Jesus the Pharisee?

[Pieman333272]

I heard about some books by scholars suggesting Jesus was, in fact, a Pharisee. Rather than asking anyone to discredit them (though you’re free to do so), if Jesus were a Pharisee, what would that change? Would we still be able to call him, “Son of God” and a great moral teacher? And does the Church have any specific views on this topic?

 

[Geremia]

I heard about some books by scholars suggesting Jesus was, in fact, a Pharisee. Rather than asking anyone to discredit them (though you’re free to do so), if Jesus were a Pharisee, what would that change? Would we still be able to call him, “Son of God” and a great moral teacher? And does the Church have any specific views on this topic?

So? St. Paul was a Pharisee.

 

[cascherman]

haha, thats like saying Jesus would have been a republican or democrat. Sorry, he transcends these things…

 

[Fidelis]

I heard about some books by scholars suggesting Jesus was, in fact, a Pharisee. Rather than asking anyone to discredit them (though you’re free to do so), if Jesus were a Pharisee, what would that change? Would we still be able to call him, “Son of God” and a great moral teacher? And does the Church have any specific views on this topic?

Coulda been, I guess (the NT doesn’t say he wasn’t). But either way, no, it wouldn’t change the essence of who he is.

Personally, I don’t see much evidence for him being a card-carrying member of that party. He was at odds with many of their practices (even though he obviously agreed with them on some things) and, while the Pharisees are named as such very pointedly and frequently throughout the Gospels, Jesus is never identified as one.

 

[seanflynn]

If Jesus were a Pharisee, He would still be the Son of God, Saviour of the World, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, and everything else He happens to be.

Jesus is called “Rabbi” by some of the disciples. His ministry didn’t just come out of nowhere. We know he taught in the temple in Jerusalem when he was 12. He could have been involved in other religious discussions and debates in his teens an twenties, no?

A way I look at it: I am more upset when other Catholics are public sinners, or being bad examples, or being hypocrites, than when people I don’t identify myself with are. Jesus makes a big deal about the improper practices and attitudes of the Phaisees. Everyone around Him was some kind of sinner, I guarantee you that, but Jesus singles out Pharisees quite frequently, like He expected more from them.

I’m not trying to make God in my manly image, but it seems logical to me that if He lived as a Pharisee before being tempted in the desert, then the Gospels would read as they actually do. If He wasn’t a Pharisee, then it still seems logical to me that the Gospels would read as they actually do. For the short answer to the actual question posed, read my first paragraph.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Jesus was most theologically in in line with the Pharisees, that is most likely what he meant

 

[patrick457]

I heard about some books by scholars suggesting Jesus was, in fact, a Pharisee. Rather than asking anyone to discredit them (though you’re free to do so), if Jesus were a Pharisee, what would that change? Would we still be able to call him, “Son of God” and a great moral teacher? And does the Church have any specific views on this topic?

Well, first of all, let me ask the crucial question: so what if Jesus was indeed a Pharisee? There’s nothing really wrong with Pharisees as a whole, if you ask me.
Whether Jesus Christ is a member of the Pharisean sect, or any other group, would and does not change the fact that He is the Son of God.

Now, there are indeed scholars such as the late Hyam Maccoby who argue that because Jesus’ teachings agree with the Pharisees on a lot of points, and because He talks with them often, then it follows that He must be a Pharisee as well. Which is not a rather unique situation: there are also scholars who paint Jesus as a folk healer, as an Essene, as an eschatological prophet, etc. (John Dominic Crossan was quite right when he said that recent historical research into the life of Jesus has become something of a scholarly joke; ask seven people and you’ll get seven different ideas of who Jesus is!)

But before we get to that, let’s ask first: what exactly is a Pharisee?

Historically, the Pharisees were predominantly lay sages and teachers. Some were priests, but a vast majority were scholarly laymen.

The seeds of Pharisaism were planted during the Babylonian Captivity (587-536 BC), and a clearly defined party emerged during the revolt of the Maccabees (167-165 BC). The name first appeared during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-105 BC), whom the Pharisees opposed because of his assumption of both the royal and high priestly titles and because of the general secularism of the court. The origin of their name is unclear: in a good or neutral sense the term could mean that the Pharisees were ‘set apart’ or ‘separated’ (p’rushim “the separated ones”) from normal society in order to observe the Law more rigorously, or that the Pharisees separated themselves from the priestly (i.e. Sadducean) interpretation of the Law. In a negative sense, their name could mean “heretics”: that is, people who ‘separated’ themselves from society because their practices were deemed illegimitate (in this case, the title is therefore a sort of slur or pejorative). Another hypothesis for the meaning of the word (based on the reasoning that the Aramaic root prsh could both mean “separate” or “interpret”) is that the name actually means “interpreters”, which fits in with the Pharisees having their own interpretation of the Law and were considered accurate interpreters of it.

