A Response to the most common arguments against a Rabbinic Jesus
Was Yeshua (Jesus) a Pharisee? Discussions like this are why legitimate standards of evidence are essential. We can reveal personal bias by observing how one treats evidence shown to them and what they present as "evidence" to the contrary.
Let's take an argument that, in nature, is identical to the claim but a more recent figure. For example, let's use the following claim to reveal bias:
"Steven Anderson is a Christian"
A list of our evidence may look like this:
He is the head pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church
He affirms the trinity
He affirms the 5 Solae of the protestant reformation
He affirms unconditional eternal security
He affirms Baptism in the name of the father, son, and holy ghost
He affirms the pre-wrath rapture
He denies Torah
He Uses "Jesus" and opposes the use of "Yeshua" or other alternatives
He affirms salvation by grace alone through faith alone
He affirms Christianity as the religion of the present and denounces Judaism as a dead thing of the past
These collectively are a classic collection of theological positions in the ordinary Christian; none are denomination specific. Still, even if they were, that doesn't negate that the denomination is a Christian denomination. Now that we have established reasonable evidence which suggests Pastor Steven Anderson is a Christian, let's apply the arguments most commonly used to combat the evidence of Yeshua's ties to the Pharisees and see how they hold up under scrutiny.
Argument 1: "None of those things prove he is a Christian."
Is Steven Anderson a Christian? This counterargument is an argument from silence that essentially presumes that one can affirm every core doctrine of Christianity and even some secondary positions of Christianity without being a Christian.
Aside from being a fallacious argument from silence, the danger of using it is that it now places the onus of proof on the one using it. Because the only way in which someone can affirm the core doctrines of Christianity and yet still not be a Christian is if they also affirm heretical and categorically non-Christian doctrines in addition to those core doctrines. And in fact, this is what is presumed when this argument is made. It accepts that the person in question affirms the core Christian doctrine but insists that this "doesn't prove anything" because this person also affirms other things that would distinguish them from Christians. In this scenario, the one denying the presented evidence must substantiate the assumption of other distinguishing doctrines. They now have to point out what doctrines are heretical and un-Christian, which Steven Anderson affirms. These doctrines would need to distinguish him from modern Christianity at large definitely.
Was Yeshua a Pharisee?
The argument currently being made by many in the church is that Yeshua was not a Pharisee. If we dismiss the myriad of evidence that would tie Yeshua to the Pharisaic sect, then we must find the teachings of Yeshua that counter the beliefs of the time. New doctrines and teachings the Pharisees hadn't taught at the time is not enough to distinguish Yeshua from the Pharisees. Pharisee's birthed new teachings all the time, and it didn't distinguish them because these teachings were still consistent with what was already known of Pharisaic Philosophy. These new teachings built on what already existed. What one would need to find is a teaching from Yeshua that is opposed to the teachings of the Pharisees. Something the Pharisees themselves would have considered heretical. This is the only means by which Yeshua could be distinguished from the Pharisees despite his numerous Pharisaic teachings and positions. You will be very hard-pressed to find any such teaching from Yeshua in any of the gospels. If you think you found one make sure you've combed through the totality of the Talmud to confirm it contradicts everything any Pharisee ever said or believed before taking a victory lap.
Argument 2: "But Steven Anderson constantly berates and rebukes other Christians and pastors."
Is Steven Anderson a Christian?
This is not evidence, and it's not an argument. Our own reasoning and epistemology limit human understanding of literally everything. The difference in perspective and understanding will inevitably result in disagreement, which, when coming from the emboldened and passionate, often manifests in the form of criticizing and rebuking those who disagree. No two people in one church agree 100% on everything, let alone the larger body of Christianity globally. The existence of disagreement and heated words between Christians over these disagreements doesn't negate the Christianity of those involved unless(once again) one of the perspectives being argued is categorically heretical and un-Christian. Once again, the onus of proof is on the interlocutor using this argument to present substantive evidence of the existence of non-christian beliefs in the person of Steven Anderson and his rebukes of other Christians.
Was Yeshua a Pharisee?
Likewise, when we look at Yeshua and the Pharisees in light of what we read in the Talmud, we find it relatively commonplace among Pharisees to rebuke one another over a disagreement. Only Pharisees were allowed to rebuke Pharisees. If you weren't a pharisee, then your opinion didn't matter, and no one cared. You didn't have a high enough rank for your thoughts to even be remotely considered as worthwhile. The fact that the Pharisees took rebukes from Yeshua seriously is in and of itself evidence that they accepted him as one of their own.
