Re: [XTalk] Re: crosstalk
- In a message dated 7/31/01 7:29:26 PM, mgrondin@... writes:
<< Your "meager response" of 55 messages (today only) amounts to over
12% of the theoretical weekly total of 455 messages, even if none
of the other 400 were yours, which is not the case. Since there are
dozens of contributing members, if everyone was as self-centered as
you, we'd be getting over a thousand messages a day. It's nice for
you, I'm sure, that your thought has been so stimulated, but I can
think of few people from whom I would like to hear on each and every
issue that arises here. Certainly not someone whose typical message
contains one or two cryptic lines appended to a lengthy quote of the
entire note to which they're responding. I believe that you owe the
members a more adequate explanation for this appalling behavior, and
assurances that we will not be the recipients of further massive and
monopolistic "dumping" of messages onto the list.
Mike G. >>
Excuse me for using my screen name, but changing it to a more scholarly
name for the sole purpose of posting to Crosstalk( and offending the
sensibilities thereof seems to make no difference to posting.
I thought, and I will use it again if this is true, that this was a
scholars list. ( with certain acceptable parameters) I have never received 50
Posts from any member on any scholars list(other) of which I am a member.
Mike has an excellent point, and since this post will be moderated, also
probably, I join this post in requesting a reason.
There is no way to process this many posts. At first I believed the Red
Code Worm had struck (this is not funny)
Regards john moon
- At 05:44 PM 07/31/01, BitsyCat1@... wrote:
> I thought, and I will use it again if this is true, that this was aJohn and others,
>scholars list. ( with certain acceptable parameters) I have never received 50
>Posts from any member on any scholars list(other) of which I am a member.
> Mike has an excellent point, and since this post will be moderated, also
>probably, I join this post in requesting a reason.
> There is no way to process this many posts. At first I believed the Red
>Code Worm had struck (this is not funny)
> Regards john moon
> Springfield,Tn 37172
Our moderator (Dr. Jeffrey Gibson) is in the middle of a move, so I will
make a preliminary response, which he can amplify or correct as needed.
Although this list is a moderated list, the moderators do not have the time
or desire to moderate every single message from the 400 or so subscribers.
When a person unknown to us joins the list, they are put temporarily on
"moderated" status, meaning that their messages are screened. If, after a
suitable length of time, their posts seem appropriate, they are switched to
non-moderated status (this includes most of you), which means that their
messages are no longer screened before posting. Occasionally it happens
that a subscriber abuses his/her non-moderated status. The moderators take
note, and intervene as appropriate, either banning the offender from the
list, or returning him/her to moderated status. The appropriate steps have
been taken to deal with this most recent incident. We regret that we were
not able to act more quickly, and apologize for the inconvenience.
This may be an appropriate time to remind everyone that "amen" posts, i.e.,
those that merely endorse a previous post, or offer thanks for it, are not
appropriate on this list. However, I encourage anyone who feels so moved to
send such messages *off-list* to the original poster. We all like positive
feedback, but this is not the place to accumulate votes of approval. I have
noted a few such posts lately from subscribers other than our recent
frequent poster. If such posts continue to the point of abusing list
privileges, we will take appropriate action.
Please send all complaints about the management of this list directly to:
Dr. Jeffrey Gibson, List Moderator
"Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
Jack Kilmon, Assistant List Moderator
"Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
or to me.
Thanks for your understanding and cooperation,
Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
Northern Arizona University
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Considering the various families that existed from
which the priesthood came( was drawn) and their wide
sway.( as well as the number of persons) which came
from these High priestly families.
It would seem inconceivable to me that the Sanhedrin
would not exist in some formal form.
With the ruling family(of the high priest) and his
supporters on the one hand, and the opposition on the
This can be seen by he protection which was exerted
by the Boethan Family.( over James) in the early
church) Which collapsed when the Boethans were not in
Power( James is executed)
It would seem then that there existed a Formal
prior to 70 CE. Based largely along the Power
structure of the Various Families,
While there might have been informal sanhedrin for
minor matters.You can bet that if the opposition was
left out of a decision and it violated some alliance
Rules ( especially a civil Law) That that would have
been used against the Family in question and led to
the down fall of the Family and the High priest.
I was wondering if you would expand on the subject
of the composition of the Sanhedrin as we know it in
time.Which families were represented and which would
have been there?
Might the meeting of the New testament have been a
power play by rival sanhedrin which indeed brought
down a family and subsequent replacement by another
High priest. That is the mishandling of the Matter.
