Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

...
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.

Is that what we see in Early Christian writing when they talk about "The Seventy" Apostles, or Evangelists, or whatever they were?

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.

...

Is that why Eisenman keeps talking about the "Tent of David"?

 

[JaysonR]

Is that what we see in Early Christian writing when they talk about "The Seventy" Apostles, or Evangelists, or whatever they were?

Most likely, yes.
70 is ayin, an eye, representing the concept of knowing and obeying (not separately, but obeying because one knows).
Ayin also can, inferred, represent divine wisdom or divine light by having one's eye opened.

Is that why Eisenman keeps talking about the "Tent of David"?

Probably; though usually that phrase is called the "House of David", which would be written the same way.
"Tent" is a bit pedantically literal.

 

[Brainache]

...
Probably; though usually that phrase is called the "House of David", which would be written the same way.
"Tent" is a bit pedantically literal.

I think he relates it to recurrent references to the "Camps In The Wilderness" in the DSS.

 

[JaysonR]

Why does he need to do that?

 

[Brainache]

Why does he need to do that?

I don't know that he needs to. I think This guy said it best:
http://www.roberteisenman.com/ntc_review.htm

... Those who found James the Brother of Jesus too long, too redundant, too circuitous, will only find those sins magnified here. One almost feels Eisenman, like an apocalyptic scribe, wants to make his readers prove their mettle by working for the pay-off. Reading the book, despite its very fascinating revelations, must frankly be called an ordeal. One is inevitably put in mind of one's adolescent determination to embark on reading the Bible straight through, only to get bogged down in Numbers or Deuteronomy. But you are just going to have to soldier on. It is worth the time. Whether Eisenman is correct in his apparent conviction that it is necessary to cover every relevant document, surveying all possible cross references, and doing it again every time he comes to the same item in the next document, I cannot say...

If there is even the slightest chance something is remotely related, Eisenman talks about it.

A lot.

 

[Craig B]

Most likely, yes.
70 is ayin, an eye, representing the concept of knowing and obeying (not separately, but obeying because one knows).
Ayin also can, inferred, represent divine wisdom or divine light by having one's eye opened.

I think that's highly improbable. The ancient Jews thought of themselves as "twelve" because of the Twelve Tribes of their tradition. They thought that there were seventy (or seventy two) other nations.

This is the only mention of the group in the Bible. The number is seventy in manuscripts in the Alexandrian (such as Codex Sinaiticus) and Caesarean text traditions but seventy-two in most other Alexandrian and Western texts. It may derive from the 70 nations of Genesis or the many other 70 in the Bible, or the 72 translators of the Septuagint from the Letter of Aristeas. In translating the Vulgate, Jerome selected the reading of seventy-two.

Wiki. Thus, the Greek translation of the scriptures is even called the "Septuagint" i.e. Seventy. So when Jesus is preaching to Jews he has twelve, and when preaching to "the nations" he has seventy, followers or apostles. Jayson, your understanding of this looks like pure numerological woo to me.

 

[JaysonR]

I'm not guaranteeing that reading (I haven't actually given it a solid textual analysis for contextual verification), I was more pointing out to not get set on numbers in Hebrew texts as literal values as they have symbolic value.

For instance, 40 days isn't literally 40 days; 40 represents a time of testing from which one is to complete and arise from in grace and renewal (ergo its use all over the place in that context in many texts).

So I'm not guaranteeing that specific entry is symbolic rather than literal, but it could be rather symbolic easily as much of Hebrew uses numbers for symbolic value rather than literal values; and I'm not referring to numerology values that came later in Hebrew traditions - that's a whole different bag of traditions.

Equally, it could be both.
It could be that 70 disciples was selected because of the symbolic value represented in the number; this too wasn't an odd choice in custom.

 

[Brainache]

...
Are you talking about Epaphroditus?

...
No.

Since I've discovered Eisenman's blog, I realise I could have saved myself a lot of time and effort.

One guy I never did get around to talking about much was this Epaphroditus chap. Lucky for me, I don't have to, here's Eisenman:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/pauls-comradeinarms-epaph_b_3862879.html

...
In the midst of the war in Judea, Nero is assassinated. Among those accused of having a hand in this would appear to be our Epaphroditus, Paul's associate and the focus of our discussion, whom he calls in Philippians 2:25: his "brother, co-worker, and fellow soldier", his (not "Jesus"') "Apostle" - a man (Josephus tells us in his dedication to The Antiquities), who "participated in many important events". Though some might object to this tripartite identification, not only do Suetonius and others affirm that Epaphroditus was Nero's secretary - which would make Paul's intimations in Philippians 4:18 about "Saints in the household of Caesar" (which is just where Paul says he is sending him) all the more accurate - but this same "Epaphroditus" re-emerges, survivor that he seems to have been, in the early 80's as Domitian (81-96 CE)'s secretary as well.

