2

Some background - I'm a former Jewish Torah learner, who listens to the [audio] books of the Gospels and tries to comprehend the historical Jesus.

A recurring motive that caught my attention was the Pharisees, the Scribes, or the High priest's attempts to test Jesus' Halachic views in order "... so that they might have some charge to bring against him", like healing or picking wheat grains on the Sabbath, fasting on different occasions, referring to himself as "son of God", and more.

AFAIK, at the turn of the era, there was no written Jewish law, besides some priestly literature, associated with the Sadducees and the Essenes. Moreover, as is clearly seen from the Mishna and the following Talmud, even the early Pharisee rabbis around the time of Jesus, such as Hillel and Shammai, had different views on major Halachic topics, such as the Sabbath and the Kashrut.

On the other hand, regarding potential punishment, we observe in the Talmud ("The_Oven_of_Akhnai"), that at its harshest, the Pharisees could only boycott or shun but not execute one who arrives at a different Halachic conclusion.

Do those portrayals refer to some historical practices or is it a later literary attempt to show general animosity and antagonism between the teachings of the Pharisees and Jesus'?

Dan Fefferman
  • 15,919
  • 2
  • 12
  • 62
Al Berko
  • 157
  • 5
  • 2
    "appears frequently"??? The only place I can find is John 8:6 which is disputed!! Can you list some of the "many" others? Otherwise this question may be closed. – Dottard Sep 24 '23 at 21:06
  • 1
    You are raising an important issue but you do need to provide us with some references. Even if the phrase itself does not appear elsewhere it is true that the gospels portray Jesus' opponents as looking for a way to arrest or kill him. – Dan Fefferman Sep 25 '23 at 19:17
  • 1
    I filled in some blanks in my answer... I'll edit Al's question... hope he doesn't mind. – Dan Fefferman Sep 25 '23 at 20:03
  • @DanFefferman Sorry, I don't think those other verses are really very similar at all, so I rolled back your edit. This really needs the OP to explain what those other verses are. – curiousdannii Sep 25 '23 at 22:32
  • @curiousdanni Well what is wrong with my answer? I thought I explained what the implications would lead to? He's crucifixion and death. What am I missing? – Mr. Bond Sep 25 '23 at 23:19
  • @Mr.Bond Your answer is fine, the problem is the question isn't clear enough and seems to be based on a falsity. – curiousdannii Sep 25 '23 at 23:35
  • 1
    @curiousdannii - I hope you will reconsider your roll-back of my edits since the OP author has confirmed that these were some of the verses he was thinking of. The question no longer contains mistake that led to its closing, but it is still too vague - a problem would be solved by including the specific verses I included. – Dan Fefferman Sep 26 '23 at 15:31
  • (my edits also corrected the OPs initial mistake... but his own edits have now corrected that... It still lacks specific references, however.) I am unclear about the best way to proceed... Would it be better for me to work on the q. myself, or for you to undo your roll-back, etc? – Dan Fefferman Sep 26 '23 at 15:40
  • You want historical or jewish sources about death sentences, it was banned for the Jews, but was still practised and this is why they had to take Jesus to the Roman authorities with lies. This ques has answers which is linked to another similar helpful ques that you wanna know. Was stoning legal under Roman law? https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59316/was-stoning-legal-under-roman-law hence, it's a duplicate. Secondly, you are using a mythical tale to raise the historicity of the murder of Jesus. Maybe Eliezer was murdered too. Refer to historian's sources to verify Gospel. – Michael16 Sep 29 '23 at 13:55
  • Also refer to the several other killings by the Israelites such as all the prophets they killed. The Talmud, a central text of Rabbinic Judaism, records the killing of several prophets by the Israelites. For example, the Talmud states that the prophet Zechariah was killed by the Israelites in the Temple. See ques on JudaismSE concerning capital punishment. Maybe kiling of Eliezer was erased in guilt. The legendary tale doesn't even state that Sanhedrin/pharisees can't observe death penalty. You have misinterpreted the tale which puts the council of man above God himself. – Michael16 Sep 29 '23 at 13:59

2 Answers2

3

Although the phrase "so that they might have some charge to bring against him" appears only in John 8:6, the gospels contain several instances of Jesus' opponents looking for a way to arrest or kill him:

