Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

He starts off talking about the "Literature of Heavenly Ascents", of which the "Anabathmoi Jacobou" or "The Ascents Of James" is a part. He also says that the two "Apocalypses Of James" found at Nag Hammadi are from a later stage of the same tradition.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ascents-J...ertation/dp/1555402933/ref=cm_cr_pr_orig_subj

...the narrative suggests that the entire population of Jerusalem was about to be baptized on the basis of the Scripturally-based arguments of James and the other Apostles, when "The Enemy", a man referred to as SAULUS in a marginal note in the Syriac copy of the Recognitions, incites a riot in the Temple courtyard with several of his followers, a bunch of violent bullies inflicting bloodshed, injuries and deaths among all the people gathered. ...

The first Apocalypse of James: http://gnosis.org/naghamm/1ja.html

The second Apocalypse of James: http://gnosis.org/naghamm/2ja.html

Nag Hammadi: http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Paul, in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 tells of meeting a man 14 years ago who "Ascended to the Third Heaven" and heard "unutterable things" it was "not permitted for man to know". This in the midst of his attacks on those "super-apostles" who "compare themselves to themselves" and "preach another Jesus" - He is talking about James and the gang in Jerusalem. "These Others" he calls "ministers of Death" and "Servants Of Satan" in 2 Corinthians 2:14-16 are the leaders of the Assemblies in Jerusalem.

2 Corinthians 12: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Corinthians 12&version=NIV

At this time, the issue of foreigners in the Temple and foreign Sacrifices was a big thing. Along with a division between rich and poor Priests, Josephus describes it causing a lot of conflict. The rich Priests were taking the sacrifices that should have been going to the poor and meanwhile Zealots were blocking the entrance to the Temple for people trying to make sacrifices on behalf of Ceasar.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/

... At the same time Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; and when many of the high priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon. These relied much upon their multitude, for the most flourishing part of the innovators assisted them; but they had the chief regard to Eleazar, the governor of the temple.
...
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-2/chapter-17.html

Josephus says that barring foreigners from the Temple was a new idea: "which our Forefathers were before unacquainted with". This is untrue. It is in Ezekiel 44: 7-9, Josephus should have known that:
Originally Posted by Ezekiel 44: 7-9
7 in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You[a] have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations. 8 And you have not kept charge of my holy things, but you have set others to keep my charge for you in my sanctuary.

9 “Thus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.
I think Josephus doesn't want his Roman Audience to think he supports the Zealot's claims to Theological legitimacy. Ezekiel is one of the favourite Prophets amongst the DSS.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel 44&version=ESV

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/dss.htm

The oldest known texts of Ezekiel are from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scroll Bible states, Small fragments from six manuscripts of Ezekiel were found at Qumran and another atop Masada. All of them and the traditional Masoretic Text fairly uniformly attest the same textual tradition. Only seven minor variants are clearly preserved, though reconstruction according to spatial requirements indicates that in two places (5:13 and 23:16) the scrolls may have had a shorter text than the Masoretic Text" (page 407).

And re Masada: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1139&index=10

...Any significance that can be ascribed to this text on the basis of what is known about the community at Masada is purely speculation. However, in light of our knowledge of the goals of the Zealots and the manner in which they eventually committed suicide, the allusions to resurrection in verses twelve and thirteen and to the restoration of their land, mentioned in verse fourteen, are quite poignant...

There is also the Deuteronomic King Law (also quoted in the DSS): "You shall not put a foreigner over you who is not your brother". I think Josephus is being cagey here.

Acts 21:29 tells us that Paul started a riot by going into the Temple. He is accused of bringing in Greeks and "Polluting this Holy Place".

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+17:14-20&version=ESV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 21:29

The Ebionites were declared Heretics because they said Jesus was just a mortal Righteous Teacher, not the Mystical Son Of God that the Roman Orthodoxy said, and which they eventually imposed everywhere. They kept the Jewish Laws and all that too. They apparently thought very highly of James and influenced the Gnostics in that. Eisenman argues that the DSS were written by the first generation of these people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Read it at your own risk...

