Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

But that is what they call themselves "The assembly of The Poor".

Psalm 37 Pesher:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q171_pesher_psalms.html

"Then the meek will inherit the earth and enjoy all the abundance that peace brings" (37:11).

This refers to the company of the poor who endure the time of error but are delivered from all the snares of Belial. Afterwards they will enjoy all the [ . . . ] of the earth and grow fat on every human luxury.

Blessed are the meek?

Oh that's nice, they have a hell of a time...

 

[JaysonR]

I know what they call themselves, but that is hardly unique to them.
Several groups were calling themselves such similar labels; it was an expression of stature, and not a political name.

The problem is that this doesn't really isolate the group in any unique means well enough as groups of this label had varied differences in other aspects of their theological belief, and this group (the DSS) stands as yet another remarkably different group than the others for they stand unique in not having a tale of Jesus expressly championed anywhere among the work found, not to mention that we are also able to call this group Essene.

So what is the case?
Are they Essene, or Ebionite?

One of the great things about the DSS, to me, is that it highlights how futile and frustrating our isolated naming conventions are compared against how fluid such concepts were then.

Outside of political parties of the Temple and names related to Lineage, differing theological followings were a blur of diversity, especially during this era.

My answer would be that this group is neither and both at once; they are both of these things in so far as these terms summarize some ideas, but they were not restrictively these terms in a way as we think of "Lutheran" or "Calvinist".

 

[Brainache]

Just looking at Prof. Eisenman's latest blog and it seems relevant to our discussion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/sicarii-essenes-those-of-_b_5359338.html

...
On these aspects both versions are virtually the same; but, whereas Josephus speaks of 'four grades' in basically descending order of Holiness, Hippolytus rather speaks of a 'division into four parties' as time went on, that is, his version contains an element of chronological development - a point nowhere mentioned in the received Josephus. It is at this point too, having raised the issue of 'the passage of time', he adds the new details connecting both the 'Sicarii' and 'Zealots' to 'the Essenes' that, in the writer's view, have particular relevance to the documents at Qumran and the problem many commentators have encountered in contemporary Scroll Research in trying to differentiate the 'Essene' character of the Scrolls from the 'Zealot' one. This delineation will have particular relevance to 'Early Christian' history in Palestine as well.
...

As Hippolytus puts this:

"But the adherents of another party (the Second 'Party' seemingly in the 'the course of time' or chronologically speaking), if they happen to hear any one maintaining a discussion concerning God and His Laws and, supposing such a one to be uncircumcised, they will closely watch him (something Paul seems particularly concerned about in Galatians 2:4-8 in his description of 'false brothers stealing in by stealth and spying on the freedom we enjoy in Christ Jesus'- sic!) and, when they meet a person of this description in any place alone, they will threaten to slay him if he refuses to undergo the rite of circumcision (so much for our picture of 'peace-loving Essenes'). Now, if the latter kind of person does not wish to comply with this request, (a member of this Party of Essenes) will not spare (him), but proceeds to kill (the offender). And it is from this behavior that they have received their appellation being called (by some)'Zealots', but by others 'Sicarii'."

Not only does this resemble something of what happens to Paul in Acts 21:38, where in the first place 'Sicarii' are for the only time specifically invoked and where others take a Nazirite-style oath 'not to eat or drink till (they) have killed Paul' (23:12-21); but it is nowhere to be found in the extant Greek of Josephus' Jewish War. Nor, as we have said, is it something Hippolytus was likely to have made up on his own. It also helps explain certain puzzling aspects of the notation 'Zealot' or 'Sicarii' I shall presently explain.
...

More food for thought...

