Helen Fry
Is Christianity Irredeemably Antisemitic, Part 1: Judaism and the Jewish Jesus
Dr. Helen Fry - Is Christianity Irredeemably Antisemitic, Lecture 1: Judaism and the Jewish Jesus
- Okay, wonderful. I can’t hear Wendy, so I assume we can start. So apologies for the delay, gremlin in the works, but I hope you’re going to enjoy some of what I’m going to share with you today. It’s part of a series of four. I’ll indicate when the next slide if that’s okay. So is part of a series of four and I actually have based my PhD, this was part of my PhD at the University of Exeter in theology, which has an awful lot of history. And one of the things that I’m fascinated about is the historical figure of Jesus. And for me that was probably the most inspiring part of my degree, which I then went on to specialise in my PhD. So I’m going to share some of my research with you from about 30 years ago. But the arguments I believe still hold true. And if it’s okay with you, what we’re hoping to do across the next four sessions, tomorrow and two next week is for me to present the material, but not to have a Q and A at the end of certainly the first three sessions because I’m aware that it’ll probably preempt material that I’m going to cover in the next lectures. And then one possibility is Trudy Gold and myself might have an in dialogue session using some of your questions and have a proper, real meaty discussion on the issues that I’m raising. And to start with, I think it’s really important to root Jesus in His Jewish tradition. And you might think, well that’s incredibly obvious given the incredible research and scholarship that’s been undertaken in collaboration Jewish and Christian scholars. Well of course it’s obvious the vast majority of people accept, including the churches, accept the Jewishness of Jesus.
But I want to hone in a little bit more, which form of Judaism or the Judaisms of the first century was Jesus part of because I think what, and I’m going to hopefully show or convince you that what develops and becomes really seriously difficult in the Christian Jewish relationship, which then tips into anti-Judaism and a whole history of 2000 years, more than 2000 years of antisemitism. And of course the line that can definitely be drawn between Christian, anti-Judaism and Holocaust. Now I’m not going to cover all of that. I’m just giving a background basis as to why I think it’s so important to look at the detail of the first century. And if we can understand where did Jesus fit? Because it’s not good enough I don’t think, just to say, well He was Jewish. If we understand what He was struggling with, what He was trying to do in that period and how that was very different from what then developed I think should make sense. And with that in mind, I’m going to just very briefly because often this is given to a non-Jewish audience, look at Hillel and Shammai, but not in any great detail, this first century, just into the first century at scholars when they died. Next slide there please. So with all that preamble, I hope that’s helpful. So just as a basic because when you think of Jesus and the time in a time of friction that there was particularly, and I’ll come onto this later in a lecture about the polemic against Jews of His day is allegedly against the Pharisees. So let’s have a look at the diversity and we must talk about Judaisms of the first century.
And I think that’s one of the mistakes that has been made until contemporary times to understand that Judaism in the first century was diverse. And I’m talking about the period before the establishment of rabbinic Judaism. So the Pharisees, then they emerged after the Maccabean Revolt. So we’re talking about, and I put deliberately put slides with factual information because I think it’ll be easier again, for people to digest because some of this later will be new to some audiences and I think it just helps you to digest. So the Maccabean Revolt then until 37 BCE before the common era, that’s we now use common era, that’s a common era between Judaism and Christianity. So this has emerged from the sages and the scribes and they will be different from the Sadducees, we’ll talk about them shortly. But they had a belief in Oral Torah. And I would argue surprisingly they were the group that was closest to Jesus in spite of the fact that one of the gospels, a gospel of Matthew has a lot of polemic, woe to you the Pharisees, but will come back to that. So he dines with them. There are scenes in the New Testament where he’s very close to them and he’s part of that developing Pharisaic tradition. So there are numerous references to them in the New Testament. Next slide please. So what about Hillel’s? So I’m setting out those are the contemporary with Jews. We think of the Pharisees, Hillel, his dates, I’ve got on the screen there for you.
I’m not going to go into any great detail about Hillel. Reputedly, as I’ve said, they’re the tribe of Benjamin, born in Babylon, died in Jerusalem and he lived during this period. Jesus was born around three, actually it’s not zero technically, but certainly we believe he died around 30. So He’s at most only a small child when Hillel dies. But He’s very much part of the Hillel tradition. He sits within that, He will have heard some of Hillel’s followers when He himself went to the temple. So Hillel associated as I put there with the development of Talmud and Mishnah and he becomes that revered special spiritual leader of this time. And as I’ve put there honoured president of the Sanhedrin for 40 years. Sanhedrin being that group of 70 elders. Next slide please. So what we’re going to look at, there are two, not the only strand, but two main strands if you like in this period which are relevant and which Christian scholars have now looked at in relation to Jesus, Hillel and Shammai. And I’ll come on to Shammai shortly. So both of them have got a sort of school if you like. Hillel arguably being the sort of highest authority among the Pharisees. And it’s his interpretation which we see largely comes through the Pharisaic tradition. And we argued that the modern Rabbinic tradition, I stand to be corrected of course descends largely from what has been recorded of Hillel. And we will see that Hillel actually had a more liberal interpretation than Shammai and even Jesus. And I’ve put there also his, so his grandson Gamaliel I studied under apostle Paul. We will come to Paul either in lecture two or three. Paul is really, really crucial in the whole situation.
