Neo–Pharisee Jewish rabbi, teacher and healer, Jesus preaches mostly in the Galilee area of Israel until his crucifixion by Rome in 33 CE.
Since there is no contemporaneous or near contemporaneous more than fragmentary documentation of the life of Jesus, the various gospels, primarily those crafted in the c. 70–110 CE period, roughly 37–77 years after his death, project him onto the world stage. Historically, the Jews are voluminous writers and obsessive record–keepers, but no (more than fragmentary) Jewish or other credible contemporaneous record (even within several decades of his execution in Rome) has ever surfaced documenting the life of Jesus. Compounding the problem, the Catholic Church had a de facto hammerlock for many centuries on any archival material potentially surfacing regarding his life, with a severe conflict of interest as the de facto archive controller. In any event, no contemporaneous documentation is known to us. Thus, either documents never existed or they were lost or destroyed.
There is no reason to believe that Jesus was not, at least originally, one of several dynamic, humanistic, neo–messianic Jewish rabbinics/teachers of high–level consciousness in this spiritually hyper–intense era. Preaching to his Jewish flock, involved with healing and other spirituality, intersecting with John the Baptist, he was then crucified by Rome as a potential political threat.
Almost definitely of the Pharisee–Orthodox neo–Hillel–school, with a concomitant heavily humanistic thrust, Jesus had a religious–political following. The size of movement is unclear, but may have been small prior to crucifixion. With a religious–political following as a backdrop to his ‘in your face’ remonstrations in Jerusalem to the Romans and their lackeys in 33 CE, Jesus was perceived as over the Roman ‘red–line’ by the hyper–vigilant Roman military dictatorship of Pontius Pilate. It is not unlikely that Jesus was out of grace with the Roman–appointed, and hence co–opted, Sadducee High Priest Caiaphas, as well. There is no reason, however, to believe that the Sadducees conspired, let alone convened any assembly or court, to motivate Rome to execute him.
Note that sundry Temple and religious rabbinical authorities have been the subject of criticism and protest, often severe, by pluralistic Jewish religious groups for the past 3000 years. Indeed, at the time of Jesus, the (dominant, Temple–controlling Roman–co–opted) Sadducee priesthood of Judaism was under sustained and growing intellectual, political, and religious assault by the ascendant Pharisee wing of Judaism.
The then–challenging Pharisee wing has emerged as the overwhelming and exclusive corpus of Judaism subsequent to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
The Sadducee priesthood power base imploded with the First Roman War, c. 68–71 CE.
While the Canon Gospels consistently posture Jesus in opposition to the Pharisees, and while the Canon Gospels then demonize the Pharisees (Judaism) across the board, this is a major divergence from the thrust of the actual historical record. The Temple leadership was Sadducee, not Pharisee as portrayed in the Canon Gospels. The primary challenge of Jesus was versus Rome, and symbolically versus the Sadducees in Jerusalem. He did not challenge the Pharisees. The center of gravity of the power–nexus of the Sadducees was in Jerusalem. As was that of Rome in Judea. Jesus himself was Pharisee or neo–Pharisee.
There were two de facto alignments, however subtle, and notwithstanding disagreements, however severe, intra–alignment:
The “In–crowd” power:
the Romans
the Sadducees (Jewish)
The “Out–crowd” theological–philosophical alignment: the Pharisees (ultimately normative Judaism)
the (Jewish) Siccari (assassins)
the Jewish Essenes (ascetics)
the (Jewish) Zealots (armed rebels)
Trying to straddle both camps was Herod Antipater.
But, by and large Rome, which “had all the guns,” held all the cards, of course.
Jesus was clearly aligned with the “Out–crowd” camp. The (“Out–crowd”) Jews in due course launch full–scale rebellion against Rome, with, first insurgency in 66 CE, and then, by 68 CE, full–scale armed revolt against Rome, 33–35 years after the very same Roman leadership crucified Jesus. Thus, the (Pharisee–aligned) Jews are attacking the forces of the crucifier of Jesus. At this point, the allies of the gospel writers, political antagonists of the Jews, are well behind the lines. Back in the greater Turkey–area, the Gospel writers and associates commence composing and disseminating gospels.
