Was Jesus a Pharisee?

[dauer]

I'm posting this here rather than the Christianity forum because I'd like to be able to draw in this thread from a lot of varied sources and view it both from within a Christian context and from outside of that context. I of course approach this question as a Jew and, if I am to be honest, I have to admit that my perspective is going to be influenced by my religion even if there is no determined answer given by my religion to the question of an historical Jesus.

A few weeks ago I finished reading Way of the Boundary Crosser by Gershon Winkler. He devoted a chapter to the myth of Judeo-Christianity and, despite that, goes out of his way at the end of the chapter to show all of the things the two religions do have in common. The view he expresses (BB has said similarly, though I think he may have been more opposed to the identification of rabbinical judaism with pharisaical judaism as its primary origin) is that Jesus' views are similar to the views of Beit Hillel and in opposition to the views of Beit Shammai. I'm now looking around and having trouble locating my copy of the book. However, much of the book is online and a large portion of that chapter which he devoted to side-by-side textual comparison of the New Testament with both early rabbinic sources and sources from the Tanach is mostly intact. You can find it here:

The Way of the Boundary Crosser: An ... - Google Book Search

and the comparisons start on page 233. If you look you'll see the beginning got cut off as the online text skips from 230 to 233 and some of the pages in the middle are cut off. Some examples from the book (see link for more)


"Do not judge, lest you be judged. . . . By your standard of measure are you measured." Matthew 7:1-2

compare with

"By a person's standard of measure, is he, too, measured." Talmud Bavli, Mishnah Sotah 1:7

"How you judge others, does G!d judge you." Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 127b



In Matthew 15:5-6 Jesus opposes rabbis who permit people to pledge all they own to the Temple. Sourced from Talmud Bavli, SHabbat 127b and Nazir 9a, only Beit Shammai allowed that and ruled that a person could not be released from such a vow. Beit Hillel opposed that ruling and Jesus' opinion is in agreement with them.

There's quite a bit more. Unfortunately some of the pages that are omitted online have some very interesting comparisons, like to the issue with Jesus healing on Shabbat (again hillel would have permitted this, shammai opposed it) and to the idea that one should love their enemy. I'll have to keep looking for the book.

I don't want to limit the thread to this source only, just make people aware of it so they can reference it if they wish to. So, thoughts, ideas, other sources?

-- Dauer

 

[dauer]

Found it.

So a couple of the more interesting comparisons.

In John 8:44 Jesus calls his opponents disciples of Satan. In Talmud Bavli, yevamot 16a, some rabbis call the disciples of Shammai the firstborn of satan (of course jewish understandings of hasatan differ from christian understandings of satan but the parallel is imo no less striking.)

This is a passage taken directly from Talmud Bavli Sotah 22b with bracketed information based on rashi's explanation of the text. This is the translation taken from p. 247 of WotBC: "There are seven types of Pharisee, the pharisee who looks over his should to see whether anyone is observing the good deed he is about to perform; the pharisee who keeps a record of every good deed he does; the pharisee who adds a good deed to his day to compensate for the lack of good deeds for the pervious days; the pharisee who constantly asks, 'What is my duty now?'; the pharisee who [is so cautious about not looking at women that he squints his eyes and] bumps into walls until his head bleeds; the pharisee who serves G!d out of fear; and the pharisee who serves G!d out of love. Which is the preferred type? The one who serves G!d out of love."

So from those two passages we have it that it's normal for pharisees to criticize other pharisees and that the language Jesus used in his criticism parallels the language used by some pharisees against others.