So Gamamiel II compiler of the Mishnah. Next slide please. So Jesus is ultimately moving in a world, a sort of Pharisaic world where Hillel’s interpretation ends up becoming largely dominant within that. And eventually you can draw a line between that and Pharisaic Judaism. What about Shammai? The other sort of great school of this period. Shammai lives roughly until the time of the death of Jesus, a Palestinian Jew in a Pharisee as well. He’s applying the law of Moses to daily life rather than the emphasis on the temple. And when I come to look at the Sadducees, this is a very basic whistle stop tour before we get into the meat, believe it or not. So the Sadducees, we will see the difference and the tensions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. But even within Pharisaic Judaism, if we can call it that at this point there is, there is a vying of interpretation, a struggle for not necessarily an acrimonious one, but a struggle between Hillel largely and Shammai and Shammai putting more emphasis on the law of Moses for daily life than emphasis on the temple. And so those debates after the death of Jesus start to become quite heated. And we’ll come back to this after the Jewish rebellion of 66 and certainly around the time of the destruction of the temple in 70CE. And interestingly, Shammai’s thought by Christian scholars believe that in the end it’s his thought, his strand, this has largely shaped what later became Christianity or the shades of Christianity.
Although if you look at the New Testament quotations from Jesus himself, He is largely on the side of Hillel on most issues. Next slide please. So Shammai known to have a stricter interpretation of the law refuse to submit to foreign law. And this is something which is really, really crucial when we look at the groups of the first century, the groups against which Jesus is operating within that circle, we have to remember the impact of Roman occupation and that’s going to really impact on the theological or religious ideas and developments with the different groups within the diversity of Judaisms of the day. Now Shammai tried as to put that to strengthen the separation between Jew and Gentile. The Jewish rebellion approaching in 66, Shammai tried to prevent contact between Jew and Gentile, even down to sort of trading links. And we’ll come back to Jesus’ view of Gentile shortly because it’s very, very interesting. School of Hillel opposed, but not as strict as Shammai on the issue of contact and mixing between Jew and Gentile, which becomes far more important around the time of the Jewish rebellion. Next slide please. What about Jesus himself? And I know I had a comment recently from a very dear friend who said, well how do you know Jesus existed? Of course there’s no proof He existed. While I am working today on the premise He did, if He didn’t exist, we’ve got a whole religion, quite a diverse religion founded on a figure that didn’t exist. I actually believe He did exist and stood within the prophetic tradition. His date’s roughly 4BCE to 30 CE, BCE before common era, CE the common era. That’s in scholarship replaced BC and AD, which I hate, hate those terms. I think we should really be using these across the board.
And what shapes Him of course is Roman occupation and it affects not only Him, but the other diversity of groups emerging. This is a first century world that is struggling to cope with the oppressive rule. You have stories of course surrounding His birth. We won’t go into those. Question mark married Mary Magdalene. I’ve got a very interesting PowerPoint on Mary Magdalene. Too much to do for today. But my analysis during my PhD and then the Christian scholars think some think He was a sort of cynic, a wandering prophet. I think he stands within a sort of teacher prophetic mode. So as a prophet come teacher, I don’t think you can necessarily box Him into one particular group. He certainly was an itinerant prophet/teacher wandering around what was then Palestine teaching to the ordinary masses. But He’s, and this is so important, if you don’t go away with anything else today, it’s He stands within the diversity of Judaisms of His day. And I’m going to come onto a bit more of that diversity shortly. But that sort of prophetic, so He is got very much a teaching about the kingdom of God, the kingdom of God which He believes is imminent. He believes that the Roman authorities will be overthrown, probably in some kind of supernatural kind of event, but that’s not totally clear.
But He also stands within the prophetic tradition of Judaism feeling the closeness of God. You could say that’s evident in His experience in the wilderness. Whether that actually happened or not I think isn’t relevant at this point. The point is He feels the presence of God has a message and lives effectively the life of a prophet. But He’s quite unusual and I’m not sure whether this is me personally, I’m not sure whether the whole stories of a healer exorcist relate to Jesus Himself or whether that’s developed out of Christian tradition. So I have an open view on that. I’m not sure because within the Judaisms of the day there were not many who would be doing those kind of things, although there were a few. Next slide please. What about views on divorce? I’m going to give you just a few ideas of where Jesus sits in relation to Shammai and Hillel. So Shammai has a very strict view of the law on divorce. A man may not divorce his wife unless he is found unchastity in her. Hillel is more liberal, he may divorce even if she has merely spoiled his stew. Jesus is even harsher except for the gospel of Matthew. We’ve got Mark, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Matthew and John, the gospels of John are post destruction of the temple. Mark and Luke kind of earlier. But if you look at those early traditions, Jesus is harsher and He adds to this whole debate that divorce in the case of a woman’s unfaithfulness. Temple scroll. So He’s more in line with a strict view of Shammai.
