[1] Also published separately: Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S., Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel from Oxyrhynchus (London, New York & Toronto, 1908).Google Scholar

[2] See already Grenfell and Hunt, ibid., 12; they were advised by Schürer, E., who also published his doubts separately, in TLZ 33 (1908), cols. 170–2.Google Scholar For further bibliography on the fragment, see Jeremias, J., Unbekannte Jesusworte (3rd-4th ed.; Gütersloh, 1965) 50Google Scholar, n. 7 or idem in Hennecke, E., New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1 (ed. Schneemelcher, W.; English trans. ed. by R. McL. Wilson; SCM 1973) 93.Google Scholar

[3] Büchler, A., ‘The New Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel’, JQR o.s. 20 (1907/1908) 330–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marmorstein, A., ’Einige Bemerkungen zum Evangelienfragment in Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol V n. 840, 1907’, ZNW 15 (1914) 336–8Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., ’Der Zusammenstoss Jesu mit dem pharisäischen Oberpriester auf dem Tempelplatz: Zu Pap. Ox. V, 840’, Coni. Neotest. XI in honorem A. Fridrichsen (1947) 97–108Google Scholar; idem, Unbekannte Jesusworte, 52–60; Safrai, S., Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple (Tel-Aviv, 1965) 143–4Google Scholar, 179–81 (Hebrew); Lieberman, S., ‘Notes’, P'raqim (Yearbook of the Schocken Institute for Jewish Research of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America) 1 (1967/8) 97–8 (Hebrew).Google Scholar

[4] Reich, R., ‘Mishnah, Sheqalim 8:2 and the Archaeological Evidence’, in: Oppenheimer, A., Rappaport, U. & Stern, M. (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume (Jerusalem, 1980) 225–56Google Scholar (Hebrew with English summary).

[5] J. Jeremias' translation in Hennecke (above, n. 2), from lines 12–14, 18–21, 24–25, 28–30.

[6] Of those mentioned in n. 3 above, see especially Büchler, 337–9; Marmorstein, 337; Jeremias, respectively 100–1 or 53–4; Safrai, 179–81.

[7] Sulzbach, A., ‘Zum Oxyrhynchus-Fragment’, ZNW 9 (1908) 175Google Scholar; he refers to m Middot 4. 5 (end).

[8] Vita 1 §§1–6; B.J. 3.8.3 §352; Antiq. 16.7.1 §187; C. Ap. 1.10 §54.

[9] See the note ad locum in Pelletier, A., Josèphe: Guerre des Juifs, vol. 1 (Paris, 1975) 199.Google Scholar

[10] One could also refer, in this connection, to Josephus' brief account of Titus' entry into the Sanctuary (B.J. 6.4.7 §260); here too the emphasis is on what he and his staff saw (although this time Josephus tactfully forgets to note that such was forbidden).

[11] Josephus, vol. 9 (Loeb Classical Library; London & Cambridge, Mass., 1965) 491Google Scholar, note c.

[12] See, for example, 2 Macc 2. 4–8; t Sotah 13. 1; m Sheqalim 6. 2. Some scholars have gone so far as to suggest that such religiously sensitive circles saw to it that the Ark was lost: Ish-Shalom, M. [Friedmann], ‘Where is the Ark?’, Haschiloach 13 (1904), 546 (Hebrew)Google Scholar; Zeitlin, S., ‘The Temple and Worship’, JQR 51 (1960/1) 225.Google Scholar

[13] See Antiq. 6.1.4 §16; for a similar solution of a similar problem (2 Sam 6. 6–7) see ibid. 7.4.2 §81. Cf. Rappaport, S., Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Vienna, 1930) 45–6.Google Scholar

[14] See b Sotah 35a-b; other sources are listed by Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews, vol. 6 (Philadelphia, 1968), 225, n. 37.Google Scholar

[15] See, for example, Holzinger, H., Numeri (Tübingen & Leipzig, 1903) 150 (‘in Verlegenheit’)Google Scholar; Noth, M., Numbers. A Commentary (OT Library; London, 1968) 229 (‘remains obscure’).Google Scholar

[16] So, for example, Ehrlich, A. B., Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1909) 224.Google Scholar

[17] So already Targum Jerushalmi I ad locum. For criticism of this and the previous view, see Baentsch, B., Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (Göttingen, 1903) 652.Google Scholar

[18] Sifre Num. §157 (ed. Horovitz, 210), §116 (ibid. 131–2); t Sotah 7. 17.

[19] Note, for example, that the midrash cited in n. 18 appears in Bemidbar Rabbah 22. 4 as well, but there the proof-text is Num 7. 9 instead of 4. 20, and that this version as well as that in t Sotah 7. 17 report another opinion which refers to Exod 39. 1, where too haqodeš is used, and concludes that Num 31. 6 refers to the high-priestly vestments. This latter opinion should probably be connected with that referred to in n. 17, above, for the Urim and Thummim were among those vestments. Cf. Haran, M., Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1978) 172, n. 50.Google Scholar

[20] A similar interpretation seems to be implied by Malbim's, M. L. commentary on Sifre Num. §157, printed in his ‘Osar Haperushim, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1957) 1370Google Scholar, §37: ‘“and the holy vessels” - i.e. the Ark, which was a weapon in the miraculous war, and was under the control of Phinehas, who was God's agent and conquered miraculously through God's power’ (my translation – D.S.).

