Judaism as a Foundation for Christianity?

[Divine Insight]

I believe this topic is fundamental for discussions of Christianity and Apologetics.

Everyone knows that Jesus was a Jew. And he often referenced the Torah. But how did Jesus himself view the Torah and Judaism in general? Was there even a consistent view of Judaism in those days? According to the gospels I think it's fair to say that the Pharisees held a view of the Torah and God that Jesus did not support.

Were the views of the Jewish Pharisees the orthodox views of Judaism? Or did many Jews, like Jesus, hold views that were quite different from what the Jewish Pharisees held?

I would very much like to hear views on this question:

Question for debate: "Was there a consistent view of Judaism in the days of Jesus?"

And if so, what exactly did that view entail?

[Goat]

I'll open to you the same offer I gave Kayky. When the time comes, we'll leave this place together and form a support group.

Who else is in?

But, folks are so scattered, how will we do it??

I know, we can start a forum.

[Divine Insight]

I'll open to you the same offer I gave Kayky. When the time comes, we'll leave this place together and form a support group.

Who else is in?

You really do have a great point.

Most of my free time is actually spent writing songs and making music. At one point I started a music forum called Melody Bard. I should have kept that up. I'm on dial-up and that was the main reason I never finished or promoted the site.

But yeah, I should really give my all to music 100%.

[orthodox skeptic]

quote="Divine Insight"]
I believe this topic is fundamental for discussions of Christianity and Apologetics.

Everyone knows that Jesus was a Jew. And he often referenced the Torah. But how did Jesus himself view the Torah and Judaism in general? Was there even a consistent view of Judaism in those days? According to the gospels I think it's fair to say that the Pharisees held a view of the Torah and God that Jesus did not support.

Were the views of the Jewish Pharisees the orthodox views of Judaism? Or did many Jews, like Jesus, hold views that were quite different from what the Jewish Pharisees held?

I would very much like to hear views on this question:

Question for debate: "Was there a consistent view of Judaism in the days of Jesus?"

And if so, what exactly did that view entail?[/quote]


The basic conflict in the time of Jesus was among the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection; Paul was a Pharisee and shared belief in the resurrection with a great majority of the Jewish people. The Sadducees opposed the resurrection basing their belief on the fact that the Pentateuch, the core of the Bible for them, says nothing about it. Belief in the resurrection did not penetrate Judaism until the 2nd century B.C. which was a response to Greek and Persian influence. Their is no clear testimony of faith in the resurrection until the Book of Daniel circa 163 B.C.
Jesus obviously followed the Pharisee view.
My reference source is the noted German thelologian Uta Reinke-Heinemann expressed in her scholarly but easy to read, "Putting Away Childish Things".

[Divine Insight]

Jesus obviously followed the Pharisee view.

If that were true, then why was Jesus constantly butting heads with the Pharisees?

[catalyst]

I'll open to you the same offer I gave Kayky. When the time comes, we'll leave this place together and form a support group.

Who else is in?

But, folks are so scattered, how will we do it??

I know, we can start a forum.

I'd be in, if ya want me!

T..x

[Goat]

Jesus obviously followed the Pharisee view.

If that were true, then why was Jesus constantly butting heads with the Pharisees?

1) Jesus appeared to be butting heads with AUTHORITY, and with the hypocrisy that goes along with people in power. However,

2) We don't know what Jesus actually did. However, the Gospels seem to have been written AFTER the Christians were told they couldn't worship at the synagugues, since they were too far from being Jewish. That , I am sure, caused bad blood between the groups.

[cnorman18]

Jesus obviously followed the Pharisee view.

If that were true, then why was Jesus constantly butting heads with the Pharisees?

1) Jesus appeared to be butting heads with AUTHORITY, and with the hypocrisy that goes along with people in power. However,

2) We don't know what Jesus actually did. However, the Gospels seem to have been written AFTER the Christians were told they couldn't worship at the synagugues, since they were too far from being Jewish. That , I am sure, caused bad blood between the groups.

Don't forget that the Gospel writers were trying to curry favor with the Romans and exonerate them for Jesus's death and make the Jews the bad guys.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Jesus obviously followed the Pharisee view.

If that were true, then why was Jesus constantly butting heads with the Pharisees?

1) Jesus appeared to be butting heads with AUTHORITY, and with the hypocrisy that goes along with people in power. However,

2) We don't know what Jesus actually did. However, the Gospels seem to have been written AFTER the Christians were told they couldn't worship at the synagugues, since they were too far from being Jewish. That , I am sure, caused bad blood between the groups.

Don't forget that the Gospel writers were trying to curry favor with the Romans and exonerate them for Jesus's death and make the Jews the bad guys.

First the ‘curry favor’ part…

Far too simplistic a view. Luke is clearly trying to tone down Matthew’s strong association of the Jesus movement with messianic Judaism. To Jews and Romans alike, that association would have been a turn off because of the recent disastrous Revolt, instigated by the messianic Zealots. The always clever Luke takes a number of themes from Matthew and inverts them, e.g., the genealogy, the nativity story, the New Moses trope, the importance of Judaism and the Law and various parts of the Resurrection story.

