So much is made of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots, but I think there are far more important distinctions.
1) Temple Judaism, which really included the Pharisees and Sadducees, among others.
2) "Enochic Judaism" - essentially the variant that we find in the writings from Qumran. (I'm not going to label these Essenes.)
3) "Philoic Judaism" - Ideas like those in the writings of Philo.
4) "Gnosticism" - Essentially variants that identify the God of Moses as a flawed demiurge.
The import actual distinctions here revolve around the problem of evil -- the role of the Creator in the origins and propagation of evil.
According to Temple Judaism, following the majority of the works found in the "Old Testament", or canonical Jewish scriptures, God is the supreme deity, the Creator of everything, including good and evil. This view originates in Second Isaiah under Persian influence. These Jews ascribe evil ultimately to mankind's rebellion from God, much like children who rebel against their parents, though they also acknowledge that God may permit evil or actually perpetrate it in some cases. According to this tradition, the God of Moses is the "lord of this world".
But according to "Enochic type Jews", God is good, he is not a creator or perpetrator evil. In order to account for evil, these Jews develop the mythology of Belial/Satan (among other names). These Jews ascribe evil to a heavenly origin, among rebellious angels who defied the Creator. It was the angels, or Watchers, who consorted with women and brought evil into the world and it is from the spirits of these beings that evil persists, under the command of Belial/Satan. According to these Jews, Belial/Satan was the "lord of this world".
Then we have Philo and his views. Philo viewed God as more remote, not directly involved in the Creation, but rather acting through mediaries. At the same time, Philo embraces the concept of freewill, essentially allowing freewill to be the origin of evil. Philo more likely thought of the God of Moses as the "lord of the universe" who was not heavily involved in governing "this world".
Then we have the Gnostics, who, in many respects, were actually closest to Temple Judaism, in that they said that the God of Moses is the creator evil, in agreement with Isaiahic Judaism. The God of Moses is the Creator, and you can't deflect blame for evil from him by pointing at Satan. Blaming Satan is a false cop-out, the God of Moses is the "lord of this world". The Creator of the world is the one who created and perpetuates evil, just as Isaiah claimed. But, we surely can't live in a universe of evil, so surely there must be some good god above the Creator of the world. For them, the good god was the lord of the universe, and had not been directly involved in the creation or governance of the world.
Of course it isn't all quite so clean cut, but I think this is the basic outline of the views that existed in the first century. The ideological conflict was over the identity of the "Highest God", the role of the "Highest God" in the problem of evil, the role of the "Highest God" in the creation of this world, and the involvement of the Highest God in the affairs of the world.
The world clearly had/has problems. Why do they persist if the Highest God is good? These were all various scheme, essentially shell games, of trying to find ways to deal with evil. Actually, "Isaiahic Judaism" had/has the most direct and honest approach, simply allowing that God plays a hand in evil, though viewing it as an important aspect of teaching (the "tough love" approach). It's sort of an "ends justify the means" type of view.
Now, what I contend is that the Jesus story originated within this ideological conflict and was an account that developed in its original form (whatever that was) in order to tackle this very problem. The story originated as a means to try and tackle the problem of evil, deal with these differing views, and reach a conclusion that would seem to satisfy the differing viewpoints. In other words to try and bridge the gap between these views, explain how each was a little bit right and a little bit wrong, and come up with a "final solution" to the disputes. So the story emerged at the nexus of these different views, which is why there seems to have been such crossover.
I do think that the Martyrdom of Isaiah is the closes document we have to the original story. And even that story, doesn't come down cleanly on the side of any of these four groups, it splits the difference between several of them. It does not folly align with Qumranic/Enochic Judaism, not Temple, nor Philoic, nor Gnostic. It tries to find a middle ground between them all. As such, it is an allegorical apocalypse.
The meaningful variants of Judaism in the first century
Re: The meaningful variants of Judaism in the first century
fwiw, section 2, Historical Background, two pages, pp.30-32, and the Conclusion, two & a bit pages, pp. 52-54, of the article below might be useful. There's reference to Belial (though there's only reference to evil and evildoers in two footnotes: #s 74 and 79, respectively)
https://www.academia.edu/395896/The_Tra ... _at_Qumran
Joseph L. Angel, 'The Traditional Roots of Priestly Messianism at Qumran', published in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (eds. S. Tzoref and L. Schiffman; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010)
Second Temple period Judah witnessed a dramatic paradigm shift with respect to political structure. With the dissolution of the Davidic dynasty, power swung from the royal palace toward the rebuilt Jerusalem temple, which became the command center of the restored Judahite community. The Persian period saw the rise of a diarchic form of government, in which power was granted to a lay governor and a high priest, both of whom, of course, were subordinate to foreign rule.
Although the evidence is sparse for this period, it appears that the lay leader governed civil affairs while the priest attended to cultic matters. By the early Hellenistic period however, there is evidence that the high priest was exercising political power without the assistance of a civil governor. Since the Hellenistic empires did not appoint governors alongside the high priests, the power and prestige of the high priestly voice rose to unprecedented heights. Eventually under the Hasmoneans, who were independent from foreign rule, the originally separate voices of high priest and king were unified by a succession of individual rulers.
These days saw the advent of the Qumran community. The Qumranite expectation of an ideal priestly figure who would arrive in the future reflects the community’s expressed dissatisfaction with the exercise of the sacerdotal voice in Jerusalem from the time of the Hasmonean priest-kings and its dismay with what it perceived as the pollution of the temple. With the arrival of the priestly messiah who would teach the new law to, preside over, and possibly atone for the purified cultic community, this situation would be rectified.
Another notable shit in the Second Temple period was brought about by the emergence, under the Persians, of the Torah as the law of the land (see Ezra 7:25–26). he unparalleled authority of the written word of God necessarily gave rise to a new type of power; that of the scribe trained in the close reading and interpretation of the Torah. In order to become a scribe one needed both natural intelligence and a good education. As Ben Sira pointed out in the second century B.C.E., such education required the opportunity of leisure, and by inference, plenty of money (38:24–33).
Naturally, priests were top candidates for this position as the temple and its leadership enjoyed the backing of the foreign imperialistic powers. However, the scribal voice certainly did not require priestly lineage. The concurrent rise of these two oices, priest and scribe, as well as the disappearance of Davidic authority in the Second Temple period provides important historical background for the understanding of the traditional roots of priestly messianic expectation at Qumran.
In the above survey we have observed several examples of the tendency of Second Temple literature to crat ideal patterns of priestly conduct and exemplary priestly figures. In addition to the traditional cultic, judicial, instructional, and other responsibilities of the priesthood known from the Hebrew Bible, the literature variously attributes the characteristics of king, sage, scribe, and warrior to the model priest.
Since these ideal portrayals occur in such a wide variety of sources as Ben Sira, Hecataeus, Josephus, ALD [the Aramaic Levi Document; see 3.2.], Jubilees, 4QApocryphon of Levi, and the Temple Scroll, it is clear that they are not a product of sectarian imagination. Rather, they must be related in general to the rise of priestly and scribal powers in Second Temple society described above.
The differing pictures of ideal priestly figures in the above texts must be seen either as attempts to legitimize the contemporary roles of priests (as in Ben Sira, Hecataeus, and Josephus) or as polemics which present an alternative to the present establishment (as in Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and perhaps ALD). It is striking that even in the polemical cases, priestly powers and abilities are expanded far beyond biblical parameters. his indicates that, in general, the association of the priesthood with the realms of civil government and wisdom/scribalism was deemed as a given and indeed as scripturally authorized by most if not all of Jewish society in the Second Temple period.
