[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Orion James Brother of Jesus
At 03:08 21/05/97 +0200, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>Well, let me say, I haven't got a clue what you mean by "Hellenist
>Pseudo-Tz'doqim". The only near historical source I know about is Josephus
>who claims to know of only one Sadducee high priest. The one thing that
>writers seem to know like it's on a nail driven through their heads is that
>these elsewhere unknown Sadducees don't believe in the resurrection. Perhaps
>I just lack the right information, but it seems to me that anyone talking
>about first century Sadducees hasn't got much historical evidence to go by.
Cf. Qimron, p. 114-5, et al. If "we" is Tz'doqim, then "you," who are also
Tz'doqim but different, must logically be distinguished. Recognizing that
the Tz'doqim in the Beyt Miyq'dash were Roman-appointed, highly Hellenistic,
Roman vassals, it's safe to assert that they represented an apostate
deteriorated form of Tz'doqim -- hence Pseudo-Tz'doqim as contrasted with
the Qumran Tz'doqim who far more likely represented whatever earlier and
purer form of Derekh Ha-Shem preceded them. I speculate that was Khasiydim.
Even if Khasiydim-Tz'doqim is rejected as too speculative, the Qumran
Tz'doqim can be distinguished from the Pseudo-Tz'doqim in the Beyt
Ha-Miyq'dash. Moreover, realizing this distinction, the prime candidates
for "Koheyn Ha-Ra" becomes the current Pseudo-Tz'doqim acting as Koheyn
Ha-Gadol. I've seen lots of arguments for this or that "original Koheyn
Ha-Ra," but no evidence precluding this view.
>(It may be true that MMT does provide an insight into the halakhah of the
>dss, yet the interpretation of this text from what became normative hundreds
>of years later will not allow one to take advantage of that insight.)
That's neither true, as it depends upon a proof there was no continuity in
Judaism, nor logical as it implies that no one can grasp the
interpretations, which also remains to be demonstrated.
>The looney fabrication that started off as a misguided attempt to make sense
>of Pliny's "hos en-geddi" as some place two thirds of the way to Jericho
>instead of something that is truly up above Ein Gedi? The sect of celibates
>who have marriage rituals and rules about women during menstruation?
>Alright, so we ditch this silly Essene rubbish and call them "the (Qumran)
>sect". What's the difference? We've lost a name for this hypothesized sect
>-- very Monty Pythonesque: the (non-Essene) not so loosely sexual, perhaps
>inhabiting an ex-Hasmonean stronghold, hypothetical believers in some
>non-standard (though noone can say what standard actually was for the
>period) variety of Judaism. Wouldn't convince a six-year-old.
I suggest you read Qimron before making assertions about what's absurd.
Moreover, it should be clear that the Beyt Diyn Ha-Gadol was that standard.
You simply don't like the implications of the existing records and that's
biased, unsupported, ax-grinding, not logic.
>Perhaps with the exception of Ezekiel, there are no documents more temple
>oriented in all the Jewish literature than are the dss. This should in
>itself suggest that these documents are temple based, ie written in or
>around the temple (I have listed the range of dss temple lit. before),
>expressing mainstream Judaism of the second and first centuries before the
>loss of the temple oriented leadership of the Sadducees and the "permanent"
>rise to power of the Pharisees.
On what logical grounds do you equate orientation to the Beyt Ha-Miyq'dash
with control over the Beyt Ha-Miyq'dash?
>Cave 1, that gave us all those early texts before the clamps were put on
>access, does not represent the overall tone of the dss, yet it is naive
>interpretations of those texts that condition the present approaches to the
I certainly agree that I've read some naive interpretations.
Paqiyd 16, Global Congregation of Nazarene Jews
Netzarim Viritual Community Center