Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

It's hard to say, and lacking the ability of better information, I stop short of judging individuals in history and just list what we can at the least confirm; what we can at the least confirm is that they understood things rather differently in regards to what was agreed upon; as Galatians highlights.

I see it like this: Paul agrees when he offers "the hand of friendship" to James, that he will not preach to Jews, only Gentiles. He tells us this in a letter, doesn't he?

Many of Paul's letters show he has every intention of preaching to Jews as well as Gentiles. To free them from their curse.

Paul boasts of his skills at presenting himself differently to different audiences and how he is running the race to win, not just flapping around. He presents himself as a liar. I believe him.

Well, firstly, we have to understand that Pauline concepts are inferred through letters and epistles, not by a gospel.
As such, we can't do a direct comparison like we can between the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mark, or the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John.

With Paul it is more like we have a pastor's notes and letters from 1800's and nothing else, and from this we can compare sympathies and contrasts against concepts in other texts, or more specifically, other dogmas of the same family.

So in Paul, I cannot give a direct comparison, but instead, I can show you how we can see what Paul understood of the same concepts.

As such, I point to Romans 14 for this comparison.
In Romans 14 we can understand that Paul would see the concept as to not push the beliefs upon others who do not open to them, but to only spend time on those willing to listen and learn; for he fears that spending the quality of the good on those who see it as vial as a return of only loss and further harm to the reputation of the ideology and community.

This is Paul's understanding of the same idea.
Where Jesus may have very well understood the concept to be far more divisional and much more a statement to not bother with non-Hebrews in general, assuming them to be incapable of understanding or appreciating the concepts, Paul sees it free (as Paul does in all things) from race or culture and instead creates a sliding curve akin to Epicurean ethics; that if it is viewed as vial by one, then do not press it further, as it is not good for that which is good to be seen as evil - thereby, do not spend time on those who see what you hold as vial.

I blame spell check, I assume you mean "vile" as in "repugnant", not "vial" as in "small glass bottle".

OK, as I see it, we kind of agree that Paul puts a more inclusive spin on it than was originally there.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying I don't prefer Paul's loving forgiving God-Man over the Zealot's Conquering Avenging Primal Adam (whatever). I much prefer a religion of tolerance and equality to the Zealots Xenophobic bigotry.

I think Paul was a liar who didn't believe a word of it, but was pushing it for Political reasons. Just like career Politicians and Televangelists today can profess to believe anything if it gets them enough votes/viewers.

I would like to understand the reasons, as I cannot sympathize with what's been given so far.

Maybe for a different thread. But I'm not too worried about strict definitions and boundaries between these classifications. Essenes could be Zealous. Some could be Sicari Zealous. I understand it was more like a continuum than isolated groups.

As to the academic controversy over the release of the scrolls, I don't really care if people got upset. The important thing is that the DSS themselves and what is written on them do not belong to a single person or institution. They are part of our common human heritage like the Pyramids or Stonehenge, the Ecole Biblique had no right to withhold them for so long. /rant.

Herod shows no signs in any other regard to this kind of behavior.
Herod took over and just started wiping people out and establishing his rule.

Herod was very much an embodiment of the 'Morning Star' idiom of the Hebrew peoples.
I can't actually think of a single move that Rome made that could have more guaranteed the downfall of the Jewish stability.
Of course, I equally can't think of a single way for Rome to have ever held onto Judea in general; the Hebrew people really wanted sovereignty, and their rightful culture in solidarity.

Herod was the antithesis of this.

I see nothing compelling me to believe that Herod was actively after James anywhere in anyone's notes, nor that Herod was just hoping James would quietly go away.

OK a couple of points: Which Herod? There were several, some were worse than others. Sometimes they were too busy fighting amongst themselves to do much else.

To the Establishment James represented the masses. He was "The Zaddikk" of his generation. Like Honi before him. He prayed for rain. Except James was praying for the rain of the Lord's Vengeance from the Clouds Of Heaven.

The High Priests knew he was a threat, but they didn't have a standing army. All they could do was hire Thugs like Costobarus and Saulus to persecute and try to discourage others from joining.

To the Romans it was all an internal Religious matter and besides they were busy elsewhere.

James doesn't appear to be a militant figure in the historical record (in fact, in some records, he's even allowed in the Holly of Hollies, as on equal qualifications as a High Priest - unconfirmed); we don't find anyone hunting for this man, or accounting for him in such a fashion of militant movements.

There's just nothing noting a militant style of James anywhere that we look around, unless we really go out of our way to cut the puzzle pieces ourselves so that the pieces fit to make the puzzle image of a militant James.

I'm guessing that's because he died before the war started. He may even have been a calming influence on the more hot-headed elements within the movement. War followed pretty quickly after he died. (whether or not Josephus said James' death was the proximate cause)

The title doesn't mean much to me.
That he was called any specific title as that does not tell me anything about his infamy as a militant rebel leader; if anything it somewhat lowers the odds.

For if he was well enough known by such a name, then someone somewhere in some record would have bothered to mention the military campaigns.

I'm saying he was called "The Zaddikk" (or something like that) which was a title conferred by popular acclaim. Honi was called something similar. And Hillel. Meaning "The Righteous One". It wasn't an official title, just something people called the guy who they thought was the Holiest Priest west of the Euphrates.

Aside from stretching things in very, very tenuous means (and I mean, really...what we're asked to do by Eisenmann to consider this is much, much more than one or two points of accepting a twist on connecting dissociated dots and reading between the lines); we haven't any such evidence indicating a military campaign leader of James.

No James was the "Mebekker" (or something meaning "over-seer") of the camps during the "Time Of Preparation in the Wilderness". They were keeping their heads down, growing their numbers and building their arms supply. And above all else, not telling anyone outside the group about it.

We know this now, because we can read the DSS. Previous generations weren't so lucky.

I'm saying that's the implication of what you are suggesting because that's what it essentially states: that James had ruling power over peoples in these regions stretching these distances, even though no such uniformed presence or adherence to James is found present.

Just because groups existed in these regions who follow ideas similar to each other; this doesn't indicate that they were of the same following, and especially it doesn't indicate that they all followed James.

Maybe not, but if they are all following the same ideology, I don't see much of a difference.

Yes and no.
I think we can understand that some of these things in here would be sympathetic to James' ideology and way of thinking, but that it has been heavily ran over back and forth by many hands.

When I stated that we don't really have something from James, what I'm referring to is the massive absence of what we have of Paul.

Most of the reason that we have this one 'book' is because it, mostly, comes from Alexandrian groups who found value in it early on; specifically groups of Jews attempting to follow the more ascetic means James would probably have understood better than his understanding of Paul.

About the only solid thing we can find in this book is that it does help that it counters Paul's ideologies in most places, but not in all - and some editing has surely taken place that changed some of the tones.

OK.

Eisenman makes much of "The Damascus Document", which has only been found in two places: North Africa and in the DSS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_Document
Does that connect these groups?

I strongly doubt this view is accurate.

