Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Pharisee or Essene

Jesus and other first century Jews

Discussion

I'd still like to see more history in the biography section to complement the Gospel accounts. I prefer sola scriptura for my theology and prima scriptura for my biography. If all we do is retell the plot outline of the Gospels, we might as well merge the section into "Christian views." Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Before we start deciding to add different branches of content, I would personally prefer a peer review at this point, I mean, think about all the work this article has been through since the last peer review :/. Homestarmy 14:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some things we are working on, but I for one think this will help. I wouldn't mind a peer review. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Muhammad article. They do a really good job of giving a detailed, but not too long biography, then discussing other things in latter areas. I think in terms of a biography, we have none. Perhaps we should expand the 'biography' section be actually be a 'biography'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiden (talk • contribs)

Wow, I'm impressed. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but they also are not a featured article :D. And Muhammad was born like 600 years or something after Jesus and led some sort of army trapeizing all over the place building that empire, far more people would probably notice him and make records immedietly simply through the whole "This guy is like taking over the country" sort of thing. Homestarmy 14:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well regardless we have a lot of information in the four canonical Gospels alone that we are basically ignoring. You can really learn a lot about Muhammad reading that article, while I think someone who knew nothing about Jesus would probably either come away from this article knowing only very little, possibly confused, and probably doubting whether he even existed at all. —Aiden 06:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think our article is at least decent so far, i'd like more mention about the eternal salvation thing though. Homestarmy 01:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

is it necessary to explain the root of the word "disciples" in the Jesus article? i think most people know this, and if they did want to learn about that word, they can click on it. It seems like a waste of space in the Jesus article to define words TheTruth12 06:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"But despite the many unique aspects of Jesus' teaching, recent Christian and Jewish scholarship have moderated the perception of opposition between Jesus and the Jewish teachers of his day by showing his substantial agreement with trends in the Jewish religious thinking." I dont really understand why this sentence is in this article. While true, is it really relevent what Christian and Jewish scholarship thinks NOW? This section is supposed to be about Jesus' ministryTheTruth12 06:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... that and in the case of this material you're really talking about a handful of authors; this is not a new movement within the academic community, this is about three books that were recently published and have not by any means drastically altered the field. pookster11 06:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember on this page there was some discussion about how Jesus might have expounded on some ideas of Hillel the Elder, for example the greatest commandment and the golden rule (but Jesus went further than Hillel did). BTW, Gamaliel I, who advised the Jewish authorities to leave the Christians alone in Acts 5, was Hillel's grandson. He also mentions two historical people in verses 36-37: Theudas, who also claimed to be the Messiah, and Judas of Galilee, who led an armed revolt in opposition to the census when Quinirius was governor of Syria.

There were also those who identified as both Pharisees and Christians: Nicodemus, Paul (after his conversion) and various others mentioned in Acts 15. There were probably various schools of thought among the Pharisees. Jesus' main objection to many (not all) of the Pharisees is that they were hypocrites. Jesus might have meant that they were emphasizing outward observance of the Torah at the expense of inward observance of the Torah, or in more modern terms, that they emphasized the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Jesus disagreed with some Pharisees several times over their interpretation of the Sabbath laws, for instance, and also said that anger counts as murder and lust as adultery. Of course, we Christians believe that Jesus' deeper meaning was that the law was there to point out the need for salvation, but that the law is not a means of salvation in and of itself.

I'm sure much more can be said on this. The point is that this is exactly the kind of historical context that I believe any biography needs (as I've been saying for weeks). Here it's simply a matter of comparing Jesus' teaching to other contemporary schools of Jewish thought. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the Jesus article is to be a summary of a whole series of detailed articles on the subjects involved, I think the question is a good point. We should ask of every detail in this article: should it be here or in a subarticle? We want a tightly written, easily read, overview of the subject, citable in college pagpers, in my opinion. We cna take the details to any number of other articles. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be condensed, with some of the details moved to subarticles. I also feel, however, that some mention should be made of how Jesus' teachings fit in with first century Judaism (compare and contrast), and some mention should also be made on the effect of the Roman occupation, and some mention finally should be made of the relationship b/w Judea and Galilee. Some mention, not in depth, but just enough to indicate that Jesus is indeed a historical figure ;) (as most scholars maintain). I want an abstract, not a dissertation.

