From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@WELLESLEY.EDU)
Date: Sat Jan 10 1998 - 15:53:01 EST
Carl, and Colleagues of B-Greek"
My comment on Carl's ingenious suggestion, in my previous post, suffered
from my usual over-brevity (due to my slow typing, which inhibits my
otherwise-normal expansiveness). First Carl's response, then my
explanation:
Carl wrote:---->>>>>>
>>I loved Carl Conrad's suggestion ("the then-existing" or such); but not
>only is the issue of the dating (whether real or author-implied) a
>possible difficulty, but why would the same author--Luke--refer to the
>Sadducees in his Gospel without this caveat?
> Luke 20:27 takes care to explain that the Sadducees
>didn't believe in resurrection, an explanation he takes over from Mark,
>and which becomes an issue in Acts. But that they no longer existed?...
Then did the Sadducees really continue to exist after the destruction of
the Temple and Jerusalem, when their was no longer any sacrificial cultus?
Perhaps I've accepted too much at face-value the notion that only the
Pharisees really survived as a distinct and influential sect after the
destruction of Jerusalem. What I was thinking, perhaps rather naively, was
that Luke in Acts 5:17 might be looking back historically (perhaps from the
mid-80's?) upon events that transpired while the Sadducean sect was still
very much a force to be reckoned with in Jewish affairs. They don't really
loom large in the gospels apart from that synoptic pericope about the
resurrection, do they? My impression is that the synoptic tradition
harangues much more against the Pharisees (especially Matthew) who
continued to be influential after the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course
all this depends on the dating of the gospels, an issue probably best not
to be discussed on B-Greek.
<<<<<<<<<<<<------------------end of Carl's post
Carl's view is quite correct, according to current standard theory. The
Sadducees were surely long since gone from the scene when Luke wrote.
My remark:
>I loved Carl Conrad's suggestion ("the then-existing" or such); but not
>only is the issue of the dating (whether real or author-implied) a
>possible difficulty. . .
was intended to mean: A difficulty is POSSIBLE if either (1) the dating of
Acts by traditionalists, as before 70 CE, be accepted (this is the "real"
dating problem), or (2) Luke's implied dating--i.e., as though while the
evnts were taking place (the "author-implied" dating), is assumed. My
own view is that Acts is from around 100 CE, but written in terms of the
presumed time of the narrated events.
My own problem with the suggestion was the other one--why would Luke not
also use this phrase in the Gospel when he mentioned the Sadducees, as he
does in 20:27?
In any case, the meaning is (so Mayser), "I.E., the Sadducee party".
Edward
P.S.: This may be only the second or third time I have ever ventured to
offer a competing explanation to one of Carl's. He's a hard man to get
ahead of!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:52 EDT