Did the Pharisees know what they were talking about?

[Harel13]

I saw today something interesting. One of the greatest academic Talmud scholars of the last century was Prof. Yaakov Nachum Epstein. In his book "Introductions to the Tannaitic Literature", pg. 280-281, he discusses shortly the laws of Shabbat as described in the gospels. He lists them and then compares them to Talmudic literature to ascertain how accurate the NT's claims are. I'll admit, some of the things were new to me. Well, I'm not a halachic expert. Here's a summary of his points (without sources):

On the story of the picking of wheat on Shabbat by the disciples, Epstein said that there's some leniency, depending on the situation, so for the Pharisees to say that it was not allowed was not exactly true.

On the healing on Shabbat by Jesus, Epstein said there's nothing wrong with healing through speech. What's not allowed is medicinal healing. See above about the Pharisaic claim.

On the debate about the donkey or ox that fell into a hole/well, that the Pharisees agreed with Jesus that it was allowed to bring up the animal, Epstein said that though it's allowed to feed the animal, it's not allowed to bring it up. Therefore, the Pharisees were wrong to agree with Jesus.

At the end of the discussion, Epstein suggests that perhaps the Pharisees that Jesus and his disciples spoke with were openly aligned with Pharisaic thought but weren't actually knowledgeable in halacha.
​

Thoughts?

I myself doubt the stories actually happened as they are described in the NT, if they even happened at all. However, for the sake of the discussion, I am willing to assume that there's some kernel of truth to the story. Now, we know (from sources such as Josephus) that the majority of the people anyway followed the Pharisees, but it's not like the Jewish people as a whole walked around and said: We're the Pharisaic people (in fact, some believe the term "Pharisee" was originally a term used to disparage sectarians, then slowly evolved to refer to the sages that led the religious majority). So who would have been these hypothetical people who apparently openly identified as Pharisees yet didn't know much of anything?

I suggest that it's possible that these were low-ranking students. The old term for this would be "יושבי השורות האחרונות" - "those that sit on the last benches". Student on paper, but not ones that really sat in the study hall all day. Say we accept Paul's story that he was one of Rabban Gamliel's students. Well, other than Christian sources, this factoid is not mentioned anywhere. Neither are these stories of clashes between the Pharisees and the very early Christians. Why? Probably because they were all very insignificant. These students were not top students, to say the least. Maybe they wanted to show off, I don't know. Paul wasn't a top student either. If he was, his falling off the wagon would have been recorded elsewhere. These were all nobodies! As were Jesus and his disciples. Nobody knew anything about them. They didn't make the news. Hence, the debates between Jesus, his disciples and these Pharisees were really debates between amateurs. If these were serious debates, I would have expected the NT to flaunt the names of the sages Jesus managed to beat. But it doesn't. Because if they wrote the names of these people, everyone would go: "Who???"

One caveat to this is why mention Nicodemus. Nicodemus is a mystery to me. I don't know who he is, no Jew really knows who he was. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that his story is in there because it contains a kernel of truth, that Nicodemus really was part of Jesus's life at some point, he just wasn't who the NT says he was (much like how Paul presents himself as a student of Rabban Gamliel, making it seem as though he was one of his top students). Including him in the story adds some weight to it all, even though the layman non-Christian has no idea what the story is doing there (what Jesus tells Nicodemus could have been told to any random person; it was not actually necessary to include Nicodemus specifically unless it was an echo of a real encounter).

 

[Rival]

This is interesting and my thoughts to add are mostly this:

- As far as I'm aware, the idea of Paul being a student of Gamliel is a claim made for him in Acts by Luke. I could be wrong, but this could account for why he's not mentioned as Luke would just be misinformed.

- On the contrary, Paul calls himself the Pharisee of Pharisees. Your post in mind, I'm not sure how to interpret this unless Paul was suffering from some kind of Dunning-Kruger effect? His continuous misquoting of Tanakh and misapplication of verses seriously calls into question even any basic learning, as he manages to come up with this gem,

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Afaik this doesn't work in Hebrew, but I suppose one could infer context for plural as needed. But if Paul were a student, one would assume he could at least read? Idk.

