Did Jesus eat pork?

[patrick457]

We now turn to the Sadducees, which was basically a group - or rather, more like a loose confederation - of wealthy and powerful men of Iudaea Province, which included members of the priestly aristocracy. It seems that they arose in the Hasmonean period as opponents of the Pharisaic party. Depending on who was in power, they got either the good or the bad end of the stick.

Because they supported the Hasmonean policy of military and economic expansion, they gradually came to exercise tremendous influence in John Hyrcanus’s court (134-104 BC). Their influence predominated until the end of Alexander Jannaeus’s reign (76 BC). Under Queen Alexandra (76-67 BC) the Sadducees lost their power, and their numbers were greatly reduced. During Herod the Great’s reign, he marginalized and intimidated them, preferring to appoint non-Judeans to sensitive positions such as the post of high priest, so the appointees would be more compliant and beholden to him than to the local aristocratic families.

The Roman annexation of AD 6 led a newfound respect for the party. They became Rome’s allies in the region and may have even been the customary candidate pool for its high priests. They were characterized by their wealth and power, influence and collusion with Rome: they kept order for the Romans by exercise of religious authority, and the Romans in return kept them in power.

We don’t know much about them, except that most of them were aristocratic, did not believe in any form of life after death, and did not accept the special traditions of the Pharisees, having their own traditions. Some scholars theorize that they preserved a more archaized form of Judaism than the Pharisaic doctrine, which developed gradually within the climate of the exilic and post-exilic period and evolved and became elastic as times and needs changed. Because of this conservative reflex and the fact that they virtually are the ruling majority over the Temple, it is thought they were naturally wary of Pharisaic ideas which placed huge emphasis on the Jewish laity (“a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”) and did not center itself on Temple ritual.

Most scholars suppose that a lot of the high priests of the period were Sadducees, but we have direct information only about one who was: Ananus, who was high priest in AD 62, famous for (illegally) putting James ‘brother of the Lord’ to death, and who was one of the leaders of the Jewish revolt (Antiquities 20.199). The reader of the New Testament finds that they are explicitly named only a few times: it confirms their close association with the aristocratic priesthood and the fact that they did not believe in the resurrection.

The Jewish historian Josephus - himself not too fond of them, being aligned with the Pharisees, or so he claims - described them as the “first men,” arguing amongst themselves, having the confidence of the wealthy alone (Antiquities 13.10.6; 18.1.4; Jewish War 2.8.14). The Pharisees’ popularity among the common people would have been threatening for them, because anyone who challenged their religious authority or who brought on social change threatened a power pyramid from which they benefited.

 

[TimothyH]

It is really only in Matthew and John that further mention is made of Pharisees, but they notably no longer hold center stage as in the earlier half of the story. It is “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” who assume the role of Jesus’ opponents in His final week. They challenge His authority, pay Judas, get Him arrested after plotting about it, interrogate Him and send Him to Pilate, and mock Him at the cross. Luke here adds reference to the “rulers” (23:13, 35; 24:20) and “first men” (19:47) reminiscent of Josephus’ description of the Sadducees (Antiquities 13.10.6; 18.1.4; Jewish War 2.8.14).

I think this is where I made an error. Since “Scribes and Pharisees” are mentioned so many times together, “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” naturally seemed to have included Pharisees.

Some popular (non-Catholic) easter videos which I have watched reinforced this incorrect view exactly as you stated - dour, sarcastic, black-robed, grey bearded old men in dimly lit rooms in the middle of the night, nefarious villians obviously plotting evil.

-Tim-

 

[meltzerboy]

We now turn to the Sadducees, which was basically a group - or rather, more like a loose confederation - of wealthy and powerful men of Iudaea Province, which included members of the priestly aristocracy. It seems that they arose in the Hasmonean period as opponents of the Pharisaic party. Depending on who was in power, they got either the good or the bad end of the stick.