Note that the Pharisees did not call themselves such. No Jewish group actually explicitly called themselves ‘Pharisees’. The authors of Rabbinic literature referred to themselves and their forebears as hakamim (“sages”, “scholars”) or - in post-70 AD Judaism - rabbis. They appear to have no actual, formal name for their movement, but just called themselves Israel because they consider themselves to be simply more proper Jews.

 

[patrick457]

(continued)

The Pharisees’ chief rival sect was the Sadducees. Whereas the Sadducees were drawn mainly from the conservative and aristocratic priestly class, the Pharisees tended to be middle class and open to religious innovation.

Recent scholarship has overturned the traditional image of the Pharisees as the conservatives and the Sadducees as the liberals: it is more accurate to say that in some respects such as in political matters, the Pharisees leant towards the conservative side of things. Yet they were also innovative and ‘liberal’ in religious respects than the Sadducees, which were more likely to be actually in the ‘traditional’ end of the spectrum, contrary to what popular piety believes: they professed a belief in resurrection (a notion which is believed to have only developed in Judaism around the post-Exilic period, only taking firm root for some more time after that), accepted more books other than the Torah when judging other matters of the Law (there was little to no idea of a fixed canon at the time of Jesus; all Jews universally considered the five books of Moses as Scripture, yet there was widespread disagreement as to what books are ‘Scripture’ after that, a problem which would not be definitely solved in Judaism until a few centuries later). Another is their placing emphasis more on the Law rather than the Temple itself, which was one element which helped them survive its destruction in 70 AD and enabled them to give birth to modern-day Judaism.

They preached a grassroots, democratic and participatory form of Judaism. In the interpretation of the law the Pharisees differed from the Sadducees in their use of oral legal tradition to supplement the Torah, although their interpretations, once given, were scrupulously adhered to. Pharisaic emphasis on divine providence led to a marked fatalism, and they adopted a belief in resurrection and an elaborate angelology, all of which was rejected by the Sadducees. The struggle for power between the two groups led to rancor and, in some cases, violence.The Pharisees’ views were were non-creedal and non-dogmatic, and heterogenous. They believed that because Israel is a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (thus, every Jew is in some way, a priest), they believed in a Judaism that extended beyond the Temple, applying Jewish law to mundane activities in order to sanctify the every-day world. They emphasized that rituals were not something that is monopolized by an inherited priesthood but rather could be performed by all adult Jews individually or collectively; whose leaders were not determined by birth but by scholarly achievement. All Jews in their ordinary life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should thus observe rules and rituals concerning purification.

These beliefs entailed both a commitment to relate religion to ordinary concerns and daily life, and a commitment to study and scholarly debate. In debating and disagreeing over the meaning of the Torah or how best to put it into practice, no rabbi felt that he (or his opponent) were in some way rejecting God or threatening Judaism; on the contrary, it was precisely through such arguments that the rabbis imitated and honored God, who is Himself envisioned as engaging in Torah study with the heavenly court.

The commitment to relate religion to daily life through the law has led to the view that they were ‘legalistic’ (cf. the label ‘pharisee’). In fact, some other Jewish groups were much more strict and legalistic than they were: their rivals, the Sadducees were committed to obeying the commandments of the Torah literally, word for word (without the Pharisaic notion of the Oral Torah), and the Essenes governed themselves through elaborate rules and regulations. In some cases, Pharisaic law was even more lax. It is more accurate to say they were legalistic in a different way than is sometimes implied.

The sages of the Talmud (their spiritual descendants) believed that the Oral Law was simultaneously revealed to Moses at Sinai, and the product of debates among rabbis. Thus, one may conceive of the Oral Torah not as a fixed text but as an ongoing process of analysis and argument; this is an ongoing process in which God is actively involved; it was this ongoing process that was revealed at Sinai, and by participating in this ongoing process rabbis and their students are actively participating in God’s ongoing revelation. That is, “revelation” is not a single act, and “Torah” is not a single or fixed text. It is this ongoing process of analysis and argument that is itself the substance of God’s revelation. There was a midrash which illustrates the process:

Rabbi Akiva was teaching Torah in heaven. One time, Moses comes into the class and finds that he understood nothing of what Rabbi Akiva taught, so he decided to complain to God about his lack of understanding. However, he heard Akiva finish his lecture that “all this we know by virtue of the Oral Law given to Moses at Sinai”, at which Moses is immediately satisfied and ceased to protest.

This story is remarkable in that it (1) acknowledges significant development within the Oral Law from the Written Torah. If the Oral Torah was literally Mosaic in origin, Moses would not have had a hard time comprehending it; (1) asserts an authority for the Oral Torah as if it were given to Moses. In effect, the statement is made in that we do not know the precise origin of these: the only things we know about it that it is ancient in character, and is revered as if they were Mosaic. Finally, when Moses hears all this, he is gratified that so much was accomplished in his name.

