Timeline for What was the status of the Pharisees, and their relationship with the Temple authorities in the early first century?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 18, 2015 at 1:09 | comment | added | Fred | @WadCheber 1. It's important to note that the priests did not constitute a uniform or unified political bloc, and the Pharisees were not therefore opponents of the priests. In fact, a number of prominent rabbis mentioned in the Mishna were priests. 2. Temple procedures discussed in the Mishna (especially in Yoma) suggest that the rabbinic Pharisees had more influence over the priests' Temple service than vice-versa. 3. Some purification could be effected outside the Temple and didn't require sacrifices. 4. My citation to The Jewish War above should be corrected to Antiquities 13:5. | |
| Aug 18, 2015 at 0:54 | comment | added | Wad Cheber | @Fred - You nailed it. That's essentially what I was talking about. But the priests had political power as well as the power to restrict access to the most important observances- purification, sacrifice, etc. Despite all their shortcomings, it would have been a bad idea to get on the wrong side of the priesthood (Case in point: Jesus earned the wrath of the priests and was handed over to the Romans for execution as a result. The Romans were responsible for it, but it wouldn't have happened if the priests hadn't had a problem with him) | |
| Aug 18, 2015 at 0:51 | comment | added | Fred | @WadCheber The priestly class was not by and large Sadducee, though some were. Often, Sadducees paid bribes to the Roman governors of Judea to acquire the office of High Priest, but even then they had to rein in public displays of Sadducee practice or risk the wrath of the public (such as the incident in Sukka 4:9, c.f. Josephus' The Jewish War, ch. 13). Regardless, priests only had a significant degree of control within their limited sphere of influence (namely, those Temple observances where a priest was necessarily involved), and not in the day to day observance outside the Temple. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 22:32 | history | edited | Wad Cheber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 481 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2015 at 22:19 | history | edited | Wad Cheber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 578 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2015 at 21:25 | history | edited | Wad Cheber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2015 at 21:25 | history | rollback | Wad Cheber |
Rollback to Revision 4
|
|
| Aug 17, 2015 at 21:22 | history | rollback | msh210♦ |
Rollback to Revision 3 - http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/a/1231
|
|
| Aug 17, 2015 at 21:14 | history | edited | Wad Cheber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 63 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2015 at 21:10 | comment | added | Wad Cheber | @msh210 - I think they would have disagreed with you. I'm not saying that they would be right, but as intermediaries between Rome and Judaism, and as the men in control of Jewish Temple observance, they were certainly powerful in a worldly and mundane sense, and much more so than the Pharisees. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:28 | answer | added | Seth J | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:04 | history | edited | msh210♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:01 | comment | added | msh210♦ | If you're correct that the Pharisees "highly regarded by the average person, but the Temple authorities weren't so fond of them", that doesn't imply, as you suspect, that the Pharisees were not "in charge of the Jewish faith". The Temple priests are not (or at least not de jure) in charge of the Jewish faith. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 9:15 | history | edited | Wad Cheber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Aug 17, 2015 at 8:24 | comment | added | Scimonster | I'm pretty sure that by that time, the position of High Priest was being sold to the highest bidder, who was generally a Sadducee, something the rabbis certainly weren't fond of. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 8:14 | history | asked | Wad Cheber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |