This essay features a socio-narratological analysis of an elaborated chreia (Luke 11:37-54). A socio-narratological approach integrates insights into characterization by literary critics and knowledge about cultural scripts among cultural anthropologists. From the perspective of socio-narratological criticism, a cultural context of hospitality creates the reading environment for evaluating the characters in this pericope. The meal setting in the Pharisee's home implies that the Pharisees were continuing to test Jesus as a stranger, a person who, by definition, was a possible danger to their community. The agonistic setting of this episode is part of a larger narrative strategy that clarifies the disputes between Jesus and his opponents throughout Luke. To demonstrate Jesus' role as a prominent, the narrator portrays Jesus freely ignoring Pharisaical purity concerns such as handwashing. In Luke's narrative world, this disregard contradicts the scribes' and Pharisees' entire Weltanshauung, and they quickly respond to Jesus' indifference toward their socially-shared view of reality. The narrator creatively utilizes this rejection of the cultural expectations of hospitality (which includes honor and purity concerns) to illustrate Jesus' new system of purity, honor, and virtue that replaces the purity system of the scribes and Pharisees.

[Augustus] hardly ever refused hospitality; and having been entertained to a very frugal, and, so to speak, everyday dinner, he just whispered in his host's ear, as he was saying good-by after the poor and ill-appointed meal: "I didn't think that I was so close a friend of yours."

The articles in this volume investigate the rhetoric of pronouncement, and most of them use rhetorical discussions of the chreia as a means of sharpening the analysis. This study brings insights concerning chreiai, characterization, and hospitality together to interpret the meal scene in Luke 11:37-54. People of the first century had a fascination with, and fear of, the power of words to form character (Mack and Robbins:43). Therefore, characterization is one of the primary goals of chreiai. Both speech and action characterize; they help to create a character, project that character's hqoV (Robbins, 1988b:10-13), and they can support or critique the accepted cultural views of virtue (areth ; Mack and Robbins:43, 63). In Luke 11:37-54, powerful words and exhibition of attributes of character occur in a cultural context of hospitality. The challenge will be to describe the dynamics of the social situation in a manner that gives fresh insight into characterization in this literary context.
 
 

The use of discussions of the chreia as a way into an analysis of Luke 11:37-54 calls for an understanding of chreia elaboration. A chreia, broadly defined, is "a concise statement or action which is attributed with aptness to some specified [person] or something analogous to a [person]" (Theon, Progymnasmata, 201,18-20, Hock and O'Neil:82-83, cf. Robbins 1989:xi). The term "concise" has led many New Testament scholars away from the study of the chreia in Mediterranean literature and rhetorical treatises. But chreiai did not only exist in abbreviated form; chreiai were commonly expanded and elaborated (Robbins, 1988b:10). An expansion amplifies the situation and/or response internally. An elaboration does more than just amplify the story; it is a form of argumentation that serves to question the actions and responses of the persons involved. For a typical expansion, see Theon (Progymnasmata; Hock and O'Neil:101-102) and for a typical elaboration (ergasia), see Hermogenes (Progymnasmata 7,10-8,14, cf. Mack and Robbins:31-67). First, then, we must turn to an analysis of Luke 11:37-54 as a rhetorical elaboration that uses chreia-like speech to advance its agenda.
 
 

Luke 11:37-54 is a rhetorical elaboration – that is, it does not end with a single, pointed rejoinder but contains a complex set of sayings. A close inspection of the meal scene reveals a chreia/pronouncement story (vss 38-41) in the passage (see Aune, 1987:122). Many have discussed the possible relationships between Luke 11:37-54 and Mark 7, Mark 12:38-40, Matthew 23, and the Q source (e.g., Bultmann:113-114; Crossan:171-174; Marshall:491-493; cf. Ellis:170). For the issue at hand, it is important to acknowledge that the Lukan narrative achieves its rhetorical goal through elaboration of a chreia. Burton Mack aptly illustrated Luke's skill in rhetorical composition in the elaboration of a meal-scene chreia and the resulting effects on the characterization of Jesus (Mack and Robbins:85-106). Mack argued that the original story behind Luke 7:36-50, Mark 14:3-9, Matt. 26:6-13, and John 12:1-8, was a chreia. He believed that the chreia was expanded in two different ways during the process of transmission, and the expansions followed the standard pattern of chreia elaboration as learned in the elementary rhetorical exercises by which people learned to read/write/speak Greek.

As Mack noted in his discussion of Luke 7:36-50, the chreia has three major components: setting, challenge, and response. Vernon Robbins noticed that the challenge and response found in such stories are vehicles for transmitting the hqoV of the main character and for achieving the rhetorical goal of the story. Every pronouncement story, therefore, contains at least some epideictic influence, because the display of the main character's hqoV is the foremost duty of a pronouncement story (1984b:94-97).

For a full discussion of the rhetoric involved in the elaboration of a chreia into a meal-scene narrative concerning Jesus and the Pharisees, I invite the reader to see Mack's analysis. That rhetorical garden is well-tended. His study primarily delineated the rhetorical form, the parallels to the elaboration exercises found in the elementary progymnasmata (rhetorical handbooks), and gave a description of the component parts. Mack's discussion left the function of the rhetorical manipulation basically open ended (Mack and Robbins:104-105). My purpose is a different one. This essay will take that rhetorical discovery at least one step further: Description will take a back seat to function. Luke's rhetoric in 11:37-54 aims toward a characterization of Jesus – as well as that of his opponents – and it achieves that aim in a social framework.

The elaborated chreia unfolds in the following manner:

(a) The narrator creates the specific setting in verses 37-38: Jesus implicitly challenges the Pharisees' purity system, and the host Pharisee implicitly (counter)challenges Jesus by being astonished that Jesus "did not first wash before dinner." The Pharisee's unspoken astonishment forcefully brings into question both the identity of Jesus and the decision that the characters and the reader necessarily must make about him. 

(b) Verses 39-41 contain Jesus' three-part response to the unspoken challenge. First, Jesus censures the Pharisees, adopting the mode of epideictic rhetoric: ". . . inside you are full of rapacity and wickedness" (11:39). Second, in verse 40, Jesus authoritatively pronounces judgment against them in the form of an interrogatio, the strongest form of an assertion: "You fools! Did not [God] . . . make the inside also?" Third, in what appears to be a contrary, Jesus exhorts the Pharisees to "give for alms those things that are within" (11:41). This exhortation moves the chreia beyond epideictic censure to deliberative rhetoric, because Jesus gives the Pharisees advice for future actions. As Kennedy noted, exhortation can be epideictic, if it seeks to inculcate belief without action. If the exhortation encourages the recipient to a particular course of action, it is deliberative (146). Jesus' use of deliberative rhetoric (the advice to give alms) seeks to argue that such action is in their inherent self interest, since the Pharisees seek after purity ("and see, everything is clean for you"). Jesus' response to the challenge, then, speaks against the resistance and tries to bring about a change in attitude. The rhetoric of the narrative is asking the reader to affirm or reaffirm a similar shift in attitude (Tannehill, 1980:53; 1981:111-113).

(c) Luke 11:42-52 provides a dialogical elaboration of the chreia. Three sayings of censure (woes) on the Lukan Pharisees initiate the elaboration. Jesus utilizes two arguments from example in verses 42-43: (1) ". . . you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God" (11:42); and (2) ". . . you love to have the seat of honor in the synagogues and to be greeted with respect in the market places" (11:43). These examples exemplify the proposition of the chreia (that the Pharisees are "fools" who in practice deny the sovereignty of God), and they bring this theme to a specific focus: the Pharisees' pride leads to self-aggrandizement. Jesus' third censure utilizes an argument from analogy: the Pharisees are like "unmarked graves" (11:44). This apt comparison elaborates the principle that the Pharisees impart impurity to unsuspecting victims just as a hidden grave imparts impurity to those persons, unaware of its presence, who walk over it (11:44).

The objection raised by "one of the lawyers" (11:45) allows the narrative to elaborate the lawyers' actions and responses to Jesus. The lawyer protests that by rebuking the Pharisees, Jesus also reproaches the lawyers. Jesus' response to the lawyer follows the three-fold pattern of censure that he directed against the Pharisees in 11:42-44, but the elaboration differs substantially. The first woe is a generalized censure against the lawyers who "load people with burdens hard to bear" but do not touch the burdens themselves (11:46). The second censure is an enthymematic argument (11:47-48). This syllogism concludes that the lawyers witness and approve of the deeds of their ancestors (i.e., killing the prophets). The narrative then utilizes a citation from an ancient authority (the Wisdom of God, 11:49-51) to elaborate the second woe and further its theme: "the blood of all the prophets . . . will be charged against this generation." The third censure against the lawyers (11:52) provides the concluding summary to the elaborated chreia: The lawyers have taken away the key of knowledge, they did not enter (Wisdom's house?; cf. Prov. 9:1) themselves, and they hindered others from entering. The voice of the narrator returns in Luke 11:53-54 to provide the transition in spatial setting and to note the Pharisees' and lawyers' heightened opposition to Jesus. In Luke 12:1 the narrator completes this transition by clarifying the shift in temporal setting as well. The Pharisees and lawyers have tested the honor and authority of Jesus, and Jesus emerges triumphant.