What Historical evidence do we have for this other
than the New testament, and perhaps Josephus for this
matter. That might give evidence to support the claim
that this was a sanhedrin(small s) rather than
Regards John Moon
----- Original Message -----
From: "JOHN MOON" <johnmoon37172@...>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Composition of Sanhedrin
> Considering the various families that existed from
> which the priesthood came( was drawn) and their wide
> sway.( as well as the number of persons) which came
> from these High priestly families.
> It would seem inconceivable to me that the Sanhedrin
> would not exist in some formal form.
> With the ruling family(of the high priest) and his
> supporters on the one hand, and the opposition on the
> This can be seen by he protection which was exerted
> by the Boethan Family.( over James) in the early
> church) Which collapsed when the Boethans were not in
> Power( James is executed)
> It would seem then that there existed a Formal
> prior to 70 CE. Based largely along the Power
> structure of the Various Families,
> While there might have been informal sanhedrin for
> minor matters.You can bet that if the opposition was
> left out of a decision and it violated some alliance
> Rules ( especially a civil Law) That that would have
> been used against the Family in question and led to
> the down fall of the Family and the High priest.
> I was wondering if you would expand on the subject
> of the composition of the Sanhedrin as we know it in
> time.Which families were represented and which would
> have been there?
> Might the meeting of the New testament have been a
> power play by rival sanhedrin which indeed brought
> down a family and subsequent replacement by another
> High priest. That is the mishandling of the Matter.
> What Historical evidence do we have for this other
> than the New testament, and perhaps Josephus for this
> matter. That might give evidence to support the claim
> that this was a sanhedrin(small s) rather than
> Regards John Moon
Dear John Moon:
I am aware of no instances of a rival Sanheidrin being formed before the
revolt in 66 CE. In any event, even if such a rival Sanheidrin had ever
been formed before 66 CE, it would not have had the power to remove a
reigning High Priest.
The power to appointment and remove High Priests during the period of
Herod's temple was the exclusive privilege of the ruler of Judea. At times,
this would be a member of the Herodian dynasty appointed as King of Judea by
the Romans (to be more specific, if my memory serves me right, by the
Roman Senate)--such as Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I and Herod Agrippa
II. At other times, this would be a Roman procurator or prefect--such as
As respects, the high priestly aristocracy, most of the power resided in two
families or houses: the Boethusians (the house of Boethius) and the
(the House of Annas). Of the high priests who served in Herod's temple
until the outbreak of the revolt in 66 CE, roughly a third were Boethusians,
roughly a third were Annasites, and all the rest were roughly a third.
The secret to the power of the Boethusians was that they were related to
some of the Herodians (the Herodians with Boethusian blood included the
infamous Salome, whose seductive dance, according to Mark, led to the
beheading of John the Baptist). As a result, most of the High Priests
appointed by the Herodians were Boethusians.
The secret to the power of the Annasites was that they were steadfastly
pro-Roman. As a result, most of the High Priests appointed by the Romans
procurators and prefects were Annasites. It was an Annasite, Joseph
Caiaphus (a son in law of Annas, the founder of this family), who reigned
when Jesus was tried and executed.
Regarding the question as to whether there was a formal Jerusalem
Sanheidrin, led by the High Priest, who could try Jews at the time of Jesus,
I think that Philo (a contemporary of Jesus) indirectly confirms this in a
statement he makes.
This statement occurs in Fuga. 118: which is the close to a section
(beginning in 108) on the Logos as the High Priest of Lev. 21:10. It reads,
"Wherefore it is meet that we should pray that He who is at once High Priest
and King may live in our soul as Helegchos on the seat of justice, seeing
that he has received for his proper sphere the entire court of our
understanding, and faces unabashed all who are brought up for judgment
The Greek word "Helegchos" is all but untranslateable into English. In the
context, I suggest, it is a title of the Logos as Judge.
The imagery that underlies the statement of Philo is that of a High Priest
seated on a seat of justice as the head of a court, before whom stands the
person/people being tried. Philo got this imagery, I suggest, from his
knowledge of the Jerusalem Sanheidrin. If so, then the Jerusalem Sanheidrin
was in existence, at the time of Jesus, as a formal body, led by the High
Priest, that could try people.
I would like to make one final comment. That is, in early first century CE
Judaism, there was a debate over whether the person who is High Priest
should also be the King of Israel. Some approved of this idea. Others
approved of the idea that the person who is High Priest should not be the
person who is the King of Israel. For example, some of the Essenes awaited
the Messiahs plural) of Aaron and Israel, while the rest awaited the Messiah
(singular) of Aaron and Israel. I think that Philo, by emphasising that the
Logos is both High Priest and King in the above cited quote, is subtly
signalling to us that he thought that one person should be both the High
Priest and the King of Israel.
I hope this helps.
1809 N. English Apt. 17
Maplewood, MN USA 55109