Okay so this is the last one I'm going to post up. Matthew 5:43 has "Love your enemy." There is no exact parallel but there are a lot of verses that carry a similar idea:

"Help your enemy with his load." Exodus 23:45

"If your enemy is hungry, give him bread; if he be thirsty, give him water [proverbs 25:21] and G!d shall bring harmony between you." Kohelet Rabbah 25:21

"Forgive the insults of others." Talmud Bavli, Derech Eretz Zutta 6:3

"He who hears himself cursed and is silent, is a partner with G!d Who is silent though His name is blasphemed." Midrash tehilim on Psalm 86:1

"Forgive those who insult you" -- Talmud Bavli, Avot D'Rebbe Natan 67a

"Mar Zutra used to say: If anyone hurt me, he is forgiven." Talmud bavli megilah 28a

"They who are insulted but insult not back; who hear themselves reproached but answer not; who serve out of love and rejoice in their affliction -- of them it is written in Scripture: "They that love G!d are as the going forth of the sun in its might. [Judges 6:31]" Talmud Bavli, Yoma 23a, Gittin 36b, Shabbat 88b

In addition to that I would add something myself which was not included, which is that, in addition to the mitzvah to love one's neighbor there is a mitzvah to love the stranger, the other.

That's all fer now folks.

-- Dauer

 

[Nick_A]

I don't believe Jesus was a Pharisee simply because he wasn't interpreting the Law but his "being' was the GOOD relative to Man and the esoteric goal of the Law.

 

[path_of_one]

I have heard the idea that Jesus was a Pharisee before. I think the parallels are much more interesting to me than whether or not he was a Pharisee (I'm afraid I do not entirely understand the distinctions between rabbis, pharisees, saducees, etc. and would welcome more info, Dauer).

I find the comparisons useful and interesting, as I think it shows that Jesus was not a complete break in the Jewish tradition, correct? That is, it shows that he was aligned with some strand of existing Jewish religious thought.

I think the "problem" with Christianity is that it presumes that much of the doctrine that has been built around it is true to Jesus' original teachings, but the more I read about Judaism and the more I tried to listen to the Spirit in my own readings, the less I thought this was so. Key items such as Satan seem profoundly different between Judaism and mainstream Christianity, and I tend to believe that Jesus did come as a Jews for the Jewish people- that his message was coming from a background of Jewish religious thought. I find it interesting to see the parallels that seem to indicate this, and this (to me) indicates the necessity of better understanding Jesus' concepts and teachings from a Jewish perspective in order to truly follow Christ.

 

[Dondi]

I found it a little off in the beginning paragraphs of Chapter 7 - The Judeo-Christianity Myth in that the author lumps all of Christendom as those who persecuted and slaughter the Jews for over 1500 years. Right off the bat, it rather sets a negative tone to the whole chapter. Not denying that horrible things have been afflicted to the Jews in the name of some Christian factions, but I find it hard to believe that this was a universal paradigm in the whole of Christianity.

Winkler further believes that the term Judeo-Christianity is a misleading term, citing that it is a primarily Christian influence and that while he acknowledges common writ, that the term is a slap in the face of all Jewish teachers throughout history.

I disagree. The reason that it can be called "Judeo-Christian tradition" is because the strength of the Jewish influence is found writings of the Hebrew Bible. Christians are taught in Sunday School the stories of the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Kings, the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Genesis, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, the Conquest of Canaan. All these are Jewish rooted. We cannot get away from this. Not that we would want to, but my point is that Christianity is not limited to the New Testament.

I recall, sadly, one time in Sunday School, this Christian lady told everyone that she hardly ever reads the Old Testament (and of late, I've used that term sparingly), because since Christ died for our sins, the Old Covenant is passed away and there isn't anything needed, nothing really of value, it's all in the New Testament.

I almost fell out of my seat. I said, 'You're kidding me, of course.' But she was dead serious. I told her that without the Old Testament, there is no New Testament. That it is our foundation for understanding the New Testament. I said you are missing out on some of the most important things in the Bible. (Some believe that the New Testament reveals the Old Testament, but I have found quite the opposite to be true). I really wanted to get into it with her, but I held my peace. But it is an attitude I've found with many Christians.

I don't think Jesus taught really anything new. Certainly not in passages like the Sermon of the Mount. In fact, He embellished a bit with a few of the commandments, going beyond a cursory reading of it to one of attitude, for example unjustufied wrath as murder and mere thought of lusting about adultry as the very act.