 

[Brainache]

I'm not sure if I linked to this article before, but it is very relevant to this thread:

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

...
So far our evidence is circumstantial; however, there is a surprising notice from another quarter which straightforwardly makes the charge we have been sketching. Epiphanius, who conserves many traditions found in rabbinic literature including the famous "ben Panthera" nickname for Jesus, conserves a tradition about Paul (Pan 30.16.1). In its view Paul was a non-Jew who came up to Jerusalem and converted to Judaism because he wanted to marry the "the priest's" (i.e., the high priest's) daughter (As in Pan 30.16.9, "the priest" is usually used at Qumran and in rabbinic tradition as denotative of the "high priest"). When disappointed in this design, he defected from Judaism and turned against "circumcision" and "the Law." Epiphanius attributes this notice to the Anabathmoi Jacobou ("Ascents of James"), a lost work about the debates of James with the high priests and the Pharisees (also finding refraction in the Pseudoclementine Recognitions) over matters relating to Temple service (including in our view problems bearing on Gentiles or Gentile sacrifice/gifts in the Temple).

We have no way of knowing if the tradition is true. While the Anabathmoi Jacobou would appear to have been Jewish Christian or Ebionite, and therefore hostile to Paul, this is not cause for a priori dismissing the tradition it conserves via Epiphanius; on the contrary, when one comes upon a tradition of such surprising content, it is often worthwhile paying attention to it. One famous convert of sorts did aspire to marry the high priest's daughter — in fact he married two: Herod himself. It is not impossible that this tradition conserves an echo of valuable historical data, not necessarily about Paul, but about Paul's family backgrounds; that is, not that Paul was a convert (which he may have been) or that he personally wanted to marry the high priest's daughter (which again he might have), but that he was descended from someone who was a convert and had aspired to marry the high priest's daughter, i.e., that he was an Herodian.

In our view, it is just these Herodian origins where Paul is concerned that explain his very peculiar view of Judaism, what we perceive to be his inferiority complex and defensiveness where Jews are concerned, his jealousy of Jews, in fact his anti-Semitism generally, and finally his extremely lax and, from the Jewish viewpoint, utterly unconscionable view of the Law. It is hard to consider that a native-born Jew, comfortable in his identity, could have indulged in the kind of insults Paul gratuitously makes concerning circumcision, circumcisers, and those keeping dietary regulations, or adopted the curious approach towards the possibility of simultaneously being a Law-keeper to those who keep the Law and a Law-breaker to those who did not in order, as he puts it, "to win, not beat the air," or that by avoiding circumcision, one could avoid the demands of the Law, which in some manner he saw as "a curse."

Re the bold: Is this subject of Paul's apparent anti-semitism ever discussed in standard Christian Apologetics, or do they just accept it as the normal way to view Jewish practices?

 

[JaysonR]

It's not as simple as it's being suggested in that section...I'll explin tomorrow.

 

[JaysonR]

(for anyone reading along who reasonably argues against the evidence for Paul's existence, or the authenticity of the texts, read Paul as "Paul"; it's an axiom and not worth interrupting the conversation over)

Alright,

So, I'm not going to get into apologists, as the answer to that question is that they have a wide range of addresses over the history of that group's existence on the subject - but that really serves better as a review of the history of the apologist's views on the matter over time and how those views have changed over that time frame.

Instead, I'll be addressing the subject directly - not as an apologist, or comment upon apologists.

The reason that I stated that Eisenman's outline is too simple is that what he just did was propose that Paul was antisemitic and that his antisemitism was a result of being a Herodian, and then essentially (though not expressly stated) this helps his overall proof that Paul was a Herodian as this then becomes eligible as evidence in his on-going compilation.

The problem with this is, as I stated, that it is far too simple; specifically, it neglects anthropological consideration - which really should not be ignored in this subject.

Firstly, is Paul antisemitic?
Not really.

One of the attributes of Paul is the Anatolian dedication - quite openly.
Paul himself is attributed to being from Anatolia.

The value of this consideration is that leading up to the 1st c CE, Anatolia was not very pleasant to Jews within their population. They were regularly a demoted citizen and isolated from many rights and participation within their society.

This began to change around the 1st and 2nd c CE officially, whereby Jews were then being granted special class citizenship and being classed as exempt from conscription while at the same time starting to be allowed to hold public offices in government.

While the original pre-1st c CE antisemitism had gone by the wayside by this point, the special classification of their citizenship, tax exemptions, conscription exemptions and yet permission for governing offices and governmental allotment of facilities specifically for them was in itself causing two things to emerge: on one hand, it was creating an ethnic ego in the Jewish population to rise a bit. On the other, the mix of that ego and pride with the previous list of special treatment above the average citizen (specifically in regards to taxes and conscription) was creating a bit of a political contest within the Anatolian culture.