Mark is a mid-point between James and Paul; having sympathies with both ideologies, but favoring neither all that well, as well as having its own distinct ideas from either ideological types (which permits it to be sympathized by "Gnostic" ideologies).
It is more like James' styles of ideology up to a point, but there's a somewhat new slant on it that is similar to Paulinism, but not exactly the same as Paulinism - that is, it is distinct.

Further, if we did grant Mark as Paulinist, then it would cripple the Herodian link as Mark is incredibly hard on the Herodians, taking plenty of opportunity to scorn them.
"Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.", for example.

Firstly, I know the little "just-so" story about gMark is from Church tradition, but I don't see how it contradicts any of what you say. That was kind of what I meant.

Mark contains some Paul and some James and some a bit confused. Exactly as if "Peter" had taken on board some of what Paul was saying, but slid back into some Jamesian ways after he and Barney quit the band.

"Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod." - Still a bit of bad blood between Peter and his Pharisee friend Paul there? Paul does call himself a Pharisee several times, doesn't he? Pharisees were the guys in favour of accommodating Rome as the rulers weren't they? Like the Herodians?

I ask, because that is how Eisenman presents it.

These texts are rarely for the individuals within them, but instead for those reading and learning.

Jesus most certainly does address the issue in multiples of manners in just about every text, by pointing out things like the Sabbath, that the Law wasn't made to be the point, but to help the point; that if it stands in the way of the point, then to not concern over the issue and instead stay true to the point.

To declare that Jesus wasn't changing the way the Law was understood is to erase any point in Jesus philosophies being worth any notice by anyone at all.
The entire point of Jesus' philosophies are to notice the difference between the point of the Law, and the letter of it.

That's not just in Paul; that's in every gospel.
Where people become confused is in attempting to point out that Jesus states not removing anything from the Law; yes, he wasn't. The philosophy considered all of the issues of pedantic adherence to be things not of the Law, but of man adding to the Law and worshiping that adherence more than the point of the Law's morality.

It's in Mark, therefore it's in every Gospel. They all copy from Mark. Of all the Pauline teachings that Peter is definitely associated with "Table Fellowship" is the main one. Pete like bacon. Mark like bacon. Matthew, Luke, John like bacon. Therefore, all God's children love bacon. Hooray!

But it doesn't line up with the strict adherence to "The Law" in the Epistle of James (break one tiny rule and you have broken them all). Remember him? Brother of someone or other? James does not approve of bacon.

Lex Cornelia de Sicarius et Veneficis?
As in, the Law of murder and poisons/drugs?

Where exactly does this law discuss circumcision?
As far as I'm aware, that's a law regarding homicide and possibly a bit on some drugs and poisons, and we know hardly anything about it, as we never had an actual copy, but only inferences from others.

If he's relying on this for some tying in for his idea, that's not really giving me confidence in his methods.
That more sounds like someone looking for things in history which are not well known due to a lack of information in general about them, and then using that chance as an opportunity to draft convenient links between them since there's no real contest to the contrary due to the lack of information about it.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Leges_Corneliae.html

Yeah, the one called Cornelius, just like the Roman who did so many "great Things" for the Jews.

What do the Romans mean by:

To the provisions of this law was subsequently added a senatusconsultum against mala sacrificia, otherwise called impia sacrificia, the agents in which were brought within the provisions of this lex.

?

Isn't circumcision a "mala sacrificia"? I'm not sure what the trial of water and fire is, but it doesn't sound pleasant. Then again, neither does circumcision...

 

[Brainache]

I can't really sympathize with this idea of the DSS being so cleanly unified by one motivated ideological hand.

Firstly, the geography of all sites (there's more than just the Qumran caves):
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/discovery-sites

OK. I should have known to be more precise with my language. I understand that the site was occupied by different groups at different times.

That's already a big issue for a singular ideological strain hypothesis.
Then there's the variations of languages.
...

Several documents, but not nearly all, use the Pesher method in post-script entry of a line and as such are clearly Danielic in adherence, matching the fascination of apocalyptic trend of Danielic followings - note: not all texts have this tonality or phrasings.

Sectarian texts in the findings describe multiple different daily behavioral patterns; not a singular communal adherence.
There's different daily rituals being described, and they are not all entirely sympathetic to each other.

This is part of what caused DSS editors to reject linking everything to one sect, or even identifying that one sect as "Essene".

There's no sense in one sect having contrary daily rituals to each other.

For istance, the 'Yahad' grouping differs in practices from the 'Pesher' grouping practices.

I understood that different ranks had different responsibilities. This was a military as well as theological endeavour.

Furthermore, in caves 5 and 6, we have letters of operations of Simon bar Kokhba, a military leader of the first century, and a principle figure of the Bar Kakhba revolt (aka, the 'Third Jewish War', which kicked off in the 130's).

So his followers used the same site. Maybe they felt akin to the revolutionaries who lived there before the big war with Rome 60 years earlier.

There is not one single operational letter of the Church of Jerusalem or of James.
We have several such operational letters of the military of the above mentioned revolt, but nothing otherwise.

Not surprising when there was no such thing as the "Church Of Jerusalem", just "Followers of the Way" living in communes away from the cities shunning outsiders. Just like the people at Qumran following the Righteous Teacher.

As to the claim about the content being of the same time period; that is just simply not true.
Aside from the letters above which I just referred to, there's also MUR 17, which is at least around the First Temple and Babylonian exile period.

Then there's Wadi Daliyeh Samaritan legal documents which specify dates in themselves around the 4 c BCE (Second Temple period); for instance, we have papyrus deeds for slave sales in this regard.

Then there's the Hellenistic period, which are most of the Qumran cave areas, but in this they are of different eras within that overall era, spanning from Hellenistic rule, Ptolemaic and Seleucidic rule, Hasmonean, Maccabean revolt, and even notations of the civil wars between Hyrcanus II and Aristobolus II.
For example, we have 4Q448, a prayer text which notes, favorably I might add, "King Johathan"; the high priest.

The last of the Maccabeans, drowned by Herod? That one? The Zealots were Pro-Maccabee so I don't think that would be surprising.

Then we get to the Herodian period with such texts as the 11Q5 Psalms scroll; this is a period where most texts were being copied rather than composed.

But it continues beyond this, as texts found at Khirbet Mird, such as MUR 173, are Arabic amulet writings; not something any militant group alleged to follow James would have ever carried; especially considering these are from 7th-11th c CE - far too late.

Then there's also some texts from the crusader periods in the Medieval period.


So I cannot agree with this idea of a unified sect or content in the DSS findings.

The DSS editors entertain several ideas by many about what these varying texts may be, but this idea of linking them to some conspiracy of Essenes and James, and Paul, is pretty far beyond plausible just on the face of the material evidence alone.

Yes there are scrolls from before and after the period we are talking about. I accept that.

But there are a lot of similarities between these "Peshers", the War Scroll, The Community Rule and the Damascus Document, and the kinds of apocalyptic imagery and phrasing attributed to James, that I have a hard time accepting they are all just coincidence.