 

[patrick457]

(continued)

We must note though that the explicit teaching of an Oral Torah in contrast to a Written one does not appear until the 3rd century AD, though the idea is certainly implicit earlier. Of course, in a sense, all Jews had an ‘oral Torah’ of their own of sorts - each locale and probably each sub-group or class probably had their own customs and specific rules for how to live Judaism. These laws had developed over decades and centuries and were common to all groups. The Pharisees promoted one version, their version, of such customs with an underlying vision of the Jewish way of life.

When one talks of Sadducees rejecting an ‘oral Torah’ it implies that they accept no other observance and interpretation apart from their own rather sola Scriptura-esque observance and interpretation of the Law; that serves as their ‘oral Torah’ for them. In this the two groups, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, were like all the other Jewish groups of the period, each with their own distinct traditions, social and religious goals and laws. Judaism was yet to become truly unified and homogenous; diversity in many respects was the rule then.

Now, as for their political status. The social standing and beliefs of the Pharisees changed over time, such that the role, significance, and meaning of the Pharisees evolved as political and social conditions in Judea changed. There was a time when the Pharisees held actual political authority (during the Hasmonean Dynasty, 164-37 BC), but by the time of Jesus the Roman prefects and the Sadducees had largely sidelined them. Some were prominent and aristocratic, but the majority exercised power only by virtue of their broad appeal to the commoners. This is why you often see Jesus and the Pharisees scuffling with each other: because they both share a similar target audience.

Nor did they have wealth as a whole: the Pharisees were a diverse group. They had members from different levels of society, including those from the unschooled humble origins. There were those who had money, but a good majority are from what could be the middle and lower classes, who often performed odd jobs just to support themselves. For example, St. Paul was a tentmaker, Hillel the Elder earned a meager living by dabbling in woodcutting and manual labor, and Shammai worked as a contractor and builder.

 

[patrick457]

Now, as for Jesus and the Pharisees.

Out of all the ‘Judaisms’ of the Second Temple Period, one of the most well-known is, without a doubt, the Pharisees - because of scores of mentions of them in the New Testament.

In all four Gospels, Jesus had dealings with Pharisees the most compared with any other group (not surprising because again, their target audience - the commoners - happened to be the same!). Not to mention that in many cases, Jesus seems to side with the Pharisees on a number of things such as a belief in a resurrection of the dead, a more complex belief in angels, the central importance of the Shema and love of neighbor. (Some scholars have even noted similarities between some of His teachings and that of some sages/rabbis of the period) A number of His followers were even Pharisees or at least, claimed to be one. While some of them did get annoyed and plotted to kill Him - something they never got to actually do, as their rivals the Sadducees beat them to it! - there are also Pharisees who were helpful to Jesus, such as those who warned Him to flee from Herod (Luke 13:31). Before Jesus launches His massive tirade against them (Matthew 23), He first even commends His disciples to practice whatever they teach them (only, they should not follow what they actually practice, “because they say and do not do”). All these elements makes it no wonder that some believe that Jesus was a p’rushah Himself.

That being said, there are certain differences between Jesus and the Pharisees, a few of them major. For one, He often held to a more direct, stricter, dare I say harsh approach to Scripture on matters such as divorce, which He allows only for porneia, according to Matthew (19:3-9). Compare that with the multiplicity of grounds for divorce - some admittedly rather flimsy - such as the school of Hillel allowed. He even attacked the abuse of the practice of korban (Mark 7:1-13). Also, Jesus had a heightened sense of personal cleanness, teaching that defilement actually stems from the heart (Mark 7:14-23), and therefore, attempting to obtain ‘purity’ with rituals of washing was basically useless, as it did not solve the real problem: moral purity and holiness was being superseded by ritual purity. Also, Jesus’ association with “sinners” illustrates a different conception of separation from the world than the Pharisees had (Mark 12:15-17; Luke 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32). Jesus affirmed clearly that at times the oral law, championed by the Pharisees, contravened the written law (Matthew 15:1-20). Furthermore, Sabbath-keeping illustrated a different set of priorities to Jesus and the Pharisees (Mark 2:23; 3:6).

BTW, here’s a good link: Jesus and the Pharisees

 

[steve53]

Great post, Patrick.

But I think if you want to know about the meaning of the term in the times of Jesus, you have to look at Josephus and rely heavily on what he wrote. Josephus was born into the Jewish aristocracy in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion, and was a trained priest in the Second Temple, among many other things.

Both in Antiquities and Wars he goes to great lengths in describing the three sects of the Jews. All Jews, of course, had to follow the laws of Moses. But in the early first century A.D., three sub-groups had evolved-the Sadducee(sp?), the Pharisees, and the mystical Essene. Google the Jewish sect desired and Josephus, and you should get to the passages easily.

Jesus is most commonly linked to the Essene, for his peace-loving ways and his parables concerning shepherding and agriculture. The Essene wore white robes only, and so Jesus is usually pictured as wearing one. The Essene had their own set of ceremonies, and during the day left their monastic commune to work in the community tending to livestock or working the fields. Hence the connection with Jesus and his parables.

