A Critical, Orthodox Review and Synopsis of :

 

Jesus the Pharisee. A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus, Paulist Press, New York 1985, Rabbi Harvey Falk

 

 

Criticisms of rabbi Harvery Falk’s Book

 

Summary of his book

 

Talmudic References

 

Time Magazine Article

 

Footnotes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Christianity itself), this book certainly does intrigue the mind.

 

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 Christian public will not be open enough to accept this fact? Regarding the first assertion: I will say that r. Falk’s work could have been better organized, defined and sited; however, rabbi Falk does list his all of his sources.

 

           II.      Is this book designed to soften the traditional Jewish stance on a Christian (Messianic) candidate? If “Rabbi Harvey Falk” is the writer, why didn’t the rabbi pick a more neutral publisher? Perhaps the rabbi was trying to reach out to Christians? These are valid questions. However, I am operating with the ‘Maimonides principle’ in mind. Verify everything. One of the stated purposes of r. Falk’s work is to improve relations between the two faiths. I am sure this is going to be accomplished with this book. NOTE: The concept of “recognizing Christianity” at all - is not the subject of this review (here).

According to a Time Magazine article on this subject, “Falk, 53, who had studied at the Academy for Higher Learning and Research in Monsey, N.Y., was intrigued when he came across this document [the letter of rabbi Yaqov Emden]  in 1974, and it led to his decade of research on Jesus... It is Falk's belief that Orthodox Jews will slowly enter interreligious discussions, in part because the "Christian world is asking us…Orthodox Rabbi Harvey Falk of Brooklyn believes that much inter-religious tension need never have existed at all. His current book, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus, just issued by a Roman Catholic publisher (Paulist Press; 175 pages), contends that Jews and Christians alike fail to grasp Jesus's ties to the competing Jewish factions of his time. Christians, says Falk, have misunderstood some of the teachings of Jesus, while Jews have been needlessly hostile toward "Yeshua ha Notzri" (Jesus of Nazareth). Falk's book offers a provocative and controversial theory on Christian origins."[2]

 

         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 Emden the benefit of the doubt, “rabbi” Harvey Falk’s translation may seem poor (at first). However, the translation difficulties (for the most part) have no bearing on the primary message of rabbi Falk (or of r. Emden for that matter). The problems appear in the following instances:

 

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? Although this assumes that ancient (or original) copies are more accurate. Whether the fault should be attributed to r. Emden or r. Falk is unclear at this point.

 

           V.      His “riding the fence” on the clear categorization of “Modern Christianity” as Idolatry is disturbing. Of course, he is not the first to present these opinions (as he notes). At least he does mention the RMb"M (Maimonides), who clearly documents (post 135ce) Christianity as a forbidden form of Idolatry, rabbi Falk cherry picks more lenient opinions, to make his theory flow.

 

        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 Monsey, NY. It looks like his specialty was Talmudic studies. These two yeshivot are legendary institutions in the American Torah world, with the likes of rabbi Moshe Feinstein behind them.

 

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 Christianity (the “New Testament”). Unfortunately, many Jewish & Christian sources take the “New Testament” (at its word) on all the details of his life, in terms describing a historic picture of this person’s actual life.

 

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 Dead Sea scrolls and Talmudic writings.

 

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 school of Shammai) only had control for about 100 years (I believe this is the number). Once Beit Hillel regained control and rescinded the “18 ordinances” of beit Shammai, the Nesarim (see above) really didn't have any purpose (no more than any other Messianic oriented group within Orthodox Judaism). So, they become rather minor. But it didn't matter. Soon after that… they ceased to be organized anyway.

 

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 proto Church) for following 3 reasons:

1)      They had many from the house of David-- and the Romans didn't want any new leaders popping up to oppose them. I can’t prove the Davidic lineage of Yehoshuah; however, it does appear very likely. All the bunk about the Roman soldier has no basis in true Talmudic scholarship. In fact, there is no clear mention of this Yehoshuah at all in our Talmud.  For a rigorous, scholarly review of this topic; see r. Gil Student’s page here at: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

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 Israel’s mission on Earth.

 

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 David. Since the Nesarim followed beit Hillel, they also focused on teaching Noahide Laws to the Gentiles. According to r. Falk, this was the true “mission” of Yehoshuah.

 

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, Constantine seized this and took it all the way into CHURCH Christianity. Judaism was very popular, but the proto-Nosrim (pre-Church) derivative was fast becoming popular as well.

 

Constantine seized the Torah observant followers, and took the opportunity to try to wipe out these original Nesarim, which was good for him because it also wiped out a lot of beit Dawid (the house of David). They had the support of ROME to deemphasize Judaism's Torah.

 

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 Davidic - and their leaders were from his family.

 

At the time, Constantine was not only seeking to destroy the Nesarim, but also beit Dawid (the house of David). At the time that Yehoshuah was executed, many thousands of other Jews were also being executed in the same way. R. Falk does not speak to the actual way in which he was executed. I suspect he was murdered and then hung on a tree. I have serious doubts that he was actually crucified. But that is pure speculation on my part.

