2nd/3rd temple

[spiritmech]

I have a question regarding the 2nd temple and the modifications Herod made (where some, from what I understand, call this the 3rd temple).

How important is it that Christians generally lump these two together? On a scale of 1 to 10, (10 being most important), does this lumping together obscure the "real" issues in understanding what was going on in this period of the Jewish people? Would you suggest that Christians learn to make this distinction in order to be more historically aware? Or is it not that big of a deal?

Thank you in advance,
Steve

[shunyadragon]

I have a question regarding the 2nd temple and the modifications Herod made (where some, from what I understand, call this the 3rd temple).

How important is it that Christians generally lump these two together? On a scale of 1 to 10, (10 being most important), does this lumping together obscure the "real" issues in understanding what was going on in this period of the Jewish people? Would you suggest that Christians learn to make this distinction in order to be more historically aware? Or is it not that big of a deal?


Interesting subject, I would like to know more. I know many Jews wait for the rebuilding of the temple to resume the sacrifice. I have some ideas and beliefs concerning this, but first I would like to here more from others.

[Goose]

10

I think it's important to note that the Tzedoqim(Saduccees) that were in charge of the "temple" of the 1st Century, were not the same righteous Tzedoqim of the Tzedoq line in the previous generations. The 1st Century Tzedoqim(Saduccees), were actually hellenists and puppets of the Romans. This is information that my community, the authentic Netzarim (http://www.netzarim.co.il), have been involved with for a long time, and scholars are just coming out with it. Here's an interesting article from the JP, concerning an upcoming tv show on NOVA you'd be interested in:

2004.11.11 (Jerusalem Post, 2004.11.09, p.6) – "LOS ANGELES – Few academic disputes are fiercer than among biblical archeologists and Ancient Refuge in the Holy Land [scheduled to air 2004.11.23] is bound to raise the tone of the arguments a few more octaves." In this NOVA TV documentary, Richard Freund, director of the Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Hartford in Connecticut, challenges some of the earlier conclusions of the original archeologist of Qumrân, Yigal Yadin.
"Freund's most controversial conclusion is that ritual bronze vessels, found by Yadin in the so-called Cave of Letters, were used in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, and may be its only surviving items. Yadin, who had discovered them in 1960, believed that the vessels, decorated with a sea goddess and other Roman mythological figures, had been stolen from the Romans... Freund's conclusions point to an intermingling of Roman and Jewish cultures, even in Judaism's holiest site..." The only basis for opposition to this theory, espoused almost exclusively by Jews, is articulated by "Dead Sea Scrolls expert" Lawrence Schiffman of New York University: "I cannot believe that the priests allowed Roman mythological figures on Jewish religious objects." Not exactly scientific, logical, scholarly or indicative of a "Dead Sea Scrolls expert."

So, yes. I'd say that your questions are important.

[spiritmech]

10

I think it's important to note that the Tzedoqim(Saduccees) that were in charge of the "temple" of the 1st Century, were not the same righteous Tzedoqim of the Tzedoq line in the previous generations. The 1st Century Tzedoqim(Saduccees), were actually hellenists and puppets of the Romans. This is information that my community, the authentic Netzarim (http://www.netzarim.co.il), have been involved with for a long time, and scholars are just coming out with it. Here's an interesting article from the JP, concerning an upcoming tv show on NOVA you'd be interested in:

2004.11.11 (Jerusalem Post, 2004.11.09, p.6) – "LOS ANGELES – Few academic disputes are fiercer than among biblical archeologists and Ancient Refuge in the Holy Land [scheduled to air 2004.11.23] is bound to raise the tone of the arguments a few more octaves." In this NOVA TV documentary, Richard Freund, director of the Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Hartford in Connecticut, challenges some of the earlier conclusions of the original archeologist of Qumrân, Yigal Yadin.
"Freund's most controversial conclusion is that ritual bronze vessels, found by Yadin in the so-called Cave of Letters, were used in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, and may be its only surviving items. Yadin, who had discovered them in 1960, believed that the vessels, decorated with a sea goddess and other Roman mythological figures, had been stolen from the Romans... Freund's conclusions point to an intermingling of Roman and Jewish cultures, even in Judaism's holiest site..." The only basis for opposition to this theory, espoused almost exclusively by Jews, is articulated by "Dead Sea Scrolls expert" Lawrence Schiffman of New York University: "I cannot believe that the priests allowed Roman mythological figures on Jewish religious objects." Not exactly scientific, logical, scholarly or indicative of a "Dead Sea Scrolls expert."

So, yes. I'd say that your questions are important.

Wow. That is astonishing. It makes sense, though. I bet at least one person who was selling stuff in the Temple area was selling Hellenistic wares. It's astonishing that they didn't get zapped by a lightning bolt right then and there.

The opposing view isn't very persuasive, even to me at this early stage of my study of this era of history. It also seems that many people were griping about the fact that the priests were not doing things the right way (Pharisees, the group at Qumran).

I'm reading N.T. Wright's _New Testament and the People of God_ and he's drawing a picture of how this stuff was going on. It's just fascinating.

[Goose]

Wow. That is astonishing. It makes sense, though. I bet at least one person who was selling stuff in the Temple area was selling Hellenistic wares. It's astonishing that they didn't get zapped by a lightning bolt right then and there.

The opposing view isn't very persuasive, even to me at this early stage of my study of this era of history. It also seems that many people were griping about the fact that the priests were not doing things the right way (Pharisees, the group at Qumran).

I'm reading N.T. Wright's _New Testament and the People of God_ and he's drawing a picture of how this stuff was going on. It's just fascinating.I'm not trying to sound mean, but the views that the Christian NT gives are that the Sadduccees and Pharisees had differences, but yet kind of got a long. History seems to dictate otherwise. "Temple" Sadducees were the hated puppets of the Romans by the common Jew, while the Pharisees were like an orthodox zionist majority base of the common Jew. Plus, Pharisees weren't a certain sect, it was a name for anyone basically, that wasn't a sadducee, and could have belonged to a number of Pharisaic "houses", like the house of Hillel, or Shammai, etc.