My question in all this is what was the prevailing attitude in 1st century Palastine? Was there an apathetic view of spiritual matters among the general populous that caused Jesus to shake things up as it were? It seems to me that He was merely trying to get people back to a true worship of God. What was the religious attitudes of those sects of Pharasiees and Sadducees that approached Jesus? Was Jesus justified when He told them they were whitewashed tombs? Or that they didn't mind the more weightier matters of the Law such as Judgement, Mercy, and Faith? But Jesus wasn't the only one. Earlier on John the Baptist railed on them.

Now I'm not saying that all Pharisees and scribes had these attitudes, I'm sure there were good Pharisees as well. But would it make sense that the ones who did were the things Jesus described were ones who most confronted Jesus?

 

[dauer]

P_o_o,

imo the pharisees who would later become the rabbis were essentially scholars who were imo reinterpreting Jewish tradition outside of the bounds of the Temple Cult, democratizing it in a sense, but in another sense creating a meritocracy, that would not be bound to a single place and could continue to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances. They were in competition with the Sadducees. I think it's a little harder to address what the Sadducees were due to the nature of polemic. At least they were more closely tied with the priesthood and the Temple Cult, and in some sense may have been ritual purists who rejected the innovations of the pharisees.

There were a number of theological disputes between the pharisees and the sadducees. Additionally it has been suggested that one of the reasons for the added complexity to the laws of purity in rabbinic Judaism was to counter or respond to the purity laws that applied to the priesthood and the Temple Cult as if to say that, by means of the extension of the ritual, holiness was extending out to embrace all of the people equally. In that sense it is a transformation of Judaism from a religion centered on the Temple on the priesthood to a householder religion that focuses more on the family table and on communal worship and study. The pharisees were a pretty diverse community. The dispute between Hillel and Shammai was really between a guy who was more in touch with the people and much more lenient and a guy who wasn't so in touch with the people and less lenient. Judaism almost always sides with Hillel in their disputes.We don't have a lot of the teachings of Hillel and Shammai directly. Most of it comes from the schools that each of them started. There is an idea that I tend to go with which is that at some point, later down the line but still while the Talmud was being put together, some of the sages from generations past came to represent certain perspectives and so something might be said in the name of a particular person, or a story told of them, because it embodied the archetypal perspective which they represented. So it I think can be easier at times to speak of the perspectives of individual early rabbis than of the actual events of their lives.

Reb Gershon's thesis in that chapter of his book regarding Jesus is that the ethical teachings he presents and the homiletical style in which he presents them, even the fact that there are miracle stories surrounding him -- stories of healings and other types of miracle work is not uncommon in the aggadic tradition surrounding the Jewish sages -- are very Jewish. Within the Jewish tradition of course there are a lot of different views very early on, counter-perspectives and the like, and Jesus falls within one of those perspectives. However, what he also suggests is that the mythology surrounding Jesus -- the Trinity, death and resurrection and the Christian understanding of the role of the messiah -- which he sees as a later addition, is not Jewish and is more likely due to the influence of Rome on Christianity. So the historical picture of Jesus that I think he would present is a guy who was pretty much in line with a strand of Jewish ethical thinking and who, like a lot of Jews at that time and many rabbis, was brutally executed by the Romans.

My personal opinion, regarding mythical figures, and the way I approach it in my own spiritual life, is to accept them as they are and not worry as much about their historical character. I do that too, and on some level I find that spiritually rewarding in and of itself, but I try to separate that from the myth. I think if Jesus had remained just another Jewish messiah claimant saying Jewish things that the religion may not have endured, but because he became couched in a mythical language that spoke deeply to some people the religion grew. I mean for myself, when I think of Abraham, I think of an ahistorical figure. I don't know if Abraham really existed and it's not terribly important for me if he did. I can still identify with Abraham. I can still learn from him and draw meaning from the story of his life.