 

[Brainache]

Well...sad news. Second day into the build and our main tool (table saw) completely broke down, and we won't get a replacement in time for this year's catapult season.

Lesson learned: start earlier in the year so if things like this happen, you have time to recover.
On the up-shot; hey, we already have our plans and can just work on the 'pult over the course of the coming year and just have it all ready to go by November!

Now you have all year to come up with the best catapult ever. Good luck. I suggest a "Hello Kitty" motif. That will strike terror into the hearts of your enemies...

Also an up-shot: I'll be able to get back to things around here. lol.


Brainache: I feel as though I've covered the general grounds of my concerns decently enough that I don't really want to keep beating that drum; is there another aspect which you would like to discuss?
Or perhaps a related consideration, or are you more looking for other inputs aside from the angles I presented, for diversity?

I'm not sure I have much left to say either.

I'll try to deal with any enquiries from Pakeha and anyone else who is interested.

I might have a look at the other Brothers, Simon and Judas. The letter of Jude has some interesting similarities to the DSS "War Scroll", and talks about division in the early church.

...14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”[e] 16 These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch[1]) is an ancient Jewish religious work, traditionally ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah. It is not part of the biblical canon as used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel. It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but no other Christian group.
The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC.[2]
It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language, with Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin fragments. For this and other reasons, the traditional Ethiopian view is that the original language of the work was Ge'ez, whereas non-Ethiopian scholars tend to assert that it was first written in either Aramaic or Hebrew; E. Isaac suggests that the Book of Enoch, like the Book of Daniel, was composed partially in Aramaic and partially in Hebrew.[3]:6
The authors of the New Testament were familiar with the content of the story and influenced by it:[4] a short section of 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9) is quoted in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14–15), and is there attributed to "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8).

The Book Of Enoch : http://www.hiddenbible.com/enoch/online.html

Not a standard Jewish text. Found in the DSS. Quoted by Jesus' Brother in the Bible.

The War Scroll: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/guerradioses/guerradioses02a.htm

...[And] when the sun hastens to set on that day, the Chief Priest and the priests and the [Levites] who are
(6) with him, and the chiefs [of the battle lines and the men] of the army shall bless the God of Israel there. They shall say in response: Blessed is Your name, O God [of god]s, for
(7) You have done wondrous things for Your people, and have kept Your covenant for us from of old. Many times You have opened the gates of salvation for us
(8) for the sak[e of Your co]venant. [And You provided for our affliction in accord with Your goodness toward us. You, O God of righteousness, have acted for the sake of Your name. ...

It's a similar story with Daniel and Maccabees. These were favourite Apocalyptic Messianic texts and later Rabbinical Judaism didn't want to have anything to do with them. It was Zealot literature, and Zealots were bad, mmmkay?

And yet they are also the proof texts for Christianity. The same OT verses that Fundies still quote as being Prophetic about Jesus, can be found in the DSS as referring to their own times. The Bible just interprets these verses differently.

 

[JaysonR]

I suggest a "Hello Kitty" motif.

I'm going to let Izzy design the decoration and paintjob .
I'm sure it will be pretty interesting (I decided to make a thread for the project in the sports section - see signature), so I'm not going to bring it up in here again (sorry for the tangent).

 

[Brainache]

According to Acts, Paul had a relative in Jerusalem who was able to put a word in for him with the Romans. Eisenman argues that this is one Julius Archelaus, mentioned in Josephus' "Vita". He argues that this is the "Junius" mentioned at the end of "Romans" along with some other suspiciously Herodian names (Aristobulus and Herodion) as Paul's "kinsman".

I can't find a mention of Julius Archelaus in "Vita", but Josephus mentions him as a reader of his books in "Against Apion":
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/against-apion/book-1/chapter-1.html

...And I was so well assured of the truth of what I related, that I first of all appealed to those that had the supreme command in that war, Vespasian and Titus, as witnesses for me, for to them I presented those books first of all, and after them to many of the Romans who had been in the war. I also sold them to many of our own men who understood the Greek philosophy; among whom were Julius Archelaus, Herod [king of Chalcis], a person of great gravity, and king Agrippa himself, a person that deserved the greatest admiration. Now all these men bore their testimony to me, that I had the strictest regard to truth; who yet would not have dissembled the matter, nor been silent, if I, out of ignorance, or out of favor to any side, either had given false colors to actions, or omitted any of them.