I have yet to read it, but I've heard "Jesus the Pharisee" by Harvey Falk is a good read. The title might be daunting for most Christians. However, the best book I've read, by far on the subject, that could answer many of your questions, is "Who Are the Netzarim?" by Yermiyahu ben David (http://www.schuellerhouse.com/netzbooks.htm). It's a well documented "intro" book to a lot of the things that scholars are just coming around to admitting. It sheds a new light on the 1st Century, where the 1st Century will finally make sense.

[spiritmech]

I'm not trying to sound mean, but the views that the Christian NT gives are that the Sadduccees and Pharisees had differences, but yet kind of got a long. History seems to dictate otherwise. "Temple" Sadducees were the hated puppets of the Romans by the common Jew, while the Pharisees were like an orthodox zionist majority base of the common Jew. Plus, Pharisees weren't a certain sect, it was a name for anyone basically, that wasn't a sadducee, and could have belonged to a number of Pharisaic "houses", like the house of Hillel, or Shammai, etc.

I have yet to read it, but I've heard "Jesus the Pharisee" by Harvey Falk is a good read. The title might be daunting for most Christians. However, the best book I've read, by far on the subject, that could answer many of your questions, is "Who Are the Netzarim?" by Yermiyahu ben David (http://www.schuellerhouse.com/netzbooks.htm). It's a well documented "intro" book to a lot of the things that scholars are just coming around to admitting. It sheds a new light on the 1st Century, where the 1st Century will finally make sense.

No meanness received. I'm not much of a NT scholar, but the stuff I'm reading agrees with your description of the animosity between Sadducee and Pharisee. I registered on your website and I'll be checking out the material.

[Jezz]

I'm not trying to sound mean, but the views that the Christian NT gives are that the Sadduccees and Pharisees had differences, but yet kind of got a long. History seems to dictate otherwise.
Which NT were you reading that gave you the impression that the Pharisees and the Sadducees got along? The fact is that the Pharisees and the Sadducees interacted very little in the NT, which means that we don't really have enough information to draw general conclusions about what they thought about each other.

However, there is at least one example in the NT, where Paul actually uses the hatred between the Pharisees and the Sadducees and plays it to his advantage:

6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." 7When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8(The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)
9There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. "We find nothing wrong with this man," they said. "What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?" 10The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.

The dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees got so violent that the Roman commander had to send in troops! Is this your idea of "getting along"? :smile:

"Temple" Sadducees were the hated puppets of the Romans by the common Jew, while the Pharisees were like an orthodox zionist majority base of the common Jew. Plus, Pharisees weren't a certain sect, it was a name for anyone basically, that wasn't a sadducee, and could have belonged to a number of Pharisaic "houses", like the house of Hillel, or Shammai, etc.
That is a bit of a muddled view. On the one hand, you acknowledge that the Pharisees were not a monolithic bunch. Yet, you seem to think that their attitude to the Sadducees was monolithic - one of uniform hatred. I find this unlikely. It is likely that their attitude to the Sadducees was a spectrum, which varied just as the attitude to Torah observance varied.

The Hillelites (eg, Gamaliel) were generally the most tolerant of the group, with a "live and let live" attitude. They were more concerned with adhering to the spirit of the Torah, rather than its letter.
The Shammaites were more strict in their Torah observance - adhering more closely to the letter of the law.
Even more extreme were the Zealots (of whom Saul of Tarsus was one prior to his conversion), who not only adhered strictly to Torah, but insisted that everyone else did too and even went as far as physical violence to achieve that goal.

In all likelihood, the attitude of the Pharisees toward the Sadducees was not uniform across all these groups. It is likely that the Hillel school was the most tolerant of the Sadducees - happy to get along while disagreeing. On the other hand, the Zealots were almost certainly fanatically intolerant of the Sadducees and their compromising with the Romans. Ultimately, it was the fanaticism of the Zealots which caused the Romans to send in their army and destroy the Temple in 70 AD.

We see examples from all three of these Pharisaical schools quite clearly in the NT. There is nothing about the picture of the Sadducees and the Pharisees in the NT that contradicts with history.

[Timothy Leary]

"Temple" Sadducees were the hated puppets of the Romans by the common Jew, while the Pharisees were like an orthodox zionist majority base of the common Jew. Plus, Pharisees weren't a certain sect, it was a name for anyone basically, that wasn't a sadducee, and could have belonged to a number of Pharisaic "houses", like the house of Hillel, or Shammai, etc.

Au Contraire, the Saducees - while they had some strange beliefs - had much more support than the Pharisees, who numbered only 7,000 out of 2,000,000.

http://tinyurl.com/6c5pg

Surely the Pharisees were a sect, just as Orthodox Judaism today is a sect. Different schools of thought don't constitute entirely new sects.

[shunyadragon]

Au Contraire, the Saducees - while they had some strange beliefs - had much more support than the Pharisees, who numbered only 7,000 out of 2,000,000.

http://tinyurl.com/6c5pg

Surely the Pharisees were a sect, just as Orthodox Judaism today is a sect. Different schools of thought don't constitute entirely new sects.Thank you for the reference! This earns you some pearls.

This provides some evidence for Paul's Greco-Roman corruption of Jesus Christ, whether or not he was a messiah.

Interesting, the 2nd temple possibly became corrupted by the Greco-Roman pharisees, because they may have made an unholy bargain with the Romans.

Personal I would like to get more information on the different views of the 3rd temple. I would like further clarification why would Christians try and merge the 2nd and 3rd prophecies, unless ah . . . maybe, like Dee Dee, they are trying to squeeze the prophecies of the first and second coming all within a short period of time.