In outline form, therefore, the structure of the elaborated chreia is:

Chreia component: Setting
Rhetorical function: Narratio

Luke 11:37 – A Pharisee asks Jesus to dine

Luke 11:38 – Jesus does not wash before dinner, and the Pharisee is astonished

Luke 11:39-41 – Jesus, as Lord, rebukes the Pharisees in toto

11:39: Censure – Pharisees cleanse outside, but inside they are full of rapacity

11:40: Judgment (interrogatio) – Pharisees are fools; God made the inside also

11:41: Exhortation – Give alms, and everything is clean

Luke 11:42-43: Jesus levels three woes on Pharisees 

11:42: Argument from example – tithe but neglect justice and love of God

11:43: Argument from example – love seat of honor in synagogues and greetings of respect

11:44: Argument from analogy – Pharisees are like unmarked graves

Luke 11:45: Interlocution by a lawyer – "You reproach us also"

Luke 11:46-52 – Jesus levels three woes on lawyers

11:46: Generalized Censure – load people with burdens and do not touch them

11:47-48: Enthymematic argument with example – You consent to your ancestors' killing of the prophets

11:49-51: Citation from ancient authority (with amplification) – the Wisdom of God says "the blood of all the prophets . . . will be charged against this generation"

11:52: Concluding summary – Lawyers took away the key of knowledge

This rhetorical analysis helps to substantiate the thesis that Luke 11:37-54 primarily concerns the hqoV of Jesus, and that the passage helps to delineate the characters (hqh) of his opponents as well (the Pharisees and the lawyers/scribes). A specific rhetorical classification of the scene is even more corroborative. The story is a self-defense against the astonishment of the Pharisee. At first the story evokes the context of a judicial defense for Jesus' not washing before dinner. But Jesus offers no legal rationale or declaration of innocence; the legal action is not as important as the question of his authority and reputation. The narrative touches on judicial issues but quickly moves to other concerns. Jesus also uses deliberative rhetoric to instruct the Pharisees. But epideictic rhetoric is also present, since epideictic rhetoric often turns on matters of honor (e.g., the grounds for praise or blame; see Mack, 1990:34). The raconteur skillfully narrates this encounter in order to enhance Jesus' person, authority, and honor, as well as to diminish the authority and honor of his opponents. The narrative is a deliberative self-defense placed in a setting of censure (cf. Robbins, 1984b:109-111). Jesus, as the authoritative Lord (11:39), has the final words of censure, correction, and prophetic insight.
 
 

While the analysis thus far exhibits the nature of the rhetorical argumentation that produces a positive portrayal of Jesus and a negative portrayal of Pharisees and lawyers in Luke 11:37-54, it is possible to probe much deeper into the dynamics of characterization in Luke (see e.g., Gowler, 1989; 1991; cf. Darr, 1987; 1992). The generation of a character in the reader's experience of a narrative is a dynamic process of creation (Docherty). Characters emerge as doppelgängers, ghostly doubles of living persons who during the dynamic process of reading come to exist in the consciousness of the reader. The text generates the characters, but a reader must apprehend them; texts signify characters but do not prescribe them. Character, in other words, is a metaphor, a "bright chimera" the reader creates through interaction with the signposts in the narrative (Wilson). Different texts play with diverse levels of ambiguity, but, as Thomas Docherty noted, a plot-centered narrative – such as the Gospel of Luke – heightens the narrator's authority and attempts to place strong limits on a reader's subjectivity (Docherty:54, 88). The reader interacts with the text, and may even "play with the details" and "mingle with the characters," but the text lays down the outline of the story (Flaubert:109).

So narratives give guidelines to readers for how they are to interpret the characters. Initially, a character may be a blanc sémantique, a gap in the reader's understanding that prompts him or her to read further (Docherty:47). As the reader and text dialogue during the reading process, together they will confirm, fill in, or develop that "empty space" of the character. Perhaps this dialogue will even leave the initial impressions of a character permanently ambiguous. The critical reader (cf. Fowler:27-31), however, may outline the process of character-creating in the following way (Gowler, 1989:54-62; 1991:55-75; cf. Rimmon-Kenan:59-70; Alter:116-130). Scales of descending reliability and explicitness play an important role in character evaluation. Direct definition – the overt naming of someone's qualities – is the most explicit form of characterization, but an interpreter needs to apply a descending scale of reliability to evaluate it. Reliability is the measure of the extent to which a speaker can be trusted, and direct definition varies in importance with the level of authority inherent in the voice that is speaking. The Gospel of Luke contains three voices of absolute authority for the reader: (1) the unrestricted, reliable narrator; (2) Jesus; and (3) the voice from heaven. Other characters have varying degrees of reliability, and the reader – if she or he follows the wishes of the narrator – evaluates them according to their congruence with the statements of the more reliable voices. The words of Jesus' opponents, of course, carry the least weight, and the narrator expects the reader to consider those characters to have the least reliable voices in the narrative.

Direct definition guides the reader directly and clearly. The only question is how much the interpreter should trust the direct definition. Indirectpresentation, on the other hand, displays or exemplifies traits or qualities of the characters, leaving the reader to make the appropriate inferences. Therefore, both the reliability and the explicitness of the characterization may vary. The importance of these references also varies with the order of presentation, the number of the reported incidents, or any other technique the narrator chooses to utilize (see Gowler, 1989:54-62; 1991:61-75).

A structured approach to characterization may appear reductionistic. When a critic rips characters from text and context, character analysis is woefully inadequate. The critic cannot explain everything; the reader has to dialogue with the narrative in the sequence in which it is encountered. Later scenes often cause a reevaluation of earlier ones, so the critical reader must strike a balance: a sequential, cumulative reading must be informed by an appreciation of the rhetorical strategy of the narrative as a whole.

An important element of allowing the text to speak for itself is the recognition of the various cultural scripts inherent in every narrative. These cultural scripts vary from age to age and culture to culture, but every text is a socially symbolic act and assumes certain cultural norms. For example, how can a critical reader evaluate an epithet about a character if she or he does not understand the cultural implications of the terms used in the direct definition? Cultural scripts are just as important for evaluating indirect presentation of characters. Actions and speech of characters in a narrative could imply vastly different things, depending on the cultural context. Therefore, a knowledge of these culturally-specific scripts is essential for a more informed reading of a narrative. The most important cultural context for the passage at hand is the law of hospitality.

Julian Pitt-Rivers noted that hospitality is founded on ambivalence (see Pitt-Rivers:12-30; cf. Malina, 1986b:181-187). When a person outside a community is invited to feast or lodge with the host, that person temporarily undergoes a change from stranger – an unknown and therefore possibly dangerous person – to guest. The stranger's worth is often tested in this situation, but the extension of hospitality, although it does not eliminate conflict, places any conflict in abeyance and prohibits its expression. The avoidance of disrespect then becomes paramount. The guest's "worth," however, is often gauged in this atmosphere of apparent hospitality. Many times, the important question is: Can the guest subscribe to the cultural rules expected of a guest in the host's home? The host and his community will evaluate the guest by the extent to which his behavior conforms to cultural expectations of the host/guest relationship (16). The connections to Luke 11:37-54 are obvious. Jesus is not a member of the Lukan Pharisees' voluntary community, and they want Jesus to conform to their standards of conduct (see Luke 11:38 in particular). The Pharisees are testing the worth of this possibly dangerous stranger, and they evaluate his behavior in light of their cultural expectations.

The host gives precedence to a person who is a guest in the host's home for the first time over habitual guests with whom a greater familiarity exists. The treatment of any person, though, depends on that person's social status, and the whole community gains honor when one in its community hosts a guest of high status. Individually, the host gains honor through the number and quality of guests. The host also gains honor when he shows honor to a superior person; he loses honor, however, by neglecting to show honor to a person who deserves honor. The host, in turn, expects the guests to show honor to him. The host and guest must never be seen as equal as they act out their roles of the hospitality relationship, because any presumption of equality invites the rivalry that is supposed to be dormant. If the meal proceeds according to protocol, the stranger becomes a guest by the formality of offering food. This high degree of intimacy invokes the sacred and involves an exchange of honor (Pitt-Rivers:12-30).[1]

The guest has but one obligation: to respect the host. Hospitality involves – with rare exceptions – the subordination of the guest. This process of subordination is called englobing, and the host's attitude to the guest – or visa versa – often reproduces the collective attitude one has to the social or cultural group the other represents (Herzfeld:75-89). Here the Lukan story takes its decisive turn. Character traits Luke has attributed both to Jesus and to the Pharisees prior to this point in the narrative reappear in the host's response to Jesus' neglect of purity regulation and Jesus' condemnations of the Pharisees and lawyers. 

As suggested above, expectations of the host and guests may vary. For example, some cultures require that the guest compliment the host for the meal. In other cultures, however, the host might interpret this compliment as an insult: the host would assume that such a compliment impolitely presupposes even the possibility that the gracious host could have served a bad meal to the guest. Laws of hospitality declare that certain behaviors, though, are universally in bad form. A guest could violate the law of hospitality by: (1) insulting the host by any show of hostility or rivalry; (2) usurping the role of the host by taking precedence over the host; (3) refusing the food and drink offered by the host. A host, on the other hand, could infringe the law of hospitality by: (1) insulting the guest or by showing any hostility or rivalry; (2) failing to protect the honor of a guest; (3) failing to show concern for his guests' needs or wishes. As Pitt-Rivers noted, "Failure to offer the best is to denigrate the guest" (27-28). Any infringement upon the law of hospitality eliminates the reciprocal relationship of giving honor to each other. An affront or insult entitles the slighted person to abandon the role of guest or host and to attempt to maintain honor. The resolution of this combat – which reflects the ambivalence that underlies the law of hospitality – may end in one of two ways: it may lead to the incorporation of the guest as an accepted friend or to the rejection of the guest as an enemy of the host (29-30).