Not long before Domitian, too, was assassinated in 96 CE, Epaphroditus (it is hard to separate the two, since he is working in the same capacity for both Emperors and being "Secretary for Greek Letters" gave him no mean writing skill) appears to have run afoul of him too - purportedly over his behaviour at the time of Nero's assassination which Domitian seems to have used as a pretext to execute him, complaining that he (Epaphroditus) had dared to raise his hand against an Emperor! This is most peculiar, indeed, coming from a man like Domitian and there would appear to be more behind these events than appears on the surface.
...

ETA: CraigB, that article is probably what you had in mind when you said I should write this summary up properly. It's a fairly long and involved piece, for a blog, but it's easier than trying to read one of his books...

 

[Brainache]

...
Josephus pictures Tigranes as spending a great deal of time as a hostage in Rome, so much so that it becomes a second home for him. Same for other Herodians; Agrippa II, Aristobulus and Salome, whose faces appear on coins calling themselves "Great Lovers Of Caesar", and Julius Archelaus. Eisenman argues that these people constituted a circle of rich, sophisticated, Greek-speaking, pro-Roman intellectuals with a lot of time on their hands...

He argues that these people may have been responsible "for much of the material that ended up being incorporated - along with a good deal of Alexandrian Greco-Roman 'anti-semitism' - in what we now call 'The Gospels'".

Make of that what you will.

...

This is from page 1 of the thread. I just thought I should give Eisenman's blog version of this:

Author's note: Much of what follows is excerpted from pp. 788-801 of my James the Brother of Jesus (Viking/Faber&Faber/Penguin, 1997-98); but it has been 'borrowed' so much - sometimes even without attribution - that I felt it might be good to repeat the gist of it in more popular (though admittedly still complex) form here:
...

Nor is this to say anything about Agrippa II whom, Josephus tells us as well, gave him 99 letters later in Rome, where all were living comfortably (which helped him in writing The Antiquities, c. 93 CE - the latter anyhow providing a superior picture by adding several important details to The War, twenty years earlier); nor his whole family, including Bernice, by this time rumored to be her brother Agrippa's incestuous lover (as she certainly so appears in Acts), who later became Titus' mistress as well (which liaison caused him not a little harm in Rome - what a 'checkered career' this Bernice had), and participated in the deliberations to destroy the Temple .

To add to these, Acts 24:24 also pictures their second sister Drusilla, who had divorced another husband - who himself had circumcised himself and converted to Judaism at her more pious father Agrippa I's specific request - to marry Felix (whom, after Pontius Pilate, even Josephus acknowledges to have been Palestine's most brutal Governor - their son, Antonius Agrippa, Josephus also informs us, was even killed at Pompeii in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE), and, for that matter, even Paul. All, including Felix, are pictured in long, convivial conversations with Paul here at the end of Acts (Chapters 24-26 - probably about the longest in Acts).

These seem to have marketed their own version of Jewish "Messianism", which, at the very least, was presented as submissive and deferential to the power of Rome and its Emperors - this, not to mention marketing a healthy dose of Greco-Alexandrian, Hellenistic anti-Semitism. So this really does begin to give insight into the difficult question of who could have written the original accounts upon which so many of Gospel episodes - in whatever the Gospel - in the form we have them are based and which, however transformed, really do take a lot of 'special' knowledge to have created. This question, though puzzling scholars for generations, in the light of what we have only briefly sketched out above may not be as difficult to gain a modicum of insight into as many may think.
...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/pauls-comradeinarms-epaph_b_3862879.html

I would laugh if he wrote that blog piece because of this thread. ETA: Not likely, since he wrote it in April, you moron!

(Did I just breach the MA by insulting myself?)

My brain hurts.

 

[pakeha]

Well yes, I was mostly thinking of this bit:

(equivocal Carbon dating results no longer even being relevant)

That's interesting, Brainache.
Do you really think Price, a theologian and self-confessed bible geek, is someone who can authoritatively assess any given carbon-dating?

Paleography is pretty useless when there are no contemporary manuscripts with which to compare it, the estimates can be way off.

