[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: orion Orion James Brother of Jesus

At 15:24 21/05/97 +0200, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>Yirmiyahu wrote:
>
>>Cf. Qimron, p. 114-5, et al.  If "we" is Tz'doqim, then "you," who are also
>>Tz'doqim but different, must logically be distinguished.
>
>The "who are also Zadokites" is an unwarranted assumption.

In my opinion, Qimron has defended his position, with which I agree and you
have provided no evidence to the contrary.

>>Recognizing that
>>the Tz'doqim in the Beyt Miyq'dash were Roman-appointed, highly Hellenistic,
>
>If we are still dealing with MMT, then the relevance of Romans is totally
>missing. Roman influence came with the fall of Aristobulus. The "we/you"
>being dealt with in MMT was clearly before the Romans. 

Of course this seems likely, though it's less than established.
Nevertheless, we're likely talking about a very short period of intervening
time and the deterioration of the Pseudo-Tz'doqim wasn't an overnight
phenomenon.

>You have no idea of
>the scale of the conflict between "we/you", 

I don't?  Qimron doesn't?  Or you don't?

>so you have no way of knowing
>when it was resolved. 

Resolved?  It was?

>(I still see MMT as being an early document with a
>context that requires a "peaceful" gentile presence in Jerusalem that is
>highhandedly being excluded from the temple.) So the following has no
>historical basis whatsoever.

Gentiles being highhandedly excluded from the Beyt Miyq'dash as the theme of
MMT?  I think this discussion has become exhausted.

>Is there in fact any post 63 bce pre 100 ce evidence for Sadducees that goes
>beyond reminiscences of no resurrection and the affirmation that one high
>priest was a Sadducee? For a group that seems so important noone seems to
>know very much about them at all.

You're imposing a 63 BCE cut-off that I'm not sure is established.  I think
of these scrolls simply as circa 1st century BCE.  I remember seeing your
argument and that it seemed plausible, but I don't remember it being
accepted as fact.

>It's a little difficult to keep up with your shifting time zones a la
>Slaughterhouse 5. Are you talking about MMT here (pre 63, I think pre 175
>bce) or Roman period (post 63 bce)? Are you talking about "the Qumran sect"
>or some other? Which "existing records" are you talking about? (I have been
>asking for sources for the various positions flying around for quite a
>while.) Just so we know what exactly you are talking about.

You're shifting to pre-175 while wrongly accusing me of shifting time zones.
And I don't buy pre-175.  When you sell it to the rest of the forum I'll
have a far more positive view of that aspect.  As for existing records one
of the principal records is MMT which we apparently read vastly differently
as I'm persuaded Qimron is right on the mark.

>>On what logical grounds do you equate orientation to the Beyt Ha-Miyq'dash
>>with control over the Beyt Ha-Miyq'dash?
>
>It might be a good idea to look at the genre of texts that regard the temple
>from caves 4 and 11 and perhaps you can tell me what context other than
>temple regulation would give them sense. (Try for example the SabbathSongs
>or the Mishmarot.)

Claim to be the rightful regulators of the Beyt Miyq'dash while, in fact,
they no longer were.

>Let me ask the question once again, as you talk of a Qumran sect: what sect?

Qumran.  But nice try.
Biy-V'rakhot Torah,

Yirmiyahu Ben-David
Paqiyd 16, Global Congregation of Nazarene Jews

Netzarim Viritual Community Center
www.netzarim.co.il
Ra'anana, Israel

		Netzarim...  Authentic