Was Jesus married?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

With respect,

Life expectancy in the ancient world was not much over 40 years of age. (Here, here, and here)

Marriage is a mitzvah (Hebrew: Commandment) fulfilled between a man and a woman. Mitzvah are not polite suggestions and no Jew is held to be exempt from this commandment unless physically or mentally incapable. (Here, here, here, and here)

In Ancient Israel anyone not married by their twentieth year (or there abouts) was considered cursed by God:

The fact that “[cleaving] unto [one’s] wife” was required in the first century by Jews is evident from teachings of the day. “It is thus considered the duty of every Israelite to marry as early in life as possible. Eighteen years is the age set by the Rabbis; and any one remaining unmarried after his twentieth year is said to be cursed by God Himself.” ~ Cyrus Adler, Gotthard Deutsch, Louis Ginzberg, Richard Gottheil, Joseph Jacobs, Marcus Jastrow, Morris Jastrow, Jr., Kaufmann Kohler, Frederick de Sola Mendes, Crawford H. Toy, Isidore Singer, The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1901), 347,

Jesus was called "Rabbi" (Hebrew: teacher) by His followers. To be a Rabbi one must have been married:

Jewish law stated, “Only married men were engaged as teachers.” ~ Adler, The Jewish Encyclopedia, 37.

There are multiple verses that strongly suggest that Jesus favored Mary of Magdalene

Prior to His Crucifixion and Resurrection, Mary washed the Lord’s feet.According to Jewish tradition feet washing, was a service which the wife was expected to render her husband…it was one of the personal attentions to which her husband was entitled, no matter how many maids she may have had; likewise, according to the Babylonian Talmud, besides preparing his drink and bed, the wife had to wash her husband’s face and feet. ( Adler, The Jewish Encyclopedia, 357.)

When Jesus was resurrected Mary approached Him and attempted to touch Him, to which He responded:



With all due respect, it takes a great deal of ignorance and narrow-mindedness to even remotely suggest that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died a bachelor.


With peace,


~ Shaeykh

Sorry, but you're up against the most respected historical Jesus scholar alive, author of the Yale Anchor Bible Series' official volumes on the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew- John P. Meier.

And here's what an actual scholar of the historical Jesus and Second Temple Judaism has to say:

"The basic argument that underlies many of [William E.] Phipps's individual arguments if fairly simple: granted the positive Jewish ethos regarding sex and marriage at the time of Jesus, the silence of the NT concerning a wife of Jesus should be interpreted as meaning that Jesus did in fact, at least at some point in his life, have a wife." A Marginal Jew, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 333.

I take this as your basic argument.

Meier responds: "Phipps appeals to a curiously homogenized Judaism [a myth of later rabbinic and Messianic Jews] as the primary context for interpreting the NT's silence about Jesus' wife and children. Methodologically, though, the immediate context of the NT's silence must be the NT's statements, i.e., what the NT does say about Jesus and his familial relations. After all, the NT is far from silent about Jesus' other family ties.... we learn about Jesus' mother, named Mary, about his putative father, named Joseph, about his four brothers, named James, Joses, Jude, and Simon, and about his unnamed sisters. Moreover, the 2d-century Jewish Christian writer Hegesippus tells us about Clopas, an uncle of Jesus, and Symeon, a cousin. We also hear from the NT a good deal about the various women who followed Jesus during his public ministry: Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuza, the steward of Herod, Susanna (Luke 8:2-3), Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joses, Salome (Mark 14:20), and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.... Granted this surprising loquacity of the NT and the early Church about both the family of Jesus and the women who were close to him, the silent of the NT about a supposed wife of Jesus (to say nothing of children) does take on significance- but hardly the significance Phipps wants. In face of the multiple relationships of blood and belief, both male and female, that the NT and Hegesippus report, the total silence about a wife or children of Jesus, named or unnamed, has an easy explanation: none existed. In my opinion, it is not by accident that the Gospels at times say or intimate that some of Jesus' disciples left their wives and/or children (at least temporarily), while never speaking of that precise sacrifice in his own case. He had made an earlier and more radical sacrifice." Ibid., 344-45.

And he goes on for another seven pages on exactly this point. Find a copy and read it, because I don't want to get carpal tunnel.

 

[William_0]

The truth of the Scriptures.