 

[Harel13]

- On the contrary, Paul calls himself the Pharisee of Pharisees. Your post in mind, I'm not sure how to interpret this unless Paul was suffering from some kind of Dunning-Kruger effect? His continuous misquoting of Tanakh and misapplication of verses seriously calls into question even any basic learning, as he manages to come up with this gem,

Maybe I should have clarified some more. The people who sat on the last benches were students on paper. They mostly didn't really learn. In Paul's case, perhaps this was how he was hired by the Sanhedrin: He got some street smarts while, you know, being on the street instead of learning, so he was knowledgeable in tracking down people.

But if Paul were a student, one would assume he could at least read? Idk.

Some claim that Paul purposely changed verses or the meaning of verses.

 

[Harel13]

Maybe I should have clarified some more.

Edited my post slightly to clarify.

 

[Kenny]

I saw today something interesting. One of the greatest academic Talmud scholars of the last century was Prof. Yaakov Nachum Epstein. In his book "Introductions to the Tannaitic Literature", pg. 280-281, he discusses shortly the laws of Shabbat as described in the gospels. He lists them and then compares them to Talmudic literature to ascertain how accurate the NT's claims are. I'll admit, some of the things were new to me. Well, I'm not a halachic expert. Here's a summary of his points (without sources):

On the story of the picking of wheat on Shabbat by the disciples, Epstein said that there's some leniency, depending on the situation, so for the Pharisees to say that it was not allowed was not exactly true.

On the healing on Shabbat by Jesus, Epstein said there's nothing wrong with healing through speech. What's not allowed is medicinal healing. See above about the Pharisaic claim.

On the debate about the donkey or ox that fell into a hole/well, that the Pharisees agreed with Jesus that it was allowed to bring up the animal, Epstein said that though it's allowed to feed the animal, it's not allowed to bring it up. Therefore, the Pharisees were wrong to agree with Jesus.

At the end of the discussion, Epstein suggests that perhaps the Pharisees that Jesus and his disciples spoke with were openly aligned with Pharisaic thought but weren't actually knowledgeable in halacha.
​

Thoughts?

I myself doubt the stories actually happened as they are described in the NT, if they even happened at all. However, for the sake of the discussion, I am willing to assume that there's some kernel of truth to the story. Now, we know (from sources such as Josephus) that the majority of the people anyway followed the Pharisees, but it's not like the Jewish people as a whole walked around and said: We're the Pharisaic people (in fact, some believe the term "Pharisee" was originally a term used to disparage sectarians, then slowly evolved to refer to the sages that led the religious majority). So who would have been these hypothetical people who apparently openly identified as Pharisees yet didn't know much of anything?

I suggest that it's possible that these were low-ranking students. The old term for this would be "יושבי השורות האחרונות" - "those that sit on the last benches". Student on paper, but not ones that really sat in the study hall all day. Say we accept Paul's story that he was one of Rabban Gamliel's students. Well, other than Christian sources, this factoid is not mentioned anywhere. Neither are these stories of clashes between the Pharisees and the very early Christians. Why? Probably because they were all very insignificant. These students were not top students, to say the least. Maybe they wanted to show off, I don't know. Paul wasn't a top student either. If he was, his falling off the wagon would have been recorded elsewhere. These were all nobodies! As were Jesus and his disciples. Nobody knew anything about them. They didn't make the news. Hence, the debates between Jesus, his disciples and these Pharisees were really debates between amateurs. If these were serious debates, I would have expected the NT to flaunt the names of the sages Jesus managed to beat. But it doesn't. Because if they wrote the names of these people, everyone would go: "Who???"

One caveat to this is why mention Nicodemus. Nicodemus is a mystery to me. I don't know who he is, no Jew really knows who he was. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that his story is in there because it contains a kernel of truth, that Nicodemus really was part of Jesus's life at some point, he just wasn't who the NT says he was (much like how Paul presents himself as a student of Rabban Gamliel, making it seem as though he was one of his top students). Including him in the story adds some weight to it all, even though the layman non-Christian has no idea what the story is doing there (what Jesus tells Nicodemus could have been told to any random person; it was not actually necessary to include Nicodemus specifically unless it was an echo of a real encounter).

Perhaps even the Talmudic interpretation of the donkey was wrong? IMV, to say the Pharisees were low-ranking students just because the differed in viewpoints is a little of a stretch. As with the donkey, he was simply addressing the viewpoints as in:.

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

And I'm not so sure Paul was a nobody. But, as with the TaNaKh, there are always room for disagreements. Don't the Jews love discussion?

 

[Harel13]

Perhaps even the Talmudic interpretation of the donkey was wrong?

