37 replies to this topic

[Ron Beron]

Simple question without a lot of commentary, but was Jesus an Essene.  There are a number of similarities as well as differences and frankly, I am curious as to what others say.

[mercyngrace]

I've read it's more likely He was a Pharisee of the Hillel school. His only notable deviation from Hillel being His position on divorce.

I recall reading how He likely dined with a group of Essenes but the details are sketchy in my memory and have to do with a man carrying a pot near the gate of the city... I'd have to look it up.

eta: It was the Last Supper - He sent His disciples to find a man carrying water and some believe it was at the bathroom gate. This is referenced in Luke 22. Seems like it may be that tradition puts the upper room at the part of the city which was known to be an Essene center but again, it's been a while. II'll see if I can dig up a reference.

His condemnation of subsets of Pharisees (hypocrites, the ever reckoning, the shoulder pharisees, etc ) parallels the writings of other Pharisees who condemned 5 or 6 of the types of Pharisees in similarly harsh terms.

Seems like John the Baptist would more likely be the Essene if you're looking for one.

Edited by mercyngrace, 21 August 2012 - 05:56 PM.

[Ron Beron]

mercyngrace, on 21 August 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

I've read it's more likely He was a Pharisee of the Hillel school. His only notable deviation from Hillel being His position on divorce.

I recall reading how He likely dined with a group of Essenes but the details are sketchy in my memory and have to do with a man carrying a pot near the gate of the city... I'd have to look it up.

eta: It was the Last Supper - He sent His disciples to find a man carrying water and some believe it was at the bathroom gate. This is referenced in Luke 22. Seems like it may be that tradition puts the upper room at the part of the city which was known to be an Essene center but again, it's been a while. II'll see if I can dig up a reference.

His condemnation of subsets of Pharisees (hypocrites, the ever reckoning, the shoulder pharisees, etc ) parallels the writings of other Pharisees who condemned 5 or 6 of the types of Pharisees in similarly harsh terms.

Seems like John the Baptist would more likely be the Essene if you're looking for one.

Good points.  I agree with your understanding of John the Baptist.  Since he was a  "prophet from the wilderness" it would make sense that he would have followed the Essene discipline.

[volgadon]

There were some Essene influences on Jesus, but I agree with M&G that Hillelic influence is stronger. Aso, while John may have been Essene, I think at some point he broke with the group. Otto Betz laid out a strong case for that. http://calba-savua.b...nd-essenes.html
However, rather than pigeonhole Jesus into this group or another, I feel a better starting point is to look at "common Judaism" and see how Jesus diverged from it.

[bluebell]

Bart Ehrman has stated that most scholars do NOT believe Jesus was an Essene.  He talks about the differences in their beliefs a bit in the book i am reading right now.  If you are interested, i can find the info and post it.

[David T]

This is where I recommend John Meier's A Marginal Jew: Rethinking The Historical Jesus multi-volume series. An absolutely fantastic, exhaustive, and important work.

[CASteinman]

I don't think Jesus was a Pharisee but he had some traits like them.

John the Baptist was not an Essene but he had some traits like them.  

John was, particularly, a Temple Rebel.  The way I see it, he performed Temple Ordinances outside of the Temple, but still according to Law and this was a revolutionary thing.  Not Revolutionary against the Romans but against the Temple Structure -- including all of the Jews both Sadducee and Pharisee that supported that system.

[Nevo]

Ron Beron, on 21 August 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

Simple question without a lot of commentary, but was Jesus an Essene.  There are a number of similarities as well as differences and frankly, I am curious as to what others say.

John Meier answers this question, as virtually all scholars do, in the negative:

"The basic difference in attitude and lifestyle between the aloof, ascetic Essenes and the gregarious, banquet-loving Jesus suggests from the start that Jesus himself was not an Essene. The Essenes' obsession with details of legal and cultic observances (sabbath, regular lustrations, purity at community meals, a correct calendar), its fierce sectarian dualism that fostered hatred of enemies, and its priestly-hierarchical structures contrast sharply with Jesus' lack of concern with or outright rejection of such matters.

The similarities that did exist between Jesus and the Essenes can often be explained quite simply: both Jesus and the Essenes were eschatologically minded Palestinian Jews who were nourished by the Jewish Scriptures read in a prophetic light, Jews who were concerned with the renewal of Israel in the end time, and Jews who stood in varying degrees of tension vis-a-vis the priestly authorities controlling the Jerusalem temple" (John P. Meier, Companions and Competitors, vol. 3, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus [New York: Doubleday, 2001], 633).

[Robert F. Smith]

mercyngrace, on 21 August 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

I've read it's more likely He was a Pharisee of the Hillel school. His only notable deviation from Hillel being His position on divorce.

I recall reading how He likely dined with a group of Essenes but the details are sketchy in my memory and have to do with a man carrying a pot near the gate of the city... I'd have to look it up.

eta: It was the Last Supper - He sent His disciples to find a man carrying water and some believe it was at the bathroom gate. This is referenced in Luke 22. Seems like it may be that tradition puts the upper room at the part of the city which was known to be an Essene center but again, it's been a while. II'll see if I can dig up a reference.

