Rabbinic Judaism and Jesus

[dudabradc]

It seems commonplace to explain Jesus' teaching/discipleship strategies through the lens of Rabbinic Judaism, comparing and contrasting what Jesus did with Jewish rabbinical traditions (ex. comparing Jesus' disciples to Jewish Talmidim who progressed through various schools (bet sefer, bet midrash, bet talmud) then attached themselves to a Rabbi, travelling extensively with him, etc...).

But ... from what I can tell, rabbinic Judaism is still very much in its developmental stages during the first century BC, and doesn't really develop into a full-fledged system until after 70AD. Although certain precursors may have gone back a few centuries, much of the structure seems to originate with rabbis who, at earliest, were essentially contemporaries of Christ.

So, my questions are of this type:
- When Jesus was here in the flesh, was there even a formal rabbinic system for him to emulate?
- Are there any historical grounds for making the rabbinic (or similar) system the cultural backdrop to what Jesus did?
- Do comparisons with the rabbinic system shed light on Jesus' actions, or cloud the issues?
- Did rabbinic, or proto-rabbinic Judaism influence early Christianity (or perhaps was the even the other way around ... some of the post-Temple Rabbis emulated Jesus)?

I'm just trying to get my history in the right order.

Also: Anybody know any reputable yet accessible scholarly sources that actually explore this question (not popular talks on Jesus and the Rabbis, or works that assume this rabbis-to-Jesus trajectory, but robust historical scholarship)?

 

[Basil the Great]

Welcome to CF and I congratulate you on an excellent question. Sadly, I am unable to shed any light on the subject, at least off the top of my head. May you stay safe and well in these trying days.

 

[JackRT]

Although not exactly what you asked this little essay of mine may answer some of your questions:

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.


Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.


The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.


In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.


Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.


About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.


This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

You might find Hyam Maccoby's "Revolution in Judeah" to be a helpful source.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It seems commonplace to explain Jesus' teaching/discipleship strategies through the lens of Rabbinic Judaism, comparing and contrasting what Jesus did with Jewish rabbinical traditions (ex. comparing Jesus' disciples to Jewish Talmidim who progressed through various schools (bet sefer, bet midrash, bet talmud) then attached themselves to a Rabbi, travelling extensively with him, etc...).

But ... from what I can tell, rabbinic Judaism is still very much in its developmental stages during the first century BC, and doesn't really develop into a full-fledged system until after 70AD. Although certain precursors may have gone back a few centuries, much of the structure seems to originate with rabbis who, at earliest, were essentially contemporaries of Christ.

So, my questions are of this type:
- When Jesus was here in the flesh, was there even a formal rabbinic system for him to emulate?
- Are there any historical grounds for making the rabbinic (or similar) system the cultural backdrop to what Jesus did?
- Do comparisons with the rabbinic system shed light on Jesus' actions, or cloud the issues?
- Did rabbinic, or proto-rabbinic Judaism influence early Christianity (or perhaps was the even the other way around ... some of the post-Temple Rabbis emulated Jesus)?

I'm just trying to get my history in the right order.

Also: Anybody know any reputable yet accessible scholarly sources that actually explore this question (not popular talks on Jesus and the Rabbis, or works that assume this rabbis-to-Jesus trajectory, but robust historical scholarship)?

Rabbinic Judaism developed considerably after Jesus walked this earth. I would look at Pharasaic Judaism, which seems more germaine to your thinking.

 

[dudabradc]

Thanks, JackRT.

They [the Pharisees] were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’

. I guess that's one of my questions. How developed were these beits? Hillel and Shammai barely predate Jesus. Was there a fully developed rabbinical system by Jesus' day, or was the system still developing? Was there such a thing as a Rabbi, in the formal sense? It's interesting that the Bible uses the word "scribes" to denote the teachers of the law, and "rabbbi" still seems to be mostly informal.