 

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 Temple and the Essenes were their opposition group.

 

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 Christianity totally misses the bigger tragedy: The 18 measures were worse than the sin of the golden calf because they nullified the purpose of Israel. Beit Shammai said that the God will only forgive if you repent out of love, if you repent out of fear or any other reason, then God does not forgive. The Nesarim (beit Hillel followers of Yehoshuah) said to repent and then God will forgive you! This is totally in line with PHARASAIC thinking of Beit Hillel.

 

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.

 

All the Nesarim did was stand up and say, “hey, beit Shammai, you are wrong.”

 

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.

 

BACK TO CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relevant (Disturbing) Church History

 

BACK TO CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 school of Shammai constituted a majority in the time of Bava ben Buta, who lived during Herod's reign. The enactment of the '18 measures' by Bet Shammai, at which time they constituted an absolute majority, seems to have also taken place shortly after the establishment of the two schools (see Tosefta Shabbat 1:8 and Tosafists, Shabbat, bottom 14B). The necessity for the Heavenly Voice's intervention in favor of Bet Hillel is itself evidence of Bet Shammai's strong position. Talmudic evidence (in fact) indicates that Bet Shammai's dominance extended throughout most of the first century. See Mishna (Sukka 37B) were r. Akiva notes that r. Gamaleil of Yavneh and R Joshua waved the lulav in acccordance with Bet Hillel; whereas ALL THE PEOPLE observed Bet Shammai's practice. Since R. Johanan ben Zakkai is not mentioned this would have taken place about 80 CE or later, but before the Heavenly Voice.

 

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! Also see Mishnas Eduyyot 1:7,8, 10, 11 where the school of Shammai disputes Shammai, thus proving that Shammai the Edler lost some measure of control over his school.

 

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. School of Shammai also discouraged the acceptance of Proselytes to Judaism (Shabbat 31A). Surely, this is what lead Jesus to call them hypocrites. They DID reject the weightier matters of the Law. And we all know how Bet Shammai treated the scholarly convert Aquila. By the way, r. Falk gets this stuff from Yaqov Emden. He isn't just pulling it out of thin air.

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.

 

 

 

 

BACK TO CONTENTS

 

 

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIME Magazine Article

 

 

What Sort of Jew Was Jesus?

Tuesday, Apr. 12, 2005 By RICHARD N. OSTLING

Article Tools

Many Jews and Christians trace 2,000 years of anti-Jewish persecution directly back to certain pronouncements of Jesus. In Matthew 23:37, for example, Jesus exclaims, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you . . . Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate." While dialogue aiming at better understanding has taken place between the two religions, some Jews and Christians have felt frustrated that New Testament passages have been used to support anti-Semitism.

Orthodox Rabbi Harvey Falk of Brooklyn believes that much interreligious tension need never have existed at all. His current book, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus, just issued by a Roman Catholic publisher (Paulist Press; 175 pages; $8.95), contends that Jews and Christians alike fail to grasp Jesus' ties to the competing Jewish factions of his time. Christians, says Falk, have misunderstood some of the teachings of Jesus, while Jews have been needlessly hostile toward "Yeshua ha Notzri" (Jesus of Nazareth). Falk's book offers a provocative and controversial theory on Christian origins.

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 School of Hillel and the School of Shammai, clashed shortly before Jesus' birth. Jewish tradition records that the rigid Shammaites held religious control throughout Jesus' life and during the founding decades of the Christian Church. But by A.D. 70 the more flexible Hillel school had become pre-eminent and the predecessor of today's traditional Judaism. In Falk's theory, Jesus was a Pharisee of the Hillel school, so that his denunciations ("Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!") were aimed at the Shammai school, not Jews in general, and not even at all Pharisees.

Falk holds that a central issue between the schools was Jewish-Gentile relations. The School of Shammai taught that non-Jews had no hope of eternal life. One of the faction's first acts upon gaining power in the Sanhedrin, the supreme council of the Jews, was to pass a series of sweeping measures that limited contacts with Gentiles. The School of Hillel, however, taught that righteous Gentiles merited a share in the world to come if they observed the seven so-called Noahide commandments, basic moral directives addressed to Adam and Noah in the Bible and binding all humanity. The usual Noahide list includes the obligation to help establish a system of justice, plus prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, theft, murder, sexual sins and cruelty to animals. According to Falk, the authoritative compendium of Jewish oral law and commentary, the Talmud, says that Moses called upon Israelites to spread knowledge of the Noahide commandments to all people. The Jews never undertook such a mission, says Falk, but Jesus and Paul the Apostle did, motivated "by love of God and fellow man."

 

(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 Temple, he declared that it was a "house of prayer for all the nations," but had become a "den of robbers." The author suggests that the money changers were corrupt Shammaites who were pocketing donations from Gentile converts to Judaism. Falk even proposes that the Golden Rule of Jesus is just a positive rephrasing of statement by Rabbi Hillel, who once told a pagan inquirer, "What is hateful unto thee, do not do unto thy neighbor. This is the entire Torah. The rest is commentary."