Because they supported the Hasmonean policy of military and economic expansion, they gradually came to exercise tremendous influence in John Hyrcanus’s court (134-104 BC). Their influence predominated until the end of Alexander Jannaeus’s reign (76 BC). Under Queen Alexandra (76-67 BC) the Sadducees lost their power, and their numbers were greatly reduced. During Herod the Great’s reign, he marginalized and intimidated them, preferring to appoint non-Judeans to sensitive positions such as the post of high priest, so the appointees would be more compliant and beholden to him than to the local aristocratic families.

The Roman annexation of AD 6 led a newfound respect for the party. They became Rome’s allies in the region and may have even been the customary candidate pool for its high priests. They were characterized by their wealth and power, influence and collusion with Rome: they kept order for the Romans by exercise of religious authority, and the Romans in return kept them in power.

We don’t know much about them, except that most of them were aristocratic, did not believe in any form of life after death, and did not accept the special traditions of the Pharisees, having their own traditions. Some scholars theorize that they preserved a more archaized form of Judaism than the Pharisaic doctrine, which developed gradually within the climate of the exilic and post-exilic period and evolved and became elastic as times and needs changed. Because of this conservative reflex and the fact that they virtually are the ruling majority over the Temple, it is thought they were naturally wary of Pharisaic ideas which placed huge emphasis on the Jewish laity (“a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”) and did not center itself on Temple ritual.

Most scholars suppose that a lot of the high priests of the period were Sadducees, but we have direct information only about one who was: Ananus, who was high priest in AD 62, famous for (illegally) putting James ‘brother of the Lord’ to death, and who was one of the leaders of the Jewish revolt (Antiquities 20.199). The reader of the New Testament finds that they are explicitly named only a few times: it confirms their close association with the aristocratic priesthood and the fact that they did not believe in the resurrection.

The Jewish historian Josephus - himself not too fond of them, being aligned with the Pharisees, or so he claims - described them as the “first men,” arguing amongst themselves, having the confidence of the wealthy alone (Antiquities 13.10.6; 18.1.4; Jewish War 2.8.14). The Pharisees’ popularity among the common people would have been threatening for them, because anyone who challenged their religious authority or who brought on social change threatened a power pyramid from which they benefited.

Thank you, Patrick, for this very detailed information. And we think politics is complicated today!

Just to connect all of this to the OP topic, none of these Jewish sects ate pork.

 

[patrick457]

I think this is where I made an error. Since “Scribes and Pharisees” are mentioned so many times together, “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” naturally seemed to have included Pharisees.

Well, the Greek term grammateus ‘scribe’ (also loosely rendered as ‘lawyer’ or ‘teacher (of the Law)’ in some modern Bibles) is a job description rather than the name of a separate party: professionals who write, and who also doubled as judges, lawyers and even financiers. Obviously there would be scribes affiliated to any given group (or no), not just the Pharisees. I’ve heard that one good way of keeping this in mind is to understand “scribes and Pharisees” as ‘scribes of the Pharisees’.

Some popular (non-Catholic) easter videos which I have watched reinforced this incorrect view exactly as you stated - dour, sarcastic, black-robed, grey bearded old men in dimly lit rooms in the middle of the night, nefarious villians obviously plotting evil.

-Tim-

It reminds me of the Visual Bible: The Gospel of Matthew (with Bruce Marchiano as the perpetually-grinning Jesus) - an otherwise decent movie - where you have the token Pharisee hanging out with the chief priests stroking his chin and laughing in mockery.

 

[TimothyH]

It reminds me of the Visual Bible: The Gospel of Matthew (with Bruce Marchiano as the perpetually-grinning Jesus) - an otherwise decent movie - where you have the token Pharisee hanging out with the chief priests stroking his chin and laughing in mockery.

If you ever get a chance, have a look at “The Easter Experience” by City on a Hill Productions.

Definitely Protestant in theology but an otherwise awsome series as far as it is able to go without the Eucharist. It has what I now see as the steriotypical Pharisees yelling “Crucify him!”



-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

So Patrick, let me ask you, how did you get so knowledgeable?

I have had two particular interests which I have not been able to find much information on… shepherding techniques in ancient Palesetine and Roman miltary discipline - how they drilled, rules they operated under, etc.