For example, NIDNTTE says, "In all of its NT occurrences ῥαββί is used as a form of address rather than as a formal title (i.e., we do not find statements such as “The rabbi [or Rabbi X] said …”). The term was used when addressing not only the professional scholars (γραμματεύς G1208, “scribe, teacher of the law”; see γράφω G1211) but also the Pharisees (cf. Matt 23:2 with vv. 7–8), so in Jesus’ day it apparently did not yet have the technical sense of someone ordained or otherwise officially recognized. The disciples of John the Baptist addressed him by this title (John 3:26), and it was applied to Jesus by Nicodemus (John 3:2), Nathanael (John 1:49), Peter (Mark 9:5; 11:21), Judas (Matt 26:25, 49; Mark 14:45), and others (John 1:38; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8)."

Perhaps Jesus modelled his ministry in part around what Hillel and Shammai had done, but how formalized was this system in Jesus' day?

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel.

But was Jesus a formally trained and ordained Rabbi? What is the basis for this conclusion?

He may have agreed with Hillel on occasion, but is the suggestion that he was a disciple of Beit Hillel based on an assumption that Jesus' theological education followed a formal rabbinical model that possibly doesn't appear until after 70AD? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but are conclusions like these based on evidence or assumptions?

We do have Paul studying under Gamaliel - that seems a bit more formal. But again, what would that have looked like in the pre-70AD era?

This is where I'm wrestling with whether we are imposing an anacrhonistic model on Jesus. These things all seem to be developing simultaneously, so how much was Jesus influenced by proto-rabbinic practices?

Hope that makes sense.

 

[dudabradc]

@chevyontheriver. Yeah, I'd tend to agree. What I'm looking for is a good description of Pharisaic practices previous to the move towards rabbinic Judaism. But what I tend to find is Rabbinic Judaism retroactively assumed on Pharisaic Judaism. That's what I'm trying to figure out ... what was actually being practiced by the Pharisees in the first half of the first century AD, especially as it pertains to the practices of gathering and training disciples? Did the Pharisees employ a set "discipleship" strategy, and if so, what was it?

 

[JackRT]

Thanks, JackRT.
. I guess that's one of my questions. How developed were these beits? Hillel and Shammai barely predate Jesus. Was there a fully developed rabbinical system by Jesus' day, or was the system still developing? Was there such a thing as a Rabbi, in the formal sense? It's interesting that the Bible uses the word "scribes" to denote the teachers of the law, and "rabbbi" still seems to be mostly informal.

For example, NIDNTTE says, "In all of its NT occurrences ῥαββί is used as a form of address rather than as a formal title (i.e., we do not find statements such as “The rabbi [or Rabbi X] said …”). The term was used when addressing not only the professional scholars (γραμματεύς G1208, “scribe, teacher of the law”; see γράφω G1211) but also the Pharisees (cf. Matt 23:2 with vv. 7–8), so in Jesus’ day it apparently did not yet have the technical sense of someone ordained or otherwise officially recognized. The disciples of John the Baptist addressed him by this title (John 3:26), and it was applied to Jesus by Nicodemus (John 3:2), Nathanael (John 1:49), Peter (Mark 9:5; 11:21), Judas (Matt 26:25, 49; Mark 14:45), and others (John 1:38; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8)."

Perhaps Jesus modelled his ministry in part around what Hillel and Shammai had done, but how formalized was this system in Jesus' day?



But was Jesus a formally trained and ordained Rabbi? What is the basis for this conclusion?

He may have agreed with Hillel on occasion, but is the suggestion that he was a disciple of Beit Hillel based on an assumption that Jesus' theological education followed a formal rabbinical model that possibly doesn't appear until after 70AD? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but are conclusions like these based on evidence or assumptions?

We do have Paul studying under Gamaliel - that seems a bit more formal. But again, what would that have looked like in the pre-70AD era?

This is where I'm wrestling with whether we are imposing an anacrhonistic model on Jesus. These things all seem to be developing simultaneously, so how much was Jesus influenced by proto-rabbinic practices?

Hope that makes sense.

You might look into the work of Hyam Maccobe. Much of what I know about the Pharisees is from his "Revolution in Judeah".

 

[ralliann]

It seems commonplace to explain Jesus' teaching/discipleship strategies through the lens of Rabbinic Judaism, comparing and contrasting what Jesus did with Jewish rabbinical traditions (ex. comparing Jesus' disciples to Jewish Talmidim who progressed through various schools (bet sefer, bet midrash, bet talmud) then attached themselves to a Rabbi, travelling extensively with him, etc...).