Temple scroll from Qumran and I will come to Qumran shortly, prohibition on polygamy and possibly divorce. It’s not quite clear. Next slide please. So we got a bit more of the comparisons between them. So Hillel and Jesus, Shammai living before the destruction of the temple and I’m going to make quite a lot in tomorrow’s lecture of the pivotal moment is the destruction of the temple actually. So hold that in your mind for now. They’re living in this critical time as I’ve said of Roman occupation and the teachers and prophets of that time and the groups that emerge are largely and they’re religious thinking of development against that. Hillel and Jesus both have humble backgrounds, influential scholars who had disciples, both of them. And of course both of them become very important figures, first in the development of early Judaism. But of course with Christianity, Jesus becomes absolutely central and a very different figure from what we recognise in the first century. Next slide please. So what about other very important topics? So what about Hillel? Hillel could be more lenient on following and this is really important because it’s a really unusual phrase in the gospels where Jesus says to His followers, let the dead bury the dead. And it has baffled Christian scholars for a number of years, but there was more sacred really than giving honour and today in burying your dead in most Christian traditions and Jewish traditions it’s really, really and in Jesus’ day really important to have proper Jew burial for the dead. But you have this really strange phrase where Jesus turned around and says, no, let the dead bury their dead. And it has to be understood.
So He’s not as lenient as Hillel. It has to be understood in the context that Jesus thinks the end of the world is coming soon, that the Roman occupation will be overthrown. Some of these sayings which are quite difficult in the gospels in the New Testament have to be understood against the world of that time. They’re not meant to be eternal decrees from God via Jesus. They have to be understood. Jesus believed that the end was so imminent, really imminent that you didn’t have time to bury your dead. The call to follow Him, to bring in the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God was paramount. Hillel again, some of you may want to disagree or add to this in our discussion later had room for Gentiles within Judaism and there is evidence that around 300 BCE, and I’m not going to go into this in any detail now, but there was a proselytising wing of Judaism which didn’t follow through that did have room for Gentiles. But by and large the diversities of Judaisms do not have a mission to the gentile world and neither did Jesus. And I think this is really important and it’s probably where the church has gone drastically wrong at points and it’s clear in the earliest traditions of the gospels that Jesus’ mission, if you like, His outreach to those around Him who were the widows, the children, the poor, the destitute. It was only to phrase the lost house of Israel. He’s trying to bring back within Judaism a particular interpretation and not trying to widen it beyond that.
Hillel largely is my understanding and my reading, his teaching is not defined by apocalyptic belief. And what we mean by that apocalyptic belief being ideas about the end of the world. And again you might have comments on that, but Jesus’s ministry, if you strip it back, if you look at it, He is operating and His message relies on the idea that this world is going to change drastically. There’s going to be some, well almost supernatural you could say. But that whole apocalyptic idea is the idea of this end of the current world order and that really shapes the urgency of His mission. It shapes His form of Judaism and He still within Judaism is nothing that we’ve discussed so far, which at any point places Jesus outside of Judaism. He is closer to Hillel on purity issues. And I’m going to come back to this in a moment because there are some very interesting debates in this period over purity laws, whether they should be extended. And we are talking within Judaism at the time and all, Jesus is very conscious that all Jews have an equal place, no kind of hierarchy in the phrase the house of Israel. Next please. So some scholars have gone as far as to suggest that Jesus was actually a pupil of Hillel while Hillel dying around 10 CE wouldn’t be possible on Jesus’ dates, unless of course the story of Jesus being at the temple at the age of 12 is based on true tradition. Maybe at some point he did sit at the feet of Hillel. Who knows, it can’t be proved either way. Both resisted extension of the purity laws within Judaism and over taxation by the Romans. Next please.
And interestingly both clashed with the Sadducees and I’m coming to them because the Sadducees were seen to be in the hands of the Roman occupiers. Hillel and Jesus, both through their teaching show a sort of fear of love, sorry, fear of God and preach love, both spent time teaching in Jerusalem. This is really important now, both we know this of Hillel, but it’s important of Jesus. And when we talk about the Jewishness of Jesus, particularly in the Christian world, not many will acknowledge Jesus has accepted the sacrificial system of Judaism and He goes to the temple, He’s perfectly comfortable with that and He has worshipped in the temple. Now the shift will become obvious when we look at the destruction of the temple. Next slide please. Hillel. So some very interesting, very similar sayings between these three teachers. Hillel, “You must love your fellow man, bring him nearer to Torah.” Shammai, “One should teach only those who are wise, humble of distinguished ancestry and rich.” Jesus ministering to the poor and oppressed as I’ve mentioned. His mission to bring the kingdom of God to them, not to exclude them. So He very firmly sees himself as a prophet with that mission to usher in the kingdom of God, the end of Roman occupation.