The Pharisees were meticulous in following the laws of Moses, and also created laws and sub-laws involving almost every aspect of life. That doesn’t sound to me like that was something that Jesus would be interested in!

 

[Pieman333272]

Great post, Patrick.

But I think if you want to know about the meaning of the term in the times of Jesus, you have to look at Josephus and rely heavily on what he wrote. Josephus was born into the Jewish aristocracy in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion, and was a trained priest in the Second Temple, among many other things.

Both in Antiquities and Wars he goes to great lengths in describing the three sects of the Jews. All Jews, of course, had to follow the laws of Moses. But in the early first century A.D., three sub-groups had evolved-the Sadducee(sp?), the Pharisees, and the mystical Essene. Google the Jewish sect desired and Josephus, and you should get to the passages easily.

Jesus is most commonly linked to the Essene, for his peace-loving ways and his parables concerning shepherding and agriculture. The Essene wore white robes only, and so Jesus is usually pictured as wearing one. The Essene had their own set of ceremonies, and during the day left their monastic commune to work in the community tending to livestock or working the fields. Hence the connection with Jesus and his parables.

The Pharisees were meticulous in following the laws of Moses, and also created laws and sub-laws involving almost every aspect of life. That doesn’t sound to me like that was something that Jesus would be interested in!

This is an interesting point. I looked up the Essenes and Jesus, and read that it is possible that there was an Essene teacher or leader who was just like Jesus 100+ years before the Gospels. Does this mean the Jesus in the Gospels isn’t the real Jesus?

 

[patrick457]

Great post, Patrick.

But I think if you want to know about the meaning of the term in the times of Jesus, you have to look at Josephus and rely heavily on what he wrote. Josephus was born into the Jewish aristocracy in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion, and was a trained priest in the Second Temple, among many other things.

Both in Antiquities and Wars he goes to great lengths in describing the three sects of the Jews. All Jews, of course, had to follow the laws of Moses. But in the early first century A.D., three sub-groups had evolved-the Sadducee(sp?), the Pharisees, and the mystical Essene. Google the Jewish sect desired and Josephus, and you should get to the passages easily.

You’re welcome.
That being said, I think we should also take Josephus with a grain of salt and not take everything he writes at face value. He’s a very good source and we owe him much, but we should also weigh what he writes with what little other evidence we have as well and form a picture out of it.

You have to consider first of all that when people wrote ‘history’ in the ancient world, they don’t write it in the same way as modern historians do: often, ancient historians allow their personal biases and opinions to color their retellings of history (then again, modern historians still do it to an extent even today ). Often, Josephus’ various works reflect not only his personal bias (his later works such as Antiquities and Against Apion, for example, reflect a heightened religious sensibility - often, he occasionally describes the Pharisees with a degree of adulation absent from his earlier Wars of the Jews, and his standard for piety has become more law-centered and less Temple-centered) but also his concern to defend the reputation of his Roman patrons (not all Romans were bad; just a few procurators), of the Jewish people (not all Jews were bad; just a few radicals), as well as himself (he wasn’t bad, as he just did his duty; the Romans just happened to have all the luck). No historian can write a truly objective account; how much the more so when the author of the history is also its subject.

When Josephus writes about the “philosophies” current in his day, you do have to remember that he’s not an unbiased encyclopedia. Given that in his latter days he seemed to increasingly side by the Pharisees, as per his writings, it’s no wonder that he would write about them in a positive way while writing about the Pharisees’ rivals, the Sadducees, in a critical tone.

No wonder also he would write the most about the Essenes (which was the smallest and most marginal of these three groups) because of a little experience he had with them - as well as the other two groups - when he was sixteen (cf. Life 10), as well as their ‘virtuous’ ascetic lifestyle as well as their ‘exotic’ and different practices - say, their toilet habits, which was different from everyone else’s. When ancients wrote and read history, they did so for entertainment and not for objective fact-finding or somesuch as we often do today: history books were seen as sources of fun. Thus, what was out of the ordinary was given center stage. After all, who would want to read about what was commonplace and ordinary? That wouldn’t be fun! For example, we have no surviving record of a Roman who detailed what the Romans did at the toilet, because that was common knowledge, and therefore, ‘boring’ and taken for granted.

Also, Josephus was most likely making a grossly oversimplified picture of 1st-century Judean society by describing only three groups (four if you add the Zealots). For example, the Community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls is often identified as Essene, but a closer look at a few major texts show certain contradictions between the Community that produced it and the Essenes of Josephus and. It could be possible that when Josephus described only three groups, he combined different groups under the same heading to simplify things for his foreign audience so they don’t get too confused: in the case of the Essenes, he may have lumped different ascetic sects that existed in Judea, who probably did have commonalities with each other, under the same name. In fact, other sources name a few other groups, say, the Boethusians (often thought to be related to the Sadducees), the Zealots, and the Sicarii.

 

[patrick457]

This is an interesting point. I looked up the Essenes and Jesus, and read that it is possible that there was an Essene teacher or leader who was just like Jesus 100+ years before the Gospels. Does this mean the Jesus in the Gospels isn’t the real Jesus?

