Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

You are ignorant of the internal data. There is nothing to reliably date them.

If there were lots of internal data you would have shown them.

Show us some of the internal data?

You never ever will--never ever could.

You still here?

 

[dejudge]

You still here?

I am still waiting for the internal data. Where is it? Earlier you did refer to some as " dirty stinking liars" for Jesus.

They were dirty stinkin lying liars for Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

I am still waiting for the internal data. Where is it? Earlier you did refer to some as " dirty stinking liars" for Jesus.

No he didn't. As you just quoted yourself, he referred to

"dirty stinkin lying liars" for Jesus.

Your falsified "Chinese whispers" version is utterly unacceptable! Why are you circulating forgeries? Your every word written here is recorded, you know. We can't possibly tolerate wanton misrepresentation on this thread!!

Or whatever.

 

[Brainache]

No he didn't. As you just quoted yourself, he referred to Your falsified "Chinese whispers" version is utterly unacceptable! Why are you circulating forgeries? Your every word written here is recorded, you know. We can't possibly tolerate wanton misrepresentation on this thread!!

Or whatever.

Maybe we should just give up Craig.

He obviously has us out-gunned in the smarts department...


OK dejudge, you win.

Now what?

 

[dejudge]

No he didn't. As you just quoted yourself, he referred to Your falsified "Chinese whispers" version is utterly unacceptable! Why are you circulating forgeries? Your every word written here is recorded, you know. We can't possibly tolerate wanton misrepresentation on this thread!!

Or whatever.

You are not making much sense. People here are making claims about Jesus and the Pauline Corpus for which they never ever had any evidence.

It is Chinese Whispers to repeat un-evidence claims over and over to make it appear to be facts.

1. There is no evidence whatsoever to support any claim that any part of the Pauline Corpus was composed before gMark.

2. There is no evidence to support any other Jesus than what is written in the Bible and Apologetics. There is ONE Jesus--God Creator born of a Ghost and a Virgin. All others are falsehoods according to Origen.

Christians argued that there Jesus was DIVINE without a human father and EXCLUDED their Jesus from the genealogies of Jews.

 

[dejudge]

Maybe we should just give up Craig.

He obviously has us out-gunned in the smarts department...


OK dejudge, you win.

Now what?

Just stop talking and go and read your Bible. You don't anything about Jesus and Paul.

 

[Craig B]

You are not making much sense. People here are making claims about Jesus and the Pauline Corpus for which they never ever had any evidence.

It is Chinese Whispers to repeat un-evidence claims over and over to make it appear to be facts.

1. There is no evidence whatsoever to support any claim that any part of the Pauline Corpus was composed before gMark.

2. There is no evidence to support any other Jesus than what is written in the Bible and Apologetics. There is ONE Jesus--God Creator born of a Ghost and a Virgin. All others are falsehoods according to Origen.

Christians argued that there Jesus was DIVINE without a human father and EXCLUDED their Jesus from the genealogies of Jews.

dejudge, I know you are a person, but sometimes I have the impression that I am communicating with some kind of robot. You react the same way to everything, even to ridiculous pleasantries like my last post, and simply churn out exactly the same material no matter what.

 

[JaysonR]

OK, So Brainache.

Here's a breakdown of why I can't find too much interest in direct linking things in excited breath as Eisenman does, and instead, consider it more of backwash back and forth between regions that produces similarities in most cases rather naturally.

Here's a series of map images.
Blue = Judah
Culture: Hebrew, Masoretic, Davidic

Orange = Galilee/North
Culture: Everyone that used to be Israel, Hellenistic, Danielics, Revolutionaries against Judah, slight Samaritan influences


Purple = Antioch
Culture: Syrian, Seleucidic, Hellenistic

Green = Galatia
Culture: Celtic & Hittite

Red = West Coast of Asia Minor
Culture: There's no clear heritage to link to, but think of this area like the United States, a bit; a giant mixing pot - Alexandrian, Hittite, Celtic, "Persian", even Egyptian, but hugely filled with Zoroastrianism

Each circle is paired with a slightly larger circle of the same color.
The two represent local and extended tradition influences.
Not shown are third level cultural influence ranges (such as Judah's influence in producing the Greek Septuagint), as that would clutter the map too much.
Given enough time, many cultures spread thinly in some influence across massive areas even if they are not in the controlling position of rule.

For example, The Hittite empire greatly influenced philosophies of Law in Athens and Rome, as well as Judah, even after their downfall and despite not having reached ownership of Rome or Athens.

So, with that legend in mind, here are some maps

We would start out in Judah as our origin point:

Next is Galilee (the revolutionaries and Danielics):

Then we hit Antioch:

Then enters Galatia:

Then West Coast Asia Minor:

I'll leave this post as just the maps, and add commentary referring to these maps after.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge, I know you are a person, but sometimes I have the impression that I am communicating with some kind of robot. You react the same way to everything, even to ridiculous pleasantries like my last post, and simply churn out exactly the same material no matter what.

That is the exact impression I get of you. You obviously have nothing to say. You have zero evidence and is trying to divert attention from the fact you have none.

If you are not a robot then please show the evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed before gMark.

 

[Brainache]

That is the exact impression I get of you. You obviously have nothing to say. You have zero evidence and is trying to divert attention from the fact you have none.

If you are not a robot then please show the evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed before gMark.

I think they go by internal dating...

 

[Craig B]

That is the exact impression I get of you. You obviously have nothing to say. You have zero evidence and is trying to divert attention from the fact you have none.

If you are not a robot then please show the evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed before gMark.

I see. How do you know a well-programmed robot couldn't show that evidence?

 

[Brainache]

OK, So Brainache.

Here's a breakdown of why I can't find too much interest in direct linking things in excited breath as Eisenman does, and instead, consider it more of backwash back and forth between regions that produces similarities in most cases rather naturally.

...
Each circle is paired with a slightly larger circle of the same color.
The two represent local and extended tradition influences.
Not shown are third level cultural influence ranges (such as Judah's influence in producing the Greek Septuagint), as that would clutter the map too much.
Given enough time, many cultures spread thinly in some influence across massive areas even if they are not in the controlling position of rule.

For example, The Hittite empire greatly influenced philosophies of Law in Athens and Rome, as well as Judah, even after their downfall and despite not having reached ownership of Rome or Athens.

So, with that legend in mind, here are some maps

We would start out in Judah as our origin point:
...
I'll leave this post as just the maps, and add commentary referring to these maps after.

I saw a doco recently (I think I linked it in this thread), about some King of Commagene (?) who built a big Pantheon of all the gods as some kind of cosmopolitan ideal of "All gods are equal" or something.

Does this relate to what you are talking about? Because IIRC there was a kind of Syncretic tradition which had been blending theologies for millennia in that region.

Paul's Christianity was just the latest thing. Is that something like it?

ETA: Thanks for the long and thoughtful post. I'm probably going to have to think about it a bit more.

 

[JaysonR]

- This was to follow the maps as the commentary to go with the maps -
I'll wait until you read this post, Brainache, before responding to the one you posted just above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, where Eisenman sees some sort of Pauline mastermind project that links places like Asia Minor directly into Judah in rebel armies by relation of shared and sympathetic traditions, I see something entirely different.

I see Israel (which had a separate tradition than Judah) falling down and never coming back, while Judah continues on, but after being rebuilt, and Samaria never dying during all of this, but maintaining many very old Canaan (pre-Hebraic highland split) traditions - including El worship.

Israel refugees weren't (as heavily) kicked out in Babylonian exile, while Judah's citizens were.

Israel's refugees would become Galilee, but would also heavily infuse with Hellenism thanks to Alexander the Great's conquests.

This region didn't have its own Temple, so had to travel around Samaria to get to the one in Judah; meaning, the North didn't have a Torah on hand and relied on people making copies illegally (the Torah wasn't allowed out in the open and freely accessed).

This region was also more in contact with Samarian trade, peoples and customs.

This area begins an abrasive relationship with Judah within their own culture; a North vs South cultural war.

The Danielic apocalypse traditions really take off in this region.

With Antioch, we have the introduction of Syrian culture, but at first, Antioch sort of serves as a swinging bend for all other traveling traditions - a sort of momentum boosting nexus in both North and South directions; as long as some group in Antioch finds the incoming tradition fascinating.