  • Then the Pharisees went off and plotted how they might entrap him in speech. (Matthew 22:15)
  • The scribes and chief priests sought to lay their hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people, for they knew that he had addressed this parable to them. (Luke 20:19)
  • The Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but he also called God his own father, making himself equal to God.(John 5:18)
  • So the chief priests and the Pharisees convened the Sanhedrin and said, “What are we going to do? This man is performing many signs. 48 If we leave him alone, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our land and our nation.” ... Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them... “It is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish.” ...So from that day on they planned to kill him. (john 11)

This sampling shows that a variety of issues were raised by Jesus' opponents, from Sabbath-breaking to teaching parables implying that God would abandon Israel and its leaders, to gathering a serious messianic following that could result in a severe Roman reaction. In most cases, these charges were not merely trumped up (as in the case of John 8:6) but resulted from what Jesus actually taught and did.

On the other hand, the OP is right to raise the fact that most of these issues fell within the scope of the legitimate halakhic debates of the time.

The OP asks to know the refence of the Pharisees seeking "some charge to bring against him." In the case of John's gospel, "the Jews" are portrayed generally as Jesus' opponents, who are out to get him almost from the beginning. So in the case of this particular gospel, it may indeed be the fact that the author is engaged in a "literary attempt to show general animosity and antagonism between the teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees."

On the other hand, the other gospels describe halakhic debates between Jesus and other rabbis - many of them not rising to the level of animosity that would justify bring a capital charge against him. In addition, the above quote from John 11 involves key context. Here the Pharisees (and their Sadducee allies on the Sanhedrin) conspire to do away with Jesus for the sake of the nation, to protect it from losing its modicum of freedom under Roman rule. The author even describes Caiaphas as speaking prophetically, implying that Jesus' crucifixion is predestined and the high priest is acting to further God's purpose. The Pharisees who co-convened this Sanhedrin are thus unwittingly cooperating to fulfill God's will.

Conclusion: the gospels describe the Pharisees as having various motives for wanting to do away with Jesus. It is true that these accounts are written with hindsight, through the prism of the Crucifixion and the later history of animosity between the church and the Jews. However the accounts are not merely "a literary attempt to show general animosity and antagonism between the teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees."

Dan Fefferman
  • 15,919
  • 2
  • 12
  • 62
  • Thank you very much. I've been listening (audio) to the Gospels for the first time on my 120km trip in Israel, and that's the motive that I heard reiterating. Yes, I did mean all the citations you mentioned, where Jesus' opponents sought some kind of vengeance. I agree that it appears, that the authors are not familiar with actual Jewish practices, and try to posteriorly explain how things led to crucifixion. – Al Berko Sep 26 '23 at 06:00
  • I will attempt to have your question re-opened. A moderator rejected my edits to include specific verses, on the grounds that my examples did not appear relevant - but you have confirmed that my speculation was right, in the sense that these are among the verses you were thinking of. – Dan Fefferman Sep 26 '23 at 16:11
1

In addressing this issue I'm going to start off with the following question? "Whether or not the Jews are correctly or incorrectly understanding Jesus is not the issue. The issue is what was it that Jesus did or said that caused the Jews to be upset with Him to the point of wanting to kill Him for the specific crime of blasphemy?

You have at John 2:16 Jesus saying, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a house of merchandise." At vs18, "The Jews therefore answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things?"

Jesus at John 2:19 answers them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." At vs 20, "The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" At vs21 the Apostle John says, "But He was speaking of the temple of His body, referring to His resurrection, vs22.

What's interesting about this exchange/issue is this was brought up three years later at the trial of Jesus. Matthew 26:59-61. They tried to get false testimony against Jesus, in order to put Him to death. At vs61, "This man stated, "I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days."

Now, getting back to the gospel of John at John 5 Jesus heals a man and the Jews objected because Jesus did it on the Sabbath day. At vs17, Jesus says to them, "My Father is working until now, and I My self am working." Vs18, "For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because (or why?) He was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

Jesus also called God His own Father when He was 12 years old at Luke2:49 when His parents were looking for Him. Cutting to the chase the fact is the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for claiming to be God. It's all documented in the trial record at Matthew 26:57-66.

After the John 5:17-18 incident you have Jesus saying at John 8:58, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham sprang into existence I am." Vs59, "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."

Now look at John 10:30 where Jesus says, "I and My Father We are one." At vs31 the Jews react, "The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him." Vs32, "Jesus ask, "why are you stoning Me?"