His condemnation of subsets of Pharisees (hypocrites, the ever reckoning, the shoulder pharisees, etc ) parallels the writings of other Pharisees who condemned 5 or 6 of the types of Pharisees in similarly harsh terms.

Seems like John the Baptist would more likely be the Essene if you're looking for one.

Yes, Jesus was clearly a rabbi of Beth Hillel (as was the Apostle Paul), which is the source of modern rabbinic Judaism.  I recall being quite surprised to learn this as a young man in a class team taught by two rabbis.  They employed the Talmud to show that virtually all the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus could be found there.

We have since learned that the Messianic claims of Jesus and his followers were already central to Essene belief in the pre-Christian period.  Indeed, the Johannine Gospel is shot through with the special terminology of Qumran.  In fact, it is strongly believed by some scholars that a group of Essene priests joined Christianity early on (Acts 6:7).  See http://www.moshereis.../04_deadsea.htm .

As for John the Baptizer, his first declarations and actions in the Gospels are central to Essene writing and practice.

[Bill Hamblin]

Jesus was not an Essene.  This is largely demonstrable from the fact that Jesus worshipped at the Temple, which the Essenes did not, believing it was apostate.  He also rejected the Essene teaching to "hate your enemy," (Mt. 5:42-43) and rejected militant rebellion.  (The fact that the Essenes never mention Jesus, despite the fact that their community continued for 35 years after his crucifixion indicates they didn't follow him as a group--individuals may have.)

Jesus was not a Pharisee.  He rejected the Oral Torah, a foundational belief of the Pharisees, in his "you have heard it said" sayings. (Mt. 7:29; Mk 1:22)

What you need to do is not find similarities of basic ethical teachings, which were shared by many Jews.  Rather look for the key doctrines that caused the schisms.

[Ron Beron]

Thanks all for the good comments.  I will think upon them and do a bit more research.  I will probably have more questions....

[Darren10]

Ummmm, what's an Essene?

(Looks like I got some homework to do)

[mercyngrace]

Bill Hamblin, on 21 August 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

Jesus was not a Pharisee.  He rejected the Oral Torah, a foundational belief of the Pharisees, in his "you have heard it said" sayings. (Mt. 7:29; Mk 1:22)

I don't believe that this phrase, "you have heard it said", is a reference specifically to the oral tradition.  Most Jews would have "heard" the written law as Torah was taught orally and public readings of scripture were part of worship. Paul writes to Timothy, admonishing him to neglect not the public reading of scripture, for example.

Also, if you look at Matthew 5:21, you see this phrase used in reference to the written law:

¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

This is a reference to the written law of Exodus 20:13.

Again in verse 27:

27 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

A clear reference to the commandments of Exodus 20, the written law.

The Matthew 7:29 reference indicates that He was not simply a Torah teacher or teacher of the law but a rabbi with authority to give new interpretations of law, as we see Him do in Matthew 5. These kinds of rabbis were few and widely respected. There are also accounts of these rabbis performing miracles and healing.

[Jeff Walsh]

mercyngrace, on 21 August 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

I've read it's more likely He was a Pharisee of the Hillel school. His only notable deviation from Hillel being His position on divorce.

I recall reading how He likely dined with a group of Essenes but the details are sketchy in my memory and have to do with a man carrying a pot near the gate of the city... I'd have to look it up.

eta: It was the Last Supper - He sent His disciples to find a man carrying water and some believe it was at the bathroom gate. This is referenced in Luke 22. Seems like it may be that tradition puts the upper room at the part of the city which was known to be an Essene center but again, it's been a while. II'll see if I can dig up a reference.

His condemnation of subsets of Pharisees (hypocrites, the ever reckoning, the shoulder pharisees, etc ) parallels the writings of other Pharisees who condemned 5 or 6 of the types of Pharisees in similarly harsh terms.

Seems like John the Baptist would more likely be the Essene if you're looking for one.

I do not know which school the Saviour belonged to, if any, but it is interesting to read what Alfred Edersheim says about where the upper room was located. He says:-

"Perhaps it is not wise to attempt lifting the veil which rests on the unnamed "such an one" whose was the privilege of being the last Host of the Lord, and the first Host of His Church, gathered within the new bond of the fellowship of His Body and Blood. And yet we can scarcely abstain from speculating. To us at least it seems most likely, that it was the house of Mark's father (then still alive) -a large one, as we gather from Acts12:13  For, the most obvious explanation of the introduction by St Mark alone of such an incident as that about the young man who was accompanying Christ as He was led away captive, and who on fleeing from those that would have laid hold on him left in their hands the inner garment which he had loosely cast about him, as, aroused from sleep, he had rushed into Gethsemane, is, that he was none other than St Mark himself. If so, we can understand it all; how the traitor may have first brought the Temple guards, who had come to seize Christ, to the house of Mark's father, where the supper had been held, and that, finding Him gone, they had followed to Gethsemane, for "Judas knew the place for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with His disciples " (St John 18:1-2)-- and how Mark, startled from his sleep by the appearance of the armed men, would hastely cast about him his loose tunic, and run after them, then, after the flight of the disciples , accompany Christ, but escape intended arrest by leaving his tunic in the hands of his would-be captors. ( Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah p 556). I hope this helps  Jeff

[Bill Hamblin]

mercyngrace, on 22 August 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

I don't believe that this phrase, "you have heard it said", is a reference specifically to the oral tradition.  Most Jews would have "heard" the written law as Torah was taught orally and public readings of scripture were part of worship. Paul writes to Timothy, admonishing him to neglect not the public reading of scripture, for example.

