Loading...In previous posts I have discussed the different Jewish sects that we know about from the first century, at the dawn of Christianity (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Fourth Philosophy). In the post I indicated that (a) there were different understandings of the afterlife among them, but (b) there was a belief in a future resurrection of the dead attested in at least two of the groups: the Pharisees and Essenes. We don’t know what the eschatological views of the Fourth Philosophy were; possibly different Jews who wanted the violent overthrow of the Roman overlords had various expectations. We really don’t know.
One reason we don’t know is that we don’t have any writings from any of them. On other hand, that’s true of the Sadducees and the Pharisees as well. That may seem weird, but it’s the case. We have no clear and certain writing from any Sadducee in all of antiquity that explains what it is they thought and believed. Even more strange, from all of antiquity up until the time of the Jewish war, leading to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, we have only *one* author who was a Pharisee who explains his views. As it turns out, that author is the apostle Paul. His writings, though, were produced after he became a follower of Jesus. Still, he was a Pharisee and he left us writings. Obviously they will, though, be of limited use in knowing what Pharisees believed (except for what this particular Pharisee believed after he became a Christian).
We do have
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
How do the ideas of Hellenized jews like Philo of Alexandria, who seemed to enbraze the concept of the Logos seemingly under the influence of Greek philosophical ideas, which could be correlated thematically to thoughts/ principles in Eastern traditions, such for example as Brahman in Vedic thought? How does this fit into your understanding/perception`?
There may be ideas that turn up in a variety of cultural / religious contexts; Philo’s own views, though, are clearly tied closely to Greek philosophical traditions (Platonism esp.) and can be well-explained on those grounds.
Sure, and I agree, but my intention was to ask your opinion of Jews who shared views like Philo of Alexandria who was deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, ( Platonism etc), which probably shaped his understanding of concepts like the “Logos” as I understand they considered as a divine intermediary/universal order. This seems to suggest that he and other with the same view would have had a more spiritual or spiritual-philosophical view of the afterlife, where the,soul unites with the divine realm after purification, where “Logos” is the bridge to the devine realm/ the rational principle of the cosmos, and also act as a guide to humans, compared to the resurrection-focused beliefs of groups like the Pharisees.
Do you think it is fair to assume that someone like Philo, who blended Jewish theology with Hellenistic ideas, would have moved toward a more non-material understanding of the afterlife, which played a role in the jewish religious environment at that time?
I don’t recall offhand what Philo’s views of the afterlife were, but yes, absolutely, especially Jews in the Diaspora heavily influenced by Hellenistic philosophical traditions could easily accept Greek views on … lots of things.
,,,,,,,,,,, , I’ve always felt that translating Logos as “Word” at the beginning of John’s Gospel was a bit of a loss. For me, the “Logos! has so much depth and meaning that just doesn’t come through with “Word.” For me, it feels like an entire dimension of the expression is missing.
It’s like that with tons of Greek words, unfortunately. If you read Aristotle, it’s almost impossible to know what he’s talking about in English sometimes!
mm,,,that alone is such a fascinating topic,,,,,and not just tied to Aristotle, I would say. F.ex the late Pierre Grimes made some intriguing connections between The Republic and Homer’s Iliad, and the “Self, much in line with the rich concept of the “Self” understood by C.G. Jung which he also tied to the Vedantic ideas about it.
,,maybe another time!
Hi Bart,
There is something puzzling me, and it is a bit related to your current posts: Do you know Scholars (current or ancient) that have discussed in detail Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28?
The background for this question:
Just lately, I found by chance in Youtube a 30 something years old video for Ahamd Deedat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Evi2kizVSE). He discussed the very harsh threats in these two chapters that Yahweh have promised the Israelites if they disobeyed him.
This is not puzzling, but these are:
Pastor Steven Anderson is an anti-Jewish preacher that presented an hour-long video called “Marching to Zion”, in which he squeezed every drop of available knowledge to support his thoughts, but he never mentioned these two chapters. This leads me to one conclusion: he is not aware of the content of these two chapters.
Furthermore, there are so many ancient fathers of the church that were anti-Jewish and they presented very harsh comments against them, but (to my understanding) they didn’t use these two chapters.
It seems to me that Ahmad Deedat is the only one who have discussed these two chapters in the past 2 thousand something years, and this (if true) is very weird, isn’t it!
Scholars, of course, have written extensively on every word of the Bible. As an example, the Anchor Bible commentary on Leviticus is in three volumes, the first of which alone (chapter 1-16) is over 1100 pages. Whether it gives the kind of informatoin you would like to find, I don’t know: it’s an academic work.
I wasn’t looking for information related to the contents of these two chapters; as these contents are clear. I was looking for an answer for this weird puzzle, and I did present two examples of this puzzle in my previous comment.
Let me add another example:
Would the following be regarded as a valid observation:
{In Deuteronomy 28:68, Yahweh have promised the Israelites to send them back as slaves to Egypt. This surprisingly was *partially* materialized in 135AD; when the Romans have captured may Jews and enslaved them and sent them to many parts of the Empire including Egypt. Furthermore, many civilian Jews just emigrated from Palestine to Egypt and created a good-sized community there, and this community were oppressed by the Pagan Romans and then they were more oppressed later by the Christian Romans}.
Can this simple direct observation be regarded as valid?
If it can be regarded as valid, then how on earth this observation has not been wildly discussed; neither at current times nor at ancient times?
I don’t think so. Read Deuteronomy and see whom Yahweh is addressing and what he is threatening. It has no relation to what happened after the Bar Kochba revolt. It’d be kinda like saying Germany and Italy fulfilled prophecies of DAniel about the Kings of the North and the South.
In an episode recounted in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 22: 23-33, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-40), some Sadducees ask Jesus about a woman who had married one by one of seven brothers: Who will she be married to at the resurrection? Jesus replies that after the resurrection one does not marry, but there one is like the angels in heaven. This seems to contradict other passages in the NT which speak of a bodily resurrection for a better life on Earth with a better body.
What’s your take this? Do you believe this episode is historical? How did Jesus actually imagine life after the resurrection of the dead?
I’d say it’s not contradictory: angels hav ebodies but they don’t have sex. They’re happy as is. And you don’t need any baby angels. It’ll be like that: a bodily existence with no pains or unsatisfied desires or desires that, well, may be unsatisfied. I don’t know if the event itself happened; I kinda doubt it. But the concept — there will be a resurrection where people will have an angelic existence — probably goes back to Jesus, I should think.
As I understand it, Luke (the supposed author of Acts) derived his information on the Sadducees and Pharisees from Josephus’ Antiquties, written in the 90’s of the common era. This is the position of several mainstream scholars (Pervo for example).
Yes, Pervo and Steve Mason are the main proponents for Acts being dependent on Josephus. But I don’t know that they think Luke’s knowledge of Sadducees and Pharisees comes from there. If I’m wrong about that, let me know! Most of the time the issue about possible borrowing from Josephus has to do with when to date Acts, since it is traditionally dated to the 80s, before Josephus’s Antiquities was published.
Teacher here for 40 years. Biology but went down to 7th grade because that was my grade I was good at… because comments like “Sad you see” was awesome… and 7th graders… even though they would roll their eyes… appreciated this type of attempt at humor… as I did. Thanks for all you do Bart… you’re my hero