Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Numberup AT worldnet.att.net]

The Sadducees and Essenes, which some scholars say are different branches of 
the same
philosophy, based their outlook on the Temple.  They had no stragegy for 
surviving the
Temple's destruction.  On the other hand, the Pharisees did.  If, indeed, it 
is later
rabbinic Judaism that defined "orthodoxy," it is  because they were the 
successful
ones who came up with a viable strategy for Judaism's survival.  A 
significant  sect
of  minim or "fringe Jews" who did survive the Temple's destruction did 
accept certain
aspects of apocalypticism, but they were also informed by Pharisaic 
philosophy, except
that for them the concepts of Temple and Messiah were re-formed.

Solomon Landers
Memra Institute for Biblical Research
http://www.memrain.org

Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Niels Peter Lemche
> > Sent: Tuesday, 28 December, 1999 22:06
> > To:   'peter_kirk AT sil.org'
> > Subject:      RE: Re[8]: Methods in biblical scholarship
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: peter_kirk AT sil.org [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 28 December, 1999 23:42
> > To:   Biblical Hebrew
> > Cc:   b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> > Subject:      Re[8]: Methods in biblical scholarship
> >
> > I don't think I ever claimed a uniform process of canonisation. I was
> > looking for evidence that ANY of the many Jewish groups, at ANY time,
> > considered Enoch as Holy Scripture, on the level of the Torah or the
> > prophets. I have seen no such evidence. There have been some
> > suggestions, which I cannot refute, that some fringe Jewish groups may
> > have considered Enoch as such. But this was clearly not the main
> > stream.
> >
> > Peter Kirk
> >
> > [Niels Peter Lemche]  How do you know that they were fringe Jews, except
> > from the standpoint of later rabbinic Judaism?