It would seem that a lot of people barely perceive Jesus as being Jewish, and need to be reminded of this every so often. But he was also from Galilee, which had its own circumstances.
I’ve heard or read that Jesus shared many ideas in common with the Pharisees (despite the Gospel’s depiction of the Pharisees as being his enemies; to this day, Christians use “Pharisee” as an insult.) But it is also posited that the Gospels are inaccurate, in that they have Jesus debating Pharisees in the Galilee; the problem here is that the Pharisees had little to no presence in Galilee in Jesus’ day, so it is unlikely that there were any Pharisees for him to even debate in that region. This is cited as an example of the Gospel’s getting history wrong (it appears even the Evangelists were stumped on this subject of what Galilee was really like in Jesus’ day.)
So my questions are:
a) why did Jesus have so much in common with the Pharisees, given that he was from Galilee, and the Pharisees weren’t? Did Galilean Jews typically agree with the Pharisees, regardless of geographical distance? Or are people exaggerating when they say that Jesus was so similar to the Pharisees? I’ve read that Galilean Jews were actually not so rigid in following the Law as Jews in Jerusalem, and this is perhaps reflected in Jesus’ teachings. Of course, Jesus and the Pharisees both agreed in believing in Resurrection, which isn’t unimportant to Christian history as the whole religion became centered on that belief.
b) It seems that Jesus is sometimes compared to the Pharisees, but other times compared to the Essenes, as is John the Baptist. Could it be that Jesus in his upbringing was trained along Pharisaic lines, in his respect for the Law, etc. but that John influenced him to go in a more radical Essene-like direction? I recognize that John and Jesus were not necessarily Essenes as such, but they would seem to have some things in common with that movement.
Paul took Christianity in a whole other direction. Coming from Tarsus, he was even further from the center of the Jewish world than Galilean Jesus. He was a Jew raised in a Greek speaking culture, and this is reflected in his writings. Is it simplistic to explain First Century Judaism as a religion that fractured between a center, which was ultimately led by the Pharisees and which led to Rabbinic Judaism, and a periphery that produced Galilean Jesus and Pauline Christianity? The periphery ironically became the largest religion in the world, but nevertheless.
Jesus was a Jewish Apocalyptic preacher, according to Bart and many others–at least some Pharisees were likewise interested in the Messiah and the coming of the Kingdom. That could have been a point of connection, but Jesus came from a very different background, and his Essene ideas, presumably gotten from John the Baptist, would not be entirely compatible with those of the Pharisees. Sometimes the fiercest arguments are not between those who differ the most, but those who half-agree.
Probably he didn’t run into a lot of Pharisees in Galilee, if any–but he wasn’t in Galilee all the time, and no doubt he did run into them here and there.
There’s a tendency on the part of the gospel authors (probably none of whom were Jewish) to fold different groups within Jewish Palestine into each other . Jesus may have been feuding with the Scribes in Galilee, and then later with some Pharisees (who as you say, ended up standing in for all Pharisees, and giving their fellows a bad name). Scribes might or might not be Pharisees as well, but they were part of the overall Jewish religious authority, that Jesus was challenging on many points, believing as he did that the time of the Kingdom was coming very soon. The gospels were not written as intricate detailed histories of the time.
In any religion there are going to be different strains, different modes of thought. Jesus seems to have been repelled by a certain dry legalism he found among some Jews, more concerned with rules and regulations than with matters of the spirit, unsympathetic to ordinary working people, whose lives were often complicated by their dictates. He also believed divorce was being used as an excuse for men to put their first wives aside for younger women. Divorce was considered a clearly defined right, for both genders, but if men had all the power and resources, it was a right in name only for women.
But more than that, he was reportedly willing to associate with people most devout Jews viewed as beyond the pale–including pagans, as time went on. He was seen as keeping disreputable company. He also went out of his way to instruct women, which was problematic in Judaism well into the modern era (still problematic among some sects, and ironically among many Christian sects as well).
Jesus disregarded the barriers of class, race, religion, and even gender–that’s going to set him at odds with all kinds of people. But it’s indisputable he always considered himself a Jew, to the moment of his death.
