First of all, the Essenes weren't the "zealots". Zealots were a different group entirely from the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees, and never achieved the prominence of the others, although they became (in)famous during their actions in the siege of Jerusalem.
While it's impossible to fully reconstruct what any historical Jesus was like, at the very least the positions ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are more akin to Pharisee positions than any of the other 3 sects mentioned.
>I know the Essenes weren't Zealots, but the author of that book contends Jesus was a Zealot.
Oh, my mistake. I can only offer limited insight, having not read the book myself.
>I don't know if they were necessarily Pharisee positions per se, unless the Essenes rejected the oral law.
No, he cites a lot of Pharisee party lines; "The Sabbath was made for man" and the golden rule uttered in Matthew 7:12 are both also spoken in substantially the same words by the Pharisee Hillel some 60 years prior.
Besides, Essenes had a huge focus on ritual purity and the shunning of those that were considered uncouth or impure, which isn't exactly Jesus.
>>679305 >No, he cites a lot of Pharisee party lines; "The Sabbath was made for man" and the golden rule uttered in Matthew 7:12 are both also spoken in substantially the same words by the Pharisee Hillel some 60 years prior.
Isn't that because they're in the oral law? Jesus supported the oral law, that much we know, because he said so himself. The whole Resurrection of the Dead also comes from the oral law (which is why the Sadducees didn't support it).
>>679276 did any of the groups ever formally "claim" him? so to speak?
the views shared in the gospels and the generally accepted historical overview of his life doesn't seem to mesh with any of these groups
Besides, how could Jesus possibly be some hard-hitting fuck-you-up mongler on par with Mohammed when he died before the age when Mohammed even started seeing revelations, and what's more, appears on so few unaffiliated documents as to imply that, if he lived at all, he must have been nothing noteworthy in the eyes of his contemporaries.
Major focus on temple rites and the hereditary priesthood. Reject not only the then current Oral Law, but the idea that there is such a thing. Have been in a fued with the Pharisees for about 300 years by the time Jesus is around. Biggest following was in Jerusalem itself, their major adherents tended to be the priesthood and the nobility. Politically, favored collaborating with Rome, although were somewhat hostile, and would join in the Revolt in 66 despite arguing against it.
Ancestors to modern Rabbinic Judaism. Believed in an oral law, which would start to be written down around 120. Broad but unfocused support among the Judean populace, the single largest of the sects. Do not like the Sadducees for trying to place a priest on the Davidic throne after the Maccabean revolt. They view that the Rabbis and the educated are the ultimate spiritual authorities, and that you have to adopt a flexible approach towards scripture. Very opposed towards Roman rule, the great revolt basically started under Pharisee direction.
>>679328 >did any of the groups ever formally "claim" him? so to speak? It's impossible to know. There are no surviving Essenic writings. The the first mention of the Pharisees is the New Testament, so any later Pharisaic writings would obviously disown Christ. The Zealots tortured and executed Christians with a fervor far beyond the Pharisees, so even if Christ were a Zealot in his own time, by that time he clearly wouldn't be associated with them, and that is when most of the testaments by Zealots dates to.
We know he wasn't a Sadducee for sure, since everything about him is completely incompatible with their position.
Much smaller than the other two. Very ascetic and isolationist: a lot of Essenes ran off to live in what were basically proto-monastaries away from large concentrations of people, would sometimes take vows of celibacy and/or poverty, the former of which is viewed as outright sinful in more mainstream sects of Judaism. Large focus on ritual purity (Impurity by the way, isn't sin. It's complicated), would often immerse in a "mikveh" daily, far more than you're really required to by the standards of the other sects. It is generally thought that the Qumran (Dead Sea) scrolls were from an Essenian splinter group, although I'm aware there are some people who challenge that.
Smaller even than the Essenes. Primarily a political, not a theological movement, a lot of their positions were similar to the Pharisees, although they rejected a lot of the Oral Law as practiced, preferring instead to only acknowledge the authority of their own sages rather than mainstream Pharisee ones. Extremely violent. One of the few groups in Judea who would actually fatally attack other Jewish groups over theological disputes. Tended to live as brigands and wild-men. Most infamous for burning down the grain sheds during the Siege of Jerusalem, as well as trying to murder several high priests.
The thing is, there's no unified Oral Law in Judaism, especially not in the 1st century. You have a bunch of Rabbis running around saying things, and eventually, the teachings of the most influential Rabbis became a kind of canon. But back then, the mere fact that Hillel said something wouldn't make it Oral Law, especially not if you were say, one of Shammai's students. (A rival Rabbi to Hillel)
Caution around oaths is very, very old in Judea, going all the way back to some of the lessons included in Judges and Samuel. Poverty is more Essene. Carrying weapons is most associated with Zealots, the Essenes tended to be more of a "withdraw from the world" sort of position. None of them are really part of what you'd think of in the oral law.