But note that all four of the Gospels explicitly reference the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem even though this is well after the putative time of Jesus. Why bring up bad blood if the idea is to placate the Romans?

Mark wrote his Gospel about four decades after the Jesus supposedly lived. He explicitly mentions that Jesus was expected to return within the lifetime of some of his hearers and in that generation. We can see this kind of expectation in Paul’s letters as well so apparently it was well known. Otherwise Mark would hardly have invented something so embarrassing. The inordinate delay is one issue that Mark has to deal with. Another is the association of messianic movements with the disastrous Revolt. The Pauline take on things was that the resurrection of Jesus was the opening of the messianic age. Mark takes his cue from the prophecies in Daniel and makes the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem as the sign of the real opening of the messianic age. (See Mark 13) In this way he executes two avians with one projectile. He both solves the time lag problem and changes a terrible defeat into a sign of hope. Matthew and Luke follow suit with this idea but with caveats here and there to explain away the continued post-Mark delay. John, written even later, claims that the ‘not taste death’ prophecy was just a misunderstanding.

The Gospels were intended to protect and revivify the Jesus movement in the aftermath of the Revolt, not to placate the Romans.

Moving on…

The anti-Pharisee attitude is best understood in context. In the putative era of Jesus, there were two kinds of Pharisee. The dominant House of Shammai believed in strict literal observance of the Law. The ‘underdog’ House of Hillel took a more liberal view, emphasizing the spirit of the Law. Imagine Jesus as growing up in the era of Hillel (before 10 CE) and being influenced by the teachings of that great man. Now imagine him as opposing the Shammai Pharisees who he would have perceived as hypocritically following the letter and ignoring the spirit. Fits nicely, doesn’t it?

Matthew goes overboard in his criticism of the Pharisees. When he wrote his Gospel (ca. 75-80 CE) the newly emerging rabbinic Judaism would have been competing for the mantle of true inheritors of historic Judaism in the post-Temple era. Matthew’s Gospel is one big argument that the Jesus movement is the true inheritor of that tradition. It is not surprising that Matthew would take Mark’s accounts of Jesus clashing with the literalist Pharisees of his day and amplify them into the tirade of Matthew 23. Matthew’s reference there to the Pharisees liking to call themselves Rabbi is a dead giveaway. The irony of course is that the Pharisees busy inventing rabbinic Judaism were of the pacifist House of Hillel who escaped Jerusalem where most of the Shammai Pharisees died fighting alongside the Zealots.

Now…

Why associate the death of Jesus with the Jews? Read the Gospels with an unbiased eye and you will see this upstart preacher ticking off the Pharisees as already noted and the Sadducees. (In addition to the insult to their authority, I wonder how much that Temple tantrum cost them in lost business.) But this Jesus character was really popular with the mobs and they did not want another uprising happening. (Note that Mark tells us there was one uprising already in the past few days, involving Barabbas. Ref) Solution: get the Romans to do it. Judas informs on Jesus claiming royal aspirations and promising his followers earthly rewards. (See the end of Matthew 19 for one example.) Tell the Romans about this ‘King of the Jews’ and let the notoriously strict Pilate do the rest. If the Jews were to be blamed to the exclusion of the Romans, the story would have had Jesus stoned to death, not crucified. Look at this part of the Gospels as a piece of more or less accurate tradition and it makes a lot more sense.

[cnorman18]

Jesus obviously followed the Pharisee view.

If that were true, then why was Jesus constantly butting heads with the Pharisees?

1) Jesus appeared to be butting heads with AUTHORITY, and with the hypocrisy that goes along with people in power. However,

2) We don't know what Jesus actually did. However, the Gospels seem to have been written AFTER the Christians were told they couldn't worship at the synagugues, since they were too far from being Jewish. That , I am sure, caused bad blood between the groups.

Don't forget that the Gospel writers were trying to curry favor with the Romans and exonerate them for Jesus's death and make the Jews the bad guys.

First the ‘curry favor’ part…

Far too simplistic a view. Luke is clearly trying to tone down Matthew’s strong association of the Jesus movement with messianic Judaism. To Jews and Romans alike, that association would have been a turn off because of the recent disastrous Revolt, instigated by the messianic Zealots. The always clever Luke takes a number of themes from Matthew and inverts them, e.g., the genealogy, the nativity story, the New Moses trope, the importance of Judaism and the Law and various parts of the Resurrection story.

But note that all four of the Gospels explicitly reference the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem even though this is well after the putative time of Jesus. Why bring up bad blood if the idea is to placate the Romans?

