|
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” The so-called “hypocrites” described in the 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 (“Jesus”) stood for. 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. 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, it does 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. According to Maimonides, one must accept the truth from wherever it may come from. Even if it comes from a questionable source, one is required to carefully check the content and 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 is shockingly
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) also 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” (i.e.:
JESUS) 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 – which is seldom acknowledged in the Christian
world of Theology. Yehoshuah’s comments can quite
easily be (squarely) placed in the bet-Hillel camp
of Pharisaic thought. Even as he meticulously identifies Yehoshuah
as a “BH” Pharisee, he goes through great pains to show his simultaneous
association with other 1st century groups too. Thus, I am
perplexed by what is bothering the Holy See in this instance. Perhaps the
Holy See means that the Christian public will not be open enough to accept
this fact?
II.
Is this book designed to soften
the traditional Jewish stance on 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 a real human being.
IV.
According to one reknown Hebrew scholar (who shall remain anonymous),
rabbi Falk’s translation of rabbi Yaqov Emden’s letter may contain
distortions. While these issues may have had little to do with his main
thesis, it has everything to do with the dogmatic transmission of rabbinic
Judaism. These translation difficulties (for the most part) have no bearing
on the primary message of rabbi Falk (or of r. 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 and more accurate?
V.
Rabbi Falk’s “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) 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 or expands much of what the rabbi states. This section dives into the topic of early Netzari history. Unfortunately, I have to weave the synopsis of the book with Church history, in order to explain the subject. ================================================================== Summary (NOTES) of the Book (with my commentary): REFERENCES
NOT YET FULLY PROVIDED 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 book
represents one of the few Orthodox sources to ever discuss the real
historical “Yehoshua.” However, there are others. According
to historical Church history, the actual person “Yehoshua”
is quite different (in many significant ways) than the person described in
the modern “New Testament”. Unfortunately, many Jewish & Christian
sources take today’s version of 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.
In addition, I will explore the relevant information provided by Church
historians, which is so often ignored or unknown. Historical
Research & Summary (Some of this includes Nesari
research not discussed in r. Falk’s book) The Netzarim (original Jews who followed Torah law 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
(House of 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. It was his followers who would eventually cause major
problems Judaism. One of
his critical points is that there were two different prevalent 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 fact be extrapolated through
studies of the earliest According
to rabbi Falk, the beit-Hillel Pharisees opposed
the beit-Shammai Pharisees who ruled at that time.[3] If I understand rabbi Falk
correctly, the “beit-Shammai Pharisees” controlled
the Sanhedrin. Quick
Background According
to early Church historians, the “Netzarim” (first,
original followers of Yehoshuah) had absolutely
nothing to do with the Roman oriented “Notsrim” (who were a competing, counterfeit group that
would eventually become the Church we know today). This probably started when
some of the “God-Fearers” group at that time had (in their ranks) people who
used the current messianic belief of the original Netzarim
leader to create a new system of belief which tried to synchronize Judaism
with their own pre-existing (and many times idolatrous) belief system. This
eventually became the Church. According to early church history, the Netzarim (the first pro-Torah 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) Back
To The Book Anyway, beit-Shammai (IE: the In my
research, what was left of original followers of Yehoshuah
(Netzarim) 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) Netzarim
- to follow the laws in the Torah. Anyway…
getting back to the common era: The “Beit-Shammai” school 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. The
Basically,
the best students of Rabbi Hillel (Hillel lived about 100BC). In a later time period, the “Beit-Hillel” school came into existence and 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). In the end, the students of Hillel won the debate. This debate went on for many years.
After winning this debate, Beit-Shammi &
cohorts had the majority of these beit-Hillel students
killed by hiring the Sicarii! This beit-Shammai slaying of Hillelite
followers (called prophets by some) took place between 20-10 BCE. Thus, the
generation to whom Yehoshua is speaking to in the
modern version of the “New Testament” would in fact be the
sons of the anti-Gentile Shammaite Zealots - who
committed this crime. 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.
And yes,
r. Yehoshua (corrupted to English JESUS) 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 has been murdering
us for over 2,000 years. I understand the reluctance. However, reading
between the lines shows the disparity between the original Netzarim and the counterfeit Notsrim
(Church) – at least in terms of how it started. The
Pharisees of the time (IE: different types of Pharisees) were split between beit-Hillel and beit-Shammai. To reclarify, the Beit-Hillel group
never broke up. Only the best went on a mission to teach the Gentile nations. 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 the leftovers from beit-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 Netzarim apparently rose up as a opposition group (accepted within the ranks of Bet Hillel) against the corrupted beit-Shammai. According
to rabbi Falk, the Netzarim (original followers of
Jesus) were 100% beit-Hillel followers. Basically;
after beit-Hillel regained control, they (the Netzarim) 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 Netzarim,
you have the development (apart from the original Netzarim)
of a proto-Notsrim (Church) 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 Sadducees
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 (Sadducees) had problems regarding the When the Sadhoqim were destroyed, the Essenes
ceased to be important. Implications Ironically,
today’s Christianity is a completely falsified idea; loosely based upon an
internal dispute within Judaism! Beit-Shammai (and Sadducees) 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 (Maimonides), in Law
of the Foundations of Torah 5:5, concludes that Resh
Lakish's Talmudic opinion, and not Rav Yochanan's, is the correct
one: "If someone 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 truly 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. Beit Hillel Triumphs Amongst
The Jews In The End 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.” (Maimonides) Thus, 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 Beit-Shammai said that the God will only forgive if you repent out of
love. Thus, if you repent out of fear or ANY other reason, then God does not
forgive. The Netzarim (beit-Hillel followers
of Yehoshuah) said to sincerely repent and then God
WILL forgive you! This is totally in line with ORIGINAL
PHARASAIC thinking of Beit-Hillel. Thus, the
original Jesus said that G-D DID REQUIRE sincere repentance to be “saved”. This was
a teaching in opposition to Beit-Shammai. For
example, the Netzarim told beit-Shammai
to 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. Conclusion All the Netzarim 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. Relevant (Disturbing) Church History Talmudic Sites Listed In rabbi Harvey Falk’s Book
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. 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) 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!