[Goose]

Au Contraire, the Saducees - while they had some strange beliefs - had much more support than the Pharisees, who numbered only 7,000 out of 2,000,000.

http://tinyurl.com/6c5pg
Your link quotes only from Josephus, so I'll use Josephus as a reference:

"However, this prosperous state of affairs moved the Jews to envy Hyrcanus; but they that were the worst disposed to him were the Pharisees, who were one of the sects of the Jews, as we have informed you already. These have so great a power over the multitude, that when they say any thing against the king, or against the high priest, they are presently believed." - Flavius Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews - Book XIII, Ch. 10 v. 5

[Goose]

The dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees got so violent that the Roman commander had to send in troops! Is this your idea of "getting along"? :smile:So, you agree with me then that the Sadducees and Pharisees hated each other.

[Jezz]

So, you agree with me then that the Sadducees and Pharisees hated each other.
No, I do not agree with that statement. It is at best a half-truth - a hopeless over-generalisation.

Please read what I wrote again, as I explained my full position already - specifically, read this bit:

In all likelihood, the attitude of the Pharisees toward the Sadducees was not uniform across all these groups. It is likely that the Hillel school was the most tolerant of the Sadducees - happy to get along while disagreeing. On the other hand, the Zealots were almost certainly fanatically intolerant of the Sadducees and their compromising with the Romans.

To say "the Sadducees and the Pharisees hated each other" is far too simplistic. The Pharisees, as you yourself acknowledged, did not have uniform beliefs within themselves, but were further divided into several different "schools" that differed in beliefs and practices.

It is certain that some of the Pharisees hated the Sadducees in a fanatical, zealous way. It is equally certain that not all Pharisees did - for example, those who belonged to the school of Hillel were probably fairly tolerant of the Sadducees.

The statement "the Sadducees and the Pharisees hated each other" is a hopeless overgeneralisation of the religious-political situation in Judea in the first century, which in reality was almost certainly far more complicated.

Btw, are you going to withdraw your comment that the NT is historically inaccurate with regard to the picture that it paints of the relationship between the Sadducees and the Pharisees? If not, in what way was it inaccurate?

[Goose]

I recognize the differences within the Pharisaic ranks. However, the Christian NT does not. Therefore, I can't withdaw my comment about the Christian NT. It seems like the writers of the Christian NT didn't have a very good understanding themselves then, as they use the "hopeless over-generalisation of the term: Pharisees".

[Goose]

Next on NOVA: "Ancient Refuge in the Holy Land"

http://www.pbs.org/nova/scrolls/

Broadcast: November 23, 2004, 8 p.m.
(NOVA airs Tuesdays on PBS at 8 p.m. Check your local listings as
dates and times may vary.)

[Jezz]

Jezz: Btw, are you going to withdraw your comment that the NT is historically inaccurate with regard to the picture that it paints of the relationship between the Sadducees and the Pharisees?

I recognize the differences within the Pharisaic ranks. However, the Christian NT does not. Therefore, I can't withdaw my comment about the Christian NT.
That is a dodge. You couldn't answer the challenge as given without admitting that the Christian NT might have actually got something right - an admission that clearly would have been too painful for you. So instead you invented a different challenge, pretended that it was the one that I had issued in the first place, and proceeded to answer that one! It seems like you'll go to any length to avoid admitting that the Christian NT might have actually got something right! :ahem:

Note carefully that I didn't ask you to withdraw any comment about the NT's accuracy with regard to differences within the Pharisaic ranks. I asked you to withdraw your comment about the NT's accuracy with regard to the relationship between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. You claimed that the impression it gave was that "they kind of got a long [sic]". I gave you an example from the NT of a confrontation between Sadducees and Pharisees that got so violent that it required military intervention. Clearly, your original claim:

I'm not trying to sound mean, but the views that the Christian NT gives are that the Sadduccees and Pharisees had differences, but yet kind of got a long. History seems to dictate otherwise.

...is false, and if you have any sort of integrity you need to withdraw it.

It seems like the writers of the Christian NT didn't have a very good understanding themselves then, as they use the "hopeless over-generalisation of the term: Pharisees".
Rather, it seems like the writer of this post didn't have a very good understanding of the Christian NT...

Withdraw your earlier comment about the Sadducees and Pharisees, and I will consider addressing this second false statement about the Christian NT.

And while you're at it, you should also consider withdrawing the claim that Christianity is mainly based on "Greek and English". :lmbo:

[Goose]

"The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven." - Mat 16:1

"Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." - Mat 16:12

"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrin, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." - Act 23:6

It says they were all in the "Sanhedrin". The Great Council of the Jews with 71 members. It sure seems to me that the "Sanhedrin" worked pretty well until Paul declares himself a Pharisee and causes the fighting between the two sects. It's impossible to have meetings if everyone is trying to kill one another. Why would they see the opposing sect's membership to the "Sanhedrin" as legit if they despised one another so much? If they hated eachother that much, they would have their own "Sanhedrin"?

It's obvious that they had different views, but still tried to stick together, as the book of Mark 12:18 and Acts states up until, Acts 23, else the "Sanhedrin" would not have met. The writer of Acts wants Paul to look so righteous and smart while those "silly Jews" are squabbling. I also find it interesting that Paul is still calling himself a Pharisee.

[shunyadragon]

I am still interested in more information on the different views concerning what is the third temple in view of prophecy and tradition.



This was the main point of the original thread.

[Jezz]

"The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven." - Mat 16:1

"Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." - Mat 16:12

"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrin, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." - Act 23:6

It says they were all in the "Sanhedrin". The Great Council of the Jews with 71 members. It sure seems to me that the "Sanhedrin" worked pretty well until Paul declares himself a Pharisee and causes the fighting between the two sects. It's impossible to have meetings if everyone is trying to kill one another. Why would they see the opposing sect's membership to the "Sanhedrin" as legit if they despised one another so much? If they hated eachother that much, they would have their own "Sanhedrin"?