Luke 11:37-54 may belong to the genus litterarium of the Hellenistic symposium. Some objections have been raised against this hypothesis, but the Lukan meal scenes between Jesus and the Pharisees quite possibly could be adaptations from the symposium genre (see Aune, 1978:69-70; Steele, 1981, 1984). David Aune noted that the symposium was both a social custom and a loosely (emphasis mine) structured literary form that was ordinarily an independent piece of work (1987:122). Steele noted, however, that Luke's Gospel is quite capable of modifying various Hellenistic "genres" (Steele's word; 1984:386-387). Whatever the case, Greco-Roman cultural conventions had influenced the Jewish meal, as they had many other areas of Jewish life.

Yet most recent work in this area (e.g., Steele's analysis) concentrates upon the structure of the Lukan meal scenes and whether or not they can be called symposia. Of more importance, however, is the function of this type scene in the narrative of Luke. What function do the meal scenes perform, and – specifically for this study – what effects do they have upon the portrayal of the characters? For example, Steele claimed that having Pharisees as the hosts of Jesus meant that the Pharisees are placed in a favorable light (1981:174). Yet Denaux noted that the hosts in the symposium genre were ridiculed, and he even claimed that "Le fait que dans les symposia de Luc, les Pharisiens jouent presque toujours le rôle d'hôtes, rèvéle en quelque sorte indirectement son jugement défavorable sur eux" (262; cf. Carroll:610-611). Denaux's claim that the hosts were always ridiculed is an exaggeration, but there is a more fundamental difference between the meal scenes in Luke and Plato's Symposium, for example. Jesus is undergoing – as a stranger – a time of testing while he is dining with the Pharisees. Mutual rejection will ensue. The time of testing, as described by Pitt-Rivers, does not really occur in Plato's Symposium, and that difference from Luke 11:37-54 is crucial.

In Luke 11:37-54, the host's response to Jesus represents the Lukan Pharisees' typical response to Jesus' neglect of purity regulations. In turn, Jesus' condemnations of the Pharisees and lawyers are indicative of his attitude (in Luke) to their misplaced priorities. Jesus' blatant disregard of the laws of hospitality creates a potential problem for the reader. In a culture that prizes hospitality, where guests must avoid disrespect to their host, why should the reader admire Jesus, when he acts in this socially objectionable way? The critical reader finds the answer in the narrator's rhetorical strategy. In other words, a hermeneutical circle appears. First, a knowledge of the law of hospitality clarifies many issues concerning the portrayal of characters in this elaborated chreia. Second, the narrator's ideology, the way he relates this particular story, his portrayal of the characters, and his overall narrative strategy persuasively condition the readers' perspective of Jesus' violation of these enculturated hospitality laws. When readers come to agree with the narrator's ideological (conceptual) point of view, they can actually look favorably on Jesus' rejection and reconfiguration of their cultural expectations of hospitality and the interrelated systems of honor and purity. In sum, the narrator paradoxically uses Jesus' apparently shameful actions to enhance Jesus' stature in the eyes of the reader (narratee).

One way that the narrator achieves this fundamental reversal in readers' cultural expectations is the way he portrays the characters in Luke 11:37-54. It is not feasible to present a full account of the characters' roles up to this point in the narrative, but a brief synopsis will set the stage for an informed analysis of this pericope. All of the characters in the Gospel of Luke direct one's attention to the main character, Jesus (cf. Shuler:103). A critical reader evaluates other characters in the narrative according to their response to Jesus, because, as characters, they set off, contrast with, dramatize, and engage the main character (cf. Culpepper:103). Without question, Jesus dominates the narrative of Luke. Beginning with Luke 4:1, he is the center of interest, at the center of all exchanges, and, until the passion narrative, in charge as the main actor. The issue at hand in the early chapters of the Gospel is the identity of Jesus. Direct definition clearly identifies Jesus from the beginning: Jesus is "Lord" (1:43, 76), the "Son of the Most High" (1:32), the "Son of God" (1:35), the "Christ" (2:26-32), and various other positive evaluations (e.g., 2:40, 46-47, 49, 52; 3:15-17). These statements are made by reliable characters: Simeon, for example, is "righteous and devout . . . and the Holy Spirit was upon him" (2:25). Such initial information has a critical influence on the reader's process of perception. The attitudes imbued in the early stages of the narrative encourage the reader to interpret the rest of the narrative in that light, unless the later narrative causes a reprocessing of that initial information (i.e., the primacy effect; cf. Sternberg, 1978:102-104). The characterization of Jesus, however, is primarily achieved through indirect presentation, which also is quite effective (e.g., Luke 2:41-51), and God, the ultimate voice of authority in the narrative world, confirms this initial positive impression: the voice from heaven declares that Jesus was "my beloved son" with whom God was well pleased (3:22). The entire narrative reinforces this positive portrayal of Jesus. Thus when Jesus performs some actions that seem shameful, the narrator implicitly declares that those actions are actually honorable (e.g., Jesus' violation of hospitality laws). Different actions are judged honorable according to the overall standing of the person performing those actions. Honor depends on one's perception and ideological point of view. Therefore evaluations of moral worth are mutable and underscore the reversal of values the narrator seeks to inculcate in the reader. For members of Jesus' group, his deviant actions are honorable, simply because he as Lord (11:39) performs them.

The Pharisees and lawyers in the Lukan narrative serve as legitimation devices via negativa for Jesus. The conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees and lawyers play a crucial role in their characterizations. When the narrative implicitly and explicitly contrasts Jesus' teachings, authority, and person with those of the Pharisees and lawyers, all the portrayals become clearer. Because of his victories in verbal contests with various religious leaders, Jesus gains honor and confirms his authority and stature.

The Pharisees who appear in Luke 11:37-54 are not a blank slate. The narrative has already generated quite a pejorative picture of them. They initially appear, almost unannounced, in response to the rising fame of Jesus (5:17). Since the narrator associates the Pharisees with the teachers of the law, the reader should recognize that the honor Jesus was receiving from the people (e.g., 4:37; 5:15) impinged upon the own honor of the Pharisees. Jesus was acting outside his social role, and the Pharisees come to defend their status as brokers of God's blessings (see below). A series of five controversies depicts an evolution of Pharisaic hostility to Jesus that culminates with the Pharisees deliberating an ambiguous course of action against Jesus (6:11). The next appearance of the Pharisees includes an authoritative pronouncement by the narrator that the Pharisees and lawyers reject the purpose of God for themselves (7:30). The narrator then concretely illustrates his overt evaluations of "all the people and the tax collectors" as opposed to "the Pharisees and the lawyers" (7:29-30) by the differing responses to Jesus by the "sinful woman" and Simon the Pharisee (7:36-50). This first meal scene where a Pharisee acts as host for Jesus symbolizes Jesus' defamiliarization of societal norms by receiving sinners (see Resseguie 1984:307-322; 1991). The so-called righteous persons object to his actions. The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees then escalates the next time Jesus dines in a Pharisee's home (Luke 11:37-54).

Lawyers also appear in this pericope. The Pharisees' connection to the lawyers in Luke-Acts remains partly ambiguous. No voice in the narrative clearly defines the terms scribe, lawyer, and teacher of the law. Teacher of the law is to a certain extent self-descriptive, but the reader encounters no precise description of authority in the narrative. The references to teachers of the law and scribes in Luke 5:17 and 5:21, however, suggest that they are one and the same. In addition, the references to lawyers and scribes in Luke 11:45 and 11:53 imply that the scribes are the same as lawyers. Sometimes the narrative connects scribes/lawyers with the Pharisees (e.g., 5:21; 6:7; 11:53; 15:2), and twice the narrator calls them scribes of the Pharisees (5:30 [with textual variants]; Acts 23:9). Yet in other places the narrative associates them with the elders (e.g., 9:22) and chief priests (e.g., 9:22; 19:47; 20:1; 22:2; 23:10). The narrator only permits one possible positive depiction of the scribes (20:39) but mitigates even that minimal reference (20:40, 45-47). In the passion narrative the chief priests become the persecutors, and the scribes, elders, and others support them. Yet the narrator appears to separate the Pharisees from the chief priests; the scribes are the only possible connection between them. The narrative depicts some connection between at least some scribes and Pharisees, but – for reasons the book of Acts will make clear – the narrator assiduously avoids connecting the Pharisees to the death of Jesus. The pericopes in the narrative prior to Luke 11:37-54 provide evidence for this reading. The narrative connects the Pharisees to the scribes/lawyers/teachers of the law in several pericopes where conflicts with Jesus arise (Luke 5:17, 21, 30; 6:7; 7:30), but when Jesus predicts his upcoming death, the Pharisees disappear from the formula and the scribes are conspicuously present (Luke 9:22). The lawyers (scribes) are the only possible link between the Pharisees and the people responsible for Jesus' death (pace Moessner, 1988:21-46; 1989:192-207, 212, 229; cf. Jack T. Sanders:3-23, 84-131).
 
