drewjmore

My understanding is that the Pharisees morphed into Rabbinic judaism around 70ce.
However, other sects
(Sadducees, Sicarii, Shammaite & Zealots)
(all wiki: my scholarship is questionable at best)
would/could not have been part of that transformation.

Is it reasonable to suggest that these other sects were actually united behind a messianic figure and later became christians? Are there any reliable population figures for these sects?

I've seen it argued that few, if any, jews followed christ in the 1st century. This seems odd to me, since 'his' message would have held great appeal for individuals from these 'other' sects, at a grass-roots level.

Spitfire

As far as I know, most of the first Christians in Antioch, the first city to actually be called a "Christian" city, were Jewish converts. I don't know which particular sects yielded the most converts, however. Surely at least some of them were Pharisees.

No Robots

From Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig Blomberg, p. 46-47:

The vast majority of Jews in Israel were not aligned with any special group. They were ordinary farmers and fishermen, craftsmen and merchants, trying to eke out a living. They no doubt believed in the God of Israel and tried to follow the primary laws of the Old Testament faithfully, offering sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem for the forgiveness of sins when they were able to make the trip there. But they did not concern themselves with the numerous oral traditions and additional legislation that had grown up around the Bible. They probably longed for the redemption of Israel, and it was from this group of ordinary, faithful, at times even impoverished, Jewish folk that Jesus found almost all of his first followers. Ancient Jewish sources refer to this group at times as the Am-ha-Aretz ("the people of the land"). The special groups probably comprised no more than 5 percent of the population in Jesus' day.

Phlox Pyros

It did not happen overnight, but it could be said to have begun around this time.

Not the Sadducees. They denied the resurrection of the body.

The Sicarii and Zealots seemed too revolutionary for the Jesus and early Christians portrayed in the New Testament.

The Shammaites could probably be lumped in with the Pharisees.

Jesus, in my opinion, would likely have identified most with the Pharisees who did believe in the resurrection of the dead.

Paul, once a influential Pharisee, calls Jesus a "stumbling block" to Jews. Dying on a cross (tree) like a common criminal was likely one of the main "stumbling block" to Jews. The Mishnah has something to say on this point, if I could remember it... I'm sure you could google it.

triffidfood

Just a thought, but would (former) Zealots or sicarii really be likely to choose to follow someone who (apparently, depending how you interpret the verses) told people to pay taxes to Rome? Opposition to the census (in 6CE) and to paying taxes was a starting point for the Zealots, so far as I understand it, so would they really have felt inclined to follow someone who, apparently, preached the exact opposite?

drewjmore

Good, thank you. "They numbered 100,000," by the 4th century, according to the almighty wiki. That's a start for my census. Any idea which type(s) of jews would have been in power there?

drewjmore

This is excellent information, and thank you for the effort of supplying the passage as well as the reference!!
-djm

Charles Wilson

Jesus might have been identified with the Pharisees until they did not protest a Slaughter in the Temple. After this, Jesus has little or nothing positive to do with them. The Jesus group is a Priestly group, they have a place in the Court of Herod until Herod kills many in the Sanhedrin and ends the Hasmonaean line for the Priesthood.

Paul was IN NO WAY a Pharisee. Maccoby is very conclusive on this point.

CW

drewjmore

Were(Are) there not sects of orthodox christians who deny 'bodily' resurrection? When this particular notion was declared heretical (quite early-on, I understand; Paul makes mention of it, no?) that branch of christianity may have been squelched. Within a few generations the grandchildren of heretical-saducee-turned-christians could have been assimilated into the main line(s).

Except (according to wiki, anyway) 'Iscariot' names Judas as one of the Sicarii. And Peter carried a sword in the garden. Reading between the lines, perhaps pure pacifism was not really the essential nature of JC's teaching.

Wasn't the patient and conciliatory Hillel 'a pharisee'? Shammai represented a split within their ranks, whose followers, IMO, c/would have been motivated by a living, breathing messiah figure.

In my admittedly meager understanding, it seems that the quibble about resurrection of the body was of greater importance after Jesus' death than during his life. Obviously, a literalist would understand why one version was preferred over the other. However, speaking pragmatically, for Jesus of Nazareth to be immortalized he needed a fantastic resurrection, not a simple criminal's death.

Phlox Pyros

I did not mean to imply that Jesus was a Pharisee but that his beliefs were probably most like those of the Pharisees as opposed to the other groups.

Acts 23:6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."

Maccoby is not a source I would turn to for a history of Jesus.