Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[dejudge]

It is time to put to rest the baseless notion that Paul was a Herodian.

Paul in the Bible was an Israelite, a Hebrew of Hebrews, of the seed of Abraaham, of the tribe of Benjamin and a Pharisee circumcised on the eight day.

Romans 11:1 KJV

I say then , Hath God cast away his people? God forbid . For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Philippians 3:5 KJV

Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee

 

[Craig B]

It is time to put to rest the baseless notion that Paul was a Herodian.

Paul in the Bible was an Israelite, a Hebrew of Hebrews, of the seed of David, of the tribe of Benjamin and a Pharisee circumcised on the eight day.

Romans 11:1 KJV

Philippians 3:5 KJV

The Bible is not an unchallengeable source of perfect truth. In Acts 5, Judas of Galilee came after Theudas. In reality, long before, to take an example discussed recently.

Personally I have no time for the Herodian theory, however, I must admit.

 

[dejudge]

Personally I have no time for the Herodian theory, however, I must admit.

I have time to show that Paul the Herodian is baseless--based on imagination.

I have time to show that Paul was invented--a literary construct.

 

[Brainache]

His conclusion is based on more than that and has to do with analyzing other related comments by Paul (not things merely ascribed to him by a later fiction writer)

The Greek word translated as "persecute" means to pursue.
Paul does not say it where it could be taken as him pursuing specific individuals but rather the concept itself of the church which he admits to wanting to destroy.

So Wedderburn and Eisenman disagree. Hmm I could try to argue why I think he's wrong, but I'll just note that I realise this is looking at things differently to the traditional way.

I know there are Academics who disagree with Eisenman. I'm not going to sit here shouting about how if you don't agree with me you must be blind or something. I know most people don't agree.

But this "Paul was just a debater" doesn't fit with the rest of what I've read about this stuff.

And since I am posting on this thread, I could mention that Paul's giving out of the name "Herodion" in Romans 16:11 is done in a way that would indicate that he was referring to someone that he didn't know personally, but wanted that person to know of him.

Which isn't inconsistent with Eisenman's idea that Herodion was a young child of Aristobulus and Salome at the time.

The whole idea of the letter was to get financial backing for his proposed missionary trip into Spain, so he would appeal to certain people close to the Roman government who could be influential in his obtaining necessary authorization for entry into Roman occupied territory.
Historically there were servants to the Herodians who were transferred to the service of the Caesar on that person's death, who were proficient in the Greek language and so were useful to the imperial court.

He seems to already know these people and calls them kinsman (I know that can just mean fellow-Jew), so I don't think these people are strangers to him.

Are you talking about Epaphroditus?

 

[Brainache]

The Bible is not an unchallengeable source of perfect truth. In Acts 5, Judas of Galilee came after Theudas. In reality, long before, to take an example discussed recently.

Personally I have no time for the Herodian theory, however, I must admit.

They are also things I have mentioned and wrangled over with JaysonR earlier in the thread.

So I have no idea why dejudge would bring that up now.

 

[Brainache]

I wonder if someone can help me out here. This thread has had something like 1000 views since yesterday, I'm curious why almost no one is posting in here.

Is it because the idea is too far-fetched?

I can't imagine it's because I'm some kind of super debater who intimidates people with my massive brain, or that I'm so aggressive that people are scared or something.

Is it just too silly to bother, or are there Historians out there following along to see how an amateur like me deals with this info?

Maybe someone is taking notes and constructing the ultimate slap-down post.

Maybe people are just reading along for a bit of entertainment or to just pick up the little History nuggets I keep pooping into this thread.

Is it my jokes? The videos? The spectacle of someone trying not to be a Crackpot over a Crackpot idea?

Can someone give me a hint?

 

[Craig B]

I wonder if someone can help me out here. This thread has had something like 1000 views since yesterday, I'm curious why almost no one is posting in here.

Is it because the idea is too far-fetched?

You know my own view that it would be better if you did all this reading and analysing, and then set down the results clearly and succinctly. People might feel more inclined to comment on whatever you produced by that method. But perhaps they won't comment on your theory however you present it. I don't really know.

 

[Brainache]

You know my own view that it would be better if you did all this reading and analysing, and then set down the results clearly and succinctly. People might feel more inclined to comment on whatever you produced by that method. But perhaps they won't comment on your theory however you present it. I don't really know.

OK. Yeah. You might be right.

I like doing it this way because even if I'm totally wrong and there is absolutely no merit to these ideas, at least I made a thread here which has lots of interesting little snippets of History that maybe people might not have otherwise seen.