The Talmud (in this context) is merely the written form of what was codified centuries earlier. Whether that interpretation is correct or not is irrelevant; the fact is that the NT records Pharisees holding views contrary to what was codified, and still presents them as Pharisees.

What actually went on with the donkey isn't the main point here. I was just summarizing Epstein's thoughts on the matter.

And I'm not so sure Paul was a nobody.

He is in Judaism. It was right there on your recent trinity thread that I mentioned Elisha Ben Avuyah, one of the biggest heretics of the Talmudic era. Some other heretics/sectarians are mentioned as well. Paul is not one of them.

But, as with the TaNaKh, there are always room for disagreements. Don't the Jews love discussion?

Again, not the point of the thread.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem back then was hypocrisy; do what I say, not what I do. There were two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for everyone else. Knowing the rules by heart; an expert in verse and word, was not the same as using the loopholes that were created based on position. This showed a flaw in law; knowledge of good and evil, which was the tree of Satan. Jesus pointed this flaw out.

In modern times, a parallel, was the Russian collusion delusion. This scam used the law to charge a new president with crimes which did not exist. The accusers committed crimes like spying yet nobody among the accusers were punished. In fact, many of the false accusers in the media received awards for their treachery. hey never had to given them back. Jesus saw this hypocrisy in his own day and deemed that law was obsolete, since those who make the law, can make loopholes that put themselves above it. They follow the law based loopholes and get away with crimes.

These modern false accusers even used law to bludgeon their opponents. In the end, the only people who went to jail for the collusion delusion where those who were falsely accused of a nonexistent crime, to make the scam of the accusers look more realistic. The same happened to Jesus and his disciples. Law had evolved into being a tool of the dark side.

Back then, as in modern times, the Democrats, like the Pharisees, knew the law very well; expensive defense lawyers. They learn to use the law, to skirt the original intent of the law. For example, in the USA, Illegal aliens who begin their career in the new country violating immigration law, now have more rights than the citizens; such as no need to Covid Vaccine or be tested. This was never the intent of the law but there are loopholes for the needs of the treacherous elite, who know how to skirt the law; dual justice system. Law needs an overhaul, so one set of rules apply to all.

On the seventh day God rested. How long was the sabbath rest of God? If God was not a hypocrite; do as I say and not what I do, then who did the work while God rested? The answer appears to be that Satan was put in charge of the human creation and earth; Lord of the Earth. He had a rapport with humans due to original sin connected to knowledge of law or knowledge of good and evil. This sabbath rest chain of command can be seen in the book of Job where God allows Satan to punish Job to prove his point. God was resting and gave Satan authority and power to make executive decisions. But God learned something from this; evil can harm the innocent using the law. But innocent often will put up with it and accept its fate.

If you look at Zuckerberg and Facebook they are accused of setting up an abusive internet business model, since adding stress and fear has been show to make more money. Fear and stress make people seek answers and solutions which means more advertiser exposure and revenue. Will Facebook be punished for the abuse of minors, or will money and defense lawyers allow these dual standard criminals to prosper? In a world led by Satan, the answer is not clear cut, since evil can prosper by the law, then as now. Good may have to put up with this fate.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...Nicodemus is a mystery to me. I don't know who he is, no Jew really knows who he was. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that his story is in there because it contains a kernel of truth, that Nicodemus really was part of Jesus's life at some point, he just wasn't who the NT says he was...

Nicodemus only appears in the gospel John, nowhere else.

1. He is the object of Jesus soliloquy in chapter 3, meeting Jesus secretly and at night.
   
2. In chapter 7 he publicly sticks up for Jesus in an argument.
   
3. In 19 he and Joseph of Arimathea prepare the body of Jesus for burial.

After this he never appears in any gospel or letter in the NT. No other gospel offers the same information, either. I think at first he exists to be the object of Jesus' speech which has elements of gnostic thought. He expresses disagreement with the way things are taught and learned.

**** About John ****
I have been told that John is written much later than other gospels, and it feels to me like this gospel was not written all at once. Yes, and also just now I am looking this up on the internet and see other people agree with me. I think the first notable transition is in chapter 11 where the story of Lazarus begins. At this moment I can't put my finger on the explanation, but there is a change. They are writing for a different purpose. Its like someone extended a gospel that was originally ten chapters.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The question for me is how much halachah was well established in the early part of the first century CE? The Pharisees consisted mainly of two parties, the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. The disputes between them are pretty well documented in later Rabbinic literature. Could some of the discrepancies in the NT in relation to halachah be attributed to differences between these schools in the development of later halachah?

