Epiphanius on the Ebionites

[Secret Alias]

There's no point discussing Jewish history with you if you are take the material at face value. If the Pharisees and Sadducees were at each others throats it is impossible to accept that Josephus's account of this sect is accurate. It's like reading Irenaeus for a fair evaluation of his opponents. No different that reading Hitler or the Protocols of Zion for learning about modern Jewry.

[John2]

Josephus doesn't seem hostile to the Sadducees to me, but rather fairly neutral, and he says he had even joined them when he was younger.

There are meager references to the Sadducees where in many instances they are portrayed as athiests (cf. Baumbach, Stemberger). While this is not a big charge for us - among religious Jews it would be the ultimate blasphemy. Josephus indicates there that the Sadducees' rejection of the Pharisees' tradition “of the fathers” caused much conflict. This is the context for all statements about the Sadducees - viz. whatever is said about the Sadducees is necessarily 'in relation to the Pharisees.' Without trying to push the comparison between Ben Sira and the Sadducees too far, it is probably reasonable to suppose that the Sadducees—like practically all ancient Jews, to be sure—believed in prophecy as well as divine election, even as they denied that fate controlled the decisions of individual human beings. We should go even one step further, to entertain the possibility that Josephus's Sadducees believed in divine providence. To be sure, we are told that the Sadducees reject fate—in the sense that particular human affairs are predestined and must, of necessity, take place irrespective of human decisions. But this in fact leaves room for the Sadducees to believe in providence—in the sense that (just as the libertarian Ben Sira would have it) God watches over humanity, rewards the righteous, and punishes the wicked in this world, in line with the decisions each person makes. The various statements of Josephus are similarly contextualized.

As Baumback notes "[t]his meager attestation of the Sadducees and their different mention in the War and in the Antiquities prompts the suspicion that our author was by no means without prejudice as regards Sadduceeism."

The charge of atheism because they rejected "fate" is only Baumbach's supposition, and as he notes on pg. 175:

... in ascribing to the Sadducees a disavowal of [fate], he in fact stamps them as atheists, that is, as Epicureans ... But it is worth noting that Josephus nowhere presumes an equation of the Sadducees with the Epicureans and never describes the Sadducees as atheists in the sense of Psalms 14:1, 53:2; therefore he never questions their belonging to Jewry.

Plus, as he goes on to note on pg. 178, Josephus says the Sadducees:

... found approval ... of very highly placed dignitaries, the aristocratic ruling class, who owed their position to their wealth or noble ancestry ... primarily understood as the priestly aristocracy ...

And Josephus himself belonged to the priestly aristocracy (Life 1: "I am of the royal blood; for the children of Asamoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king, for a long time together"; 3: "there were certain priests of my acquaintance, and very excellent persons they were"; 7: "me and two others of the priests, who were men of excellent characters"; and 15: "those tithes, which were due to me as a priest").

[John2]

There's no point discussing Jewish history with you if you are take the material at face value. If the Pharisees and Sadducees were at each others throats it is impossible to accept that Josephus's account of this sect is accurate. It's like reading Irenaeus for a fair evaluation of his opponents. No different that reading Hitler or the Protocols of Zion for learning about modern Jewry.

But were they really "at each others throats"? While they had their disagreements (naturally), he says in Ant. 18.1.4 that the Sadducees "addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them."

[Secret Alias]

But what is the value of reading one-sided texts at face value? Surely accepting the Pharisees or neo-Pharisees on the beliefs of their enemies is no different than taking Irenaeus's word on the heresies. Oh wait, you already do that too ...

[Secret Alias]

But were they really "at each others throats"? While they had their disagreements (naturally), he says in Ant. 18.1.4 that "they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them."

The evidence would seem to suggest that Jewish sectarians went so far as to kill one another. This doesn't only happen among the Jews. It is universally applicable.

[John2]

But what is the value of reading one-sided texts at face value? Surely accepting the Pharisees or neo-Pharisees on the beliefs of their enemies is no different than taking Irenaeus's word on the heresies. Oh wait, you already do that too ...

But how is it one-sided if he once was a Sadducee and belonged to the priestly class that favored the Sadducees?

[Secret Alias]

Come on. What value are these confessions? You need to read more points of view (and as Eisenmann you are likely only playing dumb). Shaye Cohen has gotten to the root of the problem with the identification of an Aramaic hypomnema at the core of Life and War. There are layers upon layers in each of these texts. But the bottom line is still the same - Pharisees and Sadducees must have murdered one another. Whether directly or indirectly. We get the clear sense - Alexander Jannaeus murdered Pharisees ; Pharisees murdered their enemies; the Pharisees eventually were restored to favor and slaughtered their enemies. Rinse, repeat, wash. The way you develop history is so infantile. Scholars don't take it seriously and the public is too stupid to care for things like this any more.

[John2]

Come on. What value are these confessions? You need to read more points of view (and as Eisenmann you are likely only playing dumb). Shaye Cohen has gotten to the root of the problem with the identification of an Aramaic hypomnema at the core of Life and War. There are layers upon layers in each of these texts. But the bottom line is still the same - Pharisees and Sadducees must have murdered one another. Whether directly or indirectly. We get the clear sense - Alexander Jannaeus murdered Pharisees ; Pharisees murdered their enemies; the Pharisees eventually were restored to favor and slaughtered their enemies. Rinse, repeat, wash. The way you develop history is so infantile. Scholars don't take it seriously and the public is too stupid to care for things like this any more.

I had forgotten about Alexander Janneaus, but that was in the course of a civil war and not over doctrinal disputes.


Ant. 13.14.2:

This was indeed by way of revenge for the injuries they had done him; which punishment yet was of an inhuman nature, though we suppose that he had been never so much distressed, as indeed he had been, by his wars with them, for he had by their means come to the last degree of hazard, both of his life and of his kingdom, while they were not satisfied by themselves only to fight against him, but introduced foreigners also for the same purpose.

And this event is also mentioned in the DSS and is strongly condemned (or at least the act of crucifixion), which does not exactly fit with the idea that the DSS are Sadducaic.


Nahum Pesher:

Interpreted, this concerns the furious young lion [who executes revenge] on those who seek smooth things and hangs men alive, [a thing never done] formerly in Israel. Because of a man hanged alive on [the] tree, he, shall read, "Behold 1 am against [you, says the Lord of Hosts"].

[Secret Alias]

Like there is a sharp distinction between civil war and religious war. Ireland, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Lebanon. Give me a break.

[Secret Alias]

And then you have to look at the portrait in Life of Marcus Agrippa establishing ornate synagogues in Tiberias and elsewhere. This must have been supported by a Jewish party. Clearly not the Pharisees. And the reaction of Josephus's partisans - destruction of the images, robbery, the stealing of the priestly corn, forced castration/circumcision, outright murder - is clearly related to a theological/religious struggle. The fact that Josephus doesn't tell us these details (we learn of them implicitly from what is said of Justus's work and Josephus's reaction to it) is immaterial. Sadducees and Pharisees must have killed one another on and off for centuries. Like two rival mafia gangs. Josephus's closest modern examples is someone like Muktada al-Sadr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr. Sheer nonsense that he was once a Pharisee. Made up by the synergoi to show he could be swayed by rational argument like an idealized Greek.