My sense is that in a way Judaism and Christianity developed alongside each other where, as Christianity was birthing in Rome, Judaism was experiencing its own pangs as it went through one of the most major paradigm shifts in Jewish history, that from cultic worship to a democratized religion. And I think it's fair to say that greece and rome had their influences on Judaism as it exists today. The emphasis on logic and study that shows up, greek words for institutions that are fundamentally Jewish, even the passover seder is borrowed from the model presented by the symposia. The major difference that I see is rabbinic Judaism's starting point of biblical thought, with the structures and approaches of its day serving as a model for reflection and reconstruction, much like Deuteronomy is able to take the structure of a vassal treaty to create a distinctly Jewish work of theology. I think in the case of Christianity it was the Judaizing of Rome, if you will, applying certain Jewish ethics in a distinctly Roman mythos in such a way that it would appeal to Romans. Those are my own humble thoughts which are of course not intended to assert the way things really are, just my thoughts on the matter.

-- Dauer

 

[Netti-Netti]

A number of these quotes are from the Talmud. What is the relationship of the Talmud to Torah or larger Tarnakh?

Isn't it true that the Talmud (and Mishna in particular) includes many (most) of the laws that appear in the Torah? That being the case, wouldn't one expect substantial overlap in material ....at least as far as moral precepts
and such?

Yes, I've also seen reference to the idea that Jesus was a Pharisee. It has been suggested that he took a special interest in this group because he was one of them and therefore cared about them.

 

[dauer]

Dondi,

I'm running off shortly so just wanted to get to your post quickly before I head out. When you say,

and mere thought of lusting about adultry as the very act.

That's actually one of the examples he gives as a parallel to Jewish thought. While it's a minority perspective, it is one that got expression. Some of your questions are probably addressed by my post to p_o_o.

Now I'm not saying that all Pharisees and scribes had these attitudes, I'm sure there were good Pharisees as well. But would it make sense that the ones who did were the things Jesus described were ones who most confronted Jesus?

That's somewhat the point that I was trying to make in my original post. The pharisees did criticize each other. Beit Hillel disagreed with Beit Shammai about those things that Jesus is shown criticizing "pharisees" for. I'm putting that in quotes to suggest that it's not "the pharisees" but rather "some pharisees. Within the school of Hillel, it would make sense for him to cry out against the types of things he did. I even gave an example where he uses an epithet against a group of pharisees that is at one point in Jewish sources leveled against Beit Shammai. It's in that sense that I think he's within the Jewish tradition. The things he gets hot and bothered about, there were pharisees getting hot and bothered about that too, and those hot and bothered pharisees are the ones Judaism tends to side with. There are other points where I think he's probably more critical of the sadducees, and when everything was redacted in its final form -- I understand on that point of later redaction you may disagree -- since the sadducees were fading the pharisees were instead used as an example.

-- Dauer

 

[dauer]

Netti-Netti,

I want to address your questions and I'd like to keep the thread a little more on course in the discussion of the historical Jesus and where his views fit in the Jewish community of his day. Additionally, I'm hopping off the computer now to head out. Would you mind creating a new thread on the Judaism forum about the nature of the Talmud, its relationship with Torah, etc?

-- Dauer

 

[Dondi]

That's somewhat the point that I was trying to make in my original post. The pharisees did criticize each other. Beit Hillel disagreed with Beit Shammai about those things that Jesus is shown criticizing "pharisees" for. I'm putting that in quotes to suggest that it's not "the pharisees" but rather "some pharisees. Within the school of Hillel, it would make sense for him to cry out against the types of things he did. I even gave an example where he uses an epithet against a group of pharisees that is at one point in Jewish sources leveled against Beit Shammai. It's in that sense that I think he's within the Jewish tradition. The things he gets hot and bothered about, there were pharisees getting hot and bothered about that too, and those hot and bothered pharisees are the ones Judaism tends to side with. There are other points where I think he's probably more critical of the sadducees, and when everything was redacted in its final form -- I understand on that point of later redaction you may disagree -- since the sadducees were fading the pharisees were instead used as an example.

-- Dauer

Yes, yes, I see that now, that is the point about Pharisees disagree with each other. But when Jesus blasts them saying "Woe to you, scribe and Pharisees, hypocrites..." and so forth, isn't that rather like the pot calling the kettle black if Jesus himself were a Pharisee? He'd be addressing His own group, which is kinda weird.

