From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 17:05:46 BST
Jonathan writes:
> The Pharisees represented a new threat. This was a rabbinical movement, who
> claimed that authority was derived from studying and interpreting the sacred
> texts - and thus open to anyone, not just priests. The Pharisees went around
> teaching the common people, often using parables. By this definition, Jesus
> was clearly a Pharisee, and his parables fit the rabbinical parables that
> have been brought down till today.
>
> When the Roman's destroyed the Temple and the monarchy, and laid waste to
> Jerusalem, rabbinical Judaism (The Pharisees) is what survived. I live just
> a few miles from Yavne, where the Rabbis set up an important first century
> centre. This is the tradition that led to the Talmud (a compilation of
> Rabbinical discussions), and to the Judaism we know today. This was the
> stream to which Jesus probably belonged, although he may have occupied an
> extreme position within the movement. Interestingly, there is evidence for
> this in the Talmud itself.
>
> Thus, to summarize it in MoQ terms, the first century Saducees represent
> STATIC social patterns supported by literal interpretations of the Torah,
> while the Pharisees represent DYNAMIC social pattern based on study and
> discussion.
>
> Hope this is of interest,
> Jonathan
Steve:
Jonathan,
I think it is important that you pointed out that the Pharisees were not the
evil hypocrites as they are portrayed in traditional Christian theology, but
I also think that there are important differences between Jesus and the
Pharisees.
I don't have time this week or this weekend to do the research that I wanted
to do, but I want to respond to this as best I can.
A Roman historian named Josephus gives an independent source for
understanding the social context of Jesus' time, and he mentions four
different movements including the Pharisees but I don't think he mentions
Jesus or a Jesus movement at all. Anyway it is important to have an
independent source that describes the context and we seem to have one.
The Roman occupation created many problems for traditional Jewish society
that resulted in different reactions. One of the problems was that of
double taxation. The Jews had a system of tithes for supporting the church
that did not include any legal enforcement, only social requirement. To be
part of Jewish society one simply had to make the tithes though one would
not be imprisoned for not paying. The Romans imposed taxes of their own,
and for a Jewish farmer to pay both taxes would cause great hardship. Many
had to sell some of their land. Others lost all of their land. Others
decided not to pay the tithes, in effect rejecting Jewish social quality for
their biological needs. Jewish society was in crisis because of these taxes
and the Roman cultural influences as well including intermarriages.
Your mention of the Sadducees choosing a literal interpretation is not quite
accurate, because at the time there was no choice in interpretation of
scripture as fact or myth that were distinguished in their worldview. They
were considered by all to be True in some sense though there was of course
disagreement as to what this Truth implies about issues that aren't
specifically addressed. I do agree that the Sadducees represent the status
quo. (Modern fundamentalists are the first to choose a literal
interpretation of scriptures from among several possible interpretations.)
The reaction of the Pharisees was to radicalize Jewish doctrine in a way.
The radicalization for the Pharisees was to create a society of priests.
Everyone must have the same standards of holiness as the Priestly class.
Everyone must be holy and pure as God is holy and pure. Paying tithes was
more important than paying taxes to the Romans. Associating with the Jewish
tax collectors hired by the Romans was unholy. Associating with other
social outcasts like prostitutes and criminals was unholy. The sick could
be viewed as impure and not holy. Observing the Sabbath was of course
holy. The Pharisees wanted strict adherence to Jewish law as would be
expected of any priest.
Jesus was in opposition to this movement. He preached non-judgment in the
sense of not condemning outcasts. He was criticized for associating and
even eating with outcasts. He was also criticized for healing on the
Sabbath when by the law of Moses no work could be done. (It is interesting
to note that the veracity of the healings were unquestioned by Jesus'
opponents in the narrative of the gospels, only the timeliness and
worthiness of the healed.)
The rhetorical question that Jesus seemed to continually ask that may best
describe the conflict of Jesus' ministry with the movement of the Pharisees
is, "Is the law meant to serve the people, or are people meant to serve the
law?" I think it is this question that is at the heart of defining the
intellectual-social code of morality and I think that Jesus fell on the
intellectual side while the Pharisees took a social position.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:58 GMT