Eisenman argues that this Niger of Perea is the person Acts calls "Simeon Niger" who was an associate of Paul's at Antioch. He also argues that Zachariah ben Bariscaeus is possibly the "Zachariah son of Barachias" who is killed in Matthew 23: 35 followed by the "blood libel" about Jerusalem who "kills all her Prophets". I can't find any Old Testament Prophets who were killed by the Jews. Can you? Did MaGZ write this?

Niger of Perea :http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_14839.html

NIGER OF PEREA (d. 68 C.E.), patriot leader of Perea, Transjordan. After distinguishing himself in the attack on Cestius at the outset of the revolt against the Romans in the autumn of 66, Niger apparently took charge of operations against them in Idumea, in due course becoming for a short time deputy governor of this province. Later in the same year he was placed in command of the disastrous expedition against *Ashkelon, together with *John the Essene and Silas the Babylonian. He was the only one of the three to survive, leading another attack later on with no greater success from his base in Idumea. During the reign of terror in *Jerusalem after the triumph of the Zealot extremists, he was among the moderates who were executed, apparently on suspicion of wishing to come to terms with the Romans (Jos., Wars, 2:520, 566; 3:11–27; 4:359–63).

"Simeon Niger": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_Niger

Simeon Niger is a person in the Book of Acts in the New Testament. He is mentioned in Acts 13:1 as being one of the "prophets and teachers" in the church of Antioch:
In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. (Acts 13:1, NIV)

WTF? Hang on, is one of the first teachers in the first "Christian" Community the foster-brother of Herod The Tetrarch? I have never in my life been so tempted to write: "Join the dots, Sheeple!!!" as I am right now.

But of course this doesn't mean that Paul had any familial connections with the Herodians. He just hung out, worked with, and set up the founding community of his "mission to the Gentiles" with a close friend of one Herod.

This Herodian apparently looked kindly on his mission at least.

Zachariah ben Bariscaeus(sic): http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-4/chapter-5.html

...and as they intended to have Zacharias the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain, - so what provoked them against him was, that hatred of wickedness and love of liberty which were so eminent in him: he was also a rich man, so that by taking him off, they did not only hope to seize his effects, but also to get rid of a mall that had great power to destroy them. So they called together, by a public proclamation, seventy of the principal men of the populace, for a show, as if they were real judges, while they had no proper authority. Before these was Zacharias accused of a design to betray their polity to the Romans, and having traitorously sent to Vespasian for that purpose. Now there appeared no proof or sign of what he was accused; but they affirmed themselves that they were well persuaded that so it was, ...
Accordingly he stood up, and laughed at their pretended accusation, and in a few words confuted the crimes laid to his charge; after which he turned his speech to his accusers, and went over distinctly all their transgressions of the law, and made heavy lamentation upon the confusion they had brought public affairs to: in the mean time, the zealots grew tumultuous, and had much ado to abstain from drawing their swords, although they designed to preserve the appearance and show of judicature to the end. They were also desirous, on other accounts, to try the judges, whether they would be mindful of what was just at their own peril.
Now the seventy judges brought in their verdict that the person accused was not guilty, as choosing rather to die themselves with him, than to have his death laid at their doors;
...
So two of the boldest of them[Zealots] fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him; and as he fell down dead, they bantered him, and said, "Thou hast also our verdict, and this will prove a more sure acquittal to thee than the other." They also threw him down from the temple immediately into the valley beneath it. Moreover, they struck the judges with the backs of their swords, by way of abuse, and thrust them out of the court of the temple,...

"Zachariah son of Barachias"(sic) who is killed in Matthew 23: 35: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=NIV

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[c]”

That's supposed to be Jesus talking about a guy slain by Zealots 30 years after he died.

Truly I tell you this, postdiction is easier than prediction.

And I still can't find any OT Prophets killed by "Jerusalem"... Buehler?