While Jesus was thus Pharisee–aligned, the Gospels nevertheless cast Jesus as in opposition to the Pharisees (then, the insurgent Judaism, and today, normative Judaism).
Positioning Jesus as anti–Pharisee then breaches an opening for the gospels to paint normative Judaism in harsh brushstrokes. By flipping the very clear primary thrust of the historical role of the Pharisees vis à vis Jesus, the gospel writers are able to then position normative Judaism as adversarial to the teachings of Jesus. The historical truth, however, is that Jesus fought the (minority) Temple–controlling Sadducees, as did the Pharisees, a.k.a. the normative Jews.
Thus, the direct ancestors of the twentieth Century Jewish teenager and Nazi–victim Ann Frank, were these very Pharisees—who were, as well, politically and theologically opposed to the Roman–Sadducee High Priest. Components of the Pharisee alignment took on Rome step–by–step.
Jesus was aligned in parallel with this insurgent Pharisee (mainstream Judaism) current in Judaism. Both Jesus and the Pharisees—normative Judaism today—launched insurgencies—whether political or armed—of one intensity or another, and in one form or another against both the Sadducee High Priest and the Romans. All Jews today are, indeed of the Pharisee / Hillel / populist / Oral Tradition / humanistic school of Judaism.
The Sadducee sect was a short–lived 200–year interlude from c. 150 BCE to 70 CE intersecting with the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The Sadducees aligned one wing of the priesthood with components of the Jewish social aristocracy, but never represented greater Jewish society at–large. The Sadducee power role steadily diminishes over the course of the First Century. The destruction of Temple II in 70 CE and the Roman onslaught/persecution/expulsions finalized the implosion of the Sadducees.
The Talmud (embracing the Oral Tradition of Judaism) was crafted ongoing during this period by Pharisee Judaism, i.e. normative rabbinic Judaism. The Sadducees rejected the Oral Tradition.
The Sadducees rejected concepts of the world–to–come. Jesus embraced concepts of this genre. The Pharisees as a whole embraced the concept, among other divergences from the Sadducees.
However, the important “salvation” thrust in Christian theology regarding the world–to–come, is not an outgrowth of Pharisee theology, nor was it part of Jesus’s theology.
Historian Josephus is dismissive of the Sadducees. Modern Orthodox Judaism probably considers them a short–lived, temporarily politically powerful, and overbearing (if not reactionary) group.
While evidence is not conclusive, the Essenes group of Dead Sea Scrolls fame was most likely a highly ascetic, purist, generally apocalyptic rabbinic breakaway (primarily) from the overbearing, possibly stifling, Sadducee priesthood group in Jerusalem.
Thus, the Jews are challenging the Sadducees on multiple fronts and in multiple formats –
• The Pharisees (current normative Judaism) challenged frontally theologically and philosophically, and ultimately prevailed.
• The ascetic Essenes challenged by self–imposed exile to the Qumran/Dead Sea area.
• The Jew Jesus challenged via a more highly–personalized, parochialistic approach. Jesus had common ground with normative Pharisee neo–Hillel Judaism, not with Sadducee, his antagonists, and the antagonists of what emerged as normative Judaism today.
• Meanwhile, the Jewish Zealots – de facto aligned and overlapping with Pharisee Judaism—are maneuvering to overthrow both Rome—and the “straddler” Sadducee High Priest, by violent means, ultimately by full–scale rebellion. To the (Jewish) Zealots, the Sadducee High Priest is a tool of the Roman Procurator and his Romans overlords. Both the High Priest and Rome are anathema. Two plagues joined–at–the–hip. But Rome held 99 percent of the levers of power; the Sadducees, one percent at most. The impotent Sadducees were a fig–leaf for Roman rule over the Temple. The Zealots will ultimately lead the (recalcitrant) Jews into war with Rome. They want Judea rid of Rome, and its lackey.
In the post–Temple II era the Sadducees then disappear from history. Their Temple II–base is gone, and they are anathema to the populace, at–large.
The Essenes disappear from history as well, but come back with a vengeance through their scrolls* 2,000 years later.