Ah, the Teacher of Righteousness.
The Damascus Document speaks of it thus:

Listen now [to me] all you who know righteousness, and consider the works of God; for He has a dispute with all flesh and will condemn all who despise Him.
For when they were unfaithful and forsook Him, He hid His face from Israel and His Sanctuary and delivered them up to the sword. But remembering the Covenant of the forefathers, He left a remnant to Israel and did not deliver it up to be destroyed. And in the age of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after He had given them into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, He visited them, and He caused a plant root to spring from Israel and Aaron to inherit His Land and to prosper on the good things of His earth. And they perceived their iniquity and recognized that they were guilty men, yet for twenty years they were like blind men groping for the way.
And God observed their deeds, that they sought Him with a whole heart, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart. And he made known to the latter generations that which God had done to the latter generation, the congregation of traitors, to those who departed from the way. This was the time of which it is written, Like a stubborn heifer thus was Israel stubborn (Hosea 4:6), when the Scoffer arose who shed over Israel the waters of lies. He caused them to wander in a pathless wilderness, laying low the everlasting heights, abolishing the ways of righteousness and removing the boundary with which the forefathers had marked out their inheritance, that he might call down on them the curses of His Covenant and deliver them up to the avenging sword of the Covenant…

To summarize it up (based on the Damascus Document, added up with the Commentaries on Micah, Habbakuk, and Psalm 37 - all found in the DSS), the Teacher is apparently a priest who (claimed to) receive from God a special revelation for the final age. The Teacher is viewed as the only legitimate interpreter of the Torah, and his followers (aka the Sons of Light) therefore devoted themselves into practicing the Torah as taught by the Teacher and the study of the Scriptures - or at least, what books they thought of as Scripture - which they interpreted as being fulfilled in the community. The Sons of Light pitted themselves against the Sons of Darkness, i.e. everyone else outside their community, who are led by the Spirit of Falsehood and who would eventually face suffering and defeat in the hands of the Sons of Light.

The Teacher is said to have broken up with the Temple in Jerusalem - and thus, from ‘official’ Judaism - and led his followers into exile, where he eventually died. Opposing him was a character code-named the ‘Wicked Priest’ (aka Scoffer, Liar, and Spouter of Lies), who persecuted the Teacher even to the point of pursuing him “to the house of his exile” in Yom Kippur “that he might confuse him with his venomous fury.” (Commentary on Habbakuk 2:15) The texts paint the Wicked Priest as leading Israel astray, rebelling against the divine precepts, and defiling the Temple. He was once called “by the name of truth when he first arose. But when he ruled over Israel his heart became proud, and he forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches.” (Commentary on Habbakuk 2:5-6) Ultimately, God delivered the Priest into the hands of his enemies, who killed him.

If you ask me, there’s only a very loose connection with Jesus or with Christianity here, despite some folks out there thinking of the Teacher as St. James the Just and the Wicked Priest as St. Paul or something.

 

[patrick457]

steve53:

Jesus is most commonly linked to the Essene, for his peace-loving ways and his parables concerning shepherding and agriculture. The Essene wore white robes only, and so Jesus is usually pictured as wearing one. The Essene had their own set of ceremonies, and during the day left their monastic commune to work in the community tending to livestock or working the fields. Hence the connection with Jesus and his parables.

The Pharisees were meticulous in following the laws of Moses, and also created laws and sub-laws involving almost every aspect of life. That doesn’t sound to me like that was something that Jesus would be interested in!

First of all, sometimes you see people link John the Baptizer with the Essenes - mostly because of a perceived similarity between John’s baptism and the Jewish ritual immersion which the Essenes commonly practiced - and by association, a few even connect Jesus with them as well. Even then, there are scholars who try to dispel any connection between John and the Essenes, pointing out that the Essenes would have performed their immersions as ritual baths as the rest of the Jews would have done them: by themselves without any assistance of another. Whereas in John, you have the ‘baptizer’ and the ‘baptized’.
Also, whereas Essene immersion merely served to ritually purify oneself (again, as in all the rest of Judaism), John’s had a message and an important, dare I say (proto?) ‘sacramental’ significance. He warned of the impending judgment and the coming of the Kingdom of God, and preaching “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”. The Essenes AFAWK never applied similar concepts in their ritual bathing.
While the Essenes only admitted to their immersions full-fledged members or candidates (who had to undergo a probationary period of one year), John’s baptism seemed to have been open for everyone, with no period of probation required.
Finally, for John, baptism seemed to be a once-in-a-lifetime event which sealed the execution of a conversion, whereas the Essenes took several daily (which is the one thing what made their immersions unique), and thought of ‘conversion’ as strict obedience to the Torah; i.e. entry into their union.

The only thing John and the Essenes had in common was the use of water and immersion, and even then, immersion was a very common rite in Judaism of the time, which the Essenes only practiced more often than did other Jews. If anything, John and the Essenes would have been competitors.