 

With these insights into chreia elaboration, characterization, and hospitality, let us turn to a socio-narratological reading of Luke 11:37-54. Jesus accepts a Pharisee's invitation to dinner. The narrator thus links this scene to Luke 7:36-50 as well as to the more immediate context (with the phrase en de tw lalhsai; cf. Esler:119; Tannehill 1986:180-182; Garrett:93-105). The reader immediately notes similarities between Luke 7:36-50 and Luke 11:37-54: a Pharisee invites Jesus to dinner; Jesus accepts; complications arise; and Jesus responds to the Pharisee's unspoken thoughts. The reader also will perceive variations between the two scenes: the provocation is not as great, but the rebuke by Jesus is much stronger – woes on all Pharisees carry more power and vehemence than a parable against one Pharisee. The various parallels between Luke 11:37-54 and other Pharisaic meal scenes are important because a reader evaluates characters not only by their performance in this story, but also by all of their performances as the narrative proceeds. The repetition and variation of sundry words and themes in the three meals that Jesus shares with the Pharisees in Luke (7:36-50; 11:37-54; 14:1-24) generate a powerful rhetorical effect. As Janice Capel Anderson noted:

The similarities between episodes are important in their own right. They engage the implied reader's memory and at times emphasize an aspect of characterization or an element of the plot, etc. However, the similarities are also important because they cause variations to stand out in relief. The implied reader must account for the variations . . . . Further, the overall arrangement of these episodes will shape his or her reading. The order in which the events appear is important (72-73).

Narratio and Quaestio: The Settingandthe Challenge (Luke 11:3-38)

Verse 37 represents both a spatial and temporal shift in setting. Jesus was speaking to the crowds, and a Pharisee invited him to dine. Jesus enters the Pharisee's house and sits at his table. The speed of the narration then slows for the conflict; the delay of the exposition is brief but effective: Jesus did not wash before dinner, and the Pharisee was astonished.

The reader immediately encounters several cultural scripts. The law of hospitality demands that guests show honor to the host and that the host respect the guests, at the very least by avoiding any show of hostility. Unlike Luke 7:36-50, the narrator notes no overt slight of Jesus by the host. The host invites Jesus to dinner, and Jesus does not wash his hands. When the Pharisee reacts with astonishment, Jesus unleashes a verbal attack against not only the host, but against all Pharisees. As Bourdieu noted, an "accomplished man" must always be on the alert, ready to take up the slightest perceived challenge. Yet Bourdieu went on to note that a lack of moderation on the part of a participant should be met with disapproval (199-200). Therefore, cultural expectations of readers in this environment should actually be offended; Jesus' actions would be shameful for at least two reasons: (1) He did not conform to his host's purity regulations; (2) His attack on the Pharisees goes beyond what his host's subsequent response ("astonishment") calls for. Because Jesus is a guest in the Pharisee's home, this show of hostility nullifies any possible positive ramifications of sitting down to dine together. The infringement of the hospitality code destroys the social roles of host and guest; incorporation from guest to friend does not occur; and Jesus, the Pharisees, and the lawyers all revert to a hostile relationship. They are no longer host and guest; they are enemies (cf. Pitt-Rivers:27-30).

The invitation the Pharisee extended to Jesus was supposed to suspend any overt hostility, although a time of testing could ensue. Since the process of englobing often involves the assumption that guests subscribe to the cultural expectations of the host, the host Pharisee was thus astonished at Jesus' failure to follow the Pharisee's purity rules (11:38). Jesus' failure to wash before dinner not only was a possible rejection of hospitality codes, but it also was tantamount to a rejection of the Pharisee's social order and the values that order mediates (see Malina, 1988a:12; Moxnes, 1988:105; Smith, 1985:151-156). Because purity rules tend to replicate one another, the whole system may seem threatened when someone disregards even one aspect of it. The concern for clean hands is a symbol of concern for a strong overall system of purity.[2] The Lukan Pharisees would naturally conclude that Jesus purposely rejected the God-given ordered system that structured their lives (see Neyrey, 1988:79, 83; 1991b:271-304). As Pitt-Rivers noted, the stance that the host takes to the guest represents his group's collective attitude to the guest and to the group that guest represents (77). Thus this Pharisee's astonishment at Jesus' actions is illustrative of the Pharisees' general sentiment about Jesus – at least to this point in the Lukan narrative. The rationale for Jesus' rejection of their purity system is a concern for the inner, core values of God's law. Jesus declares that pollution does not result from unwashed hands – which only concerns the outer surface of the body – but with the sins that come from inside a person, such as rapacity and the evil of covetousness (vss. 39-41).

A clarification is in order. People tend to label (directly define) a person who acts outside his or her social role in one of two ways: as a deviant or prominent. A deviant is a person whom others perceive as acting outside his or her social role to such an extent that they define him or her in a new, negative way. Many places throughout the narrative of Luke, mostly in indirect ways, the Pharisees attempt to categorize Jesus as a deviant. A prominent, on the other hand, is a person whom others see as also acting outside his or her social role, but they redefine that person in a positive way. The narrator of Luke categorizes Jesus in this positive way. Jesus' role as prominent also, according to the narrator, makes him a limit breaker, that is, someone who can transcend the socially-defined limits in a given culture in some socially accepted – by some, at least – way (see Malina, 1986a:143-154; Neyrey, 1986:91-128; and Malina and Neyrey, 1988:40). Jesus' actions were shameful from the Pharisees' point of view, but he preempts that negative labeling process and actually reverses it: Jesus condemns the condemners. Jesus' response indicates that he expected to be labeled a deviant. Yet according to the information supplied thus far to the reader, Jesus' activity was quite honorable. Jesus is a deviant only in the eyes of the Pharisees and the lawyers/scribes, because his behavior jeopardizes their interests and social standing (Malina and Neyrey, 1991a:100-110; 1991b:47-49). In the narrative of Luke, those persons who label Jesus as a deviant are unreliable characters who themselves lose honor; those who label Jesus as a prominent are usually more reliable characters. Recognition by demons and the use of irony are two exceptions. Most often a strict correlation exists between reliability and acquired honor.

Honor, in the broadest sense of the word, is compliance with the traditional patterns of behavior. Thus honor, in this sense, is nearly identical to "goodness" or "virtue." A man of honor is simply a good or virtuous man, with honor being attained and maintained by conformity to prevailing cultural norms. Yet honor also requires more than this passive acceptance of societal norms. Honor also depends on the achievement of superiority and distinction (see Abou-Zeid:258). The honor rating that the narrator and others ascribe to Jesus, though, goes well beyond these customary standards. Jesus, according to the narrator, is a prominent and limit breaker who can transcend the prevailing cultural norms. Therefore, Jesus' actions dictate a new pattern of behavior based on his own authority as God's representative (or broker, see below). The narrator's strategy is to convince or confirm readers' affirmations of the essential correctness of Jesus' words and actions.

The extent of Jesus' ascribed honor is well-established. The narrator, God, and other reliable characters label Jesus with titles of the utmost honor and position (e.g., 1:32-35, 76; 2:11, 26-32; 3:22). All of these direct definitions ascribing honor to Jesus are spoken by characters who are both reliable and honorable. These labels applied to Jesus greatly overshadow the negative epithets that characters who are both unreliable and dishonorable apply to him (e.g., by this "faithless and perverse generation" [9:41]). The narrative leads the reader to accept Jesus' evaluation of this "evil generation" (11:29) and to reject any negative labels applied to Jesus by his opponents (Gowler, 1989:58). The crucial test is whether or not other characters – such as the Pharisees – accept Jesus' authority as limit-breaker, broker (see below), and, finally, Lord. In this instance the Pharisees do not (11:53-54).

The agonistic honor and shame setting of Luke 11:37-54 is evident. Previously, after a series of five honor and shame contests between Jesus and the Pharisees, the narrator noted that the Pharisees and scribes were discussing "what they might do to Jesus" (Luke 6:11). Later the narrator notes that the Pharisees "lie in wait" for Jesus in order to "catch him in something he might say" (11:53). The narrator in Luke 11:38, though, does not report any verbal protest from the Pharisee over what he would perceive to be Jesus' implicit challenge of the Pharisees' purity system (i.e., Jesus' neglect of washing before the meal). The result seems to be that the Pharisee does not really question Jesus directly. He offers an indirect affront to Jesus' honor, not the more serious direct affront (see Pitt-Rivers:27-28). The person who is challenged ambiguously may choose to ignore the affront, but here Jesus responds to the unspoken question about his behavior. Jesus' reaction to the host Pharisee's astonishment openly initiates an honor and shame contest: he unleashes a verbal barrage against all Pharisees (11:39-44). Jesus' response to the Pharisee's silent astonishment, of course, makes the debate public. A lawyer will later attempt to respond to his challenge (11:45), but Jesus foils that attempt (11:46-52). Jesus reigns supreme in the duel fought according to honor and shame rules. In the eyes of the reader, Jesus gains honor, and the Pharisees and lawyers lose honor. The critical reader perceives the status reversal inherent in this characterization of the Pharisees. The process of defamiliarization of norms – a recurrent literary device in Luke – continues. The narrator thus successfully defends what appears to be indefensible: Jesus' allegedly shameful actions. The so-called religious authorities – who should have a high honor rating – lose honor to Jesus. But by the time the reader of Luke has progressed thus far in the narrative, the association of a Pharisee with negative traits has become quite familiar.

Once the reader understands that the lawyers and Pharisees have lost honor to Jesus, their response is seen as quite appropriate: They press Jesus hard, provoke him, lie in wait for him, and try to catch him in a verbal blunder (11:53-54). All such activities – and any sense of setting a trap, testing, spying on, and so forth – are indications of this honor/shame framework (see Malina and Neyrey, 1991b:50-52). The readers are aware that the suspense is building and therefore can anticipate the action in the next meal scene with Pharisees (14:1-24), where the narrator initially comments that they "were watching him" (14:1).