Enter Paulinism.
What is Paulinism asserting exactly? Antisemitism?
No, what it is asserting is more of a leveling of the playing field - that being Jewish, following Jewish practices, or attending Jewish structures does not create a more holy person.

Why the explicit anger against Jews, such as Galatians?
What we are looking at is frustration and a lack of tolerance for a demographic claiming superiority by their ethnicity on the subject of living a holy and just life.
In the Paulinist view, the very belief of this view is itself unholy, unjust, blind, prideful, and folly.

Quite in the form of Anatolian politics of the time, then, Paulinism converts Jewish concepts into Anatolian culture and denounces the practice of Anatolian's converting out of Anatolian culture and into Jewish culture as a means of the same end: getting into a "new" religion of just and holy life.

So it's not antisemitism really; it's more a product of a cultural political warfare that was going on at the time.

 

[Brainache]

OK, I think I can see what you are saying.

I guess that the fact that Paul was pushing this view, while at the same time claiming credentials as part of the "Church Of Christ" would cause him to come into conflict with James and the other "Men of repute" in Jerusalem, whose emphasis seems to have been on "keeping the whole of the Law".

 

[JaysonR]

Right; there would inherently be a conflict between any pro-Anatolian preservationist group and any pro-Jewish preservationist group.

 

[Brainache]

Right; there would inherently be a conflict between any pro-Anatolian preservationist group and any pro-Jewish preservationist group.

Are there any other examples (besides Paul) of this pro-Anatolian movement that you can point me towards, or is Paul our only surviving example?

Why do you think he would be doing this while claiming to be associated with those "Pillars" in Jerusalem? Wouldn't he do just as well amongst his non-Jewish audience without associating with any particular Jewish faction? Is it because the James gang were going about the same regions as Paul trying to make Jewish converts?

 

[JaysonR]

One of the accountants of such is Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 14.
Look for Delos, Sardis (as Sardians), Laodicea, Tralles, and Ephesus.

It's a general zeitgeist, akin to the general Grecian disfavor of Jewish-centric loyalty (which we see some of in the Roman empire a bit...though not as much as has been exaggerated into "tradition").

I don't know of any group, indeed, Paul isn't really a "group", but a lone voicing of a rather small demographic (at least for the time being).


Why bother with the Jewish state at all?
Well, because it wasn't that Jews were hated; not at all.
Anatolia, especially the West Coast, was a lover of the melodramatic and lovers of Religious diversity. Jewish synagogue remains litter the region.

The land is a paradox, then.
On one hand, they love the infusion, but it would appear that (in general) this only extended as far as there was either a distinct difference, or that the infusion was on their own terms.

No one appears, on mass, to be interested in bowing entirely to a Jewish way of life by conversion and forfeit their customs (of which, on the West Coast, those customs were rather held in Pride...a lot of pride).

At the time, Jews had dual citizen rights (in Anatolia).
They were allowed to be a full Jew of "Jewry Law", and a the same time permitted full "Roman" (Anatolian, and therefore Roman as well) Law (because Anatolia [or at least, quite a bit of it], unlike many regions, inherently had Roman citizenship for all of its citizens, so being Anatolian meant "Roman" under the Law [often, anyway]).

Think of it like someone being granted State and Federal rights by being a citizen of the State, which inherits the Federal citizenship as the State being under Federal rule and grant of right, and then imagine that the Federal government permitted recognition of, say, Sharia Law for those of Arabian decent (which, actually is a topic currently - though not based on ethnicity).

This then is where we get Paul the Jew and the Roman...not by any other reason - just the simple means of him being Anatolian and also a Jew.

A Jew didn't HAVE to claim their "Jewry Law" rights, just as those from Pergamon did not have to either.
They were there for preservation (along with a few other such special clause groups) and pacification...IF a given applicant wished to take those rights (often in the manner of filing a complaint).

So, why would Paul really go into the whole Jewish authority?
Because Jewish authority on this particular religious tangent was respected (if not a misunderstood...which perhaps helped the attraction).