I haven't replaced the sentence TheTruth12 removed, because it was unsourced. When (brief) mention of the historical context is made, it should include a citation.Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to the person who mentioned Hillel... Hillel said something like "do not do to your neighbor anything that is hateful to you. This is the whole Law. The rest is commentary. Go study it." Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it - Love your neighbor as yourself. The entire Law and all the prophets hang on these two commandments." My position is that these two statements aren't the same. They are similar, but not as similar as people make them out to be. For one thing, what Jesus says is the greatest commandment, Hillel makes no mention of. Also, "love your neighbor" is demanding a lot more than "do not do anything hateful to your neighbor." Hillel's version says don't sin against your neighbor, while Jesus' version says don't sin against him plus show charity towards him.TheTruth12 00:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

TheTruth12, you are seriously misrepresenting things. The two commandments Jesus is quoting come straight out of the Torah. Most Jews, certainly all Pharisees, considered these two be to of the most important commandments. Hillel is not giving his "interpretation" of the Vayikra commandment, he is giving his own spin on everything but certainly he knew the Vayikra commandment and never said anything to contradict it. In other words, Hillel's line is NOT his "version" of Vayikra. As to Hillel making no mention of the commandment from Devarim, well, so what? The Talmud does not purport to provide a complete account of everything Hillel said, and Avoth is explicitly givin ga digest, the most abbreviated account of the different teachings of different Pharisees. Avot is concerned with distinguishing between different Pharisees - it is not concerned with spelling out the things all Pharisees agreed about. When Jesus mentions thse two commandments, he is simply communicating: "I am like every other Jew" because he was naming two commandments that all Jews agreed were of great importance. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to translate for my fellow Christians: Vayikra=Leviticus, and Devarim=Deuteronomy. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, i would be surprised to find any Jewish person who would agree that "turn the other cheek" is part of Judaism. Of course Jesus and Judaism have a lot of common ground... Jesus was Jewish. But overall his teachings were extremely radical compared to his contemporaries. Also while many of his contemporaries worried about details like what was considered "work" on the sabbath, what made a person "unclean," and how to properly make atonement sacrifices, Jesus concentrated only on social and moral issues.TheTruth12 00:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that I said that Jesus went further than Hillel and the other Pharisees. He had His own unique interpretation of the law, which Wikipedia strangely calls antithesis of the Law. Radical or not, I still think it's important to state the similarities and differences between Jesus and His disciples on the one hand, and other early first century schools of Judaism on the other. I'll let our Jewish editors comment on what is and what is not Judaism, however Judaism as it exists today is somewhat different from late second Temple period Judaism. There are schools of thought such as the Essenes that are no longer around, and the Temple itself has been destroyed. Ultimately, though, what's important is not your opinion nor mine nor any other editor. What we're here to do is reflect what the scholars say, and whatever we put in the article about how similar or different Jesus was to His contemporaries should be properly cited.

If we don't compare Jesus to his contemporaries, people might start thinking that Jesus was a myth. Most scholars agree that He was a historical person, and that means that He had a historical context. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 01:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

i agree with what you are saying. and i think comparing Jesus to his contemporaries is a good idea, def more important than comparing him to modern Judaism. now that i reread what you said about Jesus and Hillel, i agree with that as well - they had similarities but Jesus took it farther.TheTruth12 02:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that we agree, we have to figure out what the scholarly consensus is. I notice from the antithesis article that "E. P. Sanders in Jesus and Judaism, published in 1985, argued that Jesus was a Pharisee." I've heard that some people argue that Jesus was an Essene. It seems more likely to me that Jesus started his own movement that may have agreed with some ideas of the Pharisees and Essenes, but otherwise was different. That's neither here nor there, though; what is the overall scholarly consensus? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 02:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And looking a little further, Pharisees says that "the ruling Pharisees of his time (the house of Shammai) are often represented as being the ideological foes of Jesus," while Hillel_the_Elder#Hillel_and_Shammai indicates that Hillel was in opposition to Shammai, as were the disciples of each. Apparently the ruling House of Shammai disagreed with both the House of Hillel and with the early Jewish Christians. Anyone else care to comment? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Antithesis" is used there with anti from the Greek (in place of), not the Latin (against); as in a "new thesis" or "interpretation" or "explanation" of the Law (basically a "that, but more, this too" kind of thing). I'm not overly familiar with first-century Judaism, but I understand that some of the dead sea scrolls (viz., those dealing with the Teacher of Righteousness, like the Hodayot Psalms) are thought by some to fit with Jesus' teaching and (to a degree) the teachings of the Sadducees.[1][2] --MonkeeSage 08:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And at least one of the Twelve Apostles was a Zealot (Mark 3:18). Jesus attracted disciples from many segments of society, which is why I seriously doubt Sander's contention that Jesus was a Pharisee. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

??? You don't think the Zealots were Pharisees? By the way, Sanders points out that Jesus was a first century Pharisee, but that doesn't mean he got along with all Pharisees, or Hillel, or Shammai. It just means most of his teachings, as recorded, are first century Pharisaic. Shammai was also Pharisaic, but many of his teachings were rejected by the later Pharisees. The Zealots were also predominately Pharisaic, Josephus says so, and their teachings were also later rejected. Interestingly enough, Paul of Tarsus claimed to be a Pharisee, but there is reason to believe he was not. Certainly, Acts of the Apostles portrays them all as Pharisees, even after the crucifixion, resurrection, and accension. According to Marcion, Jesus rejected all Judaism, however, Marcion is generally considered the most heretical of heretics. Marcion said you don't put new wine in old wineskins, but Luke's Gospel adds that old wine is better than new wine anyway. Old wine = Old Testament, New wine = Marcionism.209.78.21.6 05:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