Next slide please. But it’s also a time of transition. And again, I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but around this time in the lead up to the life of Hillel and Jesus, there is intense discussion over which books will form the Torah and prophets and no books have been added since to the Canonical Text. And it’s in the period of Hillel and Jesus that arguably Jewish liturgy takes a kind of firmly more recognisable form. Next slide please. So against the oppression of the Romans, we’ve got a time of transition and change. Famously of course Jesus is quoted for the so-called golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Well of course there are similar phrases with Hillel who says to a proselyte or would be a convert, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole Torah. The rest is explanation. Go learn.” So has Jesus drawn on Hillel? I think He stands personally, I think He stands within that tradition. Contrast Hillel largely interested in halacha, Jesus in haggadah. He’s telling his message in stories and parables. Next please. And very interestingly, and I love the work of the Jewish scholar and historian, David Flusser, the late David Flusser, he argued that Jesus and Hillel are two major representatives actually of the new sensitivity in Judaism. We’re talking about it in the first century. And now that’s a very, very interesting parallel, isn’t it?
That they are going to emerge as they’re the kind of new blood if you like, that are making an impact on Judaism as it’s diversity of Judaisms. And he sees very firmly Hillel’s influence in Jesus’ whole thinking. Next. Oh I put that in by the way that Jesus had a superior knowledge of sort of Rabbinic teaching than the apostle Paul. ‘Cause I think people tend to think that Paul with his education had the superior knowledge, but I thought I’d throw that in. Question then, did Jesus draw on the school of Hillel? So if you look, I’ve just put up a a couple of interesting parallel phrases. Again, if you see this is really quite new to a Christian audience who thinks largely that what Jesus is saying through the gospels has kind of come solely from Him. But if we’re going to roots Him within the Judaisms of His day, it’s interesting to look at the parallels between some of the sayings. So Rabbi Eliezar the Great, “He who has yet bread in his basket and says, what shall I eat tomorrow, belongs to those of little faith” What’s Jesus say in his parable? “Therefore do not be anxious saying what shall we eat? What shall we drink? Your heavenly Father knows you need them. Do not be anxious for tomorrow for tomorrow will take care of itself.”
Very, very similar. Hillel, another quote, “My humiliation is my exaltation. My exaltation is my humiliation.” It means who sits exalts humbles himself to see. Jesus, what did He say? “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Well, we don’t need to know, understand what exactly what they mean, but see the parallels when we start to get down to the sayings there are some really interesting parallels. Next, please. I’ve got some more there. I’ll give you a moment to read. “He who is not with me is against me.” Hillel, I love Hillel saying here, “If I’m not for myself, who is for me? If not now when?” I love that quote from Hillel, it’s a very similar one from Jesus and David Flusser. He’s not the only scholar to conclude, but I say I love his stuff. Both Hillel and Jesus were aware of the urgency of the moment, but with a divergence and he argues so with a different emphasis, as we’ve already said, Hillel being more on halacha, Jesus on haggadah. Hillel, he concludes was an existential philosopher whilst Jesus was an incarnation of a Jewish messianic movement. And we’re going to come back to the Messianic ideas because this is really, really important and the whole because again this is where I think a lot of the Christian interpretation has become difficult and not placing, not understanding Jesus within the Messianic ideas that are developing within the diversity of Judaisms at that time.
So Hillel an outstanding sage and thinker. Jesus, a charismatic healer and leader. But, and I really want to emphasise this and you’re going to be fed up with me saying this. Both stand within the diversity of the first century Judaisms of the day. Next slide please. So what about that diversity? Well we’re coming to that now. I’m not going to focus on Flavius Josephus. There is a reference to Jesus, which some scholars believe is a later addition to Jesus. And therefore do we really have anything about Jesus outside the gospels and Josephus? But I’m going to move on. Next slide please. Next slide please. Let’s just move on. I want to get to the diversity of sects within, okay, next slide please. I’m going to leave Josephus. Okay, this for me is really, really significant when we are looking at the historical Jesus, the Jewish Jesus where He sits, we’ve already hopefully you’re convinced, established that by and large, He has His own interpretations and thinking, He sort of thinking within the tradition, but He sits within the Hillel tradition. But against that backdrop we’ve discussed the Pharisees, you have the Essenes, the Sadducees and the Zealots. And they are the four, not only but a major. They are the four major groups. They are named in the gospels. They are the four major groups in the diversity of Judaisms that is struggling to cope with the oppression from the Romans.