In the case of Jesus and Christianity, there are indeed a number of similarities (say, the immortality of the soul, or so say Josephus), sometimes superficial, but the differences are major:

• Whereas the Essenes held to a very strict, rather legalistic approach to the Law (in some cases much more so than the Pharisees or Sadducees!), Jesus is opposed to legalism, as per His dealings with Pharisees.
• Where the Essenes emphasized ritual purity as the most critical way to pursue a holy life and to prepare for the 40 year-long war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness (culminating of course in their preordained victory) and adhered meticulously to it (to the point of immersing several times a day), Jesus emphasized moral purity more. “That which is coming out from the man, that defiles the man, for from within, out of the heart of men, the evil designs come out: sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, the evil eye, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come out from within and they defile the man.” (Mark 7:20-23)
• The Essenes, in their effort to keep themselves pure in the ritual sense, considered association with the common people (the Sons of Darkness!) appalling; Jesus welcomed the harlot, the tax collector, the sinner, and the sick and infirm. Which brings us to another point: whereas the Essenes are a closed community, Jesus’ is open. And Jesus and the early Christians believed in the salvation of non-Jews, whereas the Essenes were more exclusivist.
• The Essenes waited for two (or even three) different messiahs, but Jesus has more: He IS the one Messiah. The Teacher of Righteousness claimed to be the last prophet at this, the end of days; Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.
• That Jesus is said to be sinless is in contrast to the Essene view that even the Messiah would be purified of his ow sin by suffering.
• Jesus’ ministry was public and oral by nature, His teachings (the parables) concise and clear. Not to mention that He, as well as His Church, is missionary-oriented, eager to take His teachings far and wide. Contrast that to the Essenes, some of whom chose to isolate themselves from society in communities, and emphasized writing and copying more, and the oft-obtuseness of the DSS texts.

That the Essenes were simple, kind, peaceable and advocates of equality is no more proof that Jesus was actually an Essene than that Buddha was one. These are moral truths, are the natural outgrowth of the moral sense, and are indigenous wherever there are good and great men, much more so with God, who is goodness Himself.

This is where I say: you can’t pin down Jesus and His movement (i.e. first-generation Christianity) on a certain Jewish sect that we do know of - be it the Pharisees or the Essenes or even St. John the Baptizer’s circle - because while He does seem to incorporate some elements that existed within these groups, at the same time, He has marked, major differences from any of them. He is a separate category on His own.

 

[patrick457]

(continued; sorry for taking so long )

And BTW, in traditional Christian iconography (as opposed to say, popular Christian iconography of the pre-modern era, where you do see Jesus in white), Jesus on Earth is only shown wearing purely white robes when the Gospels expliticly say that He had one: i.e. in His transfiguration, or when showing the glorified Christ. For the rest, He is given to wear either, among other colors, gold, purple (usually with gold clavi or not) or a combination of blue and red/gold (the ‘default’ color for Jesus in Byzantine iconography even today), even when those around Him are wearing white. Sometimes, you do see Jesus wearing a white toga on a white chiton, and there are some examples of ancient art depicting Jesus wearing a white tunic, but that’s nothing really special, as white garments does not automatically equal Essene. Not to mention that ‘white’ (or some shade thereof) is basically the default color of many textiles.

Not to mention that in first century Judea, colored clothing was seen as more the domain of women. Men often preferred to wear white or off-white (for example, saffron-dyed) tunics. The difference between the sectarians and everyone else is that they apparently wore only linen (which was difficult to dye) articles of clothing without any decoration, in contrast to regular Jews, who seem to have mainly worn mainly or purely woolen articles of clothing, sometimes with decorations - say, two clavi (colored parallel stripes; an influence from Roman fashion) running down the tunic or colored notched bands or gamma-shaped designs on the corners of the mantle. The all-white linen garments would have contrasted with the woolen mantles and tunics customarily worn by other Jewish men on which these designs were colored even when the background was white, as even these would have been presumably made of self-stripes (created by using a different weave instead of a different color) in the case of the sectarians. This is probably what Josephus was referring to.

 

[steve53]

Another great post.

But I think using the Damascus document is fraught with uncertainty. Source evaluation is so important when looking at the times of Jesus. Really, Josephus and Philo are the only Jewish sources we have, apart from the NT. IMO Josephus, Philo, and the NT are more appropriately evaluated using the secular histories of the day. As far as Judaism goes, Josephus should not be colored too much by documents of dubious origin, or by Jewish ritual that was either hundreds of years later or hundreds of years earlier.

To challenge Josephus, or even to read ulterior motives into his intent, or to augment Josephus with earlier or later sources, you have to be on very firm ground.

Hagan’s two books “Year of the Passover” and “Fires of Rome” deal with Jesus and Early Christianity through the writings of Josephus and accepted Roman secular sources. I recommend them.

Moving on.