Vs33, "The Jews answered Him. "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man make Yourself out God." There it is, the so-called blasphemy. In John's gospel where Jesus was before Pilate notice, (John 19:6) Pilate says, "Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guild in Him." Vs7, "The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because (or why), He made Himself out the Son of God."

The Law the Jews are referencing for blasphemy is at Leviticus 24:16. Getting back to the more extensive trial record is at Matthew 26:57-66. At vs63 the high priest Caiaphas said to Him/Jesus, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God?"

The high priest is asking Jesus to swear as to His identity. (1), Are you the Christ/Messiah, and (2) the Son of God." At Luke 22:70, Jesus says, "Yes, I am." Here at Matthew 26:65, "Then the high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;"

Jesus, calling Himself the Son of God is not blasphemy because he really was the Son of God. It would be blasphemy for us to claim to be THE Son of God--as in the (singular) only (there are no others) begotten (uniquely "generated") Son of God, because none of us is really THE SON OF GOD, but Jesus was.

Finally, please notice John 20:3o-31, "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; vs31, but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is "the Christ/Messiah, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

Mr. Bond
  • 3,577
  • 2
  • 7
  • 18
  • Thank you. I can't ignore the huge theological gap between Mark and Matthew's understanding of Jesus' essence and that of John, e.g. Jesus calling the Jews "us" in the former and "them" in the latter. As a Jew who studied the Talmud and Second Temple Judaism, I don't see in Mark and Matthew any blasphemy that goes beyond existing Jewish prophetic or Talmudic discourses. And I suspect, John was written to address the problem of Mark and Matthew's portrayal of Jesus as a Kosher Jew. This is why I think that John can not be presented as "historical evidence" of Jesus' views. – Al Berko Sep 26 '23 at 06:21
  • @AlBerko Why is that a problem that there is a gap between Mark and Matthew's understanding of Jesus' essence compared to John's gospel? When you say "essence" your referring to Jesus Christ nature. All four gospels deal with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and present different versions of these events. John's gospel mainly deals with the deity of Jesus Christ. And whether or not the other three gospels deal with this, at least to me is "moot." God only has to speak once for it to be the truth. Who is Jesus Christ to you? A question for you. Read John's gospel 22:41-46. – Mr. Bond Sep 26 '23 at 17:45
  • "God only has to speak once for it to be the truth." I'd agree. But we don't have "God speaking". Instead, we have testimonies that differ radically. As time passed, Jesus became less historical and more legendary. I treat the OT similarly: the Pentateuch has no notion of the afterlife or resurrection, but the later prophets do. I conclude, that as society progresses new ideas are born or adopted. – Al Berko Sep 27 '23 at 08:31
  • @AlBerko It really saddens my heart that you are a million miles away from understanding the Bible. Why are you not aware that the Saints of the Old Testament spoke through the Holy Spirit of God. 2 Samuel 23:2 David says, "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue." I also gave you John 22:41-46 of David speaking by the Spirit of God. The rest of your post is your opinion. David does speak of the afterlife at 2 Samuel 12:23 when his son died. History or Legend: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/images/uploads/Rediscovering_the_Historical_Jesus_The_Evidence_for_Jesus.pdf – Mr. Bond Sep 27 '23 at 13:36
  • I'm aware of the Trinity solution to "the Spirit". But we precede it. So I wonder, why couldn't God indeed speak to Samuel the way He did to Moses or Abraham? Why could the later prophets only see visions, instead of communicating clearly with the divine and writing down God's instructions? IIRC somewhere in the Gospels there's a moment when God speaks "This is my son" or something? Why, couldn't the Christians have Mt.Sinai II event with divine revelations, written down and packed? And David belongs to the Books of Prophets, as I said, not Pentateuch, he came some 800 years after Moses. – Al Berko Sep 27 '23 at 14:50
  • @AlBerko The "why" questions, are not within my purview (or yours) to ask God why He does or does not do things. He's the creator, were the clay. Romans 9:19-24. Secondly, God did speak in the OT through dreams and visions and at times He appeared physically to OT Saints. Read Genesis 17:1-2. Read Genesis 16:7-13 where Hagar says at vs13, "Thou art a God who sees; Have I even remained alive after seeing Him." Read Genesis 32:30 where Jacob says, "I have seen God face to face yet my life has been preserved." God also appeared in the NT in the person of Jesus Christ. John 1:1-14. Hebrews 1:1-4. – Mr. Bond Sep 27 '23 at 20:38