But ... from what I can tell, rabbinic Judaism is still very much in its developmental stages during the first century BC, and doesn't really develop into a full-fledged system until after 70AD. Although certain precursors may have gone back a few centuries, much of the structure seems to originate with rabbis who, at earliest, were essentially contemporaries of Christ.

So, my questions are of this type:
- When Jesus was here in the flesh, was there even a formal rabbinic system for him to emulate?
- Are there any historical grounds for making the rabbinic (or similar) system the cultural backdrop to what Jesus did?
- Do comparisons with the rabbinic system shed light on Jesus' actions, or cloud the issues?
- Did rabbinic, or proto-rabbinic Judaism influence early Christianity (or perhaps was the even the other way around ... some of the post-Temple Rabbis emulated Jesus)?

I'm just trying to get my history in the right order.

First came John the Baptist. It was from his disciples which Jesus first disciples and apostles came. He was not a Pharisee, or a Sadducee. Nor would they listen to him.
John and his disciples had great influence with the people by the time Christ came. So much so that they feared to speak directly against John before the people.
Matt. 21:
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Jesus disciples continued the Baptism of John

Joh 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Also: Anybody know any reputable yet accessible scholarly sources that actually explore this question (not popular talks on Jesus and the Rabbis, or works that assume this rabbis-to-Jesus trajectory, but robust historical scholarship)?

John was a Levite a son of Aaron. Whom, the other sects also called rabbi.
Joh 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

I think this indicates someone who taught, a teacher.

We Don't know much about Levitical teachings, I don't think.

 

[a_ntv]

Also: Anybody know any reputable yet accessible scholarly sources that actually explore this question (not popular talks on Jesus and the Rabbis, or works that assume this rabbis-to-Jesus trajectory, but robust historical scholarship)?

Flavius Josephus, the main Jewish historian of the 1 century, explained that at his time 30 years after Jesus: "For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essens." (The Wars of the Jews, II, 8, 2)

The Rabbinic Judaism arose after the 70 a.d. mainly after the Pharisees. The Christians arose from areas near the [not Qumranic] Essens.
It a huge error to base our understanding of the Hebrew world of Jesus time on the Rabbinic Judaism, because: a) the streets were already separated at Jesus time, and b) the Rabbinic Judaism uses lots of materials of the subsequent centuries, backdating it, and c) many materials of the Rabbinic Judaism develped as direct opposition to the Christian view.

A very good books of a seriuos scholar is: Gabriele Boccaccini "Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History from Ezekiel to Daniel" (4.44 $): it covers the various currents of think into the Jewish World from the return from the Exile to Jesus time.

 

[ralliann]

Flavius Josephus, the main Jewish historian of the 1 century, explained that at his time 30 years after Jesus: "For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essens." (The Wars of the Jews, II, 8, 2)

The Rabbinic Judaism arose after the 70 a.d. mainly after the Pharisees. The Christians arose from areas near the [not Qumranic] Essens.
It a huge error to base our understanding of the Hebrew world of Jesus time on the Rabbinic Judaism, because: a) the streets were already separated at Jesus time, and b) the Rabbinic Judaism uses lots of materials of the subsequent centuries, backdating it, and c) many materials of the Rabbinic Judaism develped as direct opposition to the Christian view.

A very good books of a seriuos scholar is: Gabriele Boccaccini "Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History from Ezekiel to Daniel" (4.44 $): it covers the various currents of think into the Jewish World from the return from the Exile to Jesus time.

Looks interesting. Have you read it?

 

[a_ntv]

Looks interesting. Have you read it?

Yes I did. I also read the other important book of Boccaccini "Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism"

Becarefull, these are history books by scholars, they are not materials for Biblical Studies for Christian Growth

 

[ralliann]

Yes I did. I also read the other important book of Boccaccini "Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism"

I seen some other books when I looked at the link. Since you have read them I would like to ask you about somethings if you don't mind.