Argument 3: "But Steven Anderson Taught James White(A Christian) in their discussion together online."
Is Steven Anderson a Christian?
Again this isn't evidence and is built on a presupposition. The presupposition is that a lesson is being taught at all. James White never accepts the premise that Steven Anderson was arguing. There is no basis for claiming anyone was being "taught" anything with any level of accuracy. Secondly, even if James White had affirmed anything Steven Anderson said, it's not evidence of him being taught or learning anything. The scenario could just as quickly be that Steven Anderson already made statements that align with James White's position. If this is the case, then this only proves that Anderson and White are in scholarly agreement on this particular issue as peers. And this stands as evidence that Steven Anderson is a Christian since James White is the example of a Christian being used as a juxtaposition to Anderson. Unless James White was found to be arguing in direct opposition to Steven Anderson and then redacts his argument, concedes the position, and then agrees with Anderson, then no lesson can be implied by a simple discussion between theologians.
Nor does a discussion of disagreement between theologians negate either one of their statuses as Christian. The position argued would have to be proven absolutely to be un-Christian.
Was Yeshua a Pharisee?
Yeshua "teaching" another Pharisee doesn't negate his Phariseeism unless what he is teaching is in direct contradiction to Pharisaic theology. As it stands, his teachings were not in opposition to Pharisaic theology. Paul was a Pharisee who was taught by Gamaliel, who was also a Pharisee.
When Yeshua is talking to Nicodemus in John 3, it is only half of a conversation, and it reads as a conversation among scholars of mutual respect for one another rather than a lesson. It is also presumed this meeting took place over dinner, given the hour it occurred, and Pharisees would only eat with other Pharisees to ensure their strict standards of Kosher kitchen would be adhered to when dining. Due to the historical context of John 3, this only stands as further evidence that Yeshua was a Pharisee.
Ultimately, these are the only three arguments against Yeshua being a Pharisee that is likely to be encountered in conversation.
Revealing the Bias
Let's break down the arguments and reveal the bias.
Argument 1: " He agreed with some Pharisee doctrines, but that doesn't prove he was a Pharisee."
He didn't just agree with them on "some" things, there isn't single teaching from/by Yeshua recorded in the NT that contradicts Pharisee doctrine. Nor can any be found that didn't already exist as Pharisaic teaching. And this is what ultimately makes this the worst kind of argument from silence. It appeals to teachings from Yeshua that aren't recorded and cannot be known. It presupposes a bias that states, "Not everything Yeshua said is written in the NT, and he had to have taught something new and against Pharisee doctrine at some point, and it just wasn't recorded." It's the ultimate appeal to that which cannot be known, and the primary basis stems from the argument, "I don't want Yeshua to be a Pharisee. I've made up my mind that they were the bad guys, so I cannot accept that my hero was one of the bad guys that I decided were bad guys."
Argument 2: " Yeshua constantly rebuked the Pharisees."
Let's consider the historicity of the Pharisaic movement. We know Pharisees did not listen to any teacher that was not a Pharisee, and we know they rebuked one another regularly (the Talmud is a collection of arguments). Pharisaic rabbis argued and rebuked each other over disagreements, which is evidence that Yeshua was a Pharisee rather than evidence to the contrary. Usually, when presented with this historical context, those of an alternative opinion will cite the gospels where Yeshua rebukes Pharisees. This reveals the bias again, "He rebuked them because they were bad guys. Therefore, he cannot be a bad guy since he was yelling at the bad guys, telling them how bad they were." If we disregard the historical context, then we are saying, "it can't be so because I don't want it to be."
Argument 3: "But Yeshua had to Teach Nicodemus the error of his ways."
No lesson was taught, no error pointed out, and the conversation wasn't even a complete conversation. Furthermore, when one considers that most scholars agree this meeting between them was a social dinner between Pharisees due to their strict adherence to dietary standards, this again stands as evidence that Nicodemus accepted Yeshua as a fellow Pharisee. The assumption that a lesson was being taught stems from the bias, "Since Nicodemus was a Pharisee, that means he was dumb and wrong and therefore needed to have a lesson taught to him by the supreme anti-Pharisee!"
Final thoughts
Suppose you don't know enough about the Pharisees to present legitimate evidence against them. In that case, all you have is one argument from silence and two arguments that work against you when presented with historical precedence.
Todah Rabah!