Pharisees, Sadducees, Edomites, Great Sanhedrin

surada

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2021
79,213
35,396
2,488
Just an interesting refresher on who's who in the second temple period.


Pharisees, Sadducees, Edomites, Great Sanhedrin
Around 60 b.c. The Roman Triumvirate Pompey brought Judea under Roman Rule. He pushed all the Jews into the areas of Gallilee, Jericho and Jersalem.

Then he settled Greeks and Syrians in the rest of the land of Palestine. Originally, Galilee was settled by the tribe of Benjamin who always followed the tribe of Judah.

A few years earlier, Hyranicus, a descendant of the Maccabees, conquered the land of Idumea. Idumea was the home land of the Edomites. He forced all the Edomites to be circumcised and follow the Jewish laws. This was a big mistake. They were told by God never to mix with the Edomites.

The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1903 edition, says under the heading Edom,

They were then incorporated with the Jewish nation, and their country was called by the Greeks and Romans “Idumea” . . . From this time the Idumeans ceased to be a separate nation, though the name “Idumea” still existed (in) the time of Jerome.

The Edomites were the descendants of Esau. Esau married into the families of the Canaanites. The Canaanites were the people that God told Moses and the Israelites to kill and drive out of the land of Canaan. They were warned never to mix or marry with the Canaanites. God gave Edom the land south of Judea. They were driven western toward by the Natabeans to the area that became Idumea. Their border was only 19 miles from Jerusalem.

Flavus Josephus who lived from 37 A.D., to 100 A.D. Confirms Edomite occupation in southern Judea.

“That country is also called Judea, and the people Jews; and this name is given also to as many as embrace their religion (Judaism), though of other nations.

But then upon what foundation so good a governor as Hyrcanus (grandson of Mattathias patriarch of the Maccabees, a family of Judahite patriots of 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.) Took upon himself to compel these Idumeans (Edomites) either to become Jews or to leave their country, deserves great consideration. I suppose it was because they had long ago been driven out of the land of Edom, and had SEIZED ON AND POSSESSED THE TRIBE OF SIMEON (their land not the people), AND ALL THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, WHICH WAS THE PECULIAR INHERITANCE OF THE WORSHIPERS OF THE TRUE GOD WITHOUT IDOLATRY…”

So the land of Palestine at the time of the Messiah was similar to the U.S. It was very diverse with many nationalities. The word “Jews” in scripture refers to the inhabitants of the land.

But it can also mean the tribe of Judah in some cases. The name for the land of Palestine was called Judea because they combined the name Judah and Idumea.

continued
 
Now at the time of the Messiah, the Sadducees were in control of the temple. Pharisees were the synagogue leaders. According to the Ency. Britannica and Philo, there were 6,000 Pharisees during the time of the Messiah.

Some had to be non-Jews and Edomites. When Herod came to power, he solidified his position by bringing in relatives from Idumea and appointing many non-Jews to important positions. And he killed the entire Sanhedrin except Hillel and Shammai. Herod was practicing Judaism, as many Edomites and Nabateans had been commingled with the Jews and adopted their customs.

“Herod I”. Encyclopaedia Judaica. (CD-ROM Edition Version 1.0). Ed. Cecil Roth. Keter Publishing House. ISBN 965-07-0665-8

Notice the scriptures below. They Edomites were called the Herodians in scripture and were politically aligned with Herod. They plotted with the Pharisees to kill the Messiah.

Mat_22:16 And they send to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men.

Mar_3:6 And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.

Mar_12:13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might catch him in talk.

The Bible also proofs that some of the Pharisees were Edomites. Notice the verse below:

Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

The Pharisees told the Messiah that they had never gone into bondage. This could only apply to the Edomites because the tribe of Judah was taken into captivity in 585 BC by Babylon. They would have never told the Messiah that they never went into captivity. THIS VERSE PROOFS THAT THE EDOMITES WERE MIXED AMONG THE PHARISEES.
 
