Re: Josephus and the Sadducees (Ian)
- Ian wrote:
> Here's the gospel citations of the Sadducees:
> the walk on part in a dispute story on resurrection.
> is a redactional transition from the previous use in GMatt.
> 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:
> as is done in
> So far the only thing that the NT tells us about the Sadducees is that
> didn't believe in resurrection (which is pretty much all that JosephusYour analysis shows that Matt. thought the Sadducees significant enough with
> knows about their beliefs).
> is part of a reference to resurrection, as is
> which leaves us with
> "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,"
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?