Today I'm discussing one of the remaining arguments that Craig Keener gives in his commentary on John for thinking that John exaggerates the role of the Pharisees in a partially non-historical way. We've already seen in detail that statistical arguments about the number of times the Pharisees are treated as the opposition, or even the extent to which they work *alone* as the opposition in John, do not support this thesis at all. Here I address a priori history--a sheer insistence that the Pharisees *would not* have sent some priests and Levites to question John the Baptist and *would not*, even working in conjunction with the chief priests, have sent Temple guards to arrest Jesus. Strangely, Keener even acknowledges and cites passages from Josephus that independently confirm that in pre-70 Jerusalem Pharisees *were* involved in the ruling coalition and *did* send messengers, but Keener still holds on to the a priori claim that what John describes wouldn't have happened.