And yet, at the same time, it was accepted as long as it was on the right terms.

The persona Paul provides as an identity is the embodiment of the right type of term - that is, Judaism as converted to Anatolianism; not Anatolianism as converted to Judaism.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]

Why the explicit anger against Jews, such as Galatians?
What we are looking at is frustration and a lack of tolerance for a demographic claiming superiority by their ethnicity on the subject of living a holy and just life.
In the Paulinist view, the very belief of this view is itself unholy, unjust, blind, prideful, and folly.

Quite in the form of Anatolian politics of the time, then, Paulinism converts Jewish concepts into Anatolian culture and denounces the practice of Anatolian's converting out of Anatolian culture and into Jewish culture as a means of the same end: getting into a "new" religion of just and holy life.

So it's not antisemitism really; it's more a product of a cultural political warfare that was going on at the time.

Add to the mix that Paul was a Roman citizen, too.

[ . . . ]So, why would Paul really go into the whole Jewish authority?
Because Jewish authority on this particular religious tangent was respected (if not a misunderstood...which perhaps helped the attraction).

And yet, at the same time, it was accepted as long as it was on the right terms.

The persona Paul provides as an identity is the embodiment of the right type of term - that is, Judaism as converted to Anatolianism; not Anatolianism as converted to Judaism.

And all this played out against the build-up to the destruction of Jerusalem.
I have the impression Paul resolutely ignores Alexandria.
Off to check that idea.

ETA
What I found was an article by Doherty, discussing specifically Apollos of Alexandria.
[spoil]...Styling themselves "the strong," those who followed Apollos' teaching now claimed that they did not have to await eschatological developments or a future resurrection, but that through baptism they were already resurrected. All this went against Paul's own views, and he hotly contests his position against theirs throughout 1 Corinthians.

Scholarship tends naturally to interpret such wisdom teaching at Corinth (and elsewhere) as founded on an interpretation of the historical Jesus and his teachings. (See Helmut Koester, Trajectories Through Early Christianity , p.149f.) This, of course, is based on Gospel preconceptions, but we have to note that Paul, in his efforts to counter those who have in his view misled his Corinthian congregation, fails to make any reference whatever to an earthly Jesus or to any presumed wisdom teachings of his which the opponents have supposedly misused. In a dispute over how to interpret the sayings of Jesus, neither Paul, nor apparently his opposition (since he makes no mention of such a thing), appeals to those sayings.

This silence in 1 Corinthians is almost inexplicable—except on one basis: neither Paul nor his rivals knew of any such human teacher or teachings. Koester ( Ancient Christian Gospels , p.60-61) admits: "It is striking that Paul never quotes any of these sayings directly," referring to the wisdom sayings of Jesus which he claims "must have been known to both Paul and the Corinthians," and "must have been the basis (on) which the Corinthians claimed to have received their salvation." New Testament scholarly discussion is full of such "must be" assumptions, even in the face of the stark absence of such things from the record itself, and even as they admit astonishment at this state of affairs.

Thus, we can be fairly confident that Acts has recast traditions about Apollos in order to bring him into the fold as an orthodox preacher of an historical Jesus. But what might Apollos actually have preached? The fact that he came from Alexandria in the middle of the first century makes it highly likely that he offered a type of wisdom theology which came out of the Hellenistic Judaism of his home city, that stream of philosophy expressed in the writings of the Jewish Platonist Philo and in the document known as the Wisdom of Solomon. Apollos was probably a teacher of revealed knowledge which in itself claimed to confer salvation (Koester calls it a "life-giving wisdom"). And it may be that his preaching represented an evolution beyond earlier ideas in seeing a spiritual Christ as a concrete divine figure who was responsible for this revelation, a Christ who had grown out of Alexandrian traditions of personified Wisdom (Sophia) wedded with the Greek Logos. (See chapters 7 to 11 of the Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha of most Old Testaments.)

