February 11, 2010

  • Jesus the Pharisee

    While I mostly show comparative theology between different religions,there is also Intra-comparative theology, examining the concepts found in a religion and what they are based on either religiously or by historical events that effected the growth of that paticular faith. This is the first of the series. If anyone shows an interest, I'll post more.These are based on the opinions of Rabbi Falk,Talmudic sources of historical and religious events, and other sources.

    Scholars have wrestled for centuries with the seemingly anti-Jewish statements that are attributed by the Christian Bible to Jesus of Nazareth.  A reading of his great attack on the Pharisees (Matthew 23) virtually leaves one in a state of shock.  Is this the same person who wandered off as a boy to discuss the Torah with the Doctors of the Law at the Temple (Luke 2:46)?  In this latter passage he seems to exhibit a profound love for the Torah, a love which one can discern on the countenances of many Jewish youngsters to this day.  What could possibly have impelled him at a later date to refer to these rabbis as hypocrites, vipers and even murderers?  It is quite clear that he considered these Pharisees as being worthy of death.  And for two thousand years now, Christians seem to have been able to cleanse their consciences following pogroms or a holocaust by simply reading passages such as these.Nor have such statements endeared him to the people from whom he sprang.Or take the passages John 8 and Revelation 2 and 3) where he speaks of Jews as children of the devil, or of their synagogues as "synagogues of Satan." In the Middle Ages the Church actually thought of the Jews as being less than human because of these statements, and persecuted them as well.

         The reader may ask why we should even bring up such matters.  If we simply hush up such passages, they will be forgotten and abandoned by Christians.  I don't think so.  They are there in the Christian Bible, and will eventually surface again.

              Could it be that Jesus wasn't quoted correctly in the Gospels?  Christians will certainly insist that his words were faithfully recorded and preserved.  Others may suggest that he was mistaken about the Pharisees, that perhaps he didn't know them well enough!  A careful reading of the attack would seem to indicate that he knew them very well, and for many years.  But perhaps he didn't mean to be taken seriously, one might suggest.  A careful reading will surely dismiss any such conception.

    Why, then?  What brought him to such a complete break with his people, with their revered scholars, what caused him to turn his back on them and scorn everything his family had held sacred for centuries?  How could he bring himself to call the Jews of his time children of the devil, and their places of worship synagogues of Satan?

            Or was he really anti-Jewish or anti-traditionalist at all?  I have suggested earlier in this book that he possessed a great love for Jewish tradition, the same tradition that is practiced by Jews to this day.  What if we could prove from ancient sources that the Jewish world of scholarship in his time was divided into two Schools, that the scholars in control of the community at the time he preached were of the School he opposed, and that the leading Torah sages of his century later referred to that same group he opposed as being "children of the devil" or considered them worthy of death?

          The thesis I have proposed is based on the writings of the great Talmudist and anti-Shabbatean Rabbi Jacob Emden, a valiant champion of Orthodox Judaism during the eighteenth century.He was a great opponent to the false seventeenth century messiah, Shabbetai Zevi.  These Shabbateans-or Frankists as they were called in his day desecrated Jewish law and openly practiced sexual immorality.  When excommunicated by the Polish rabbinate, they complained to certain Catholic bishops of being persecuted by the Jews because they believed in the Trinity.  This eventually led to the burning of the Talmud in Poland, and these Frankists even tried to revive the notorious blood-libel against the Jews.  When the leading rabbis of Poland asked Rabbi Emden whether it would be permitted to explain the true nature of these immoral heretics to the Polish authorities, Rabbi Emden replied in the affirmative, and also advised them to ask the Christians for help against the Shabbateans.  This led him into a thorough analysis of the origins of Christianity and the original intent of its founders.  He concluded that Jesus and Paul had intended to create a religion for the Gentiles based upon the seven Noahide Commandments.  According to the Talmud and Tosefta, those Gentiles who observe these Commandments are considered of the Hasidim (pious ones) of the Nations, and merit a share in the World to Come. (The basic seven Noahide Commandments consist of the prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, stealing, murder, sexual sins, eating the limb of a living animal [cruelty to animals], and the imperative to establish courts ofjustice.) He believed thatjesus of Nazareth acted entirely according to the Halakha, and "brought about a double kindness to the world."R. Emden stressed that Jesus spoke out strongly on behalf of the Torah of Moses, which indeed grants salvation to those Gentiles who practice the Noahide Commandments.  R. Emden referred to Paul as "a scholar, an attendant of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder."

