Freethought & Rationalism Archive

militant agnostic · 10-09-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

The Sadducees (a Greek word, perhaps Zadokim in Hebrew) were the priests of the Temple sacrifice. In the first century CE, they were corrupt "quislings" of the Roman government, and appointed by Rome.

The Temple priests and Levites were always the Jerusalem nobility. IMO, they wrote the Torah (laws) as a prop for the taxation of the working people of Judah, demanding the best livestock, produce, wool, metals and other goods as "sacrifice" and eating of it themselves.

The Pharisees (this name might come from Parsee, or Persian, reflecting the influence of Zoroastrianism in their thought, esp resurrection) came into power during the Babylonian exile and after the final (CE) Temple destruction, when the Sadducees lost their power, b/c the sacrifices stopped. This is when the "Jews" became the People of the Book (ie: Torah/Tanakh).

The Pharisees (proto-rabbis), around the turn of the millenium, were attempting to "put a hedge around Torah," to placate YHWH. They believed it was important to always live as if they were a high priest who had purified himself on the day he approached the Holy of Holies.

Jesus is depicted as speaking as a Hillelian Pharisee in the gospel narratives. For example, "lust in your heart" is just as bad as actual adultery. Gossip is just as bad as murder.

Besides the rec. of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk), I also rec, Jesus the Pharisee (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Hyam Maccoby, a Jewish scholar.

from amazon:

Quote:

Book Description
The New Testament appears to describe Jesus as a strong opponent of the Pharisees. This book however argues that the appearance is deceptive, being due to late additions to the New Testament, which, however, contains strong traces of an earlier pro-Pharisee attitude, for example, the portrayal of Gamaliel.

Jesus, the book argues, was not only friendly to the Pharisees, but was actually a member of their movement. Evidence is brought from the rabbinic writings to show a strong affinity between Jesus and the Pharisees... The book puts forward many new insights into New Testament problems: for example, why did Jesus' brother, not Peter become the leader of the Jerusalem Church? What was the motive for the denigration of the Pharisees? What was Jesus' attitude towards the temple? Did Jesus flout the Jewish ritual purity laws? Do the Gospels contain a polemic against the Jerusalem Church? Did Jesus' claim to be the Messiah (a political title) constitute a threat to the Roman Occupation, rather than to the Jewish religion? Was the High Priest a henchman and appointee of Rome, despised by the Pharisees and the Jewish people?

Just out of curiosity. How would the theory thatthe historical Jesus was actually Yeishu? It seems to me that it would be pretty contradictory to their theory if the real Jesus was sypathetic to the Pharisees or even one himself. That would be a very different stance for him to take than what the Yeishu proponents think he was like.

spin · 10-09-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

While it's almost certain that Sadducee is derived from Zadokim, the notion of corrupt quislings seems specifically to come from christian texts and those are probably later than the 1st century. The Sadducees were functionally a spent force in Hillel's time as his enemies are not Sadducee but the rival Shammaist Pharisees. (It was only Herod the Great, who imported a Sadducee family from Egypt, that kept any Sadducee influence alive.

From my reading of Josephus, I see the constant switching of the High Priest role by the Roman appointed governors of Judea.

Uh-huh. Within the same families though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

By reading the HB closely, one can see how the Leviim were in the catbird seat along with the priesthood. (All the priests, kohenim, were Levites themselves, remember.) The Leviim were not given land along with the rest of the tribes, according to the story, b/c they just got tribute from them, as servants of Beit HaMikdash. They've got a whole book of the Bible named after them, don't they? They were singers, teachers, judges, guardians of the Temple, and interpretors (inventors?) of Torah. Elite.

The priests maintained the power, cultic and political. The Levites were the shitkickers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Yes, well, "subconscious" or not, they were nobility and they lived well on the best the region had to offer, without dirtying their hands.

Actually, they weren't the nobility. They merely maintained the literature. Only the main representatives of the priestly classes fit your picture though. The rest did get their hands dirty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Farsee and Pharisee just sound so similar, I see not reason except embarrassment at the Persian Zoroastrian connection, to deny its possibility.

Who denied it? LInguistics tell you not to make facile conclusions based on appearances alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

I've often wondered if this is a parallel to the purity of the rank-and-file from the Dead Sea Scrolls. They both seem to be a Hebrew version of a Greek association.

Both the Essenes...