Qumranite notions of priestly messianism are best understood within this intellectual milieu. In most general terms, they may be said to reflect the inflated significance of the priesthood. To narrow it down, we might expect the proto-sectarian texts, so close to the hearts of the Qumranites, such as ALD, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll to be most influential in this regard. The models of priesthood contained in them provided the world of ideas which nurtured Qumranite visions of the future priest.
This is readily seen in sectarian texts such as 1QSa, 4QFlorilegium, and 4QSefer ha-Milḥamah, which envision a diarchic eschatological leadership that gives priority to the priest. These texts are to be related with the anti-Hasmonean polemics of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll, which insist on the separation of priestly and royal powers, and the primacy of the former. The martial role attributed to Levi in ALD and Jubilees may also have had reflexes in the Qumran community. In 11QMelchizedek, the celestial high priest Melchizedek is pictured as leading his armies, violently administering justice and exacting God’s vengeance on Belial and his lot.
According to the War Rule, the eschatological war effort is to be led by priests. However, unlike Levi and Melchizedek, these priests are not to participate directly in the carnage for fear of corpse impurity. Apparently the purity concerns of the community made the attribution of such a bloody role to its own priesthood unthinkable.
... the important judicial and didactic roles ascribed to the priests in ALD, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll are mirrored by the association of Qumran’s eschatological priest with teaching and the proliferation of the law for the new age. However, it should be noted again that no literary dependence can be shown in these cases, and while conceptual influence is probable, it is not possible to demonstrate direct influence.
Finally, 4QApocryphon of Levi (4Q541 9) contains the only straightforward reference to a priestly messiah in a non-sectarian text. This exception is of utmost importance for it indicates that the notion existed before the formation of the Qumran community. Based on the fragment’s discovery at Qumran and its close relationship to the Levi tradition-complex so popular there, we may assume that it exerted some influence on the way in which the Qumranites imagined the priestly messiah. Indeed, the overall dualistic framework of the fragment and the report that its unnamed figure will possess wisdom, atone for all the children of his generation, and teach the will of God aligns quite nicely with sectarian pictures of the eschatological priest as teacher and interpreter of the law, and perhaps as making atonement in the age to come.
Ultimately, the flourishing of priestly messianic speculation in sectarian literature may be said to reflect the unique historical circumstances and apocalyptic worldview of the Qumran community. The Qumranites were profoundly disturbed by what they perceived as the corruption of the contemporary priestly leadership in Jerusalem and the pollution of the temple.
Marginalized and isolated at their settlement in the desert, they yearned for the day when they would come to power and return to a restored Jerusalem temple. In this context, they crated the image of a grand future priest who would rise to power, purge the temple, and enforce the community’s utopian vision of the new age. For the pious traditionalists of Qumran, this expectation was not perceived as an innovation, but as a reflection of the true meaning of traditional written sources.
https://www.academia.edu/395896/The_Tra ... _at_Qumran
Joseph L. Angel, 'The Traditional Roots of Priestly Messianism at Qumran', published in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (eds. S. Tzoref and L. Schiffman; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010)
2. Historical Background
Second Temple period Judah witnessed a dramatic paradigm shift with respect to political structure. With the dissolution of the Davidic dynasty, power swung from the royal palace toward the rebuilt Jerusalem temple, which became the command center of the restored Judahite community. The Persian period saw the rise of a diarchic form of government, in which power was granted to a lay governor and a high priest, both of whom, of course, were subordinate to foreign rule.
Although the evidence is sparse for this period, it appears that the lay leader governed civil affairs while the priest attended to cultic matters. By the early Hellenistic period however, there is evidence that the high priest was exercising political power without the assistance of a civil governor. Since the Hellenistic empires did not appoint governors alongside the high priests, the power and prestige of the high priestly voice rose to unprecedented heights. Eventually under the Hasmoneans, who were independent from foreign rule, the originally separate voices of high priest and king were unified by a succession of individual rulers.
These days saw the advent of the Qumran community. The Qumranite expectation of an ideal priestly figure who would arrive in the future reflects the community’s expressed dissatisfaction with the exercise of the sacerdotal voice in Jerusalem from the time of the Hasmonean priest-kings and its dismay with what it perceived as the pollution of the temple. With the arrival of the priestly messiah who would teach the new law to, preside over, and possibly atone for the purified cultic community, this situation would be rectified.
Another notable shit in the Second Temple period was brought about by the emergence, under the Persians, of the Torah as the law of the land (see Ezra 7:25–26). he unparalleled authority of the written word of God necessarily gave rise to a new type of power; that of the scribe trained in the close reading and interpretation of the Torah. In order to become a scribe one needed both natural intelligence and a good education. As Ben Sira pointed out in the second century B.C.E., such education required the opportunity of leisure, and by inference, plenty of money (38:24–33).
Naturally, priests were top candidates for this position as the temple and its leadership enjoyed the backing of the foreign imperialistic powers. However, the scribal voice certainly did not require priestly lineage. The concurrent rise of these two oices, priest and scribe, as well as the disappearance of Davidic authority in the Second Temple period provides important historical background for the understanding of the traditional roots of priestly messianic expectation at Qumran.
4. Conclusions
In the above survey we have observed several examples of the tendency of Second Temple literature to crat ideal patterns of priestly conduct and exemplary priestly figures. In addition to the traditional cultic, judicial, instructional, and other responsibilities of the priesthood known from the Hebrew Bible, the literature variously attributes the characteristics of king, sage, scribe, and warrior to the model priest.
Since these ideal portrayals occur in such a wide variety of sources as Ben Sira, Hecataeus, Josephus, ALD [the Aramaic Levi Document; see 3.2.], Jubilees, 4QApocryphon of Levi, and the Temple Scroll, it is clear that they are not a product of sectarian imagination. Rather, they must be related in general to the rise of priestly and scribal powers in Second Temple society described above.
The differing pictures of ideal priestly figures in the above texts must be seen either as attempts to legitimize the contemporary roles of priests (as in Ben Sira, Hecataeus, and Josephus) or as polemics which present an alternative to the present establishment (as in Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and perhaps ALD). It is striking that even in the polemical cases, priestly powers and abilities are expanded far beyond biblical parameters. his indicates that, in general, the association of the priesthood with the realms of civil government and wisdom/scribalism was deemed as a given and indeed as scripturally authorized by most if not all of Jewish society in the Second Temple period.
Qumranite notions of priestly messianism are best understood within this intellectual milieu. In most general terms, they may be said to reflect the inflated significance of the priesthood. To narrow it down, we might expect the proto-sectarian texts, so close to the hearts of the Qumranites, such as ALD, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll to be most influential in this regard. The models of priesthood contained in them provided the world of ideas which nurtured Qumranite visions of the future priest.
This is readily seen in sectarian texts such as 1QSa, 4QFlorilegium, and 4QSefer ha-Milḥamah, which envision a diarchic eschatological leadership that gives priority to the priest. These texts are to be related with the anti-Hasmonean polemics of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll, which insist on the separation of priestly and royal powers, and the primacy of the former. The martial role attributed to Levi in ALD and Jubilees may also have had reflexes in the Qumran community. In 11QMelchizedek, the celestial high priest Melchizedek is pictured as leading his armies, violently administering justice and exacting God’s vengeance on Belial and his lot.