It's obvious that they had different views, but still tried to stick together, as the book of Mark 12:18 and Acts states up until, Acts 23, else the "Sanhedrin" would not have met.
Correct. It is obvious that in the NT the Sadducees and the Pharisees got along sometimes. It is equally obvious that there were times when they didn't get along all that well. In other words, there is a diversity of relationship between Pharisees and Sadducees shown in the NT. (Remember - diversity? The kind of thing that you said was lacking from the NT?)

Is there anything a-historical about that picture? Are you claiming that the Sanhedrin in late 20s AD consisted entirely of Pharisees or entirely of Sadducees? It seems to me, you have only one of a couple options:

Alternative 1: Admit that the Sanhedrin was comprised of some Pharisees, some Sadducees. If so, then you have no grounds for claiming that the NT paints an incorrect view of history.

Alternative 2: Claim that the Sanhedrin at this time was comprised of either entirely Pharisees, or entirely Sadducees. In which case, I would like to see the historical source on which you base this claim.

The writer of Acts wants Paul to look so righteous and smart while those "silly Jews" are squabbling.
Gee, Luke just can't win, can he? It is quite clear how your syllogism is constructed to avoid any possibility of concluding anything else right from the outset:

1. Luke can either depict the Sadducees and Pharisees as getting along, or he can depict them as fighting.
2. If he depicts them as getting along, then we can claim that Acts is a-historical because we know that the Sadducees and Pharisees didn't get along.
3. If he depicts them as fighting, then we can claim that Acts is a-historical because Luke just wanted to make the Jews look silly by their squabbling.

So whether Luke depicts the Pharisees and Sadducees as fighting or whether he depicts them as getting along, your conclusion is still the same: "Acts is a-historical". Heads you win, tails Luke loses... :ahem:

Did you ever stop consider that perhaps Luke narrated that event that way because that's essentially what happened? Or do you simply start from the assumption that it must be wrong somehow - because... well... it's the Christian New Testament!

I also find it interesting that Paul is still calling himself a Pharisee.
Ok, I could take the bait and ask why this is interesting (I find it quite mundane), but I'm not going to indulge your dodging tactics. Try and stick to the issue instead of raising new ones all the time.

[Goose]

Is there anything a-historical about that picture? Are you claiming that the Sanhedrin in late 20s AD consisted entirely of Pharisees or entirely of Sadducees?The Sadducees were around before the Pharisees. So, at some point in time the "Sanhedrin" was entirely Sadducees. Over time, it became more and more only Pharisee. Why are you focusing on the Sanhedrin of the 20's? I don't remember a Sanhedrin meeting in the NT in the 20's. The only meeting I know of is in Acts.

Alternative 1: Admit that the Sanhedrin was comprised of some Pharisees, some Sadducees. If so, then you have no grounds for claiming that the NT paints an incorrect view of history.

Alternative 2: Claim that the Sanhedrin at this time was comprised of either entirely Pharisees, or entirely Sadducees. In which case, I would like to see the historical source on which you base this claim.Why are those my only two alternatives? Since the Pharisees were waxing in power, and the Sadducees waning, the Pharisees would go through the "Sanhedrin" until they dominated, at some point, having both Pharisee and Sadducee. It says in many texts, that they held both written and oral Torah as binding(4QMMT). They only disagreed on whether the oral Torah should be written down(i.e. the Talmud) and also on things like resurrection. But this is minor disagreements on halacha, not Torah. The real beef between the two, was that the Pharisees considered the Sadducees to be hellenists/sympathizers/puppets of the Romans. Something the NT doesn't talk about. Which is why I say that the NT sees the Sadducees and Pharisees as just two different sects of Judaism, much like two different denominations of Christianity today. The probable truth is, that the Pharisees dispised the Sadducees, and would only work with them if there was a common enemy, or if the Pharisees would gain in some way.


Gee, Luke just can't win, can he? It is quite clear how your syllogism is constructed to avoid any possibility of concluding anything else right from the outset:Not really. If Luke said 1+1=2 I'd believe him. However, I fail to believe in the validity of a writer who writes about different accounts of a point in time, each having different results. i.e. Paul's ecstasy on the road to Damascus, which has 3 obviously different results, and the "Spirit" telling him to leave or stay in Jerusalem.

You see, it's not that I think the writer of Acts(or a part of Acts or whatever) is always wrong, it's that when they write crazy illogical instances, I have a tendency to not trust them so much. I'd rather rely on other, more objective accounts and records. If the writer of Acts, coincides with the probable history of the time, then great. But since he's so illogical and inconsistant, I'm not going to rely on that writer to tell me new instances of history not already known; let alone teach me "new" or "hidden" things about the Almighty.

And let's overlook the illogical and say that Luke did get it historically right. I'd still have to hold Paul accountable in relation to keeping of Torah, and he fails. There's a difference between being accurate and being correct. You'd first have to get over the accurate part, then we could argue about it being correct.

[Jezz]

The Sadducees were around before the Pharisees. So, at some point in time the "Sanhedrin" was entirely Sadducees. Over time, it became more and more only Pharisee.
Which primary sources is this based on? (Note: I'm not necessarily disputing your facts on this particular point, I'm just curious as to what your sources are.)

Why are you focusing on the Sanhedrin of the 20's? I don't remember a Sanhedrin meeting in the NT in the 20's.
Just by way of clarification: I did say late 20s. I take Jesus' ministry as being round-about AD 28-30.

But your point is well taken. The period that is relevant for our particular argument is not the late 20s, but the late 50s (see below).

The only meeting I know of is in Acts.
The NT narrates several Sanhedrin meetings. I have listed them all for your benefit, along with approximate dates:

1. Around the time when they first started to be threatened by Jesus (John 11:47). ~AD 29
2. At Jesus' trial (Matthew 26:59, Mark 15:1). ~AD 30.
3. After Peter and John healed a cripple (Acts 4). ~AD 31
4. A similar incident a bit later on in Acts (5:17-42). ~AD 32
5. The trial of Stephen (Acts 6:8-15). ~AD 33
6. Paul appearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22-23) ~AD 57

For future reference, stuff like this is easy to find out for yourself if you put in a little effort. Just go to an online Bible (eg, here (http://www.ibs.org/niv/)) and do a search for "Sanhedrin".

