Posts
For my write-up today on The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume Three: The Early Roman Period, I have three items:
1. Did the Sadducees accept only the Pentateuch, while rejecting the Prophets? Gunter Stemberger, on page 436 of his essay, "The Sadducees---their history and doctrines", answers in the negative, even as he explains why some have arrived at that conclusion:
"The Church Fathers frequently state that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch and rejected the Prophets. This assertion seems to be based on two points: first, on the confusion of the Sadducees and Samaritans, so frequent with the church fathers, who thought Dositheus to be the founder of the Sadducees; second, on a deduction from other points of Sadducean belief as known from the New Testament. There is no doubt that the Pentateuch had a special place of honour in Sadducean thinking; but this does not distinguish them from the Pharisees and the Rabbis. The books of Moses were the basis of Jewish law. It is, however, unthinkable that the Sadducees totally rejected the Prophets and the Writings (the Psalms were used in the daily liturgy of the Temple!). Probably only the book of Daniel with its text on the resurrection and, perhaps, Esther as the reading for the comparatively new festival of Purim, were not approved by the Sadducees. In general, however, the other parts of the Bible were certainly accepted although they did not enjoy the same degree of authority as the Torah."
Patristic references that Stemberger cites include Origen, Contra Celsum 1, 49; Jerome, Contra Luciferianos 23; and Pseudo-Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum. Stemberger also refers to S.J. Isser's The Dositheans: A Samaritan Sect in Late Antiquity. When certain church fathers said that Dositheus established the Sadducees, they were apparently confusing the Sadducees with the Samaritans, for the Dositheans were a Samaritan sect.
I remember hearing a preacher say that the reason that Jesus proved the resurrection to the Sadducees in Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20 by referring to Exodus 3:6 is that Jesus could not refer to the Prophets or the Writings to substantiate the doctrine, since the Sadducees did not accept those parts of the Bible, but only the Pentateuch. But that may not necessarily have been the case. Perhaps Jesus referred to the Pentateuch because it was the most authoritative.
2. On page 455, Otto Betz in his essay on the Essenes quotes a passage from a Qumran text (which he cites as I QS 1.3f 9f see CD II.15f.) saying that one should "love all the children of light, each one according to his lot in the counsel of God, and abhor all the children of darkness, each one according to his guilt, which delivers him up to God's retribution".
A friend of mine has been posting some anti-Jesus remarks on her web site, and she has cited passages such as Luke 14:26, where Jesus exhorts his world-be disciples to hate their parents. I expressed doubt that Jesus wants his disciples to seethe against their parents and to wish ill upon them, for Jesus preaches love, even for enemies (Matthew 5:44ff.). I interpreted "hate" to mean that Jesus is telling his disciples to prefer him over their parents (Matthew 10:37): possibly to leave their families in order to follow him around (Matthew 8:21-22; 19:29-30), and also to choose Jesus if their families persecute them for being Christians (Matt. 10:35-37; Mark 13:12; Luke 12:51-53). I doubted that Jesus would desire for people to seethe against their parents, for that would make no sense. Who wants people to hate their parents? What would be the point?
As I read the Qumran text, however, I saw that at least one sect believed that people should hate those who were not a part of their group. If that is true of this apocalyptic sect, could it not be true of the Jesus movement, which was also apocalyptic, in that it predicted a cataclysm and divided the world into the children of light and the children of darkness (Matthew 13:36-43; Luke 16:8; John 12:36)?
Perhaps. But Jesus did preach love for enemies in the Sermon on the Mount, and some have contrasted this with the attitude of Qumran. Moreover, Jesus preached repentance and tried to recruit people into the Jesus movement, whereas the Essenes were more exclusive: people had to prove themselves in order to join. I think that my friend does well to ask questions and to present her reservations about Jesus, however, for I have often felt that I am the only one with those sorts of feelings (though mine are not as extreme as hers). Here many people around me present Jesus as a nice guy, and I'm scratching my head, wondering, "Well, what about this passage, and this passage, which appear to indicate otherwise?"
3. On pages 478-479 of "The baptist sects", Kurt Rudolph argues (if I am understanding him correctly) that the baptism of John itself was not intended to remove people's sins, but rather having an attitude of repentance was believed to do that. Josephus says in Antiquities 18:117 that people were already purified by justice when they came to John for baptism, which was for the cleansing of their bodies. Rudolph states that "The parallels with the Essene baptismal immersions are noteworthy; these also were only external manifestations of the inner disposition required even before the purificatory bath, which was brought about by the 'spirit of sanctity' (of I QS III.1-8; V.13-14)." But Rudolph thinks that the Christians interpreted John's baptism to be for the remission of sins (Matthew 3:1-6; Mark 1:2ff.; Luke 3:1-6). So, if Rudolph is correct, John's baptism was what Christians who don't believe that baptism is required for salvation say it is: an outward manifestation of an inward cleansing. But the early Christians interpreted John's baptism according to what advocates of the "baptism is necessary for salvation" position maintain: something that cleanses people from sin.