 

[JaysonR]

I see it like this: Paul agrees when he offers "the hand of friendship" to James, that he will not preach to Jews, only Gentiles. He tells us this in a letter, doesn't he?

Many of Paul's letters show he has every intention of preaching to Jews as well as Gentiles. To free them from their curse.

Paul boasts of his skills at presenting himself differently to different audiences and how he is running the race to win, not just flapping around. He presents himself as a liar. I believe him.

Alright, first things first: typically, when working on stuff to do with piecing together history, it's better to not bring character judgement into the fold as a blinder to viewing information.
Doing so flavors a bias and causes issues with understanding the relationships between various peoples.

It might be fine to hold a personal opinion of someone after all is said and done, but while doing the inquiry, it's best to leave those judgments off the table.

Does Paul shift how he presents his material? Yes.
Did it cause tension between Paul and some groups? Yes.
Is this a devious ploy for malicious ends? That cannot be concluded from the information that we have.

As an example of how this can be seen differently in motive to simply some devious plot:
Let's imagine an innocent and earnest Paul who sees the philosophy of Jesus and wants to spread it around.
Now, the time setting is in the first century Roman empire and involves a variety of differing cultures, including the Levant region and also Gentilian Jews peppered in a variety of cultures (in themselves diverse), some of whom have lost much of their own cultural identity with being a Jew.

So Paul would have a want, and a one very large obstacle; many different groups would inherently not want to share the same access to the philosophies and cultural ideals as each other and many would claim exclusive authority over the contents and actively prosecute (or worse) anyone that challenged their ideals.

So Paul, the innocent version, would need to politically appease varying groups to network dispersion of his ideas regarding the philosophy just to even get started, let alone maintain the dispersion.

This is just a very simple example of how we can't just jump to one characterization of a person or people from such examples as we have of Paul.

Clearly James and Paul understood their agreements differently; Paul may be lying outright to James, and equally so, James may be outright lying to Paul.
We don't really get to know.

I blame spell check, I assume you mean "vile" as in "repugnant", not "vial" as in "small glass bottle".

Yes, it's not spell check or anything.
It's a personal typo I have because I phonetically pronounce Vile as if it's spelled Vial because it sounds more...vile...in two syllables than one.

As to the rest of this segment, it loops back to the above.

I understand it was more like a continuum than isolated groups.

It's not a continuum; that's my point.
It is isolated groups with only some continuity here and there.

As to the academic controversy over the release of the scrolls, I don't really care if people got upset. The important thing is that the DSS themselves and what is written on them do not belong to a single person or institution. They are part of our common human heritage like the Pyramids or Stonehenge, the Ecole Biblique had no right to withhold them for so long.

Sure, I would like the DSS opened up more so terribly ideas relying on the DSS could be cleared up and moved out...such as this idea you say Eisenmann has regarding them - which just dismisses a huge chunk of the DSS content and record.

Be that as it is; I've a couple books from the DSS editors and they are rather forth-right in their short-comings and findings, and leave open and list plausible concepts where they see sympathy towards the physical evidence.

OK a couple of points: Which Herod? There were several, some were worse than others. Sometimes they were too busy fighting amongst themselves to do much else.

To the Establishment James represented the masses. He was "The Zaddikk" of his generation. Like Honi before him. He prayed for rain. Except James was praying for the rain of the Lord's Vengeance from the Clouds Of Heaven.

The High Priests knew he was a threat, but they didn't have a standing army. All they could do was hire Thugs like Costobarus and Saulus to persecute and try to discourage others from joining.

To the Romans it was all an internal Religious matter and besides they were busy elsewhere.

The Herod; the only Herod in Jerusalem who would be after anyone in the first century.
It's not like his grandfather is who I'm referring to; that wouldn't make any sense.

James represented the masses?
That's news to me.
I've never heard that anywhere before; we hardly have anything of James in history.
How can we be so certain that he represented the masses in such a manner as to render Herod inept at his usual impulse to just wipe a man out; say, like was alleged of Jesus and John?

Kill Jesus, kill John, James? Well...hold on, he might be too strong politically for me.

That doesn't really add up.

Do you have a high priest note somewhere regarding James?
I'm not familiar with any thing like that.

The high priest was Ananus ben Ananus, and as far as the early historians accounts, the high priest didn't appear to have much of a problem killing James.

I'm guessing that's because he died before the war started. He may even have been a calming influence on the more hot-headed elements within the movement. War followed pretty quickly after he died. (whether or not Josephus said James' death was the proximate cause)

Which helps the conspiracy idea none at all; we're now making conjecture as to why evidence of our other conjecture isn't showing evidence.

I'm saying he was called "The Zaddikk" (or something like that) which was a title conferred by popular acclaim. Honi was called something similar. And Hillel. Meaning "The Righteous One". It wasn't an official title, just something people called the guy who they thought was the Holiest Priest west of the Euphrates.

That just means the holy man.
I still don't see how that indicates a militant leader.

No James was the "Mebekker" (or something meaning "over-seer") of the camps during the "Time Of Preparation in the Wilderness". They were keeping their heads down, growing their numbers and building their arms supply. And above all else, not telling anyone outside the group about it.

We know this now, because we can read the DSS. Previous generations weren't so lucky.

I am not familiar with any such entry citing some militant leader in James within the DSS content, short of this one claim (which appears to me to be very tenuous) by Eisenmann.

Maybe not, but if they are all following the same ideology, I don't see much of a difference.

Do you see a difference between Mormons and Catholics?

Same general ideology; completely different leadership systems and hierarchy.

If you are blurring these kinds of things together; that's more than a mild problem.

OK.

Eisenman makes much of "The Damascus Document", which has only been found in two places: North Africa and in the DSS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_Document
Does that connect these groups?

Does it connect which groups?

Firstly, I know the little "just-so" story about gMark is from Church tradition, but I don't see how it contradicts any of what you say. That was kind of what I meant.

Mark contains some Paul and some James and some a bit confused. Exactly as if "Peter" had taken on board some of what Paul was saying, but slid back into some Jamesian ways after he and Barney quit the band.

"Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod." - Still a bit of bad blood between Peter and his Pharisee friend Paul there? Paul does call himself a Pharisee several times, doesn't he? Pharisees were the guys in favour of accommodating Rome as the rulers weren't they? Like the Herodians?

I ask, because that is how Eisenman presents it.

I don't think anything to do with early Christian "gospels" is so clean - they tell us more about a whole people in general than any one given individual supposedly at hand in the authorship.

I would more put it that they were among the last functional officials left standing, and that it's more the case that everyone in contest would generally hate them because they didn't directly oppose Roman rule so to preserve some official capacity themselves without being completely tossed out and leaving no official party involved.

I don't, as a result, really take much weight in "Peter" writing or having anything to do with writing Mark; anymore than I do any such claim regarding Matthew, Luke, or John.

