Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To help us with deciding what to do with this issue, I's like to assemble scholarship here on the question, "Was Jesus 'at odds' with these groups?


Contents

[edit] James H. Charlesworth

[edit] J. Sievers, "Who were the Pharisees?" in Jesus and Hillel, editors James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns (Mineapolis: Fortress Press 1997).

Many of Jesus's followers are also Pharisees
In a speech in his own defence, Paul states, "Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees!" (Acts 23.6). Did Paul really remain a Pharisee? Was it possible to be a follower of Jesus and a Pharisee at the same time? For [the author of] Luke[-Acts], the answer seems to be yes. On the occassion of the Council of Jerusalem, he mentions "some believers who belonged to the school of the Pharisees" (Acts 15.5). (p.146.)

--Haldrik 11:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. D. G. Dunn, "Jesus and factionalism in early Judaism", in Jesus and Hillel, editors James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns (Mineapolis: Fortress Press 1997).

Jesus is Judaic
The consensus is Jesus and his immediate circle [are] within first century Judaism. There has been an increasing willingness in recent decades, from both the Jewish side and the Christian side, to recognize not only the Jewishness of Jesus, but also the fact that Jesus and the movement around him have to be reckoned within and as part of the wider more diverse Judaism. The precise relation of Jesus to the Pharisees in particular is a matter of continuing controversy. But that Jesus and his first followers can farily be classified as one of the expressions of Judaism is now much less controversial. Gone forever are the days when Judasim was seen as the foil to Christianity. Gone also such too-simplistic or theologically overloaded claims such as "Jesus actually superseded Judaism at its very roots." One of our main subjects is Jesus within Judaism, and there is sufficent consensus on that point. (p. 157f.)
There is NO CONFLICT between Jesus and the Pharisees - only normal debate
E. P. Sanders has continued against the hostile protrayals by earlier scholarship of the Pharisees and of confrontation between them and Jesus. He finds "no substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, that is no dispute that goes beyond the normal range of disagreement". (E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, p. 232f.) As with the disputes between the houses of Hillel and Shammai, "neither seems to have regarded the other as transgressing, just as having a weak argument in favour of their own practice." (p. 159.)

--Haldrik 12:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Flusser

[edit] Jesus (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press 1997).

