It's all correct. - eviltoast
  • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I specifically clarified that Jesus angered the Pharisee priest class. I’m aware that they were a jewish sect.

    The Priests were “money changing” in the temple which is why Jesus flipped over the table and cast them out. The temple was a key part of their religious practices and the laity used the temple.

    While not an expert I am aware of Josephus and his account of Jesus’s trial. The only account I’ve ever read concerning the trial of Jesus is extremely brief and favorable to the description provided by the gospels. The fact that Pilate “condemns” him makes sense because only Pilate has that authority. Even if someone had a wildly different interpretation this would still be a single attestation by a Roman Jew.

    It’s worth mentioning that Rabbinical Judaism did not form completely until the 5th or 6th century.

    • RandomApple@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      There is no such thing as the Pharisee priest class. There are the Pharisees, and there are the priests. Two seperate groups that disagreed in their teachings quite a bit.

      • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I’m referring to pharisee priests/rabbis (e.g. whatever you want to call the religious leaders). The differing groups you’re referring to are the pharisees and the sadducees and perhaps even the samaritans.

        Edit: Reread your comment and it makes sense. It was the Pharisees sans priests.