My ignorance must be showing. All I really know of the Zealots is that they were revolutionaries like Judas of Galilee, but the Zealotry article says that they were a fourth faction separate from Pharisees, Saduccees and Essenes. I do know that Hillel and Shammai were Pharisees and that their "houses" were different schools of thought among the Pharisees. What I've seen from other Wikipedia articles indicates that Jesus agreed more with Hillel than Shammai. I said myself earlier that some of Jesus' followers remained Pharisees, although I'm not so sure that all of them were Pharisees. Some were fisherman and other common folk who may not have been members of any of the four sects. I have heard of the doubt about Paul being a Pharisee, but I've also heard that he might be Gamaliel's impudent student (Shabbath 30b). If Paul was a Pharisee, he was an atypical one.

Were there any Pharisees in Galilee? I honestly don't know, but the Gospels give the impression that they were centered in Judea.

As I said before, my ignorance must be showing. I'm sure someone will enlighten me if anything I have said is wrong. However, what we should be doing is looking at what the scholarly sources say. Alright, we have Sanders, and he says that Jesus was a Pharisee. That's one source, but a sample size of one is poor statistics. We need more sources. Who else argues that Jesus was a Pharisee? Who argues that Jesus was an Essene? Who argues that Jesus was something else? What is the overall scholarly consensus?Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 06:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that Sanders made that claim in the 70's — he may have changed his position since then (I don't know that he did, but I don't know otherwise, either). Much more DSS research has taken place since then, and that may have shed some new light on the matter which Sanders had not previously considered. The Pharisees were apparently very legalistic in their attention to the details of the law, where the Saducees and Essenes were much more spiritualitic and centered on one's personal relationship with God and internal disposition. Jesus seems to fit much better with the latter picture than the former, where Paul seems to fit better with the former. But that is just my largly uninformed OR. And with that, I'm off to bed! --MonkeeSage 07:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you'll check above, the Sanders reference I found cited in another article was published in 1985— not as long ago as the '70s, but still quite a while ago. I think we've already determined that some Pharisees were more legalistic than others; the House of Shammai seems to have been more legalistic than the House of Hillel. That still leaves unanswered what other schools of Pharisee thought there might have been, or whether anon 209.78.21.6 is correct about the Zealots being a school of Pharisees. I have asked a fellow editor who is a librarian if he would locate some sources for us. Maybe we'll find out soon enough. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Josephus' Jewish Antiquities book 18 states that there was a "fourth sect", founded by Judas of Galilee (same as Judas of Gamala) and Zadok the Pharisee in the year 6 against Quirinius' tax reform, shortly after the Romans created Iudaea Province, and they "agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." (18.1.6) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.26.37 (talk • contribs)

Register and sign your posts! --CTSWyneken 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please indent your post so that you're not confused with the unsigned anon! It also helps to use unsigned tags, such as {{unsigned|63.201.26.37}}. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Shammai 9-30ce was stricter than Hillel the Elder, it is possible Jesus objected to the strictness of Shammai, however Jesus' teaching on divorce is closer to the Shammai strict version than Hillel's more liberal position. In general, the Sermon on the Mount and Antithesis of the Law are stricter than Hillel's Pharisee-ism. A good book on the subject is: A Rabbi Talks With Jesus, Jacob Neusner. Modern Rabbinic Judaism is primarily descended from Hillel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.5.63 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the nuance. You argue that Jesus was somewhere in between, then? It helps to show exactly how Jesus relates to the Pharisees of different schools (and to other Jewish sects besides the Pharisees!) Quick question re:Josephus: Does "Pharisaic" mean "of the Pharisees" or "like the Pharisees"? If the second, than it shows that both the Zealots and the early Christians were, in fact, distinct from the Pharisees—which is what I thought all along.

OK, we now have three sources:

1. E. P. Sanders Jesus and Judaism, Fortress Press, 1987. ISBN 0800620615
2. Shaye Cohen (suggested by CTSWyneken; we have two of his books listed at Jesus#References
3. Jacob Neusner A Rabbi Talks With Jesus

Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: Wait, was Sander's book published in 1987 or 1985, or are there two different editions? We have to correct the date, either here or at antithesis of the Law. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions" is fairly specific, don't you think? By the way, Josephus was a Pharisee. As for Sanders, look it up at amazon.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.5.63 (talk • contribs)

I just did, it's 1985 for the hardcover edition and 1987 for the paperback edition. Therefore, both are correct.

