I would generally agree, but I would add a few points.
1) Jesus had different conflicts with different groups of Jewish culture because of the focus of each group. The most common group Jesus ran into were the Sadducees and Pharisees, but there were also others like the Zealots, and the Essenes. All were concerned about different things. Since the Pharisees were concerned with strict adherence to Torah, Jesus ran into conflict with them when he taught or behaved in a way wherein Torah might not be kept. A good example would be gathering grain or healing on the Sabbath. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were less concerned with Torah and more concerned with Temple observances and rituals. It was the Sadducees who brought Jesus to Pilate and they were by far the most powerful group in the time of Jesus. So an argument could be made that while the nature of what Jesus taught pissed off other groups, the one that got Him in the end was His threat to Temple concerns. The charge of blasphemy by Caiaphas and the other Sadducees, therefore, may have simply been convenient charges to make although those charges were not truly their main concern. Those charges would have been the main concern of the Pharisees, but it was not the Pharisees who arrested Jesus.
I am wondering how you would respond to that.
Yes, there were many conflicts. The zealots were hoping that Jesus was the messiah and seemed to be waiting until the last minute for him to signal an armed revolt. That's what Jesus was referring to when he said that he had seventy seven legions of angels who could save him from the cross if he gave the order. It was not hubris. The Essenes, like John the baptist, seemed to be particularly against what they saw as the corruption inherent in Temple worship, collusion with Rome, and animal sacrifice itself. .
2) Your quote from the Manual of Discipline is a great quote, but that is from the point of view of the Essenes. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jesus all disagreed with the Essenes on some major points of emphasis. So I am curious how you are using an Essense point of view in regard to a conflict between Jesus and the Sadducees.
The sadducees rejected the oral law which the Pharisees embraced, the traditions of men as Jesus called it, which goes into great detail about how to correctly apply the literal letter of the law even when it makes no sense, but the saducees also denied the resurrection and focused only on the obvious, not necessarily literal, interpretation and practical application of the Law exactly as it was written without explanation. The essene point of view was that there was a deeper meaning hidden in the figurative language used in the law. They believed it should remain hidden, as shown in the manual of discipline quotes. So Jesus, by revealing secret teaching and how to understand the figurative language of the prophets, he pissed of the saduccees who claimed there was no deeper meaning, he pissed off the Pharisees who believed their oral traditions were the only truth, and he pissed off the essenes by teaching ordinary layman, sinners, and people of ill repute their deepest secrets. He pissed them all off, took away the basis for their false claim to moral authority and openly revealed the wisdom of God and subjects hidden in the law as it was originally intended to be understood by Moses which gave the power back to the people who had been subjugated by traditions, mind control, and false teaching which amounted to money making and power grabbing schemes so a select few could live smooth lives of comfort and ease...
3) When we apply history we can recognize that it was the Pharisaic point of view that ultimately endured. The Sadducees got wiped out when the Romans destroyed the Temple. The Essenes and Zealots got wiped out during the Jewish uprising. The Pharisees were the only ones to really survive. An argument could be made that by the time scripture was finalized (i.e. taken from the original form to the more standard form we see today), it had been redacted to emphasize a viewpoint that was more in line with Pharisaic belief. If that is the case, it could be further argued that the crimes Jesus was accused of in the Bible are influenced by the Pharisees long after the fact.
I am also curious how you would respond to that.
I would tend to agree, especially since much of how Jesus was portrayed by Paul, a pharisee, insured that the Jewish people would never accept him as anything other than a false prophet, magician, or mentally ill traitor.
And yes, they were all wiped out except the Pharisees, the generation of teaching that Jesus said would persist to see it all, from the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, the diaspora and his eventual triumphant return.
Last edited: