talk about how little things change

The Religious Right of Jesus' day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducee
....Most of what we know about the Sadducees comes from Josephus, who wrote that they were a quarrelsome group whose followers were wealthy and powerful, and that he considered them boorish in social interactions.....They rejected the rabbis' interpretation of the Torah, and are presented as denying that any of the Hebrew Bible, apart from the Torah, is authoritative. As to the Torah itself, the Sadducees are presented as interpreting it literally and rigorously on subjects it directly covers, while rejecting the Rabbinic traditions that mitigate the harsher penalties or aim at preventing unintentional rule-breaking......According to the Talmud, in regard to criminal jurisdiction they were so rigorous that the day on which their code was abolished by the Pharisaic Sanhedrin under Simeon ben Shetah's leadership, during the reign of Salome Alexandra, was celebrated as a festival. The Sadducees are said to have insisted on the literal execution of the law of retaliation: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth", which pharisaic Judaism, and later rabbinic Judaism, rejected. On the other hand, they would not inflict the death penalty on false witnesses in a case where capital punishment had been wrongfully carried out, unless the accused had been executed solely in consequence of the testimony of such witnesses.......

and the Liberal Left
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee
.....In contrast to other Jewish groups of the time, such as Sadducees, Pharisees held that the books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, also called the written law) have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition. They pointed as proof to the text of the Torah itself, where they said many words were left undefined, and many procedures mentioned without explanation or instructions; the reader is assumed to be familiar with the details from other sources. This parallel set of material was originally transmitted orally, and came to be known as "the oral law". By the year 200 much of this material was edited together into the Mishnah, the core document of rabbinic Judaism. Thus, from the Saduccee and Essene point of view, the Pharisees were the liberal party, which allowed for flexibility in the interpretation of the law..... The Pharisees, on the other hand, claimed Mosaic authority for their interpretation, at the same time asserting the principles of religious democracy and progress. With reference to Ex. xix. 6, they maintained that "God gave all the people the heritage, the kingdom, the priesthood, and the holiness" (II Macc. ii. 17, Greek).....the Pharisees represented also the principle of progress; they were less rigid in the execution of justice ("Ant." xiii. 10, § 6), and the day when the stern Sadducean code was abolished was made a festival (Meg. Ta'an. iv.).

While the Sadducees in adhering to the letter of the law required "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," the Pharisees, with the exception of Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, the Shammaite, interpreted this maxim to mean due compensation with money (Mek., Mishpatim, 8). The principle of retaliation, however, was applied consistently by the Sadducees in regard to false witnesses in cases involving capital punishment; but the Pharisees were less fair. The former referred the law "Thou shalt do unto him as he had intended unto his brother" (Deut. xix. 19, Hebr.) only to a case in which the one falsely accused had been actually executed; whereas the Pharisees desired the death penalty inflicted upon the false witness for the intention to secure the death of the accused by means of false testimony (Sifre, Deut. 190; Mark i. 6; Tosef., Sanh. vi. 6; against the absurd theory, in Mak. 5b, that in case the accused has been executed the false witness is exempt from the death penalty, see Geiger, l.c. p. 140). But in general the Pharisees surrounded the penal laws, especially the death penalty, with so many qualifications that they were rarely executed (see Sanh. iv. 1)
The laws concerning virginity and the levirate (Deut. xxii. 17, xxv. 9) also were interpreted by the Pharisees in accordance with the dictates of decency and common sense, while the Sadducees adhered strictly to the letter......

guess which group Jesus was a member of...and which group Paul was a member of...

I'm just starting to read Josephus, so this is good stuff!

My take (from various studies) on the "Eye for an Eye" bit is quite different from most readings of it. Eye-for-an-eye for the the time-period was actually a pretty impressive reform. It meant that if you were to retaliate for someone stealing $5 from you, you couldn't take more than $5 from them. In other words, the punishment couldn't be greater than the crime. That is the basic tenant of this, that the punishment fits the crime. Previously, if someone stole $5.00 from you (based on the cultures of the time) you would probably kill them and steal their flock, or something. But then, since you killed them and spilled blood, they would be forced to try to kill you, and so on and so on.

Thanks,

Brentos, the Freshmaker

...are best known through the New Testament accounts of their disputes with Jesus. In my opinion, they got a bad rap. Their emphasis on clearly defining what is permissible and what is not under the Mosaic Law was a reforming effort. The Talmudic and rabbinic traditions in Judaism are definite heirs to this reformation.

The Sadducees, in addition to their literalism, were also closely identified with the ruling class (many of whom were Hellenized Jews) who were cozy with the occupying imperial Romans. The drawing of contemporary parallels is left as an exercise for the reader.

I'm not certain that Jesus was a Pharisee, though, and I would be curious to see any such references. But clearly he was quite familiar with their worldview and was welcome at their tables socially. (Luke 7:36)

Much of the Gospel narrative seems to contrast Jesus' messages with that of both the Sadducees and Pharisees. The views of both would be familiar to the first century Jewish readers of the Gospels and, it seems to me, Jesus proposes a third way, rejecting both the literalism of the Sadducees and the legalism of the Pharisees.

Jesus the Pharisee by Hyam Maccobe
(from Amazon)
Editorial Reviews

The New Testament appears to describe Jesus as a strong opponent of the Pharisees. This book however argues that the appearance is deceptive, being due to late additions to the New Testament, which, however, contains strong traces of an earlier pro-Pharisee attitude, for example, the portrayal of Gamaliel.
Jesus, the book argues, was not only friendly to the Pharisees, but was actually a member of their movement. Evidence is brought from the rabbinic writings to show a strong affinity between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Talmud even retains a reminiscence of Jesus as a rabbinic figure. The argument that the rabbinic writings are too late to be valid is combated. The book puts forward many new insights into New Testament problems: for example, why did Jesus' brother, not Peter become the leader of the Jerusalem Church? What was the motive for the denigration of the Pharisees? What was Jesus' attitude towards the temple? Did Jesus flout the Jewish ritual purity laws? Do the Gospels contain a polemic against the Jerusalem Church? Did Jesus' claim to be the Messiah (a political title) constitute a threat to the Roman Occupation, rather than to the Jewish religion? Was the High Priest a henchman and appointee of Rome, despised by the Pharisees and the Jewish people?

and Brother Jesus the Nazarene through Jewish Eyes by Schalom Ben-Chorin

also
http://www.minister.fsnet.co.uk/M909SA1.html

among the Essenes as well during his "missing years"

Will we ever know?

Not likely.