Such an Alexandrian evolution is attested to in a set of "Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers" which have been preserved in the 4th century Christian document known as the Apostolic Constitutions. I will be making an analysis of these prayers in a future posting (see Supplementary Article No. 5). And a related picture of such evolution is evident in the Odes of Solomon, probably from northeastern Syria: see Supplementary Article No. 4. [/spoil]
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp01.htm

 

[JaysonR]

Pakeha,

The inherent Roman citizenship of an Anatolian was discussed in a subsequent post, but in that post discussing cultural motive for the Pauline voice, the Roman citizenship - as in the culture of being a Roman (as in, from Rome) - doesn't apply due to the Pauline voice not representing Roman ideals, but instead Anatolian and Jewish (in form) ideas.

While it is possible that a religious construct of Corinth was misrepresented (even if inadvertently) as Christian, I think it is of the same caliber of mistake to leap to Apollos as a conclusion for the absence of direct citation of sayings of Jesus.

There are more than two options available - quite a few options, actually.

Also, I don't find these kinds of arguments very compelling when they are employed for two options: for example, by the same merit of "silence" we could argue against Apollos since no one directly cites an Apollos saying.
There's an unequal basis of judgement in the reasoning.

It's more clear if we restructure the logic to something entirely unrelated and simple:
Because Pat did not state that the flavor of ice cream which he would like was chocolate, and because vanilla ice cream is the most popular ice cream in the shop, we therefore have confidence that he prefers vanilla when he asked for his favorite ice cream, but did not list the flavor.

I certainly haven't any confidence "that Acts has recast traditions about Apollos in order to bring him into the fold as an orthodox preacher of an historical Jesus" by a single line premise that a separate, and possibly entirely paleographically unrelated, text's absence of character quotation curious.

This is akin to stating that in following the logic above regarding Pat, that:
We can certainly determine by Pat's interaction of getting ice cream that Andrew relabeled vanilla as chocolate.

 

[pakeha]

Of course you're right JaysonR.
I was simply musing on the thought of Paul the Citizen preaching to slaves.

As for Apollos and Alexandria, I'd not thought in terms of logic, really, rather only considering the fact that the highly educated Pharisee chose the Asian arena rather than the Alexandrian.
Also the fact that Johaninne baptism was practised in Alexandria so far into the first century.

Time for coffee.

 

[pakeha]

Here's dr. Rachel Elior's lecture on the subject of the DSS at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
It's long, but starting at 50 minutes into it, the lecturer discusses who wrote the DSS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLit979B60Y

 

[Brainache]

Here's dr. Rachel Elior's lecture on the subject of the DSS at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
It's long, but starting at 50 minutes into it, the lecturer discusses who wrote the DSS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLit979B60Y

Thanks for that. I'll watch it the first chance I get. I'm currently stuck in the corner of a room with a bunch of rowdy teens (mostly) playing cards nearby. One has to put up with these things when one is homeless. Oh well.

 

[pakeha]

No worries, Brainache.
The video will be there when you're able to settle down to it.

ETA
I found that link in this discussion over at BC & H.
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=679

 

[Brainache]

Here's dr. Rachel Elior's lecture on the subject of the DSS at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
It's long, but starting at 50 minutes into it, the lecturer discusses who wrote the DSS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLit979B60Y

I listened to it.I won't pretend that I understood all of it fully, but what I took away from it is that she was saying that the people who wrote the DSS were the followers/descendents of the last Zadokite High Priest Onias, who took their library with them when they were removed from the Temple around 165
BCE or so. That they were Priests of the order of Melchizedek who believed in rigorous purity and separation from the defilement of worldly pollutions.

They were opposed to the wickedness and the corruption which they saw in the Temple Service of Herodian Priests.

She is saying the same things Eisenman says, except that he goes further and claims that in the middle first century CE that they were led by James the Righteous, who was the Zaddik (The Pillar of righteousness which supports the world, according to mystical Jewish tradition).
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/hgg03.htm

...
There is a Boraitha of R. Jose which says: Woe to the creatures which see and know not what they see, which stand and know not upon what they stand. Upon what does the earth stand? Upon the pillars. The pillars stand upon the waters; the waters upon the mountains; the mountains upon the wind; the wind upon the storm; 1 the storm is suspended upon the strength of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written [Deut. Xxxiii. 27]: "And here beneath, the everlasting arms." The sages say: It stands upon twelve pillars, as it is

p. 25

written [Deut. xxiii. 8]: "He set the bounds of the tribes according to the number of the sons of Israel." According to others, seven pillars, as it is written [Prov. ix. i]: "She had hewn out her seven pillars." R. Elazar b. Shamua said: Upon one pillar, and its name is Zaddik (The Righteous), as it is written [Prov. x. 25]: "But the righteous is an everlasting foundation."...