It may be "fairly specific," but Josephus does list them as a fourth sect (distinct from Pharisees, Saduccees and Essenes), which is quite different than saying that they were another house of Pharisees. A splinter group from the Pharisees, maybe? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." For Josephus, the Zealots are the bad Pharisees, because they reject Roman rule. Josephus was in favor of Roman rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.5.63 (talk • contribs)

So what we have so far:

1. Jesus and Sadducees: I think everyone agrees that Jesus was opposed to the Sadducees.
2. Jesus and Pharisees: A little more complicated. Jesus' assertion of hypocrisy may have been directed against the strictness of the House of Shammai, although he also seems to have agreed with some of their teachings, for example on divorce. Jesus may have also commented on/expanded the House of Hillel's teachings on the greatest commandment and the golden rule. Sanders says that Jesus was a Pharisee; others may say that Jesus started a distinct movement. Still unanswered: were there any Pharisees in Galilee?
3. Jesus and Essenes: I don't have a source, but I've heard that Jesus' teachings have been compared to the earlier Essene Teacher of Righteousness. I've also heard that Jesus may have been the Essenes' "piecred Messiah"; I'm not sure if this is the same or different than Mashiach ben Yossef.
4. Jesus and Zealots: regardless of whether they were "bad Pharisees" or a distinct sect, Mark 3:18 records that at least one of the Twelve Apostles was a Zealot. Undoubtedly some Zealots followed Jesus believing that he was the Messiah (ben David) and that he would overthrow Roman rule. Of course, the New Testament states that Jesus' mission was not to overthrow Rome.

Any comments? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One other suggestion: keep in mind that first century Pharisee-ism is a class of beliefs, not all first century Pharisees agreed with each other anymore than all Christians agree with each other. Sure, Roman Catholicism is different from Lutheranism, but they are both Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.5.63 (talk • contribs)

Good point. We've already distinguished the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai, and the Zealots were at least co-founded by a Pharisee. Were there any other Houses of Pharisee-ism? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hillel and Shammai were the two giants of first century Pharisee-ism, but they weren't the only Pharisees. Yes, there must have been Pharisees in Galilee, though it wasn't as cosmopolitan as Jerusalem. Josephus would be the source, I believe he says the common people were mostly Pharisees. First century Judaism was centered around Herod's Temple in Jerusalem, but Jews were widespread: Egypt, Rome, Parthia. You also had Samaritans, with there own temple on Mount Gerizim. And you had John the Baptist and his followers, John was specifically a Nazirite. Though he was related to and baptized Jesus, Jesus does not appear to be a Nazarite, but it appears James the Just was, and perhaps also Paul Acts 18:18, Acts 21:24. There are scholars that claim Jesus was an Essene/Qumranite: I believe Robert Eisenman is one. At one time there was a section in this article that summarized the claims of significant modern scholars, but like many things, it has long since been deleted, this article has a short halflife. I'm pretty sure Meier's A Marginal Jew has a good summary of current scholarly claims.64.169.5.63 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One more comment: The Bible specifically says Jesus was THE Nazarene - this is quite likely to be factual because nobody seems to know exactly what a Nazarene was, today or during the time the NT was written.64.169.5.63 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=32&letter=G&search=Galilee "On the whole, the Galileans are said to have been strict in their religious observances (M. Ḳ. 23a; Pes. 55a; Yer. R. H. iv. 6; Yer. Soṭah ix. 10). Measures and weights were peculiar in Galilee: 1 Judean se'ah = 5 Galilean se'ah; 5 Judean sela = 10 Galilean sela (B. B. 122b; Ḥul. 137b). The Galilean Sicarii were dreaded (Tosef., Giṭ. ii.). Study of the traditions was not one of the Galilean virtues, neither was their dialectic method very flexible ('Er. 53a). But it is for their faulty pronunciation that the Galileans are especially remembered: 'ayin and alef, and the gutturals generally, were confounded, no distinction being made between words like '"amar" (= "ḥamor," uss), "ḥamar" (wine), "'amar" (a garment), "emar" (a lamb: 'Er. 53b); therefore Galileans were not permitted to act as readers of public prayers (Meg. 24b). Still, according to Geiger ("Orient," iv. 432), to the Galileans must be ascribed the origin of the Haggadah. Galilee was very rich in towns and hamlets (Yer. Meg. i. 1), among which were Sepphoris ( or ) Asha, Shephar'am, BetShe'arim, Tiberias, Magdala, Kefar Ḥananyah, 'Akbara, Acco, Paneas, Cæsarea. On Galil, a place of the same name as the province, see Hildesheimer, "Beiträge zur Geographic Palästinas," P. 80."64.169.5.63 02:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is right after the destruction of the Temple: Council of Jamnia64.169.5.63 02:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that the early Christians, prior to the Greek term Christos being adopted, were known as Nazarenes because they followed Jesus the Nazarene. I think we can speak of a House of Zadok who were both Pharisees and Zealots, regardless of whether there were other Zealots who were not Pharisees. I'll have to check the page history to see if I can find the section that summarized scholarly opinion. We've been trying to build back towards that, at least for the biography and historicity sections. Interesting that you bring up the Samaritans. We should mention the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans, particularly as it relates to the parable of the Good Samaritan and the Samaritan woman of John 4:1-42. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and in order to go from Galilee to Jerusalem, one has to go through Samaria.