Although Orthodox Judaism shuns doctrinal discussions with Christianity, Falk points out that the great medieval sage Maimonides declared that Christians "will not find in their Torah [the New Testament] anything that conflicts with our Torah." Falk also refers to the commentary of the renowned Polish sage Rabbi Jacob Emden. In a 1757 letter to Polish rabbis, Emden discussed Jesus and Paul as Torah-true missionaries to the Gentiles. Falk, 53, who had studied at the Academy for Higher Learning and Research in Monsey, N.Y., was intrigued when he came across this document in 1974, and it led to his decade of research on Jesus. It is Falk's belief that Orthodox Jews will slowly enter interreligious discussions, in part because the "Christian world is asking us."

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. Lawrence Schiffman, a critic of the book who is a professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, says that Falk "has bought a stereotype of the School of Shammai, who in reality were good Jews and good Pharisees." Schiffman believes that there will not be a scholarly acceptance of the book's thesis. He maintains that anti-Judaism in early Christian writings is "really there. It had a tremendously pernicious influence over the centuries. There's something dangerous about believing that it's not there, because then you don't have to deal with the problem. It's a much better solution to admit that it is there and then come to terms with it." But Falk hopes, "If my thesis is adopted, Jews will be better Jews and Christians will be better Christians." --By Richard N. Ostling. Reported by Michael P. Harris/New York

With reporting by Reported by Michael P. Harris/New York

 

 

BACK TO CONTENTS

 



[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 North America, where more and more the Jews are a minority surrounded by other minorities, in which there are also Christians, the dialogue between Jews and Christians made some notable progress even if there still remains a long road ahead. The people involved in this dialogue on various levels are always a small minority within the minority, both on the Jewish part as on the Christian part. The fruit of this climate is also a series of books on our subject….One of those is that of Harvey Falk, with the tile "Jesus the Pharisee" (25). The author is an Orthodox Rabbi, with a knowledge of very vast Jewish sources, even if more traditional than scientific. Falk takes the initiative from the affirmation of one of his most famous ancestors, the Rabbi Jacob Emden (1697-1776), that Jesus came to found a new religion for the Gentiles, based on the so-called seven commandments of Noah (26). Even if Emden's attitude towards Jesus, Paul and Christianity is very positive in general, it must be seen in the context of his very harsh polemic with other Jewish groups (especially the followers of a false Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi), his writings on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism remain very important documents, which are now more accessible thanks to the work of Falk…We have already noted that the attempt to place Jesus completely in the middle of the Pharisees is destined to fail; but notwithstanding this, the work of Falk, who uses the sources according to very traditional methods, and not in a historic-critical manner, is very interesting. He tries to demonstrate how in many cases Jesus was in substantial agreement with this Pharisaic school of Hillel, which at the time represented a minority, but later became the determining force. Apart from the details, it is really a sign of a new climate if such a work can be written by an Orthodox Rabbi and published by a Catholic publishing house…If a climate of dialogue, born out of the indescribable tragedy of the Nazi era, gave the possibility to Jews to become more serenely closer to Jesus, it must also be said that in many Jewish authors an important element in dealing with the subject is one of the anxiety of preventing a possible Christian anti-Semitism. If above all in the works of Flusser and Vermes we see a debate which at times is heated with positions of Christian exegists, Borowitz goes one step further. In a climate influenced by several decades of fruitful dialogue between Jewish and Christian scholars, he decided to study as many Christian theologians today see Jesus. He does not so much try to attain the historic Jesus, as he attempts to make an evaluation of various Christological studies.”:

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 Christian Environment: Jesus Of Nazareth As Seen By Jewish Writers Of The Xx Century: Joseph Sievers

[2] Time Magazine: What Sort of Jew Was Jesus, Tuesday, Apr. 12, 2005, RICHARD N. OSTLING

[3] See uncensored additions of Betsa 20A, where the school of Shammai constituted a majority in the time of Bava ben Buta, who lived during Herod's reign. The enactment of the '18 measures' by Bet Shammai, at which time they constituted an absolute majority, seems to have also taken place shortly after the establishment of the two schools (see Tosefta Shabbat 1:8 and Tosafists, Shabbat, bottom 14B). The necessity for the Heavenly Voice's intervention in favor of Bet Hillel is in itself evidence of Bet Shammai's strong position. Talmudic evidence in fact indicates that Bet Shammai's dominance extended throughout most of the first century. See Mishna (Sukka 37B) were r. Akiva notes that r. Gamaleil of Yavneh and R Joshua waved the lulav in acccorance with Bet Hillel whereas ALL THE PEOPLE observed Bet Shammai's pactice. Since R. Johanan ben Zakkai is not mentioned this would have taken place about 80 CE or later, but before the Heavenly Voice. At this point,

 

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! Also see MishnasEduyyot 1:7,8, 10, 11 where the school of Shammai disputes Shammai, thus proving that Shammai the Edler lost some measure of control over his school.

 

BACK TO CONTENTS