[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Orion James Brother of Jesus
At 14:56 20/05/97 +0200, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>I'd love to know where this idea of "collaborationist Sadducees" comes from.
>There is just so little information about Sadducees. Josephus knows almost
>nothing. The gospels likewise. "Sadducees" is a very hollow name by the end
>of the first century.
By this do you question that the strongly Hellenist Pseudo-Tz'doqim of the
Beyt Miyq'dash were Roman-appointed, often despite not being genealogica
Kohanim, that the appointees weren't Tz'doqim, or that such appointees
shouldn't be regarded as collaboraters with the Romans?
>>>...The early Church and the Qumran community may drink from
>>>the same well- but they are not the same thing...
>>...Eisenman does not suggest parallels
>>between the early church and Qumran, he delivers them. Philologically,
>>historically (to the extent that the early historians can be trusted), and
>>with theological comparison Eisenman thus far has provided numerous instances
>>where the "early church" expressed themselves in an identical fashion with
>>the writers of the scrolls.
Parallels between expressions of the original movement and the Qumran
writings are not only granted but have been pointed out for a long while.
As Ian has pointed out, however, similarities do not equate to identicality.
Contrasts, on the other hand, do rule out identicality. These writings
demonstrate that presuming the phrase "early church" begs the question of
continuity between the antinomian gentile church of the 4th century,
Christianity, and the original pro-Torah -- Qumran similarities -- movement
among the Jews. Something which has been shown incongruous even before the
publishing of MMT -- at least as early as James Parkes. It's as
anachronistic and misleading to use the term "church" relative to the
original Jewish movement as to use the term Christian or Christianity. This
leap of assuming continuity is not only logically unjustified, it's in error.
>>Further conforming evidence is given with
>>regards to "early church" history paralleling that of the Qumran sect.
>However this is pure fantasy, based on the fantasy coming from 50 years of
>mismanaged analysis of the dss. One has to create a "Qumran sect" and a
>series of scenarios that give that sect a history by sewing together the
>sparse historical data in the dss, before one can have said parallels. Sect?
It seems fantasy to me too, but not for this reason. Doesn't MMT provide
adequate insight into Qumran halakhah, uh ma'aseh (maybe we should call the
collective term miyshnah?), to give a reasonable definition of the Qumran
sect in terms of contrasts with the other major sects as well as the parallels?
Paqiyd 16, Global Congregation of Nazarene Jews
Netzarim Viritual Community Center