A Critical,
Orthodox Review and Synopsis of :
Jesus the Pharisee. A New Look at the Jewishness of
Jesus, Paulist Press,
Criticisms of rabbi Harvery Falk’s Book
A Critical Review of Harvey Falk’s book: “Jesus the Pharisee”
In this book, Rabbi Harvey Falk’s translates Rabbi Yaqov Emden’s letter to the Polish Rabbinate [from the original Hebrew into English]. According to my research, the accuracy of the translation leaves some cause for consternation. However, most of the so-called translation problems may not be problems at all (in terms of his thesis about “Yehoshua” – corrupted to Jesus in English). This is addressed below in greater detail. I happen to agree with a number of Harvey Falk’s conclusions, identifications and research. However, some of what he asserts can not be proven; and remains speculative (IE: his identity of people in the Talmud as Essenes). However, they do make sense (in my personal opinion).
I was able to verify most of his Talmudic references. Many
times, I had to search old Talmudic MSS, in order to circumvent the censorship
of the past. On the surface, rabbi Falk appears to draw from these old
texts. If one is unfamiliar with the
issue of Talmudic censorship, they will certainly be unable to correctly verify
his references. Unfortunately, most modern texts are problematic for that
purpose. While I certainly do not agree with all of rabbi Falk’s conclusions
(IE: the legal designation of
At the end of the day, I noted four critical items that warrant careful consideration, by all who would study this work. HOWEVER…According to Maimonides, one must accept (consider) the truth from wherever it may come from. Even if it comes from a questionable source, one is required to carefully check the sources. That is exactly what I AM PLANNING TO DO WITH IN THIS ARTICLE.
The four problematic items with Rabbi Falk’s book, which rightfully arouse our suspicion, are as follows.
However, they need not make us blind to what is being written, if the facts are (indeed) verifiable:
I.
This work was ultimately published
by a Catholic (missionary branch) of publishers called the Paulist Press. After
visiting their web site, one receives no information about this book (other
than that it exists). Books that describe how Catholics should missionize to
Jews (for conversion) appear on this very site! As an Orthodox Jew, one can not begin to fathom why the
rabbi would chose this publishing house for his work. One could immediately
wonder: is this just another angle of missionary propaganda, pushed by the
Catholic Church itself?[1] Apparently, the
Holy See views r. Falk’s work as a benevolent, “non-historical/non-critical”
attempt to bridge the gap between the two faiths. They further assert that the
rabbi’s “attempt” to place “Yehoshuah” squarely in the Pharisaic camp is doomed
to fail. I must respectfully and strongly disagree with both of the assertions.
Regarding the second assertion: the existence of two (or more) schools of
Pharisees is in an undeniable, provable fact. Yehoshuah’s comments can easily
be seen in the bet-Hillel camp of Pharisaic thought. Perhaps he means that the
II.
Is this book designed to soften
the traditional Jewish stance on a
According to a
III. I have not yet been able to contact “rabbi” Harvey Falk, in order to verify his actual attendance at Yeshiva Tora Vadaat and Midrash Elyon. In fact, I have been unable to verify his existence at all. For now, I choose to judge the book on content, and to assume he is the real deal.
IV.
According to some, rabbi Falk’s
translation of rabbi Yaqov Emden’s letter may contain errors. Giving rabbi
Translation Issues in the book:
Words like “fornication” (should be forbidden relations), “blood” (should be
murder) and “strangled things” (should have instead been a clear reference to
eating living things) cause problems in the dissemination of the Noahide Laws.
These so-called translation errors appear on page 19 of his book. However, in
these instances, he is clearly quoting the New Testament’s own reference
(translation) of the Noahide Laws. Whoever said the NT is accurate? This is
easily seen and corrected in the mind of most readers. The proof that r. Falk
was aware of this problem appears in Chapter 5, where he “more accurately”
defines the Noahide laws correctly (when referencing Jewish sources). However,
in his effort to be kind to our Gentile brothers, he probably held back
criticizing the (English Translation) of the New Testament, for an inaccurate
definition of the Noahide Laws. As Jews, our obligation is (first and foremost)
to accurately spread these laws. Perhaps he should have looked for (and
translated) a more ancient (reconstructed) version of the New Testament, to be
clearer?
V.
His “riding the fence” on the
clear categorization of “Modern
VI. Some of my fellow Jews say that this type of book besmirches the memory of great rabbis. I don’t see that.
With all this in mind, I shall now give you a brief summary of what appears in this book. You can draw whatever conclusions you choose from this. In the future, I hope to list all the Talmudic references that back this up. In addition, I have included additional information from Church historians, which collaborates much of what he states.