According to the War Rule, the eschatological war effort is to be led by priests. However, unlike Levi and Melchizedek, these priests are not to participate directly in the carnage for fear of corpse impurity. Apparently the purity concerns of the community made the attribution of such a bloody role to its own priesthood unthinkable.
... the important judicial and didactic roles ascribed to the priests in ALD, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll are mirrored by the association of Qumran’s eschatological priest with teaching and the proliferation of the law for the new age. However, it should be noted again that no literary dependence can be shown in these cases, and while conceptual influence is probable, it is not possible to demonstrate direct influence.
Finally, 4QApocryphon of Levi (4Q541 9) contains the only straightforward reference to a priestly messiah in a non-sectarian text. This exception is of utmost importance for it indicates that the notion existed before the formation of the Qumran community. Based on the fragment’s discovery at Qumran and its close relationship to the Levi tradition-complex so popular there, we may assume that it exerted some influence on the way in which the Qumranites imagined the priestly messiah. Indeed, the overall dualistic framework of the fragment and the report that its unnamed figure will possess wisdom, atone for all the children of his generation, and teach the will of God aligns quite nicely with sectarian pictures of the eschatological priest as teacher and interpreter of the law, and perhaps as making atonement in the age to come.
Ultimately, the flourishing of priestly messianic speculation in sectarian literature may be said to reflect the unique historical circumstances and apocalyptic worldview of the Qumran community. The Qumranites were profoundly disturbed by what they perceived as the corruption of the contemporary priestly leadership in Jerusalem and the pollution of the temple.
Marginalized and isolated at their settlement in the desert, they yearned for the day when they would come to power and return to a restored Jerusalem temple. In this context, they crated the image of a grand future priest who would rise to power, purge the temple, and enforce the community’s utopian vision of the new age. For the pious traditionalists of Qumran, this expectation was not perceived as an innovation, but as a reflection of the true meaning of traditional written sources.
-
yakovzutolmai
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am
Re: The meaningful variants of Judaism in the first century
Just for the sake of getting ideas out there, here's my reconstruction of Judaism:
First of all, the oldest reliable, semi-historical account of the Jewish High Priest leads us to the two groups the Sadducees and the Boethusians as two schools that are adjacent to the evolution of the priesthood as far back into history as we can reliably peer (without relying on Biblical accounts). In context, we have the events of the Maccabean revolt to define two priesthoods and two Jewish temples. Those of the Hasmoneans and the Oniads. For this reason, I identify the Sadducees as connected to the Hasmoneans (which is well understood) and the Boethusians as the Oniads.
What's notable about the Oniads is their orientation toward Egypt. In the early stages of what would lead to the Maccabean revolt, the main tactic of Jerusalem was to resist Hellenization by embracing Egyptianization. There seems to be no gall about viewing Judaism as an Egyptian adjacent religious system.
If we examine Kabbalah in context with what we know about ancient rites and beliefs, we get a very clear picture of Adam Kadmon as a world pillar. I personally suspect that Adam comes from Atum, and that the figure of Atum is actually Atar-Min, the merger of the Canaanite/Syrian and Egyptian deities with a similar role. Min leads to Amun/Ammon and Minos, and classical era Libyans call Minos Ammon. Atar is the male aspect of Atargatis and probably connects to Yam, although Canaanite religion is very syncretic of many different influences. Atlas is probably derived from a common tradition as well, and when we see he has his sacred tree of apples with a serpent guardian (Lodan no less, reminding of Yam's Lotan/Leviathan), we don't look far to see our Adam of Genesis.
Two things matter:
Next, after the schism between Onias and Jerusalem, there is a specific diaspora of Jews to Alexandria. This group is distinct from the Oniads, and possibly serves to fuel the known Jewish diaspora to Cyrenaica, Asia, etc. This group is known primarily for its secular attitudes, encompasses Philo as well as Romanized Jews.
There is also the Theraputae, who may or may not be directly linked to the Alexandrian Jews. However, consider what the Theraputaic doctrine says. If you don't have access to a Jewish temple, how do you worship Yahweh? The Deuteronomical religion of temple sacrifice and national atonement has to be taken out of the temple. Let's unpack this.
The Israelite cult of sacrifice derives from Canaanite sacrifice and was primarily practiced at Shechem. A propitiatory sacrifice to the bull god overlaps and parallels with cults all over the bronze age Mediterranean. Cronus being fed a stone instead of Zeus is directly derived from this common tradition. The golden calf of Aaron is part of this. What the Deuteronomists want to do - according to my construction - is create a monolatric religion in Judea. To consolidate worship into a single cult which supports the power structure of the regional satrap.
The concept of national atonement is invented for this political purpose. Sacrifice to Baal was a primitive act of propitiation to avoid the anger of deity as well as general misfortune. Nationalizing the cult means that everyone rises or falls together, and so they must support the regime. I suspect the monolatrization project was so successful, it attracted diaspora Canaanites who had never been Jewish, and is why these peoples started to be called Yehudim.
When the Alexandrian Jews, centuries later, are living under the paradigm of the Jewish religion without a temple, as they secularize and withdraw from the influence of Jerusalem, they invent a substitute theology.
We can see, in Enochian literature, some hints of how the propitiation cults worked, theologically. There was an order to the heavens. If humans on Earth followed the patterns of the stars and seasons, they would be blessed with order and predictable harvest. The cyclical death of Baal, his eternal struggle with Yam, represents a way to cast off corruption and decay and renew the world back to its intended order. In Jewish theology, therefore, the High Priest is implicitly taking on some of this divine role.
The Theraputae could argue that the earthly High Priest is only a manifestation of the heavenly High Priest, and the propitiation for sins derives from the power of the heavenly High Priest and there's no reason one cannot simply rely on the latter's power for personal or community atonement.
The Alexandrian Jews were not part of the community of Enochian or Samaritan or Babylonian Jews debating the two powers in heaven. Using a rudimentary Greek template, Philo could identify Yahweh as God Supreme, and derive a son. The heavenly High Priest, Joshua, neatly fits into the role of God's son.
And so, without knowing anything of Christianity, you can construct a secular Judaism that eschews the temple's ritualistic laws, identifies a heavenly spirit as God's Son, from whom a personal atonement of sins can be obtained. All within a rudimentary Greek philosophical framework.
There are three more things to consider, concerning Jewish factions:
I believe the Boethusian presence in Judea introduced something you might call "Egyptian magic", which the Pharisees despised. This is the Egyptian cult theology from the Oniad temple. I also believe the Boethusians intersected with Babylonian Jews in Galilee, where the Egyptian school and the Marduk cult intersected giving us much of proto-Christianity.
Finally, proto-Christianity must be understood in terms of the figure of James and a violent messianic outlook, perhaps even a Jewish purity and adherence to the law. The Christianity we have today almost certainly comes from the beliefs of the Alexandrian Jews, and I suspect basically they tried to subvert and claim the messianic legacy the James cult established, casting their own theology in its place.
Here are the variants of Judaism, as far as I can tell:
Daniel takes ideas about national salvation and compiles them into a mythology which predicts a specific and momentous national salvation. It invokes David, and also twists some of the words of prophets. You can see why the messianic concept is not essential to Judaism, but why the Hasmoneans would want to create it for their own benefit.