Sanhedrin

The word Sanhedrin refers to a religious court. In the time of Christ, there were two Sanhedrins operating in Jerusalem, the first of which was a 23-member court run by the Sadducees that handled local affairs.

Its larger counterpart, the Great Sanhedrin, was comprised of 70 elders with a president, who in the time of Jesus was Gamaliel. Acts 5:25 shows this group and the Great Sanhedrin coming together to discuss the problem of the Christians.

The Great Sanhedrin functioned much like a combination of the Senate and Supreme Court, and most of its members at the time of the Crucifixion were Pharisees from the school of Shammai.

You will note in the Book of Acts that Gamaliel, the president of the Great Sanhedrin, encouraged tolerance of the Christians, but because he and his followers were outnumbered by Sadducees Pharisees.

The Great Sanhedrin ultimately elected to persecute the Christians.

At the trial of Jesus before the elders of Israel, Gamaliel may not have been present. If he had the circumstances may have turned out quite differently. The trial held to try Jesus was hurriedly assembled and included almost across the board members who were either Sadducees, or else Pharisees from the school of Shammai. It is possible that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimithea represented the school of Hillel.
 
Mar_3:6 And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.

Matthew as per the NICEAN COUNCIL ----makes no sense. The "herodians" and the
PHARISEES did not "take council" with each other. Matthew was, clearly, a roman shill.
Nothing surprising there-----he was----according to some "scholars"-- a TAX COLLECTOR --
which----bad news-----meant he was a ROMAN SHILL. Contrary to Sunday school class---
the Pharisees and "high priests" were not the recipients of those TAXES. Of course, it is
true that the HERODIANS were in Rome's pocket along with Matthew. The Herodians
murdered JOHN THE BAPTIST-----the pharisee Mikveh guy
 
Assuming you mean John Hyrcanus I?
Are you in the camp that believes he fits the wicked priest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who started out good but was then hellenized?
I did a geneology search of Josephus and I'm surprised I was the only one who noticed he was related to the lineage through a wife of one of the Maccabees if I remember correctly.
There's a significance to this, Yeshu son of Mary of 100bc (a Pharisee who fled towards Egypt to avoid the backlash on the Pharisee revolt), was supposed to be related to Salome the wife of Jannaeus Alexander who was the nephew of John Hyrcanus I, who had a son by the same name.
This means Josephus and the 100bc christ where much of the Jesus accts come from(sentenced on passover by stoning and hanging, widows mite coin era), were DISTANTLY related, however Josephus never mentions this supposed miraculous historical figure, he mentions the other 2 christ figures in the Jesus mythology instead.
 
Last edited:
Assuming you mean John Hyrcanus I?
Are you in the camp that believes he fits the wicked priest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who started out good but was then hellenized?
I did a geneology search of Josephus and I'm surprised I was the only one who noticed he was related to the lineage through a wife of one of the Maccabees if I remember correctly.
There's a significance to this, Yeshu so of Mary of 100bc (a Pharisee), was supposed to be related to Salome the wife of Jannaeus Alexander who was the nephew of John Hyrcanus I, who had a son by the same name.
This means Josephus and the 100bc christ where much of the Jesus accts come from, werw DISTANTLY related, however Josephus never mentions this supposed miraculous historical figure, he mentions the other 2 christ figures in the Jesus mythology instead.
HaShev-----run that by me again. How does Hyrcanus I or II come to be a priest and
KING? I thought that a levite could not be king ?? Josephus, my all time fave Levite,
left HIS OWN COUSIN OUT?------sheeesh what happened to that family?
 
the first of which was a 23-member court run by the Sadducees that handled local affairs
Local district court for misdemeanors and mental health adjudications. Without power to impose death penalty.
70 elders with a president, who in the time of Jesus was Gamaliel. Acts 5:25 shows this group and the Great Sanhedrin coming together to discuss the problem of the Christians.

The Great Sanhedrin functioned much like a combination of the Senate and Supreme Court
Roman Senators together with Jewish Elders sat on the Grand Sanhedrin. The Romans at that time deferred to the Jewish Rabbis especially as lawyers, for matters of secular as well as religious law or anything else that could be imposed as law to keep the Jewish commoners and slaves under control.
 
Roman Senators together with Jewish Elders sat on the Grand Sanhedrin. The Romans at that time deferred to the Jewish Rabbis especially as lawyers, for matters of secular as well as religious law or anything else that could be imposed as law to keep the Jewish commoners and slaves under control
you got a citation for that?
 
Assuming you mean John Hyrcanus I?
Are you in the camp that believes he fits the wicked priest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who started out good but was then hellenized?
I did a geneology search of Josephus and I'm surprised I was the only one who noticed he was related to the lineage through a wife of one of the Maccabees if I remember correctly.
There's a significance to this, Yeshu so of Mary of 100bc (a Pharisee), was supposed to be related to Salome the wife of Jannaeus Alexander who was the nephew of John Hyrcanus I, who had a son by the same name.
This means Josephus and the 100bc christ where much of the Jesus accts come from, werw DISTANTLY related, however Josephus never mentions this supposed miraculous historical figure, he mentions the other 2 christ figures in the Jesus mythology instead.
HaShev-----run that by me again. How does Hyrcanus I or II come to be a priest and
KING? I thought that a levite could not be king ?? Josephus, my all time fave Levite,
left HIS OWN COUSIN OUT?------sheeesh what happened to that family?
Good catch, Levites were the only tribe with the right to become priests, but Levite Kings Shouldn't have been allowed to be both King and high priest. Saul was also one who should not have done both duties.
Jannaeus Alexander, was King, but appointed seperately Shimon Ben Tabbai as high priest, which I think was used for the Shimon/Peter story and why he's given a new name (combined characters are given new names).
 
you got a citation for that?
The "citations" need to go away and the gun rights need to come back.
 
Sanhedrin

The word Sanhedrin refers to a religious court. In the time of Christ, there were two Sanhedrins operating in Jerusalem, the first of which was a 23-member court run by the Sadducees that handled local affairs.

Its larger counterpart, the Great Sanhedrin, was comprised of 70 elders with a president, who in the time of Jesus was Gamaliel. Acts 5:25 shows this group and the Great Sanhedrin coming together to discuss the problem of the Christians.

The Great Sanhedrin functioned much like a combination of the Senate and Supreme Court, and most of its members at the time of the Crucifixion were Pharisees from the school of Shammai.

You will note in the Book of Acts that Gamaliel, the president of the Great Sanhedrin, encouraged tolerance of the Christians, but because he and his followers were outnumbered by Sadducees Pharisees.

The Great Sanhedrin ultimately elected to persecute the Christians.

At the trial of Jesus before the elders of Israel, Gamaliel may not have been present. If he had the circumstances may have turned out quite differently. The trial held to try Jesus was hurriedly assembled and included almost across the board members who were either Sadducees, or else Pharisees from the school of Shammai. It is possible that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimithea represented the school of Hillel.

oh-------the Book of Acts------written by the Greek guy, Luke, who wasn't there
you got a citation for that?
The "citations" need to go away and the gun rights need to come back.
get A HOLD of yourself Justin. Luke wrote it
 
you got a citation for that?
The "citations" need to go away and the gun rights need to come back.
LUKE did not even speak hebrew or aramaic
 
get A HOLD of yourself Justin. Luke wrote it
The Jewish midwives needed to stop the cutting.
LUKE did not even speak hebrew or aramaic
Along with Matthew, Mark, and John, Luke recorded the Gospel truth for the salvation of all nations.
your comment is silly-----your citation includes lines presented as eye
witnessed accounts not only by people who were not there but who, even
if they were, would not understand what was going on
 
Finally stumbled on my old commentary on the dead sea scrolls wicked priest, it has more historical reference backing to the theory and reasoning on who it probably was.