 

[Spiderman]

@Harel13
My doubting the claims , is it sounds completely unrealistic that if religious people witnessed some of the miracles being performed, that they would respond the way they did. For instance, after Lazarus had been dead for days, and came back to life, the NT says the Pharisees were planning on putting Lazarus back to death as well. I simply find that hard to believe. I mean, bringing someone who has been dead for days back to life sounds far-fetched as is, but that the Pharisees would have it in their hearts to want to put the resurrected person back to death just sounds ridiculous and nearly impossible for me to believe.

If that is true, I highly doubt it. But one thing that is true: the NT really demonizes the Pharisees, wouldn't you agree?

"On the healing on Shabbat by Jesus, Epstein said there's nothing wrong with healing through speech. What's not allowed is medicinal healing. See above about the Pharisaic claim."

I find that a very helpful piece of information that I plan on sharing with my Catholic Father and Christians in general. So, I thank you.

Luke 18:11 as written, “The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people — robbers, evildoers, adulterers — or even like this tax collector,’”
12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get."

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Is this an appropriate thread for me to ask you: is that a type of prayer, a prayer that you think an average Pharisee would pray?

 

[Harel13]

The problem back then was hypocrisy; do what I say, not what I do. There were two sets of rules, one for the elite and one for everyone else. Knowing the rules by heart; an expert in verse and word, was not the same as using the loopholes that were created based on position. This showed a flaw in law; knowledge of good and evil, which was the tree of Satan. Jesus pointed this flaw out.

In modern times, a parallel, was the Russian collusion delusion. This scam used the law to charge a new president with crimes which did not exist. The accusers committed crimes like spying yet nobody among the accusers were punished. In fact, many of the false accusers in the media received awards for their treachery. hey never had to given them back. Jesus saw this hypocrisy in his own day and deemed that law was obsolete, since those who make the law, can make loopholes that put themselves above it. They follow the law based loopholes and get away with crimes.

These modern false accusers even used law to bludgeon their opponents. In the end, the only people who went to jail for the collusion delusion where those who were falsely accused of a nonexistent crime, to make the scam of the accusers look more realistic. The same happened to Jesus and his disciples. Law had evolved into being a tool of the dark side.

Back then, as in modern times, the Democrats, like the Pharisees, knew the law very well; expensive defense lawyers. They learn to use the law, to skirt the original intent of the law. For example, in the USA, Illegal aliens who begin their career in the new country violating immigration law, now have more rights than the citizens; such as no need to Covid Vaccine or be tested. This was never the intent of the law but there are loopholes for the needs of the treacherous elite, who know how to skirt the law; dual justice system. Law needs an overhaul, so one set of rules apply to all.

On the seventh day God rested. How long was the sabbath rest of God? If God was not a hypocrite; do as I say and not what I do, then who did the work while God rested? The answer appears to be that Satan was put in charge of the human creation and earth; Lord of the Earth. He had a rapport with humans due to original sin connected to knowledge of law or knowledge of good and evil. This sabbath rest chain of command can be seen in the book of Job where God allows Satan to punish Job to prove his point. God was resting and gave Satan authority and power to make executive decisions. But God learned something from this; evil can harm the innocent using the law. But innocent often will put up with it and accept its fate.

If you look at Zuckerberg and Facebook they are accused of setting up an abusive internet business model, since adding stress and fear has been show to make more money. Fear and stress make people seek answers and solutions which means more advertiser exposure and revenue. Will Facebook be punished for the abuse of minors, or will money and defense lawyers allow these dual standard criminals to prosper? In a world led by Satan, the answer is not clear cut, since evil can prosper by the law, then as now. Good may have to put up with this fate.

I started replying to you point by point, but then I realized that your post doesn't really have much of anything to do with my OP.

 

[Lain]

These were all nobodies! As were Jesus and his disciples. Nobody knew anything about them. They didn't make the news. Hence, the debates between Jesus, his disciples and these Pharisees were really debates between amateurs.

Yeah pretty much. For any Pharisee wandering about where Jesus was and actually caring enough to try and debate Him, getting run out with a punchline, that's what I'd expect. Although of course we'd disagree about the status of what Jesus said/who He was, but this much I do agree with and is true.

 

[Harel13]

Nicodemus only appears in the gospel John, nowhere else

True.