Summary (NOTES) of the Book (with my commentary):
REFERENCES
NOT YET FULLY PROVIDED
Warning: This
summary is not yet proofed, and is therefore not yet accurate!!!
The name of
the book is “Jesus the Pharisee,” which claims to be written by an Orthodox
rabbi named Harvey Falk. To date, I don’t even know if this person (rabbi
Harvey Falk) even exists. According to
the book, he attended Yeshiva Torah vadaat, in addition to Medrash Elyon in
This is one
of the few Orthodox sources to ever discuss the real historical “Yehoshua.”
However, there are others. As it turns
out in this book, the actual person “Yehoshua” is totally different than the
person described in
My
objective here is to present a basic summary of the book. As someone who has
read the entire book, I will take the liberty to interject my comments.
However, I will not attempt to prove or disprove rabbi Harvey Falk’s thesis.
Historical
Research & Summary (Some of this includes Nesari research not discussed in
r. Falk’s book)
The Nesarim
(original Jews who followed Torah and chose “Yehoshuah” as their messianic
figure) were simply a beit-Hillel (House of Hillel) group of Pharisees, who
were opposed to a corrupt beit Shammai group of Pharisees. This is not to say
that the original rabbi Shammai was a bad guy, as r. Falk constantly
differentiates between him and his later followers. In ancient traditional
Jewish sources, r. Shammai is a righteous man.
One of his
critical points is that there were two different categories of Pharisees. This
undeniable fact is usually overlooked by non-Jews - in their reading of their
“New Testament.” The communication of this fact (to our Christian brothers) may
(in the end) be the greatest contribution of his entire work. This can be
extrapolated through studies of the earliest
According
to rabbi Falk, the beit Hillel Pharisees opposed the “beit Shammai Pharisee who
ruled at that time.[3] If I understand rabbi Falk
correctly, the “beit Shammai Pharisees” controlled most of the Sanhedrin. I
have spoken to many people about this particular issue. While many have voiced
disagreement on this issue, preferring to hold by the more traditional view of
a (totally) peaceful disagreement, his Talmudic references were compelling (to
me). Again, I am not out to prove anything here. I am merely summarizing his
words. If one really wants to defeat or prove the thesis of this book, he/she
really needs to purchase it!
From what I
have learned from other sources, the “Nesarim” (first, original followers of
Yehoshuah) had absolutely nothing to do with the Notsrim (the later group that
would become the Church we know today). Some amongst the “God-Fearers” of the
time had (in their ranks) people who used the current messianic belief of the
original Nesarim leader to create a new system of belief which tried to synchronize
Judaism with their own pre-existing (idolatrous) belief system. This eventually
became the Church.
Anyway, beit
Shammai (IE: the
From what I
have learned from other sources, the Nesarim (the first pro-Torah-- ie: followers
of the oral Sinai Laws) of Yehoshua and other Jews of the Evionim / Ebionites
and similar sects described by Eusebius, were eradicated by the Roman/Gentile
Church in 333 CE. (Belarmino
Bagatti-The Church From the Circumcision
p.14/ Eutychius Patrol. gr[ae]c., v 111, c. 1012-13)
In my
research, what was left of original followers of Yehoshuah (Nesarim) was wiped
out by the Notsrim (IE: the
1) They had many from the
house of
2) Plus… how can you claim
legitimacy when there are some leftovers to testify against you
3) They disagreed with
the continued insistence of the (original) Nesarim to follow the laws in the
Torah.
Anyway…
getting back to the common era: “Beit
Shammai” took control and instituted the “18 ordinances”.
But when
did this happen?
You will
have to look to Rabbi Falk's book for that info. But here is a rough synopsis
of what happened.
Basically,
the best students of Rabbi Hillel (Hillel lived about 100BC). In a later time
period, the “Beit Hillel” school which came into existence, went on a
missionary mission to the Gentiles to teach the 7 laws of Noachine Law (which
are incumbent on all gentiles to learn and observe). To bring the messianic
age, beit Hillel taught that the messianic age would only come when the Jews
fulfilled this chosen purpose—of spreading the Noahide laws to the Gentiles. R.
Hillel had about 80 disciples. These
were the cream of the crop, as it were, who thought about the Messianic age.
About half of those went out on a mission to the nations of the world, to try
and spread the Sheva Mitswoth (seven Noahide laws) and were never heard from
again!
Many in the
other surviving half of Beit Hillel (the minor students) debated with (the
later school of) Beit Shammai (not Shammai himself) over this hot topic (for
many years). This is all supported by the two-thousand year old Talmudic
writings within Judaism (and some of the dead Sea scrolls – which echo the
existence of the same disputes much earlier).