The focus upon Jesus is also clearer because the critical reader understands that he is acting as a broker of God's blessings. The cultural idiom of patron-client relationships is intrinsically linked to the basic conceptions of cosmic order (see Eisenstadt and Roniger:206). Note, for example, the analogies used to illustrate God's person and behavior – Lord (1:15), Savior (1:47), Most High (1:76), Father (3:49), Lord of heaven and earth (3:49). The use of such titles points to another analogy that is implicit in the narrative: God as patron. The kinship terminology of Father, as used by Jesus, signifies such a patron-client relationship (but cf. the warning of Davis:148). In fact, Jesus is the mediator par excellence of God's blessings: God delivered "all things" to Jesus, and Jesus has the sole power to reveal God (10:22). Jesus is the mediator, or broker, of God's blessings because he has strategic contact with God the patron. The critical reader, who is familiar with the patron-client relations inherent in Luke's narrative world, recognizes that Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees are competitions for the role as brokers of the heavenly patron's favors (see Malina, 1988b:11-13).

Argumentatio: The Response (Luke 11:39-44)

The growing conflict in Luke 11:37-54 now reaches a fever pitch, and the direct definition of characters appropriately increases. Direct definition identifies character traits, highlights them, and embeds them in the readers' minds. The narrator, for example, refers to Jesus as "the Lord" (11:39). This label has been utilized by the narrator before (e.g., 7:13, 19; 10:1) as well as by various characters (e.g., 5:8, 12, 6:5), and its use here underscores the authority of Jesus. The presence of this direct definition by the narrator in verse 39 reinforces the reliability and authority of Jesus' direct definition and indirect presentation of the Pharisees and lawyers in verses 39-52. Jesus' roles as an honored broker, prominent, and limit breaker are therefore reemphasized for the reader's benefit as well.

The narrative sets Jesus' words concerning the Pharisees in the context of a mixture of direct definition and indirect presentation that the critical reader analyzes in conjunction with one another. The host Pharisee is astonished that Jesus did not wash. The narrator's observation concerning the Pharisee draws attention to his feelings about Jesus and clarifies the differing ideological points of view between Jesus and the Pharisees as a whole (see also Luke 13:14; 14:1; 16:14; cf. Resseguie, 1982:41-47; Uspensky; and Lanser). The Lord then replies to the Pharisee's unspoken thoughts with a string of rebukes. There is enough of a connection between handwashing and cleansing the outside of the cup that the reader is not bewildered – the connection lies in the fact that the exteriors were being cleansed but the internal situations were being ignored (cf. Neusner:486-495) – but the vehemence of Jesus' attack is surprising. The first two sentences of Jesus' speech contain direct definitions of the Pharisees that are most damaging: ". . . inside you are full of rapacity (arpagh) and the evil of covetousness (ponhria). You fools!" (11:39-40). Arpagh signifies taking something by violence and greed and is best translated as rapacity (Bauer:108). The narrator later reinforces Jesus' direct definition of the Pharisees by his own direct definition in Luke 16:14: the Pharisees are "lovers of money." Two of the three highest voices of authority, then, accuse the Pharisees of rapacity or avarice, and that trait clings to them like barnacles throughout the entire narrative of Luke. That is why Jack T. Sanders' argument that Luke "slanders" the Pharisees in Luke 16:14 "without any justification" is incorrect. Sanders also maintained that Luke 16:14 provided "no real information" about Luke's portrayal of the Pharisees (199). The converse is actually the case. This narrative aside, as well as Jesus' statement in Luke 11:39, is of utmost importance because it is a direct, explicit comment made by a voice of the utmost authority and reliability. The "slander" of Luke 16:14 is closely intertwined with the entire characterization of the Pharisees in the Gospel and must rank as one of the most important depictions of the Pharisees in Luke. On the other hand, Halvor Moxnes tended to overstress the importance of Luke 16:14 (1988). The interpreter should evaluate this verse in the context of the overall rhetorical plan of the Gospel. Yet Moxnes was exactly correct when he stated, "Their `love of money' is part of a consistent pattern of social behavior that Luke attributes to the Pharisees" (147). Both of these direct definitions, as well as the many indirect presentations that illustrate the Pharisees' love of money (e.g., 16:19-31), create not only an ideological distance between Jesus and the Pharisees, but also – since Jesus is the hero of the story – create distance between the reader and the Pharisees. Such polemical language also functions literarily to provide an antithesis to the description of the ideal philosopher or teacher, and the term filarguria is a term commonly used in Hellenistic literature in polemics against various philosophers (see Moxnes, 1988:4-9; Brawley, 1978:68; 1987:86). In addition, ponhria (Luke 11:39) can mean simply wickedness in a moral sense, but used in conjunction with arpagh it means moral worthlessness as a result of avarice (cf. Rom. 1:29; Mark 7:22). The narrative once again reemphasizes the Pharisees' desire for material possessions. What, however, does the Pharisees' association with greed mean in cultural terms?

Interpersonal social interaction in the narrative of Luke occurs on a continuum of reciprocity ranging from those exchanges based on altruism to those based on self-interest. There are three main categories of reciprocal exchanges:

1) Generalized reciprocity – An open sharing founded on altruism, which focuses completely on the needs of the other person. Assistance is given without a specific obligation to return the favor (e.g., family relationships).

2) Balanced reciprocity – An exchange based on the common interests of the two parties. Social norms judge the gifts to be equivalent; there is a symmetrical quid-pro-quo agreement (e.g., exchange of goods or services).

3) Negative reciprocity – An exchange of pure self-interest in which one party attempts to receive from another without giving anything in return (e.g., lying, cheating, or theft). Such behavior is acceptable in an agonistic society when one is dealing with strangers. No ongoing social relationship occurs (Malina, 1986a:101-104; Neyrey, 1991a:372).

The next direct definition, fool (11:40), besides being an explosive term in an honor and shame contest, is the equivalent of being a denierofGod, that is, someone "who contemptuously disrupts fellowship between God and [humankind]" (Bertram:225). Jesus, one of the highest voices of authority in the narrative, labels the Pharisees as fools. Interaction with the Pharisees and lawyers invested Jesus with acquired honor, and the narrator, another authoritative voice in the narrative, attributed to him the highest ascribed honor possible: Lord (11:39). Therefore, since Jesus the Lord labels the Pharisees fools, this appellation is of momentous importance. The accusation not only shames them, but labels them as moral failures who disregard their social responsibilities (Malina, 1981:50). No description could be more provocative (Danker:239). Such labels are social weapons, and they function as a device to effect social distance between the accuser and the accused. The fact that Jesus labels the Pharisees as fools once again creates an ideological distance between the reader and the Pharisees as well. The narrator's objective is for the reader to identify with the ideology of Jesus, not that of his foolish opponents. The additional fact that the Pharisee is shocked at Jesus' behavior ironically demonstrates that Jesus' conduct is honorable, because it is an honorable thing to be at odds with such "morally reprehensible" persons (see Malina and Neyrey, 1991a:109).

The effect of these direct definitions on the reader can hardly be overstressed. Jesus confirms the narrator's analysis of the Pharisees (7:29-30). As noted above, two of the three voices of utmost authority in the narrative of Luke condemn the Pharisees. The third voice of authority, the voice from heaven, indirectly condemns them if they do not "listen to him" (9:35). The stress again appears to be on the identity of Jesus –the Lord – as well as on the responses to him, and the Pharisees thus far have refused to recognize him (cf. Edwards:62). Direct definition of one character by another always is an indirect presentation of the first character. Thus not only does Jesus' reliable and authoritative voice condemn the Pharisees, the narrative leads the reader to identify Jesus as their opponent. Jesus stands for the opposite of what he condemns in the Pharisees, and his superiority to them is also evident in his lecturing both the guests and the host. The Pharisees and lawyers considered themselves to be brokers of God's blessings to the people, but Jesus proves them to be inferior brokers of God, the patron of Israel. Yet even after this shocking denunciation Jesus offers hope for escape: repentance (11:41). If the Pharisees overcome their rapacity, they will be accepted; if they give alms, everything will become clean.[3] Apparently, only vertical generalized reciprocity can break the connection between unrighteousness and the desire for material possessions (Moxnes, 1988:145-146).

Jesus then utters a series of three woes against the Pharisees (11:42-44). The negative implications of these woes are substantial. First the Pharisees tithe mint, rue, and every herb – which they should do (11:42) – but they have neglected the more important things: justice and the love of God. The Pharisees' love of money (11:39; cf. 16:14) and their love of honor (11:43) prevent them from loving God and God's justice. The second woe against the Pharisees characterizes them through indirect presentation. Jesus' judgment of their actions – they love the seat of honor in the synagogues and being greeted with respect in the agoras – clearly portrays them as being greedy for social prominence. The grasping after such honors is an essential part of their greediness; honor is a polysemous concept that includes aspects of wealth and status (Gilmore, 1982:175-205; cf. Campbell:145). The seat of honor in the synagogue is, of course, a place of prominence, as is sitting at the head table at dinner. To be greeted first by another person is a sign of respect that acknowledges the honor of another (Windisch:498). These failings tie into the Pharisees' abuse of social relationships, especially being indifferent to the plight of the poor. Later Lukan pericopes will confirm this hypothesis (see the conclusion below, as well as Easton:189; Büchsel:941-942; Marshall:497-499; and Moxnes, 1988:109-126). The Pharisees' greediness for social honors also explains more fully why Jesus' public rebuke to them was so strong. Persons who grasp after honor indiscreetly often are reprimanded publicly so that their pretensions to superiority may be illuminated and effectively eliminated (see Bourdieu:191-241). Jesus emphatically declares that religious matters should not be used to enhance one's status in society.