Jesus as part of the Pharisaic thought of Hillel
Jesus was closest to the Pharisees of the school of Hillel, who preached love, and he led the way to unconditional love. (p. 22.)
Exceptionally strict observance is voluntary and meant for Zaddikim only
On the matter of washing hands and plucking heads of grain, it was the disciples, not the master, who were less strict in their observance of the law. [They still observed the law but followed the most lenient rulings.] (footnote: A similar situation is described about Rabban Gamaliel who instructed his disciples in a more lenient understanding of a matter of law while he himself maintained a more strict practice for himself. When [Gamaliel's] disciples challenged him to set aside his more strict understanding of the precept for his wedding night, he responded, "I will not heed you to cancel for myself the kingdom of heaven even for one our."] When [Jesus'] disciples' negligence was pointed out, he not only came to their defense, but replied with far more force than it would seem the case merits. Jesus seized the opportunity to elucidate an important point. (p. 61.)
Keeping kosher
Jesus: "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man" (Matt 15.11). This dictum is completely compatible with the Jewish [halakhic] legal postion. A person's BODY does not become ritually impure even when one has eaten animals forbidden by the Law of Moses! What Jesus said, thus, has nothing to do with a supposed abrogation of Judaic law. (p. 60.)
Healing on Sabbath
Jesus performed a miracle of healing on the Sabbath. To understand the situation properly, we must keep in mind that [according to Jewish law] if there was even a slight suspicion of danger to life, any form of healing was permitted [including medical techniques that would normally violate Sabbath rest]. According to the Gospels, Jesus adhered to these restrictions in all of his healings. (Footnote: See J. N. Epstein, Prolegomena ad litteras Tannaiticas (Jerusalem, 1957), p 280-281 in Hebrew.) We have noted that Jesus had no desire to oppose the Law of Moses. He only wanted to expose the [loveless] rigidity of the bigots, using this case as an example. "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save a person or to let him perish?" (Luke 6:6-11). Jesus's assertion that it is lawful to save a person and not to let him perish was surely not foreign to many of his hearers. Jesus alluded to a well-known classical expression of the Jewish humane approach to the other, as it is contained in the important rabbinical saying: "Therefore but a single man was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single soul to perish Scripture imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any man saves alive a single soul Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved alive a whole world" (M Sanhedrin 4.5). Is Jesus going to heal this man? Yes! But in a manner consistent with Sabbath observance. By this deed, and by what he said he showed the true meaning of the Sabbath. (p. 62f.)
Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for not living up to their own Pharisaic standards
Jesus identified the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in the discrepancy between their doctrine and their deed, "for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt 23.3). It is worth noting that this same anti-Pharisaic polemic also occurs in rabbinic literature, which is an expression of true Pharisaism. The talmudic list of the seven kinds of Pharisee is a variation on the theme of hypocrisy (bTalmud Sotah 22b, jTalmud Berakhot 13b.) The first type [of a flawed Pharisee] in the talmudic list the "'Shoulder-Pharisee' who lays commandments upon men's shoulders" (jTalmud Berakhot 14b). Jesus likewise says that the Pharisees "bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger" (Matt 23.4). Nevertheless, Jesus said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt 23.2-3). In the Pharisees, Jesus saw the contemporary heirs of Moses, and said that men should model their lives upon their teaching. Jesus was basically rooted in universal non-sectarian Judaism. The philosophy and practice of this Judaism was that of the Pharisees. (p. 70f.)
The Pharisees are friends of Jesus's followers. The Chief Priests are enemies.
The Pharisees, so often mentioned in the Gospels as Jesus's [debating] opponents, do NOT appear in any of the synoptic accounts of the trial. Recall the role of the Pharisees in the first decades of the Christian Church. When the apostles were persecuted by the Sadducean High Priest, [a Pharisee] Rabban Gamaliel took their side and saved them (Acts 5.17f). When Paul was taken before the high council in Jerusalem, he found sympathy among his hearers by appealing to the Pharisees (Acts 22.3f). When in 62 AD, the Lord's brother James, and apparently other Christians, were illegally put to death by the Sadducean High Priest, the Pharisees appealed to the king, and the High Priest was deposed (Josephus Ant. 20.200f). The Pharisees regarded the Sadducean hierocracy's persecution of the early Christians as manifestly unjust cruelty. This explains the Pharisees' apparently consistent opposition to the persecution of the Christians by the Sadducean high priests. The Pharisees regarded the handing over of Jesus to the Romans as a repulsive act of sacerdotal despotism. Moreover, the handing over of a Jew to the foreign power was generally considered a crime. The Pharisees do not figure as accusers of Jesus at his trial in the first three Gospel accounts because at that time people knew that the Pharisees had not agreed to hand Jesus over to the Romans. (p. 73f.)
Anti-Torah sentiment comes from non-Jews, not from Jesus
As early as the second century, Christians of Jewish origin who continued to follow the Law of Moses, were being marginalized (Justin martyr, Trypho chap 47). Later all Christians were FORBIDDEN to keep the precepts of the old covenant, even though Jesus had said, "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5.18f). The abrogation of the Jewish laws within the early centuries of the Church is connected with the fact that already at an early stage Christianity was turning into a religion of non-Jews.

--Haldrik 10:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Grant

Premier historian of classical antiquity.

In Jesus (full cite in article footnotes), p. 111:

"[Jesus'] overwhelming conviction of his own unique, divinely inspired role...profoundly shocked and offended the leading groups of his fellow-Jews... Jesus' assumption that he had been entrusted with this mission by God himself had seriously alienated the most determined, serious and progressive element in the Jewish religious leadership. This group was knowm as the Pharisees."

"Signs of the extreme gravity of Jesus' conflict with these Saducees have survived in the Gospels." p. 146.