I'm pretty sure the "truth" is far from true at this point.

 

[Harry3142]

Jesus was fruitful and he multiplied. Look at how many Christians grew from the seed that was planted.

I agree with you on that point. What I am saying is that conservative Jews, which the Jews of Judea and Galilee were, would not have accepted a teacher who was not like them in all respects, including having a family and therefore knowing firsthand the trials and tribulations of parenthood.

 

[Thekla]

I agree with you on that point. What I am saying is that conservative Jews, which the Jews of Judea and Galilee were, would not have accepted a teacher who was not like them in all respects, including having a family and therefore knowing firsthand the trials and tribulations of parenthood.

Then how could they accept the "teaching" of John the Baptist (or some of the other prophets) ?

There was, as I mentioned before, Rabbi Shimon son of Azzai (early 2cnd c.) who was unmarried because his "... soul desires only Torah !", as well as the Theraputae and possibly the Essenes. And, as before, the Palestinian practice was for some to delay marriage for a long period of time, until their Torah studies had been completed. IE, there are many counterexamples ...

 

[Harry3142]

the word 'rabbi' is not the word used in the original text, surely you know that. the greek language of the original scriptures has been translated into english with the words that most closely resembled the original meaning. you must also know that words in our language tend to take on a life of their own over time. so, nice try, but not buying it. Jesus was not married to a human, and if He had been, scripture would have done more than just subtly hinting, it would have made it very clear. Jesus was married only to the church.

as for the second paragraph... what the heck is all that nonsense about? i've never even heard of that stuff. so apparently THAT revisionism hasn't revised a whole heck of a lot.

nor has yours, for that matter... your theory is just a little more common, because secularists love to debate it. it's one of the many methods satan uses to distract people from the gospel.

What makes you think that the original language of the gospels was greek? The Gospel of Matthew is said by some scholars to have originally been written in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic. In all probability The Gospel of Mark was also written in Hebrew or Aramaic, as those were his languages and his way of writing. read this report:

www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/CERTHYPO.TXT

The two books I named were both known to Christians in the time between Christ's actually walking among us and the coming together of The Council of Nicea. There was a sect inside Christianity which taught that all that was physical was evil. They believed that there were two gods, one who dealt only with what was spiritual, and so was to be seen as righteous, and another who had created all that was physical, and so was evil. Some identify them as being gnostics, but I personally consider them as too extreme for even that group.

This is what The Council of Nicea was fighting against, even though many of the men there were themselves members of this sect. It was feared that nothing would be accomplished, but the fear they had of Comstantine, the man who had called them together and told them to 'work it out', caused them to come to an official conclusion, albeit not one shared by all of them. We get The Nicene Creed and The Apostle's Creed from that conclusion.

And why did they fear him? Even though he had freed Christianity from persecution, he himself worshipped the sun god. He didn't convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed.

The church's attitude toward women and marriage is not based on Scripture. Paul said it was better not to marry, but it is suspected that he gave that advice due to the persecution that Christians were having to endure at the time he was preaching. If they were arrested, the Romans had a nasty habit of torturing a person's family in front of that person in order to get information concerning who his brethren were.

The church's attitude toward marriage is instead based on the bias against all things physical that arose in the 300 years betweeen the time of Christ and the coming together of church leaders. There is nowhere in the gospels where it states that Jesus never married. There is nowhere in the gospels where he could be seen as not approving of marriage. That is pure tradition, and it is 'colored' by the mandate against all things physical preached by the gnostics.

 

[Harry3142]

I was just thinking the same thing!
...Harry, did you watch 'The Da Vinci Code'?
...And believe it accurately reflected what happend with Christ?

I refer you to message #45 of this thread.

 

[Harry3142]

Are you saying that you think that the Council of Nicea said that the body, the physical world, is "inherently evil"?

No, I'm not. But The Council of Nicea was called together by Constantine to 'get their facts straight'. There was a sect that was influential (some of the men at the council were even members of it), and which taught that all that was physical was evil. It didn't just target people; if it was physical in any way (a rock, a tree, any animal) it was to be seen as evil.

