[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion Orion James Brother of Jesus

Yirmiyahu wrote:

>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.

The "who are also Zadokites" is an unwarranted assumption.

>Recognizing that
>the Tz'doqim in the Beyt Miyq'dash were Roman-appointed, highly Hellenistic,

If we are still dealing with MMT, then the relevance of Romans is totally
missing. Roman influence came with the fall of Aristobulus. The "we/you"
being dealt with in MMT was clearly before the Romans. You have no idea of
the scale of the conflict between "we/you", so you have no way of knowing
when it was resolved. (I still see MMT as being an early document with a
context that requires a "peaceful" gentile presence in Jerusalem that is
highhandedly being excluded from the temple.) So the following has no
historical basis whatsoever.

>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

Is there in fact any post 63 bce pre 100 ce evidence for Sadducees that goes
beyond reminiscences of no resurrection and the affirmation that one high
priest was a Sadducee? For a group that seems so important noone seems to
know very much about them at all.

>>(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.

One has to establish continuity, not assume it, as has been done in this
area. Until a clear relationship between the sources of information has been
built one cannot make connections.

>>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.

It's a little difficult to keep up with your shifting time zones a la
Slaughterhouse 5. Are you talking about MMT here (pre 63, I think pre 175
bce) or Roman period (post 63 bce)? Are you talking about "the Qumran sect"
or some other? Which "existing records" are you talking about? (I have been
asking for sources for the various positions flying around for quite a
while.) Just so we know what exactly you are talking about.

>>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?

It might be a good idea to look at the genre of texts that regard the temple
from caves 4 and 11 and perhaps you can tell me what context other than
temple regulation would give them sense. (Try for example the SabbathSongs
or the Mishmarot.)

Let me ask the question once again, as you talk of a Qumran sect: what sect?

Ian Hutchesson