You know, there are several places in the Gospels where Jesus is referred to as 'Rabbi', strongly suggesting that He must have been part of some rabbinical school, I don't know if we can make a clear distinction of which one. But Luke does suggest that He gained understanding as early as twelve, which is not a coincidental age, is it?

"And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast...And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers." - Luke 2:42, 46-47

Is there anything in the Talmud to indicate a clue as to what kind of training Jesus may have had in light of this passage?

 

[Netti-Netti]

I want to address your questions and I'd like to keep the thread a little more on course in the discussion of the historical Jesus and where his views fit in the Jewish community of his day.

I agree that detail about historical context would be helpful. Hence my question at this point: why would one venture to make inferences about whether or not Jesus was a Pharisee based on similarities between the Talmud and the New Testament?

The Talmud is evidently based on text derived from multiple sources, which might very well include the New Testament. The material was edited and compiled within a time frame that includes 200 CE. If the Talmud was compiled long after Jesus' departure, the Talmud could easily have been influenced by Jesus' teachings. Not the other way around.

How much do we know about the state of the Talmud at the time the Pharisees of Jesus' day were its proponents? Do we know, for example, that Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 127b was part of the Pharisee ideology of the day when the historical Jesus was living?

 

[dauer]

Dondi,

Yes, yes, I see that now, that is the point about Pharisees disagree with each other. But when Jesus blasts them saying "Woe to you, scribe and Pharisees, hypocrites..." and so forth, isn't that rather like the pot calling the kettle black if Jesus himself were a Pharisee? He'd be addressing His own group, which is kinda weird.

Not if he's addressing a specific group of pharisees. The texts seem to indicate that he was in agreement with Beit Hillel on a lot of things, but in disagreement with Beit Shammai. Picture this:

I own a pawn shop. I try to run a fair business. There are some other pawn brokers in the area who aren't so nice to their customers, who cheat them and don't treat them well. We get together sometimes for a game of poker. We're pawn shop owners. It's what we do. We start talking about business and I get upset because they're not treating people well and I say, "You pawnbrokers are all hypocrites. You put on a nice face when you work but then you treat your customers like crap. You're more concerned with making a buck than helping the people in the community." I see it sort of like that.

Is there anything in the Talmud to indicate a clue as to what kind of training Jesus may have had in light of this passage?

Not that I'm aware of.

Netti,

The Talmud is evidently based on text derived from multiple sources that were edited and compiled within a time frame that includes 200 CE. If the Talmud was compiled long after Jesus' departure, the Talmud could easily have been influenced by Jesus' teachings. Not the other way around.

It is an issue, yes. The same can be said of the Talmud and the NT. If we're talking about historicity, and looking critically, we can't say with absolute certainty that Jesus existed when the NT claims. We don't know. We can't say so easily what of the NT originates with Jesus and what was added on later. The Talmud was compiled over a very long period of time. The mishna was compiled in 200 CE but the conversations go back a few centuries. A lot of the transmission was oral originally. There was a specific role in the community for people who excelled at rote memorization, a person who would memorize the conversations, a living book. That's all they did. Jesus isn't credited with any teachings in any Jewish sources and, had he introduced something very new within Jewish circles he probably would have been credited as the Talmud mentions teachings in the names even of people that the rabbis of the day saw as apostates. A case in point for that is Elisha ben Abuyah. I think what the comparison does show is the trends in thinking within the Jewish community and the ways in which certain teachings of Jesus fit into that.

How much do we know about the state of the Talmud at the time the Pharisees of Jesus' day were its proponents?

Quite a bit. But again, it depends on where we're going to place Jesus historically as to what's going on with the Talmud at that time. And then in addition to the Talmud there's midrashic literature which I think Reb Gershon also cited a few times.

This is an article from the Jewish Encyclopedia about Hillel:

JewishEncyclopedia.com - HILLEL:

It's a bit dated (pre-holocaust encyclopedia) but it's a pretty good source for some things and is written more in the tradition of Western scholarship than Jewish scholarship, though it's still probably worthwhile to question some of its assumptions. Given the timeframe that Hillel's work is placed in, it would make sense, if assuming the traditional Christian date, that he somehow came into contact with Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. That article does actually discuss the question of Hillel's influence on Jesus a little bit.