A pretty good article on Zealots: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=49&letter=Z&search=Zealots

"Following Josephus ("B. J." ii. 8, § 1; "Ant." xviii. 1, §§ 1, 6), most writers consider that the Zealots were a so-called fourth party founded by Judas the Galilean (see Grätz, "Gesch." iii. 252, 259; Schürer, "Gesch." 1st ed., i. 3, 486). This view is contradicted, however, by the fact that Hezekiah, the father of Judas the Galilean, had an organized band of so-called "robbers" which made war against the Idumean Herod ("B. J." i. 10, § 5; "Ant." xiv. 9, § 2), and also by the fact that the system of organized assassination practised by the Zealots was in existence during the reign of Herod, if not long before (see below). The name "Ḳanna'im" (; not "Kenaim" as given in Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." 1886, s.v. "Zẹloten") occurs twice in the Talmud: in Sanh. ix. 11 and in Ab. R. N. vi. (where the other version has ["Sicarii"]; see Schechter's edition, pp. 31 and 32). The former passage contains a statute, evidently of the Maccabean time, declaring that "Whosoever steals the libation cup [Num. iv. 7 or curses one with the aid of the Holy Name [Lev. xxiv. 16, Sifra] or has sexual intercourse with a Syrian [heathen] woman shall be felled by the Ḳanna'im or Zealots.""

"History has declared itself in favor of the Pharisees, who deemed the schoolhouse (see Johanan ben Zakkai) of more vital importance to the Jews than state and Temple; but the Zealot, too, deserves due recognition for his sublime type of steadfastness, as George Eliot points out in her "Impressions of Theophrastus Such" (1879, p. 212). Among the disciples of Jesus there is mentioned a Simon the Zealot (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13); for the same person Matt. x. 4 and Mark iii. 18 have "the Canaanite," obviously a corruption of ("ha-Ḳanna'i" = "the Zealot")." 64.169.5.63 03:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One more question: Jesus seems to have had a more liberal attitude to the Samaritans than the Judeans did. Was this typical of Galileans, or was Jesus unusual in this respect? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 05:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that's a good question. I don't recall ever seeing it addressed however. My guess would be that it would be something unique to Jesus, rather than a characteristic of Galileans, the implication is that he had some reason to have affinity to the Samaritans, or, there was some motivation for the writer of the Gospel.209.78.19.195 09:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, what we've discussed here might also be useful for the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

To throw gas on the fire, here is something interesting:

Until the full release of all scroll material in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the majority of scholars dated the major portion of the non-biblical scroll writings in the 2nd century BCE. It was commonly believed that the Nonconformist community who wrote the scrolls were primarily obsessed with opposing the Hasmonean priesthood established after the Maccabean revolt. The dispute was over which high-priestly line was ordained of God; many Jews believed that every high priest must be a descendant of Zadok, David’s high priest. The party of Sadducees (associated to some degree with the Hasmoneans) were believed to be the spiritually corrupt persecutors of the scroll writers. But all of that started to change with the release of a new text in the 1980’s:

Another newly published text sheds some light on that question. Although known to the tiny group of official scroll editors since the late 1950’s, it was only in the 1980’s that the existence of the work now called Miqsat Maase ha-Torah (MMT for short) or the Sectarian Manifesto (text 84) was revealed. The Manifesto is a position paper of some kind and juxtaposes the views of three parties: a “we” group, a “you” individual who is a ruler, and a “they” group who are doing things in the Temple that the “we” group condemns. The “we” group further tries to persuade the “you” ruler to support them in this condemnation. Who are these three parties? (Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., & Edward Cook, p. 28. Used by permission.)

A lot of material will be presented on the three parties as these studies proceed. But what is the simple meaning of the above finding? It is that the Nonconformist party was not opposing the Sadducees or Hasmoneans outright as the embodiment of evil. So the traditional “Essene” theory of who these nonconformists were is entirely wrong. Although the communities opposing the ‘status quo’ of that era were very diverse and may have contained many unregenerate radicals, as evidenced by some of the content of the scrolls, the real issue is whether there was any legitimate and prophetic testimony contained therein.

So here is the real conclusion of the historical background of the major writings of the scrolls:

The evidence suggests, then, that the scroll group resembled the Sadducees in some ways and the Essenes in others. Yet there are major obstacles to identifying the group straightforwardly as one of the other.