I posted a query about shepherding techniques here and was roundly mocked, but as Jesus is the shepherd, I thought it might shed some light on some of his sayings.

Any thoughs on either of those two subjects?

-Tim-

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Patrick457,

Let me make sure I have this straight …

While this is only, at best, indrectly related to pork consumption… the basis for calling the conflict between Christ and Pharisees is the less than historically accurate writing and directing of movie makers?

Admittedly, there was a long standing feud between the Pharisees and Sadducees - but, lumping them together as a single group of bad guys is simply not following the real written record. Let’s take a look at what we actually have and I think there will be an abundance of evidence that there was real hostility between the Pharisees and Christ. This is no myth.
“For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes [see Lawyers] and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20 ).

"He answered them, “And why do you transgress the Commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’ So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the Word of God.” (Matthew 15:3-6) .

“How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Matthew 16:11-12)

While I guess we are all entitled to classify anthing we want as a myth - in my opinion there is more reality here your original post has identified.

God bless

“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. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:2-9 )

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.” (Matthew 23:13 ).

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:23-24)

It’s not directly related to the whole issue of swine consumption, but I feel that this is a prime representative of the caricaturization of Pharisees.

In a number of retellings of the Jesus story (films, for instance) you sometimes see the Pharisees conflated with the Temple priesthood, to the point that you can’t really distinguish them from one another. They are all just a group of dour, pouting grey-bearded old men wearing dark robes, perhaps even proudly sporting a tallit and/or tefillin (just so you know they’re holier-than-thou and EVIL), perhaps with an evil cackle and/wicked grin/moustache twirling to boot. Since the Gospels mention that the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead (for some reason), and because various media give the impression of ‘Temple authorities=Pharisees’ some people assume that the Jewish leaders who delivered Jesus to the Romans were Pharisees, adding further fuel to the ‘wicked, hypocritical Pharisee’ stereotype. I think a good recent example of this is in Mel Gibson’s film, where Mel seems to stumble into this pitfall in a few places, mostly in the dialogue (Abenadar’s line, “the Pharisees apparently hate the man” in the context of Jesus’ arrest, for instance). This is not a new thing though; it is an idea as old as dirt in Christendom, as some Eastern hymns for Holy Week testify (where ‘scribes and Pharisees’ seem to be used interchangeably with ‘chief priests’). This idea however is not totally accurate.

 

[patrick457]

Tqualey, very good question. First of all, let me straighten things out: we’re talking about the mistake of lumping the Pharisees with the Temple priesthood. I don’t deny that there were disagreements between Jesus and some Pharisees in a number of issues, but to assume that they were the ones who tried Him and sent Him to Pilate is a distortion of history and the Gospels.

Oh, and while we’re at it: Jesus’ disagreements and rebukes against Pharisees may sound rather sharp to us, but surprisingly enough that was pretty common in those days. The Pharisees themselves disagreed with each other on various points. For instance, you have one school teaching this and another that; rabbi A would say this is okay but rabbi B says no, that type of thing (cf. the feud between the schools of rabbis Shammai and Hillel). Under the principle of “iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17) Jewish teachers, then as now, actually PRIZED arguments and criticisms, the clashing of different ideas. These were not intended to cause division but were meant to determine the way God wants His people to live. In fact, the later rabbis believed that in Heaven, God and the heavenly host holds Torah study, even arguing about the same questions teachers on Earth are discussing about. So the rabbis are honoring God by doing things “on earth as it is in heaven”, i.e. engaging in a battle of words and brains. Jews disagreeing with other Jews about the Torah was not a rare sight, so the picture of Pharisees claiming (in strong language) that Jesus is too lax, and Him countering (in equally strong language) that they are too strict is as unique as it first seems: everyone was doing it, not just them.

Come to think of it, there are probably more similarities between Jesus and the Pharisees than, say, the Sadducees and the Essenes.

There is in fact this theory that because Jesus spends so much time talking with Pharisees, had a number of followers with Pharisaic origins, and apparently held some beliefs identical to them, that Jesus may have been one Himself. But we need not necesrarily think thus, not to mention that I think this idea is not too strong.