Next slide please. So what about the Essenes? Qumran community. Yeah, we can’t talk about the first century without Qumran community. Next slide please. Wonderful images of this, of the archaeological digging in the 1960s that found these incredible, this incredible library of largely scholars believe it belonged to a group called the Essenes. Next slide please. So what about Qumran? They are a group who took themselves out of the mainstream. They offer themselves, they have a different ideology. They are a reaction just as Jesus, the Jesus movement. Those that follow Jesus and Jesus’ message. The Essenes who lived at Qumran near the Dead Sea. They were an alternative message. They were doing just what Jesus was doing in many ways, they are reacting to Roman occupation and it’s here that they have built I hope most of you have been because it’s an incredible site, this monastic complex. It’s a community that preaches non-violence. They’ve withdrawn to the desert. In fact, some scholars believe that Jesus is 40 days and 40 nights in the desert. Well the 40 days and 40 nights might be symbolic period. It could be three months, it could be two years. But they believe that He may have spent time with the Essenes and their emphasis is on purity and study. They are shutting themselves away from the world of the temple. They still believe in the temple, but they believe that the Sadducees have largely corrupted the temple and they are going to separate themselves out and wait for the new temple. Next slide please. Some of the treasures that were found, some of you might recognise. So they found several mikveh art on site. Again behind this whole idea of cleansing and ritual purity.
Next slide please. So what about those wonderful Dead Sea scrolls? I hope you’ve been to see those as well. Because to see those original scrolls are quite magical. So Qumran then a community of Essenes, a group who called themselves Essenes separated themselves in the desert believing that they could be pure ahead of the new temple founded. We don’t know the name of the priest, he’s just known in the scrolls as the Teacher of Righteousness that persecuted by the Jewish ruler who’s designated as the Wicked Priest. But again, not dissimilar to Jesus. They believe that the Roman rule would soon end, that God would triumph over evil and darkness. So they very much contrast light and darkness. They are the community living in the light. What’s going on in the temple in Jerusalem with the Sadducees is a sort of darkness. And these are when we are looking at first century Judaism, we can’t look at it now and scholars can’t look and don’t look at it. Geza Vermes did amazing amount of work on the Dead Sea scrolls as have others since. We can’t understand that first century world without looking at the religious development and ideology found in those Dead Sea scrolls. They are contemporary. They might be different from the mission of Jesus, from the mission message of Hillel. But they are one of the diversities of groups within Judaism any which could have become dominant at this time. And I think that’s another point to really take away. Firstly, that Jesus is within the diversity of one of these Judaisms of the day. And I’m placing him quite closely to Hillel. But any one of these four main groups, the Essenes the Sadducees, Pharisees and the Zealots, any one of those four could have emerged as the dominant form of Judaism. Leave that thought with you. Next up. I think that’s really important to understand.
Next slide please. So in some cases where Hillel is clearly developing some of his polemical stuff, directing his teachings possibly against the Essenes who have shut themselves away, they are now a sect within Judaism you could argue in exclusivity. They are seeing themselves as the true form of Judaism against the wicked and righteous and they are the righteous. So you have that, that contrast between light and darkness. And just to fast forward slightly on this, of course just two years actually is towards the end of the revolt, two years before the destruction of the temple, the Roman army is coming and they clear their library. This incredible library hide them in those jars. And that’s what was found in 1947 by a shepherd boy. Next slide. And the site was finally excavated in the 1960s. Properly excavated. Next slide please. So what did they find? Some of the texts are complete. Others fragments like you can see there are incredibly damaged, very difficult to read, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of these delicate. And there were different points at which the main bulk of this was found in 1947. But things have been found since and fragments were found in 11 caves in that area. And those texts as I’ve put there, ‘cause I think it’s helpful range from the date from roughly 200BCE to 70CE. So some were written around or just before the destruction of the temple and they provide, very importantly, as I’ve said, a contemporary view. One, a contemporary view of Jewish thought in the first century. Next slide please. So what else do we have?
Well, I’m not going to get into the pseudopigrapha, but we also have the pseudopigrapha are those books in the period between the Maccabean Revolt and the New Testament writings, which again I think do reflect some of the development of thinking of that time. They are used by the Roman Catholic Church. You have for this period Josephus. Again, there are arguments over how much of him we can trust. We have the New Testament, we have Rabbinic writings, but all of these are heavily redacted. But the importance, I suppose scholars would argue that the Dead Sea scrolls are pretty much as they first get, they have not been redacted. And what we find not dissimilar to Jesus and His whole view of the kingdom of God, this strong messianic expectation, anti-priestly authorities, anti-temple. And if you think of the scene where Jesus is overturning the tables in the temple and scholars have argued about this, particularly Christian scholars for centuries believing that in an overturning the tables in the temple, Jesus was wanting to get rid of the temple. That absolutely is not the accepted understanding of that episode today. There is no evidence Jesus wanted the destruction of the temple. No, He’s operating within that. He has very strong Messianic expectations, much as the Qumran community do. So He is against the corruption that’s going on in the temple and still functioning within that. And what we’ll see is that His early followers after His death still go to the temple. And if Jesus had very strongly said the temple is over, His early followers, His disciples would not have still been going to the temple.
