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

Re: Josephus and the Sadducees (Jon)

Expand Messages
  • Ian Hutchesson
    ... If this be so, then it in no necessary way reflects a reality. ... You cannot say that GMatt was written for Jewish Christians. There is nothing to support
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 31, 1999
      >Your analysis shows that Matt. thought the Sadducees significant enough with
      >the story that they should be added.

      If this be so, then it in no necessary way reflects a reality.

      >They personify disbelief in the
      >afterlife and are a useful stage prop. Matt. wrote for Jewish Christians who
      >knew what a Sadducee was.

      You cannot say that GMatt was written for Jewish Christians. There is
      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
      16:12 (explanation)

      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?"


      Will 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 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.

      This is misrepresenting the text. The text talks of "priests and captain of
      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 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?

      History is the attempt to make sense of the data from the past. In your
      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.

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