Galatia adds very little, but its worth noting, as it logistically plays a role in the battles for who gets to influence who's religions and produces some effect in how traditions think of the idea regarding "ministry" or working with extended groups that rely on another region for information (further than Galilee to Judah).

As a result, Galatia's geography and want of interest in traditions from the South somewhat aids Antioch in growing as a central source of authority early on, as Judah is quite a bit more South, Galilee isn't organized enough, and both Galilee and Judah are beginning to spend too much time fighting among themselves in a cultural implosion.

West Coast Asia Minor (for short, Asia Minor) comes in and is really fascinating in introduction as they are already a religiously addicted region of peoples filled with intense theatrics and grand ceremonies in a multitude of styles.

They are also a people who have lost their independence, but had also been fighting culturally for an independence for a very long time.
For example of how this went, the Achaemenid empire's general policy on the Lycian region of Asia Minor was to not have any satrap (governor) at all and to instead attempt to "rule" by having Achaemenid sympathetic wealthy families reside in Lycian and attempt to influence political sways.
The reason for this is basically an attempt to avoid a complete unrest and breakout of warfare as Lycia was a very street-rough region filled with Lycian pride (think of Lycia as a bit like Asia Minor's Northern Ireland).

Also, this coast line was one of the Roman Empire's more challenging areas with early Christian defiance.

So an apocalyptic tone with a sound of authority and elitism is extremely well within this group's fascination, as well as their interest for violence, and their interest in writing things down and claiming it in the name of others as a distinct ownership of command and authority.


So the post-Israel Danielic tradition from the revolutionaries around Galilee with cultural tones of elitism, condemnation, ridicule, and prophecy of the downfall of the leading powers edging up to the already tumultuous coast line of Asia Minor is going to be like dropping napalm on an oil rig.



We don't need a direct link.
We already have cultural context.

 

[dejudge]

I think they go by internal dating...

There is no internal dating...

If there was internal dating you would have shown us.

 

[Brainache]

- This was to follow the maps as the commentary to go with the maps -
I'll wait until you read this post, Brainache, before responding to the one you posted just above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...

We don't need a direct link.
We already have cultural context.

Thanks again. I can see you put some work into this and I appreciate your efforts. I feel less ignorant than I did 20 minutes ago.

Having said that, does it rule out the idea that sometimes specific individuals or groups can be responsible for big shifts in the - I'm not sure what to call it, "Religious Zeitgeist" sounds too wanky - way people see these things?

There is no internal dating...

If there was internal dating you would have shown us.

Nobody has bothered to show you, because we all assumed it is the kind of thing you would have to be familiar with, to even have an opinion on the matter in the first place.

Why don't you already know this stuff?

 

[Brainache]

And Jayson: my next question was going to be about that "Menahem The Essene", that I mentioned a bit earlier in the thread. I think you mentioned him at the start, but I didn't know who you meant.

Anyway, I'll wait since you said you were writing a response to my earlier questions.

Cheers.

 

[JaysonR]

Thanks again. I can see you put some work into this and I appreciate your efforts. I feel less ignorant than I did 20 minutes ago.

Having said that, does it rule out the idea that sometimes specific individuals or groups can be responsible for big shifts in the - I'm not sure what to call it, "Religious Zeitgeist" sounds too wanky - way people see these things?

No, it doesn't rule it out.
It just makes it not really needed to explain the links.

In other words, Eisenman pointing out shared ideologies doesn't compel me of his case, as anthropology can explain the shared ideologies as well without needing the direct conspiracy connections Eisenman chases to stitch together.

I am more of the thinking that many of his links are retro-view-fallacy errors, an error where we see connections that weren't actually there because we're looking back over and fitting things together conveniently with ideas that weren't evident during the time.

For instance, Paulinism culture doesn't really have the force, in itself, to accomplish much of what Eisenman outlines unless we imagine this Paul character fellow to be some grand Caesar-like individual with extreme and wide reaching power.
Power that is so beyond what seems sensible that the only way we can make it plausible is by trying to link this fellow into other political parties, and then inflating those political parties beyond what is evidenced to us in their actual influential power of the time.

Herodians had power, don't get me wrong.
However, they didn't have enough power to almost entirely explain the tradition spread maps above.