And we know that because it’s in the New Testament. So when you start looking at the detail, I’m wondering, I am going to obviously work through in these four lectures where it all goes wrong. So don’t worry, we’re going to have a perspective on that. So what do the Qumran scrolls give us? They provide us in summary, as I’ve put there a window onto the strong apocalyptic views of first century Judaisms. It should be, shouldn’t it? Judaisms and messianic expectations. So the Roman occupation is so severe that it’s kind of causing a crisis of development and reaction and a whole diversity of Judaisms in that period. Next slide please. Oh look at this. I had to show this the wonderful copper scroll. It’s very, very rare. This was found in amongst, so the most of the scrolls are parchment, but they have this really rare copper scroll. Love it. Next slide please. So little bit more, excuse me about those scenes. They are essentially, I suppose, which is quite unusual for Judaism monastic. They have shut themselves away in the desert believing that the end like Jesus, believing that the end is near. Jesus didn’t shut Himself away ultimately. But I’m saying the idea that the end is coming, they shared commune meals, they had this emphasis on purity as I’ve said. And they would purify themselves at least once a day before what was described as the pure meal. And they ate silence, don’t know why they eat in silence. But some very interesting attributes which get carried over into a Christian monasticism actually. Next slide please. Excuse me. So what do we have amongst this incredible library? I’ve just listed the main items there that they’re known by and scholars are still working on these incredible text, to understand some of the views and some of it, quite astonishing in the early part of this scholarship.
I just think they are so valuable for this period as are, and we’ll talk about that if I ever do the Mary Magdalene lecture, there are some other Christian texts which don’t make it into the gospels and I think they are also interesting for ideas of the time. Next slide, please. Excuse me. So there is this whole idea again the imagery you see in the New Testament about blessings and curse because we tend to think that this has all come from the mouth of Jesus, that this whole idea of cursing your enemies and heaping blessings. But the community rule in particular had this stark contrast and it refers to outsiders and scholars believe that they are largely talking about those that ran the temple. So the priests and the levies that they are not talking about the Pharisees. Next slide please. They also had, I’m not going to read all of this, but apocryphal psalms. So they have amongst this literature, psalms of their own not dissimilar to the Psalms that we find in the Hebrew Bible. Next slide please. Yeah, okay, well we’ll carry on. Oh no, I mean, no, before we move on, the important point here, the whole emphasis on Messiah and looking for a Messianic figure. And again, that whole Messianic idea, certainly within Christianity. Jesus perhaps seeing Himself as the Messiah and Christians have traditionally portrayed this as a uniquely Christian idea of stemming from Jesus. Actually we find this whole idea of the Messiah capital M of Israel in the Qumran community.
So I think we can’t underestimate the importance of Qumran community and those Dead Sea scrolls for understanding both Judaism and the emergence of Christianity from this diversity of Judaisms. And I also want to say what’s really, next slide please really, really important. At no point does Jesus undermine the Jewish religion. And I think that’s really important. It’s important for supersessionist Christian thinking. Next slide please. Because traditionally, and we will come to that. Move on to the next one please. It’s about healing the poor again, you’ve got this whole idea within the Qumran community, parallels with Jesus. Yeah. Servicing, healing the poor, reaching out to them. And what I want us to go away with is the fact that Jesus is working within these traditions. We’ve placed Him closely within the Hillel tradition, but He has not, not abrogated the covenant. And that’s really, really important. And what we will discuss in future lectures is where does that come from? The whole idea that Christianity has superseded Judaism? And it’s a problem in anti-Jewish thinking, but there is nothing because Christianity is traditionally set, well it stems from Jesus. If you look now at historical scholarship by Jewish scholars as well as Christian scholars, it’s absolutely clear that nowhere has Jesus denied the covenant. He’s working to the people of Israel, people of Israel as they’re called at that time solely to them. Now if we look at the apocalyptic battle, I’ve called it in the Qumran community, if we look at some of their language, it is so similar to the last book of the Christian Bible, the book of Revelation, which one of my lecturers once said, well the key to the book of Revelation has been thrown away. Nobody understands it.
Well, if you look at the Qumran community, there is very similar language. Nobody knew what on earth this weird imagery was in the last book of the Christian Bible. But we’ve got some of this very strange language coming out of the Qumran community and it’s all part of that apocalyptic battle. This idea that the Romans are going to be overthrown, there’s going to be this huge kind of battle. Yeah. Next slide please. So what about the points of agreement? There are some very interesting parallels and I’m just checking where I’m at in my lecture. I’m keeping an eye on the time. Yeah, we’re going to be okay. Okay. I might just be five minutes over because we started five minutes late, if that’s okay. So what about the points of agreement between Jesus and the Qumran? Because within the Christian community there’s been no, within the scholarship community, yes, but largely within the Christian community no understanding. It’s just a sort of belief that Jesus has got these ideas. But where have they come from? There are some really interesting parallels with the Dead Sea scroll movement. So they have this apocalyptic view of the end times.