 

[patrick457]

If you ever get a chance, have a look at “The Easter Experience” by City on a Hill Productions.

Definitely Protestant in theology but an otherwise awsome series as far as it is able to go without the Eucharist. It has what I now see as the steriotypical Pharisees yelling “Crucify him!”

http://timhollingworth.webs.com/img/pharisee.JPG

-Tim-

Small trivia: Pharisees come from all classes, though a majority hail from the low-to-middle-class average joes (which might be partly the reason why they are popular; common people could identify with them). To support themselves they often practiced a trade, in good Jewish fashion. Shammai for example was a contractor and builder; Hillel a woodcutter and manual laborer in his spare time. If we believe St. Paul’s testimony that he was one, then you’ve got a tentmaking Pharisee. Many of them would thus have a similar background to Jesus (a ‘worker’ or tekton). Same goes for the lower echelons of the Temple priesthood, as we’ve mentioned: when not in duty in the Temple they stayed home and worked in various trades.

But come to think of it, when was the last time you saw such a guy in the movies? Many movie ‘Pharisees’ even kind of look like they’ll shirk at the prospect of working with your own hands; they tend to remind one of the aristocratic priestly families and Sadducees and their infamous reputation which became quite legendary in later ages:

Woe to me from the house of Boethus; woe to me from their rods!
Woe to me from the house of Kathros; woe to me from their pens!
Woe to me from the house of Hanan; woe to me from their house of whispers!
Woe to me from the house of Elisha; woe to me from their pens!
Woe to me from the house of Ishmael ben-Phiabi; woe to me from their fists!
For they are high priests, and their sons treasurers, and their sons-in-law (temple) officers,
And their servants beat the people with staves.

Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 57a

 

[patrick457]

So Patrick, let me ask you, how did you get so knowledgeable?

I have had two particular interests which I have not been able to find much information on… shepherding techniques in ancient Palesetine and Roman miltary discipline - how they drilled, rules they operated under, etc.

I posted a query about shepherding techniques here and was roundly mocked, but as Jesus is the shepherd, I thought it might shed some light on some of his sayings.

Any thoughs on either of those two subjects?

-Tim-

Oh no, no, I just have an interest in history, prompted oddly by my love of art.

Those are certainly good and interesting subjects. But lest this thread gets derailed further, I think that now’s the time for a new one.

Sorry for the tangent, folks.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Patrick457,

In my opinion, your theory of the deadly hatred by the Pharisees being a myth still falls short of the mark when it comes to convincing evidence. They believed in the resurrection, the coming of the Messiah, angels and more than the first five books of the Bible - beliefs in common with Christ. And, yes, that would put Jesus closer to the Pharisees than to any of the other groups. But, really, this is where the similarity ends.

If your idea is that there were some Pharisees who believed in Jesus (e.g., in John 3 we are introduced to Nicodemus, a Pharisee) there is no argument. But from the Biblical accounts, Nicodemus did not have a ‘following’ of other Pharisees who believed in Jesus. The impression I have that any Jews (especially in the Sanhedrin) who believed in Christ were truly a minority and kept their beliefs to themselves for “…fear of the Jews…” In claiming that the Pharisees hatred for Christ is an overblow statement or a myth lacks documentation.

Let’s take a look at the beginning of Chapter 3 in Marks Gospel - I have copied and pasted it for reading convenience… Your attention is directed toward the last verse.

1* Again he entered the synagogue.a There was a man there who had a withered hand. 2They watched him closely to see if he would cure him on the sabbath so that they might accuse him. 3He said to the man with the withered hand, “Come up here before us.” 4Then he said to them, “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath rather than to do evil, to save life rather than to destroy it?” But they remained silent. 5Looking around at them with anger and grieved at their hardness of heart, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out and his hand was restored.b 6* The Pharisees went out and immediately took counsel with the Herodians against him to put him to death.