The idea of the heavenly high priest already existed as part of the core theology, an echo of the actual celestial battles of Canaanite gods. The two powers in heaven creates a tension between Yahweh of the temple, and an esoteric spirit who may even be above Yahweh in power. Elements of this are incorporated into both Egyptian cultic norms, and associated with Babylonian martial sects. It all collides from ca 30 AD to 50 AD.
The bigger picture of politics is that Arabs and Israelites exist - their very identities - as echoes of Neo-Assyrian hegemony. With the fall of the Seleucids, we see the Arabs stand up a new God-king of Assyria whose dynasty then conflicts with Parthians, Armenians, Rome. At the pinnacle of Herod's reign, with Simon Boethus as High Priest, the king of Assyria wins Roman recognition and peace with Parthia. He is to pay taxes to Rome through Herod, and Herod's kin are given prominent positions throughout Armenia.
Basically, Rome gives the former Assyrian sphere of influence to Herod almost completely, hoping he can hold it against Parthia.
If we consider that there are Israelite-adjacent peoples still living in these areas, who have not fully embraced the Jewish identity, then the concept of a ministry to lost sheep makes sense. The evolution of this religious concept is directly tied to the struggle to control the Assyrian sphere of influence using the model of hegemony established by Neo-Assyria through its client tribes among Arabs and Jews.
The politics of this can get very complicated, but one can stick to the religious side of the discussion. The last piece to understand this involves the House of Ananus the high priest.
We have evidence of an Ananias going to Babylon to convert the monarch of Assyria to Judaism, and there we hear of a massive argument about whether a man needs to be circumcised or not in order to convert. Ananias is on one side, and an Eleazer (probably Boethus) is on the other.
Keeping it short, the High Priest list of Israel reveals a sort of conflict or power struggle between the Ananian High Priests (ruling from ca. 6-40 AD, and in the 60s) and the Boethusians.
There also seems to be a link between the Alexandrian Jews and the Ananians as well, who both were solid Roman loyalists (when they weren't assisting conspiracies against this or that Emperor). And the Herodians are eventually roped into their faction.
So consider this paradigm:
The messianic movement, the proto-Christianity, more than likely succeeds in at least temporarily becoming the most conventional form of Judaism (ca. 50s). That is, it became the majority consensus among Jews.
The losers in this consensus were non-Jewish Edomites, non-law following Alexandrians and gentiles. The Pharisees and Sadducees are villains for opposing the consensus.
In contrast, among secularized, Roman Jews living in the Mediterranean diaspora, Alexandrian/Ananian ideas became the consensus.
It helps to understand that the majority of Jews, therefore, were embracing versions of the religion that cannot be described in modern terms as Jewish. This describes the factions leading into the Jewish Revolt very well. Babylonian Jews, Herodians, Edomites, Ananians, Nationalistic Galileans, and religious zealots.
The most important event of the Revolt is the destruction of the Temple, which effectively abolishes the Sadducaical sect (and anyway Rome hunted them down later). There are specific reactions:
The bar Kokhba War represents the Pharisaical interpretation of nationalists. A messiah representing the theology that one doesn't need a temple, but it would be nice to have and God would make it happen. Although Jews continued to try and appeal to emperors to rebuild their temple, for the most part bar Kokhba led this third reaction to more deeply embrace the Pharisaical exegesis, where one doesn't necessarily need the temple to be Jewish. Nevertheless, we see with Kabbalah and even some of what's mentioned in the Talmud that conceits to the influence of other factions is made. Thus, rabbinical Judaism, while essentially Pharisaical, is not identical to the Pharisaical faction, nor is it necessarily what the Pharisees intended. Nevertheless, by embracing Pharisaical exegesis, rabbinical Judaism rejects the theological conceits of the Alexandrian and other Egyptian/Babylonian factions. Less is rejected within Kabbalah, but my impression is Kabbalah is seen as an independent tradition which is meant to be harmonized with Judaism, but neither depends on each others' exegesis.
Finally, the "we never needed the temple" interpretation clearly becomes "Pauline" Christianity. It does seem Ananus ben Ananus, who killed James and is leading the Jewish Provisional Government is aligned with this interpretation of Judaism. There are major hints of a conspiracy between the Herodians, Ananians, and Flavian family of Rome (along with the Alexandrian Jews).
I do believe the origin of the synoptic gospels lies with the Flavian dynasty. I almost wonder if a decision was made between Titus, Herod Agrippa II and Tiberius Alexander (Philo's nephew) and remnant Alexandrian Jews to tear down the Jerusalem temple specifically to support the Alexandrian theology's popularity. Where Rome will be recast as the national home for Jews, and its Emperors divinely chosen agents of God's peace and will.
In this sense, Christianity is a direct, unambiguous descendent of Alexandrian Judaism.
Finally, within the gospel narrative Christ is juxtaposed against Barabbas. I believe the disciples are loosely derived from the history of proto-Christianity (messianics), and the gospel narrative is attempting to claim their entire movement in the name of the Alexandrian Joshua spirit. In other words, the Jews rejecting Christ is actually saying: "These Christ worshipping messianic zealots have convinced the majority of Jews over to their persuasion, and our secular, better theology of Christ has been rejected by them."
In other words, ironically, the Christ-followers rejected the secularizers, but the gospel spins this as Jews rejecting Christ. Simply by recasting the identity of Christ into the Therapeutaic Jesus.
As for what the histories say about Jewish variants, Josephus is hopeless. His definitions are purely for narrative conveniences. Sicarii becomes the catch all for the massive theological fervor, the various sects, who ultimately unify under Jamesian messianism. Essene seems to be a concession to the existence of Jewish sects outside of respectable society. Josephus himself is part Sadducee, part Pharisee, so he probably sees those two as semi-legitimate in this milieu of confusing and variable sects of Jews and Judaism. Essene is a way to say there are legitimate Jewish sects out there (as opposed to non-Jewish pretender sects) which are neither Sadducee or Pharisee.
As a last word, I want to tease out something vastly more speculative given what I have said above. Judaism does not acknowledge even the sectarian landscape which comes up in discussions of Christian origins. It seems to like to present Judaism as a unified culture with small references to magic practitioners, blasphemers, speculators and so forth.
This is funny considering the Boethusians. Based on historical context, you'd think they'd play a more infamous role in the Talmud. However, the Talmud is late and its purpose is to establish the rabbinical exegesis, not tell history. The problem is that Boethusian descendants are major contributors to parts of the Talmud, so one could not cast the family as heretics. At best, the Talmud criticizes the Boethusian mastery of the texts, which I see as a soft concession to a bit of contempt directed to that family, while still preserving their legitimacy as proper Jews. Imagine conceded that the sacred temple, even under Herod, was illegitimate. The temple is too important to be denigrated merely because it was totally under the control at times of possibly illegitimate priests. You get the idea.
What Judaism does seem to discuss, in this era, is the great schools of Hillel and Shammai. Non-Jewish history, which has plenty to discuss, seems to ignore them. We have Eleazer debating Ananias about circumcision. We have Ananus ben Ananus murdering James, and the Christianity has Paul and James conflicting. Yet none of it mentions a Hillel or Shammai. We would believe that Hillel and Shammai represent an internal dialogue, within legitimate Judaism, that only the Jews themselves recorded, while these external dialogues with Paul and James and Ananias represent perhaps something secular and outside of true Jewish interest. To me, it seems like two alternate realities in parallel.
So what if, in fact, the realities could merge into one? What if Hillel and Shammai reflect precisely the Boethusian and Ananian conflict?
