show_no_mercy

No, he only condemns the Pharisees, the scribes, and the teachers of the law. He has one run in with the group that the gospel writers take the time out to designate as "Sadducees" and the entire pericope ends with the Sadducees saying "Hey you're right!" and we never hear from them again.

If the gospel writers knew their history, they would know that the caricature of the Pharisees in their gospels more closely resembles the Sadducees - not the Pharisees. I think it's one line of evidence that the gospels were written when the Pharisees were emerging as the dominant political group of Jews - after the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

Alexander Jannaeus, who was a supporter of the Sadducees and antagonist of the Pharisees, upon taking power had 800 Pharisee Jews crucified and had their wives and children's throats slit right in front of their faces while they were hanging on their crosses. Jesus picked the wrong group of Jews to save his condemnation for.

Either way, Jesus condemns every single Pharisee but never condemns every single Sadducee - while the Sadducees were the more brutal and legalistic of the two.

The Sadducees followed the written Torah given by Moses to the letter. The Pharisees believed in the same written law of Moses, but also had a tradition of an "Oral Torah" that was handed down to lessen the restrictions on the bare written law (e.g. an eye for an eye is not to be taken literally). The Sadducees rejected this oral Torah; this oral Torah eventually was compiled in the Talmud.

bacht

Right, I've seen it suggested that this theme of anti-Phariseeism in the gospels actually depicts the conflict in synagogues between rabbinic and christian Jews in the period between the fall of the temple and the defeat of bar-Kochba. Another symbol of this would be the conflict between the apostles James and Peter.

sschlichter

Maybe, I agree there is no reason to expect an assumption of inerrancy.

sschlichter

The Sanhedrin consisted of both Sadducees and Pharisees and his conflict with religious leaders was ultimately with this body of 71. I would expect Sadducees to have little interest in Jesus (outside of political self-persrvation). They did not beleive in resurrection, demons, angels and basically held to a syncretism between Judaism and Greek thought. They held to the greek idea that death was permanent (according to Josephus). The Pharisees were more popular (being layman from among the people) and much more interested in putting a stop to Jesus' rise in popularity.

Sadducees were likely a minority and this also lends itself to less conflict. They were often at odds with Pharisees and this would be a good reason to leave jesus alone at times because of his conflicts with Pharisees. However, they were more numerous at higher levels of government and were likely the majority of the Sanhedrin. The more generic term 'experts in the law' is mentioned 59 times in the gospels and is just as likely to include Sadducees as anyone else. In fact, it is defintely not referring to Pharisees because they are both referenced in Matt 5:20 - 'experts in the law' AND 'the Pharisees'. it is probably a mistkae ot think of these groups as that monolithic. I expert the lines were blurry and each represented schools of thought.

Regardless, the contact that is recorded included plenty of condemnation. the gospels condemned them specifically by name in Matt 3 (as a brood of vipers), 16 (yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees), and 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20. there is no reason to attempt to back fill storyline into the degree of conflicts.

J-D

1. History
The references to Jericho in Chapter 2 and Chapter 6 of Joshua are incompatible with the archaeological evidence that Jericho was destroyed centuries earlier and was an uninhabited ruin at the time described.

2. Mathematics
The description in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 is mathematically impossible.

3. Science
The description of the behaviour of ostriches in Job 39:13-16 is scientifically inaccurate.

4. Geography
The description in Genesis 2:10-14 does not fit with the geographical facts.

show_no_mercy

That seems to be exactly what you're doing.

The term "Pharisees and Sadducees" is restricted to Matthew, making it more than likely not historical. Regardless, Jesus never singles out the Sadducees for condemnation like he does with the Pharisees and his caricature of the Pharisees is more in line with how the Sadducees would have been.

sschlichter

#1 is very much contested and based on the archeological interpretation of a brilliant but discredited archeologist. #2, #3, and #4 are just downright hilarious.

IamJoseph

I know that today's christians are not to blame and they don't feel that way. But what you say of the Gospels has no truth.

sschlichter

who is 'his' in his caricature?

IamJoseph

The above picks are eronously dealt with. E.g. the lady archeologist who made claims about Jericho has been overturned. Now one may raise discrepensies with the numerous translations via hebrew to greek, latin, english, where millions of numbers are encumbent in the hebrew books. One such error is highlighted concerning the wheels in chariots! The basic historicity here is not effected, and remains the most dependable writings in existence - in direct contrast of the NT and Quran.