>did any of the groups ever formally "claim" him? so to speak?
Not that I'm aware of. He's generally regarded as a heretic and maybe a sorcerer in most Jewish circles, but admittedly, most writing about him tends to be centuries after the fact when divisions with Christianity were already deep and bitter. The few positive mentions of him in the Gemara tend to portray him more as an itinerant teacher and faith healer, not really associated with any of the "parties"
>I'm talking about the (hypothetical) oral law passed down by Moses.
But even that, part of said Oral Law was a chain of transmission as to who was empowered to make further rulings, laws, adaptations to the times, etc, You had certain things that supposedly went all the way back to Moses, like how to properly slaughter an animal, and what species of fruit you were supposed to use as an etrog, but you had other rulings that were much newer, like how a proper religious court was supposed to operate.
A lot of say, Hillel's views are Hillel's, and would have been understood as such by contemporaries, Jesus quoting him is something of a declaration of allegiance to a specific school of thought. (Assuming those quotes are in fact genuine, of course)
Not just that, but because you were supposed to be trying to achieve the highest possible personal standard, with little thought to a community outside the Essenes themselves. They were kind of elitist, at least in the writings we have of them (Very little Essenic material survives, mostly we have what other groups wrote about them, so you have to take such proclamations with a grain of salt).
If you say so. I hardly have Josephus memorized. Still, they weren't militant to the extent of other goups, and I seem to recall from long-ago perusal of Josephus that they were supposed to be peacemakers and never lose their tempers, and while not completely pacifistic, weren't the sort to condone militant opposition to Rome or other public ills, just personal self defense.
Because they viewed ordinary townspeople as impure enough and spiritually dangerous enough that the model Essene fled from such people to live in the wilderness with only other Essenes. Actually going out and mingling with such polluted people? You'd probably be kicked out of the sect.
>>679375 >But even that, part of said Oral Law was a chain of transmission as to who was empowered to make further rulings, laws, adaptations to the times, etc, These are court ruling, not individual rabbinic opinion. It's not like Judaism today.
>>679385 >Because they viewed ordinary townspeople as impure enough and spiritually dangerous enough that the model Essene fled from such people to live in the wilderness with only other Essenes. Actually going out and mingling with such polluted people? You'd probably be kicked out of the sect. This seems like an inference. They were sort of like monks, but there are plenty of monks who minister to people who aren't monks. If they didn't, then how would people like Josephus and Philo know anything about them?
Not the debates between Shammai and Hillel's schools, which were around concurrently with the Sanhedrin. And there are hundreds of those. Quite a few of the other Zugoth and Tanaaim were around before the diaspora.
>>679419 But these rabbinic debates you're talking about were not necessarily considered the same as oral law. There's a big difference between a lawyer's legal commentary, and court rulings, I'm sure they made the distinction.
>But these rabbinic debates you're talking about were not necessarily considered the same as oral law
Yes. But unlike say, modern American common law, you had a much more fluid system as to how one became the other. The Sanhedrin would not be sitting around, gathering everyone from all across the country, to determine if Simon the woodcutter built his Sukkah too high. They debated, they made their proclamations, and people did what the more influential rabbi said, and as the years lengthened and you got a consensus in fact, that became part of the oral law.
It was a pretty anarchic system, and if you look in what was eventually written down, you don't see any evidence of such a distinction, just the opinions and what arguments were used to back them up. Often times you don't even get a pronouncement as to which Rabbi was right, because it wasn't settled at the time of writing.
>>679461 >if you look in what was eventually written down, you don't see any evidence of such a distinction Yeah, but that's partly because it was written after the effective collapse of the Sanhedrin. If the Sanhedrin were still a powerful institution that had absolute and continual authority over all Jews, then I'm sure there would be a significant distinction in the writings. Because Rabbis *don't* have an absolute consensus, they disagree tremendously.
>Yeah, but that's partly because it was written after the effective collapse of the Sanhedrin. If the Sanhedrin were still a powerful institution that had absolute and continual authority over all Jews, then I'm sure there would be a significant distinction in the writings. Because Rabbis *don't* have an absolute consensus, they disagree tremendously.
Which is one of the reasons why practice, even in the Sanhedrin "dominated" Judea, was so divergent. This whole conversation got started because you have several major (not to mention the dozens of smaller groups) sects all bickering with each other nonstop over matters of doctrine and theology.