So linking Paul's character to Herodians wouldn't actually help unless we inflate the Herodians, and then link all sorts of other things together in similar inflation; such as Eisenman's interest in unifying "ebionite" followings (something we know wasn't unified at all, nor is that term an actual identifier until a few hundred years after the 1st c CE) and then linking that over-simplification to James, inflating James' controlling power (in ways the Temple would have never permitted, or omitted mention of), adding in Essenes (another non-unified group of whom we know very little about; certainly not enough to make inferences being made by Eisenman), and then creating an entire political war that hasn't any overt evidence of ever having taken place.

This scale of conflict culturally would have massive ripping holes left in its wake; like the North/South Judean cultural war does, or the Achaemenid/Lycian conflict does.


Instead, we don't have that. Eisenman has to stitch a very tattered tapestry together out of patches from several tapestries to make the image of such.


On another note, I'm not too terribly pleased with Eisenman's treatment of things because it defaces and disrespects cultures of their own independent recognition in which they well deserve the right to in history.

People, in other words, are far more intelligent, creative, and accomplished in their own right than Eisenman's hypothesis permits.
Eisenman's hypothesis would disregard a few dozen (at least) cultures and only recognize about half a dozen individuals as being of worth to note, and would treat all other involved cultures spanning from Judea to Asia Minor and South West of Judea as being dimwitted sheep just 'following the leader'.

It wasn't this clean. It was a giant, giant, giant mess.
We're not even half way through understanding all of the early "christian" groups yet - we still have mountains of texts by early groups sitting awaiting restoration.
We actually have more than we have people and facility to process for at least another estimated fifty or so years.

 

[Brainache]

No, it doesn't rule it out.
It just makes it not really needed to explain the links.

In other words, Eisenman pointing out shared ideologies doesn't compel me of his case, as anthropology can explain the shared ideologies as well without needing the direct conspiracy connections Eisenman chases to stitch together.

...
It wasn't this clean. It was a giant, giant, giant mess.
We're not even half way through understanding all of the early "christian" groups yet - we still have mountains of texts by early groups sitting awaiting restoration.
We actually have more than we have people and facility to process for at least another estimated fifty or so years.

So, I take it he's off your Christmas card list?

I understand what you are saying. I'm not sure his idea is as black and white as you present it, but I respect your opinion.

I didn't realise that there were still so many texts waiting to be restored. That's amazing.

I'll try to be a bit less confident about this DSS stuff, but it will be difficult for me.

Do you think it's possible that "Menahem The Essene" was the "Menaen" who was "Brought up with Herod the Tetrarch" in Acts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menahem_the_Essene

Menahem the Essene[1] (Hebrew: מנחם‎, Menahem) was a Jewish Tanna sage living during the era of the Zugot. He was "Paired" ("Zugot", pairs) with Hillel the Elder and served as Av Beit Din. The Mishnah, Tractate "Hagigah" 16b, cites that he "went forth [out]", and as a result of that he was replaced by Shammai, that became from that point on the "Pair" mate of Hillel the Elder.
The Babylonian Talmud cites a dispute among the sages over where did Menahem "went forth [out]". Abaye argues that "He went forth [out] into evil courses [culture]" (Hagigah, 16b), while Rava argues "He went forth [out] to the King's [God's] service" (Hagigah, 16b). The Gemara cites a quotation from one of the Baraitas supporting Rava's opinion: "Thus it is also taught: Menahem went forth [out] to the King's [God's] service, and there went forth [out] with him eighty pairs of disciples dressed in silk [regally]" (Hagigah, 16b)...

Eighty pairs of Disciples? They could do a bit of word spreading, couldn't they?

Silk robes might be a bit flashy though...

ETA: Also from wiki:

...Many are of the opinion[weasel words] that the "Menahem" recorded in the Mishnah is the one recounted in Josephus' (Antiquities of the Jews, b. 19, Ch. 10:5), where a story is told about a 'Menahem' of the Essene's sect. According to Josephus, when Menahem saw young Herod the Great going to school he clapped him on the back and addressed him as king, announcing to him that he would reign successfully,[1] despite Herod not being in the line of the royal dynasty. When Herod became king, he asked Menahem how long his reign would be. Initially, Menahem didn't reply, and Herod urged him "Would my reign last ten years?". Menahem replied that Herod would reign at least 30 years, but did not specify the exact number. Herod was pleased with Menahem's answer and dismissed him with a clasp of the hand and thenceforth bestowed special honors upon the Essenes.[1]

I love the "weasel words" note there. I bet there is ten pages at least of arguments about this on their forum.