I think just laying out lots of different sources and things makes the whole effort less of a waste if it turns out wrong.

YMMV.

 

[Brainache]

The Man Of Apostasy.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians,

The Wicked Priest.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

Column 10 - "the city is Jerusalem"

And as for that which he said, "because of the blood of the city and the violence done to the land":

Interpreted, the city is Jerusalem where the Wicked Priest committed abominable deeds and defiled the Temple of God. The violence done to the land: these are the cities of Judah where he robbed the poor of their possessions.

It looks promising to me, but I suppose there was more than one famous Apostate in that place.

I know this isn't strictly about Paul as a Herodian, but I want to take a closer look at this. Because it seems to me that what we have here is the same story told about 100 years apart.

("the man of apostasy", "the Wicked Priest"), ("speaks strange things against the Most High","committed abominable deeds and defiled the Temple of God"), ("shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth", " The violence done to the land"), ("against us the Christians", "he robbed the poor of their possessions").

Now, I don't speak the language, but Eisenman says that where the DSS says "the poor" the word used is "Ebionim", which is where the word "Ebionite" comes from, meaning the early Jewish Christians.

I don't suppose there is anyone out there with the skills to compare these passages in the original language, is there?

I'm not pretending this is a slam dunk for the Qumran Community being the James Gang, but it looks to me that at some point Justin Martyr has heard the same story about the Righteous Teacher and the Wicked Priest and he says that it is about Jesus and his martyrdom.

It certainly doesn't contradict the idea that Qumran was somehow involved in early Jewish Christianity (if we can call it that).

 

[Ethnikos]

So Wedderburn and Eisenman disagree. Hmm I could try to argue why I think he's wrong, but I'll just note that I realize this is looking at things differently to the traditional way.

If by "traditional" you mean taking the Book of Acts as reliable history, then yes.

I know there are Academics who disagree with Eisenman. I'm not going to sit here shouting about how if you don't agree with me you must be blind or something. I know most people don't agree.

I think that there are probably a lot of academics who would state it more strongly than that.

But this "Paul was just a debater" doesn't fit with the rest of what I've read about this stuff.

Maybe because it saves a lot of work if you can just appeal to people with fundamentalist backgrounds who accept the accuracy of Acts unquestionably.

Which isn't inconsistent with Eisenman's idea that Herodion was a young child of Aristobulus and Salome at the time.

I think that is probably too far of a stretch to see those being the same person.
The person, Herodion, who Paul was referring to in Romans 16:11 would have been someone in the household of Aristobulus. It doesn't say that directly but if he wasn't connecting the two things; the household of Aristobulus, and Herodion, then it leaves him as some ambiguous identity who the people reading his letter would have had no clue as to his identity, other than the rather unambiguous modifier of 'kinsman', which could mean cousin or of the same nationality.
I'm looking at a commentary on Romans by Robert Jewett, which is well received book by the academics, and he goes with the idea that the name Herodion is an indication that the Aristobulus Paul brings up is in fact a Herodian.
Jewett goes on to suggest that this person, Herodion was a former servant to Aristobulus, who had formed a tenement church after the group had been assimilated into Claudius' bureaucracy.

He seems to already know these people and calls them kinsman (I know that can just mean fellow-Jew), so I don't think these people are strangers to him.

Paul would not have had the opportunity to meet personally this person since he would have been stuck in Rome all along, and Paul had never gone there yet at that point.

Are you talking about Epaphroditus?

No.

 

[Brainache]

If by "traditional" you mean taking the Book of Acts as reliable history, then yes.

Who takes the book of Acts as reliable History? I'm not doing that.

I think that there are probably a lot of academics who would state it more strongly than that.

No doubt. I'm not sure why this is relevant. I already know this.

Maybe because it saves a lot of work if you can just appeal to people with fundamentalist backgrounds who accept the accuracy of Acts unquestionably.

Who is doing that? Are you calling Eisenman a Fundamentalist?

LOL.

I think that is probably too far of a stretch to see those being the same person.
The person, Herodion, who Paul was referring to in Romans 16:11 would have been someone in the household of Aristobulus. It doesn't say that directly but if he wasn't connecting the two things; the household of Aristobulus, and Herodion, then it leaves him as some ambiguous identity who the people reading his letter would have had no clue as to his identity, other than the rather unambiguous modifier of 'kinsman', which could mean cousin or of the same nationality.

