Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Josephus and the Sadducees (Ian)

Expand Messages
  • Jon Peter
    ... they ... Your analysis shows that Matt. thought the Sadducees significant enough with the story that they should be added. They personify disbelief in the
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Ian wrote:

      >
      > Here's the gospel citations of the Sadducees:
      >
      > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > Mt22:23=Mk12:18=Lk20:27
      > the walk on part in a dispute story on resurrection.
      >
      > Mt22:34
      > is a redactional transition from the previous use in GMatt.
      >
      > Mt16:12(=Mk8:15=Lk12:1)
      > is redactional (plainly not in the source as the others show).
      >
      > The Matthean tradition has simply extended the reference to Pharisees to
      > include Sadducees, hence the others in the pericope:
      >
      > Mt16:1,6,11
      > as is done in
      >
      > Mt3:7
      >
      > So far the only thing that the NT tells us about the Sadducees is that
      they
      > didn't believe in resurrection (which is pretty much all that Josephus
      > knows about their beliefs).
      >
      > Acts4:1
      > is part of a reference to resurrection, as is
      >
      > Acts23:6,7,8
      >
      > which leaves us with
      >
      > Acts5:17
      > "Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is
      > the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,"
      >

      Your analysis shows that Matt. thought the Sadducees significant enough with
      the story that they should be added. They personify disbelief in the
      afterlife and are a useful stage prop. Matt. wrote for Jewish Christians who
      knew what a Sadducee was.

      Luke/Acts writes of the Sadducees in the context of the Temple HP on several
      occasions. Unfortunately your description of Acts 4.1 grossly omits this, in
      that you say only that this is "part of the resurrection." In fact, the
      verse supports the Sadducee connection to the High Priest, which was the
      point of your argument with Jack. Apparently this is a connection you want
      to deny. The whole context is:

      "When [the apostles were preaching], the priests, and the captain of the
      temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, being grieved that they taught
      the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead." In
      other words it's an allied group of Temple priests and Sadducees, authorized
      to bring the police. The connection is then confirmed in Acts 5.17.

      I don't get why you're working so hard to dismiss or minimize the Sadducees.
      Could you dumb it down a bit?

      Regards,

      Jon
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.