They also taught that there were two gods, one who had made all that wa spiritual, and so was to be seen as good, and the other who had made all that was physical, and so was to be seen as evil. The Nicene and The Apostle's Creeds were written to put down this teaching. There was one Father, who had created all that exists, both spiritual and physical, and called it good. There was one Son, who had obeyed his Father in every way, obeying all the laws and commandmentsthat aplied to his social station. There was one Holy Spirit.

 

[Harry3142]

The truth of the Scriptures.

Where in Scripture does it state that Jesus never married? It doesn't. That is the outgrowth of tradtion and bias, not Scripture.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

They also taught that there were two gods, one who had made all that wa spiritual, and so was to be seen as good, and the other who had made all that was physical, and so was to be seen as evil.

Like the Marcionites? I think the creed was specifically meant to oppose Marcionism though. That's why it says "one God the Father, creator of heaven and earth". Many of the early Christians Naasense, Ophites, Marcionites, etc. posited that God the Father was not the one who fashioned this cosmos. In some systems It was fashioned by a fallen being who resulted from the fragmentation and ignorance of Sophia.

 

[Harry3142]

Sorry, but you're up against the most respected historical Jesus scholar alive, author of the Yale Anchor Bible Series' official volumes on the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew- John P. Meier.

And here's what an actual scholar of the historical Jesus and Second Temple Judaism has to say:

"The basic argument that underlies many of [William E.] Phipps's individual arguments if fairly simple: granted the positive Jewish ethos regarding sex and marriage at the time of Jesus, the silence of the NT concerning a wife of Jesus should be interpreted as meaning that Jesus did in fact, at least at some point in his life, have a wife." A Marginal Jew, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 333.

I take this as your basic argument.

Meier responds: "Phipps appeals to a curiously homogenized Judaism [a myth of later rabbinic and Messianic Jews] as the primary context for interpreting the NT's silence about Jesus' wife and children. Methodologically, though, the immediate context of the NT's silence must be the NT's statements, i.e., what the NT does say about Jesus and his familial relations. After all, the NT is far from silent about Jesus' other family ties.... we learn about Jesus' mother, named Mary, about his putative father, named Joseph, about his four brothers, named James, Joses, Jude, and Simon, and about his unnamed sisters. Moreover, the 2d-century Jewish Christian writer Hegesippus tells us about Clopas, an uncle of Jesus, and Symeon, a cousin. We also hear from the NT a good deal about the various women who followed Jesus during his public ministry: Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuza, the steward of Herod, Susanna (Luke 8:2-3), Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joses, Salome (Mark 14:20), and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.... Granted this surprising loquacity of the NT and the early Church about both the family of Jesus and the women who were close to him, the silent of the NT about a supposed wife of Jesus (to say nothing of children) does take on significance- but hardly the significance Phipps wants. In face of the multiple relationships of blood and belief, both male and female, that the NT and Hegesippus report, the total silence about a wife or children of Jesus, named or unnamed, has an easy explanation: none existed. In my opinion, it is not by accident that the Gospels at times say or intimate that some of Jesus' disciples left their wives and/or children (at least temporarily), while never speaking of that precise sacrifice in his own case. He had made an earlier and more radical sacrifice." Ibid., 344-45.

And he goes on for another seven pages on exactly this point. Find a copy and read it, because I don't want to get carpal tunnel.

Anything written more than three generations after Jesus' time with us must be studied with care, due to the ease with which mythology can affect what is written. Those writings of the second century claiming to name Jesus' relatives need to be taken with 'a grain of salt'.

As for Jesus' not being married because Scripture does not state explicitly that he was, there are two problems with that:

1. John 21:25, states that Jesus did many other things that were not written down. What they considered as important to the spreading of the gospel was what was given the primary attention.

2. At the time that the New Testament was written, Christianity was illegal in some parts of the known world, and shortly afterward would be illegal in all of The Roman Empire. To name a specific person as having had a special relationship with Christ, especially as his wife, would have been tantamount to a death sentence. And yes, romans did crucify women as well as men; they just turned their bodies so that they faced the vertical post.

 

[Thekla]

The discussion on this thread indicates a form of "reading" where anything that is not explicitly stated can be added by the "reader" as 'factually' true. (Seems a bit like R. Barthes - though replace the ideas surrounding error with silence.) This method, instead of pointing out the fallacy of Tradition, points out precisely why Tradition is valuable.

