[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Re: Absence of Chanukah in scrolls
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-8" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
For the Zadokites had sawn the second Temple inferior to the first, an early
used topos, i.e. En 85.73 vs. 89.50, there was no philosophical space left
to define the second Temple as clean enough for a Chanukkah only because of
the cleansing by Judas Maccabee in 165 BCE (traditionally 164 BCE; N.B.,
both weren^“t Shabbat-years acc. to MAIER). The Zadokite interests lay in
quite different things, viz. the conceptions of the consecration of the
third Temple (11QT) and the development of an ideal New Jerusalem (0QNJ).
Interestingly enough, the figurative Jesus of the Gospels later picked up
this temple-cleansing method introduced by Judas. However, the second Temple
Chanukkah seems to mark one of the dogmatically cracks which culminated
later in the split of the Zadokites in an orthodox and a reformed (the
*lying*) fraction.
That was probably the reason why we find no reference to Chanukkah in the
corpus.
And I wonder if all of us accept, that per se one Antiochus I-IV, King of
Jawan/Ionian doesn^“t make a Roman *ruler of the Kitti^“m*, even if both were
temporarily located in Egypt. Therefore we shouldn^“t further confuse the
Maccabean uprising with an uprising against Rome which was developed in the
War Scroll *by interpreting - not using - its military Tactica in good
oriental auxilliary-fashion* (from ARMA-L list).
Dierk
For private reply, e-mail to "Dierk Vandenberg" <haGalil@gmx.net>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to majordomo@panda.mscc.huji.ac.il with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.