Did you know that Aristobulus and Salome had a young child called Herod with them in Rome at the time? Why do we have to invent someone we've never heard of?

I'm looking at a commentary on Romans by Robert Jewett, which is well received book by the academics, and he goes with the idea that the name Herodion is an indication that the Aristobulus Paul brings up is in fact a Herodian.

Thanks. That's interesting, don't you think?

Jewett goes on to suggest that this person, Herodion was a former servant to Aristobulus, who had formed a tenement church after the group had been assimilated into Claudius' bureaucracy.Paul would not have had the opportunity to meet personally this person since he would have been stuck in Rome all along, and Paul had never gone there yet at that point.

Well, OK. But I don't know how he knows that. It looks to me like he made that up to avoid concluding that Paul was saying hello to some relatives; which is also one possible interpretation.

No.

OK.

 

[Ethnikos]

Who takes the book of Acts as reliable History? I'm not doing that.

Ok, but what is it that you are suggesting then, by the use of the word, traditional?
From what I looked at so far on this thread concerning the book that you are discussing, it seems that he is operating under the assumption that Acts is reliable history.

No doubt. I'm not sure why this is relevant. I already know this.

I don't have a real point so much as just adding a comment to what you wrote, rather than just ignoring it.

Who is doing that? Are you calling Eisenman a Fundamentalist? LOL

No, I'm suggesting that it is very difficult to determine the real history of what was going on with Paul, and it seems an easy shortcut to just go with Acts, even if real academics are not going to accept it, there will still be the rank and file former fundamentalists who will, and buy the book.

Did you know that Aristobulus and Salome had a young child called Herod with them in Rome at the time? Why do we have to invent someone we've never heard of?

I don't see the connection.

Thanks. That's interesting, don't you think?

I do, for a couple reasons. That apparently identifies who this Aristobulus is, but it doesn't establish to me anyway, a connection to Paul that went both ways.
It could be a partial explanation as to why in Romans Paul seems to be trying to endear himself with the Jews (there being specific ones well placed in the government).

Well, OK. But I don't know how he knows that. It looks to me like he made that up to avoid concluding that Paul was saying hello to some relatives; which is also one possible interpretation.

Jewett cites the entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionary for "Herodion" written by Peter Lampe in 1992.

 

[dejudge]

Who takes the book of Acts as reliable History? I'm not doing that.

Your question is extremely strange. You have been presenting Eiseman's Paul the Herodian yet do not even remember it relies heavily on Acts as a source of history.

Examine an excerpt from your own post in references to Acts.

...Herod and his descendents were given Roman Citizenship in perpetuity for services rendered to Rome. So if Paul is a member of the family, that would explain it. Acts tells us that Paul was a Roman Citizen "from birth".

...From St. Paul himself we know that he was born at Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts 21:39), of a father who was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:26-28; cf. 16:37)...

According to Acts, Paul had a relative in Jerusalem who was able to put a word in for him with the Romans.

Historians rely on Acts of the Apostles for the biography of Paul.

 

[Brainache]

Ok, but what is it that you are suggesting then, by the use of the word, traditional?

Just that Eisenman's views are not mainstream and that he looks at these things differently than the way they have been traditionally viewed in the past.

From what I looked at so far on this thread concerning the book that you are discussing, it seems that he is operating under the assumption that Acts is reliable history.

Ah, sorry then I have given you a false impression. He states quite openly that Acts is an obvious work of theology, not history. He also argues that we can learn stuff from Acts by comparing it with other sources and tracing deviations and their implications etc. He is by no means just accepting anything at face-value.

I don't have a real point so much as just adding a comment to what you wrote, rather than just ignoring it.No, I'm suggesting that it is very difficult to determine the real history of what was going on with Paul, and it seems an easy shortcut to just go with Acts, even if real academics are not going to accept it, there will still be the rank and file former fundamentalists who will, and buy the book.

Not Eisenman they won't. I don't think too many Fundies want to think that Paul was in cahoots with Herod the Baby Crusher. That Paul actually deliberately distorted Jesus' message into the opposite of it's original intent.

It's not a hypothesis I can see attracting too many Fundies.

I don't see the connection.

You don't see a connection between Paul sending greetings to Aristobulus and Herodion in Rome and the two known people in Rome at that time called Aristobulus and Herodion?

OK.

I do, for a couple reasons. That apparently identifies who this Aristobulus is, but it doesn't establish to me anyway, a connection to Paul that went both ways. It could be a partial explanation as to why in Romans Paul seems to be trying to endear himself with the Jews (there being specific ones well placed in the government).