It's in Mark, therefore it's in every Gospel. They all copy from Mark. Of all the Pauline teachings that Peter is definitely associated with "Table Fellowship" is the main one. Pete like bacon. Mark like bacon. Matthew, Luke, John like bacon. Therefore, all God's children love bacon. Hooray!

But it doesn't line up with the strict adherence to "The Law" in the Epistle of James (break one tiny rule and you have broken them all). Remember him? Brother of someone or other? James does not approve of bacon.

They all didn't copy from Mark.
Mark was pretty early, about on par with early strands of Matthew and the GH.

And yes, I'm aware of that; that's what I'm getting at.
We seem to have a barrier in what is meant by the phrasing regarding the Law, but the point of it was that the Law wasn't the point, the Law served a point.

James, like Jesus, isn't interested in removing the Law, but equally Jesus makes plenty of points to not ignore the point for the letter of it.

That's not just canon; that's in just about all strands of anything relating to Jesus, including such early texts as the GH.
Ascetic groups would still have reason to adhere, and were right to do so, but the shift was that they need not let each other die to preserve the Law in letter.

Isn't circumcision a "mala sacrificia"? I'm not sure what the trial of water and fire is, but it doesn't sound pleasant. Then again, neither does circumcision...

All I know of that is that it refers to the vague clause of 'evil sacrifices'.

I'm not familiar with that law having anything in it that is documented regarding circumcision, though.

 

[JaysonR]

I'll get to the DSS response tomorrow

 

[Brainache]

Alright, first things first: typically, when working on stuff to do with piecing together history, it's better to not bring character judgement into the fold as a blinder to viewing information.
Doing so flavors a bias and causes issues with understanding the relationships between various peoples.

It might be fine to hold a personal opinion of someone after all is said and done, but while doing the inquiry, it's best to leave those judgments off the table.

Does Paul shift how he presents his material? Yes.
Did it cause tension between Paul and some groups? Yes.
Is this a devious ploy for malicious ends? That cannot be concluded from the information that we have.

OK sorry, I keep doing that.

As an example of how this can be seen differently in motive to simply some devious plot:
Let's imagine an innocent and earnest Paul who sees the philosophy of Jesus and wants to spread it around.
Now, the time setting is in the first century Roman empire and involves a variety of differing cultures, including the Levant region and also Gentilian Jews peppered in a variety of cultures (in themselves diverse), some of whom have lost much of their own cultural identity with being a Jew.

So Paul would have a want, and a one very large obstacle; many different groups would inherently not want to share the same access to the philosophies and cultural ideals as each other and many would claim exclusive authority over the contents and actively prosecute (or worse) anyone that challenged their ideals.

So Paul, the innocent version, would need to politically appease varying groups to network dispersion of his ideas regarding the philosophy just to even get started, let alone maintain the dispersion.

This is just a very simple example of how we can't just jump to one characterization of a person or people from such examples as we have of Paul.

Well, that's right. Clearly he would have to be a very clever Politician to play the various groups off each other the way he does.

Clearly James and Paul understood their agreements differently; Paul may be lying outright to James, and equally so, James may be outright lying to Paul.
We don't really get to know.

OK.

Yes, it's not spell check or anything.
It's a personal typo I have because I phonetically pronounce Vile as if it's spelled Vial because it sounds more...vile...in two syllables than one.

As to the rest of this segment, it loops back to the above.


It's not a continuum; that's my point.
It is isolated groups with only some continuity here and there.

I'll have to get back to you on that.

Sure, I would like the DSS opened up more so terribly ideas relying on the DSS could be cleared up and moved out...such as this idea you say Eisenmann has regarding them - which just dismisses a huge chunk of the DSS content and record.

They have been opened up. Eisenman did it in 1991.

Be that as it is; I've a couple books from the DSS editors and they are rather forth-right in their short-comings and findings, and leave open and list plausible concepts where they see sympathy towards the physical evidence.

I don't think Eisenman is as strident as I am.

The Herod; the only Herod in Jerusalem who would be after anyone in the first century.
It's not like his grandfather is who I'm referring to; that wouldn't make any sense.


James represented the masses?
That's news to me.
I've never heard that anywhere before; we hardly have anything of James in history.
How can we be so certain that he represented the masses in such a manner as to render Herod inept at his usual impulse to just wipe a man out; say, like was alleged of Jesus and John?

What? Because killing John and Jesus was so effective at stopping this ever-growing movement? Herod was brutal, but he wasn't an idiot. It didn't work the last two times he tried it, why would it work now?

Maybe he'd rather see James in the top job in the opposition camp than the other "Brothers Of The Lord", you know, Simon and Judas.

Herod Agrippa was subtle enough to realise that there were worse alternatives to someone universally acclaimed as A Nice Guy (but strict), namely anyone called "Zealotes" or anything associated with knives.

Kill Jesus, kill John, James? Well...hold on, he might be too strong politically for me.

That doesn't really add up.

You don't think the movement might have grown as time went on?

Do you have a high priest note somewhere regarding James?
I'm not familiar with any thing like that.

The high priest was Ananus ben Ananus, and as far as the early historians accounts, the high priest didn't appear to have much of a problem killing James.

I imagine he had a bit of a problem dealing with the fallout though...

Which helps the conspiracy idea none at all; we're now making conjecture as to why evidence of our other conjecture isn't showing evidence.

No, just showing why we don't expect to see any references to "General James". He died before the war.

If you find a reference to James as a military leader it would destroy Eisenman's hypothesis that James was "The Righteous Teacher" or someone very much like him.

That just means the holy man.
I still don't see how that indicates a militant leader.

It doesn't. He's a Pacifist leader with militant followers. He's telling them to hold off and wait for God to send the Heavenly Host on the Clouds Of Heaven. Their Salvation is standing at the gates... etc

Then he is dead. Then there is a power-struggle, then there is a war with Rome.

I am not familiar with any such entry citing some militant leader in James within the DSS content, short of this one claim (which appears to me to be very tenuous) by Eisenmann.


Do you see a difference between Mormons and Catholics?

Same general ideology; completely different leadership systems and hierarchy.

If you are blurring these kinds of things together; that's more than a mild problem.

OK. Point taken.

Does it connect which groups?

The Qumran Community and these North African Early Christians you say show signs of a Jamesian influence.

I don't think anything to do with early Christian "gospels" is so clean - they tell us more about a whole people in general than any one given individual supposedly at hand in the authorship.

I would more put it that they were among the last functional officials left standing, and that it's more the case that everyone in contest would generally hate them because they didn't directly oppose Roman rule so to preserve some official capacity themselves without being completely tossed out and leaving no official party involved.

I don't, as a result, really take much weight in "Peter" writing or having anything to do with writing Mark; anymore than I do any such claim regarding Matthew, Luke, or John.

The line you quoted doesn't mean much either way. Is that it?

They all didn't copy from Mark.
Mark was pretty early, about on par with early strands of Matthew and the GH.

OK.