Apart from this problem of labeling the group, so far we can say the following, In Praise of King Jonathan, the Commentary on Nahum, and the Manifesto, taken together, seem to imply that the sect (whoever they were) took sides in the inter-Jewish political conflicts of the first century B.C.E. They favored Alexander over his opponents, the Pharisees, and favored Sadducean law over its opponents, also the Pharisees. The Sectarian Manifesto in particular seems to point to an era when the tide was turning away from Alexander’s partisans–including the scroll writers–and in favor of his old enemies, the Pharisees. Josephus describes only one possible period of rising Pharisaic power in the Hasmonean period: the reign of Salome Alexandra, the widow of Alexander.

The Commentary on Nahum fits very well into this watershed era. It author considers the activity of the Lion of Wrath to be past, while the “dominion of the Flattery-Seekers” is a tragic reality at the time he is writing. Since, as we have seen, the Lion was Alexander, the writer must be living in the period after Alexander’s death in the year 76 B.C.E. Salome Alexandra followed him in power, and she favored the Pharisees, granting them unprecedented sway over the internal affairs of the nation.

Josephus wrote of this turn of events with thinly veiled disapproval, and of Salome Alexandra’s allowing it with outright disdain. The Pharisees, he noted, are a certain sect of the Jews that appear more religious than others, and seem to interpret the laws more accurately. Now {Salome} Alexandra hearkened to them to an extraordinary degree. . . .These Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her favour by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed men at their pleasure: and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority. . . .Now she {Salome} was so superstitious as to comply with their desires, and accordingly they slew whom they pleased themselves.. . . .While {Salome Alexandra} governed other people, the Pharisees governed her. (War 1.110-113) Ibid, pp. 28, 29, 31.[3]

--MonkeeSage 08:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible sources on Jesus and early first century Judaism

Feel free to add to the list below. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

We should also subcategorize these. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 06:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs to be inserted April 12, 2006.

Josephus records that there were four main sects of Judaism in the early first century: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Zealots. In addition, Samaritans followed a different form of the Israelite religion than Jews did and inhabited Samaria, the land between Galilee and Judea. The Gospels record that Jesus was the Nazarene, but the meaning of this word is vague. Some scholars assert that Jesus was himself a Pharisee. Other scholars assert that Jesus was an Essene, a sect of Judaism not mentioned in the New Testament. Still other scholars assert that Jesus led a new apocalyptic sect, possibly related to John the Baptist,which became Early Christianity after the Great Commission spread his teachings to the Gentiles. This is distinct from an earlier commission Jesus gave to the twelve Apostles, limited to "the lost sheep of Israel" and not including the Gentiles or Samaritans (Matthew 10).

The Gospels record that some of Jesus' disciples were Zealots (Luke 6:15), and that he disagreed with the Sadducees because they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. (Matthew 22:23–32). The relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees is more complex. Although Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Matthew 23:13–28), he also dined with Pharisees (Luke 7:36–50), taught in their synagogues (Mark 1:21), specified their teachings to his followers (Matthew 23:1–3), and counted Pharisees such as Nicodemus among his disciples (John 7:50–51). In Jesus' day, the two main schools of thought among the Pharisees were the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. Jesus' assertion of hypocrisy may have been directed against the stricter members of the House of Shammai, although he also agreed with their teachings on divorce (Mark 10:1–12). Jesus also commented on the House of Hillel's teachings (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a) concerning the greatest commandment (Mark 12:28–34) and the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12). According to Luke, Acts and John, Jesus also had a more liberal attitude towards Samaritans than Judeans did. This is reflected in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) and his preaching to the Samaritans of Sychar, resulting in their conversion (John 4:1–42). John 8:48 records a rumor that Jesus was himself a Samaritan.

---

This is just a rough draft, and it needs to be sourced. For this article, I'd like to keep this limited to two paragraphs, although we can certainly say more in related articles. Any questions, comments or concerns? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