 

[KrimsonDraegon]

What makes you think that the original language of the gospels was greek? The Gospel of Matthew is said by some scholars to have originally been written in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic. In all probability The Gospel of Mark was also written in Hebrew or Aramaic, as those were his languages and his way of writing. read this report:

www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/CERTHYPO.TXT

The two books I named were both known to Christians in the time between Christ's actually walking among us and the coming together of The Council of Nicea. There was a sect inside Christianity which taught that all that was physical was evil. They believed that there were two gods, one who dealt only with what was spiritual, and so was to be seen as righteous, and another who had created all that was physical, and so was evil. Some identify them as being gnostics, but I personally consider them as too extreme for even that group.

This is what The Council of Nicea was fighting against, even though many of the men there were themselves members of this sect. It was feared that nothing would be accomplished, but the fear they had of Comstantine, the man who had called them together and told them to 'work it out', caused them to come to an official conclusion, albeit not one shared by all of them. We get The Nicene Creed and The Apostle's Creed from that conclusion.

And why did they fear him? Even though he had freed Christianity from persecution, he himself worshipped the sun god. He didn't convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed.

The church's attitude toward women and marriage is not based on Scripture. Paul said it was better not to marry, but it is suspected that he gave that advice due to the persecution that Christians were having to endure at the time he was preaching. If they were arrested, the Romans had a nasty habit of torturing a person's family in front of that person in order to get information concerning who his brethren were.

The church's attitude toward marriage is instead based on the bias against all things physical that arose in the 300 years betweeen the time of Christ and the coming together of church leaders. There is nowhere in the gospels where it states that Jesus never married. There is nowhere in the gospels where he could be seen as not approving of marriage. That is pure tradition, and it is 'colored' by the mandate against all things physical preached by the gnostics.

But... the gospels do not explicitly state that Christ was married, that means He could not have been!

Anything written more than three generations after Jesus' time with us must be studied with care, due to the ease with which mythology can affect what is written. Those writings of the second century claiming to name Jesus' relatives need to be taken with 'a grain of salt'.

As for Jesus' not being married because Scripture does not state explicitly that he was, there are two problems with that:

1. John 21:25, states that Jesus did many other things that were not written down. What they considered as important to the spreading of the gospel was what was given the primary attention.

2. At the time that the New Testament was written, Christianity was illegal in some parts of the known world, and shortly afterward would be illegal in all of The Roman Empire. To name a specific person as having had a special relationship with Christ, especially as his wife, would have been tantamount to a death sentence. And yes, romans did crucify women as well as men; they just turned their bodies so that they faced the vertical post.

This is essentially how I was going to reply. Basically any translation of the original texts, and anything else aside, needs to be studied with care.

However, this is going to fly in the face of traditional Christianity which swears that we have the original documents and that these are the appropriate translations. (Where they will admit that Jesus spoke anything other than American English!)

~ Shaeykh

 

[Melethiel]

Anything written more than three generations after Jesus' time with us must be studied with care, due to the ease with which mythology can affect what is written. Those writings of the second century claiming to name Jesus' relatives need to be taken with 'a grain of salt'.

As for Jesus' not being married because Scripture does not state explicitly that he was, there are two problems with that:

1. John 21:25, states that Jesus did many other things that were not written down. What they considered as important to the spreading of the gospel was what was given the primary attention.

2. At the time that the New Testament was written, Christianity was illegal in some parts of the known world, and shortly afterward would be illegal in all of The Roman Empire. To name a specific person as having had a special relationship with Christ, especially as his wife, would have been tantamount to a death sentence. And yes, romans did crucify women as well as men; they just turned their bodies so that they faced the vertical post.

So your argument is that you know better than one of the most respected scholars alive (who is certainoly not aarguing from tradition) because you don't accept the validity of Scripture? Oh yeah, that's convincing.

 

[Harry3142]

Then how could they accept the "teaching" of John the Baptist (or some of the other prophets) ?

There was, as I mentioned before, Rabbi Shimon son of Azzai (early 2cnd c.) who was unmarried because his "... soul desires only Torah !", as well as the Theraputae and possibly the Essenes. And, as before, the Palestinian practice was for some to delay marriage for a long period of time, until their Torah studies had been completed. IE, there are many counterexamples ...

