It was noted in the gospels that Jesus did not attend the rabbinical schools. If the gospels accounts really were as you say, 'third-hand/removed accounts', then telling people that Jesus was 'unschooled' was a pretty stupid claim to make about someone you wanted people to follow as disciples, don't you think?
Unless they were creating a mystique of commonality about him. Or unless they were trying to create differentiation between Jewish teachings and Christian teachings.
The most influential group at the time were the pharisees as described by Josephus “And so great is their influence with the masses that even when they speak against a king or high priest, they immediately gain credence.”—JewishAntiquities, XIII, 288 (x, 5). When they spoke, people listened. Surely if Jesus disciples wanted the masses to join the following, being a pharisee would have got Jesus a lot more converts.
Unless he felt that by combining Pharisaic training in style of teaching with his own ideas, he could draw followers from both Pharisaic communities and non-Pharisaic communities. Which seems to have been what happened.
You can only base your understanding of the sect of the pharisees on what you see in judaism today...and they likely are two very different schools of thought. The judaism of today may be nothing like the Judaism in the first century when the priesthood still existed. Judaism changed drastically after the destruction of the temple and with all due respect, I dont think you can really have a clear understanding of how it operated back then anymore then I can understand how my organisation functioned 100 years ago. You and I are far removed from the past and our understanding will be based on what we see and hear today.
That is absolutely not the case. The Mishnah and much early Midrash dates from the times of the Tannaim (first two and a half centuries of the Common Era), and quotes teachings of Perushim frequently. It also paints an extremely detailed picture of the operations of the Temple, and gives us examples of conflicts between Perushim and Tzedokim (Sadducees, who controlled much of the Temple priesthood; the Perushim controlled a smaller segment; and the High Priest and various administrative hierarchs in the Temple were (contrary to Jewish Law) appointed by the Herodian kings, and were their corrupted creatures).
We have a very large amount of material dating from this time, and can go to the words of scholars from that era to get a picture of it. The idea that we simply retroject today's Judaism back into those days is incorrect, to put it mildly. Things certainly were very different then, and the tensions between the sociopolitical groups, the religious factions, and the abundance of sectarians, messianic pretenders, and false prophets could not be more foreign to today's Judaism. But who the Perushim were, and what they were and were not, is not a matter of guesswork: it is a matter of studying Mishnah and Midrash, and reading the histories of that era, and constructing a picture based on not merely ample material but a vast amount of material.
Again, the fact that the account of Jesus trial and execution is described in detail in the gospels as going against what was normal makes it even more believable that the writers did give us a true and accurate account. If what they wrote about Jesus trial in the dead of night is false, then everyone would have known it was false and the followers of Jesus would not have got away with such an elaborate lie.
But you yourself admit that the priesthood was corrupt... so the likelihood is that the unlawful trial by the sanhedrin (the pharisees included) was most probable and highly likely. It would be naive to claim the priesthood to be corrupt, but then at the same time claim they would never have trialed someone unlawfully. A corrupt 'anything' would act unlawfully so why wouldn't they?
I am not suggesting that the corrupted High Priest did not set up a trial and condemn Jesus. It is not at all unbelievable that he might have done so. But it would have involved a completely illicit and false court, which no Pharisee would have been part of-- the more so since the High Priest did not have authority to convene a capital Sanhedrin-- and would no doubt have been made up of whatever corrupt priests and other rabble the convener could have found. The fact that they would do so without authority, at a time when cases were not heard, to try someone for crimes virtually impossible to prove, so that he might be handed over to the Romans (prohibited) for execution by torture (absolutely prohibited), means that this show trial would have fooled no one. But presumably, they were not trying to fool anyone. Show trials were not uncommon in Roman provinces. No doubt the Herodians were just trying to clear out the troublemakers in order to placate the Romans (who were always nervous and short-fused at Passover time, fearing the holiday would provoke a rebellion).
The corrupted elements of the priesthood at that time were appointees of the Herodian kings, or at best, Sadducees. The priests who were Pharisees were not given authority in the Temple by the kings at that time, no doubt because they would have demanded that the laws be properly followed.