-- Dauer

 

[Nick_A]

It really is amazing that so little is known about Christianity. For some reason, Christendom is now accepted as Christianity by the overwhelming majority.

Actually one of the reasons that Christianity devolved so quickly into Christendom is because of the affects of Jewish Nationalism that imposed its personal God and Rome making it its religion. The sense and purpose of Christianity, with this added impetus, had to become lost and become dominant in society as Christendom. Christianity went underground to preserve its purity.

 

[Dream]

A very potent listing of parallel quotes, and I didn't know that so many crucifixions of Jews had taken place. I am moved when I read about the terrible way R Akiva and the other Rabbis died. (the same Rabbi Akiba is discussed in The Family Seder - Kolatch) I believe chapter 7 of Gershon Winkler's book was written with an attitude of love and goodwill, and I agree that Christians should make an effort to learn about Talmud and Tenach. It would take very little effort on our part to get the basics down, and this is one of those areas where a very small effort can sooth a lot of souls. Having said that, such study is up to the individual, and that is probably why Gershon Winkler did not go into detail about differences between the two religions. This provided a valuable viewpoint of Christianity and I think these quotes out of the Talmud are significant and Christians should take notice.

 

[Netti-Netti]

There are several places in the Gospels where Jesus is referred to as 'Rabbi', strongly suggesting that He must have been part of some rabbinical school

If he was indeed a Pharisee, Jesus would probably have identified himself with Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism. (I guess ) Else he could have identified with Karaite Judaism, which did not accept the man-made moral tradition (unlike the Pharisees).

Jesus isn't credited with any teachings in any Jewish sources and, had he introduced something very new within Jewish circles he probably would have been credited as the Talmud mentions teachings in the names even of people that the rabbis of the day saw as apostates.

In terms of rule and precepts, one would not expect Jesus to have added much. One of the main thrusts of his teachings appears to have been directed against the Pharisees' mindset: it had given rise to too many rules and these moral codes were subject to idolatry, such that they might be regarded as being on a par with God's Law and such that these codes might even replace conscience, thus creating the conditions for religious bondage of sorts. But that's another subject.

The question remains: Was Jesus a Pharisee and is that why he may have been teaching concepts that were derived from the Pharisees' moral laws? My feeling is the case is not compelling. Let's look at the Measure for Measure concept. I don't expect Jesus would necessarily have been influenced by Pharisees' moral laws because that concept is all over the Old Testament.

Moreover, even if Jesus was influenced by the Pharisees' moral laws, it does not follow that he was a Pharisee in any other respect. He wouldn't have had to be. Sifting and sorting and syncretic borrowing is commonplace. One does not have to convert to a religion or align oneself with an entire religious tradition in order to adopt some of its concepts.

(Example: Guatama Buddha wished to dissociate himself from Hinduism but would keep key principles. The new religion may be derivative. Just as Buddhism retains many concepts from Hinduism, so Christianity retains many concepts from Judaism. The new religions are substantially different though.

As an aside, one can see parallels. Buddha was to Hinduism what Jesus was to Judaism. Both sought to ascertain the essence of the traditions they started out with and went on from there.)

 

[dauer]

Netti,

the karaites didn't exist at that time. The sadducees did, but not the karaites. The criticisms of the moneylenders imo was most likely a criticism of the sadducees, opponents of the pharisees, who maintained control of the Temple Cult and according to the Talmud had become very corrupt.

In terms of rule and precepts, one would not expect Jesus to have added much.

There are also a lot of homiletics in the Talmud as well as ethical teachings which are not considered law. Elisha ben Abuyah is mainly known through the stories about him and some sayings, sayings which are not rules or precepts.

One of the main thrusts of his teachings appears to have been directed against the Pharisees' mindset: it had given rise to too many rules and these moral codes were subject to idolatry, such that they might be regarded as being on a par with God's Law and such that these codes might even replace conscience, thus creating the conditions for religious bondage of sorts.