It appears these students of Hillel won the debate. This debate went on
for many years. After winning this debate, Beit Shammi had the majority of
these students killed by hiring the Sicarii!
This
allowed them to gain control (of the Sanhedrin) and to pass the 18 ordinances,
which were worse than the sin of the golden calf, because this nullified the
purpose of
By the way,
the best students of Hillel never returned. They may have started the G-D
fearers’ movement of that time.
During the rule of Beit Shammai (approximately 100 years), the “Nesarim”
(original Torah followers of Yehoshuah) rose up as an opposition group to beit
Shammai’s 18 ordinances. They were made up of surviving Hillelite Pharisees.
The group known as Hillelite Pharisees (before and after Yehoshuah) was also
the basis of Talmudic Judaism. And yes, r. Yehoshua belonged to this group - as
r. Falk shows from Gemara and scroll references. If this bothers some of us in
the Jewish world, it is only because we have been programmed with distaste for the
Church that murdered us out - for over 2,000 years. But reading between the
lines shows the disparity between the original Nesarim and the counterfeit
Notsrim (Church).
The
Pharisees of the time (IE: different types of Pharisees) was split between beit
Hillel and beit Shammai.
Beit Hillel
never broke up. Only the best went to teach the Gentile nations.
Beit
shammai had control for about 100 years. Again, it should be re-stated that
beit Shammai should not be confused with the original rabbi Shammai. Beit
Shammai opposed rabbi Shammai too. Rabbi Shammai was a Saddiq (a righteous
man).
Bet
Shammai:
The other
Hillelites who were left (alive) were slaughtered by the sicarii - after the
debate (between the schools) was lost. Most of leftovers of Hillel were
slaughtered. Not all left and not all were killed. This is why they were unable
to regain control of the Sanhedrin for more than 100 years. In that 100 years,
the Jewish people were sent into the current exile.
In summary,
the Nesarim apparently rose up as a opposition group (accepted within the ranks
of Bet Hillel) against the corrupted beit Shammai.
According
to rabbi Falk, the Nesarim were 100% beit Hillel followers.
Basically; after
beit Hillel regained control, they (the Nesarim) had no real purpose and kind
of became obscure and soon after that ceased to be organized. They mostly
became individuals from the house of
As a result
of the G-D fearer movement’s association with the Nesarim, you have the
development (apart from the original Nesarim) of a proto-Notsrim movement (IE:
pre-Church) based upon the synchronization of their own pagan religion with our
Judaism. Eventually,
The Romans
always wanted to wipe out beit Dawid (the house of David) - as much as
possible, to prevent messianic movements which would oppose their rule. The
family of Yohoshua was
At the
time,
The
Saducees of the common era (or Tseudo Sadhoqim as they were called) were Roman
collaborators. Beit shammai would turn over people they didn't like to the
Romans. From this, it would appear that the Sadducees and the beit Shammai
Pharisees had some type of mutual relationship at this point.
The
Sadhoqim had problems regarding the
When the Sadhoqim
were destroyed, the Essenes ceased to be important.
It is kind
of weird that modern Christianity is a completely falsified idea; loosely based
upon an internal dispute within Judaism!
Beit
Shammai tried to justify turning their enemies over to the Romans.
Let me show
you how they tried to justify it. Check this out: The RMb"M, in Law of the
Foundations of Torah 5:5, concludes that Resh Lakish's opinion, and not Rav
Yochanan's, is the correct one: "If he is liable to the penalty of death,
as was Sheva ben Bichri, they are permitted to turn him over in order to save
themselves. If, however, he is not guilty of any death penalty, then it is
forbidden to turn him over, but they must defend themselves and him even if it
means forfeiting all their lives."
The Rema, in Yoreh De'ah 157, records the RMb"M's ruling as the
correct halachah (Jewish law) that it is forbidden to save one life at the cost
of another unless that individual was guilty of a death penalty, as was the
case of Sheva ben Bichri.
The Romans
had an open demand to turn over instigators. And anyone who would talk about
the messiah or messianic age would definitely be considered one of those to the
Romans. They were constantly executing Jews for this sort of thing.
So, if you
are an evil beit Shammai (or corrupted Sadducee) guy; you only needed to accuse
the guy - to convict him of being “worthy of death”. Usually, this took the
form of phony testimony, and then the guy would be turned over. At this point,
Judaism was corrupted by Roman power. The problem is this: falsely convicting
people shouldn't count. The halakha (Jewish Law) says they have to be deserving
of death to turn them over.