There may be some element of truth in the trial narrative in the gospels, but if there is, it has become twisted and obscured-- perhaps by non-Jewish redactors, who were unclear on what was being talked about.
The idea that Jesus' trial, or sentencing, or punishment would have been attended by throngs of Jews is ludicrous. First of all, it was Passover-- the Jews were busy celebrating the holiday, not going to Roman executions. Second of all, there is no evidence outside of Christian scripture to suggest that Jesus was either well-known or popular during his lifetime, outside of his circle of followers. There were false messiahs and false prophets on every streetcorner in Jerusalem, and all over the countryside in those days. And, unfortunately, Jewish sect leaders seen as troublemakers were often killed by the Romans, often with the collusion of the Herodian kings (who were Roman puppets). Plus, the notion that Pontius Pilate (a cruel Roman, known to be fond of crucifixions) would want to spare Jesus is as ridiculous as the idea that a random crowd of Jews would demand that Jesus (or any other Jew) be crucified.
The fact probably was that, outside of Jesus' circle of followers, nobody knew about Jesus or his trial and execution, and very likely no one cared.
they were very intolerant of any jew who followed Jesus. They killed them. So is that ok for a jew to kill a jew? Judge for yourself.
The Pharisees almost certainly had nothing to do with Jesus' execution, or with the execution of anyone who followed Jesus. There is absolutely nothing in Tannaitic material that shows particular fear that Jews will be lost to the heretical teachings of Jesus. They are far more worried about Jews being corrupted by Greek philosophy. We don't see any significant worries about the teachings of Jesus until into the Amoraic period (third to sixth centuries CE), when Christianity was becoming ascendant in the Roman Empire, and beginning to oppress Jews in trying to force them to convert.
There is simply no evidence that Jews of the first century CE cared about Jesus, or considered him important enough to care about if they had even heard of him. The only accounts that say otherwise are Christian scripture, which was mostly written by non-Jews and Jewish apostates, long after the fact.
some scholars say otherwise.
But if it does mean 'those who interpret', then surely that is an indication that they were already overstepping the commandment of God for only the priesthood were given the authority to teach the Mosaic law. And if so, then Jesus was right to condemn them as hypocrites who 'overstep the commandments of God'
Some scholars would be incorrect.
And that is not correct: the priesthood and the judges of the people are given authority to interpret the Torah. And the Rabbis, like the Scribes and the scholars of the Prophetic Schools before them, are "the judges of the people." By the time of Jesus, in fact, the Rabbis (the Pharisees) were the only legitimate interpreters of the Torah, since the Tzedokim (Sadducees) rejected the Oral Torah, and the rest of the priesthood were corrupt pawns of the Herodians.
Jesus certainly did not support them, nor was he one of them.
No one is saying that Jesus was a Pharisee at the time he was actively gathering followers and teaching whatever would become the seeds of Christianity. Clearly, if there is any accuracy in the gospel accounts, he disagreed with them on some important matters. But he certainly seems to have been trained by Pharisees at some point, and to have found some of what they taught valuable.
The oldest parts of the synoptic gospels are generally deemed to be the parables and sermons, and I would not be surprised to learn there was some accuracy in that evaluation. Because those portions of the gospel, and those alone, read very similarly to Rabbinic midrash in style-- though not in content, of course.
They do not read like ascetic texts, such as the interpretations found at Qumran, which means their author was not coming from a primarily Issi (Essene) background. They are homiletical and exegetic, which means the author's training was not of Tzedoki origins (the Sadducees rejected both homily and exegesis). They are religious and not political, which means their author was not trained by Kana'im (Zealots). They do not read like Greek philosophy, so the author was likely not a Hellenized Jew. They read very much like Rabbinic midrash in style; so unless you propose that it is a coincidence of cosmic proportions that a Jew who never attended a Perushi yeshiva (academy) just miraculously happened to teach in the style of a rabbi trained in a Perushi yeshiva, it seems hard to conclude anything except that Jesus spent time as a yeshiva student in his youth (which, if I recall right, the gospels do not describe at all, except for that one brief incident in Mark).