 

[a_ntv]

u may ask, I will try to answer

 

[ralliann]

u may ask, I will try to answer

In any of the scholars you have read on this subject have any brought mention of the loss of urim and thummim? This has to do with the authority of the high priest in the high court to settle disputes, ect. among the people at his mouth (ie oral law)?

 

[a_ntv]

In any of the scholars you have read on this subject have any brought mention of the loss of urim and thummim? This has to do with the authority of the high priest in the high court to settle disputes, ect. among the people at his mouth (ie oral law)?

Josephus, who writes shortly after the 70 CE and was a Jewish priest, seems to explain that the stones on High Priest Urim/Thummim [the Oracle] stopped working 200 years before he wrote his book, God having been displeased at the transgressions of his laws. (Antiquities of the Jews: book 3, chapter 8, n. 9 see also note 22 therein), i.e. probably Josephus referred to the desacration of the temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168 BC.

However the book of Sirach (considered Scripture by Catholics and Orthodox), refers that the Urim and Turim [the oracle] were replaced by the Law ("The prudent trust in the word of the LORD,and the law is dependable for them as a divine oracle", Sirach 33.3 see note * therein ). The Sirach is however older than 168 BC (it refers to the high priest Simon II, read chapter 50), so Josephus was wrong.

According to the Babilonean Talmud, Sotah, 48a "From the time when the early prophets died the Urim VeTummim was nullified. From the time when the Second Temple was destroyed the shamir worm ceased to exist and also the sweetness of the honeycomb" . Chapter 48b of the same tractate explains that: " Who are the early prophets? Rav Huna says: This is referring to David, and Samuel, and Solomon, and after their death the Urim VeTummim was no longer used." and also (you can check from the same link) "From the time when the First Temple was destroyed, the cities with fields that were allocated to the Levites were nullified, and the Urim VeTummim ceased, and the monarchy ceased from the house of David."

However it is very probable that was during the "purge" of King Josiah (about 640 BC, before the fall of the First temple) that also the Urimm and Thummim were removed from the garnment of the high priest.

They however did not serve to settle disputes, but to draw from a hat (well, from the breast): a use of the Iron Age.

 

[ralliann]

Josephus, who writes shortly after the 70 CE and was a Jewish priest, seems to explain that the stones on High Priest Urim/Thummim [the Oracle] stopped working 200 years before he wrote his book, God having been displeased at the transgressions of his laws. (Antiquities of the Jews: book 3, chapter 8, n. 9 see also note 22 therein), i.e. probably Josephus referred to the desacration of the temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168 BC.

However the book of Sirach (considered Scripture by Catholics and Orthodox), refers that the Urim and Turim [the oracle] were replaced by the Law ("The prudent trust in the word of the LORD,and the law is dependable for them as a divine oracle", Sirach 33.3 see note * therein ). The Sirach is however older than 168 BC (it refers to the high priest Simon II, read chapter 50), so Josephus was wrong.

According to the Babilonean Talmud, Sotah, 48a "From the time when the early prophets died the Urim VeTummim was nullified. From the time when the Second Temple was destroyed the shamir worm ceased to exist and also the sweetness of the honeycomb" . Chapter 48b of the same tractate explains that: " Who are the early prophets? Rav Huna says: This is referring to David, and Samuel, and Solomon, and after their death the Urim VeTummim was no longer used." and also (you can check from the same link) "From the time when the First Temple was destroyed, the cities with fields that were allocated to the Levites were nullified, and the Urim VeTummim ceased, and the monarchy ceased from the house of David."

However it is very probable that was during the "purge" of King Josiah (about 640 BC, before the fall of the First temple) that also the Urimm and Thummim were removed from the garnment of the high priest.

They however did not serve to settle disputes, but to draw from a hat (well, from the breast): a use of the Iron Age.

I take your answer is no?

They were to determine things to difficult for the lower courts.
Deuteronomy 17:
8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, <06310> <01697> which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform <03384> thee:
11 According to the sentence<06310> of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. {and will … : Heb. not to hearken }
13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

As for latter Rabbinic sources, they are what I am sceptical of concerning my question.

deut 33:8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
9 Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.
10 They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.