Also, if you look at Matthew 5:21, you see this phrase used in reference to the written law:

¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

This is a reference to the written law of Exodus 20:13.

Again in verse 27:

27 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

A clear reference to the commandments of Exodus 20, the written law.

The Matthew 7:29 reference indicates that He was not simply a Torah teacher or teacher of the law but a rabbi with authority to give new interpretations of law, as we see Him do in Matthew 5. These kinds of rabbis were few and widely respected. There are also accounts of these rabbis performing miracles and healing.

That's true in some cases.  However, many of the "you have heard it said" statements have no known textual source.  They represent oral teachings of the day.

The key issue here is that the Pharisees/Proto-Rabbis believed in an Oral Torah, a body of oral interpretation of the written Torah that had been passed down from Moses to their day in an unbroken line of oral tradition.  When they taught, they did not claim that a halachic interpretation was their own, but was based on the Oral Torah.  Thus, when Jesus taught on his own authority--unlike the scribes--he was explicitly rejecting the authority of the Oral Torah, which was the essence of Pharisaic thought.

[thesometimesaint]

I lean more to that Jesus was a Pharisee. He pretty much left the other traditions alone, but often condemned the Pharisee's for knowing the law, and not following it.

[mercyngrace]

Bill Hamblin, on 22 August 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

The key issue here is that the Pharisees/Proto-Rabbis believed in an Oral Torah, a body of oral interpretation of the written Torah that had been passed down from Moses to their day in an unbroken line of oral tradition.  When they taught, they did not claim that a halachic interpretation was their own, but was based on the Oral Torah.  Thus, when Jesus taught on his own authority--unlike the scribes--he was explicitly rejecting the authority of the Oral Torah, which was the essence of Pharisaic thought.

By that logic, He also explicitly rejected the written Torah as shown in Matthew 5, since He gave a new interpretation of those commandments.

Also, He explicitly endorsed obedience to the Pharisees. He distinguished between the Pharisee's teachings which were corrrect and their observance which was hypocritical. See Matt. 23:1-3

There were rabbis with shmihah*, the right to interpret doctrine in new ways, or to teach a personal "yoke" rather than the yoke of the rabbi under whom they had studied. I'm not sure whether this authority means they were no longer believers in a particular school of thought, maybe Volgadon can tell us.

He may not have been a Pharisee, but His teachings and many of His actions put Him squarely in line with the Pharisees of His day. The Pharisees, as you know, were not simply hypocrites as their name has come to mean in modern terms. They were the "pious ones", and because they held themselves to such a standard, they excoriated those among their sect who failed to live up to the standards they claimed. Again, in this Christ is no exception.


* No idea if my spelling is even close but this is the authority give to a rabbi by two other rabbis (with authority). In response to questions about His authority, and in typical rabbinic fashion, Jesus points to John as one source by asking a question of his interrogators. Gospel writers point to God/the Spirit as the other source of authority.


eta:  It's definitely interesting to examine the historical context of the Savior's mortal life but ultimately, we are looking at circumstantial evidence and piecing together a picture of a remarkable life in a remarkable time.  And in terms of eschatological events, it's irrelevant. The atonement is efficacious without respect to Jewish sectarianism.

Edited by mercyngrace, 22 August 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[Bill Hamblin]

The ethical teachings of the Pharisees which Jesus supported were not Pharisee teachings.  They were more broadly Jewish teachings which were shared by the Pharisees and many other Jewish sects at the time, including Jesus.  

The point is that Jesus believed he was authorized to make independent, divinely inspired judgment on the Torah.  The Pharisees rejected this claim.  

Another key factor is the fact that many of the Pharisees opposed Jesus and many of his teachings and actions, which would be counter-intuitive if Jesus himself was a Pharisee.

[David T]

Bill Hamblin, on 22 August 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

Another key factor is the fact that many of the Pharisees opposed Jesus and many of his teachings and actions, which would be counter-intuitive if Jesus himself was a Pharisee.

I found this note interesting, in light of the recent controversy over a paper, written and attempted to be promulgated by Mormons, designed to be a hard-hitting criticism of the teachings and actions of another Mormon.

Clearly, it's possible to be part of a tradition - even if on the margins - and still come under the ire of more traditional adherents of that tradition.

This isn't supposed to support that Jesus was a pharisee, just a note that I don't find this particular argument as particularly persuasive.

[Ron Beron]

Bill Hamblin, on 22 August 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

Another key factor is the fact that many of the Pharisees opposed Jesus and many of his teachings and actions, which would be counter-intuitive if Jesus himself was a Pharisee.

Could this not be indicative of the inner squabblings of individuals within the same group?