Now, your attention is directed to this link: usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Mark&ch=3 with an invitation to read the footnotes provided for these verses. What is especially interesting is the role of, “… the Pharisees and the Herodians to put Jesus to death after this series of conflicts in Galilee, Mark uses a pattern that recurs in his account of later controversies in Jerusalem (Mk 11:17–18; 12:13–17)”. As you know, the Herodians were totally despised by both the Pharisees and Sadducees. The consuming hatred by these three groups for Christ unites them in plotting his death. The real chaos of evil can unite to try and destroy Good - but, this is doomed to failure from the start.

In considering the, “…iron sharpens iron…” analogy, I have a brief comment. The 11th Chapter of Luke may be a good example of what you have in mind. Jesus is invited to a the home of a Pharisee for a meal - and so that a trap could be sprung on Christ. Admittedly, there is not much written about what, if anything, was said to Christ, but Christ has quite a lot to say to everyone there: Pharisees, Scribes and Lawyers.

But, I just do not see this as supporting your claim about the Pharisees being out to murder Christ as a myth.

God bless

Tqualey, very good question. First of all, let me straighten things out: we’re talking about the mistake of lumping the Pharisees with the Temple priesthood. I don’t deny that there were disagreements between Jesus and some Pharisees in a number of issues, but to assume that they were the ones who tried Him and sent Him to Pilate is a distortion of history and the Gospels.

Oh, and while we’re at it: Jesus’ disagreements and rebukes against Pharisees may sound rather sharp to us, but surprisingly enough that was pretty common in those days. The Pharisees themselves disagreed with each other on various points. For instance, you have one school teaching this and another that; rabbi A would say this is okay but rabbi B says no, that type of thing (cf. the feud between the schools of rabbis Shammai and Hillel). Under the principle of “iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17) Jewish teachers, then as now, actually PRIZED arguments and criticisms, the clashing of different ideas. These were not intended to cause division but were meant to determine the way God wants His people to live. In fact, the later rabbis believed that in Heaven, God and the heavenly host holds Torah study, even arguing about the same questions teachers on Earth are discussing about. So the rabbis are honoring God by doing things “on earth as it is in heaven”, i.e. engaging in a battle of words and brains. Jews disagreeing with other Jews about the Torah was not a rare sight, so the picture of Pharisees claiming (in strong language) that Jesus is too lax, and Him countering (in equally strong language) that they are too strict is as unique as it first seems: everyone was doing it, not just them.

Come to think of it, there are probably more similarities between Jesus and the Pharisees than, say, the Sadducees and the Essenes.

There is in fact this theory that because Jesus spends so much time talking with Pharisees, had a number of followers with Pharisaic origins, and apparently held some beliefs identical to them, that Jesus may have been one Himself. But we need not necesrarily think thus, not to mention that I think this idea is not too strong.

 

[patrick457]

I was getting to that.

Yes, in some of the Gospel accounts we often find the sidenote that the Pharisees “wanted to kill Him” or some variation after being answered back by Jesus. The problem is, they never give us an explicit, concrete reason as to why: they just tell the audience and leave it at that. In fact, one could say that the Synoptics (I’m speaking from a literary POV here) paint a rather oversimplified, twoｰdimensional picture. The conflict pericopes follow a pattern: Jesus does something, “the Pharisees” appear out of nowhere, accuse Jesus, Jesus answers back, Pharisees disappear, pericope ends. John’s Gospel by contrast has more verisimilitude: we can see disagreements of opinion between the priests and the Pharisees over Jesus, compared to the Synoptic’s rather generalistic mention of the “scribes and Pharisees”.

In fact in Mark’s Gospel we can see another pattern in the first five conflict stories. In the first pericope (2:1ｰ12), mention is made of “scribes”. Then it becomes “scribes of the Pharisees” (2:13ｰ17), then escalates to the “people” (i.e. John’s followers and Pharisees; 2:18ｰ22) and finally merely “the Pharisees” (2:23ｰ28; 3:1ｰ6 with the Herodians). In the first instance, the scribes only murmur within themselves. Next they complain to the disciples about Jesus. In the third and fourth stories they now complain directly to Jesus. In the fifth they move past objections and decide to kill Him.