Jesus' third woe leaves out "Pharisees" in the "Woe to you" formula, but the intended addressees are still clearly the Pharisees. This final woe against the Pharisees contains a great amount of irony: the Pharisees are like unmarked graves over which people walk unknowingly (11:44). The implication is that those persons become unclean because of their contact with a gravesite. The Pharisees hide their true evil nature and lead unwitting persons astray. The pericope thus begins in 11:38 with the Pharisees' zealous concern for purity rules – the concern for tithing mentioned in the first woe (11:42) also played a part in the Pharisees' purity rule system – and ends with Jesus comparing them to unmarked graves that impart impurity to others. The irony lies in the fact that the Pharisees were so concerned about purity, but they themselves cause uncleanness among those who come into contact with them. The Pharisees who lust after honor, purity, and possessions will lose all of those things (cf. Luke 14:7-24). As Jesus notes in Luke 16:15, such people are "an abomination (bdelugma) in the sight of God." Any person or thing that is abhorrent in the sight of God is something that violates God's system of purity and thus is unclean. The social and economic behavior of the Pharisees has rendered them unclean before God, even with their zealous regard for purity rules (Moxnes, 1988:148).

Quaestio and Argumentatio: Challenge and Response (Luke 11:45-54)

One of the lawyers concluded that Jesus was reproaching them also. Jesus evidently concurred, because he immediately launches into three woes against the lawyers (11:45-52). The lawyer, still mindful of the law of hospitality, addresses Jesus politely as "Teacher." Note the contrast between the narrator's labeling of Jesus as Lord (11:39) and the lawyer's use of teacher (11:45). Although teacher is a term of respect, it still is deficient in the eyes of the narrator. The lawyer does not (cannot?) recognize Jesus as Lord, the response the narrator sees as normative. The lawyer objects, as is to be expected in an honor and shame society, that Jesus has insulted (ubrizw) the lawyers also by his three woes upon the Pharisees. Thus the lawyer is in the classic position of defending the honor of his own voluntary social group, the scribes, against the verbal, public affront by Jesus against the Pharisees. The use of the term ubrizw makes this connection even clearer; the lawyer must respond to the public insult. 

The fact that a lawyer responds to the challenge Jesus offers to the Pharisees does not necessitate that the lawyers are also Pharisees. An inhabitant of the same village is obliged to defend another community member from an affront by a stranger. So the lawyer, according to cultural standards, would be obligated to respond to Jesus, even if the lawyer were a member of a rival group (which he is not). At the same time, it is a disgrace for several men to challenge one man. Therefore, instead of all the lawyers and Pharisees entering the fray, a single lawyer responds to Jesus, and he still uses a title of respect. Both the Pharisees and lawyers are seeking to maintain their honor. It is up to Jesusandthe narrator to unmask themfor thereader. Thus the narrative makes some connection between the Pharisees and the scribes, but the lawyer's response to Jesus also necessitates some social distinction: he must clarify that in denouncing the Pharisees Jesus dishonors lawyers also. Indirect presentation portrays the lawyers as distinct in some way.

Jesus' first woe against the lawyers, uttered in response to the lawyer's remonstrance (11:46), is an echo of the first woe against the Pharisees (11:42). The lawyers load people down with burdens (i.e., minute stipulations derived from Mosaic law), but "do not touch the burdens with one of [their] fingers" (11:46). The implication seems to be not that the lawyers neglect to follow their own prescriptions, but that those prescriptions are an inordinate burden upon others and the lawyers do not care enough to help them (cf. Moxnes, 1988:105-126; Fitzmyer:945-951; Danker:241). The second woe, however, takes a much harsher tone than any of the woes against the Pharisees. This second woe against the lawyers – like the third woe against the Pharisees – does not label them directly, but the intended addressees are quite clearly the lawyers. The lawyers "build the tombs of the prophets" (more evidence of only "external piety?") and thus consent to their ancestors' killing the prophets. The effect of this woe is devastating. The lawyers assent to the killing of the prophets, and, as the reader knows, "this generation," specifically the elders, chief priests, and scribes/lawyers, will reject and even kill the "Son of man" (9:22). Fresh in the reader's experience is the crucial reference to "this generation" in Luke 11:29-32. "This generation" will be condemned, because they did not believe in the one who was greater than Solomon and greater than Jonah. The "this generation" of Luke 11:51 – which includes the lawyers – will also be responsible for killing prophets and apostle – and Jesus. The narrative later validates this specific accusation of being responsible for Jesus' death (e.g., Luke 19:47; 22:2; 23:10). The reader, though, already expects the connection between the scribes/lawyers and Jesus' death after reading the prophecy in Luke 9:22.

One final question concerning this woe remains: Are the Pharisees implicated by Jesus' accusation against the scribes about killing prophets, apostles, and Jesus? The Pharisees, of course, are often connected with the scribes, but the connection to the Pharisees is not strong enough to blame them also for the death of Jesus. The narrative always keeps the Pharisees separated from any threat to Jesus' life.[4] But the reader will not be (fully) aware of that fact until after reading all of Luke and Acts. The accusation is only directed against the scribes/lawyers (cf. Luke 9:22), but readers are also aware of some connections between the Pharisees and the scribes (e.g., 5:30; 11:45; 20:46). So the narrative heightens the readers' suspicions of the Pharisees – especially after Luke 11:53-54 – but readers must wait for the unfolding drama of the narrative before they can render a more complete estimate of the Pharisees' complicity in the death of Jesus. The final conclusion from the Lukan narrator's point of view is that the Pharisees are not responsible for Jesus' death.

The third and final woe against the lawyers reflects the same type of immense irony found in the final woe against the Pharisees. The Pharisees who strive after purity, actually are unmarked graves who are impure and who impart impurity to others. And the lawyers/scribes/teachers of the law, who are so concerned about the knowledge of the law, have "taken away the key of knowledge." They themselves "did not enter" and actually "hindered those who were entering" (11:52). This ignorance is intimately connected to the fact that the lawyers did not listen to the "Wisdom of God" (11:49).

Thus Jesus offers a devastating attack against Pharisees and lawyers in general, in effect authoritatively confirming the narrator's comment concerning them (7:30). Pharisees, because of their misplaced concern for purity, exploit people. Lawyers, because of their utter lack of knowledge concerning the Wisdom of God, lead people astray. The result is, as Moxnes noted: "Consequently, their claim to leadership is illegitimate" (1988:112). The result of Jesus' attack upon these two groups leads to a higher level of opposition to Jesus. The verb hrxanto (11:53) and the adverb deinwV used in conjunction with enecw indicate the beginning of this heightened opposition that will continue through the narrative (Tannehill, 1986:181; Moessner, 1988:21-46; 1989:197, 216, 221). The raising of hostility is now a consistent pattern. Since a successive reading of any narrative involves consistency-building, anticipation, and retrospection, the reader now anticipates a higher plane of conflict and through retrospection can follow the crescendo of discord (see Resseguie, 1984:307-324).

One of the primary traits of the Lukan Pharisees, hypocrisy, provides the connecting link to the following pericope. The narrator noted the shift in spatial setting in 11:53 but does not clarify the change in temporal setting until 12:1. The myriads that "trampled on one another" amplify the situation encountered by the reader in 11:29: the opposition of the Pharisees and scribes greatly contrasts with the many thousands who come out to see Jesus. Thus far, Jesus has apparently found favor among the people. Jesus then warns the disciples to "beware of the yeast of the Pharisees." Yeast, of course, has a permeating influence whether for good or for evil, but the warning of Jesus (prosecete eautoiV) includes the explanatory comment, htiV estin upokrisiV. Once again, the Pharisees serve as an example of what to avoid. What, then, are the failings of the Pharisees to be avoided? The rest of the narrative will expound several deficiencies apparent in Luke 11:37-54, which will serve as a helpful summary:

First, the Pharisees improperly interpret the Law (11:38, 42). In Luke 14:1, they watch Jesus to see if he would heal a man on the Sabbath. They also continue to murmur against Jesus receiving sinners and eating with them (15:2). The dichotomy presented in Luke 7:29-30 is still quite evident: Luke 16:14-18 critiques the Pharisees, and here Jesus as a prominent can expound the law. The Pharisees, in their zeal for the law, ironically are opposing the purpose of God (7:30), whereas Jesus is fulfilling God's will.

Second, the Pharisees are rapacious and filled with avarice (11:39). What Luke 14:12-14 only implicitly demonstrates, Luke 16:14 makes explicit: the Pharisees are lovers of money (cf. 11:39-43). The narrator clearly establishes a principal trait of the Pharisees: they are primarily concerned with material goods. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus continues this theme. The rich man reflects filarguroi, which, in turn, reflects the Pharisees. The Pharisees who lust for honor, purity, possessions, and social prominence will lose all of those things (16:14-31). Those persons, like the Pharisees who "serve . . . wealth" (16:11-14), become repugnant and unclean before God (bdelugma; 16:15). The Pharisees are recalcitrant idolaters who worship material possessions, and their lack of concern for human beings correlates with their concern for wealth, a point made excruciatingly clear by the following parable. It seems that God's commandment to love one's neighbor is not compatible with striving after unrighteous mammon (Derrett:80-82).