The historical reference to the wicked priest probably was regarding one of the Maccabees particularly Jonathan Maccabee.
The scrolls show the man of righteousness had to be a head priest of the Hasidim.
The time line through events shows a Zadokite affiliation according to 4Q 256 ,258
The hierarchy would have been Priests of Aaron's lineage which is attributed to this Zadokite high priestly family.
This could have only existed up to the Maccabees era around 164 BC because of the destruction by Antiochus and because of the period of this man's rise mentioned in the Damascus Document I 5-11.

At this same time we see the wicked priest was called out on truth but ended up changing into a liar perhaps leading people into a wrong sort of worship or violence. (IQpHab, 4QpPsa,CD)
The time line shows this individual existed between the reign of Antiochus like I said before around 164 BC (some say 168BC) and the founding of the Qumran sect around 150-140BC.
The person would have been a high priest which there were 5 at that time. The 3 hellenizers like Menelaus have to be rejected as the persona since the wicked priest was said to be in truth in the beginning. The other two Greek influenced priests Jason & Alcimus also fail to fit the character because neither were killed by an enemy.
That leaves only the Maccabee brothers-Jonathan & Simon.
Both fit the profile causing violence and dying violent deaths.
Since Jonathan died by the hands of his Greek enemies he fits more so then Simon who died by his son in law. (I Mac. xvi, 14-16).
Jonathan qualifies as the wicked Priest because he accepted from the throne from a heathen named Alexander Balas the pontificate raiment which Johnathan was not even entitled to wear. Later he was killed by Tryphon, a General of this same apointee. (Imac. xiii, 23)
 
Mar_3:6 And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.

Matthew as per the NICEAN COUNCIL ----makes no sense. The "herodians" and the
PHARISEES did not "take council" with each other. Matthew was, clearly, a roman shill.
Nothing surprising there-----he was----according to some "scholars"-- a TAX COLLECTOR --
which----bad news-----meant he was a ROMAN SHILL. Contrary to Sunday school class---
the Pharisees and "high priests" were not the recipients of those TAXES. Of course, it is
true that the HERODIANS were in Rome's pocket along with Matthew. The Herodians
murdered JOHN THE BAPTIST-----the pharisee Mikveh guy

That verse is from Mark not Matthew.
 
HaShev-----run that by me again. How does Hyrcanus I or II come to be a priest and
KING? I thought that a levite could not be king ?? Josephus, my all time fave Levite,
left HIS OWN COUSIN OUT?------sheeesh what happened to that family?

Looks like he was a king.

John Hyrcanus I | king of Judaea | Britannica
John Hyrcanus I, (born c. 175 bc —died 104 bc), high priest and ruler of the Jewish nation from 135/134 to 104 bc. Under his reign the Hasmonean kingdom of Judaea in ancient Palestine attained power and great prosperity, and the Pharisees , a scholarly sect with popular backing, and the Sadducees , an aristocratic sect that comprised the priesthood, became well-defined religious parties.

John Hyrcanus - The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia
Hyrcanus, John (Johanan) I. John Hyrcanus Collector of the royal revenues in Egypt; born in Jerusalem about 220 B.C.; died in 175; youngest son of the tax-farmer Joseph ben Tobiah by his second wife, the daughter of his brother Solymius.
 
Looks like he was a king.

John Hyrcanus I | king of Judaea | Britannica
John Hyrcanus I, (born c. 175 bc —died 104 bc), high priest and ruler of the Jewish nation from 135/134 to 104 bc. Under his reign the Hasmonean kingdom of Judaea in ancient Palestine attained power and great prosperity, and the Pharisees , a scholarly sect with popular backing, and the Sadducees , an aristocratic sect that comprised the priesthood, became well-defined religious parties.

John Hyrcanus - The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia
Hyrcanus, John (Johanan) I. John Hyrcanus Collector of the royal revenues in Egypt; born in Jerusalem about 220 B.C.; died in 175; youngest son of the tax-farmer Joseph ben Tobiah by his second wife, the daughter of his brother Solymius.
could be----the system was in disarray and the HASMONEANs fell into corruption----of course we are talking about life in the FIRST
REICH
 

Forum List

Back
Top