The Synoptic conflict stories begs the question as to what the Pharisees are up to, and where they went when rebuked. Also, if they thought Jesus and His disciples were breaking Sabbath, why didn’t they just report them to a priest, who would have fined them by requiring a sin offering when next in Jerusalem? Why take the hard route and decide to kill Him (since the Pharisees as a party really had no political power at this time I guess the other available option for them was vigilante justice…)? That was overkill, even for those days. People did engage in violence and civil war over various issues, but many of the points of contention in the conflict pericopes were still within the accepted parameters of debate. So we can’t really say that they plotted to murder Jesus because He managed to answer them back at such a rapid pace (unless Jesus just happened to bump into shortｰtempered folks ). I think the picture is slightly more complicated IRL: yes, some of them could have contemplated to kill Him at some point, but it would have perhaps taken more time than a simple reading of the Gospels (which are more like bald, compressed episodic summaries of what happened) would lead us to believe.

Just so we’re at the same page: I have been talking about Pharisaic involvement in Holy Week, in Jerusalem. Not earlier in the Galilee. As I often put it: the Pharisees planned to kill Jesus, but the chief priests (Sadducees?) did it! (And no, I don’t deny the possibility that there could have been actual Pharisaic involvement, only I think it is far lesser than some people imagine.)

 

[patrick457]

Oh yes, as for similarities between the Pharisees and Jesus, there are actually a lot more than you think. For Jesus, love of neighbor is also important as loving God. That is something that the Pharisees and their spiritual descendants agreed with, that rabbi Akiva in the 2nd century called love of neighbor “the major principle of the Torah” (Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 9.4). No wonder the scribe who questioned him was impressed (Mark12:32-34) A good deal of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain is also echoed by a number of rabbis, for starters. All in all, Jesus’ teaching and milder (in many ways) approach to the Law is actually pretty much reminiscent of rabbi Hillel.

And as for the Herodians: they only appear twice in Mark, each time portrayed as conspiring with Pharisees. Like the Pharisees, their actual motives are unclear. In fact, it is not certain as to who they are. Some believe that they were bureaucrats or servants of Herod Antipas, others that they were Essenes by another name, citing the favorable attitude the Herodian dynasty had with them, starting from the time when an Essene named Menachem foretold to a young Herod the Great that he would be king. It’s hard to say.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Patrick457,

Oooooooooooooh, where to begin … ?

Your literary critique of the Synoptics and John is very interesting. Somewhere along the line the issue about the Scriptures being the primary source for knowing about the Pharisees involvement in the death of Christ has to be addressed. By my understanding of your hypothesis - the Sacred Writers really did not have quite the right grasp of all the players to make their Inspired Writing more than just two dimensional. Actually, your post appears dismissive of what was actually written - could it be that it simply does not agree with your revision of Pharisaic reputation?

Honest, I really do not think anyone (Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians) can be singled out as being poorly presented, maligned or demonized. They all are guilty of plotting the death of Christ. Period. Efforts to polish up the image of the first group are for naught for two major reasons:

1-) Scripture is really quite clear that this was a combined effort of virtually all the members of the Jewish leadership - includes the Scribes and Lawyers. You really can say one group has ‘less Blood’ on their hands without producing credible evidence - and dismissing the Scriptural accounts sim;y falls short of the mark.

2-) This has nothing to do with Christ eating pork … you know … the thread we are to be sticking to. Why not start a new thread with your hypothesis clearly stated?

God bless

I was getting to that.

Yes, in some of the Gospel accounts we often find the sidenote that the Pharisees “wanted to kill Him” or some variation after being answered back by Jesus. The problem is, they never give us an explicit, concrete reason as to why: they just tell the audience and leave it at that. In fact, one could say that the Synoptics (I’m speaking from a literary POV here) paint a rather oversimplified, twoｰdimensional picture. The conflict pericopes follow a pattern: Jesus does something, “the Pharisees” appear out of nowhere, accuse Jesus, Jesus answers back, Pharisees disappear, pericope ends. John’s Gospel by contrast has more verisimilitude: we can see disagreements of opinion between the priests and the Pharisees over Jesus, compared to the Synoptic’s rather generalistic mention of the “scribes and Pharisees”.