Eisenman makes much of the fact that Paul refers to these "Pillars" when he refers to James and the Church in Jerusalem with whom he has a dispute over observance of Jewish law...

 

[Brainache]

I listened to it.I won't pretend that I understood all of it fully, but what I took away from it is that she was saying that the people who wrote the DSS were the followers/descendents of the last Zadokite High Priest Onias, who took their library with them when they were removed from the Temple around 165
BCE or so. That they were Priests of the order of Melchizedek who believed in rigorous purity and separation from the defilement of worldly pollutions.

They were opposed to the wickedness and the corruption which they saw in the Temple Service of Herodian Priests.

She is saying the same things Eisenman says, except that he goes further and claims that in the middle first century CE that they were led by James the Righteous, who was the Zaddik (The Pillar of righteousness which supports the world, according to mystical Jewish tradition).
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/hgg03.htm


Eisenman makes much of the fact that Paul refers to these "Pillars" when he refers to James and the Church in Jerusalem with whom he has a dispute over observance of Jewish law...

I'd just like to point out to followers of this thread that this webpage: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t03/hgg03.htm also contains mention of "Menachem" who went out from the Sanhedrin with 80 pairs of disciples dressed in Syrian robes...

Mena'hem went out (left the Sanhedrin); Shammai entered it. Shammai says one must not; Hillel says one may. The first of the several pairs were princes, the second to them were chiefs of the court.

...

"Mena'hem went out," etc. Whither did he go out? Said Rabha: He went out from the service of the king. We have learned in a Boraitha: Mena'hem went out from the service of the king, and there went out with him eighty pairs of disciples clothed in Syrian robes...

It goes on...

 

[Brainache]

I would like to do a side-by-side comparison of 1 Corinthians and the Damascus Document, because it looks as if Paul was aware of the DD and they cover very similar ground although Paul's version inverts the DD on all points:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 3&version=NIV

and:

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

Paul says:

Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.

18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”[a]; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21 So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas[c] or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

DD says:

Furthermore, such men have desecrated the holy spirit within them, and with mocking tongue have opened their mouths against the statutes of God's Covenant, declaring, 'They have no foundation'. They have spoken disgracefully about them.

All such men may be described as persons that 'kindle a fire and set firebrands alight' [Isa. 50.11]. Of them it may be said that 'their webs are spiders' webs and their eggs basilisks' eggs' [Isa. 59.5]. None that have contact with them shall go unscathed; the more one does so, the more guilty he becomes-unless, of course, he does so under compulsion.

Throughout antiquity, however, God has always taken note of the deeds of such men, and His anger has always been kindled against their acts. Always, in fact, they have proved to be 'a witless folk' [Isa. 27.11), 'a nation void of sense' [Deut. 32.28] in that they lacked discernment.

Paul says:

4 This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God...

14 I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

18 Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. 20 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. 21 What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit?

DD says:

Nevertheless, God still remembered the Covenant which He had made with their forbears and raised from the priesthood men of discernment and from the laity men of wisdom, and He made them hearken to Him. And these men 'dug the well'-that well whereof it is written, 'Princes digged it, nobles of the people delved it, with the aid of a mehoqeq' [Num. 21.18]. The 'well' in question is the Law. They that 'digged' are those of Israel who repented and departed from the land of Judah to sojourn in the land of Damascus'. * God called them all 'princes' because they went in search of Him, and their glory was never gainsaid (?) by any man's mouth.22 The term mehoqeq [which can mean 'lawgiver' as well as 'stave') refers to the man who expounds the Law. Isaiah has employed an analogous piece of imagery when in allusion to the Law he has spoken of God's 'producing a tool for His work' [cf. ISL 54.16). As for the 'nobles of the people', these are the men that come, throughout the Era of Wickedness, to delve the well, using as their staves [Heb. mehoqeq) the statutes [Heb. huq4m) which the Law-giver prescribed [Heb. haqaq ha-mehoqeq) for them to walk in. Without such 'implements', they would, indeed, never achieve their goal until such time as the true Expositor arises at the end of days.