         Returning now to the first century C.E., we know that two different schools of rabbinic authority existed at that time, Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.  These two schools are on record in the Mishnah and Talmud as having clashed on over three hundred and fifty occasions during the century they existed (about 30 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.). Nor were these minor controversies; they reached rather to the very heart of Judaism and its perspective on the world at large.  The Talmud tells us (Sanhedrin 88B) that as the disciples of Shammai and Hillel increased, "the Torah became as two Torahs"; in other words, Judaism became split into two opposing approaches to its religious traditions.And, very importantly for our subject, they were strongly at odds over judaism's view of the Gentile world.

    In previous chapters, I have pointed to Talmudic evidence that the Essenes-the apparent authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls-were closely allied with the School of Hillel, and that Hillel and his disciples as well as the Essenes were referred to in the Talmud (Sanhedrin II A et al.) as Hasidim (not Pharisees or Scribes).

    We now know on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls that Jesus and Paul must have had some contact with these Essene Hasidim, as many parallel passages have been found in the Scrolls and the Christian Bible.  Hundreds of similar passages (and many customs as well) have been found, and the Scrolls have been demonstrated through scientific process to be of an earlier date.  Two important works on the subject are The Scrolls and the New Testament by K. Stendahl, and The Ancient Library of Qumran by Frank M. Cross.  Many other excellent studies have been published.

    We further noted that according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 57A) and Maimonides (Melakhim, ch. 8), Moses obligated the Jews to spread knowledge of the Noahide Commandments to all mankind; therefore, when the Essenes gave their raison d'etre as (Manual of Discipline) "to do what is good and upright before Him, as He has commanded through Moses ... to love all the sons of light," we expressed our belief that they had such a mission to the Gentiles in mind . We should take note here of one of the many parallel passages between the Scrolls and the Gospels.  Jesus preached to his listeners (John 12:36): "While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become sons of light.  Paul of Tarsus wrote similarly in his Epistle to the Ephesians (5:8): "Walk, then, as children of light." Hillel, founder of the school that bears his name (died about 10 C.E.), charged his disciples-and all Jews today follow the teachings of Bet Hillel-to be one who "loves mankind, and brings them nigh to the Torah" (Avot 1:12)

     
    The authors of the Damascus Document, found in the Essene caves at Qumran, bore a strong animosity toward the Pharisees of Bet Shammai. They referred to them as traitors (bogdim) and "men of war." This scroll contains a prophecy foretelling that the followers of Bet Shammai will come to an end at about the time of the Temple's destruction. (We should assume that Jesus of Nazareth knew the contents of this Scroll well.)

             Following the Temple's destruction (70 C.E.), the School of Hillel began to gain ascendancy over the School of Shammai.  Bet Hillel's strength grew progressively until a Heavenly Voice (bat koo was heard in Yavneh),  proclaiming that the Halakha was to be universally accepted in their favor. (This would have taken place some time toward the end of the first century C.E.) The later rabbis declared (Berakhot 36B), "The opinion of Bet Shammai when it conflicts with that of Bet Hillel is no Mishnah." In other words, their views were to be considered null and void.

            But the Talmudic sages went further than the Heavenly Voice.  They declared (Berakhot I IA): "He who observes the teachings of Bet Shammai deserves death." And lest one interpret this as a minor exaggeration, the Mishnah (Berakhot IOB) tells of an instance where a late first century C.E- sage, R. Tarfon, while on a journey, once observed a ruling of Bet Shammai with regard to the daily prayers; this sage later recounted that he had been set upon at the time by robbers, and the rabbis told him that he would have deserved to lose his life for having followed Bet Shammai's opinion.

            It would perhaps be worthwhile at this point to demonstrate how statements of Jesus, which were originally intended as attacks on Bet Shammai, have been misinterpreted and turned against the Jewish people as a whole, who-as Jesus himself foretold-have nullified the teachings of Shammai's School.