And yes, I'm aware of that; that's what I'm getting at.
We seem to have a barrier in what is meant by the phrasing regarding the Law, but the point of it was that the Law wasn't the point, the Law served a point.

James, like Jesus, isn't interested in removing the Law, but equally Jesus makes plenty of points to not ignore the point for the letter of it.

That's not just canon; that's in just about all strands of anything relating to Jesus, including such early texts as the GH.
Ascetic groups would still have reason to adhere, and were right to do so, but the shift was that they need not let each other die to preserve the Law in letter.

OK. I'm off to look up the Gospel of the Hebrews.

All I know of that is that it refers to the vague clause of 'evil sacrifices'.

I'm not familiar with that law having anything in it that is documented regarding circumcision, though.

OK. Eisenman is quite emphatic about it. I guess I'll look it up.

I'll get to the DSS response tomorrow

No rush.

 

[Brainache]

For anyone wondering about this "Teacher of Righteousness" here's wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_Document

The document contains a reference to a cryptic figure called the Teacher of Righteousness, whom some of the Qumran scrolls treat as a figure from their past, and others treat as a figure in their present, and others still as a figure of the future. This Teacher of Righteousness features prominently in the Damascus Document, but not at all in the Community Rule, another document found amongst the Qumran scrolls, suggesting a difference in the situation during the writing of each. One of the major reasons this person is so significant is because he also appears in a number of other texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of these other scrolls where he is mentioned are the Habakkuk Pesher (numerous times), Micah Pesher (once), Psalms Pesher and also 4Q172. The most interesting scroll is one where he is not mentioned, that being the Rule of the Community. He is first introduced in the Damascus Document by discussing the 390 years after the fall of Jerusalem: “And God observed their deeds, that they sought Him with a whole heart, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart.” Scholars have believed that he was a priest, and leader of this covenant community. There are other variations in the text that are also thought to be him. These include: “the teacher”, “the unique teacher” and “the interpreter of the law.[8] The Damascus Document describes the group amongst whom the Document was created as having been leaderless for 20 years before the Teacher of Righteousness established his rule over the group. Usually historians date the Teacher to circa 150 BCE, since the document states that he arrived 390 years (a period which, however, is unlikely to be precise) after the Babylonian Exile.

Eisenman's not sure where to count the 390 years from, nor whether there was more than one of them. But he imagines James fulfilling a similar role.

I did see something recently where he was speculating about the twenty years wandering blind until their guide arrived, as having something to do with people Paul disparages as "blind guides".

But again, maybe Eisenman is seeing patterns where there are none.

 

[Brainache]

...
All I know of that is that it refers to the vague clause of 'evil sacrifices'.

I'm not familiar with that law having anything in it that is documented regarding circumcision, though.

All I've found so far is that under Roman Law it was legal for Jews to circumcise each other, but not anyone else. To circumcise someone who wasn't Jewish was a crime equivalent to castrating them. Which apparently was the same as murder.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...v=onepage&q=circumcision in roman law&f=false

 

[Brainache]

Herod Agrippa was subtle enough to realise that there were worse alternatives to someone universally acclaimed as A Nice Guy (but strict), namely anyone called "Zealotes" or anything associated with knives.

OK, I was being cheeky here equating Simon and Jude the brothers of Jesus (as per Mark), with Simon the Zealot and Theudas.

I don't know if these are the same people. But if they are, Herod would have preferred James I think. The Followers aren't going away, just because you kill one man.

Better to have James waiting for God to start the war for them, than to have people like Theudas starting it for themselves. That's why James lived so long.

 

[Brainache]

Now: The Gospel Of The Hebrews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews

Jayson tells me that the idea of obeying the spirit of the Law, not necessarily the letter of the Law, was a central part of Jesus' teachings.

I've been arguing that this idea comes from Paul, not Jesus. My idea is that it is in Mark because whoever wrote that book was influenced by Paul. And that it made it into the other Gospels because they all rely on Mark.

Jayson says the other Gospels don't all rely on Mark. That there are other strands of tradition associated with Jesus which also contain this "not so strict" attitude independant of any Pauline influence.

I'm not sure how he can be certain of this given:

...The Gospel of the Hebrews is classified as one of the three Jewish–Christian gospels by modern scholars, along with the Gospel of the Nazoraeans and the Gospel of the Ebionites. All are known today only from fragments preserved in quotations by the early Church Fathers.[10] The relationship between the Jewish–Christian gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel remains a speculation.[11]

And this:

The Gospel of the Hebrews is the only Jewish–Christian gospel which the Church Fathers refer to by name. The language of composition is thought to be Greek.[7] The most likely place of origin is Egypt;[n 1] it probably began circulating in Alexandria, Egypt in the first decades of the 2nd century and was used by Jewish–Christian communities there.[4] The communities to which they belonged were traditional, conservative Christians who followed the teaching of the primitive Christian church in Jerusalem, integrating their understanding of Jesus with strict observance of Jewish customs and law, which they regarded as essential to salvation.[12] Despite this, the gospel displays no connection with other Jewish–Christian literature, nor does it appear to be based on the Gospel of Matthew[n 2] or the other canonical gospels of what is now orthodox Christianity.[13] Instead, it seems to be taken from alternative oral forms of the same underlying traditions.[14] Some of the fragments suggest a syncretic gnostic influence, while others support close ties to traditional Jewish Wisdom literature.[7]

I'm confused. Looks like without Paul, strict adherence to The Law was important.

What am I missing here?

Funny that they should also be near to where the only copy of The Damascus Document outside Qumran was found.

 

[JaysonR]

I understood that different ranks had different responsibilities. This was a military as well as theological endeavour.

Different ranks wouldn't account for differing daily rituals of these forms; we're not talking about the differences between a Catholic Cardinal and a Catholic Priest and their daily rituals. This is more the difference between the daily rituals of a Greek Orthodox monk and a Benedictine monk.

So his followers used the same site. Maybe they felt akin to the revolutionaries who lived there before the big war with Rome 60 years earlier.

There's no evidence of some James group using these caves prior.

Not surprising when there was no such thing as the "Church Of Jerusalem", just "Followers of the Way" living in communes away from the cities shunning outsiders. Just like the people at Qumran following the Righteous Teacher.

There's no letters indicating affiliation to James, and there's a diversity to all sites that is not contained in a single demographic.

The last of the Maccabeans, drowned by Herod? That one? The Zealots were Pro-Maccabee so I don't think that would be surprising.

I don't understand this reply; the point of the section this responds to was the diversity of the content, and highlighted the various types in sample.

Yes there are scrolls from before and after the period we are talking about. I accept that.

But there are a lot of similarities between these "Peshers", the War Scroll, The Community Rule and the Damascus Document, and the kinds of apocalyptic imagery and phrasing attributed to James, that I have a hard time accepting they are all just coincidence.

What is the continuity that's being referred to here that you see.

I don't see a continuity in these texts; these texts are also of varying time tables.