After this he never appears in any gospel or letter in the NT. No other gospel offers the same information, either. I think at first he exists to be the object of Jesus' speech which has elements of gnostic thought. He expresses disagreement with the way things are taught and learned.

Do you think the author of John completely invented Nicodemus?

 

[Harel13]

But one thing that is true: the NT really demonizes the Pharisees, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, of course.

So, I thank you.

You're welcome.

Is this an appropriate thread for me to ask you: is that a type of prayer, a prayer that you think an average Pharisee would pray?

There are some traces of similarities with some prayers that appear in the Talmud, but none (that I'm aware) that are so specific feature saying this prayer basically to the other man's face.

 

[Harel13]

Could some of the discrepancies in the NT in relation to halachah be attributed to differences between these schools in the development of later halachah?

Epstein didn't seem to think so. To prove that discrepancies reflected actual disputes, you'd have to show that in our sources, which record the disputes, there are views comparable to those presented by the NT.

 

[Kenny]

The Talmud (in this context) is merely the written form of what was codified centuries earlier. Whether that interpretation is correct or not is irrelevant; the fact is that the NT records Pharisees holding views contrary to what was codified, and still presents them as Pharisees.

What actually went on with the donkey isn't the main point here. I was just summarizing Epstein's thoughts on the matter.

My point is simply that, doesn't the Gemara state differences? If so, (and I mean if), just because there is a difference between the Pharisees view and Epstein doesn't mean that there is an educational problem.

He is in Judaism. It was right there on your recent trinity thread that I mentioned Elisha Ben Avuyah, one of the biggest heretics of the Talmudic era. Some other heretics/sectarians are mentioned as well. Paul is not one of them.

Maybe in today's term. If indeed he was a student of Gamaliel, among many other students, he was very learned. He was important enough that if he was given letters to persecute the Christ followers, he had the approval of those who were important to Judaism.

Again, not the point of the thread.

OK?

 

[Harel13]

My point is simply that, doesn't the Gemara state differences? If so, (and I mean if), just because there is a difference between the Pharisees view and Epstein doesn't mean that there is an educational problem.

Epstein wasn't what we'd call a "posek". He didn't rule halacha. He was simply an academic. His book, among many other things, summarizes all of the disputes in the mishna. If the difference had come down to a dispute, you can be sure that he would have mentioned it.

If indeed he was a student of Gamaliel, among many other students, he was very learned.

No, I'm not sure that's true.

He was important enough that if he was given letters to persecute the Christ followers, he had the approval of those who were important to Judaism.

Two options, in my view: Either this story never happened (kind of ridiculous that the Sadducean High Priest would involve himself in such manners. In the 2nd century, there was already some reason to fear the influence of the Christians. Not in the first century, mere decades after Jesus's supposed death), or we remember that he was working for the court. Someone had to do the job. It wasn't because he was learned. Why do you need to be learned to track down sectarians? You need to be a good tracker.

OK?

Just trying to stay focused.

 

[Kenny]

Epstein wasn't what we'd call a "posek". He didn't rule halacha. He was simply an academic. His book, among many other things, summarizes all of the disputes in the mishna. If the difference had come down to a dispute, you can be sure that he would have mentioned it.

Ok... in the realm of possibilities... maybe it wasn't such a big dispute.

No, I'm not sure that's true.

OK... I don't see why it wouldn't be true.

Two options, in my view: Either this story never happened (kind of ridiculous that the Sadducean High Priest would involve himself in such manners. In the 2nd century, there was already some reason to fear the influence of the Christians. Not in the first century, mere decades after Jesus's supposed death), or we remember that he was working for the court. Someone had to do the job. It wasn't because he was learned. Why do you need to be learned to track down sectarians? You need to be a good tracker.

Or... of course, there is a third option. Just as it was recorded in Acts et al.

 

[Harel13]

Ok... in the realm of possibilities... maybe it wasn't such a big dispute.

How would you define a small dispute?

OK... I don't see why it wouldn't be true.

That he was very learned? I just explained in my OP that there were people who would have technically been considered students were really around on a daily basis.

Or... of course, there is a third option. Just as it was recorded in Acts et al.

That's not my view. I said two options in my view.

 

[Kenny]

How would you define a small dispute?

In the eyes of the beholder

That he was very learned? I just explained in my OP that there were people who would have technically been considered students were really around on a daily basis.

In that he was a Pharisee among Pharisees... pretty smart dude.

That's not my view. I said two options in my view.

Now, that, is a major dispute.