Ultimately, the Sanhedrin just wasn't that powerful of an institution, certainly not powerful enough to bring everyone in Palestine to heel with the views of its senior people (The Av Beit Din were usually Hillel's students, at least by Jesus's time.) And even before the main diaspora, you still had fairly significant communities outside of Israel proper, over whom the Sanhedrin had virtually no practical reach whatsoever.
>>679563 I haven't read the book (and I'm guessing you haven't either) but why would a Muslim want to bash Jesus? Islam acknowledges Him as prophet and Messiah, to outright attack Jesus would be seen as a blasphemy.
An error on my part, I'm afraid. The Maccabean revolt started in 167 B.C.E., which would make the fued a bit younger than 200 years, not 300. But it started with the Maccabes and how the rabbinic establishment thought they were using the revolt to gather too much power to the priesthood.
>>679350 By the sounds of things, Jesus and his followers seemed to have tapped in to a lot of the popular appeal of a lot of these movements, synchrotizing them into a whole, which might explain in part Christianities success.
Do you recognise the global confrontation between Islam and Christianity or not? If not, you're too naive to properly interpret what a muslim author is doing when he attacks Jesus and tries to make him seem as violent as Mohammed.
>>679723 And yet all every ass-devastated /pol/io can do is say Aslan is a liar without ever actually producing an argument as to where he's both wrong and knows he's wrong but pretends not to know the difference.
Hint: it's because the books is actually well reasoned and, frankly, convincing. This triggers the idiot.
>>679726 Of course there is a confrontation between Islam and Christianity, this wasn't the argument. I was disputing your implication that a Muslim was trying to defame a figure venerated in his own religion, which you've suddenly decided to drop.
>>679761 >He lied about having a PhD in "religious studies", which the university he studied at does not even offer. What they said was they don't offer a specific Ph.D. in religious studies but that he's correct to characterize himself in that way because his sociology doctorate focused on religion.
>>679800 Of course they're not, that would be inconvinient. They are a jewish ploy to make muhammad look bad, he'd never do that and its entirely out of character for him as a peaceful pacifist. Also he was the first feminist. On being a christfag, I think christianity is more toxic in general, because its pretends to be compatible with modern society. With islam at least its immideately obvious that its incompatible.
>>679800 >hadith are not Islamic canon, plebby Yes there are, unless you want to posit that there is no Islamic canon just like there is no Christian one >wuh wuh wuh every sect picks its own writings therefore none of them have merit
I suppose how he conquered the arabian peninsula and half the Mediterranean while spreading Islam at the tip of the sword is also a misrepresentation, fabrication and exaggeration?
>>679603 He's trying to show Jesus as violent. Which is not necessarily an insult in Islam, in fact it makes Jesus much more in line with Mohammed. For those who aren't sympathetic toward Islam, it helps invalidate Christian criticism of Mohammed as violent compared to a non-violent Jesus.
Listen, you dumb cunt, it doesn't work that way. Usul al-fiqh is derived from the Qur'an, the Sunnah, legal consensus, and interpretation of those three things. The Qur'an is the canonical word of God. All hadith, excluding the hadith qudsi, are just sayings that have been passed down WITH the knowledge by even their chroniclers that none of them are without doubt trustworthy and MAY or MAY NOT be usable in jurisprudence.
The one thing I would point out is that Christainity was relatively unsuccessful until they started proselytizing to non-Jews. It was Paul and his followers among the Gentiles that became the dominant Christian faction, not James and his Jerusalem community.
And I would also caution that using the Gospels as demonstration of what Jesus actually preached might not be accurate. The first manuscripts start popping up way, way later, and might have reflected what was in vogue of the Christians of the day, which might or might not have been what Jesus was running around preaching.
>>679888 >The first manuscripts start popping up way, way later, the Gospels are more accurate in terms of continuity form the earliest times than any other ancient text, as well as the Quran which was not recorded for hundreds of years afterward, meanwhile the gospels were written within the same generation, something fairly unheard of in the Roman era
>>679888 >The one thing I would point out is that Christainity was relatively unsuccessful until they started proselytizing to non-Jews. The necessity of the Council of Jerusalem shows that Jews had a pretty large presence in early Christianity.
>>679847 Been a while since I've read it, but I distinctly recall him citing Christ saying he did not come to bring peace, but a sword, and saying Christ wanted to put a bunch of people to death. He also said that is why Christ wanted his followers to carry swords.
I will download it and find the page number for you, if you'd really like me to, but I do not think you have read it, because if you did, then you missed the whole premise.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.