John the Baptist was 'the voice crying in the wilderness'. People went to see him for various reasons. Some may have gone out of curiosity, some out of a desire to see the man who lived in the desert, some so that they would have someone else to criticize, and some (the soldiers) to see if they had another revolutionary that they would have to deal with.

Rabbi Shimon lived after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Judaism was having to 'pick up the pieces'. 1st century Judaism had been ritualistic, with that temple as their focal point. People went to the temple to offer sacrifices and to perform certain ceremonies, such as the presentation of the firstborn son. The Sadducees were in charge of the temple, serving at the pleasure of the roman procurator, so concentrating on the means of obtaining eternal life was not on the agenda. They taught that death was the end, not a transition.

After the destruction of the temple, the Pharisees found themselves as the power in Jewish society, but they weren't prepared for the task they found themselves having to do. So they went back to Torah. What were the laws and commandments? How could those laws and commandments be followed in the foreign lands their people were being driven to? How could The Holy Scriptures be preserved in Hebrew in lands where not only it wasn't spoken, but also it couldn't be read, since there were no vowels.

The Masoretic text, formulated in the very late 1st century, provided the vowel sounds necessary if others were to continue reading Hebrew. Before this time there were no 'dots and dashes' to denote what vowel sound was to be uttered in a certain Hebrew word. Instead, it was 'fill in the blanks'. With these vowel-sound indicators the teaching of Torah to others became much easier.

But they were still having to completely reform their society. It had been a primarily ritualistic society prior to the destruction of the temple. Now it was to become a legalistic society, where the laws given primary focus could be followed anywhere in the world. Rabbi Shimon and the palestinian teachers had an enormous task ahead of them, but if they had shirked their responsibilities, Jewish society could very well have ceased to exist, as had so many other societies.

But Jesus was not born and reared under the legalistic society of the 2nd century. He was born and reared under the ritualistic society of the 1st century temple worship. Jewish males were to be presented in the temple following their birth if they were the firstborn; they were to be circumcised and named on the 8th day of their lives; they were to start Hebrew school when they were 3 years old; they were to study and memorize the books of Torah, beginning with Leviticus; at the age of 10 they were to learn a trade so that they could support their families; they were to present themselves in the temple when they were twelve, stating through the ceremony that they were ready and willing to take their place with other Jewish men. And unless they went to a Yeshiva to study (and most didn't) they were to take a wife and have children as soon as possible afterwards.

 

[Harry3142]

Like the Marcionites? I think the creed was specifically meant to oppose Marcionism though. That's why it says "one God the Father, creator of heaven and earth". Many of the early Christians Naasense, Ophites, Marcionites, etc. posited that God the Father was not the one who fashioned this cosmos. In some systems It was fashioned by a fallen being who resulted from the fragmentation and ignorance of Sophia.

Thank you for that information. I appreciate it.

 

[Harry3142]

So your argument is that you know better than one of the most respected scholars alive (who is certainoly not aarguing from tradition) because you don't accept the validity of Scripture? Oh yeah, that's convincing.

We still have some scholars stating that Moses lived at the time of Ramesses the Great, even though actual evidence found in Egypt indicates that Moses had already been dead for 200 years when Ramesses the Great was born.

The only scholars that I know of who have stated categorically that Jesus was never married were also tradition apologists. Tradition states that he was never married, but we don't have any verification of that from Scripture. As I said in an earlier message, naming a certain woman as haveing been Jesus' wife would have been tantamount to a death sentence, since Christianity itself was illegal in many parts of the known world.

 

[Kristos]

Of course Jesus Christ is married...

 

[Thekla]

John the Baptist was 'the voice crying in the wilderness'. People went to see him for various reasons. Some may have gone out of curiosity, some out of a desire to see the man who lived in the desert, some so that they would have someone else to criticize, and some (the soldiers) to see if they had another revolutionary that they would have to deal with.

Rabbi Shimon lived after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Judaism was having to 'pick up the pieces'. 1st century Judaism had been ritualistic, with that temple as their focal point. People went to the temple to offer sacrifices and to perform certain ceremonies, such as the presentation of the firstborn son. The Sadducees were in charge of the temple, serving at the pleasure of the roman procurator, so concentrating on the means of obtaining eternal life was not on the agenda. They taught that death was the end, not a transition.