So they believe the end is coming, they have Messianic expectations which the Sadducees don’t have. So they see probably even more so you could argue than Jesus. Jesus seeing some kind of hailing in the kingdom of God is not necessarily a violent apocalyptic end. But for those members, those are scenes of the Qumran community. It’s very much a massive sort of battle that’s between Sons of Light it says in Kittim the Sons of Darkness, the Kittim of the Romans. So all this imagery is quite violent and that emphasis also because the end is coming, this fierce battle which could be violent, you got to be on the right side. You think, ooh, where have I heard that before? There is an emphasis on repentance, but a strict disagreement with Jesus on, they were far, far stricter than Jesus would be on the purity laws. But that’s fine, it’s just a disagreement of different interpretation within Judaism. Jesus is not abrogating anything within the Jewish tradition. He is actually part of an interpretation. And again, that whole emphasis on repentance you can see through the scriptures of the Qumran community. Next slide please. So what about the Sadducees? Well, we do know a bit about the Sadducees, don’t we? They’re based around the temple. I’ve put their dates there. Of course they only survive until the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE. They were an important fabric of life in that period of course. But the disillusionment and a lot of the polemic if you strip it back in the gospels is actually directed against the Sadducees. They are seen at the overturning of the tables. Jesus overturning the tables of the temple.
They are seen as having been made a deal with the devil if you like. They are in with the Roman occupation, they’re helping with the gathering of the taxation, the overtaxation. And then now questions are raised about the legitimacy of their roles within the temple. Not only by Jesus and His followers, but also by the Qumran community. They are a reaction if you like, to this particular group. Next slide please. Okay, so very quickly they are of course responsible for performing sacrifices in the temple. Jesus certainly, as did the Qumran community disagreed with their corruption. They’re not disagreeing with the existence of the temple. And I’m not fast forwarding that to say whether we today would have difficulties with temple and sacrifice. That’s not the relevant issue here. The relevant issue is that Jesus has accepted that He’s not called for the destruction of the temple anymore than the Qumran community have. The Qumran community believe there’s going to be a new temple, but they are working within the confines of Judaism of today. And the problem with the Sadducees, the problem which the Pharisees have with them, the problem with Jesus and the Qumranites have with them is the fact that they are in with the Romans, they are in with the oppressor. Next slide please. They’re collaborators. What do they believe? Again, you’ll see this very different from Jesus and the Pharisees. There’s no belief in human free will, no afterlife, no idea of reward or punishment, no resurrection of a dead, really, really important difference.
Yeah, about free will, no afterlife, no resurrection of the dead. And that’s different than the afterlife, the resurrection of dead meaning in like a physical form, rejection of the Oral Torah. And that coupled, I’m just preempting a little bit about what I was going to say. That coupled with the destruction of the temple, they could not survive the destruction of the temple. So they actually become an obsolete form of Judaism. So for them the whole authority is invested in Torah and not in anything else. Next slide please. So what about the polemic against Jesus and the Pharisees? And this is dreadful, the woes as they’re called in Matthew chapter 23, woe to you, the Pharisees who traverse the land and see for a single proselyte and all these woes, they only appear in the gospel of Matthew. And scholars have now looked at that, they don’t appear elsewhere. They’re directed it’s now believed against a particular branch of Pharisees. And I’ve put their question mark, the the school of Shammai rather than the school of Hillel. So now we’ve got to be really careful about saying that Jesus was against the Pharisees. There’s nothing which we have looked at today, which places him outside the Pharisaic tradition. He’s following largely within the line of Hillel in disagreement with Shammai. Okay, so what he’s doing, what Matthew 23 does, which is later it’s only in that gospel and it’s later, but it’s reflecting effectively the debates over the extension of Oral Torah. So the Shammites wanting to develop sometimes stricter than Hillel. And this is all part of the working out of the debates. Jesus is not anti the Judaisms of the day. He’s part of that debate. And in saying that He’s Jewish isn’t enough, I think we have to understand where He stands in that diversity and where he stands on the development of Oral Torah, where he stands with regard to the temple.
But he firmly stands within first century Judaism. Next slide please. Okay, so we’re coming to the final few slides for today. So what about the difference? I think it’s quite helpful to have on screen. I don’t expect you to remember all this, the difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees then. So the disagreement, the biggest difference and disagreement in the first century was over purity laws. And if you look at some of the stories in the New Testament, Jesus is also worrying about the kind of worries, but there’s this whole debate whether you should wash the inside of the cup or the outside of the cup or both. It seems quite obscure. What’s Jesus doing talking about this? It’s part of the discussion of purity laws. Should the purity laws within Judaism be extended? It doesn’t take Jesus outside Judaism. So it’s really interesting if you really dive into some of the more obscure early traditions, particularly within Mark and the gospel of Luke, you see these rather strange debates. When you look at them, it’s Jesus developing His view, His his part of Oral Torah. So there’s also disagreements over damages legally, but disagreement over resurrection. And one of the most problematic passages has been Matthew 23 that whole woe to the Pharisees where Jesus allegedly describes the Pharisees as a brood of vipers. This is Matthew’s community struggling as we will see later next time. Next slide please. What about the Proselytes? What about mission? We can talk about this if Trudy and I do have this discussion because my whole PhD was looking at the links between anti-Judaism. Where do the roots of anti-Judaism come from? And it could possibly be from within the missionary strand that developed.