I think I covered the rest of that post later in the thread.

I might start looking into this circle of Greek speaking, pro-Roman intellectuals living in Rome who Eisenman thinks may have had a hand in some of the contents of the NT.

 

[Craig B]

"Zachariah son of Barachias"(sic) who is killed in Matthew 23: 35: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=NIV

That's supposed to be Jesus talking about a guy slain by Zealots 30 years after he died.

Easily accounted for on the assumption that the gospel account was composed more than 30 years after Jesus died (as it was) and therefore contains anachronisms.

 

[Brainache]

Easily accounted for on the assumption that the gospel account was composed more than 30 years after Jesus died (as it was) and therefore contains anachronisms.

Yes, I realise that. It didn't take long for the anti-semitism to get in there though, did it? It's all your fault, He says, "you brood of vipers".

That's right it was the Jews fault for foolishly starting a war of independence against Rome. God/Jesus is sending all of these Prophets to be Martyred by "The Jews" who just refuse to accept the legitimate rule of Rome.

That's right, Jesus is mad at the Jews for being "uppity". They should just fall on their knees and be grateful that God sent the good kind Romans to rule over them...

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[c]”

I think the term is "Blood Libel". ETA: Particularly this bit:

..29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

No Jewish Preacher would be so ignorant of the OT to claim that the "teachers of the law" killed all the Prophets.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, I realise that. It didn't take long for the anti-semitism to get in there though, did it? It's all your fault, He says, "you brood of vipers".

That's right it was the Jews fault for foolishly starting a war of independence against Rome. God/Jesus is sending all of these Prophets to be Martyred by "The Jews" who just refuse to accept the legitimate rule of Rome.

Yes but there are other influences too. Acts 5

34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel ... stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

More anachronisms; Theudas came after this time, and Judas of Galilee came long before him: but here we have Jesus' surviving companions being compared with various rebels against Rome by a person who evidently admires such people as being possibly "from God".

 

[Brainache]

Yes but there are other influences too. Acts 5 More anachronisms; Theudas came after this time, and Judas of Galilee came long before him: but here we have Jesus' surviving companions being compared with various rebels against Rome by a person who evidently admires such people as being possibly "from God".

And that person is Gamaliel, Paul's rich and famous teacher.

 

[Craig B]

And that person is Gamaliel, Paul's rich and famous teacher.

Who says he taught Paul? But at all events, he thinks anti Roman rebels may be "from God".

 

[Brainache]

Who says he taught Paul? But at all events, he thinks anti Roman rebels may be "from God".

Acts 22: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+22&version=NIV

Then Paul said: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. 4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5 as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

The same book that quotes him as saying the rebels might be from god.

 

[Craig B]

Acts 22: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+22&version=NIV
The same book that quotes him as saying the rebels might be from god.

Luke says it. Paul doesn't say it.

 

[Brainache]

Luke says it. Paul doesn't say it.

I thought we were talking about something Acts attributed Gamaliel. It attributes that anachronistic speech about Theudas to Gamaliel. Acts also attributes being Paul's teacher to Gamaliel. Acts portrays Gamaliel as being a mediator between factions.

Are we 100% certain that "Luke" wrote Acts? I think I've seen Academics claim it was written by more than one hand.

 

[Craig B]

I thought we were talking about something Acts attributed Gamaliel. It attributes that anachronistic speech about Theudas to Gamaliel. Acts also attributes being Paul's teacher to Gamaliel. Acts portrays Gamaliel as being a mediator between factions.

Are we 100% certain that "Luke" wrote Acts? I think I've seen Academics claim it was written by more than one hand.

I mean that Acts doesn't make Gamaliel say, I taught Paul. And Paul in his own writings doesn't make such a claim.

Jeremy Bentham strongly denied Luke's authorship of Acts on the grounds that Luke's gospel makes Jesus ascend into Heaven on the day of the Resurrection, while Acts has him remaining on earth for 40 days. I haven't sorted this one out myself, but of course it is very probable that there are interpolations in the book, whoever its author may have been.

 

[Brainache]

I mean that Acts doesn't make Gamaliel say, I taught Paul. And Paul in his own writings doesn't make such a claim.