Third, since the Pharisees are filled with self-righteous pride, they love to exalt themselves over others (11:43). In Luke 14:1-14, Jesus again chastises the social elite for seeking after honor. The narrator explains that Jesus observed how the guests scrambled for "places of honor" (14:7). Thus the narrative again closely identifies the Pharisees with the desire for self-glorification. The suggestion that their tendency to self-advertisement has eternal consequences (escaton, 14:9-10; cf 14:11, 14) increases their negative rating even more. The narrative intimately connects such self-aggrandizement to a love of possessions and a disregard for the poor, as Jesus' words and parable illustrate (14:7-24). Instead, Jesus expects the Pharisees to participate in vertical generalized reciprocity, a redistribution from the advantaged to the disadvantaged. In Luke 16:14-15 the voices of both Jesus and the narrator once again connect the Pharisees' greed with their grasping after honor. After the narrator declares that the Pharisees were "lovers of money," Jesus' remark about the Pharisees' greed for public honor is almost an apodosis to the narrator's protasis about their love of money. The Pharisees' greed and lust for prominence intertwine even more closely because these two direct definitions come from two of the highest authorities in the narrative: Jesus and the narrator.

Thus when the narrator notes that Jesus told the parable of the Pharisee and the Toll Collector "to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others" (18:9), the reader knows who is included in that description. This narrative aside has become a metonymical reference to the Pharisees (cf. 5:30; 6:6-11; 7:36-50; 11:37-12:1; 15:2; 16:15), and the alternating pattern of audiences from the disciples to the Pharisees in this section of the narrative also strongly suggests that the Pharisees are the audience here (see Johnson:108; Moessner, 1989:212-214). The Pharisee of Jesus' parable can label "others" as extortioners (arpageV; 18:11), but the reader may manage a rueful smile at the Pharisee's pious words since Jesus had already declared that the Pharisees actually were the ones "full of extortion" (arpaghV; 11:39). Thus the Pharisee's words in 18:11 are almost completely vacuous. Just as Luke 11:42-44 made the implicit connection between righteousness and pride (cf. 16:15), Luke 18:14 makes the same point. The exalted will be humbled, and the humbled will be exalted. Thus more of the Pharisees' failings coalesce: Tithing and fasting had set this Pharisee apart from others (18:11-12), but his lack of humble contrition set him apart from God. The Pharisees keep striving after honor, but become dishonorable; they continue to strive after purity, but paradoxically remain impure (cf. 11:42-44; see Moxnes, 1988:125).

Fourth, the Pharisees have a deficient view of who Jesus is (11:38). Even Luke 13:31-35, which many commentators view as positive to the Pharisees (e.g., J. T. Sanders:192; Brawley, 1978:154; Fitzmyer:1030; Tannehill, 1986:178; Rese:209-215; Arndt:333-334; Tyson, 1986:316-319; Schweizer:229; Ziesler:156), reveals this deficient perspective of the Pharisees. The reader cannot glean from the narrative itself whether the Pharisees intended to help Jesus, but their critical misunderstanding of Jesus is quite clear. The important point of this pericope is not whether the Pharisees have good or bad motives for warning Jesus; the overriding concern of the narrator is that the Pharisees have once again misunderstood the role and identity of Jesus. Even if the Pharisees have the best of intentions – and Luke 11:53-54 suggests otherwise – they do not understand that a prophet must suffer and die. Once again the Pharisees have fallen short (see Tiede:71-72).

Luke 14:1-24 reinforces the Pharisees' opposition to Jesus: they continue to watch him (cf. 6:7; 11:54; 14:2). This watching becomes murmuring once again (15:2), and then develops into scorn (16:14): They scoff at Jesus (exemukthrizon; literally "turned up their noses"). They not only reject Jesus' message, they reject him (Johnson:141). Jesus then notes that whatever is exalted among human beings is an abomination (bdelugma) before God (16:15). Thus the converse of Luke 7:30 is now also true. In 7:30, the Pharisees rejected the purpose of God for themselves; now God does the rejecting. The Pharisees have not really obeyed the law or prophets, and, worst of all, they are opposing Jesus. They cannot even recognize that the kingdom of God is in their midst (17:20), even after the ten lepers were cleansed by Jesus (17:11-19; cf. 10:8-12; 11:20), and they continue in their errors (18:9-14).

Therefore, in the Gospel of Luke, the Pharisees are paradigmatic secondary characters whom the critical reader evaluates on the basis of their response to Jesus and his message. They are narrative foils – chameleons in reverse – who set off, contrast with, and dramatize Jesus, and they represent those who do not adequately recognize Jesus' identity or respond correctly to his message. The Pharisees in Luke, then, become almost antitypes of Jesus and the disciples (Moxnes, 1988:305). Jesus tries to leave the door open to them ("give alms," Luke 11:41), but the Pharisees ultimately reject his message.

Yet the portrait radically changes in Acts, a fact that I have delineated elsewhere (Gowler, 1991:274-317).[5] The Pharisees, in Luke and Acts, exist in four subgroups that span the spectrum of responses to Jesus. Tensions appear in the portraits in Luke and Acts because the Pharisees cannot be forced into one simple category. Some reject Jesus completely (e.g., Luke 7:30; 16:14); others accept him totally (e.g., Acts 26:5). Others bridge the chasm between those two positions (e.g., Acts 5:34-39; 15:5; 23:9). The Pharisees play almost an intermediary role in Luke and Acts, and therefore the critical reader does not lump them together with the other Jewish leaders. The reader makes comparisons and contrasts, of course, because the Pharisees are part of the Jewish leadership, but the narrative leads the reader to distinguish the Pharisees' portrayal from the characterization of the Jewish leadership as a whole. Even without the evidence gleaned from Acts, Luke is singular among the Gospels for its separation of the Pharisees from the other Jewish leaders. The separation is not complete, but it is crucial.

Unfortunately, the portrait of the scribes (lawyers, teachers of the law) is even more murky. One of the reasons for this vague portrayal is that they are less important in the narrative than are the Pharisees. They are plot functionaries who perform at least two purposes in Luke and Acts. The scribes are regularly affiliated with the elders and chief priests who plot the death of Jesus (9:22; 20:1, 19, 22:2, 66; 23:10; Acts 4:5-12; cf. 6:12). Scribes are also sometimes connected to the Pharisees (5:21, 30; 6:7; 11:53; 15:2; Acts 23:9) in order to highlight the Pharisees' deficient view of the law and the resulting flawed purity system. Yet the scribes are never associated at the same time with the Pharisees on the one hand and the chief priests and elders on the other (see J. T. Sanders:20-21; cf. Tyson, 1978:147-148).
 
 

The narrator of Luke uses many characterization strategies, some of which become more intelligible when viewed through a cultural anthropological lens and a literary-critical framework. Literarily, the technique is a straightforward reversal of expectations. The narrator expects the narratee to bring to the text a certain repertoire of knowledge, which may be literary, cultural, historical, and so on. In Luke 11:37-54 and many other places (e.g., Luke 7:36-50), the narrator places familiar elements into unfamiliar territory and expects the narratee to reassemble those elements into new configurations. The narrator seeks to make the familiar seem strange, that is, to defamiliarize norms. The critic's job, then, is to analyze what norms, conventions, and values are dismantled by the text and to ask why the text does so (see Resseguie, 1991:138). In this instance, the narrator creatively rejects the cultural expectations of hospitality (which include honor and purity concerns) to illustrate the new system of purity, honor, and virtue that replaces the purity system of the scribes and Pharisees.

This literary strategy, therefore, reveals a most interesting cultural strategy: The narrator uses the apparently shameful action of violating hospitality codes – Jesus' berating of the host and other guests – to enhance Jesus' stature in the eyes of the reader. The Jewish cultural setting of Luke's narrative world actually enculturated a disposition to regard such offenses against the social order as exceptionally deviant. Jesus' actions are clearly shameful according to societal standards. One prime example of this social indifference is that Jesus acts outside of his inherited social role, something that the elite of Luke's narrative world define as shameful (Malina and Neyrey, 1991:27). But the narrative declares – through the honorific titles attributed to Jesus, for example – that his activities are actually honorable. For the narrator, Jesus' deviant actions are honorable, simply because he as Lord performs them. The goal of the narrator's strategy is to inculcate this ideological point of view in the readers.

So in one sense, the narrator portrays Jesus as shattering cultural expectations and rejecting certain social responsibilities (e.g., see also Luke 9:59-60). To illustrate what is occurring culturally, it is helpful to compare the cultural implications of the actions of the Lukan Jesus with the cultural dynamics found in various stories about the Cynics:

The "shamelessness" with which the Cynics attacked convention was celebrated in stories and pithy sayings, especially of Diogenes. In a society where honor and shame were the constant sanctions for guarding acceptable behavior, some of the actions attributed to Diogenes were so outrageous that Cynicism might seem determined to undermine the whole social order (Meeks:54-55).