As to your final question, I really wouldn’t offer an opinion, but best to remember Paul was himself a Pharisee. While Jesus was preaching to people that they should mend their ways before the final judgment came (those who never heard of Jesus but still lived good lives would be in the Kingdom as well, as he saw it), Paul was more interested in gaining converts to what was evolving into a new religion. He was Christianity’s first great theologian, as well as its most successful proselytizer. He had a natural gift for it, and so in spite of also believing in the Kingdom (probably an idea he was familiar with before he encountered any Christians), he set about creating the foundations of a completely separate institution from Judaism. Jesus never intended any such thing, but he wasn’t around to object.
Daniel T Unterbrink’s Jesus for him was actually Judas, a Galilean, and concluded that Paul used events from his life as an activist against Roman rule and his charismatic teachings to create his Christology narrative.
Unterbrink makes interesting points derived from the histories of Josephus to argue that Paul and his devotees/companions wrote the gospels according to the core audience they wanted to address – Jews, Roman, Greek or gentiles in general, using myths from Mithras and Dionysus to ” connect” to their intended audience at that particular time.
Unterbrink contends that Paul mixes events that are historical like the tax revolt and the cleansing of the temple, which he purports are the work of Judas the Galilean, whom he reckons is the actual Jesus. He then suggests that Paul essentially recreates these in his writings, confuses matters by using inaccurate dates for the birth of Jesus(Judas) and his crucifixion in order that his own story is more acceptable.
Any thoughts on this if you have read his book, Jesus of Nazareth?
I don’t read a lot of pseudo-scholarship. Right now, I’m reading Robert Caro’s LBJ bio, and that’s more biblical than the bible, even.
When you have a bunch of conflicting and unsupported theories, seems like a waste of reading time to think about any of them, unless, of course, you’re determined to believe Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist, which I believe is a hobby for some.
Paul did not make him up. And if he was influenced by events from some other man’s life, how come his epistles contain no such events? Why is his Jesus not particularly an activist against Roman rule? Why don’t you seriously think about what you’re reading, and what the writer’s agenda might be?
And what kind of name is ‘Unterbrink’? That sounds made up to me. I think he was probably an invention. I’ll write a book about that sometime. Want to sign up for an advance copy? 😉
godspell said
I don’t read a lot of pseudo-scholarship. Right now, I’m reading Robert Caro’s LBJ bio, and that’s more biblical than the bible, even.When you have a bunch of conflicting and unsupported theories, seems like a waste of reading time to think about any of them, unless, of course, you’re determined to believe Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist, which I believe is a hobby for some.
Paul did not make him up. And if he was influenced by events from some other man’s life, how come his epistles contain no such events? Why is his Jesus not particularly an activist against Roman rule? Why don’t you seriously think about what you’re reading, and what the writer’s agenda might be?
And what kind of name is ‘Unterbrink’? That sounds made up to me. I think he was probably an invention. I’ll write a book about that sometime. Want to sign up for an advance copy? 😉
Wow! Someone is easily upset. Apologies for reading a wide selection of material on a subject that interests me.
Easily amused.
You don’t need to apologize for reading, but it seems your book queue is actually pretty selective, when you focus in on something so marginal and silly, and avoid the vast body of literature that shows it to be precisely that.
People love to believe they have secret knowledge that most others don’t have. Hence the obsession with proving somebody else wrote Shakespeare, global warming isn’t real, evolution is a myth, and let’s not forget the Kennedy assassination.
People have devoted their lives to understanding this period of history, and you walk right past them to somebody with a cockamamie theory that makes no sense, and absolutely no qualifications. “Daniel J. Unterbrink has degrees from Ohio State University.” In what, pray tell?
This has been going on since the 18th century, this obsession with proving Jesus didn’t exist as a human being (no opponent of Christianity in ancient times made any such claim). There have been untold variations, but they all have one thing in common–none of them make any sense.
Help00 said
the problem here is that the Pharisees had little to no presence in Galilee in Jesus’ day, so it is unlikely that there were any Pharisees for him to even debate in that region. This is cited as an example of the Gospel’s getting history wrong (it appears even the Evangelists were stumped on this subject of what Galilee was really like in Jesus’ day.)
Jesus was from Galilee and the Pharisees weren’t.
Are people exaggerating when they say that Jesus was so similar to the Pharisees?
There were no Pharisees in Galilee?
– During the time of the biblical Jesus, 27 – 30 CE
– During the time of the historical Jesuses, 60 – 70 CE
Please refer to this:
The remains of as many as 50 different synagogues were identified in the Galilee, one of the most concentrated sites for synagogues in the world at that time. These early synagogues included Meron, Gush Halav, Navorin, Bar Am and Bet Alfa and Korazim, and Capernaum by the Sea of Galilee.
