the closeness of his group to Judaism; he sought both to remain within the boundaries of the Jewish community and to argue that the Christian teaching superseded the Jewish tradition. Saldarini 1995, 247, 250–251; Freyne 1985, 119, 122. The relative lack of polemics in Luke may be due to Luke’s intended audience. If Luke was addressing Gentile readers, there may have been less of a need for polemics against the Jewish groups. However, because Luke needed to appease the Roman authorities, the Jewish leaders are attacked even in the Gospel of Luke. Luke sought to show that the Jewish elite, not the Roman judicial system, was to blame for Jesus’ death. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004361096_004 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0Susanna license. Asikainen - 9789004361096 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:10:42AM via free access Jesus and His Opponents 47 important insights. Aside from the Jewish groups, Pilate and Herod can also be seen as opponents of Jesus and other messengers of God. One would expect Pilate and Herod as members of the elite to be presented as exemplars of hege- monic masculinity. As we will see, however, this is not the case in the Synoptic Gospels. Historically, Sadducees were part of the Jewish elite, and thus close to the hegemonic position. Pharisees and scribes, on the other hand, were not part of the elite, but they have often been called a “retainer class.” They were the local leaders who benefited from co-operating with Rome.2 Even though Pharisees and scribes were not in a hegemonic position, they served the in- terests of the Romans, which likely meant that they were complicit with the Roman ideals. In any case, all of Jesus’ opponents were closer to the hegemo- ny than Jesus’ followers, who were members of the lower classes.3 However, in order to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity, the Synoptic Gospels hoped to show how the opponents failed to achieve the ideals of hegemonic masculinities. It has to be noted, of course, that the Synoptic Gospel portrayals of the Jewish leaders do not necessarily reflect the reality. Rather, the oppo- nents are used as negative examples to depict what is not the ideal masculinity. As we shall see, the non-ideal behavior of the opponents is rarely presented in explicitly gendered terms. Nevertheless, knowledge of the ancient ideals of masculinity may shed light on the interpretation of Synoptic Gospel portrayals of the opponents of Jesus. The Authority of Jesus I will first examine the question of the authority of Jesus and its relation to mas- culinity in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus’ conflict with his opponents is closely connected with the question of authority or power (ἐξουσία). In Chapter 2, we saw that control over others was an important facet of masculinity. Authority over others is one form of control. The central issue in the conflict with the opponents is the question of who has the authority to interpret Scripture. The opponents question where Jesus’ authority comes from (Matt 21:23–27; Mark 11:27–33; Luke 20:1–8). The crowds marvel at Jesus’ authority in all of the Synoptic Gospels. Mark and Matthew explicitly contrast Jesus’ authority with the lack of authority of his opponents: “They were astounded at his teaching, 2 Overman 1990, 13. 3 According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ followers were fishermen and tax collectors. Although the tax collectors benefited from the Roman power, they were in the Gospels as- sociated with sinners. Susanna Asikainen - 9789004361096 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:10:42AM via free access 48 Chapter 3 for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22; Matt 7:28–29; cf. Luke 4:32). In Matthew, Jesus’ authority is connected with his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus’ role as authoritative teacher holds an important place for Matthew, as we will also see in the next chapter. Mark and Luke connect Jesus’ authority first with his teaching, then with his exorcisms (Mark 1:22, 27; Luke 4:32, 36). Mark does not describe the content of Jesus’ teaching. More important for Mark is that Jesus has the authority to speak freely in the synagogue.4 The opponents, on the other hand, lack power and control over the crowds.5 It is only in Mark’s and Matthew’s passion nar- ratives that the opponents do in the end succeed in controlling the crowds.6 It seems that authority as such is not something right or wrong for Mark and Matthew. In the case of Jesus’ opponents, the problem is that they use their power over the crowds to satisfy a desire that, from the point of view of Mark and Matthew, is wrong. This makes the opponents’ use of authority unmas- culine. The Synoptic Gospels present Jesus as more masculine than his oppo- nents, who lack the authority that Jesus has. That authority as such is not negative or positive can be seen in Jesus’ en- counter with the centurion who asks Jesus to heal his servant (Matt 8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10). The centurion opposes the idea that Jesus would come to his house by saying that he has the authority to command people and they obey. Therefore Jesus has the authority to just command the healing and it will hap- pen. Jesus sees this as a positive example of the centurion’s faith. Authority as such is not criticized in this pericope. Jesus’ authority is also evident in his dealings with the demonic forces in exorcisms. Jesus shows his authority and control when he commands unclean spirits and they obey. One poignant example is the healing of the Gerasene de- moniac (Mark 5:1–20; par. Matt 8:28–34; Luke 8:26–39). That Mark’s pericope is full of military imagery has been widely established.7 Jesus is thus presented as a military leader, which is a specifically masculine role. Leander suggests that in the pericope, Jesus’ authority and the power of God manifested in Jesus 4 Stewart 2005, 280. 5 E.g., Matt 21:46; 26:5; Mark 12:12; 14:2; Luke 19:47–48; 22:2. 6 Mark 15:11; Matt 27:20; cf. Luke 23:14–25. 7 The first indication of the pericope’s connections to the Roman army is the name of the demon, Legion. Horsley (2001, 141) lists other examples of military imagery: “the term behind ‘herd,’ while inappropriate for a bunch of pigs in Greek, was often used for a troop of military recruits. ‘Dismissed’ is a military command given to the troop by the officer in command. And ‘charging’ suggests troops rushing headlong into battle.” The destruction of the pigs in the sea is also reminiscent of the destruction of Pharaoh’s army in Exodus 14:21–31. See also Leander 2011, 223–228; Myers 2008, 190–194. Susanna Asikainen - 9789004361096 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 01:10:42AM via free access Jesus and His Opponents 49 are satirically contrasted with the inefficiency of the hypermasculine Roman power.8 Jesus is portrayed as more masculine than the demonic forces. As we can see, Jesus’ opponents are not only people, but also include demonic forces.