Certainly, to make the case that Jesus was an Essene is very weak. The NT mentions nothing about the Essene, while mentioning the Pharisee and Sadducee. The Essene were monastic and did not drink wine. Jesus drank wine and liked to socialize. The Essene did not proselytize for additional members, while Jesus actively sought converts. The Essene did not believe in animal sacrifice, and so were never seen at the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus held forth in the Temple, right across from the inner sanctuary main gates, where the smell from burning flesh from animals had to be very strong. As for the parables, the entire Jewish east was agrarian, and to appeal to the masses, he used appropriate analogies. Did Jesus wear a white cloak? Probably at time, but, if memory served me correctly, when he was crucified he had a very finely woven and high quality multi-colored robe- not the type the Essene would wear (as far as we know). The Essene had their own set of Jewish sub-laws, and secret writings and ceremonies that we know little about. Josephus argues that the Essene were more ancient than the Pythagorean, and, in fact, Pythagoras visited an Essene colony and based much of his own sect upon it. The Essene were noted visionaries and their dreams often predicted the future. All the kings of that era had them in great respect, and did not demand taxes from them. In Josephus’ time, there were only about 4,000 of them.

But to reiterate, for Jewish history of the times of Jesus, Philo, Josephus, and the NT should be stand-alone authorities. To fill in the “gaps” with dubious other sources (like the Talmud), that are perhaps centuries away from that time period, serves little purpose other than intellectual exercise (IMO!).

 

[patrick457]

Another great post.

But I think using the Damascus document is fraught with uncertainty. Source evaluation is so important when looking at the times of Jesus. Really, Josephus and Philo are the only Jewish sources we have, apart from the NT. IMO Josephus, Philo, and the NT are more appropriately evaluated using the secular histories of the day. As far as Judaism goes, Josephus should not be colored too much by documents of dubious origin, or by Jewish ritual that was either hundreds of years later or hundreds of years earlier.

To challenge Josephus, or even to read ulterior motives into his intent, or to augment Josephus with earlier or later sources, you have to be on very firm ground.

Hagan’s two books “Year of the Passover” and “Fires of Rome” deal with Jesus and Early Christianity through the writings of Josephus and accepted Roman secular sources. I recommend them.

…]

But to reiterate, for Jewish history of the times of Jesus, Philo, Josephus, and the NT should be stand-alone authorities. To fill in the “gaps” with dubious other sources (like the Talmud), that are perhaps centuries away from that time period, serves little purpose other than intellectual exercise (IMO!).

Don’t forget archeology. Thanks to digs and discoveries, we know a lot more now than in those days when you can only read about many of the people and places the Gospels, Josephus, et al. talked about. Admittedly, we still don’t have much, and there are still many places waiting to be dug up, but archeology AFAIK is still pretty much an undervalued and untapped source on giving a picture of Jesus and His world.

And using earlier and later sources is not too bad. Sure, you do have to keep caution when using them, but trying to limit oneself solely on a certain time period, with no concern as to what happened before or after it, is rather unwise. Context is, after all, important.

Moving on.

Certainly, to make the case that Jesus was an Essene is very weak. The NT mentions nothing about the Essene, while mentioning the Pharisee and Sadducee. The Essene were monastic and did not drink wine. Jesus drank wine and liked to socialize. The Essene did not proselytize for additional members, while Jesus actively sought converts. The Essene did not believe in animal sacrifice, and so were never seen at the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus held forth in the Temple, right across from the inner sanctuary main gates, where the smell from burning flesh from animals had to be very strong. As for the parables, the entire Jewish east was agrarian, and to appeal to the masses, he used appropriate analogies.

Very good points!
BTW, the whole matter of the animal sacrifices is where Philo and Josephus seemingly contradict each other. Philo writes that the Essenes are “men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity” (Every Good Man is Free 12), while Josephus says that: “and when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices because they have more pure lustrations of their own; on which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple, but offer their sacrifices themselves” (Antiquities 18.1.5 [18.18]). This however is explained by some as different explanations of a common sources. Not to mention that Philo’s statement could be read in a way that does not suggest the Essenes rejected sacrifices outright, but that only it was not the focal point of their worship, while Josephus’ is uncertain because of a textual problem.

This is also where the Qumran Community seem to stand in contrast to Philo and Josephus’ Essenes. The Temple Scroll suggests that the community supports animal sacrifice, in passages that parallel the instructions on Deuteronomy (cf. 52.13-18).

Did Jesus wear a white cloak? Probably at time, but, if memory served me correctly, when he was crucified he had a very finely woven and high quality multi-colored robe- not the type the Essene would wear (as far as we know).

Nothing really about Jesus wearing a Joseph-esque ‘cloak of many colors’. John (19:23) only mentions that Jesus’ tunic was “without seam”; that’s about it. Which was rather rare for Jews at the time (though not for Greeks and Romans), as Jewish tunics (haluq) of the period and afterwards - based on the textiles found in Masada and the caves in the Judean desert, dating from the early 2nd century AD - were often made in two pieces (heleq) sewn together at the shoulders, leaving an opening for the neck to pass through. This feature facilitated adherence to purity laws, for if one half of the tunic became ritually unclean you could just remove it and sew another piece of cloth in its place without defiling the other half, therefore wasting a good piece of clothing.