Also refer to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Pharisee entry
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I do not see anything in the article to support your assertion.
In the 60 – 70 CE timeframe Agrippa II would have been in Galilee. I do not see why there were no pharisees up there with him. Second, there was the high priest, Jesus of (Gamala) Galilee.
With the synagogues, Agrippa II, high priest Jesus of Gamala, Galilee, there were no Pharisees up there?
The answer to this question depends, like everything, on your own assessment of the evidence. Here is my view:
It is important to remember that religion is tightly aligned with politics through most of history and most definitely in first century Palestine. Messianic Judaism is essenitally very anti-Rome and its Jewish quislings, very much pro-regime change. It is very pro-Torah, excessively so, but has its own interpretations of the Law that embrace radical economic equality and radical religious purity and such as the logical end of the Torah, and in any case the condition of the coming Kingdom. This is more or less where the Essenes et al fit. They view Roman rule as contaminating the holy land, in particular Jerusalem and the Temple. They organize themselves, some withdraw to the desert to get pure in anticipation of helping the angels of God when they arrive to drive the Romans and evil doers out.
The Pharisees are known for their great precision – BUT – also their use of interpretive logic and an oral interpretive tradition that makes them also very flexible. They are like constitutional scholars – they come up with new applications of the law, always precise and grounded in citiations, but also, maybe convenient to whatever goal they have in mind. Here is the important thing – the Pharisees are from all of our sources accommodating to foreign rule. They together with the Sadducees, are appointed by the Romans to various positions of power like the Sanhedrin (the Saducees holding the high priesthood – again as Roman appointees). Together with the Herodians – the Roman appointed political and tax collecting class – these are all groups that benefit from or support Roman rule.
Keeping this in mind is important for understanding Jesus and his movement prior to the New Testament, as these are also the enemies of Jesus even in the NT. Where, you might ask, are the Essenes? They aren’t even mentioned. Perhaps that is because Jesus and his followers are the Essenes? But regardless, as an oppositional figure eventually executed for sedition, Jesus is clearly opposed to these groups.
Then where does this sometimes very Phariseeic Christianity come from? Including much of the portrayal of Jesus. Well – you can start with Paul and go from there. Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee, from Pharisee family, and true to form, works for the Temple Establishment that is appointed by Rome. He converts to Messianic Judaism, but very quickly shows that compromising spirit in re-interpreting things – in this case moving beyond the traditional Phariseeic positions on the Law as he has decided to go Full Gentile. Still he and his followers can cherry pick these traditions to create a new Jesus who is still coming back, but in the meantime is totally cool with Rome staying in charge. And has plenty of other lovely things to say, many of which he probably didn’t. But since the apocalyptic Jewish messianic tradition is wiped out by the actual Revolt in the 60s, its the Gentiles and some highly hellanized jews with Pharisee tendencies that actually write the NT. So you get this strange mix.
As everything is debated regarding the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus – one interesting take put out by Robert Eisenman is the idea that the NT takes political/religious terms and turns them into geography as a way of downplaying them. Galilee was, in fact, from the historical sources (for example Josephus) a hotbed of anti-Rome, religiously zealot like activity – see the revolt of Judas the Galilean at the time of Jesus birth. In fact, the word “Galiliean” seems to have been used by some as a nickname for these revolutionaries. Eisenman would take Jesus out of Galilee altogether, while making him a Galilean in this sense.
Ehrman i think feels more than comfortable with the Galilean orgin story. What can you do? In any case, Jesus moves around and these places are not so far from each other – even without modern transport.
Very few mainstream scholars disbelieve Jesus’ Galilean origins. There is no historical basis to say he wasn’t from there. And there were a lot of zealots in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Palestine. Galilee was not the epicenter of the later Jewish rebellions. The first insurrection began in Judea (which would have been where most Jews would expect it to have started).
Could you produce the exact quote from Josephus you are referencing?
A very well-known section of Josephus’ book (for reasons that have nothing to do with Judas of Galilee) but is there in fact a quote from Josephus that refers to Galilee in particular as a ‘hotbed of anti-Rome, religiously Zealot like activity”?
(I’m not asking if this precise phrasing occurs in Josephus. I feel fairly confident it does not.)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)