Re: Josephus and the Sadducees (Jon)
>Your analysis shows that Matt. thought the Sadducees significant enough withIf this be so, then it in no necessary way reflects a reality.
>the story that they should be added.
>They personify disbelief in theYou cannot say that GMatt was written for Jewish Christians. There is
>afterlife and are a useful stage prop. Matt. wrote for Jewish Christians who
>knew what a Sadducee was.
nothing to support it. You can say that the school had an interest in the
Jewish trapping of tradition. It does for example change Jesus's last words
to be in line with the biblical Hebrew original citation. It puts Jesus on
two animals for his triumphal entry -- due to the Hebrew parallelism that
mentions two animals. Going back to the scriptural reference GMatt uses
gall instead of myrrh in the passion. So with the one occasion stimulated
by the source talking of the Pharisees someone in the school decided to
augment it with the other sect as well.
Let's do this with LEGO:
GMk GLk GMt
8:11 Pharisees 11:53 scribes 16:1 Pharisees
+ Pharisees + Sadducees
8:15 leaven of 12:1 leaven of 16:6 leaven of
Pharisees Pharisees, Pharisees
+ leaven which is + Sadducees
of Herod hypocrisy
16:11 (repeat of
GMatt vv11 & 12 are so that you get the idea that the disciples needed to
see that Jesus wasn't talking about bread. This wasn't so much interest in
Pharisees and Sadducees as it was to make a bit more mileage on the leaven:
"hell, you disciples are dumb! Have I gotta spell out everything?"
>Luke/ActsWill you ever get the idea that we are doing history and not lipservice?
>writes of the Sadducees in the context of the Temple HP on severalThis is misrepresenting the text. The text talks of "priests and captain of
>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.
the temple and the Sadducees", nothing more. And incidentally, the
Sadducees, being priests, why make the separation?
We are still forgetting that Acts has not been dated and its significance
as a historical text has not *ever* been made. If it is from the middle of
the second century then it has almost no historical value whatsoever for
the previous century.
>Apparently this is a connection you wantHistory is the attempt to make sense of the data from the past. In your
>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?
eyes I might be working so hard. In my eyes you are simply being slavish.
The one thing that's pretty clear is that there is something wrong with our
knowledge regarding the Sadducees: it could be that the knowledge is
grossly insufficient or else it is misplaced.