[edit] Maccoby

(Moved from below by CTSWyneken for organization's sake) I'll quote a passage from Maccoby here (there was probably somewhere else you asked me to do this but this seems appropriate in this discussion too. There's a whole chapter called "Was Jesus a Pharisee?" in his book "The Mythmaker" (p. 43-44). It's hard to reduce Maccoby's detailed argument to something quotable, but I'll at least put forth this general paragraph:

"It should be remembered that Jesus would have been a most unusual Pharisee if he had never disagreed with other Pharisees. As explained earlier, amicable disagreement was an essential ingredient in Pharisaism, and the Pharisee literature is full of disagreements between the various sages of the movement. In some cases, the New Testament has created conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, not by altering 'Sadducees' to 'Pharisees' or by removing some essential element from the story [examples Maccoby gave earlier], but simply by turning what was originally a friendly argument into a hostile confrontation. Thus in various ways, Jesus has been isolated in the Gospels from the movement to which he belonged, the Pharisees. Yet, despite every effort to turn him into an isolated figure, his identity as a Pharisee remains indelibly stamped on him by his style of preaching. His use of parables (often thought by people unfamiliar with Pharisee literature to be a mark of his uniqueness) was typical of Pharisee preaching; and even his quaint expressions such as 'a camel going through the eye of a needle', or 'take the beam out of your own eye' are Pharisee locutions found in the Talmud." --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John P. Meier

A Marginal Jew (full info in notes to the article)

"It is probably ont just a coincidence that, while the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus in frequent conflice with the scribes, Pharisees and local "rulers of synagogues," at least he speaks to these groups on a regular basis. The lines of communication are open, even if they are often red hot...In contrast, the Synoptic Jesus enages in debate with the Saducees...the encounter is marked by hostility on both sides." 1:346. --CTSWyneken 14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This raises an interpretive issue. Rabbinic discourse is characterized by argumentation. Thus, for a 1st century person of learning to debate other men of learning (e.g. Pharisees) does not necessarily mean that he is antagonistic to them as a group - indeed, arguing among them could just as well mean (as some have suggested) that he was a Pharisee. I know it is not our place to provide out own interpretations. I only mean to say that we need to use these sources carefully. If a source claims Jesus rejected the authority of the Pharisees, that is worth putting in. But if a source merely says he debated the Pharisees, and goes no further, we cannot use that source to suggest that Jesus was at odds with the authority of the Pharisees. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yours is a point well taken, and I expect to find it in a source somewhere. Certainly not "all" Pharisees were out to get Jesus. (Nicodemus and others spring to mind) Right now, I'm just opinion collecting to see if there's a trend. In the end, we'll craft something that fairly represents the consensus (if there's one). Personally, I think "many Palestinian Jewish authorities" is sufficiently general to cover all bases. But I don't want to discuss it right now. I'm tired of talking and do what Librarians and Scholars do at such times -- melt into some good books. (I hear Shaye Cohen calling....) --CTSWyneken 16:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
When Rabbis and rabbinic students get together in a yeshiva, they debate Torah. That's just what Rabbis and rabbinic students do. When Jesus and the Pharisees get together (often while eating!) they debate Torah. That's just what Jesus and Pharisees do! It is their JOB to debate halakhah, just like it is the JOB of legal experts to debate law. Haldrik 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Jesus is "Pharisaic" (which may or may not be the same thing as being "a Pharisee"). He commands all Jews, including his own students, to obey the Pharisees because only the Pharisees have the divine right to interpret Jewish law. (Mt 23.1f) "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his students: 'The teachers of the Torah and the Pharisees sit in Moses' [judgment] seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you'. Jesus debates with the Pharisees and indeed critiques the legal status quo, but he acknowledges their authority. Again, Rabbis debate the correct interpretation of Torah. That's just what Rabbis do. Haldrik 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That may well be, but we're here to reflect what scholars say, not our own views. Do you have a source that makes this point relative to Jesus and the Pharisees? --CTSWyneken 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll quote a passage from Maccoby here...--MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (moved to its own section, since it's so good. --CTSWyneken 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC))
Yes, I vaguely remember it in the swirl of talk these past few days. I've taken the liberty of giving it its own section above. I hope you don't mind. Could you also affix the page number of the quote? (there goes that librarian again!) You don't have to worry about reproducing the argument here. All I want to accomplish for us as editors is put a good summary of the issue in a wide range of scholars for us, so we can intelligently craft good text. --CTSWyneken 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)