 

[a_ntv]

For good study on the Urim and Thummim, you can read: Van, Dam C. The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

You can also check Ancient Israel or The Mother of the Lord

Deut. 17 doesn't speak of Urim and Thummim, not verse 10 of Deut 33 is a general benediction of Levi.

 

[ralliann]

For good study on the Urim and Thummim, you can read: Van, Dam C. The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

You can also check Ancient Israel or The Mother of the Lord

Deut. 17 doesn't speak of Urim and Thummim, not verse 10 of Deut 33 is a general benediction of Levi.

The authority of the priesthood was as a cheif ruler in the court. This seems to have remanied until Jesus day. The Pharisees had no authority from Moses for oral Torah.

 

[Mockingbird0]

@chevyontheriver. What I'm looking for is a good description of Pharisaic practices previous to the move towards rabbinic Judaism. But what I tend to find is Rabbinic Judaism retroactively assumed on Pharisaic Judaism.

Works of the late Jacob Neusner (1932-2016) discuss this question. A good introduction is his From Politics to Piety: the Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism, KTAV, New York, 1979. As a very simple first approximation, Mishnaic debates attributed to the schools of Hillel and Shammai can mostly be dated to the first century. The practice of attributing sayings to a chain of names sages arose later.

Another scholar who has studied 1st century Judaism is E.P. Sanders (born 1937). His Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66CE gives a plausible reconstruction of the Judaism that was practiced by Jews who were not part of any of the philosophical schools.

 

[Soyeong]

It seems commonplace to explain Jesus' teaching/discipleship strategies through the lens of Rabbinic Judaism, comparing and contrasting what Jesus did with Jewish rabbinical traditions (ex. comparing Jesus' disciples to Jewish Talmidim who progressed through various schools (bet sefer, bet midrash, bet talmud) then attached themselves to a Rabbi, travelling extensively with him, etc...).

But ... from what I can tell, rabbinic Judaism is still very much in its developmental stages during the first century BC, and doesn't really develop into a full-fledged system until after 70AD. Although certain precursors may have gone back a few centuries, much of the structure seems to originate with rabbis who, at earliest, were essentially contemporaries of Christ.

So, my questions are of this type:
- When Jesus was here in the flesh, was there even a formal rabbinic system for him to emulate?
- Are there any historical grounds for making the rabbinic (or similar) system the cultural backdrop to what Jesus did?
- Do comparisons with the rabbinic system shed light on Jesus' actions, or cloud the issues?
- Did rabbinic, or proto-rabbinic Judaism influence early Christianity (or perhaps was the even the other way around ... some of the post-Temple Rabbis emulated Jesus)?

I'm just trying to get my history in the right order.

Also: Anybody know any reputable yet accessible scholarly sources that actually explore this question (not popular talks on Jesus and the Rabbis, or works that assume this rabbis-to-Jesus trajectory, but robust historical scholarship)?

Hillel and Shammai were rabbis lived before Jesus and in the debate between them, Jesus almost always sided with Hillel. Hillel was the grandfather of Gamaliel, who was Paul's rabbi (Acts 22:3). Many of the saying of Jesus are also in the Talmud, though how much influence happened in which direction can be argued. The way that Jesus taught also reflected the times, such as the style of parable in the parable of the sower there are four types of soil and the fourth is the ideal. It is similar in meaning to this parable:

There are four types among those who sit in the presence of the rabbis: the sponge, the funnel, the strainer, and the sieve. “The sponge,” which soaks up everything. “The funnel,” which takes in at this end and lets out at the other. “The strainer,” which lets out the wine and retains the dregs. “The sieve,” which removes the chaff and dust and keeps the grain. (Pirke Avot, 5:17)

There were some Pharisees who criticized other Pharisees for their hypocrisy, so Jesus was not the only one to do that. Jesus instructed his disciples to do whatever the Pharisees said, but to not follow their hypocrisy (Matthew 23:2-4). Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), so most of the NT was written by a Pharisee, and in 1 Corinthians 11:1, we are instructed to follow Paul's example as he followed Christ's, so we are instructed to follow the example of a Pharisee. The influence of Kabballah can also be seen on John's Gospel.