Paul says:

5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]

DD says:

All that enter the covenant with no intention of going into the sanctuary to keep the flame alive on the altar do so in vain. They have as good as shut the door. Of them God has said: 'Who is there among you that would shut the door, and who of you would not keep alive the flame upon Mine altar?' In vain [Mal. 1.10] [are all their deeds] if, in an era of wickedness, they do not take heed to act in accordance with the explicit injunctions of tile Law; to keep away from men of rn-repute; to hold themselves aloof from rn-gotten gain; not to defile themselves by laying hands on that which has been vowed or devoted to God or on the property of the sanctuary; not to rob the poor of God's people; not to make widows their prey or murder the fatherless; to distinguish between unclean and clean and to recognize holy from profane; to keep the sabbath in its every detail, and the festivals and fasts in accordance with the practice laid down originally by the men who entered the new covenant in 'the land of Damascus';23 to pay their required dues in conformity with the detailed rules thereof; to love each man his neighbor like himself; to grasp the hand of the poor, the needy and the stranger; to seek each man the welfare of his fellow; to cheat not his own kin; to abstain from whoredom, as is meet; to bring no charge against his neighbor except by due process, and not to nurse grudges from day to day; to keep away from all unclean things, in accordance with what has been prescribed in each case and with the distinctions which God Himself has drawn for them; not to sully any man the holy spirit within him. 24

Howbeit, for all that perform these rules in holiness unimpaired, according to all the instruction that has been given them-for them will God's Covenant be made good, that they shall be preserved for a thousand generations, even as it is written: 'He keepeth Covenant and loyalty with them that love Him and keep His commandments, even unto a thousand generations' [Deut. 7.9].

Howbeit, all that hold fast to these enactment's, going and coming in accordance with the Law; that hearken to the voice of the Teacher; that make confession before God, saying: Just and truthful are Thy judgments against us, for we have done wickedly, both we and our fathers, in that we have gone contrary to the statutes of the Covenant; all who raise not their hands against His holy statutes or His righteous judgments or His truthful ordinances; all who learn the lessons of the former judgments wherewith the men of the community were adjudged in time past; all who give ear to him who imparts the true interpretation of the Law and who do not controvert the right ordinances when they hear them-all of these shall rejoice and their hearts shall be strong, and they shall prevail over all that dwell in the world. And God will accept their atonement, and because they took refuge in His holy name they shall indeed see salvation at His hand.

...

[III] * * * II [IV cont.] A. CODE FOR URBAN COMMUNITIES 0f laying capital charges (ix, 1)

The law which says that no person under doom from men shall be bought off, but must be put to death [cf. Lev. 27.29], is to be understood in the sense that any man who, as the result of a private vow, gets a fellow human being doomed to death under the laws of the Gentiles is himself to be put to death.45


Of grudges (ix, 2-8)

And as to the law which says, Thou shalt not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people' [Lev. 19.18]-if any of those that have entered the Covenant bring charges against his neighbor without proving them by witnesses, or if he bring such charges merely through temper, or if he tell tales to his superiors simply to bring his neighbor into contempt, he ranks as one who takes vengeance and bears a grudge. Scripture says of God Himself that it is only upon His adversaries that He takes vengeance, and only against His enemies that He bears a grudge [Nah. 1.2]. Accordingly, if a man keep silent from day to day and then bring a charge against his neighbor in the heat of anger, it is as if he were laying capital charges against him, for he has not carried out the commandment of God Who said to him, 'Thou shalt surely reprove thy neighbor lest thou incur sin on his account' [Lev. 19.17].

That's enough for now. My brain hurts...

 

[Brainache]

Heres a video (about 45 mins long) which is quite relevant to this thread:



I hadn't seen this one before today when Robert Eisenman shared it on Facebook.