For a slightly longer version, there is the Jewish Encyclopedia:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10625-menahem-the-essene

 

[JaysonR]

So, I take it he's off your Christmas card list?

I understand what you are saying. I'm not sure his idea is as black and white as you present it, but I respect your opinion.

I don't hold a grudge against him, but he's being a bit rash and anthropologically careless.

It is not as black and white as a summary, no, but that's why it's a summary of what he's doing.
I'm just noting the essential points of what he's doing, and those essential points are problematic.

I didn't realise that there were still so many texts waiting to be restored. That's amazing.

Yeah, to get an angle on how much there is...take a look at this site:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

and this site:
http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/

And that's just the main titles (not each copy that we find) that are "known" (processed through restoration and verification).

Some titles have several copies scattered about in slight variations and fragments; some are only survived in one copy.

We'll get more as time moves forward and archaeological politics improve in the Levant region.

Do you think it's possible that "Menahem The Essene" was the "Menaen" who was "Brought up with Herod the Tetrarch" in Acts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menahem_the_Essene

Doubtful.

The Essene Menahem is dated to the Zugot era, which would be the other Herod (Herod I), and not Antipas.

I mean, Acts could have gotten their information wrong and crossed Menahem into Antipas, but even if they did, they would have been wrong.

Eighty pairs of Disciples? They could do a bit of word spreading, couldn't they?

Don't get hung up on the number being literal.
80 in Hebrew is written with the letter pey, and pey is the letter representing the mouth, expression, vocalization in Hebrew culture.

So it would be very easily possible for that to have meant that 'pairs of disciples for evangelizing'; not annotating any specific amount.

Oh, and also, Bet is the character representing pairs, and it's pretty valuable.
It's the first letter of the Torah, for instance, and it represents a dichotomic relationship between what is written and what is spoken; a perfect whole of two parts.

So even the "pair" may be figurative and just mean that his disciples were ordained holy writing and speaking.

Bah...I need to make sure to complete my thoughts.
I failed to mention the symbol for bet is a tent (originally), denoting a family's house; which is comprised of the Patriarch and Matriarch to be one whole.

Basically, the value of "pairs" in Hebrew culture is to symbolize wholeness and purity; rightness.

 

[JaysonR]

Alright, I'm going to give this one more go and see what happens.

You are not credible. You have a position on the dates for Pauline letters. You used the Pauline Corpus to place Paul and the teachings of Paul in the times of the supposed apostle James. Examine your own posts from 20th October to 17th November 2013.

Your timeline is the 1st century Roman Empire.

1.

I personally don't have a date.
Because I'm assisting Brainache, I accepted the dated axiom of the standard as that was the axiom of the thread.

Just as if someone wanted to talk about what Jesus might have been like, I would grant the axiom of Jesus existing.

So no, I don't personally have a date for these texts.
I leave it to the authorities on the matter as to what the dates are, unless the topic is brought up as to what the dates are.

That's not my dating.
If you have a date for Romans that is counter to the standard, then:
A) What is that date?
B) Why do you date it as that date?

If you have an interesting argument, then I'd be interested.
If all you have are more elitist insults without any actual indication of having any working knowledge of anthropology or history within the region and era in general, then that would be disappointing.

I can actually think of an argument that I could make to support your proposition of Romans being after Justin, but I'm interested in what you think.


BTW: I'm not a religious person. I'm an anthropology hobbyist interested in Levant region anthropology, and who spends their time reading anthropological texts such as Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, Vol 7), Biblical Peoples And Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, And Early Israel 1300-1100 B.C.E. (Archaeology and Biblical Studies), and the like.

The point is: I don't care if Jesus, Paul, or James were real.
I'm more interested in the cultural observance and values held regarding these stories, how they evolved over time, why they evolved into each specific form in which they did, where they did, and by whom was it valued.

The entire thing can be pure fiction and it would still hold heavy amounts of anthropological value.

So again:
What is your date for Romans and what causes you to date it as that date?