What if Ananus ben Seth IS Hillel? What if Hillel's school was the Alexandrian influence trying to turn Judaism into what we recognize as Pauline Christianity? What if Shammai represents the awakening of the Jewish identity across the Babylonian diaspora, and through purity and adherence to the law (note that Izates and Helena of Adiabene were known for an adherence to purity and the law). Even if this same Shammai is engaging in messianic theological speculation, and is responsible for proto-Christianity? We might identify Shammai as Eleazer Boethus, or perhaps Joazer or Simon himself.
Ironically, Simon Cantheras Boethus's son Elionaeus is almost certainly the rising Lazarus, and the rich man who persecutes Lazarus in the parable (identified as Annas the High Priest) would be Ananus. So it's the Pauline wealthy establishment persecuting the messianic purists in the story of Lazarus!!!
The importance of this interpretation is that if Hillel and Shammai are the Ananians and Boethusians respectively, then it means that the major debate within Judaism of the first century had bypassed the diminished Pharisees and Sadducees, and instead was between the direct ancestors of Pauline Christians (Hillel) on one side, and radical zealot messianists (Shammai) on the other.
Of course, it only explains EVERYTHING, if the majority of Judaism was caught between the two progenitor forms of Christianity during the first century. Both of which were naturally Jewish. However, this would be embarrassing for the later rabbinical exegesis.
I also realize I didn't touch on Gnosticism. I would just say that Gnostic beliefs are almost certainly from Greco-Egyptian influence, but that as I have shown this would naturally fit within Jewish mysticism. I would argue that my radical messianic sect would be essentially Gnostic. Gnostic with the law of Moses, where Gnosis is not salvation, rather an Enochian interpretation where the Archons are directly overthrown in a violent, joint earthly and celestial revolution.
I'm sure there's cross-pollenation between Therapeutaic and Gnostic ideas. We also have to question what role Rome might play in sponsoring Gnosticism that rejects the violent element.
The Basilidean school of Alexandria seems to be a reaction to the Kitos War, and I can observe how it is essentially a peaceful rejection of the material world where the followers of Lukuas proposed a violent rejection of the material world.
So proto-Gnosticism is interwoven into all the evolutions of Jewish practice and theology I mentioned at the beginning. Gnosticism, if we can to call it that, emerges specifically as the messianic sects reject violence after the failure of the Kitos War.
As for the wicked demiurge, it is not clear that this is even and essential element to Gnosticism. Rather, it seems to be specifically an invention of Marcionite influence. And Marcionitism is easily explained (I totally reject the role of a historical Marcion as a lone founder). This is the two powers in heaven, where Eastern Enochian types are asserting Metatron/Enoch (now cast as Christ) as superior to Yahweh. That is, there were always some sects that held Metatron higher than Yahweh, while the rest of Judaism placed Metatron under him.
From 115 AD - 150+ AD we can basically say that Christianity was Gnosticism. Gnosticism comes from the oral traditions of these Jewish sects. I think Marcionism probably inspired a counter-reaction. Rejecting Yahweh would have been abhorrent. However, in terms of valid oral tradition, Marcionites have antiquity from the East supporting their claims. The anti-Marcionites are influenced by the fraudulent history of the synoptic gospels, and in fact they descend from anti-Christians.
So the anti-Marcionites have to fabricate an apostolic tradition to win the argument, and part of what they do to establish their authority is to reject oral traditions and mystery teachings in favor of scriptural exegesis. If they can use scripture to reject a secret teaching, they can appear more authoritative. So, my belief is that by around 200 AD you start having figures like Origen emerge to create the orthodox exegesis and over time they realize that their theological traditions are incorrect in the face of harmonizing with scripture. This is why Arianism can be the undisputed doctrine of the catholic church but then after a council it's turned on its head as heretical. Simply by that point, no one had considered the text closely enough. The religion of course wasn't meant to be derived from scripture, but that's what they created in the end.
Then they destroyed documents for 1000 years and eventually deviated from scripture anyway.
- Canaanite/Egyptian idols; "Moses" is Thoth esoterically, Thutmose III historically; Israel, David, Solomon, all versions of Hadad or localized instances of Adonis/Hadad. Henotheistic Yahweh cult of Israel confederacy.
- Neo-Assyrian hegemony adds Sephirotic philosophy, where gods as essences are combined for philosophical truth; culture of demonology and prophets inspired by Holy Spirit; naturally, Babylonian cosmogony. Neo-Assyrian thought adds the idea of all gods as emanations of a single world soul, or esoteric monotheism. Based on the Babylonian God-King template, this Asshur spirit incarnates in the kings of Assyria, for Israel, the concept of the High Priest becomes the vessel of the world soul.
- Median supervisors sent to govern Judea during the Achaemenid period attempt to unify the province by consolidating the cult of Jerusalem. Temple idols cleared out, early Deuteronomical texts written, and monolatry begins
- Reacting to the Hellenic world order, the Zadokite priest class which resulted from Persian rule rewrites the entire library of sacred texts (Septuagint) to fabricate a national myth and a single national historical narrative. Here, Yahweh, the object of monolatric worship is elevated to Monotheos based on Greek ideas.
- Tension between the esoteric one god of Assyrian heritage, and the more novel exoteric one god of Greek inspiration. This is Metatron and Yahweh, and the concept of two powers in heaven. Because Yahweh monotheism is novel, there is no correct answer to the question of Metatron and Yahweh's relative rank.
- The broader identity of "Jews" is lost to history. Arab is an ethnic category that emerges under Neo-Assyrian hegemony. While we know of the Israelite confederacy, we also know that some peoples in Canaan were called Assyrian (tribe of Asher, Itureans, etc.) The name Hebrew might refer to the Euphrates river region, which is also a known settlement location during the Assyrian captivity. I would assume that there was some ancient identity which evolved to be called "Yehudim" as other identities such as Aram, Chaldeans, Arabs and so forth emerged in antiquity. I suspect this does not refer to Jews or Judeans, nor to an Israelite diaspora, but rather some core Canaanite identity with great reach and antiquity in the region. For example, maybe the Amorites become "Yehudim". What primarily drives the Jewish identity is the spread of Deuteronomical texts by enthusiastic Jerusalemites among the Hebrew diaspora during the Babylonian captivity.
- The fact of Exodus being a fabricated history, written very late in Jewish history, means that even by the Roman era there was not a full consensus among Jews about the Jewish identity. The core Judean territory, and their colonies in Western Galilee are staunch supporters of Hasmonean power because of a single era of rule in which they and their national identity is dominating most of their close neighbors. Edomites and Itureans are forcibly circumcised.
- Samaritans seem to fit comfortably within the wider Jewish identity, emerging as the major partner in the construction of the Pentateuch, and somehow the Judeans as junior partners claim the legacy completely for themselves. This could be explained by my concept of a broader Amorite identity for Jews who have been spread throughout the fertile crescent even before any captivities, which contrasts against the actual descendants of Israelite and Jerusalemite nobility located at Jerusalem. In truth, neither group are Jewish, since the history is fabricated or embellished. However, the Judeans manage to elevate themselves to the central position of the broader national myth for these peoples.
First of all, the oldest reliable, semi-historical account of the Jewish High Priest leads us to the two groups the Sadducees and the Boethusians as two schools that are adjacent to the evolution of the priesthood as far back into history as we can reliably peer (without relying on Biblical accounts). In context, we have the events of the Maccabean revolt to define two priesthoods and two Jewish temples. Those of the Hasmoneans and the Oniads. For this reason, I identify the Sadducees as connected to the Hasmoneans (which is well understood) and the Boethusians as the Oniads.
