That Pharisee-Essene question

[DavidGYoung]

Any thoughts on the 'Jesus was a Pharisee' versus 'Jesus was an Essene' debate?

[Athanasius]

Nah, that's one of those "I probably care more about what archaeologists say about my bones in 1,000 years" things for me. What's the importance of the debate to those who debate it?

[Fenris]

Any thoughts on the 'Jesus was a Pharisee' versus 'Jesus was an Essene' debate?

Pharisee.

[DavidGYoung]

I am curious to know why.

[Fenris]

For starters, most of his statements can also be found in the Mishna and the Talmud, which were written by Pharisees.

[Fenris]

Let's look at the Sermon on the Mount.

A large number of his statements there are found elsewhere in the Tanach, and would therefore not be any sort of revelation to an educated Jewish audience. For example:

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
vs
Psalms 37:11 ...the meek shall inherit the earth

Matthew 5:8  Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
vs
Psalms 24:3  Who shall ascend the mount of the Lord, and who shall stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart.

Matthew 5:39 but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also
vs
Lamentations 3:30 Let him offer his cheek to him who smites him

And so on.

There are other statements that are not found in the Tanach, but they can be found in the Talmud. Which again, is a Pharisee work and it is still studied by Observant Jews today.

For example:

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.
vs
Talmud, Tractate Sabbath, page 151 side b: "Rabban Gamaliel said, "He who is merciful towards his fellow creatures shall receive mercy from heaven above."

Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake"
Vs
Talmud, Tractate Baba Kamma, page 93 side a: "Rabbi Abbahu said, "Be rather one of the persecuted than of the persecutors."

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
vs
Mishna, Tractate Pirke Avos, chapter 2, Mishna 1: "Rabbi Yehudah said, be as careful with a light commandment as with a heavy one"

Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, committeth adultery"
vs
Talmud, tractate  Berachos, page 24 side a: "Rabbi Shesheth says, Whoever looks on the little finger of a woman with a lustful eye is considered as having committed adultery."

Matthew 5:44 "Bless them that curse you."
vs
Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, page 48 side b "R. Yehudah said, Be rather of the accursed than of those that curse."


And so on.

Finally, a passage from the book "My Religion", by Leo Tolstoy-

Not long ago, I was reading the Sermon on the Mount with a rabbi. At nearly every verse he showed me similar passages in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. When we reached the words, "Turn the other cheek," he did not say this too is in the Talmud, but asked with a smile, "Do Christians obey this command?" I had nothing to say in reply, especially as at that particular time, Christians, far from turning the other cheek, were smiting Jews on both cheeks.

[RabbiKnife]

The "turn the other cheek," "go the extra mile," and "give him your coat, too" are all directly related to the Roman law for occupied territories at the time.

Roman soldiers could give one good open handed slap to any citizen or inhabitant of any occupied territory, just because.
Roman soldiers could compel any such person to carry his kit and armor exactly one stadia each day, not a step further.
Roman soldiers could take a persons cloak, but not their coat, to keep warm for the night.

Jesus in the SOTM was telling his followers to go above and beyond service to the Romans, far beyond what the Roman law required.  Now THAT drove the Zealots nuts.

[Fenris]

The "turn the other cheek," "go the extra mile," and "give him your coat, too" are all directly related to the Roman law for occupied territories at the time.

Verse is in Lamentations, bro. 586BC.

Jesus in the SOTM was telling his followers to go above and beyond service to the Romans, far beyond what the Roman law required. 

The Pharisees were not Zealots, however. They had a more "wait and see" attitude. See Acts 5-

But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

Rabban Gamliel was not "A Pharisee". He was the leader of the movement in his generation and also the head of the Sanhedrin. And he's adopting a very nuanced view here. He's speaking of former Messiah claimants, and he's saying, look, we don't know. Let's wait and see if this too fizzles out or if this is the real deal. And that was the Pharisee attitude in general.

Now THAT drove the Zealots nuts.

I don't understand why you're ribbing the Zealots here. While I do not agree with their methods, I also do not doubt their sincerity or their motives. They were fighting for their religious freedom. The Romans were auctioning off the position of High Priest to the highest bidder, which was invariably a Sadducee as they were the wealthy and powerful. When the revolt against the Romans kicked off in 66,  the first thing they did was remove the Sadducee High Priest.

And I find the last words of the Zealot leader, Elazar Ben Yair, before the mass suicide at Masada to be amongst the most inspirational of inspirational speeches-

“Since we long ago resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God Himself, Who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice...We were the very first that revolted, and we are the last to fight against them; and I cannot but esteem it as a favor that God has granted us, that it is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom.”

You can't deny the man's faith. 

[DavidGYoung]

I would be hesitant to say that either the Mishnah or the Gemara were written by Pharisees. This is because of changes to Judaism after the Second-Temple period. A scholar of Judaism would obviously be able to shed more light on this, but I was under the impression that the rabbis of the time were not identical to the earlier Pharisees.

[RabbiKnife]

Maybe Fenris can ask his rabbi at the Seder tonight...

[Fenris]

I would be hesitant to say that either the Mishnah or the Gemara were written by Pharisees.

Not how religious Jews see it. But you're entitled to your opinion on the matter.

This is because of changes to Judaism after the Second-Temple period.

But the rabbis being quoted in the Mishna and Talmud lived mostly during the second temple era or, barring that, immediately after it's destruction.

A scholar of Judaism would obviously be able to shed more light on this

What does that mean, "A scholar of Judaism"? Someone who practices Judaism? Someone who studies the Mishna and Talmud?

[Athanasius]

I think he means you Fenris, he just doesn't know it 

[DavidGYoung]

I would regard the late Jacob Neusner as a scholar of Judaism. The late James Dunn certainly came across as one in 'The Partings Of The Ways'. The average rabbi knows vastly more about how the writings of the Talmud came into existence than I do so I'd certainly be interested in what they have to say on the topic.

[Fenris]

I would regard the late Jacob Neusner as a scholar of Judaism.

I am familiar with him. He ascribed to the Reform movement, so I never took his works as being authoritative. 

The average rabbi knows vastly more about how the writings of the Talmud came into existence than I do so I'd certainly be interested in what they have to say on the topic.

I'm no Rabbi, but I went to Yeshiva for elementary and high school, and did a couple of years of religious study afterwards. And I continue to study to this day. Surely that holds some weight?

[RabbiKnife]

Maybe he’s looking for a modern Christian “expert” on Judaism.

Someone like that fraud Kahn