 

[JaysonR]

What? Because killing John and Jesus was so effective at stopping this ever-growing movement? Herod was brutal, but he wasn't an idiot. It didn't work the last two times he tried it, why would it work now?

Maybe he'd rather see James in the top job in the opposition camp than the other "Brothers Of The Lord", you know, Simon and Judas.

Herod Agrippa was subtle enough to realise that there were worse alternatives to someone universally acclaimed as A Nice Guy (but strict), namely anyone called "Zealotes" or anything associated with knives.

We don't see much of a problem taking place in the accounts regarding the dispatching of James.

The only one that appears to have any reservation over their death is John, who is alleged to have had a stay of his execution for some period of time, but eventually too was dispatched.

I imagine he had a bit of a problem dealing with the fallout though...

No idea.

No, just showing why we don't expect to see any references to "General James". He died before the war.

If you find a reference to James as a military leader it would destroy Eisenman's hypothesis that James was "The Righteous Teacher" or someone very much like him.

This isn't very helpful though, as I can equally claim that the absence of evidence supports the opposing position that James was nothing of Eisenman's claims.

If both sides can make the same claim regarding an absence of evidence, then the proposing side needs to produce the evidence to support that proposition.

It doesn't. He's a Pacifist leader with militant followers. He's telling them to hold off and wait for God to send the Heavenly Host on the Clouds Of Heaven. Their Salvation is standing at the gates... etc

Then he is dead. Then there is a power-struggle, then there is a war with Rome.

So James is the pacifist of a military operation whom wouldn't be mentioned by name, nor show signs of being militant, who has ruling authority in vast stretches, but is inept in ruling power, is famous but unmentioned, a challenging political figure with social sway who was easily dispatched despite there being a hesitation to end his life, and to whom Paul was an agent of the Herodians to attempt to undermine the authority of in the Levant region by preaching to Jews and Gentiles in Asia Minor, Corinth, Galatia, and Rome, and whose followers resided in caves along the Dead Sea and maintained texts of differing theological holdings over a two to three hundred year span?

The Qumran Community and these North African Early Christians you say show signs of a Jamesian influence.

There's similarities in regards to asceticism and Hebrew Law adherence, but I wouldn't say there are similarities to a point where we can consider them the same sect.

It is more the case that we see multiple sects of this type that's loosely called, "Jewish Christian" (a poor term, but it serves its purpose).

The line you quoted doesn't mean much either way. Is that it?

The point was that these texts (gospel literature) typically don't tell us much about the identity of an author, but instead tell us more about the demographic cultures which appreciated or preserved the texts.

When I pointed out that line, I was showing that the line would stand in the way of placing its authorship as Pauline sympathetic IF we assume Paulinism is sympathetic through a conspiracy plot with Herodians.

 

[JaysonR]

Now: The Gospel Of The Hebrews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews

Jayson tells me that the idea of obeying the spirit of the Law, not necessarily the letter of the Law, was a central part of Jesus' teachings.

I've been arguing that this idea comes from Paul, not Jesus. My idea is that it is in Mark because whoever wrote that book was influenced by Paul. And that it made it into the other Gospels because they all rely on Mark.

Jayson says the other Gospels don't all rely on Mark. That there are other strands of tradition associated with Jesus which also contain this "not so strict" attitude independant of any Pauline influence.

I'm not sure how he can be certain of this given:


And this:


I'm confused. Looks like without Paul, strict adherence to The Law was important.

What am I missing here?

Funny that they should also be near to where the only copy of The Damascus Document outside Qumran was found.

The reason I stated that is that the GH is compared in form to Matthew, not any other text, and in this likeness the deviation is of lacking the divine virgin birth or miraculous resurrection at the end (which it is noted as blasphemy for lacking).

Panarion, 30-3:7

They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, 'According to the Hebrews,' and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet in the New Testament.

Panarion, 30-5:1

For they use the Gospel according to Matthew—in part and not in its entirety, but they do use it for the sake of the physical genealogy—and they cite the following as a proof-text, arguing from the Gospel, ' 'It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master.'

Panarion, 30-6:1

In turn this Cerinthus, fool and teacher of fools that he is, ventures to maintain that Christ has suffered and been crucified but has not risen yet,26 but he will rise when the general resurrection of the dead comes.

What we specifically call this text by name (the naming is constantly in question; it shifts back and forth between favoring calling it the GH, or the Gospel of the Ebionites, or etc...)

Either way, the point is that it is akin to Matthew, deviates from Matthew in that it lacks the divinity opening, and also lacks the epic resurrection at the end of Matthew, treating Jesus a bit more earthly.



However, if it is akin to Matthew, then it is involved in discussions regarding the focus upon both keeping the Law and not ignoring the point of the Law for the letter of the Law.

Keeping in mind that the Temple leadership of the time was seen as both decreeing and keeping, technically, within the Letter of the Law, but were being accused (by multiple sects and factions) of bastardizing the point/spirit/essence of the Law.


A close concept today is in America, there is this concept called, "Corporate Personhood" which is derived from a technical interpretation of the Amendments to the Constitution (America's holy Torah), which twists the idea identified for persons to applying to an ambiguous non-singular human person entity of a Corporation, thereby known as Corporate Personhood.

There are political factions in America who see this as technically keeping within the Law, but not within the spirit of the Law, and charge that the meaning and point of the Law should be preserved, not JUST the Letter of it.

This is somewhat similar to what was going on, and what I've been referring to.

Paul takes the idea a step further and decides that if the important part is the meaning and point of the Law and not just the Letter, then the Letter isn't all that valuable to begin with and we (in his view) can just focus on the spirit and essence of it philosophically.

Here is, then, the great division between Pauline philosophy and other early Jewish followings of the same new movement of what may be best described as "integrity Judaism" (to my knowledge no one has used that term, but that is the singular unifying concept behind all of these otherwise different groups; they all want the integrity of the Law preserved, and not just the ritual and letter of it - they seem to see the latter of these as a sort of zombie-form of Judaism; a walking dead body of the culture).

 

[Brainache]

The reason I stated that is that the GH is compared in form to Matthew, not any other text, and in this likeness the deviation is of lacking the divine virgin birth or miraculous resurrection at the end (which it is noted as blasphemy for lacking).

OK. I understand that. That doesn't argue against this hypothesis. Eisenman argues that James' group - "The Followers Of The Way" or "The Congregation Of The Poor" - Held a similar view of their Law Giver.

Panarion, 30-3:7

They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, 'According to the Hebrews,' and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet in the New Testament.

It must be the same as Matthew because it's in Hebrew. Really? Do we just accept these arguments because they are old? He's never heard of any other Hebrew Gospel, therefore Matthew. I don't buy that, not even for a dollar.

What else you got?

Panarion, 30-5:1

For they use the Gospel according to Matthew—in part and not in its entirety, but they do use it for the sake of the physical genealogy—and they cite the following as a proof-text, arguing from the Gospel, ' 'It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master.'

So it's like Matthew, but different. They use a Hebrew Genealogy. They say to follow the example of Jesus. To Follow the way of Jesus? That Jesus never sinned, that you have to obey The Law?

