You really think that Josephus is proof the Sadducees reject the resurrection? I don't. And let's see what else is there:
But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this; that souls die with the bodies.
Nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them.
Isn't that true for all Jewish groups depending on how they define 'law'?
For they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent.
A nothing sandwich.
But this doctrine is received but by a few: yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves. For when they become magistrates; as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be; they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees: because the multitude would not otherwise bear them.
Another nothing sandwich.
I conclude there is no information about the Sadducees other than Josephus doesn't like them. Josephus adds nothing to our knowledge of the Sadducees. As Baumbach neatly summarizes "To represent the view of the Sadducees in the writings of Josephus is particularly difficult because the term Saddoukaioi occurs in only a very few passages. Apart from the summarizing surveys of the three Jewish "sects" (haereseis) in BJ II, 119-66; A XIII, 171-73; XVIII, 11-22 (cf. V 10), Saddoukaioi appears only in A XIII 293-98 and XX, 199 f., so that their existence is directly attested only for the period of the Hasmoneans and for that of the procurators. Surprisingly, the word Saddoukaios does not occur in the parallel reports in BJ I, 67 f.; IV, 319-21. This meager attestation of the Sadducees and their different mention in the War and in the Antiquities prompts the suspicion that our author was not without prejudice as regards Sadduceeism." Give me a fucking break. This is a giant nothing sandwich.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
... missionary information is scarce in the scrolls.
Well, since I'm only interested the DSS that I think could be Jewish Christian or relevant to Christian origins (in this thread anyway), it only matters if the missionary information is in those scrolls. And I think the "scarcity" of this missionary information makes sense because it reflects the new ideas that distinguish the writings that mention the Teacher of Righteousness from other scrolls, which I see as being subsumed under the concept in them of "the new covenant" (which, as LIm notes, is only known to have been used by the DSS group and Christians).
Another example of this "newness" from the Damascus Document is the inclusion of Gentiles, e.g.:
But when the age [of God's wrath] is completed, according to the number of those years, there shall be no more joining the house of Judah, but each man shall stand on his watchtower.
As Harrington and Himmelfarb note:
It is important to recognize that the Damascus Document is the only scroll to truly accept the ger at all ... Gentiles are not neutral; their idolatry makes them impure and contaminating. Nevertheless, presumably after an initiation and purification process, they can be included among the ger category of the sect.
And Pummer notes the refusal to accept the notion of resurrection was a characteristic of both the Sadducees and the Samaritans. But actually coming into contact with the Samaritans has demonstrated what bullshit that reporting really was. Don't you see what colossal crap this Patristic reporting is:
Although Pseudo-Tertullian does not directly say that Dositheus did not believe in resurrection, by associating him closely with the Sadducees, he intimates it.16 The close connection between Sadducees and Samaritans is common to Hippolytus and Pseudo-Tertullian ... Later, Philaster (who considers Dositheus a Jew),18 Jerome (paraphrasing Pseudo- Tertullian), and the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones, also link Dositheus to the Sadducees and claim that he rejected resurrection. Simjlarly the denial of resurrection by Dositheus is to be found in Photius.
I simply don't understand how ANYONE who has any familiarity with ancient sources doesn't have deep reservations about their accuracy.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
the DSS I think could be Jewish Christian or relevant to Christian origins
You could fly a Vulcan aircraft into the chasm between those statements. Let's try some others:
I think the gospel could be Jewish Christian or relevant to Christian origins
I think a given artifact could be Jewish Christian or relevant to Christian origins
I think any given manuscript could be Jewish Christian or relevant to Christian origins
You act like saying (a) is closely related to (b). It isn't. It's just a way of advancing your whole purpose in participating at this forum - getting people to talk about Eisenman's hypothesis.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
No, but the Nazarenes did, and they are said to have used all of Matthew.
The Nazarenes approved of sacrifice now. How do we know? Pray tell. Don't even bother with the evidence for Matthew. I love your certainty with using Epiphanius. It's heartwarming.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
The DSS believe in the resurrection of the dead and the Sadducees did not.
Really? The Sadducees are what their enemies say they are because ... it's convenient to further a proposition. Oh, I am learning. So by the time the gospel said the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, there were still Sadducees? Nonsense. The Samaritans believe in the resurrection of the dead and in most other respects the Sadducees agree with the Samaritans. But not here ...
I view Mark as being written c. 70 CE (and as passing on earlier information via Peter, as per Papias) and I suppose there could have been some Sadducees around then. It at least seems unlikely to me that they all perished in 70 CE. And you are of course entitled to have whatever you view you like about the sources that say they did not believe in resurrection.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
I suppose there could have been some Sadducees around then
So there is no chance in your mind that the information about the Sadducees rejecting the resurrection is as bad as the information about the Samaritans rejecting the resurrection. Or maybe you think the Samaritans changed their minds about the resurrection? I've never met a Jew who has such a strong faith in the Church Fathers ... except for Eisenman. I remember he had a well worn copy of Epiphanius opened, like it was a road map to the truth! I remember musing to myself - is his certainty based on actual confidence or a need to create art (or bullshit same difference)? You know what I think. So now it's two Jews who revere the Church Fathers. Amazing. They are always saying that species of animals long thought extinct show up out of the blue. Maybe a third Jew who reveres the Church Fathers as sacrosanct will one day emerge!
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
... missionary information is scarce in the scrolls.
Well, since I'm only interested the DSS that I think could be Jewish Christian or relevant to Christian origins (in this thread anyway), it only matters if the missionary information is in those scrolls. And I think the "scarcity" of this missionary information makes sense because it reflects the new ideas that distinguish the writings that mention the Teacher of Righteousness from other scrolls, which I see as being subsumed under the concept in them of "the new covenant" (which, as LIm notes, is only known to have been used by DSS group and Christians).
What I am saying is that the missionary parallels are far stronger in the Hebrew scriptures than in the Dead Sea scrolls, whereas for messianic ideas and eschatological notions the reverse is true, and the scrolls are closer than the scriptures.
In the Didache it is obvious that an apostle is really just a traveling or "sent" prophet (Didache 11.3, 6; 13.1), which ties together the idea of the prophets being "sent" in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Paul, too, associates apostles closely with prophets, and he is of course aware of many other apostles.
I do not think that the Qumran community is the exact community from which Christianity sprang; I simply think that it comes closer than any other group of which we are reasonably informed first hand, and is (as I mentioned before) an instantiation of the kind of group which produced Christianity. But this does not mean that everything is a perfect fit, since different groups will differ; it means only that we cannot ignore the parallels, since they are core.
No, but the Nazarenes did, and they are said to have used all of Matthew.
The Nazarenes approved of sacrifice now. How do we know? Pray tell. Don't even bother with the evidence for Matthew. I love your certainty with using Epiphanius. It's heartwarming.
Well, since they are said to have used all of Matthew (which is pro-sacrifice) and believed in observing all of the Torah (which is pro-sacrifice), I would assume they were pro-sacrifice, for Epiphanius, for one, ridicules them for in Pan. 29.8.1-2:
.. they cannot fulfill the Law. For how will they be able to fulfill the Law's provision, "Thrice a year thou shalt appear before the Lord thy God ..." on the site of Jerusalem? For .. the site is closed off, and the Law's provisions cannot be fulfilled ...
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