In fact in Mark’s Gospel we can see another pattern in the first five conflict stories. In the first pericope (2:1ｰ12), mention is made of “scribes”. Then it becomes “scribes of the Pharisees” (2:13ｰ17), then escalates to the “people” (i.e. John’s followers and Pharisees; 2:18ｰ22) and finally merely “the Pharisees” (2:23ｰ28; 3:1ｰ6 with the Herodians). In the first instance, the scribes only murmur within themselves. Next they complain to the disciples about Jesus. In the third and fourth stories they now complain directly to Jesus. In the fifth they move past objections and decide to kill Him.

The Synoptic conflict stories begs the question as to what the Pharisees are up to, and where they went when rebuked. Also, if they thought Jesus and His disciples were breaking Sabbath, why didn’t they just report them to a priest, who would have fined them by requiring a sin offering when next in Jerusalem? Why take the hard route and decide to kill Him (since the Pharisees as a party really had no political power at this time I guess the other available option for them was vigilante justice…)? That was overkill, even for those days. People did engage in violence and civil war over various issues, but many of the points of contention in the conflict pericopes were still within the accepted parameters of debate. So we can’t really say that they plotted to murder Jesus because He managed to answer them back at such a rapid pace (unless Jesus just happened to bump into shortｰtempered folks ). I think the picture is slightly more complicated IRL: yes, some of them could have contemplated to kill Him at some point, but it would have perhaps taken more time than a simple reading of the Gospels (which are more like bald, compressed episodic summaries of what happened) would lead us to believe.

Just so we’re at the same page: I have been talking about Pharisaic involvement in Holy Week, in Jerusalem. Not earlier in the Galilee. As I often put it: the Pharisees planned to kill Jesus, but the chief priests (Sadducees?) did it! (And no, I don’t deny the possibility that there could have been actual Pharisaic involvement, only I think it is far lesser than some people imagine.)

 

[patrick457]

One final post, and I’m off to bed, and hopefully another thread.

Let’s face it. The Gospels, for all their inspiration and holiness, simply aren’t the best pieces of literature there are from a modern viewpoint, which is so used to novelistic treatment. For one, aside from a number of people such as Pilate (who is given a personality by Matthew and John), a lot of the characters are rather dry and flat. We are not given any motives for, say, Judas’ betrayal. They simply record it because that was what happened. John (who as mentioned earlier has more skill as a writer in that his characters generally have more vibrant personalities than in the Synoptics) mentions his pickpocketing tendencies, but aside from that, all he says was that Satan entered into Judas, and then he hands Jesus over. Admittedly the conflict stories are also an example of this: Jesus the good guy is cornered by the baddies, Jesus manages to tell them off, rinse and repeat. The fact that the Synoptics are also episodic in nature does not help. Despite Mark’s attempts to disguise it with his “and”'s and “immediately”‘s, the Synoptic Gospels are more of a series of disjointed vignettes, selections from Jesus’ life. The Evangelists themselves do not agree on the exact order of events: the three Synoptics place some pericopes differently from each other. (By contrast, John has a more linear, chronological sequence.) This factor would not helped much in the way of characterization.

This is actually why I think that doing Jesus films are a very difficult task. Aside from the obvious questions (which Gospel should I use, how do I arrange the sequences of events, etc.) one must also consider that the Gospels are simply not ready-made screenplays. You’ll have to do a lot of interpretation.

Do I think that the Evangelists grasped the story correctly? Yes. But Inspiration does not an epic drama make. I believe in the authenticity and reliability of the Gospels but that does not mean that I would not perform literary criticism on it just because it is the word of God.

I’m not dismissing the Text, let me make that clear. It’s just that my approach is rather than to fit history into the NT, I kind of tend to try to fit the NT more in its historical context. Now I know there are some who might disagree with this method, and they are welcome to do so.