[21] I should perhaps emphasize that I do not mean that the Pharisees contested the Aaronites' monopoly of priesthood, preaching instead a ‘priesthood of all believers’, but rather that they denied the priesthood's monopoly on holiness. On the former claim, a product of nineteenth century Reform Jewish apologetics, see my study, ‘History and Historiography: “A Kingdom of Priests” as a Pharisaic Slogan’, Zion 45 (1980/1) 96–117 (Hebrew with English summary).Google Scholar

[22] For doubts, see Neusner, J., From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1973) 110–11Google Scholar, 119–20. Mantel, H. D. is more willing to accept ancient claims (by Josephus and the rabbis) that the Pharisees gained control of the Temple: ‘The Sadducees and the Pharisees’, in: Avi-Yonah, M. and Baras, Z. (eds.), Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period (World History of the Jewish People 1/8; Jerusalem, 1977) 122–3.Google Scholar

[23] See Moyne, J. Le, Les Sadducéens (Paris, 1972) 198–201.Google Scholar

[24] ibid. 283–9.

[25] ibid. 192–5.

[26] See Finkelstein, L., The Pharisees (3rd ed.; Philadelphia, 1962), vol. 1, 121–8Google Scholar; vol. 2, 661–92; Baumgarten, J. M., ‘The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts’, JJS 31 (1980) 158, 169–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Moyne, Le, Les Sadducéens, 263–80.Google Scholar

[27] See Mantel, ‘The Sadducees and the Pharisees’, 114; Neusner, J., ‘The Fellowship in the Second Jewish Commonwealth’, HTR 53 (1960) 125–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[28] b Yoma 21b, 54a; b Men. 29a, 96b; b Hag. 26b; cf. b. Pes. 57a, Josephus, Antiq. 3.6.4 §128. See Safrai, , Pilgrimage, 179–81.Google Scholar

[29] t Hag. 3. 35; p Hag. 3. 8 (79d). For a review of interpretations of this laconic passage see Baumgarten, ‘The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies’, 165–6; as he concludes (169), the exact matter in dispute ‘remains obscure’. However, the fact that there was a dispute is clear, and it is reasonable to suppose that it related to the question of whether priests too, as Israelites, could pollute the sacred objects with which they came in contact; so too Zeitlin, S., The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State, vol. 1 (2nd. ed.; Philadelphia, 1968) 180–1.Google Scholar As for the need to purify the candelabrum following festivals, Zeitlin (ibid.) and Safrai, (Pilgrimage, 179–80Google Scholar) reasonably argue, on the basis of m Hag 3. 8, that it resulted from the fear that pilgrims not only viewed it but also, carelessly, touched it.

[30] See the previous note.

[31] Priests: Mt 21. 15, 23; Mk 11. 27; Lk 20. 1, 19; Jn 7. 32, 45. Pharisees: Mt 21. 45; 22. 15, 34; Mk 12. 13; Jn 7. 32, 45; 8. 13.

[32] See Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (3rd ed.; Göttingen, 1957), 54–6Google Scholar; Smith, M., Jesus the Magician (San Francisco, 1978) 153–7.Google Scholar

[33] We know of one: Haninah, Captain of the Priests (e.g. m Abot 3. 2). Note that while Jeremias originally wrote ‘Für die Zugehörigkeit eines Oberpriesters des Jerusalemer Tempels zu einer pharisäischen Gemeinschaft aber haben wir auch sonst Belege’ (‘Der Zusammenstoss’, 100), this later became the more modest, but more accurate, ‘Dass Priester Mitglieder pharisäischer Gemeinschaften waren, ist auch sonst bezeugt’ (Unbekannte Jesusworte, 53).

[34] So, for example, Grenfell, and Hunt, , Fragment, 12Google Scholar; Schürer, , TLZ 33 (1908), col. 170Google Scholar; Goodspeed, E. J., ‘The New Gospel Fragment from Oxyrhynchus’, Biblical World 31 (1908) 145CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harnack, A., Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, vol. 2 (Giessen, 1911) 243Google Scholar; Leipoldt, J., Jesu Verhältnis zu Griechen und Juden (Leipzig, 1941) 47–50Google Scholar; Jeremias, , ‘Der Zusammenstoss’, 107–8Google Scholar; idem, Unbekannte Jesusworte, 59–60.

[35] Luke 10. 31 seems to be the only canonical case of this; see Braun, H., Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus, vol. 2 (2nd. ed.; Tübingen, 1969) 64Google Scholar; Mann, J., ‘Jesus and the Sadducean Priests: Luke 10. 25–37’, JQR n.s. 6 (1915/1916) 415–22.Google Scholar For similar criticism, see b Yoma 23a (= Sifre Num. §161 [ed. Horovitz, 222]; t Yoma 1. 12; t Sheb. 1. 4; etc.) and Assumption of Moses 7. 9–10, along with Urbach, E. E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, vol. 2 (2nd. ed.; Jerusalem, 1979) 948, n. 15.Google Scholar