Though if you’ll indulge me in a bit of allegorical thinking, Jesus wearing clothes of wool, just like most people around Him, would have some spiritual significance, with Him being the Lamb of God and all.

 

[patrick457]

The Essene had their own set of Jewish sub-laws, and secret writings and ceremonies that we know little about. Josephus argues that the Essene were more ancient than the Pythagorean, and, in fact, Pythagoras visited an Essene colony and based much of his own sect upon it. The Essene were noted visionaries and their dreams often predicted the future. All the kings of that era had them in great respect, and did not demand taxes from them. In Josephus’ time, there were only about 4,000 of them.

It was actually Philo who mentions their numbers as being four thousand.

Personally though, the whole idea of Pythagoras being related with the Essenes is a bit unlikely, as he lived in the 6th-5th centuries BC. The Persians, who conquered Babylon, were allowing exiled Jews to return to Yehud (Judah), and the Temple has just been recently rebuilt. Unless we somehow propose that the Essenes had already existed by that time, it would have been too early.

And BTW, Josephus does not explicitly say anything to such effect that Pythagoras actually knew of the Essenes or even visited them, but only likens the Essenes with Pythagoreans in that they live “the same kind of life” (Antiquities 15.371 [15.10.4]). In his Jewish War, he does see a certain similarity between Essene and Greek thinking concerning the soul (2.119-161 [2.8.11]).

The Essenes (Essaioi) also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere. However, it is but fit to set down here the reasons wherefore Herod had these Essenes in such honor, and thought higher of them than their mortal nature required; nor will this account be unsuitable to the nature of this history, as it will show the opinion men had of these Essenes.

And yes, this brief comment was made in the context of Herod the Great requiring his subjects to take an oath of loyalty (after being driven a bit paranoid by his low popularity amongst the people who often talked against him, that he even forbade them to congregate in public and had spies planted to keep watch). The whole source of this exemption is an Essene named Menahem (Manaēmos) - a holy man who apparently had the gift of prophecy - who greeted the child Herod as “king of the Jews” (βασιλέα Ἰουδαίων).

The closest thing to this is where Josephus talks about Hermippus of Smyrna mentioning that Pythagoras borrowed several things from the Jews and Thracians (though he doesn’t name any sect):

Now this Hermippus, in his first book concerning Pythagoras, speaks thus: “That Pythagoras, upon the death of one of his associates, whose name was Calliphon, a Crotonlate by birth, affirmed that this man’s soul conversed with him both night and day, and enjoined him not to pass over a place where an *** had fallen down; as also not to drink of such waters as caused thirst again; and to abstain from all sorts of reproaches.” After which he adds thus: “This he did and said in imitation of the doctrines of the Jews and Thracians, which he transferred into his own philosophy.” For it is very truly affirmed of this Pythagoras, that he took a great many of the laws of the Jews into his own philosophy. Nor was our nation unknown of old to several of the Grecian cities, and indeed was thought worthy of imitation by some of them. This is declared by Theophrastus, in his writings concerning laws; for he says that “the laws of the Tyrians forbid men to swear foreign oaths.” Among which he enumerates some others, and particularly that called Corban: which oath can only be found among the Jews, and declares what a man may call “A thing devoted to God.”

BTW, if you’ll note, Josephus mention that Theophrastus writes of the word qorban (sacrifice), but the latter mistakenly attributes it in connection to Tyrian laws, which Josephus then promptly corrects.

 

[steve53]

A couple sentences earlier in Apion 1 should be noted. Josephus states that Pythagoras borrowed a lot of his doctrine from the Jews, and suggests that he might have visited Judean cities. He emphasizes that no original writings of Pythagoras survive, in which he might have described such travels.

Pythagoras, therefore, of Samos, lived in very ancient times, and was esteemed a person superior to all philosophers in wisdom and piety towards God. Now it is plain that he did not only know our doctrines, but was in very great measure a follower and admirer of them. There is not indeed extant any writing that is owned for his (15) but many there are who have written his history, of whom Hermippus is the most celebrated, who was a person very inquisitive into all sorts of history. Now this Hermippus, in his first book concerning Pythagoras, speaks thus: “That Pythagoras, upon the death of one of his associates, whose name was Calliphon, a Crotonlate by birth, affirmed that this man’s soul conversed with him both night and day, and enjoined him not to pass over a place where an *** had fallen down; as also not to drink of such waters as caused thirst again; and to abstain from all sorts of reproaches.” After which he adds thus: “This he did and said in imitation of the doctrines of the Jews and Thracians, which he transferred into his own philosophy.” For it is very truly affirmed of this Pythagoras, that he took a great many of the laws of the Jews into his own philosophy. Nor was our nation unknown of old to several of the Grecian cities, and indeed was thought worthy of imitation by some of them.