From: Jonathan B. Marder (jonathan.marder@newmail.net)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 05:54:20 BST
Hi all,
Steve said:
> > Is anyone sufficiently versed in the social context of Jesus' time
> > that they could describe the social establishment that Jesus would
> > have been railing against ...
It is important to point out that the NT completely MISrepresents the
sociopolitics of Roman-occupied Palestine. I would bet that the vast
majority of people have little idea that the Saducees and Pharesees
represented completely different ends of the social spectrum.
Kevin:
> Jesus
> was considered a threat to the Social Patterns of Judaism, but NOT a
> threat to the Social Patterns of the Roman Empire. In fact, the Jewish
> Establishment (Pharicees, Saducees) questioned his claim to be the
> Messiah precisely because he DIDN'T offer enough of challenge to the
> Roman Empire to suit them, but rather threatened their (Pharicees,
> Saducees) control over a conquered people.
Kevin, the Pharisees were NOT part of the establishment- they were ar thorn
in its side.
The Jewish etsblishment centred on The Temple, ministered by a hereditary
priesthood.
The priests were the Saducees, and very much interested in holding on to
their own power, and supported their own position by a strictly literal
interpretation of the Torah.
Saducee power was traditionally subject to two internal threats:
1. A string of prophets
2. The monarchy
The prohpets, as a string of eccentric individuals, could cause temporary
havoc but never had any staying power.
The monarchy was a more significant threat, until the Hasmonean kings
(themselves a priestly family) came to power.
By the time of Jesus, the monarchy and the priesthood were operating under
Roman patronage - this was the establishment.
The Pharisees represented a new threat. This was a rabbinical movement, who
claimed that authority was derived from studying and interpreting the sacred
texts - and thus open to anyone, not just priests. The Pharisees went around
teaching the common people, often using parables. By this definition, Jesus
was clearly a Pharisee, and his parables fit the rabbinical parables that
have been brought down till today.
When the Roman's destroyed the Temple and the monarchy, and laid waste to
Jerusalem, rabbinical Judaism (The Pharisees) is what survived. I live just
a few miles from Yavne, where the Rabbis set up an important first century
centre. This is the tradition that led to the Talmud (a compilation of
Rabbinical discussions), and to the Judaism we know today. This was the
stream to which Jesus probably belonged, although he may have occupied an
extreme position within the movement. Interestingly, there is evidence for
this in the Talmud itself.
Thus, to summarize it in MoQ terms, the first century Saducees represent
STATIC social patterns supported by literal interpretations of the Torah,
while the Pharisees represent DYNAMIC social pattern based on study and
discussion.
Hope this is of interest,
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:58 GMT