Mark wrote his Gospel about four decades after the Jesus supposedly lived. He explicitly mentions that Jesus was expected to return within the lifetime of some of his hearers and in that generation. We can see this kind of expectation in Paul’s letters as well so apparently it was well known. Otherwise Mark would hardly have invented something so embarrassing. The inordinate delay is one issue that Mark has to deal with. Another is the association of messianic movements with the disastrous Revolt. The Pauline take on things was that the resurrection of Jesus was the opening of the messianic age. Mark takes his cue from the prophecies in Daniel and makes the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem as the sign of the real opening of the messianic age. (See Mark 13) In this way he executes two avians with one projectile. He both solves the time lag problem and changes a terrible defeat into a sign of hope. Matthew and Luke follow suit with this idea but with caveats here and there to explain away the continued post-Mark delay. John, written even later, claims that the ‘not taste death’ prophecy was just a misunderstanding.

The Gospels were intended to protect and revivify the Jesus movement in the aftermath of the Revolt, not to placate the Romans.

Moving on…

The anti-Pharisee attitude is best understood in context. In the putative era of Jesus, there were two kinds of Pharisee. The dominant House of Shammai believed in strict literal observance of the Law. The ‘underdog’ House of Hillel took a more liberal view, emphasizing the spirit of the Law. Imagine Jesus as growing up in the era of Hillel (before 10 CE) and being influenced by the teachings of that great man. Now imagine him as opposing the Shammai Pharisees who he would have perceived as hypocritically following the letter and ignoring the spirit. Fits nicely, doesn’t it?

Matthew goes overboard in his criticism of the Pharisees. When he wrote his Gospel (ca. 75-80 CE) the newly emerging rabbinic Judaism would have been competing for the mantle of true inheritors of historic Judaism in the post-Temple era. Matthew’s Gospel is one big argument that the Jesus movement is the true inheritor of that tradition. It is not surprising that Matthew would take Mark’s accounts of Jesus clashing with the literalist Pharisees of his day and amplify them into the tirade of Matthew 23. Matthew’s reference there to the Pharisees liking to call themselves Rabbi is a dead giveaway. The irony of course is that the Pharisees busy inventing rabbinic Judaism were of the pacifist House of Hillel who escaped Jerusalem where most of the Shammai Pharisees died fighting alongside the Zealots.

Now…

Why associate the death of Jesus with the Jews? Read the Gospels with an unbiased eye and you will see this upstart preacher ticking off the Pharisees as already noted and the Sadducees. (In addition to the insult to their authority, I wonder how much that Temple tantrum cost them in lost business.) But this Jesus character was really popular with the mobs and they did not want another uprising happening. (Note that Mark tells us there was one uprising already in the past few days, involving Barabbas. Ref) Solution: get the Romans to do it. Judas informs on Jesus claiming royal aspirations and promising his followers earthly rewards. (See the end of Matthew 19 for one example.) Tell the Romans about this ‘King of the Jews’ and let the notoriously strict Pilate do the rest. If the Jews were to be blamed to the exclusion of the Romans, the story would have had Jesus stoned to death, not crucified. Look at this part of the Gospels as a piece of more or less accurate tradition and it makes a lot more sense.

All very well said, and I can find little here to disagree with; my own remark was, indeed, a fine example of oversimplification, while your post here is much more detailed and accurate.

That said: There is certainly an element of whitewashing in the NT. The bogus story of Pilate's freeing one condemned prisoner at Passover, and of course the handwashing scene -- from what is known of Pilate in actual history, those are about as likely as his fluttering above the crown on white wings. He was a coarse and brutal man with little but contempt for the Jews he ruled.

No, placating the Romans wasn't the Gospel writers' agenda; but they certainly weren't eager to provoke them.

[orthodox skeptic]

I believe this topic is fundamental for discussions of Christianity and Apologetics.

Everyone knows that Jesus was a Jew. And he often referenced the Torah. But how did Jesus himself view the Torah and Judaism in general? Was there even a consistent view of Judaism in those days? According to the gospels I think it's fair to say that the Pharisees held a view of the Torah and God that Jesus did not support.

Were the views of the Jewish Pharisees the orthodox views of Judaism? Or did many Jews, like Jesus, hold views that were quite different from what the Jewish Pharisees held?

I would very much like to hear views on this question:

Question for debate: "Was there a consistent view of Judaism in the days of Jesus?"

And if so, what exactly did that view entail?

If you ever find a definitive understanding of exactly what Jesus' view on religion was you'll be the first. The Judaism of His day was every bit conflicted as the Christian religion is today. There were more sects preaching the right way then you could shake a stick at. It has long been agreed that Jesus had no idea of forming a separate or new religion. Keep in mind that Paul is actually considered the father of Christianity. For me to cite the new testament as a reliable source flies in my own face but, in this instance I would refer you to Matthew 10:5 wherein he instructs his disciples to "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, enter no town of the Samaritans but go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." From this I deduce that Jesus saw himself as an orthodox Jew, angry at the many fallen away Jews and he intended for his disciples to preach orthodoxy and bring them all back to the true traditions. Now as I said at the start because their were so many splintered sects, and nowhere can you find what Jesus thought was the true tradition, I'd say go with Jesus being a Traditionalist. Which could be interpreted as a "big trouble maker"!