Eventually,
Torah law came through Beit Hillel: Yasodhey ha Torah 5 states: “Anyone who
rules according to beit Shammai - when it disagrees with beit Hillel - has no
place in the world to come.”
Modern
It was a
teaching in opposition to Beit Shammai. For example, the Nesarim told beit
Shammai they tithe dill and rue, which are spices. According to beit Hillel,
spices don't have to be tithed, but they put orphans and widows on the street.
Shammai was
a Saddiq (Righteous) However, his
followers eventually became screwed up.
And they
paid with their lives for it.
Conclusion
for Christians Today:
The
so-called “hypocrites” described in your New Testament were “Bet Shammai”
Pharisees. To turn around, and ascribe these very same labels to modern Jews
(who come from Bet Hillel Pharisees) is a betrayal of everything the real
Yohoshuah stood for.
Relevant (Disturbing) Church History
Talmudic Sites Listed In rabbi Harvey Falk’s Book
I found some of my earlier notes, but they are not YET edited - so cut me some
slack:
Betsa 20A, where the
There are other specific references in the Mishna which
demonstrate the people's allegiance during this period, on specific issues of
law. It has nothing to do with believing in Jesus as the Messiah- which I don't!
There was a connection between the Zealots and bet Shammai.
This is taken from many Talmudic verses and corroborated by Josephus. It is
demonstrated over and over again, that the Zeolets hated bet Hillel. And
in studying the two groups, the legal similarities (on the issue of the
Gentiles) is stunning. Check out Talmud Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:4, to see that Bet
Shammai did indeed murder (or hire out murderers to destroy) members of Bet
Hillel. This included many of Hillel's disciples (Sukka 28A and bava Batra
134A). And there is strong evidence that the Zealots were present at the time of
the murdering. In fact, they most likely did the actual murdering for hire.
Sanhedrin 105A shows that (according to beit Shammei) no Gentile merits a share
in the World to come, even those who observe the 7 Noahide Laws.
The love and friendship between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai came (returned) later with R. Eliezer and r. Joshua. The initial debates portray a degree of suspicion and hostility. There is much more. I am not going to type the whole book. He identifies the ancient Hasidim as a strict, Levitical purity oriented group of Essene (Pharisees). This is based on key phrases (hasidim and kesherim and Zenuim) in the Mishna and Gamara, that mentions cave dwellers, and some of their halakhic tendencies. And it also related to the titles used in the Mishna and Gamara (Abba and Jose). By identifying the titles of rabbis, he is able to show who was hanging out with whom, and why. Then he ties it into some of the dead sea scrolls. You have to study this, in order to see the connections. It is too complicated to summarize here. But when you see it, it is lear.
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html
What
Sort of Jew Was Jesus?
By RICHARD
N. OSTLING
Article Tools
Many Jews and
Orthodox Rabbi Harvey
Falk of
Falk examines two
factions of the Pharisees, a group of pious Jews who believed in the
resurrection of the dead, rewards and punishments for this life in the next and
rabbinic authority to interpret Jewish law. These two parties, the
Falk holds that a
central issue between the schools was Jewish-Gentile relations. The
(2 of 2)
To support his thesis of Jesus as a follower of Hillel, Falk draws conclusions
from familiar New Testament passages. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus
criticizes the "eye for an eye" view of justice emphasized by a
leader of the Shammai school. Shammaite criticism of Jesus for socializing with
Gentile sinners or healing on the Sabbath reflected specific debates between
the schools. When Jesus attacked the money changers in the
Jesus the Pharisee has
significant omissions: it does not touch on such salient matters as the Resurrection,
the messiahship of Jesus, or the belief that his death atoned for the sins of
all humanity.
With reporting by
Reported by
[1] The following statement appears on the “Holy See”
(Vatican website) as of April 2007. In essence, it may shed some light into the
true motives of the Catholic press, in publishing
such a work. Their underlying agenda is unhidden and apparent. It is
disturbing, but not surprising. However, one would think that an Orthodox Rabbi
considered these facts, before embarking on such a rare endeavor. Here is the
quote: “In the last few years, especially in
SOURCE:
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01111997_p-48_en.html: This is an up-dated version of an article
which appeared in Nuova Umanità 64/65 (July-October 1989) 125-136 and, in
abbreviated form in, Unità e Carismi 6 (November/December 1996) 33-38. The
Roots Of Anti-Judaism In The
[2]
[3] See
uncensored additions of Betsa 20A, where the
There are other specific references in the Mishna which
demonstrate the people's allegiance during this period, on specific issues of
law. It has nothing to do with believing in Jesus as the Messiah- which I
don't!