OK.

I also thought it was interesting that Gamaliel supposedly considered Judas the Galilean, Theudas, Jesus and their followers to all fall under the same general category and as possibly being "from God".

Jeremy Bentham strongly denied Luke's authorship of Acts on the grounds that Luke's gospel makes Jesus ascend into Heaven on the day of the Resurrection, while Acts has him remaining on earth for 40 days. I haven't sorted this one out myself, but of course it is very probable that there are interpolations in the book, whoever its author may have been.

Or Authors. Acts is all over the shop. I tend to look at it purely from the point of : "What does the Author want the audience to believe?", rather than: "Is this what really happened?". A certain event may or may not have happened, but the Author is telling us about it for a reason.

 

[Craig B]

OK.

I also thought it was interesting that Gamaliel supposedly considered Judas the Galilean, Theudas, Jesus and their followers to all fall under the same general category and as possibly being "from God".

The idea that Jesus was a rebel against Rome (which is perfectly consistent with his also being a peripatetic apocalypticist and exorcist) has been proposed more than once. We have Gamaliel's comments, and we have the disciples carrying swords in Luke. We have the odd Barabbas story. Barabbas means "son of the Father". He had been arrested for participating in an "insurrection". His given name, according to old manuscripts, was Jesus. And Jesus is supposed to have provoked some sort of disturbance in the Temple. Were Barabbas and the Nazarene the same person?

Of course a rebellious Jesus - if such he was - wouldn't do at all, and Paul sanitises Jesus' message in Romans and elsewhere. But none of this is in any way certain. The evidence is very sparse.

 

[Brainache]

The idea that Jesus was a rebel against Rome (which is perfectly consistent with his also being a peripatetic apocalypticist and exorcist) has been proposed more than once. We have Gamaliel's comments, and we have the disciples carrying swords in Luke. We have the odd Barabbas story. Barabbas means "son of the Father". He had been arrested for participating in an "insurrection". His given name, according to old manuscripts, was Jesus. And Jesus is supposed to have provoked some sort of disturbance in the Temple. Were Barabbas and the Nazarene the same person?

Of course a rebellious Jesus - if such he was - wouldn't do at all, and Paul sanitises Jesus' message in Romans and elsewhere. But none of this is in any way certain. The evidence is very sparse.

I also think the way the texts show a general trend away from Jewish sentiments, to overtly pro-Roman anti-Semitism over time, supports this.

The evidence appears to be building. The Cairo Genizah, Nag Hammadi and yes the DSS all contain tantalising suggestions if not outright evidence in that direction.

Each new discovery takes us closer to that conclusion, not further away.

 

[JaysonR]

makes Jesus ascend into Heaven on the day of the Resurrection, while Acts has him remaining on earth for 40 days.

To be fair; there's no real problem between these two conceptually.

The Hebraic idiom of "40", refers to the amount of time required for trial or testing which ends in the grace of revival and renewal.

You'll notice that the value appears in every instance of such in Hebraic texts.

So it is entirely possible for "40 days" and immediately to be one in the same, as the count would be referring to the figure remaining until something was tested and renewed before taking off.

However; it is unlikely that the use of the idiom would occur in one text and not the other by the same hand.

 

[Brainache]

Hi, me again.

I want to get back on Topic by having a look at that passage from Acts, that I noticed above:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 13&version=NIV

13 1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

This looks interesting from the point of view of this "Paul was a Herodian" idea.

Lets see what we can find out about him:
Josephus: "No results were found for 'Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch)' under the References category."
http://www.biblestudytools.com/sear...rod+the+tetrarch)&s=References&rc=HIS&rc2=JOS

OK lets try Herod the Tetrarch:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-5.html

1. ABOUT this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petres) and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had, married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's daughter. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great...