Still not seeing how this goes against my Pet Hypothesis.

Panarion, 30-6:1

In turn this Cerinthus, fool and teacher of fools that he is, ventures to maintain that Christ has suffered and been crucified but has not risen yet,26 but he will rise when the general resurrection of the dead comes.

Again, not a problem.

James is portrayed (see below) as preaching that Jesus was "Standing at the Gates of Heaven" awaiting "The Heavenly Host" to rain down the Lord's Judgement on the Last Day. They were waiting for "Jesus". Because their "Salvation" (Yeshu'a) was like unto a "Son of Man". Like the First Man returned to claim his dominion over all. And then those Son's of Darkness are gonna pay...

There is even a line in one DS scroll that has: "If it tarries, wait for it.." The DSS are worth a perouse, don't put it off...

What we specifically call this text by name (the naming is constantly in question; it shifts back and forth between favoring calling it the GH, or the Gospel of the Ebionites, or etc...)

Either way, the point is that it is akin to Matthew, deviates from Matthew in that it lacks the divinity opening, and also lacks the epic resurrection at the end of Matthew, treating Jesus a bit more earthly.

As you do with a human teacher/Prophet who laid down the rules for a way of living Righteously. A figure who wasn't Paul's "Christ Jesus". This teacher/Prophet was a Commie. Literally laying out the rules for living a Communal life. Common property, Division of labour, etc etc

The way of life was the teaching in action. If they had a biography of their favourite Lawgiver for teaching lessons and such, it seems it was similar to Matthew in some ways, but not others.

However, if it is akin to Matthew, then it is involved in discussions regarding the focus upon both keeping the Law and not ignoring the point of the Law for the letter of the Law.

Only in the Matthew as we have received it. Maybe this Heretical Ebionite text represented a different opinion. I think it more likely this that made them Heretical, than not including a Divine Nativity or epic "resurrection".

Does Mark have those things?

Keeping in mind that the Temple leadership of the time was seen as both decreeing and keeping, technically, within the Letter of the Law, but were being accused (by multiple sects and factions) of bastardizing the point/spirit/essence of the Law.

I get the impression that they were seen by quite a few as flagrantly disregarding the Law altogether. That their very presence was an Abomination because they had been appointed by foreign Kings (ie: The Herods). That they may have paid lip-service to the Temple, but that they were rich Political Appointees, skimming as much Roman Temple Tax into their already overflowing pockets as they could.

But I could be wrong.

A close concept today is in America, there is this concept called, "Corporate Personhood" which is derived from a technical interpretation of the Amendments to the Constitution (America's holy Torah), which twists the idea identified for persons to applying to an ambiguous non-singular human person entity of a Corporation, thereby known as Corporate Personhood.

There are political factions in America who see this as technically keeping within the Law, but not within the spirit of the Law, and charge that the meaning and point of the Law should be preserved, not JUST the Letter of it.

{aside} Just heard a great line in "The Newsroom":
Q: What's the difference between a Person and a Corporation?
A: Umm...
Q: Did you ever hold a door open for someone?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ask them for money first?
A: No.
"There's the difference".{/aside}

I'm beginning to think there was a kind of Two-Tiered thing happening here. That there was one set of Obligations on Jews, and a different set of Obligations on "Those of the Diaspora", "The Joiners", and Eisenman argues "Benjaminites".

They were required to follow the rules, but only as far as not eating blood, things sacrificed to idols, carrion etc. Nice crunchy bacon was OK for the folks in the wider Greek world who wanted to follow the Righteous ways of the Nazarene...

" ...Hell, they needn't even hack bits of their willies off, if they don't want to. Just so long as they practice truth, justice and the Nazarene Way. Just keep signing them up Pauly boy, we need all the allies we can get in this region...

"Er, you've been telling them what??? The Nazarene Way is the Whole Bloody Point! We can't expect Jesus and the Heavenly Host if we don't have enough Righteous Ones in the camps. Sure, we've got Thousands, but we need more to be properly prepared..."

"What? You told them that Jesus has already come back. That it was all about souls and stuff in the sky. Well, thank you Mr Tarsus, these gentlemen will see you out. Why not visit the Temple while you're in town? Never know who you'll bump into there..."

This is somewhat similar to what was going on, and what I've been referring to.

Paul takes the idea a step further and decides that if the important part is the meaning and point of the Law and not just the Letter, then the Letter isn't all that valuable to begin with and we (in his view) can just focus on the spirit and essence of it philosophically.

Here is, then, the great division between Pauline philosophy and other early Jewish followings of the same new movement of what may be best described as "integrity Judaism" (to my knowledge no one has used that term, but that is the singular unifying concept behind all of these otherwise different groups; they all want the integrity of the Law preserved, and not just the ritual and letter of it - they seem to see the latter of these as a sort of zombie-form of Judaism; a walking dead body of the culture).

I don't see that we disagree all that much. It's just that I think this de-emphasis of the Law is purely Pauline. That there are so few traces of the strict legalism of the early Jesus followers in Jerusalem is because they were wiped out in the various uprisings against Rome. Their teachings were so distorted by centuries of pro-Roman, pro-Pauline overwrites, rewrites and spin, that when they show up in the DSS, no one recognises them.

I know I skipped over a post or two Jayson, I'm sorry. I don't have the energy, nor sadly, the ability to summarise all of Eisenman's Hypothesis here. All I've managed to produce is a dimly glimpsed impression of the tip of the iceberg (I nearly wrote "Eisenberg" ...phew, lucky I didn't).

If you PM me your details Jayson, I could lend you my copy of "James The Brother Of Jesus..." Part one. You might be surprised that he isn't quite as bad as some of his critics make out.

I'm just not sure I want to carry on with this back-and-forth, because I'm no Academic, you have me out-gunned totally there, and I think it might be my inability to properly present the arguments, rather than the evidence itself which is failing to convince you.

I have enjoyed this conversation and I hope I've given people something to think about. Maybe I'll drop a link on Prof. Eisenman's website and see if he would comment. I hope I haven't misrepresented his hypothesis too badly.

Cheers.

 

[JaysonR]

I can summarize the response in two parts:

Part 1:
I wasn't intending the point about the GH tangent to remove the hypothesis; it was only to show that the ideas regarding the integrity or spirit of the Law and the Letter of the Law were already dialogues before Paulinism started.

That such dialogues were common in the region considering the issues at hand politically.

That, instead, what Paul does is take it further and remove the need for the Law at all, and that this is where the issues began between him and other sects, such as James.

Part 2:
My stance on the conspiracy idea is that it is far too specific for what is capable of being claimed for during this era; of which we have scant few details to work from to make specific narratives or claims.

There are considerable gaps and logical leaps taking place in the proposition (even when I look at Eisenman's books directly; which I have been doing to play catch-up on his ideas more directly).