What's notable about the Oniads is their orientation toward Egypt. In the early stages of what would lead to the Maccabean revolt, the main tactic of Jerusalem was to resist Hellenization by embracing Egyptianization. There seems to be no gall about viewing Judaism as an Egyptian adjacent religious system.
If we examine Kabbalah in context with what we know about ancient rites and beliefs, we get a very clear picture of Adam Kadmon as a world pillar. I personally suspect that Adam comes from Atum, and that the figure of Atum is actually Atar-Min, the merger of the Canaanite/Syrian and Egyptian deities with a similar role. Min leads to Amun/Ammon and Minos, and classical era Libyans call Minos Ammon. Atar is the male aspect of Atargatis and probably connects to Yam, although Canaanite religion is very syncretic of many different influences. Atlas is probably derived from a common tradition as well, and when we see he has his sacred tree of apples with a serpent guardian (Lodan no less, reminding of Yam's Lotan/Leviathan), we don't look far to see our Adam of Genesis.
Two things matter:
- Atum/Adam can be plausibly upheld as Atar, Eve as Atargatis. We integrate the god-king theology essential to Egyptian beliefs, and the High Priest of Israel becomes the incarnation of the world spirit. Even those practicing Canaanite folk religion could therefore be convinced to recognize that their traditional gods have presence even through a High Priest of Israel. With this conception, we don't have to see the Jewish religion as antagonistic to Syrian religion, considering the wider diaspora of Israelites.
- The Christ-god, the crucified world pillar, is the High Priest of Israel. This theology was already present in Judaism pre-Christian. For the earthly High Priest there is Joshua the High Priest of Heaven, and Joshua and Adam Kadmon are the same. And the earthly High Priest is a sacred incarnation of the Christ-god, the same way Pharaoh as the High Priest of however many Egyptian cults served the same role.
Next, after the schism between Onias and Jerusalem, there is a specific diaspora of Jews to Alexandria. This group is distinct from the Oniads, and possibly serves to fuel the known Jewish diaspora to Cyrenaica, Asia, etc. This group is known primarily for its secular attitudes, encompasses Philo as well as Romanized Jews.
There is also the Theraputae, who may or may not be directly linked to the Alexandrian Jews. However, consider what the Theraputaic doctrine says. If you don't have access to a Jewish temple, how do you worship Yahweh? The Deuteronomical religion of temple sacrifice and national atonement has to be taken out of the temple. Let's unpack this.
The Israelite cult of sacrifice derives from Canaanite sacrifice and was primarily practiced at Shechem. A propitiatory sacrifice to the bull god overlaps and parallels with cults all over the bronze age Mediterranean. Cronus being fed a stone instead of Zeus is directly derived from this common tradition. The golden calf of Aaron is part of this. What the Deuteronomists want to do - according to my construction - is create a monolatric religion in Judea. To consolidate worship into a single cult which supports the power structure of the regional satrap.
The concept of national atonement is invented for this political purpose. Sacrifice to Baal was a primitive act of propitiation to avoid the anger of deity as well as general misfortune. Nationalizing the cult means that everyone rises or falls together, and so they must support the regime. I suspect the monolatrization project was so successful, it attracted diaspora Canaanites who had never been Jewish, and is why these peoples started to be called Yehudim.
When the Alexandrian Jews, centuries later, are living under the paradigm of the Jewish religion without a temple, as they secularize and withdraw from the influence of Jerusalem, they invent a substitute theology.
We can see, in Enochian literature, some hints of how the propitiation cults worked, theologically. There was an order to the heavens. If humans on Earth followed the patterns of the stars and seasons, they would be blessed with order and predictable harvest. The cyclical death of Baal, his eternal struggle with Yam, represents a way to cast off corruption and decay and renew the world back to its intended order. In Jewish theology, therefore, the High Priest is implicitly taking on some of this divine role.
The Theraputae could argue that the earthly High Priest is only a manifestation of the heavenly High Priest, and the propitiation for sins derives from the power of the heavenly High Priest and there's no reason one cannot simply rely on the latter's power for personal or community atonement.
The Alexandrian Jews were not part of the community of Enochian or Samaritan or Babylonian Jews debating the two powers in heaven. Using a rudimentary Greek template, Philo could identify Yahweh as God Supreme, and derive a son. The heavenly High Priest, Joshua, neatly fits into the role of God's son.
And so, without knowing anything of Christianity, you can construct a secular Judaism that eschews the temple's ritualistic laws, identifies a heavenly spirit as God's Son, from whom a personal atonement of sins can be obtained. All within a rudimentary Greek philosophical framework.
There are three more things to consider, concerning Jewish factions:
- The Sadducees were a political faction. They inherited the Pentateuch from a joint Judean/Samaritan project to Hellenize Hebrew religion (in contrast to the Seleucid plane which was to utterly Hellenize Judea so as to erase Hebrew religion entirely). To them, the laws of Moses were ritualistic and meant for temple practice. The practice of Jewish religion was meant to sustain and empower the Jewish nation, and they didn't care about the deeper theological speculation. In fact, theological speculation infringed on the cleanness and purity of Pentateuchal exegesis.
- The Pharisees, in my opinion, emerge as Jewish Calvinists. The religious tradition and literary brilliance which composed Torah was extraordinary and vast. Yet, with the Pentateuch, most of that tradition is discarded. Pharisees are empowered by Torah, gaining authority within the religion from the text. In a sense, the Jewish religion didn't create the Torah, but Torah created the Jewish religion. We can see this faction as emerging to derive a religious identity and narrative where historically there hadn't been one.
- The Babylonian Jews are not well accounted for. We know many factions with this name existed and were incredibly influential. It's not clear the degree to which they adhered to Hasmonean Judaism. It is clear that Christianity borrows elements which are seen very clearly in the cult of Marduk. The Melchizedek sects of Judaism are clearly derived from Marduk mercenary cults. Marduk and Melchizedek are the same figure, esoterically. Melchizedek, in this sense, is another candidate for that vague second power in heaven generated by the evolution of Jewish religion.
I believe the Boethusian presence in Judea introduced something you might call "Egyptian magic", which the Pharisees despised. This is the Egyptian cult theology from the Oniad temple. I also believe the Boethusians intersected with Babylonian Jews in Galilee, where the Egyptian school and the Marduk cult intersected giving us much of proto-Christianity.
Finally, proto-Christianity must be understood in terms of the figure of James and a violent messianic outlook, perhaps even a Jewish purity and adherence to the law. The Christianity we have today almost certainly comes from the beliefs of the Alexandrian Jews, and I suspect basically they tried to subvert and claim the messianic legacy the James cult established, casting their own theology in its place.
Here are the variants of Judaism, as far as I can tell:
- The Sadducee sect, representing the Hasmonean regime and having little purpose other than supporting the higher priestly families and the temple cult of Jerusalem.
- The Pharisees, who are crafting the Jewish religion through deep scriptural exegesis. These align with Judean nationalists, with particular fanaticism in Galilee. The Jewish religion is novel and somewhat artificial, as is the Jewish nation, and so these groups are desperate to defend both. The religious commitment is identitarian rather than mystical.