Of course, this is an aside. Your claim was in reference to meeting #6. We need to consider the period in the late 50s, and not (as I claimed incorrectly) in the late 20s.

Why are those my only two alternatives?
Because I said "...the Sanhedrin at this time...". At any given point in time, they are the only two logically possible alternatives. To talk about the "waxing" and "waning" of power requires that we talk about a span of time - not a particular point in time.

Since the Pharisees were waxing in power, and the Sadducees waning, the Pharisees would go through the "Sanhedrin" until they dominated, at some point, having both Pharisee and Sadducee.
Right - and what would we expect the composition to be at the particular point in time under consideration (AD 57)?

It says in many texts, that they held both written and oral Torah as binding(4QMMT). They only disagreed on whether the oral Torah should be written down(i.e. the Talmud) and also on things like resurrection. But this is minor disagreements on halacha, not Torah.
More red herrings. They also disagreed on the relative authority of the books of the Tanakh. This too is irrelevant - I just mentioned it to demonstrate that I can throw in irrelevant red herrings too.

The real beef between the two, was that the Pharisees considered the Sadducees to be hellenists/sympathizers/puppets of the Romans.
Well, that may certainly be one of the major reasons for the antagonism between them. Though Karaite seems to think it was the other way around, so this is by no means certain.

Something the NT doesn't talk about. Which is why I say that the NT sees the Sadducees and Pharisees as just two different sects of Judaism, much like two different denominations of Christianity today.
There are lots of things that the NT doesn't talk about. But it's one thing to note that the NT is silent on a particular point. It's quite another to claim that this silence equates to a historical inaccuracy. There is nothing in the NT with regard to the relationship between the Sadducees and Pharisees that is inconsistent with the historical picture of the time. I grant that it is lacking in explicit detail, but so what? The goal of the NT writers was not to educate its readers in the intricacies of the Judean political-religious situation.

The probable truth is, that the Pharisees dispised the Sadducees, and would only work with them if there was a common enemy, or if the Pharisees would gain in some way.
The probable truth is, as you yourself have admitted, that the Pharisees were not a monolithic group, and that some hated the Pharisees (eg, the Zealots), and some were more tolerant (eg, the Hillel school). We see examples of both extremes in the NT - from Rabbi Gamaliel (of the Hillel school) who basically said "live and let live" (Acts 5), to the violent confrontation of Acts 23, to Saul the Zealot who ran around stoning people who didn't adhere to the Torah in the strict way that he insisted.

Besides, at all the instances where the Sadducees and Pharisees are seen cooperating in the NT, they clearly fit into the category of "working against a common enemy".

Not really. If Luke said 1+1=2 I'd believe him.
So if Luke says something that you already know to be true, then you'll believe him. Wow, that's mighty generous of you to concede that. :ahem:

However, I fail to believe in the validity of a writer who writes about different accounts of a point in time, each having different results. i.e. Paul's ecstasy on the road to Damascus, which has 3 obviously different results, and the "Spirit" telling him to leave or stay in Jerusalem.
Another red herring. You really do have trouble staying focused on the topic at hand, don't you?

We're not talking about Paul's Damascus revelation. We're not talking about Paul's claim to be a Pharisee. We're not talking about the historical accuracy of Acts in general. These are all separate issues. Please, cease and desist from conflating them. If you cannot stay focussed on this issue, then I will cease attempting to interact with you.

Just in case you had forgotten it amongst all your dodging, here is the comment that I am trying to discuss with you:

I'm not trying to sound mean, but the views that the Christian NT gives are that the Sadduccees and Pharisees had differences, but yet kind of got a long. History seems to dictate otherwise.

Do you still stand by that statement? Even after being shown an example of the Sadducees and the Pharisees being at each other's throats?

[snip the rest of the irrelevant stuff]

[Goose]

Jezz,

Your patronizing and disrespectful attitude is noted and reflects poorly on your character and this forum you administrate.

The GNT trial of your God by the "Sanhedrin" isn't even a legal trial according to Jewish law. Capital trials took place during the day, in public, and for 40 days. The trial of your G-d, does not. In the way the GNT depicts it, it was an illegal "Sanhedrin", and would not have been represented as legit or by the people.

I still stand by my statement that the GNT depicts the Sadducees and Pharisees as kind of getting along, despite the fight in Acts. J-sus calls Peter "Satan", yet they still get along. Just because people get into a fight, doesn't mean they don't get back together. This is what is meant by "kind of got along". Sometimes they got along, sometimes they didn't. This is what the GNT is depicting, and I think most sane people agree.

[Jezz]

Your patronizing and disrespectful attitude is noted and reflects poorly on your character and this forum you administrate.
Your patronizing and disrespectful attitude towards Luke reflects poorly on your character and the "authentic" religion that you claim to represent. It is a pity you are not so sensitive when it comes to your own disrespectful behaviour... :teeth: It is ironic that your religion would not even exist today, were it not for the efforts of people like Luke.

If you think my behaviour is bad enough to warrant a complaint about me, either report this thread, or go start a thread in the Locker Room. I should note, though, that most of my "condescension" is done with a smile on my face. I'm hardly ever serious. And I certainly don't disrespect you as a person. If ever you are hungry, let me know and I'll give you my Visa number for some food.

But it's one thing to respect and care for a person, and quite another to respect their opinions. And to be quite frank, I do have a hard time respecting the opinion of someone when that person once claimed "Jews use the Hebrew [Bible], while Christians use the English and Greek translations for the most part." I treat such grossly uninformed opinions with the contempt that they deserve. And if the person is furthermore too stubborn to retract such stupid comments... well, that can only decrease the respect that I have for their opinion.