I read Eisenman regularly claiming a contingency on conjecture, to support a contingency for a conjecture, etc... (which is fine) and then at the end of it make bold statements regarding how only this [very specific] view (whatever his proposition is at the moment) makes sense in light of his supplied evidence (which is contingent conjecture).

So far, the image that I have is really this:

James is the pacifist of a military operation whom wouldn't be mentioned by name, nor show signs of being militant, who has ruling authority in vast stretches, but is inept in ruling power, is famous but unmentioned, a challenging political figure with social sway who was easily dispatched despite there being a hesitation to end his life, and to whom Paul was an agent of the Herodians to attempt to undermine the authority of in the Levant region by preaching to Jews and Gentiles in Asia Minor, Corinth, Galatia, and Rome, and whose followers resided in caves along the Dead Sea and maintained texts of differing theological holdings over a two to three hundred year span, and after the death of James the militant followers lead a rebel uprising and started a war or battle for which they inevitably lost.

This concept is a stretch.


HOWEVER, I stand the same as I did at the beginning.
I can sympathize with Paul pandering to Herodians in the same fashion Paul pandered to any leading figures for political leverage.

I don't have to convert Paul into a secret agent to accomplish the idea that Paul could very easily claim allies in the Herodians in one place, and fail to mention them where they were not popular.

 

[Brainache]

Having said that, remember how in the OP I said I was skipping ahead to summarise a particular chapter? Well, I went back, kept reading (damn I'm slow) and got to this bit yesterday. Appropriately enough it was St Jude's Day (apparently).

I've been talking recently in the Bart Ehrman thread about the character called Theudas in Josephus. He lead some followers across the Jordan, out of the land of Judah to find their Salvation in the lands beyond. He got his head chopped off and his followers were "dispersed" (where did they go?) in the 40's.

Is Theudas the same as Thaddeus? Eisenman thinks so. That makes him Jude the brother of Jesus. St Jude, patron saint of lost causes.

Also interesting in terms of the Damascus Document, which twice mentions: "Going out from the land of Judah to dwell in The Land Of Damascus", by crossing the Jordan. Just like Theudas/Thaddeus/Jude the Brother Of Jesus.

Oh well maybe, maybe not.

Enjoy.

 

[JaysonR]

Is Theudas the same as Thaddeus? Eisenman thinks so. That makes him...

Which is why I stated:

I read Eisenman regularly claiming a contingency on conjecture, to support a contingency for a conjecture, etc... (which is fine) and then at the end of it make bold statements regarding how only this [very specific] view (whatever his proposition is at the moment) makes sense in light of his supplied evidence (which is contingent conjecture).

 

[Brainache]

Which is why I stated:

And I am probably guilty of presenting these things as being more cut-and-dried than Eisenman does. He is cautious and constantly repeats that this is speculation and maybe this, maybe that. He isn't the thundering Dogmatist his critics make him out to be.

Maybe I'm just not used to this kind of material and what I see as tentative, cautious statements of possibilities, others see as strident declarations of fact.

 

[JaysonR]

No, you're not doing a poor job at representing Eisenman, and I'm not discounting Eisenman by your merit of capacity alone.

I did actually go and start digging up his works and looking them over; I made that assessment from the work in his books.

I regularly read sections of this kind of contingency to conjecture to contingency to conjecture to contingency to conjecture to a specific and absolute conclusion.

I'm fine with all of the contingency and conjecture; I'm not really alright with leaping from that to a specific and absolute conclusion that is presented as the only sensible conclusion in a tone that suggests that if the reader thinks anything otherwise, they are being silly and foolish.

 

[Brainache]

I can summarize the response in two parts:

Part 1:
I wasn't intending the point about the GH tangent to remove the hypothesis; it was only to show that the ideas regarding the integrity or spirit of the Law and the Letter of the Law were already dialogues before Paulinism started.

That such dialogues were common in the region considering the issues at hand politically.

That, instead, what Paul does is take it further and remove the need for the Law at all, and that this is where the issues began between him and other sects, such as James.

But that only works if the GH was in favour of Paul's approach. The people who followed this Gospel weren't in favour of Paul's approach, why would the book be?

Part 2:
My stance on the conspiracy idea is that it is far too specific for what is capable of being claimed for during this era; of which we have scant few details to work from to make specific narratives or claims.

There are considerable gaps and logical leaps taking place in the proposition (even when I look at Eisenman's books directly; which I have been doing to play catch-up on his ideas more directly).

I read Eisenman regularly claiming a contingency on conjecture, to support a contingency for a conjecture, etc... (which is fine) and then at the end of it make bold statements regarding how only this [very specific] view (whatever his proposition is at the moment) makes sense in light of his supplied evidence (which is contingent conjecture).

OK.

So far, the image that I have is really this:

James is the pacifist of a military operation whom wouldn't be mentioned by name,

The DSS don't mention anyone's name.

nor show signs of being militant

Hardly unusual in a Pacifist.

, who has ruling authority in vast stretches,

Make that Theological Authority. He's Brother Of The Lord.

but is inept in ruling power,

He stayed alive longer than the other Brothers, and grew the movement considerably.

is famous but unmentioned,

Josephus mentions him. Said he was a great figurehead to the opposition to Herod. All hell broke loose after he was killed.

a challenging political figure with social sway who was easily dispatched despite there being a hesitation to end his life

See above. He was in charge from the 30's to the 60's, that's 30 years of hesitating.

, and to whom Paul was an agent of the Herodians to attempt to undermine the authority of in the Levant region

By converting their neighbours/allies against Rome to a "Spiritual Messiah" religion, instead of the war-like DSS Zealot philosophy

by preaching to Jews and Gentiles in Asia Minor, Corinth, Galatia, and Rome,

Not quite.

and whose followers resided in caves along the Dead Sea

They didn't live in the caves. They lived in camps in the wilderness. Qumran is just where the Scrolls and the baths were.

and maintained texts of differing theological holdings over a two to three hundred year span,

We all agree that the site was occupied on and off for centuries by different groups.

and after the death of James the militant followers lead a rebel uprising and started a war or battle for which they inevitably lost.

Yes.

This concept is a stretch.

It's also a strawman.

HOWEVER, I stand the same as I did at the beginning.
I can sympathize with Paul pandering to Herodians in the same fashion Paul pandered to any leading figures for political leverage.

I don't have to convert Paul into a secret agent to accomplish the idea that Paul could very easily claim allies in the Herodians in one place, and fail to mention them where they were not popular.

OK.

 

[Brainache]

No, you're not doing a poor job at representing Eisenman, and I'm not discounting Eisenman by your merit of capacity alone.

I did actually go and start digging up his works and looking them over; I made that assessment from the work in his books.

I regularly read sections of this kind of contingency to conjecture to contingency to conjecture to contingency to conjecture to a specific and absolute conclusion.

I'm fine with all of the contingency and conjecture; I'm not really alright with leaping from that to a specific and absolute conclusion that is presented as the only sensible conclusion in a tone that suggests that if the reader thinks anything otherwise, they are being silly and foolish.

OK. No worries.