stephan huller

When I was researching Morton Smith Neusner comes across like a real something. Makes you wonder about genius or what is taken to be genius. Brown sounded like an insane asylum. I can only tell the stories when the old man passes on but if you dig through old Providence Herald issues it's mostly there.

spin

While I wouldn't agree with the attachment of Sadducees here, I do strongly agree with the notion that 1 Macc is a relatively late Hasmonean work--it goes at least to the times of John Hyrcanus, as per the last chapter.

2 Macc doesn't seem to know about the Hasmoneans, nor Modein, mentioning brothers Simon, Joseph and Jonathan (8:22), but no father Mattathias (cf. the strident stuff in 1 Macc 2). This Joseph was not a 1 Macc brother. I think the Hasmoneans may have grafted themselves into the family of Judas.

I think the first two chapters will answer that question. See especially 2:23,

[T2]all this, which has been set forth by Jason of Cyrene in five volumes, we shall attempt to condense into a single book.[/T2]

Long ago I developed a theory about Alkimos, the high priest at the time of Judas the Maccabee, who is not mentioned at all in 2 Macc, but is a villain in 1 Macc, whose greatest crime was to tear down the wall of the inner court of the sanctuary (9:54), well, partially, if you believe the next verse. The tearing down of that wall was an attack on the priesthood by removing the separation between the priests and the rest of the people. Alkimos has got a bad wrap out of this, but I think that move represents a current within the Judaism of the time which was stimulated by the leveling effects of the struggle against Antioch that allowed the emergence of non-priestly religious currents by their empowerment through their necessity in the struggle. (The currents probably existed previously, but had no power.) Alkimos would not have acted unilaterally in the removal of the wall, but had some politico-religious program in mind, which may reflect the rise of the Pharisees.

spin

Well, since he wrote that paper over 25 years ago. The paper is quite well reasoned... ie I agree with his thinking. Is that a sign of precocious Alzheimer's?

stephan huller

The Alzheimer's came relatively recently I think. In the last decade.

avi

The humor is acknowledged, with the proviso that it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the historical aspects of classification and diagnosis of the disease which bears his name.
Here's a prominent web site, which demonstrates the extent to which the USA population has been bombarded with the wrong information.

Alzheimer's disease = presenile dementia. It is NOT the most common form of dementia. The confusion is based on ignorance, combined with refusal of the medical profession to acknowledge Alzheimer's contribution, describing a select group of patients, in their 40's and 50's, who suffered significant memory loss before attaining an age traditionally associated with dementia of any kind.

Vascular dementia is the most common form of the disease.

Dementia is noteworthy in the context of analyzing ancient texts, reputed to have been authored by octogenarians, e.g. apostle John, and his protege, oops, forgot his name!! haha, that would have served as an illustration of Alzheimer's dementia, but for the fact that I am chronologically way past 50's. My own dementia is most likely etoh related....

thief of fire

Yes, thats always what slaves say to those who leave.

semiopen

With the exception of Reform Jews, Maccabees is not used by Jews to explain Hanukkah. The explanation is tenuous because 2 Maccabees is not an accurate account, it's Pharisaic roots are dubious, and it is even more doubtful that Rabbinic and Pharisaic Judaism are the same.

It is remarkable that Reform Judaism has the advantage of not being bound by the various idiocies in Orthodox Judaism and constructs a view of Hanukkah and Jewish history that is not much better than the Orthodox one.

Exodus made the Jewish canon.

I already said I'm sorry that you misread one of my previous posts, but you'll have to start bearing the burden of your misstatements.

semiopen

A Life of Yohanan Ben Zakkai, Ca.1-80 C.E was written in 1970. It is available on Questia.

It goes without saying that I haven't read the whole thing.

Having stated that Yohanan ben Zakkai may not have been a real person, I did a little research to see what more learned people thought and found Neusner's biography. If he's correct, this is a guy who was a Pharisee who became a Tannaim . I'm not sure he is right, but this seems to be a little problem with your OP statement if he is.

Thanks for the Jason of Cyrene quote. This guy's actual existence is based on his presence in 2 Maccabees. I wonder what the author of 2 Maccabees did - take all the true stuff out?

2 Maccabees

I mentioned previously that, 1 Macabbees doesn't mention Purim or Mordecai's Day and here we see a possible mid first century CE date.

The link doesn't mention Pharisees. I think that bullshit I mentioned in a previous post -

is real important. I don't know why this is considered Pharisaical.

andrewcriddle

Just to clarify. Neusner's position is that the Pharisees were active, maybe even flourishing, at a grass-roots level in the early 1st century CE, but they were not politically active after the time of Herod.

Andrew Criddle

Jeffrey Gibson

Is that really the case? Where did the Askenazic knowledge of the revolt come from? Does not Rashi show knowledge of the books in his comments on how the feast should be celebrated?

Do not the books of Maccabees stand behind what we find in Bikkurim 1:6, Rosh HaShanah 1:3, Taanit 2:10, Megillah 3:4 and 3:6, Moed Katan 3:9, and Bava Kama 6:6 and in the Gemera at Shabbat 21?

What about what's found in the M’gillat Antiochus (“The Scroll of Antiochus”) that was read in Medieval celebrations of the feast?

So too M’gillat Beit Chashmona’i(m) (“The Scroll of the House of the Hasmoneans”) and M’gillah Y’vanit (“The Greek Scroll”)? Does not the the liturgical formula "'Al ha-Nissim", which was part of the prayers said in the synagogue on the celebration of the feast show knowledge of Maccabees?

Do you actually doubt that there was a Jewish revolt in 167-164 BCE and that the Temple was not recaptured and purified in c 164? If you do not, I cannot understand what you mean by "tenuous". How does questioning the historicity of the story that Reform Jews take from Maccabees when they celebrate Hanukkah make tenuous/doubtful the fact that Maccabees is the source of the story they recite then?

Jeffrey