- The Samaritan Pentateuch followers. This is the portion of Samaritan Canaanites who were part of the project to create the Septuagint and establish a pan-Canaanite identity. Like the Pharisees, they are attempting to practice their religion through this new scriptural exegesis, but unlike the Pharisees, they lack the desperate identitarian fervor (this comes a few centuries later).
- The Samaritan Enochians. These are pre-Jewish Israelites, perhaps in Samaria, Babylon or Assyria who practice some mix of Jewish religion and the old cultic practices. They seem to have a memory of many ancient beliefs and deep theology.
- The non-Jewish Jews. The Itureans and Edomites, who were forcibly converted and circumcised, but seem to prefer Syrian styles of religion, with infamous zodiac and solar mosaics in their synagogues if not outright worship of Dea Syria and so forth.
- The Boethusians, who introduce the concept of the world-soul High Priest. In general, those who align to derivative cults are associated with magical practices. Simonianism seems to derive.
- The Melchizedek cults, who introduce the idea of a violent messiah who will conquer the world.
- Sethian cults, who seem to be a branch of Egyptian Jews occupied with deep theology going back perhaps even as far as worship established by the Hyksos. A likely candidate for some Gnostic ideas.
- Alexandrian Jews, who prefer a secular and cosmopolitan interpretation of the Jewish religion. Includes Philo and probably the Theraputae.
Daniel takes ideas about national salvation and compiles them into a mythology which predicts a specific and momentous national salvation. It invokes David, and also twists some of the words of prophets. You can see why the messianic concept is not essential to Judaism, but why the Hasmoneans would want to create it for their own benefit.
The idea of the heavenly high priest already existed as part of the core theology, an echo of the actual celestial battles of Canaanite gods. The two powers in heaven creates a tension between Yahweh of the temple, and an esoteric spirit who may even be above Yahweh in power. Elements of this are incorporated into both Egyptian cultic norms, and associated with Babylonian martial sects. It all collides from ca 30 AD to 50 AD.
The bigger picture of politics is that Arabs and Israelites exist - their very identities - as echoes of Neo-Assyrian hegemony. With the fall of the Seleucids, we see the Arabs stand up a new God-king of Assyria whose dynasty then conflicts with Parthians, Armenians, Rome. At the pinnacle of Herod's reign, with Simon Boethus as High Priest, the king of Assyria wins Roman recognition and peace with Parthia. He is to pay taxes to Rome through Herod, and Herod's kin are given prominent positions throughout Armenia.
Basically, Rome gives the former Assyrian sphere of influence to Herod almost completely, hoping he can hold it against Parthia.
If we consider that there are Israelite-adjacent peoples still living in these areas, who have not fully embraced the Jewish identity, then the concept of a ministry to lost sheep makes sense. The evolution of this religious concept is directly tied to the struggle to control the Assyrian sphere of influence using the model of hegemony established by Neo-Assyria through its client tribes among Arabs and Jews.
The politics of this can get very complicated, but one can stick to the religious side of the discussion. The last piece to understand this involves the House of Ananus the high priest.
We have evidence of an Ananias going to Babylon to convert the monarch of Assyria to Judaism, and there we hear of a massive argument about whether a man needs to be circumcised or not in order to convert. Ananias is on one side, and an Eleazer (probably Boethus) is on the other.
Keeping it short, the High Priest list of Israel reveals a sort of conflict or power struggle between the Ananian High Priests (ruling from ca. 6-40 AD, and in the 60s) and the Boethusians.
There also seems to be a link between the Alexandrian Jews and the Ananians as well, who both were solid Roman loyalists (when they weren't assisting conspiracies against this or that Emperor). And the Herodians are eventually roped into their faction.
So consider this paradigm:
- There is a wider Jewish identity, loosely correlated to Canaanite peoples, even by the first century
- The Jewishness of these people is not firmly established, and frankly only the Pharisees, a very small portion of the larger group, are recognizably Jewish by modern standards.
- There is a struggle to define and control the identity of this larger group, impacting political outcomes both in Babylon, but also in the Eastern Med.
- Alexandrian Jews develop a modern, secular Judaism without adherence to law or even blood (gentiles can join), which casts God's atonement as a spiritual event which can be personally accessed. They attempt to promote it all over the Jewish world, including in Judea and Babylon
- With the Hasmoneans gone, Sadducees diminished, and Boethusians attempting to establish themselves as priest-kings, an alliance with the power of the Assyrian throne creates a Great Awakening among Babylonian Jews. They adopt a messianic, militant cult which proposes a Jewish identity which many Samaritan types may not have previously embraced, and suggest a national awakening leading to a great Jewish empire free of gentile oppression.
- These two forces conflict directly for control of the Jewish zeitgeist internationally, and in Judea.
The messianic movement, the proto-Christianity, more than likely succeeds in at least temporarily becoming the most conventional form of Judaism (ca. 50s). That is, it became the majority consensus among Jews.
The losers in this consensus were non-Jewish Edomites, non-law following Alexandrians and gentiles. The Pharisees and Sadducees are villains for opposing the consensus.
In contrast, among secularized, Roman Jews living in the Mediterranean diaspora, Alexandrian/Ananian ideas became the consensus.
It helps to understand that the majority of Jews, therefore, were embracing versions of the religion that cannot be described in modern terms as Jewish. This describes the factions leading into the Jewish Revolt very well. Babylonian Jews, Herodians, Edomites, Ananians, Nationalistic Galileans, and religious zealots.
The most important event of the Revolt is the destruction of the Temple, which effectively abolishes the Sadducaical sect (and anyway Rome hunted them down later). There are specific reactions:
- We never needed the temple. The Alexandrian interpretation solves this pretty well, and I imagine there were Jews practicing this before Christianity later emerged. The temple's destruction would certainly serve its purposes. And a word on Roman provenance for the scriptures in a moment.
- The temple will be rebuilt. The imminent second coming derives from this spirit. Some of the so called "Jewish Christians" probably thrived between the first temple's destruction but prior to the failure of later revolts.
- We don't need the temple for the time being, or we don't need it anymore. This reaction favors the Pharisees, because it depends essentially on their exegesis. In contrast to the Alexandrians who use philosophy to see past the temple, this group finds a path for what to do without a temple without relying on theological innovation.
The bar Kokhba War represents the Pharisaical interpretation of nationalists. A messiah representing the theology that one doesn't need a temple, but it would be nice to have and God would make it happen. Although Jews continued to try and appeal to emperors to rebuild their temple, for the most part bar Kokhba led this third reaction to more deeply embrace the Pharisaical exegesis, where one doesn't necessarily need the temple to be Jewish. Nevertheless, we see with Kabbalah and even some of what's mentioned in the Talmud that conceits to the influence of other factions is made. Thus, rabbinical Judaism, while essentially Pharisaical, is not identical to the Pharisaical faction, nor is it necessarily what the Pharisees intended. Nevertheless, by embracing Pharisaical exegesis, rabbinical Judaism rejects the theological conceits of the Alexandrian and other Egyptian/Babylonian factions. Less is rejected within Kabbalah, but my impression is Kabbalah is seen as an independent tradition which is meant to be harmonized with Judaism, but neither depends on each others' exegesis.
Finally, the "we never needed the temple" interpretation clearly becomes "Pauline" Christianity. It does seem Ananus ben Ananus, who killed James and is leading the Jewish Provisional Government is aligned with this interpretation of Judaism. There are major hints of a conspiracy between the Herodians, Ananians, and Flavian family of Rome (along with the Alexandrian Jews).