And yes, I know I sound too apologetic for the Pharisees here, but I think Christians ought to learn more about how things actually went in those times. Admittedly the Gospels alone are not enough; they were written in a high-context culture, where the audience already has the background necessary for understanding the story. In the modern low-context societies that many of us live in, we need something to give us context. Fortunately we have literary and physical sources which help us peek into the days of yore. And no, I’m not exonerating all Pharisees from guilt, it’s just that they’ve been so grossly caricatured and reviled enough by many that we need something to keep our view balanced.

But I stick to the Gospels for my part: “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people” they say, and so I believe.

Now, I’m sorry again for bringing this thread into the edge of the cliff after derailing it…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Patrick457,

As far as I can tell, this entire presentation has been your opinion, without any documentation to support it.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Next time, may I recommend you provide some of the fruits of your research - and a thread that you open for that purpose.

God bless

One final post, and I’m off to bed, and hopefully another thread.

Let’s face it. The Gospels, for all their inspiration and holiness, simply aren’t the best pieces of literature there are from a modern viewpoint, which is so used to novelistic treatment. For one, aside from a number of people such as Pilate (who is given a personality by Matthew and John), a lot of the characters are rather dry and flat. We are not given any motives for, say, Judas’ betrayal. They simply record it because that was what happened. John (who as mentioned earlier has more skill as a writer in that his characters generally have more vibrant personalities than in the Synoptics) mentions his pickpocketing tendencies, but aside from that, all he says was that Satan entered into Judas, and then he hands Jesus over. Admittedly the conflict stories are also an example of this: Jesus the good guy is cornered by the baddies, Jesus manages to tell them off, rinse and repeat. The fact that the Synoptics are also episodic in nature does not help. Despite Mark’s attempts to disguise it with his “and”'s and “immediately”‘s, the Synoptic Gospels are more of a series of disjointed vignettes, selections from Jesus’ life. The Evangelists themselves do not agree on the exact order of events: the three Synoptics place some pericopes differently from each other. (By contrast, John has a more linear, chronological sequence.) This factor would not helped much in the way of characterization.

This is actually why I think that doing Jesus films are a very difficult task. Aside from the obvious questions (which Gospel should I use, how do I arrange the sequences of events, etc.) one must also consider that the Gospels are simply not ready-made screenplays. You’ll have to do a lot of interpretation.

Do I think that the Evangelists grasped the story correctly? Yes. But Inspiration does not an epic drama make. I believe in the authenticity and reliability of the Gospels but that does not mean that I would not perform literary criticism on it just because it is the word of God.

I’m not dismissing the Text, let me make that clear. It’s just that my approach is rather than to fit history into the NT, I kind of tend to try to fit the NT more in its historical context. Now I know there are some who might disagree with this method, and they are welcome to do so.

And yes, I know I sound too apologetic for the Pharisees here, but I think Christians ought to learn more about how things actually went in those times. Admittedly the Gospels alone are not enough; they were written in a high-context culture, where the audience already has the background necessary for understanding the story. In the modern low-context societies that many of us live in, we need something to give us context. Fortunately we have literary and physical sources which help us peek into the days of yore. And no, I’m not exonerating all Pharisees from guilt, it’s just that they’ve been so grossly caricatured and reviled enough by many that we need something to keep our view balanced.

But I stick to the Gospels for my part: “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people” they say, and so I believe.

Now, I’m sorry again for bringing this thread into the edge of the cliff after derailing it…

 

[patrick457]

Sure, no problem.
Honestly, I am surprised that I actually wrote that longwinded reply - my eyes kept closing on their own due to extreme drowsiness then.

 

[BrunoMaria]

since latest answers got off topic and posters here recommended a new thread for these answers;
I opened one here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8340107#post8340107

“The Bible is much more than the word thinks”

yours
Bruno
by the way:
some of us maintain a little “MailCirle” of strongly believing friends, to exchange mails just within this Circle of now 15 friends, most of them US-Americans and also members in CAF. We’d like to welcome more members. If you are interested, simply drop me a note to my private mail-address: >Holzschnitzereien at Krippenfiguren.com<
The at of course as @