I think a close, comparative read of the sources shows that he was not opposed to pharisaic Judaism. Indeed, the very things he argued against were things other pharisees were arguing against as well. I think what he was against is the stringencies of Beit Shammai. Halachah is supposed to be flexible and rabbinic rulings are supposed to take into account the individual. Beit Shammai was not flexible and Beit Hillel opposed them.

The question remains: Was Jesus a Pharisee and is that why he may have been teaching concepts that were derived from the Pharisees' moral laws? My feeling is the case is not compelling. Let's look at the Measure for Measure concept. I don't expect Jesus would necessarily have been influenced by Pharisees' moral laws because that concept is all over the Old Testament.

It's not just the laws. There's also is his homiletical style, the miracle stories which are a strong parallel for rabbinic miracle stories and how his specific viewpoints on say, what is or is not okay on Shabbat, align with a particular strain of thought within early Judaism repeatedly, that is, repeatedly with the perspective of beit hillel. The viewpoints he expresses in his criticism of very specific rules are to be found in rabbinic writings in the voice of a specific school. If it were only the occasional ethical teaching I would agree, but taken together his ideas continue to fall within one particular strain of pharisaic thought.

Moreover, even if Jesus was influenced by the Pharisees' moral laws, it does not follow that he was a Pharisee in any other respect.

That is true, he may not have been a pharisee. To me, it seems very likely that there was a strong pharisaic influence based on both the way in which he taught and the types of things he taught. I think the Roman myth of the dying god is where the two traditions most part ways.

As an aside, one can see parallels. Buddha was to Hinduism what Jesus was to Judaism. Both sought to ascertain the essence of the traditions they started out with and went on from there.)

See, I would say that is what the pharisees were after. They recognized that the letter of the law as it was being practiced by the sadducees was no longer in line with the spirit of the law and sought to rectify that.

-- Dauer

 

[Netti-Netti]

the karaites didn't exist at that time. The sadducees did, but not the karaites.

Sorry, I should have done a fact check. More like 9th-10th century?

The criticisms of the moneylenders imo was most likely a criticism of the sadducees, opponents of the pharisees, who maintained control of the Temple Cult and according to the Talmud had become very corrupt.

There was a schism, is that right?

I think a close, comparative read of the sources shows that he was not opposed to pharisaic Judaism. Indeed, the very things he argued against were things other pharisees were arguing against as well.

That's interesting.

The viewpoints he expresses in his criticism of very specific rules are to be found in rabbinic writings in the voice of a specific school. If it were only the occasional ethical teaching I would agree, but taken together his ideas continue to fall within one particular strain of pharisaic thought.

My impression is a bit different. His criticisms appear to be concerned with principled ethics rather than the merits of specific rules.

I think the Roman myth of the dying god is where the two traditions most part ways.

I saw the sacrifice as an extension of old blood-letting ritual and scapegoating: "The Lamb of G-d." If the story of Isaac is any indication, human sacrifice was not beyond the pale in ancient times.

See, I would say that is what the pharisees were after. They recognized that the letter of the law as it was being practiced by the sadducees was no longer in line with the spirit of the law and sought to rectify that.

Both the sadducees and Pharisees are described as highly legalistic. There are lots of accounts. It's kinda hard to weigh them.

 

[Netti-Netti]

(The pharisees) recognized that the letter of the law as it was being practiced by the sadducees was no longer in line with the spirit of the law and sought to rectify that.

Hi Dauer, meant to ask you. I'm interested in your views on this:

The Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him ~Matthew 12:14​

It seems there some serious differences.

 

[dauer]

Sorry, I should have done fact check. More like 9th-10th century?

Yes. I am in agreement with those who see the rise of karaism as a reaction to Islam. Rabbinic Judaism was effected at that time too. It had previously focused much more on homiletical, allegorical interpretation and, imo also in response to Islam began to focus a bit more on plain meaning.

There was a schism, is that right?