           We might first refer to Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees (John 8:44): "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires." This is echoed elsewhere, as, for example (Revelation 2:9, 3:9), "the synagogue of Satan." This has led to much anti-Semitism, as well as Church decrees against Jews.  No one seems to have noticed that the first century C.E. Sage Dosa ben Harkinas, criticizing his brother Jonathan for having ruled in accordance with Bet Shammai in an important case concerning levirate marriage, calls him "the first-born of Satan" (Yevamot 16A).  In other words, the rabbis of the first century C.E. were accustomed to refer to the Pharisees of Bet Shammai as descendants of, or followers of, the devil.
    A second example would be Jesus' statement (Matthew 5:38) "You have heard the commandment 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth . . .' " which has led the Church to criticize Jews as vengeful, cruel people. The Jewish community has protested for centuries that we interpret this passage as calling for monetary compensation, but to no avail; the Church insists it has a tradition whereby the Pharisees of Jesus' time interpreted "an eye for an eye" literally. Here again, I have found no one pointing out that R. Eliezer is the only sage on record (Bava Kamma 84A) as ruling that "an eye for an eye" is to be interpreted literally, and R. Eliezer was known never to deviate from the teachings of Bet Shammai (Shabbat 130B and Niddah 7B).

           Before moving on to demonstrate that Jesus' well-known attack on the Pharisees (Matthew 23)-which has caused so much anti-Semitism and persecution over the centuries-was directed against the School of Shammai, we must first study the different attitudes of the two Schools toward non-Jews. This would include not only the views of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai themselves, but also the opinions of the two leading sages during the latter part of the first century C.E., R. Joshua and R. Eliezer-the former recognized as a firm adherent of Bet Hillel,  the latter as a diehard follower of Bet Shammai.  We shall also have to examine the evident link between Bet Shammai and the Zealot party (Kanna'im or Be,yyoni) in the early part of the first century C.E.

    1.    The Talmud (Shabbat 3 1 A) relates that three heathens appeared before Shammai and Hillel for the purpose of conversion, but each of them harbored reservations about various aspects of Judaism.  Shammai rebuffed them, but Hillel reasoned patiently with all three, ultimately winning their confidence and allegiance.  The differing views of the two sages toward the three heathens has been examined at length in Chapter Two. (The passing of the "eighteen measures" by the School of Shammai, which were in the main designed to cause greater separation between Jews and Gentiles, also apparently took place during the lifetimes of Hillel and Shammai [see Shabbat 17A, Tosefta Shabbat 1:8 and Tosafists, Shabbat, 14B, bottom].)

    2.    R.Joshua maintained that the pious among  the Gentiles merit a share in the World to Come.  Since the only laws incumbent upon Gentiles according to Judaism are the Noahide Commandments, their observance is understood.  R. Eliezer, the Shammaite, held that no Gentile merited a share in the World to Come, no matter how pious or righteous he might be (Sanhedrin 105A; Tosefta, Sanhedrin ch. 13).

    3.    Aquila the proselyte, a scholarly convert to Judaism who translated the Bible into Greek, is recorded as having held a conversation with R. Eliezer and R. Joshua over what rank a convert might aspire to in the community of sages.  R. Eliezer told him that the convert has no place amongst them,  and Aquila, as a result, was ready to desert Judaism and revert to paganism (he had been a relative of Hadrian).  R. Joshua then assured him that he was a full member of the Torah community, and he was thus consoled and strengthened in his devotion to Judaism (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 70:5).

          As for the relationship of Bet Shammai with the Zealot party-which Josephus called a "fourth philosophy" (after the Pharisees, Essenes and Sadducees)-the Zealots were founded (reorganized?) see later) in 6 C.E. by Judah the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee (Josephus, Antiquities 18: 1-1 0).  The Zealots' hatred of the Romans and all Gentiles was surely the common bond that aligned them with Bet Shammai. Josephus' mention of Zadok the Pharisee is the conclusive proof of their alliance, for there is no record of any other Zadok at that time amongst the Pharisees except the one mentioned in Talmudic sources as a member of Bet Shammai (Yevamot 15B; Tosefta Eduyyot 2:2.  The identification of Zadok the Pharisee mentioned by Josephus as the Sage by the same name of Bet Shammai is confirmed by A. Hyman [Toledot Tanna'lm 1: 20 1 ], the historian Graetz, the Jewish Encyclopedia [3:115 and 12:641-642] and the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia 2:25 1). Josephus described the Zealots' atrocities against the Jewish community, branded them as common murderers and robbers, and blamed them for the Temple's destruction.  The Talmud too calls the Zealots murderers (Mishnah, Sotah 47A), recounts how they burned down the storehouses of food in Jerusalem in order to prevent the Jews from negotiating a peaceful settlement with the Romans (Gittin 56A), and blamed the destruction of the Temple on R. Zechariah ben Avkulot, a priest-Pharisee who would not allow the sacrifice of an offering sent by the Roman emperor, even though the Rabbis had permitted it (ibid.)-this R. Zechariah, according to scholars, being identified by Josephus as a Zealot leader. 
     