So if we look at the whole idea of converts, so the Pharisees “Woe unto the Pharisees for they traverse the land and sea for a single proselyte,” Jesus allegedly said. But if you look outside the gospel of Matthew, outside the woes, there is nothing to suggest that this is important. Jesus had a mission to the gentile world. It’s to, in His phrase of a “lost sheep of the House of Israel”, He’s ministering to Jews and only to Jews. His mission, I’m sorry it’s a horribly Christian word really now. His mission is within Judaism, it’s not outside. There is He has no, He’s not interested in gentiles. Next slide please. Coming to my final comments for today. And one of the scholars who made a real impact, I’m going to finish literally in the next five minutes. The scholar who made a real impact, certainly in my early days of university of 30 years ago was EP Sanders. His book “Jesus and Judaism” was quite revolutionary for the Christian world, the Christian scholars, excuse me. He wrote, “There’s no substantial disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees except Jesus’ extension of the purity laws.” So that’s an astonishing statement. There is no essential disagreement. Jesus is within the line of Hillel. He’s within the pharisaic line of Judaism. He’s that close to the pharisaic tradition. He’s within it. Matthew’s community, arguably he is having problems with the Pharisees.
That’s where the polemic comes from. And each school that we’ve been talking about, those groups and those, the school of Hillel, Shammai, the Essenes, we didn’t come to the Zealots, but end up in Masada. But they are working as different interpretations, importantly within the boundaries of Judaism. Next slide please. Something quickly on the Messianic expectations. And then my final slide. Probably will want your supper. So what does Messiah mean? Literally anointed one. So important to say neither Hillel nor Shammai saw themselves as messianic figures. What about the historical Jesus? It is possible that He saw himself as a messianic figure, a prophetic figure who had a message that the end of the world was nigh, the kingdom of God was coming, everybody get ready. But he does not see himself in any way as divine. It’s really, really important. And I might tease that out a bit further. What does the Messiah do? The Messiah ushers in an era of peace, a new world order, looks to the return of Jews to the homeland from the diaspora and is of Davidic descent. There is nothing to say he is divine and Jesus operated completely within that. There’s nothing in His essential ideas of messiahship which would disagree with concepts of messiahship in the Qumran community or within Messianic groups and figures at that time. Next slide please.
So very divisive views started to emerge of Messiah. You had all sorts of proclaimers to messiahship during the first century. And the most contentious of course start and we’ll tease a bit more of this out in the other lectures, the most difficult parts start to emerge when some early Christians, and I’m qualifying this, we can’t say early Christians and love them together, started to claim divinity for Jesus. And where does that come from? Jesus didn’t appear to fulfil for them the Jewish ideas of Messiah and particularly when He’s killed, there’s a whole following that has to cope with the crisis that He hasn’t ushered in the Messianic era. Last slide please. And one of the things you find that happens within Christianity, you get a second coming, Jesus is coming again. Yeah, there’s none of that earlier in the gospels. So the diversity of this is really, really important. The diversity of first century Judaisms led to the gradual partings of the ways. And what I want to look at tomorrow is where did it all go wrong?
Because Jesus is just another voice. Okay, it might be powerful within His day, it might be as powerful as Hillel or not. He is part of the diversity of Judaism. So how come we’ve got everything that came after? Where did it all go wrong? So finally, finally, you take away with you today the idea that Jesus is standing within the diversity of Judaisms and He is not seeking to overthrow the temple, to overthrow Judaism, to see the covenant as finished. Absolutely not. He is working within that diversity. And I think that will prove to be hugely liberating. And I think it’s something which might ultimately mean that Christianity is not irredeemably anti-Semitic. Thank you. I’ll see you tomorrow.
Thanks Helen. That was incredibly informative.
Well. I studied Christianity when I was at university and I actually found it so fascinating. I’m thrilled that you’re on this track and I’m looking forward to part two, three, four and actually imagine it’s going to go on a little bit longer.
There’s a lot to discuss. I think it’s so important though, Wendy, for all this, how we understand, I mean, I’m not lecture about antisemitism, but if we understand this, I think we can make progress.
Absolutely. And to understand where Saul of Tarsus fits into this. He was a Zealot, wasn’t he?
Sorry? Who? Yes. No, he’s of the Pharisaic tradition. I’m coming to Paul tomorrow. Yeah.
Okay.
He’s really interesting ‘cause he’s not the one actually that begins to take Judaism out in, he’s not the initial instigator, but there’s some fascinating stuff which I think we can kind of explore and have lots.
Are you going to look into look at Corinthians?
Yes. Absolutely.
Great. Fantastic. Alright. Thank you very much. Thanks everyone for joining us. Happy rest of December. Oh, it’s the 22nd today, right?
[Helen] Yes.
Ushering in the 22’s. Alrighty everyone. Thanks. Thanks Jude. See you soon.
[Judi] Okay we’ll see you for the next talk.
Yes.
Yes of course. We have got another talk in about 50 minutes on Jewish humour, Rex Bloomstein. So looking forward to that. Thank you, Jude. Thank you.
[Judi] Thanks .