Between the sadducees and the pharisees? At the time that they both existed there were a lot of different groups. Some were more political and nationalistic like the sicarii. Some went and cut themselves off from everyone else like the essenes. I wouldn't say that there was a schism so much as that at that time there were a lot of different groups running around. One of the reasons that pharisaic judaism prevailed is because of its flexibility in being able to accommodate a larger variety of perspectives. It wasn't so rigid and that served it over time. According to Josephus the pharisees were also very popular among the people and considered to have the most accurate tradition. Course Josephus himself can be a bit biased.

My impression is a bit different. His argument appear to be for principled morality rather than the merits of specific rules.

I think that's probably the way a lot of people view it and the way that Christianity came to understand it. What I find curious is the way it appears in the context of early Jewish perspectives.

I saw the sacrifice as an extension of old blood-letting ritual and scapegoating: "The Lamb of G-d." If the story of Isaac is any indication, human sacrifice was not beyond the pale in ancient times.

The thing is though, there are descriptions of all sorts of offerings including animals, grain. There is no description of how to shecht (ritually slaughter) a human being. We do know however that in other animal sacrifices the intention was to cause as little pain as possible and blemishes like those caused by excessive torture would have rendered the animal an invalid offering. Human sacrifice is something that the prophets spoke against. The word for a sacrifice in Hebrew -- qorban -- maintains the opposite meaning, a coming-near or drawing-close. The binding of Isaac is understood in Judaism, on one level, as specifically stating that human sacrifice is not okay. I think it's possible that at one time there was human sacrifice in Israelite religion and I think that's something that the redemption of the first-born addresses, by saying that instead of sacrificing the first born instead they should be purchased from the kohanim. Additionally, most of the qorbanot have nothing to do with sin at all, and those that do have to do with sin generally deal with unintentional sin. The word for sin itself, chayt, means a missing of the mark which can be addressed via teshuva (turning or returning), not a permanent blemish. This type of worldview is not conducive to the idea that a human must die for the sins of mankind. I think the roman worldview of many chaotic gods all warring with each other would have been more fertile ground for that idea.

The parallels between the story of Jesus and that of the dying gods is a bit stronger, as is the iconography. This article talks about the similarities and also includes some of the non-Christian iconography:

The Mysterious dying God

Both the sadducees and Pharisees are described as highly legalistic. There a lots of accounts. It's kind hard to weigh them.

This brings up the reason I didn't bring up any of the negative things stated about the sadducees in the Talmud when I responded to p_o_o earlier in the thread. As I see it, the Talmud and the NT both contain polemic and I don't think polemic is by its nature terribly reliable. I do think there can be a thread of truth to these things and, in Jesus' mirroring of the criticisms of some pharisees against others, I see it as most likely that it is at least somewhat accurate when speaking of beit shammai whereas, when speaking of the larger pharisaic community, not accurate. However, if he was himself a pharisee then what we're seeing is two sources of pharisees from the same school of thought agreeing with each other about another school of thought, in which case it might not be accurate at all. Then again, there are enough recorded halachic disputes between beit hillel and beit shammai to verify the perspective of beit shammai in regard to stringency.

-- Dauer

 

[dauer]

Netti,

that is something that I see as a later extrapolation. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the trial. It doesn't operate according to pharisaic court procedure for one, and if you're going to go with them being legalists, it's hard to say they'd violate their own court procedure. The rules for witnesses in a capital trial is violated. The time they supposedly meet violates court procedure. The mishna goes out of its way to make capital punishment damned near impossible for the very reason that it applies allegorical and homiletical methods to render a situation where an unruly child can be stoned impossible. It wasn't about that type of barbarism. My personal feeling is that the pharisees probably felt truly vested with the responsibility to help Judaism adapt to changing times by returning to the root ideas of the mitzvot and distancing itself from maintaining practices that were anathema to their sense of right-action. I think it is unlikely they saw their actions as opposed to Torah, but more likely in harmony with it.

Now, that it could have been Rome that was actually after Jesus would make a bit more sense. If he's a rabble rouser they'll want to be done with him. Besides, they murder many Jews just as gruesomely and crucifixion was a method of execution they used. It's not a Jewish form of capital punishment. Early Christianity wouldn't have done well if it set up Rome as the group that killed its savior.

-- Dauer