The Essenes had nothing to do with the DSS. The leading figures in the DSS were the sons of Zadok and the sons of Aaron, ie priests. The Essenes didn't hold lineage important, therefore excluded themselves from the conservative religion and could not call themselves sons of anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

...and the Pharisees were attempting to purify what they saw as a corrupt Judaism,

One groups corruption is another groups purity. It's political to call the others corrupt.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

the Pharisees sticking it out near the Temple, and the Essenes, too disgusted to stay, taking to the hilltop monasteries.

Magdlyn · 10-09-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The priests maintained the power, cultic and political. The Levites were the shitkickers.

I'm not getting you.

Quote:

Actually, they weren't the nobility. They merely maintained the literature. Only the main representatives of the priestly classes fit your picture though. The rest did get their hands dirty.

Maintaining literature and singing psalms are not dirty jobs. Do you mean the guards and builders?

They got a tithe from the populace~

Numbers:

Quote:

18:21 To the descendants of Levi, I am now giving all the tithes in Israel as an inheritance. This is in exchange for their work, the service that they perform in the Communion Tent...

It shall be an eternal law for future generations that [the Levites] not have any [land] inheritance.
18:24 Instead, the inheritance that I am giving the Levites shall consist of the tithes of the Israelites, which they separate as an elevated gift.

Quote:

The Essenes had nothing to do with the DSS.
The leading figures in the DSS were the sons of Zadok and the sons of Aaron, ie priests. The Essenes didn't hold lineage important, therefore excluded themselves from the conservative religion and could not call themselves sons of anyone.

What is your point here, in relation to what we were talking about? I'm losing the thread...

spin · 10-09-2007, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The priests maintained the power, cultic and political. The Levites were the shitkickers.

I'm not getting you.

Maintaining literature and singing psalms are not dirty jobs. Do you mean the guards and builders?

By shitkickers I merely meant those who were low in the pecking order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

They got a tithe from the populace

They weren't going to get it from the priests' share were they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

The Essenes had nothing to do with the DSS.
The leading figures in the DSS were the sons of Zadok and the sons of Aaron, ie priests. The Essenes didn't hold lineage important, therefore excluded themselves from the conservative religion and could not call themselves sons of anyone.

What is your point here, in relation to what we were talking about? I'm losing the thread...

It was merely a clarification. I mentioned the DSS and you immediately started talking of Essenes -- which seemed too Pavlovian for me, so I clarified that Essenes weren't involved in the DSS.

spin

squiz · 10-10-2007, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The Essenes didn't hold lineage important, therefore excluded themselves from the conservative religion and could not call themselves sons of anyone.

I am just curious how this is known about the Essenes.

spin · 10-10-2007, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The Essenes didn't hold lineage important, therefore excluded themselves from the conservative religion and could not call themselves sons of anyone.

I am just curious how this is known about the Essenes.

The Essenes didn't maintain lineage at all according to what can be read about them in Josephus. They were celibates who filled their ranks from the children of others.

spin

jules? · 10-10-2007, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

But a bit more research says something different.

thanks

Hello jules?

Are you another profile?

dont quite get your meaning, is it ,am i someone esle as well? No! just me.

Magdlyn · 10-10-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

By shitkickers I merely meant those who were low in the pecking order.

As compared to whom? The Koheinim? Yes, they might've had less status than the priests. But the priests were also Levi'im (the Levi'im were "joined" to the priests as a "gift") and the non-priest Levi'im received a whopping 10% of the output of all the other tribes combined.

Quote:

They weren't going to get it from the priests' share were they?

Right, that was my mistake. I had to refresh my memory. In fact, the Levi'im had to take a tithe out of what they got from the other tribes and give it to the priests! Sweet.

Toto · 10-10-2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

After my questioning of the authorship of Jesus the Pharisee, by Hyam Maccoby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is also Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Harry Falk.

It's a hot topic.

Jeez, I live and I learn.

spin

To show you how hot a topic it is, Jews Against Jesus: Claiming Jesus was a Pharisee (not for the faint of heart.)

spin · 10-10-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

...Jesus the Pharisee...

To show you how hot a topic it is, Jews Against Jesus: Claiming Jesus was a Pharisee (not for the faint of heart.)

Oh, worth it though. Look at this gem:

If you think that ISLAM is bad, take Yeshua HaMashiach out of Christianity and it will make radical Islam look like kids on a playground.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.