The GNT trial of your God by the "Sanhedrin" isn't even a legal trial according to Jewish law. Capital trials took place during the day, in public, and for 40 days. The trial of your G-d, does not. In the way the GNT depicts it, it was an illegal "Sanhedrin", and would not have been represented as legit or by the people.
:ahem: Another red herring. Are you genetically incapable of sticking to the topic or something? :wink:

I still stand by my statement that the GNT depicts the Sadducees and Pharisees as kind of getting along, despite the fight in Acts.
Of course, by adopting a severely weakened concept of what it means to "kind-of get along", it is entirely possible for you to do that. Very well, I can run with this. I agree with that statement.

J-sus calls Peter "Satan", yet they still get along. Just because people get into a fight, doesn't mean they don't get back together.
Goose, there's a slight difference between a rebuke (such as that which J-sus gave Peter), or even a little scuffle, and a brawl that requires Roman troops to sort it out. The picture that the NT portrays of the Pharisees and the Sadducees can hardly be considered one of friendship.

This is what is meant by "kind of got along". Sometimes they got along, sometimes they didn't. This is what the GNT is depicting, and I think most sane people agree.
I completely agree that this is what the GNT is depicting - the Pharisees and the Sadducees sometimes getting along, and sometimes at each others' throats. And contrary to what you stated, there is nothing a-historical about this picture. If the Pharisees and Sadducees were at each other's throats continually, then the Romans would have sent in the troops long before 70 AD. It was in their mutual best interests not to be continually fighting. The sort of tension that we see between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the NT is exactly what we would expect from the historical situation of the day.

What is it that you think is a-historical about this viewpoint?

[Goose]

The dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees got so violent that the Roman commander had to send in troops! Is this your idea of "getting along"?
You disagree, or at least mock me here on the issue(it's a misquote)...

I completely agree that this is what the GNT is depictingThen you agree with me here on the same issue.

I'm not going to go around and around with someone who is schizophrenic.

[Jezz]

You disagree, or at least mock me here on the issue(it's a misquote)...

Then you agree with me here on the same issue.
Yes, I mocked you. The idea that "kind-of getting along" could include a fight bad enough to require military intervention is really stretching the idea of "getting along". Kinda like claiming that I am a short person, by defining "short" as anything under 6'3".

To be honest, I still find it a stretch, but I cannot disagree with you because you are free to use such terms as you wish - so long as you are clear what you mean by them.

Now that it is clear to me that your definition of "kind-of getting along" is loose enough so that it can include a fight so bad as to require military intervention, I am happy to work with that definition so that we can move on to the next step.

I'm not going to go around and around with someone who is schizophrenic.
Please, do not use this weak excuse to avoid engaging me further on this issue. I think more highly of your integrity than that.

There's a difference between being schizophrenic and changing one's position in response to developments in the argument. I did the latter, not the former. Indeed, if progress is to be made in resolving a disagreement, one or both parties must ultimately change their position in order to progress further.

Just to recap: Here's where we agree thus far:

We agree that the NT depicts the Pharisees and the Sadducees as "kind-of getting along" - so long as it is understood that by "kind-of getting along" we include "occasional fights bad enough to require military intervention".

So, having established this point, let us move on to the next question:

What is historically inaccurate about this picture of the relationship between the Pharisees and the Sadducees? What should we see in the NT, if it is to be considered historically accurate on this point? Perhaps you think that we should see more fights? Perhaps the fights should have been more intense? I do not think that either position is historical tenable. If there were more fights, or more serious fights, then the Romans would not have waited until AD 70 to send in troops. The situation must have been mostly peaceful - even if they didn't like each other very much. For the sake of avoiding Roman wrath, they had to be fairly peaceful. Thus, I am forced to conclude that the amount of strain we see in the relationship between the Sadducees and the Pharisees is about what we could expect from the political climate of the time.

If you disagree with this, please explain why. If not, then please withdraw your earlier comment about the historical inaccuracy of the NT with regard to the relationship between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. (Note: I'm not asking you to concede that the NT is historically accurate in all its details - rather, I'm asking you to concede its accuracy on this point only.)

[Drashi]

DUring the 20-40CE period, the Grandson of Hillel (certainly a Pharisee!) was in charge of the Sanhedrin, but the Sadducees were in charge of the Temple (they had a lot of money and bought their way into Roman support). At that time, the Zeolots were slicing their way into power, killing Romans and Jews who disagreed with them. (There is a theory that they killed all of the Jews on Masada rather than let them surrender to the Romans).

Saducees hired ancient Syrians to kill thousands of Pharisees. Jews were either very religious or anti-religious. You even had some wacky sub-sect, like the Essenes, who may have at one time been Pharasiac but then became extremist in their behavior to the point of taking vows of abstinance and bathing multiple times a day). Everybody though it was the end-of-days and various Messiahs were coming out of the woodwork. (A really big one was in 50CE who had tens of thousands of followers and led an attack against a Roman garrison and was going to lead the Jews back to Egypt by parting the waters but got himself caught and crucified in the process).

In short, that period was a real mess.

But we survived. 80 years later the Rabbis expected a Moshiach, and Rabbi Akiva crowned Bar Kochba as the King Moshiach. Perhaps he was, but like Chezekiah who came before him, he tripped (became very strange in his behavior), and faltered, and fell. And like Chezekiah, even after he died, many still believed he was the Moshiach, despite the Rabbis stating the impossibility, while a minoriy thought maybe it was so.

History kept repeating. We had many more Moshiachim that kept showing up throught the years.

But as Isaiah 54 shows, eventurally there will be a 3rd temple, and the King Moshiach will bring his sin offering before the elders, and G-d will have opened his arms to his bride who had be delayed so long.

[Timothy Leary]

Saducees hired ancient Syrians to kill thousands of Pharisees. Jews were either very religious or anti-religious.

Drashi, do you believe that the reason that what's his name betrayed Jerusalem (and thus causing the slaughter of the Saduccees) was possibly to avenge the Pharisees who had died?

[Drashi]

I don't subscribe to the revenge bit, since it was the Pharisaic segment that survived while the Sadduceans who had fewer casualties dissapated into Roman society (the Gemara speaks of many going through the rather painful process of a reverse-milah (ouch!)