After the destruction of the temple, the Pharisees found themselves as the power in Jewish society, but they weren't prepared for the task they found themselves having to do. So they went back to Torah. What were the laws and commandments? How could those laws and commandments be followed in the foreign lands their people were being driven to? How could The Holy Scriptures be preserved in Hebrew in lands where not only it wasn't spoken, but also it couldn't be read, since there were no vowels.

The Masoretic text, formulated in the very late 1st century, provided the vowel sounds necessary if others were to continue reading Hebrew. Before this time there were no 'dots and dashes' to denote what vowel sound was to be uttered in a certain Hebrew word. Instead, it was 'fill in the blanks'. With these vowel-sound indicators the teaching of Torah to others became much easier.

But they were still having to completely reform their society. It had been a primarily ritualistic society prior to the destruction of the temple. Now it was to become a legalistic society, where the laws given primary focus could be followed anywhere in the world. Rabbi Shimon and the palestinian teachers had an enormous task ahead of them, but if they had shirked their responsibilities, Jewish society could very well have ceased to exist, as had so many other societies.

But Jesus was not born and reared under the legalistic society of the 2nd century. He was born and reared under the ritualistic society of the 1st century temple worship. Jewish males were to be presented in the temple following their birth if they were the firstborn; they were to be circumcised and named on the 8th day of their lives; they were to start Hebrew school when they were 3 years old; they were to study and memorize the books of Torah, beginning with Leviticus; at the age of 10 they were to learn a trade so that they could support their families; they were to present themselves in the temple when they were twelve, stating through the ceremony that they were ready and willing to take their place with other Jewish men. And unless they went to a Yeshiva to study (and most didn't) they were to take a wife and have children as soon as possible afterwards.

So why were the Pharisees surprised at Christ's "literacy" ?

And what culture has ever been monolithic in its expression(except in the historical view of it) ?

(Or does the Scripture and history falsely report divisions in schools of thought and regional teachings ?)

 

[Melethiel]

We still have some scholars stating that Moses lived at the time of Ramesses the Great, even though actual evidence found in Egypt indicates that Moses had already been dead for 200 years when Ramesses the Great was born.

The only scholars that I know of who have stated categorically that Jesus was never married were also tradition apologists. Tradition states that he was never married, but we don't have any verification of that from Scripture. As I said in an earlier message, naming a certain woman as haveing been Jesus' wife would have been tantamount to a death sentence, since Christianity itself was illegal in many parts of the known world.

So you have never actgually read Meier's work, but you are justgoing to write him off as a "tradition apologist" because of your preconceived notions?

 

[Harry3142]

So why were the Pharisees surprised at Christ's "literacy" ?

And what culture has ever been monolithic in its expression(except in the historical view of it) ?

(Or does the Scripture and history falsely report divisions in schools of thought and regional teachings ?)

The Jews of Jesus time studied law, just as the Jews of today do. What caught the Pharisees offguard was the fact that Jesus, a Galilean, knew more about the law than they did, and they were the experts. But the elite ruling class in Judea emphasized ritualism in the temple. That elite ruling class were the Sadducees. So long as they were in power, it was that ritualism that was predominant in Judea and Galilee. And it took the destruction of the temple to end their authority over the Jews.

What I've told you concerning this 'changing of the guard' was learned by me through my talking with rabbis. They gave a backhanded salute to the romans for how Judaism is today. Had the romans not destroyed that temple, the ritualism would have continued and Judaism would have become a superficial religion, if it even existed at all by our time. But as a result of the destruction of the temple Jews were forced to take a long, hard look at themselves, especially in the diaspora. They asked themselves questions such as:

What does it mean to be a Jew?

How do we maintain our Jewishness in the midst of a gentile culture?

How do we practise Judaism without a temple to go to?

These and other questions had to be answered in order for Judaism to survive. And it was up to the Pharisees to find answers to these questions. It was not an easy task. The debates among them were hot and heavey. But none of them debated as to whether the laws and commandments were to be followed. Instead, they debated as to how the laws and commandments were to be followed.

This is what confuses those of us who are on the outside looking in with regard to Judaism. Some of us get the idea that they are debating the importance of the law. This is not so. Instead, they are debating how either a specific law or a set of laws can best be applied in their date and time.