    The two important points to remember are (1) that both the Talmud and Josephus called these Zealots "murderers" and    their direct connection with Bet Shammai. Josephus' hatred and derision of the Zealots really needs no further elaboration here.  He refers to them throughout his works as robbers and murderers (see Wars 2:13, par. 2 and 3).  He seems to sum up his feelings toward the end of his work (Wars 7:8, 269-273): "For they imitated every wicked work; nor if history suggested any evil thing that had formerly been done, did they avoid zealously to do the same.... It was impossible they could be punished according to their deserving." We should note that these words were written immediately prior to his account of Masada, and he surely intended them so that the reader would not sympathize with the Zealots as they met their Waterloo.  The historian often noted that they sought to advance their own ambitions, rather than those of the nation, and that they murdered large numbers of innocent people.  It is highly probable that the Masada incident was omitted from the Talmud for this reason.

    Josephus makes quite clear his feelings that by waging their war with the Romans, and obstructing any negotiations with them, the Zealots were to blame for the destruction of the Temple.  This corresponds with the Talmud's picture of them (Gittin 56A).

          Scholars have in fact raised a contradiction in Josephus, for the historian states (Antiquities 18: 1-10) that the Zealots were founded by Judah the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee in 6 C.E., yet he records elsewhere (Wars 1:204) that Hezekiah established the group several decades earlier.  It is probable, however, that Josephus is telling us that under Judah and Zadok a more formal alliance was forged between Zealots and Pharisees, the latter being Bet Shammai.

          Another example of the Bet Shammai-Zealot connection appears in the person of Eleazar ben Hananiah, a leading priest shortly before the Temple's destruction.  Josephus (Wars 2:409) identifies him as a Zealot leader who refused to accept gifts or sacrifices for the Temple from the Romans or any foreigner, and he is also quoted in the Mekhilta (Exodus 20:8) as concurring with Shammai on a ruling concerning preparations for the Sabbath. Josephus also records that the Zealots fought with no regard for the Sabbath, and even slew a group of surrendering Romans on that day (Wars 2:449-456).  Permission for waging a war in progress even on the Sabbath is a ruling of Shammai (Shabbat 19A); could the Zealots have asked him for a decision?

           As for Bet Hillel's view of the Zealots, R.Johanan ben Zakkai of Bet Hillel sought to   negotiate with the Romans despite the Zealots' objection (Gittin 56A).  According to the Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 7: 1 1), these terrorists sought to assassinate him.  R. Gamaliel the Elder, grandson of Hiliel, is quoted in Acts of the Apostles (5:37) as strongly denigrating Judas the Galilean, a founder of the Zealots.

          One further observation.  One of the first debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerned the so-called "eighteen measures" (Shabbat 13B), which Bet Shammai sought to introduce as a means of creating further separation between Jews and Gentiles.  Bet Hillel opposed these measures, and the Jerusalem Talmud records (Shabbat 1:4) that during the course of the debate, an unspecified number of Bet Hillel's members were murdered by Bet Shammai (strong evidence exists that Zealots were present at the time, and I believe it was they who did the actual killing;  Many of Hillel's disciples-some of whom were killed that day-are referred to in the Talmud as prophets (Sukkah 28A and Bava Batra 134A).

         Having acquainted ourselves with these important facts, we may now attempt to fathom Jesus' great attack on the Pharisees (Matthew 23), and demonstrate how it was directed against Bet Shammai, who were then in control of the rabbinic community.  Jesus first accuses them, "You shut up the kingdom of heaven in men's faces," and then describes them as "You who travel over sea and land to make a single proselyte." Because of these views he accuses them of being "hypocrites."