I submit that Luke 11:37-54 is a confrontation not only between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees, but also between Jesus' revolutionary understanding of purity/virtue and the purity system of the specifically Jewish culture of the Lukan scribes and Pharisees. This clash takes place in the reflective context of hospitality, which graphically illustrates societal norms of purity and honor that Jesus seeks to transform. Note how the narrator defends the purity of Jesus, even when Jesus crosses the Pharisees' purity/impurity boundaries. In fact, Jesus remains a figure of unsurpassed holiness: holy in pedigree (e.g., 1:5-6, 27; 2:4; 3:23, 31-32), observances (e.g., 2:21-24, 41; 4:16, 33; 19:45-47), and evaluations by reliable characters (e.g., 1:35; 2:11, 25-32, 38; 3:22). Therefore, the narrator sincerely classifies Jesus as an insider, although a reforming insider (Neyrey, 1991:289-291). To further this point, the narrator portrays Jesus as not only unaffected by contact with impurity, but Jesus actually imparts purity and wholeness to the impure. As a limit breaker Jesus possesses the authority to cross boundaries of purity/impurity, and he can also invest others with that power to cross purity boundaries. For example, the exhortation to give alms implies Jesus' belief that such vertical generalized reciprocity would generate purity. Ironically, according to the scribes and Pharisees' purity regulations, if you offer alms from the inside of an impure vessel, then the alms you give become impure. The result is that you transfer impurity to the receiver of the alms. Yet Jesus proclaims that giving alms has the same effect as ritually cleansing that impure vessel. In other words, Jesus transposes the question of ritual purity into the wider spectrum of moral behavior. He interiorizes the purity code, and in that context can declare that true purity/virtue is antithetical to rapacity and the other vices of the scribes and Pharisees (see Salo:121-122). Jesus and his followers, obeying the dictates of God and the Holy Spirit, initiate a modified purity system based on a new set of inner values (Neyrey, 1991:294).

Persons of social prominence, notably the scribes and Pharisees, reject Jesus' interiorized purity system and designate Jesus as a deviant. The portrayal of Jesus in Luke, however, exhibits Jesus as in fact a limit-breaker and a prominent. In Luke 11:37-54, those persons who have prominence in society dictate the terms of the encounter in a hospitality framework of testing a stranger, but the narrator vividly portrays the Pharisees and scribes being bested by Jesus. They fail in their roles as brokers because they actually block access to God, instead of facilitating it. They are the true deviants, according to the narrator. The reader who identifies with the narrator's ideological point of view will also identify with Jesus, the hero of the story. Thus, because of the narrative's characterization of Jesus and his opponents, when Jesus defies cultural expectations, even one so dear as the law of hospitality, the reader happily goes along.

Perhaps I can illustrate this cultural dynamic with the quotes listed at the beginning of this article. Note how the chreiai concerning Augustus (Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.4.13) and Julius Caesar (Plutarch, Caesar 17.9-10; see also Suetonius, Lives 1.53.1) support and reinforce cultural expectations of hospitality. Even the cultural maverick Diogenes, who graphically violated cultural norms in almost every area of life, demands to be treated with honor and respect in the setting of hospitality (see Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.34: 6.46). Those persons who disregard hospitality laws inevitably suffer rebuke as a deviant (e.g., Plutarch, Caesar 17.9-10) or, because of their roles as prominents, they can transcend those cultural expectations. Both of these latter things occur in Luke's narrative: Jesus rebukes Simon the Pharisee because Simon neglects to honor Jesus appropriately (Luke 7:36-50), and Jesus himself can violate hospitality laws because of his status as a prominent (Luke 11:37-54; Luke 14:1-24).

Other cultural codes reinforce this image of Jesus as a limit breaker and prominent. For example, Jesus' verbal lances easily win the honor/shame debate. A more important aspect of this verbal jousting, however, is the content of that debate. The crucial element is that the Lukan Jesus modifies the purity system to include what could be called a virtue code. Jesus challenges a specific cultural code of Jewish society (i.e., purity) and responds with a virtue code (i.e., a purity code based on inner virtue). In Jesus' new purity/virtue system, actions are laudable because of the internal motivations behind them: justice and the love of God (cf. Luke 10:25-37). In other words, Jesus appeals to these higher virtues (and condemns moral vices) that are more significant in the cultural contexts of the greater Mediterranean area. 

These concerns about inner moral virtues and vices are prevalent in much ancient literature, both Jewish and Greco-Roman. Plutarch, for example, noted that a change in external lifestyle does not relieve the soul of its anxieties (A Tranquil Life, 466c). In addition, pride and avarice, the vices that the Lukan Jesus denounces in the Pharisees, are universally condemned in ancient literature. The discussion of Dio Chrysostom, for example, is especially interesting. Dio claimed that "roughly speaking," there were three prevailing types of lives which the majority adopt: (1) luxurious and self-indulgent; (2) acquisitive and avaricious; (3) one that loves honor and glory, deluding itself into believing that it is enamored of some noble ideal (Discourses, 4.83-84). Dio later notes that "very often two or all of them get hold of the same individual" (4.133). Dio's answer to these problems comes through "heavenly instruction," where one, especially a king, should actively work to achieve virtue. Dio defines virtue as concern and service for others, not being a "slave of glory" (see 4.29; 4.42; 4.60-100, especially 4.89-90).

It is very clear that these higher virtues were intimately connected to the honor/shame framework of the ancient world. For example, the concept of honor, implicit in hospitality relationships, is to a large extent based on the cardinal virtues as defined by Aristotle and other Greek and Roman writers. In fact, Julio Caro Baroja claimed that the ideas of honor and shame were "furnished by the classical world" (83). Baroja overstates his case but correctly demonstrates the powerful influence that moral virtues (and vices) had on the cultural concepts of honor/shame and purity (note, for example, Dio Chrysostom's comments about poneria, areth, and "rites of purification" in Discourses 4.89-90). This concept of areth greatly influenced Diaspora Judaism, especially in its relationship to the Hellenistic world. Areth and dikaiosunh, for example, become almost synonymous in some Jewish literature (e.g., Wis. 8:7; see Bauernfeind:458).

The comparison of the cultural dynamics of Luke 11:37-54 with other Jewish and Greco-Roman narratives is not merely an exercise in literary or anthropological acumen. Its importance lies in the fact that the Lukan narrative was written in a cultural milieu in which such conversations were taking place, and Luke naturally takes part in that dialogical social discourse (see Bakhtin:259-422). The reader of Luke therefore produces meaning, but only by participating in a complex of socially constructed practices with which the text inherently interacts (see McLaughlin:6). More specifically, in Luke 11:37-54, Jesus utilizes these higher moral virtues of justice and the love of God to redefine the Jewish concept of purity (in Luke), that is, to transform one form of the Jewish purity system into another more acceptable to the broader Hellenistic cultures.

In sum, the implications of this article lead to a three-fold closing plea. First, narrative critics must recognize the inherent nature of the various social, cultural, political, ideological, and economic codes in these narratives and should begin to take their literary importance more seriously. Many literary critics, for example, realize that literary study can be "the servant of cultural understanding" (Greenblatt:227). Second, those scholars who analyze the cultural environments of these texts must take them more seriously as narratives. Both literary criticism and social-scientific approaches have much to learn from one another and ought to utilize each other's invaluable contributions. As Stephen Greenblatt correctly stated:

Eventually, a full cultural analysis will need to push beyond the boundaries of the text, to establish links between the text and values, institutions, and practices elsewhere in the culture. But these links cannot be a substitute for close reading. Cultural analysis has much to learn from scrupulous formal analysis of literary texts because those texts are not merely cultural by virtue of reference to the world beyond themselves; they are cultural by virtue of social values and contexts that they themselves successfully absorbed (226-227).

1. As Michael Herzfeld noted, the term hospitality allows a "more precisely calibrated" analysis than does the more general term honor (1987:75-89). Herzfeld also appropriately noted the various problems associated with the current concept of the "unity of the Mediterranean." A more careful analysis of these cultures needs to be made – utilizing ancient literature – so that scholars from Western industrialized nations will take a less patronizing view of Mediterranean cultures. See also Joâo de Pinal-Cabral (1989:399-406). 

2. I should note that handwashing is not a biblical requirement. See the discussion in E. P. Sanders:203-204, 228-231. I wish to thank Professor Sanders for making an earlier version of this work available to me for a previous project. See also Neyrey, 1991a:361-387. Neyrey claimed that the Pharisees' table behavior embodies and confirms their view of a distinctive Israel, even as it affirms their particular role and status (384).

3. See Marshall:495. It is interesting to note that the Pharisees and the lawyers had not been baptized by John the Baptist and that here Jesus refuses their baptism (*bapt*shg, 11:38; cf. 7:29-30; noted by McMahan:177). See also the discussion by Moxnes (1988:109-126). The conjunction of *rpac*Y and pongr*aY makes the link between 11:37-44 and 16:14 even closer than Moxnes stated.

4. The Pharisees' absence in the Passion narrative is striking. After Luke 19:39, where Jesus is nearing Jerusalem, the Pharisees disappear from the scene. As merely a matter of interest, I should note that the other Gospels depict a diminished role for the Pharisees, but their complete absence in the passion narrative of Luke is unique (cf. Mark 12:12-18; Matt. 21:45; 22:15, 34-41; 23:1-39; 27:62; John 18:3). The narrator of Acts also tries to avoid blaming the Pharisees directly for the death of Jesus and the later persecution of the church. 

5. This difference, in a sequel that continues the same story line, should not be surprising. Other ancient literature manifests similar changes; sometimes even a protagonist in a completely unified narrative changes (abruptly) or develops. The main character in Sophocles' Antigone, for example, changes dramatically, with very little warning given to the audience (see Gowler, 1991:94-103).
 

Bibliography