Talk about incestuous! Anyway nothing there about a Foster-Brother called Manaen. Although that reference to Aretas will crop up later in connection to Paul, escaping Damascus, in a basket, on a rope...(stay tuned)

I keep looking:

... Herod the Great had two daughters by Mariamne, the [grand] daughter of Hyrcanus; the one was Salampsio, who was married to Phasaelus, her first cousin, who was himself the son of Phasaelus, Herod's brother, her father making the match; the other was Cypros, who was herself married also to her first cousin Antipater, the son of Salome, Herod's sister. Phasaelus had five children by Salampsio; Antipater, Herod, and Alexander, and two daughters, Alexandra and Cypros; which last Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus, married; and Timius of Cyprus married Alexandra; he was a man of note, but had by her no children. Agrippa had by Cypros two sons and three daughters, which daughters were named Bernice, Mariarune, and Drusius; but the names of the sons were Agrippa and Drusus, of which Drusus died before he came to the years of puberty; but their father, Agrippa, was brought up with his other brethren, Herod and Aristobulus, for these were also the sons of the son of Herod the Great by Bernice; but Bernice was the daughter of Costobarus and of Salome, who was Herod's sister. Aristobulus left these infants when he was slain by his father, together with his brother Alexander, as we have already related. But when they were arrived at years of puberty, this Herod, the brother of Agrippa, married Mariamne, the daughter of Olympias, who was the daughter of Herod the king, and of Joseph, the son of Joseph, who was brother to Herod the king, and had by her a son, Aristobulus; but Aristobulus, the third brother of Agrippa, married Jotape, the daughter of Sampsigeramus, king of Emesa; they had a daughter who was deaf, whose name also was Jotape; and these hitherto were the children of the male line. But Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Philip, the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; and as he died childless, Aristobulus, the son of Herod, the brother of Agrippa, married her; they had three sons, Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus; and this was the posterity of Phasaelus and Salampsio. But the daughter of Antipater by Cypros was Cypros, whom Alexas Selcias, the son of Alexas, married; they had a daughter, Cypros; but Herod and Alexander, who, as we told you, were the brothers of Antipater, died childless. As to Alexander, the son of Herod the king, who was slain by his father, he had two sons, Alexander and Tigranes, by the daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia. Tigranes, who was king of Armenia, was accused at Rome, and died childless; Alexander had a son of the same name with his brother Tigranes, and was sent to take possession of the kingdom of Armenia by Nero; he had a son, Alexander, who married Jotape, the daughter of Antiochus, the king of Commagena; Vespasian made him king of an island in Cilicia. But these descendants of Alexander, soon after their birth, deserted the Jewish religion, and went over to that of the Greeks. But for the rest of the daughters of Herod the king, it happened that they died childless. And as these descendants of Herod, whom we have enumerated, were in being at the same time that Agrippa the Great took the kingdom, and I have now given an account of them, it now remains that I relate the several hard fortunes which befell Agrippa, and how he got clear of them, and was advanced to the greatest height of dignity and power.

Damn, if he's in there somewhere, I can't find him. But hell, they certainly had their fingers in a lot of different pies...(my bold)

Just as an aside: I noticed this:

...But as the best sort of Parthians agreed together that it was impossible they should be governed without a king, while also it was their constant practice to choose one of the family of Arsaces,...

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-2.html

On this point I don't care what Historians think. I am choosing to pronounce the name of this Parthian Royal Family as: Arse-Ache. (plural)

Thank you, tip your waitresses...

Now, back to this Foster Brother of Herod the Tetrarch. There doesn't seem to be anyone by the name of Manaen in Josephus. If not there, where?

I think Acts is using a made-up name. Why? Who for?

I'll keep looking.

 

[Craig B]

... Josephus: "No results were found for 'Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch)' under the References category." ... Talk about incestuous! Anyway nothing there about a Foster-Brother called Manaen ... Now, back to this Foster Brother of Herod the Tetrarch. There doesn't seem to be anyone by the name of Manaen in Josephus. If not there, where?

I think Acts is using a made-up name. Why? Who for?

I'll keep looking.

You've got me sitting on the edge of my seat chewing my whitened knuckles! Who can Manaen be? Wow! Jings!

 

[Brainache]

You've got me sitting on the edge of my seat chewing my whitened knuckles! Who can Manaen be? Wow! Jings!

Is he Professor Plum in the Drawing room with the candlestick? I don't know... We'll have to wait and see...