I do believe the origin of the synoptic gospels lies with the Flavian dynasty. I almost wonder if a decision was made between Titus, Herod Agrippa II and Tiberius Alexander (Philo's nephew) and remnant Alexandrian Jews to tear down the Jerusalem temple specifically to support the Alexandrian theology's popularity. Where Rome will be recast as the national home for Jews, and its Emperors divinely chosen agents of God's peace and will.
In this sense, Christianity is a direct, unambiguous descendent of Alexandrian Judaism.
Finally, within the gospel narrative Christ is juxtaposed against Barabbas. I believe the disciples are loosely derived from the history of proto-Christianity (messianics), and the gospel narrative is attempting to claim their entire movement in the name of the Alexandrian Joshua spirit. In other words, the Jews rejecting Christ is actually saying: "These Christ worshipping messianic zealots have convinced the majority of Jews over to their persuasion, and our secular, better theology of Christ has been rejected by them."
In other words, ironically, the Christ-followers rejected the secularizers, but the gospel spins this as Jews rejecting Christ. Simply by recasting the identity of Christ into the Therapeutaic Jesus.
As for what the histories say about Jewish variants, Josephus is hopeless. His definitions are purely for narrative conveniences. Sicarii becomes the catch all for the massive theological fervor, the various sects, who ultimately unify under Jamesian messianism. Essene seems to be a concession to the existence of Jewish sects outside of respectable society. Josephus himself is part Sadducee, part Pharisee, so he probably sees those two as semi-legitimate in this milieu of confusing and variable sects of Jews and Judaism. Essene is a way to say there are legitimate Jewish sects out there (as opposed to non-Jewish pretender sects) which are neither Sadducee or Pharisee.
As a last word, I want to tease out something vastly more speculative given what I have said above. Judaism does not acknowledge even the sectarian landscape which comes up in discussions of Christian origins. It seems to like to present Judaism as a unified culture with small references to magic practitioners, blasphemers, speculators and so forth.
This is funny considering the Boethusians. Based on historical context, you'd think they'd play a more infamous role in the Talmud. However, the Talmud is late and its purpose is to establish the rabbinical exegesis, not tell history. The problem is that Boethusian descendants are major contributors to parts of the Talmud, so one could not cast the family as heretics. At best, the Talmud criticizes the Boethusian mastery of the texts, which I see as a soft concession to a bit of contempt directed to that family, while still preserving their legitimacy as proper Jews. Imagine conceded that the sacred temple, even under Herod, was illegitimate. The temple is too important to be denigrated merely because it was totally under the control at times of possibly illegitimate priests. You get the idea.
What Judaism does seem to discuss, in this era, is the great schools of Hillel and Shammai. Non-Jewish history, which has plenty to discuss, seems to ignore them. We have Eleazer debating Ananias about circumcision. We have Ananus ben Ananus murdering James, and the Christianity has Paul and James conflicting. Yet none of it mentions a Hillel or Shammai. We would believe that Hillel and Shammai represent an internal dialogue, within legitimate Judaism, that only the Jews themselves recorded, while these external dialogues with Paul and James and Ananias represent perhaps something secular and outside of true Jewish interest. To me, it seems like two alternate realities in parallel.
So what if, in fact, the realities could merge into one? What if Hillel and Shammai reflect precisely the Boethusian and Ananian conflict?
What if Ananus ben Seth IS Hillel? What if Hillel's school was the Alexandrian influence trying to turn Judaism into what we recognize as Pauline Christianity? What if Shammai represents the awakening of the Jewish identity across the Babylonian diaspora, and through purity and adherence to the law (note that Izates and Helena of Adiabene were known for an adherence to purity and the law). Even if this same Shammai is engaging in messianic theological speculation, and is responsible for proto-Christianity? We might identify Shammai as Eleazer Boethus, or perhaps Joazer or Simon himself.
Ironically, Simon Cantheras Boethus's son Elionaeus is almost certainly the rising Lazarus, and the rich man who persecutes Lazarus in the parable (identified as Annas the High Priest) would be Ananus. So it's the Pauline wealthy establishment persecuting the messianic purists in the story of Lazarus!!!
The importance of this interpretation is that if Hillel and Shammai are the Ananians and Boethusians respectively, then it means that the major debate within Judaism of the first century had bypassed the diminished Pharisees and Sadducees, and instead was between the direct ancestors of Pauline Christians (Hillel) on one side, and radical zealot messianists (Shammai) on the other.
Of course, it only explains EVERYTHING, if the majority of Judaism was caught between the two progenitor forms of Christianity during the first century. Both of which were naturally Jewish. However, this would be embarrassing for the later rabbinical exegesis.
I also realize I didn't touch on Gnosticism. I would just say that Gnostic beliefs are almost certainly from Greco-Egyptian influence, but that as I have shown this would naturally fit within Jewish mysticism. I would argue that my radical messianic sect would be essentially Gnostic. Gnostic with the law of Moses, where Gnosis is not salvation, rather an Enochian interpretation where the Archons are directly overthrown in a violent, joint earthly and celestial revolution.
I'm sure there's cross-pollenation between Therapeutaic and Gnostic ideas. We also have to question what role Rome might play in sponsoring Gnosticism that rejects the violent element.
The Basilidean school of Alexandria seems to be a reaction to the Kitos War, and I can observe how it is essentially a peaceful rejection of the material world where the followers of Lukuas proposed a violent rejection of the material world.
So proto-Gnosticism is interwoven into all the evolutions of Jewish practice and theology I mentioned at the beginning. Gnosticism, if we can to call it that, emerges specifically as the messianic sects reject violence after the failure of the Kitos War.
As for the wicked demiurge, it is not clear that this is even and essential element to Gnosticism. Rather, it seems to be specifically an invention of Marcionite influence. And Marcionitism is easily explained (I totally reject the role of a historical Marcion as a lone founder). This is the two powers in heaven, where Eastern Enochian types are asserting Metatron/Enoch (now cast as Christ) as superior to Yahweh. That is, there were always some sects that held Metatron higher than Yahweh, while the rest of Judaism placed Metatron under him.
From 115 AD - 150+ AD we can basically say that Christianity was Gnosticism. Gnosticism comes from the oral traditions of these Jewish sects. I think Marcionism probably inspired a counter-reaction. Rejecting Yahweh would have been abhorrent. However, in terms of valid oral tradition, Marcionites have antiquity from the East supporting their claims. The anti-Marcionites are influenced by the fraudulent history of the synoptic gospels, and in fact they descend from anti-Christians.
So the anti-Marcionites have to fabricate an apostolic tradition to win the argument, and part of what they do to establish their authority is to reject oral traditions and mystery teachings in favor of scriptural exegesis. If they can use scripture to reject a secret teaching, they can appear more authoritative. So, my belief is that by around 200 AD you start having figures like Origen emerge to create the orthodox exegesis and over time they realize that their theological traditions are incorrect in the face of harmonizing with scripture. This is why Arianism can be the undisputed doctrine of the catholic church but then after a council it's turned on its head as heretical. Simply by that point, no one had considered the text closely enough. The religion of course wasn't meant to be derived from scripture, but that's what they created in the end.
Then they destroyed documents for 1000 years and eventually deviated from scripture anyway.
-
perseusomega9
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Re: The meaningful variants of Judaism in the first century
yakovzutolmai, you've put a lot of thought into this, I like your outline. You and BillD should collaborate.