    The first accusation would refer to Bet Shammai's position-as per R. Eliezer (Sanhedrin 105A)-that no Gentile merits a share in the World to Come, even those who observe the Noahide Commandments.  At the same time, Shammai discouraged the acceptance of proselytes to Judaism (Shabbat 3 1 A), and this explains Jesus' second charge.  By maintaining such views, the School of Shammai made it virtually impossible for even the most sincere and virtuous Gentile to find his way to salvation.  It would have certainly been impossible and even heretical to found a religion such as Christianity-based on the Noahide Commandments and the promise of everlasting life to pious Gentiles-according to Bet Shammai.  This led to Jesus' charge that they were "hypocrites," and that you have rejected the weightier matters of the Law-justice, mercy, good faith." The Kabbalists have in fact identified the School of Hillel-who disagreed with Bet Shammai on both of these issues-as emanating from the sphere of Hesed or" (Zohar, Ra'aya Meheimna 3:245A).mercy

          Jesus also criticizes Bet Shammai's treatment of proselytes ("and when you have him. . ."), as we have already noted in R. Eliezer's attitude toward the scholarly convert Aquila,who almost reverted to Paganism because of Bet Shammai's position.

            The teachings and concepts of the Nazarene show that he was heavily influenced and a student of Bet Hillel and that it was the Pharisaic followers of Bet Shammai that he was talking about in his accusations.
     
     
    .

        Based on Talmudic sources, that when the School of Shammai gained control of the Jewish community (probably about 20 B.C.E.), the disciples of Hiliel and of his assistant Menahem left to join the Esseries,  and to lead them in establishing a religion for the Gentiles. It was then from the midst of these Essene Hasidim and disciples of Hillel that Jesus of Nazareth emerged on his mission.


       The twentieth century arch-enemy of the Jewish people, A. Hitler, did not neglect to stress this point (Mein Kampf, Houghton Mifflin, pp. 422-423): "Of course, the latter Jesus) made no secret of his disposition toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's Temple this adversary of all humanity. . .

       Rabbi Emden's reply to the Polish rabbinate-or Council of the Four Lands as it was known at the time-may be found in an appendix to his edition of the Seder Olam (1757), a Tannaitic historical work.  He republished the letter in his Sefer Shimmush (1758-1762).

        It should be stressed that the differences between the two Schools involved the oral traditions passed down from Moses and the Prophets, to be used in the interpretation of the written Torah (the Bible).  It was forbidden to commit any part of these oral traditions to writing, nor the discussions of the rabbis concerning them.  The first written version of the Oral Law appeared about 200 C.E. in the form of the Mishnah edited by
    R. Judah Ha-Nasi, a descendant of Hillel-finally published out of fear that it might otherwise be forgotten.

    It is difficult for individuals of the twentieth century-accustomed as we are to books and libraries-to fully grasp this oral system.  At the same time, it is fairly easy to recognize how it could eventually lead to contradictory opinions, and how the public at large might not have been privy to the intense controversies that simmered behind the walls of the first century yeshivot.

    It is clear from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 57A) and Maimonides (Melakhzm ch. 8) that Moses obligated the Jews to spread knowledge of the Noahide Commandments to the Gentiles only from a position of strength, which they never achieved.  Thus, the establishment of Christianity as a religion for the Gentiles by the Hasidim was an act above and beyond the requirements of Jewish law (lifnim mi-shurat hadin). It is mentioned earlier in the same chapter of John (I 2:20) that a group of Greek Gentiles were present at the time in the Temple, and Jesus' remark was apparently directed toward them.

    Even if he was speaking to his fellow Jews, we realize now that Jesus of Nazareth wished them to return to the teachings of Bet Hillel (see Matthew 10, where he refers to "the lost sheep of Israel"); in this case, he could have been speaking to them as well.  The Essenes expressly stated "all the sons of light," which would encompass both Jews and Gentiles, each according to their own practice.
     
    (Cf.  Shabbat 88B where the Talmud states that every single word that went forth from the Omnipotent during the revelation at Sinai split up into seventy languages, i.e., it was given to all humanity.  The Talmud derives this from Psalm 68 which reads "The Lord giveth the word; they that publish the tidings are a great host." Compare with John 1: 1, "In the beginning was the word.")