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

Re: orion Orion James Brother of Jesus

Yirmiyahu wrote:

>At 15:24 21/05/97 +0200, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>>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.
>In my opinion, Qimron has defended his position,

You can see how many people are actually following his "defended" position.
Very few.

>with which I agree


>you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

I have at least placed the document in a context with other documents.

>>>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. 
>Of course this seems likely, though it's less than established.
>Nevertheless, we're likely talking about a very short period of intervening
>time and the deterioration of the Pseudo-Tz'doqim wasn't an overnight

False Sadducees is a theory that is unsubstantiated and based on a
historical context that is less likely than the earlier one. If it is early
then the baddies of MMT got the chop with the rise of the Hasmoneans, though
it is probable that some of their decendents were regrouped into the
Pharisaic movement.

>>You have no idea of
>>the scale of the conflict between "we/you", 
>I don't?  Qimron doesn't?  Or you don't?

None of the above.

>>so you have no way of knowing
>>when it was resolved. 
>Resolved?  It was?

That's part of the problem.

MMT is being stretched too far -- at least by you --, when its context and
significance is not fully understood.

>>(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.
>Gentiles being highhandedly excluded from the Beyt Miyq'dash as the theme of
>MMT?  I think this discussion has become exhausted.

"Concerning the offering of the wheat of the Gentiles which they [...] and
they defile it: you shall not eat it. None of the wheat of the Gentiles
shall be brought into the temple."

You refuse to see that this (and similar) sets a context for the document.

>>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.
>You're imposing a 63 BCE cut-off that I'm not sure is established.  I think
>of these scrolls simply as circa 1st century BCE.

You have no evidence for anything after 63 bce in the texts. The site was
handed over to the control of the Romans and then abandoned after 63 bce.
There is no clear evidence for habitation until the next century.

>I remember seeing your
>argument and that it seemed plausible, but I don't remember it being
>accepted as fact.

People keep falling over their sects.

>>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.
>You're shifting to pre-175 while wrongly accusing me of shifting time zones.
>And I don't buy pre-175.

Why are you selecting just my personal position when I am only putting
forward the 63 bce date as substantiated? You can't be serious with this
sort of selectivity.

>When you sell it to the rest of the forum I'll
>have a far more positive view of that aspect.

One doesn't vote on what is correct. It either is or isn't: numbers don't
count too much. You should know that.

I have no desire to persuade this forum. I merely report what I have found.
I don't mind if people leave it.

>As for existing records one
>of the principal records is MMT which we apparently read vastly differently
>as I'm persuaded Qimron is right on the mark.

You keep stating your belief but you don't argue the position. You just keep
saying he's right. I don't believe you.

>>>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.)
>Claim to be the rightful regulators of the Beyt Miyq'dash while, in fact,
>they no longer were.

What on earth are you trying to imply? MishC was written in the temple
within a year of the destruction of the Sadducee power base. What more proof
do you need that they were in control? And after all I'm only referring to
prior to 63 bce. MMT was written before then. Can you find any evidence for
a dss text from after that date?

>>Let me ask the question once again, as you talk of a Qumran sect: what sect?
>Qumran.  But nice try.

Dogma. We've had this dogma for too long. If you repeat something long
enough, no matter how silly, people will start to believe it. There is no
proof of a so-called Qumran sect as separate from mainstream Judaism of the
epoch in which the texts were written. The only contemporary documents are
the scrolls themselves. If you don't agree you should state your position
with suitable evidence and stop falling back on authority. You should know
better as a logician.

I would love anyone who has some evidence for a Qumran sect to buy into the
argument. So far the sect supporters have reiterated the sad shreds of
contorted logic that gave us the Essenes of Qumran, that, well, SabbathSongs
were not sectarian, but the rest are -- on second thought, the temple scroll
isn't either -- then again neither are the mishmarot. Well, hell, someone
has some idea of what the sect was. Not everyone is shooting air on this
sect business are they? How many feet does one have to tread on to get some
serious reaction. I wouldn't mind a bit of egg on the face if only someone
would come across with the goods.


Ian Hutchesson