[Timothy Leary]

Survived?! The Saduccees were slaughtered when the Romans laid seige on Jerusalem. I suggested that Revenge may be possiblity, because the person who let the Romans in was an agunot (unfit judge), who later lost his position because of other unjust deeds, IIRC.

[Timothy Leary]

reverse-brit milah?!

Was that even possible back then???

[Jezz]

Hey Drashi, welcome to TWeb!

DUring the 20-40CE period, the Grandson of Hillel (certainly a Pharisee!) was in charge of the Sanhedrin,
You're talking about Gamaliel, right?

...but the Sadducees were in charge of the Temple (they had a lot of money and bought their way into Roman support). At that time, the Zeolots were slicing their way into power, killing Romans and Jews who disagreed with them. (There is a theory that they killed all of the Jews on Masada rather than let them surrender to the Romans).

Saducees hired ancient Syrians to kill thousands of Pharisees. Jews were either very religious or anti-religious. You even had some wacky sub-sect, like the Essenes, who may have at one time been Pharasiac but then became extremist in their behavior to the point of taking vows of abstinance and bathing multiple times a day). Everybody though it was the end-of-days and various Messiahs were coming out of the woodwork. (A really big one was in 50CE who had tens of thousands of followers and led an attack against a Roman garrison and was going to lead the Jews back to Egypt by parting the waters but got himself caught and crucified in the process).

In short, that period was a real mess.
Yep, that sounds about right. I pretty much certainly agree with that picture. We know that the Pharisees and Sadducees had to get along to a certain extent because they shared power. But we also know that the relationship between them was tense and that they didn't really get along.

The point that I wanted to make, and the only real reason I stepped in to this thread, is that (contrary to what Goose said) there is nothing in the New Testament which contradicts with any of that political situation between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

But we survived. 80 years later the Rabbis expected a Moshiach, and Rabbi Akiva crowned Bar Kochba as the King Moshiach. Perhaps he was, but like Chezekiah who came before him, he tripped (became very strange in his behavior), and faltered, and fell. And like Chezekiah, even after he died, many still believed he was the Moshiach, despite the Rabbis stating the impossibility, while a minoriy thought maybe it was so.
You forgot that a large number of Jews thought that a certain man from Galilee (not Judas!) was the Messiah, and that to this day he has more followers than any man in the history of the world. :wink:

History kept repeating. We had many more Moshiachim that kept showing up throught the years.

But as Isaiah 54 shows, eventurally there will be a 3rd temple, and the King Moshiach will bring his sin offering before the elders, and G-d will have opened his arms to his bride who had be delayed so long.
Just FYI: From the Christian point of view, G-d did not leave a gap between the destruction of the 2nd temple and the institution of the 3rd. We believe that the 3rd temple was the body of the Messiah - who we believe is Jesus of Nazareth. Today, the Church is the body of the Messiah - the temple of G-d. So we don't believe that G-d has delayed at all - the 3rd temple is already here with us.

[Jezz]

I don't subscribe to the revenge bit, since it was the Pharisaic segment that survived while the Sadduceans who had fewer casualties dissapated into Roman society (the Gemara speaks of many going through the rather painful process of a reverse-milah (ouch!)
For the benefit of the stoopid Gentile,

Is 'milah' circumcision?

[Goose]

The point that I wanted to make, and the only real reason I stepped in to this thread, is that (contrary to what Goose said) there is nothing in the New Testament which contradicts with any of that political situation between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

There he goes again with his subtle deceptions.

[shunyadragon]

Just FYI: From the Christian point of view, G-d did not leave a gap between the destruction of the 2nd temple and the institution of the 3rd. We believe that the 3rd temple was the body of the Messiah - who we believe is Jesus of Nazareth. Today, the Church is the body of the Messiah - the temple of G-d. So we don't believe that G-d has delayed at all - the 3rd temple is already here with us.
Finally, Jezz reveals his view of what the third temple, but unfortunately it does not fit scripture well, since the second temple was not destroyed untill after Christ departed.

I would like to hear a better explanation of this belief. I would also like to hear from Drashi and others concerning their view.

I believe the second temple was doomed to be destroyed in part because it was corrupted by Greco-Roman influences.

[Timothy Leary]

Is 'milah' circumcision?

Hi Jeez. I know you were being sarcastic, but please don't use comments like the one i didn't quote.

Yes, Brit Milah refers to Circumicision.

[Timothy Leary]

Just FYI: From the Christian point of view, G-d did not leave a gap between the destruction of the 2nd temple and the institution of the 3rd. We believe that the 3rd temple was the body of the Messiah - who we believe is Jesus of Nazareth. Today, the Church is the body of the Messiah - the temple of G-d. So we don't believe that G-d has delayed at all - the 3rd temple is already here with us.

Jezz, if that is so, how do you explain the very descriptive prophecies contained in Ezekiel?

[GrayPilgrim]

Jezz, if that is so, how do you explain the very descriptive prophecies contained in Ezekiel?As a Christian I would say that Jezz's take is definitely one that a large number of Christian's hold to. I hold to a different one though. I see that the point in the Gospels of Jesus's triumphal entry (celebrated on Palm Sunday) is G_d returrning to his Temple in fullfiment of the prophecies of Malachi inter alia

and the Lord whom you seek shall come to His Temple suddenly. As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, he is already coming. 2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can hold out when he appears? For he is like a smelter's fire and like fuller's lye.

Thus when Jesus rode into Jerusalem the Gospels portray this as the return of the glory of the Lord to the Temple thus undoing the departure of the glroy in Ezekiel. Thus when Jesus came to the Temple precincts he cleaned out the outer court of the money changers he was enacting verse two. Then the destruction of 70 AD would be the redux of Leviticus 26 and Deut 27-30. Thus Ezekiel's Temple is the temple of the later days. However, this is controversial within Christianity, and I know from my experience that not all Jews desire the rebuilding of a temple, e.g. my father-in-law (he converted to Judaism), my Hebrew instructor at Ohio State, and others. I hope that is an answer to your question Yoshiyah at least for an alternative answer to Jezz's.