For the view of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, see Talk:Jesus#Jesus_as_Apocalyptic_Prophet and the list of sources. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes to your proposed paragraphs, hopefully you don't mind, if you do you can always revert. 209.78.19.195 03:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Revisions look okay, except instead of "despite the earlier command" it might be better just to acknowledge the difference between the Greater Commission and the more limited commissions of the twelve (Matthew 10, Mark 6, and Luke 9, although only Matthew limits this to the Jews) and the seventy-two (Luke 10 only). There were three distinct commissions: the twelve to the Jews, the 72 to Jews and Samaritans a little later, (implied because this is immediately before the Good Samaritan parable), and the Great Commission to all nations after the Resurrection. Also, there are a number of passages that are limited to either one Gospel alone, or to the synoptics and not John. Let's not single anyone out. At least not here; the argument might be made in the historicity section. I mean to work this into the Jesus#Ministry section. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I added NIV tags to all the Bible verses. The next step is to cite the scholarly sources we've been collecting re:Jesus as Pharisee, Esssene or apocalyptic teacher, and also re:Jesus' teachings compared to the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 09:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it, well done. This information is sorely needed in the article. Particularly useful is that it says a lot in a few words, which is important for the milieu of wikipedia.209.78.19.195 08:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but you just caught me in an edit conflict (I was adding NIV tags to the Bible verses, and it took a while). Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 09:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources added, and unless there are any objections I'll add the paragraphs to the article later this week. Page numbers would also be nice ;) Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of new discussion, and clearly a lot of admirable research. Only two points: first, the Zealots were not the Sicarri. My own reading on Jesus vis a vis these movements is that Jesus was not a Zealot and in fact we have at best ambiguous hints that Jesus may have supported violent insurrection - but the vast bulk of what we know does not support this. However, Jesus's teachings may well have attracted dissident (or just unsatisfied) Zealots. Moreover, given the almost constant threat of violence posed by the Zealots, Romans may have been predisposed to lump all Jewish talk of restoring the monarchy together, i.e. identifying Jesus with the Zealots - but this would be the view of the Empire, not of Jesus or his immediate circle. Second point: I know of no evidence that Jesus was opposed to the Saducees. I see evidence that he was not a Saducee and evidence to suggest he had no sympathy for the Saducees, but this is not the same thing as opposition. Jesus, like any thoughtful and impassioned person (or at least, Jew) argued with other thoughtful and impassioned Jews, and while in Jerusalem may well have argued with Saducees (I don't think there were many if any Saducees in the Galilee, where Jesus's views and teachings developed) this is not the same thing as taking a firm and principled opposition aginst a particular political faction/school of thought. Of course, the Saducees may have been opposed to Jesus! All I am saying is I think "opposition" oversimplifies and reads too much into things. Am I wrong? Perhaps, but then I'd appreciate seeing the evidence, to satisfy my own curiosity and desire for self-improvement. Of course, as far as the article goes the only real issue is whether any published scholars have claimed Jesus was opposed to the Saducess. If they did, well, it doesn't matter what I think, their views must be represented. But - do they actually use say Jesus was "opposed" to "the Saducees?" Slrubenstein | Talk 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

1) I added the Zealot footnote after anon 209's comments, so you can blame me. On the Sicarri and the Zealots vis-a-vis Judas I was going on Wikipedia articles. Judas Iscariot states, "The last reading may be plausible if the etymology of "Iscariot" (see below) is in fact related to Sicarii, a sect of the Zealots committed to the violent overthrow of Rome." Sicarii states, "Sicarii (Latin plural of Sicarius, 'dagger-' or later contract- killer) is a term applied, in the decades immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, to the Jewish Zealots." If this is not technically correct, those articles should be updated. I'm sure there are other sources that argue that Judas might have been a Zealot, but for now I could simply remove Judas from the footnote. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No blame. However, the linked articles may need a closer look. I myself once believed Judas to be Sicarii. Danny, who really is an expert on these matters, explained to me in detail and with patience why this is not the case. I do not remember his specific reasons or evidence - this was probably four years ago - but I remember arguing strongly for the point until I was convinced I was wrong. I suspect our articles on these topics simply do not reflect current scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

2) I do not mean to imply more than is there. We may have expressed our own opinion that Jesus was opposed to the Sadducees, but the proposed paragraph states only "that he spoke out against the Sadducees." The passage from Matthew says, "Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.'" (Matthew 22:29). The specific point of disagreement was about the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23). I quote Matthew because the paragraph is about what the Gospels record. I see nothing wrong with simply saying that Jesus disagreed with the Sadducees. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it to me. I guess I would still rather say, Jesus disagreed with the Sadducees rejection of the belief in the resurrection of the dead. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

3) I've revised the paragraph to reflect the above.

Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Zealots and Sicarii, technically, I believe, one should speak of revolutionaries, and thus Zealots and Sicarii are revolutionaries, i.e. opposed to Roman occupation. The NT does say Simon the Zealot (Matt 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13, NIV) and Iscariot might be derived from Sicarius (there are plenty of references for this, I'm sure Catholic Encyclopedia would be one) and Galilee was known to be home to many Sicarii (ref: Jewish Encyclopedia article above). However, this may be far to technical a discussion for wikipedia, it may be best to just leave it at Zealots.64.169.6.176 21:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I agree that the neutral position would be that Jesus rejected some Sadducee theology, such as no resurrection of the dead, rather than saying he opposed the Sadducees. Again this is a fine distinction that may be lost in wikipedia.64.169.6.176 21:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

One more point, Jesus does say "Woe to you Pharisees, you fools ...", of course this is after endorsing their teachings, so it needs to be put in perspective. Basically, Jesus speaks against the Pharisees, while at the same time agreeing with their teachings - one of many possibilities: he might have adopted Hillel's teachings while rejecting the then current Shammai leadership (as Hillel had died). Anyway, I don't recall any such statement against the Sadducees. I think that is the point Slrubenstein is trying to make.64.169.6.176 21:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jesus warns his disciples about the "yeast" (teachings) of both the Pharisees and Sadducees, (Matthew 16:1-12). The one passage (in all three synoptics) when Jesus addresses the Sadducees alone, it's to answer their riddle about the resurrection and Levirate marriage.