The Zealots ultimately provoke Rome—into onslaught.
The Pharisees prevail over the Sadducees. The Pharisees were persecuted/decimated/exiled by the Romans and then, post–Constantine, persecuted and dehumanized by the ascendant Christian powers that be. The Pharisees are the Jews. They are the subject and focus of this entire timeline.
Jesus’s original theology is apparently first morphed by Paul and then more radically morphed by the Greek Paulines. The emergent Greek Pauline sect, in turn, replete with a heavy influx of Mediterranean–area converts, morphs into what becomes normative Christianity.
In the four decades immediately commencing with the Roman assault on the Jews of 66–71 CE, the gospels emerge. The Jews are distracted at this point. The Jewish elite are being hunted and murdered by the Romans. At this point, the New Christian gospel–writers begin writing—about Jesus—and the Pharisees (normative Judaism). It would appear that the historical record is “textured” (i.e. distorted) in this 70 CE – 110 CE period by sundry gospel–tellers. While this is going on as a backdrop, Jesus is deified and the Jews are demonized in the Pauline Greek–aligned churches. The Virgin Mary starts to emerge as a central motif of the Christians. The Pharisee insurgent role in Judaism and Roman–controlled Judea is concomitantly turned inside out by the eventual gospel story tellers. The Pharisee role is inverted by the Canon Gospels as adversarial to Jesus, when, in reality, it is actually humanistically aligned with Jesus. All agree that the gospels were originally, as they are called, gospels, i.e. stories.
The de facto inversion of the historical alignments of Sadducee and Pharisee by the Canon Gospels opens the door for the gospels to demonize emergent normative Judaism. If emergent normative Judaism had been portrayed accurately as having been in basic humanistic alignment with Jesus, the gospel–demonization of those same Jews would have been awkward and unable to achieve traction.
That being said, with Christianity controlling the organs of the Roman Empire post–Constantine, and tailoring the history books of the Empire to suit their theological–historical–political objectives, and controlling the archives of 99.9 percent of the extant texts, and with the Jewish intellectual elite decimated, dispersed and under the heel of the Church, the actual reality of the life of Jesus will, respectfully, never be known to the world.
But the gospels not only invert the Pharisee and Sadducee roles, the voluminous gospels also neglect to mention five key points:
1) The High Priest Caiaphas was Sadducee
– and anathema to the Jews
2) A multi–faceted and almost wall–to–wall Jewish alignment was poised against Rome and (the Sadducee High Priest) Caiaphas
3) The Sadducees were soon to be relegated to the dustbin of history by the Jewish alignment
4) Caiaphas never had any independent power to begin with, and most importantly –
5) Jesus was in humanistic alignment with emergent mainstream normative Judaism (neo–Pharisee, neo–Hillel)
***
Now, if a dozen New Christian activists had sat around a campfire on a hill overlooking the Bosporous waterway in modern day Turkey in August of 70 CE, as their political adversaries the Jews were being decimated by the Romans in Judea, and if the 12 told the story of a messianic Jesus, and elected to demonize their Jewish political adversaries via gospel–vignettes, and then each of the dozen dutifully missionizing activists went his own way, retelling the tale in his own words and spin, the result would not have been much different than the four later–edited Canon Gospels we have today.
***
Note: Combining any religious authority with any political power whatsoever is always a recipe for trouble, across all civilizations and religions. The greater the power, the greater the abuses. The eventual near–absolute political power of the Roman Catholic church over the Roman Empire, would have intense consequences.
*
The current wisdom regarding the Essenes is that they were a Jewish group that flourished primarily in the 200 BCE – 100 CE era, roughly paralleling the tenure of the Sadducees in Jerusalem. Symbolically, and very generally speaking, the worldly Sadducees in the Jerusalem capitol were counterpoised against the ascetic Essenes in the Judea desert just outside of Jerusalem.
Many separate but related and interconnected groups of that period and of the Qumran/Dead Sea area intersected in their mystical and/or eschatological (world–to–come) and/or messianic and/or ascetic beliefs. Collectively, they are referred to as Essenes. Clearly there were divergences between them, as well as theological–philosophical morphings over the pivotal 300–year time span.