I did a bad job of explaining it. I am stalling on a paper I am writing on a 17th Century Biblical scholars translation of the Torah in to French. But if you would like to see a more complete description of what I am talking about concerning Jesus' as that to which Malachi was looking forward let me know and I could send you some links.

[Jezz]

There he goes again with his subtle deceptions.
Dear Goose,

Instead of just accusing me of deception, can you please explain exactly how it was I was being deceptive? I do not wish to deceive anyone, so "deception" is a charge I take seriously and if I am genuinely being deceptive, I would like to know how so that I can avoid being so in the future.

I got the distinct impression from this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41966&page=1&pp=16#post786290) that you were trying to claim that the view of the Christian NT on the relationship between the Sadducees and Pharisees was not contrary to history. Specifically, where you wrote:

I'm not trying to sound mean, but the views that the Christian NT gives are that the Sadduccees and Pharisees had differences, but yet kind of got a long. History seems to dictate otherwise.

What exactly did you mean, if not that the Christian NT contained historical inaccuracies with regard to the relationship between the Pharisees and the Sadducees? Please explain this to me, so that I can avoid misrepresenting you in future.

[Timothy Leary]

Thus when Jesus rode into Jerusalem the Gospels portray this as the return of the glory of the Lord to the Temple thus undoing the departure of the glroy in Ezekiel.

Undoing?!

Are you suggesting that the prophecy is not to be fulfilled??

[GrayPilgrim]

Undoing?!

Are you suggesting that the prophecy is not to be fulfilled??
Sorry, see what happens when you don't write your paper, but stall on TWeb (let this be an object lesson to y'all) you write in circles that are too enigmatic for anyone (including yourself) to understand.


To answer your question, No the prophecy was fulfilled during and by Jesus' triumphal entry into the Temple. What was undone was the departure of the Glory of the Lord, which Ezekiel witnessed.

I will finish the paper tonight, and will be travelling tomorrow, so I hope to get an oppurtunity to unmuddle the muddle I made in my previous post.

Blessings,
GP

[Jezz]

Dear Goose,

[snip]

I got the distinct impression from this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41966&page=1&pp=16#post786290) that you were trying to claim that the view of the Christian NT on the relationship between the Sadducees and Pharisees was not contrary to history.
:doh: What I actually meant was "...between the Sadducees and Pharisees was contrary to history." I apologise for any confusion.

[shunyadragon]

Undoing?!

Are you suggesting that the prophecy is not to be fulfilled??
What has been avoided, or vaguely adressed, here is the Jewish view of the 2nd/3rd temple.

Would you or anyone else care to give a more forthright description of the Jewish view of 'believing that a Jewish state must await the Messianic Age and the restoration of the Temple.'

[robrecht]

This is information that my community, the authentic Netzarim (http://www.netzarim.co.il), have been involved with for a long time, and scholars are just coming out with it. Hi, Goose.

I checked out your link and am intrigued. It seems like a bit of an exaggeration to say that Paul was obsessed with Hellenism prior to his conversion when he was persecuting non-Hellenist (ie, Orthodox) Jews. The interpretation of Mt 4,8-11 as a meeting between Jesus and the High Priest is also very creative. Supposedly, Jesus turned down the same deal that Saul of Tarsus accepted when he began to persecute Orthodox Jews.

What are the sources that your community uses to advance this particular theory about Mt 4,8-11 and who are the scholars that are now publishing it?

[Goose]

Hi, Goose.

I checked out your link and am intrigued. It seems like a bit of an exaggeration to say that Paul was obsessed with Hellenism prior to his conversion when he was persecuting non-Hellenist (ie, Orthodox) Jews. The interpretation of Mt 4,8-11 as a meeting between Jesus and the High Priest is also very creative. Supposedly, Jesus turned down the same deal that Saul of Tarsus accepted when he began to persecute Orthodox Jews.

What are the sources that your community uses to advance this particular theory about Mt 4,8-11 and who are the scholars that are now publishing it?
I'm not part of that community anymore.

[shunyadragon]

Hi, Goose.

I checked out your link and am intrigued. It seems like a bit of an exaggeration to say that Paul was obsessed with Hellenism prior to his conversion when he was persecuting non-Hellenist (ie, Orthodox) Jews. The interpretation of Mt 4,8-11 as a meeting between Jesus and the High Priest is also very creative. Supposedly, Jesus turned down the same deal that Saul of Tarsus accepted when he began to persecute Orthodox Jews.

What are the sources that your community uses to advance this particular theory about Mt 4,8-11 and who are the scholars that are now publishing it?

I believe that Paul was most defintely a Hellenized Jew from a powerful Herodian Hellenized Jewish family with strong Roman sympathies as relfected in Romans 16:10-11 when he refers to his Herodian kinsman and other associated in his missionary work in his home turf Asia Minor. This powerful extended family stretches from Asia Minor to Egypt, and Philo of Alexandria is a relative.

[robrecht]

I believe that Paul was most defintely a Hellenized Jew from a powerful Herodian Hellenized Jewish family with strong Roman sympathies as relfected in Romans 16:10-11 when he refers to his Herodian kinsman and other associated in his missionary work in his home turf Asia Minor. This powerful extended family stretches from Asia Minor to Egypt, and Philo of Alexandria is a relative.But do you also believe that Saul accepted the same deal from the High Priest that Jesus had previously rejected in Mt 4,8 -11 and that in accord with this deal Paul was obsessed with persecuting Orthodox Jews until he had a vision of Proto-Justin on the road to Damascus?

That appears to be the teaching of this Netzarim group that I asking Goose about.

As you may recall from other threads where we've discussed this, I have no difficulty understanding Paul as a Hellenized Jew, but I don't necessarily share every assumption made about what that supposedly means about Paul's 'orthodoxy'.