It's not Jesus but John the Baptist who refers to both Pharisees and Sadducees as a "brood of vipers" (Matthew 3:7-10).

The paragraph does cover (as briefly as possible!) Hillel and Shammai. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:brood of vipers - this is something Pharisees warned one another about too (it is in the Mishnah). My point is not that John was not faulting the Pharisees, only that the way he did it doesn't in and of itself distinguish him from the Pharisees themselves. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

new material added to life and teachings section

I have deeply mixed feelings about the material fecently added to this section, e.g. Neusner. On the one hand, I think that these views are very valuable. On the other hand, I do not believe they belong in this section. The section is "according to the Gospels" and I think the rationale is that the three synoptic gospels are the primary source material concerning Jesus - material that pious Christians and historians who reject Jesus' divinity, miracles, or resurrection, all agree is the primary material. As soon as we move beyond an account of the primary material, we enter the realm of interpretation and POV. There are two questions. First, if we move beyond the "according to the Gospels" and add interpretations, where do we draw th line? Neusner's claims are interesting. But so are Sanders, Vermes, and Fredricksen. Why not add them? And if we add them, shouldn't we add the views of Christian tehologians like Origin, Augustine, and so on, for the sake of NPOV? And if we do this, on't the section become incredibly long? Second, if we want to avoid this "where do we draw the line," then the next question is, how do we organize the material? We can have one section sticking to the source material, and then we can have sections for different lines of interpretaion. For example, we have a section on historical reconstructions of Jesus' life. But, why isn't the Neusner material in that section? You see my point? I am not saying Neusner is to be deleted. But we should divide this article into sections and then deside how to distribute additional material accodingly. The recent edits are inconsistent with our current structure of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The inserted material is simply meant to compare Jesus' teachings to those of his contemporaries. I have no problem moving the Neusner's footnote and the referenced statements on the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai to the Historical Reconstructions section. The "some scholars" spilt on Jesus as Pharisee, Essene or new movement should probably also be moved, then. Is there anything else in those paragraphs that is problematic? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As I say, I do not question the value of the inserted material, only its placement. But I am not demanding it be moved - I am however asking that we try to maintain a consensus about how we are going to handle adding material from different points of view. That this material happens to reflect my own point of view is irrelevant: people who interpret the Gospels based on attention to th historical context and comparison with other Jewish sources are taking a particular point of view. It may be a view most historians share, but it is still a view and if we include this material we have no grounds to exclude other views. So the larger issue is, how exactly will we accommodate all these different views. My own answer is, through different sections. I guess I want to know whether Archola and others agree with me or not. If we have a disagreement, we should discuss it here and try to work out a new consensus. But unless we generally agree as to how to handle this issue, it will be impossible to come to a stable agreement as to where to place the material. While I personally would like it moved to the section on historical reconstruction, I don't see any sense in me or Archola moving it, if a few days or weeks from now someone moves it elswehere, or someone puts more POV material (even if from another POV) in the life and teachings section. In other words, this is an issue that is likely to keep coming up, so I think it is worth establishing the basic principles and I am happy for us to consider other approaches besides my own, if the result is a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who inserted the paragraphs, and I moved the data in question anyway, pending discussion ;) I was looking for context, but I draw the line at anything that questions the Gospel accounts (material has at times been added questioning the nativity and the custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover). Such questioning, IMHO, belongs in the historicity section. BTW, we do mention Augustine in the "Christian views." section.

I did wait for responses before inserting the paragraphs. That does not mean that I am not open to further discussion. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suspect people were more concerned with the content (which is of course good) than the question of placement. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It does flow better in the ministry section to just say, here are the four main sects, and here is what the Gospels have to say. The rest of the data does fit in better under the historical reconstruction section, especially right before the "see cultural background article for more" sentence. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 19:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one am pleased with the way this turned out. We now have a one-paragraph summary of what the Gospels say in the Teachings section, and a one-paragraph summary of scholarly opinion in the Historical Reconstructions section. While I have been wary of adding content (the article is already about 79K long), I do think such brief summaries are necessary. I thank everybody who helped me with this, especially the anonymous IPs. It just goes to shown that anons can be used for more than just vandalism! Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)