[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion response to R. Gmirkin (long)
I am a bit suprised that the many sources on the Hasideans is very much
ignored. There are perhaps hundreds of references to the Hasideans in
Mishnaic sources; from life style, to folkways, from martyrologies to
victories. Why is it so ignored? Example: Jose ben Joezer (my choice for
RT) was a leader of the Hasidean movement who was killed by his nephew,
Alcimus (IMHO the WP).
Jose ben Joezer, as some may know, was the first Nasi of the Sanhedrin
Gadol. A high profile historical figure, a little too high for a leader of
a fictious group. I wouls suggest a quick glance at the Jewish
Encyclopaedia or the Encyclopaedia Judaica. The Hasidean/Essene connection
is textbook material. If you feel that any of what I have presented is
unscientific the burden of proof is on you and you must present the proof
texts that contradict such material. Ignorance of the sources is not an
Philip Davies wrote
> >Re Hasifim, I am not sure whether I specifically posted a challenge to
> >Russel Gmyrken. But now that he has responded, I can only say that the
> >problem is whether 'Hasidim' as a distinct group is the invention of the
> >writer of 1 Maccabees. I really do not see how Enoch can be said to reflect
> >a group whose existence is itself problematic. That Hasidim may have been a
> >term coined for those rallying to the banner of 'ancetrsal Judaism'
> >(whatever that was) is not improbable, but to make these into a distinct
> >group needs some conrete evidence beyond 1 Macc. One can make similar
> >arguments, IMO for a distinct group called "sinners" if one uses similar
> >evidence and logic.
> >But let us agree to differ. No-one has any fresh evidence, only opinions.
> >There is already too much theory chasing too little data on this list.
> >Philip R Davies
> >Department of Biblical Studies
> >University of Sheffield