Maybe not. But it doesn't rule out any of the possibilities mentioned so far in the thread.

Jewett cites the entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionary for "Herodion" written by Peter Lampe in 1992.

OK. Thanks.

 

[Ethnikos]

*snip*
It's not a hypothesis I can see attracting too many Fundies.
*snip*

I meant former fundies, possibly ones looking for justification for tossing out Christianity altogether, rather than an alternative like tossing out a couple questionable books in the NT canon.

 

[Brainache]

I meant former fundies, possibly ones looking for justification for tossing out Christianity altogether, rather than an alternative like tossing out a couple questionable books in the NT canon.

Oh. OK. Yes it might attract people looking to attack the Church. But I don't think that is why Eisenman does it.

The hypothesis might have consequences like that, but that doesn't invalidate it.

I think a lot of the people you mention end up pushing the "jesus never existed" bandwagon. Not this one.

 

[dejudge]

Just that Eisenman's views are not mainstream and that he looks at these things differently than the way they have been traditionally viewed in the past.

Again, you make another strange statement. You seem to be constantly ridiculing others for non-mainstream views now all of a sudden you seem to have gone soft on Eiseman who is not mainstream and heavily relies on Acts for his Herodian called Paul.

You don't see a connection between Paul sending greetings to Aristobulus and Herodion in Rome and the two known people in Rome at that time called Aristobulus and Herodion?

Do you have any connection today to Aristobulus and Herodion in Rome because those names are found in your post?

There are several reason why it was claimed Paul sent greetings to Aristobulus and Herodion---one includes forgeries.

Is there any connection between Paul and Seneca? We have Paul/Seneca letters.

Strange enough Paul sent Greetings to Seneca too.

 

[pakeha]

...Acts is not an actual historical account. I realize that it was on-purpose written to read like a history but it is an example of an early form of historical fiction.
The point is that the "Paul" of Acts has almost nothing to do with the actual person, Paul.

Thanks, Ethnikos. I'd brought up this point earlier myself.

...And since I am posting on this thread, I could mention that Paul's giving out of the name "Herodion" in Romans 16:11 is done in a way that would indicate that he was referring to someone that he didn't know personally, but wanted that person to know of him.
The whole idea of the letter was to get financial backing for his proposed missionary trip into Spain, so he would appeal to certain people close to the Roman government who could be influential in his obtaining necessary authorization for entry into Roman occupied territory.
Historically there were servants to the Herodians who were transferred to the service of the Caesar on that person's death, who were proficient in the Greek language and so were useful to the imperial court.

...The person, Herodion, who Paul was referring to in Romans 16:11 would have been someone in the household of Aristobulus. It doesn't say that directly but if he wasn't connecting the two things; the household of Aristobulus, and Herodion, then it leaves him as some ambiguous identity who the people reading his letter would have had no clue as to his identity, other than the rather unambiguous modifier of 'kinsman', which could mean cousin or of the same nationality.
I'm looking at a commentary on Romans by Robert Jewett, which is well received book by the academics, and he goes with the idea that the name Herodion is an indication that the Aristobulus Paul brings up is in fact a Herodian.
Jewett goes on to suggest that this person, Herodion was a former servant to Aristobulus, who had formed a tenement church after the group had been assimilated into Claudius' bureaucracy.Paul would not have had the opportunity to meet personally this person since he would have been stuck in Rome all along, and Paul had never gone there yet at that point.No.

I'd more or less pointed this out earlier and I'm glad a more informed poster backs up my understanding about Paul's kinsman, Herodion.

 

[Brainache]

I'd more or less pointed this out earlier and I'm glad a more informed poster backs up my understanding about Paul's kinsman, Herodion.

I know that is the explanation that Apologists give for this question. I think it's because they assume that Paul could not be so familiar with a Herodian like Aristobulus. But if Eisenman's Hypothesis is correct, Paul would be on intimate terms with these people.

So really all I'm saying is that even if this doesn't confirm the hypothesis, it doesn't negate it either. No one knows exactly who Herodion was. If someone could show that he was a freedman somewhere or definitely someone's slave it would be different, but at the moment we don't know.

So I'm sticking to a definite maybe.

 

[pakeha]

I know that is the explanation that Apologists give for this question. ...

Interesting.
Little did I know, as I prepared my first coffee of the day, I'd come back to the thread and discover I'd become an apologist.

Or are you indulging in a little well-poisoning to spice up the thread?