And the margin of error for carbon dating is greater than the time-span that the site was occupied, so again, not very useful.

The internal information is the only way to reliably date these things.

I could be wrong.

I need coffee.

I agree about needing coffee, at least, me!
I had the impression part of the internal evidence which lead many scholars to that earlier dating of the DD is precisely the lack of Aramaisms in the text, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Brainache]

That's interesting, Brainache.
Do you really think Price, a theologian and self-confessed bible geek, is someone who can authoritatively assess any given carbon-dating?

I do think he is qualified to give an authoritative opinion on internal dating though. That is the method Eisenman uses.

I agree about needing coffee, at least, me!
I had the impression part of the internal evidence which lead many scholars to that earlier dating of the DD is precisely the lack of Aramaisms in the text, correct me if I'm wrong.

I hadn't heard that.

If you believe these guys, it was a catholic Conspiracy almost like Dan Brown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_Deception

The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception (1991, ISBN 0-671-73454-7) is a book of non-fiction by authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. Rejecting the established, peer-reviewed consensus that the Dead Sea scrolls were the work of a marginal Jewish apocalyptic movement, and following primarily the thesis of Robert Eisenman, the authors argued that the Scrolls were the work of Jewish zealots who had much in common with, and may have been identical to, the early followers of Jesus led by his brother James the Just. This provides a different version of the history of early Christianity and challenges the divinity of Jesus, shakes the fundamental aspects of modern day Christianity.[citation needed]

Leigh and Baigent describe how the scrolls were kept under wraps for decades by a team dominated by Catholic scholars under the leadership of a Dominican friar, Roland de Vaux. They contend that the preconceptions of de Vaux and other members of the team led them to ignore evidence of the probable 1st-century provenance of many of the scrolls, and instead, to consign these scrolls safely to the distant past...

Read it if you dare, but beware the Priory-of the-Illuminati-Mason-Jesuit-Zionists might come and get you.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

 

[pakeha]

I do think he is qualified to give an authoritative opinion on internal dating though. That is the method Eisenman uses.

Why?
I'm curious about all this because if, as Eisenman claims, there's good reason to date the DD to the first century CE, then I daresay it will affect the way scholars view the religious currents of that time.

Remember when people thought the Exodus from Egypt was an historical?
Archeology and yes, carbon dating, have pretty well put paid to that notion.
We have hard science to thank for that, not analysis of religious texts.

It's why I'm reluctant to put aside the carbon dating in this case. Have you ever read Shroudies defending the authenticity of the TS, in spite of carbon dating evidence o the contrary?

I confess I'm reminded of that a bit here and will be til shown why the carbon dating is irelevant.

I hadn't heard that.

Yes. I can hunt out the links if you like.
Though I daresay JaysonR's input on the subject would be fascinating if he'd weigh in on that.

If you believe these guys, it was a catholic Conspiracy almost like Dan Brown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_Deception


Read it if you dare, but beware the Priory-of the-Illuminati-Mason-Jesuit-Zionists might come and get you.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

Never fear.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail was a book that fascinated me for one tiny detail that tied into a subject I was researching at the time.
Nothing to do with the premise of the book, I promise you.

I have colleagues who firmly believe in masonic conspiracies.
Fact.

 

[Craig B]

I do think he is qualified to give an authoritative opinion on internal dating though. That is the method Eisenman uses.

I hadn't heard that.

If you believe these guys, it was a catholic Conspiracy almost like Dan Brown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_Deception

Read it if you dare, but beware the Priory-of the-Illuminati-Mason-Jesuit-Zionists might come and get you.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

You're being naughty, because the very next words of your source are

The book was severely criticised by Hershel Shanks of Biblical Archaeology Review. Joseph Fitzmyer has described it as consisting largely of a "pattern of errors and misinformed statements".
The book makes a number of incorrect claims and has been ridiculed by scholars who have worked with the Dead Sea scrolls, and who have come to the conclusion that Jesus and early Christianity are very different from the ideas and people represented in the Dead Sea scrolls .

To which I say amen. Leigh and Baigent, by penning The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail demonstrated that they were either charlatans or lunatics.

 

[Brainache]

Why?

It's how they date most of the books of the NT. They don't have the originals, so carbon dating and paleography don't really enter in to it for them.

I'm curious about all this because if, as Eisenman claims, there's good reason to date the DD to the first century CE, then I daresay it will affect the way scholars view the religious currents of that time.

Indeed.

Remember when people thought the Exodus from Egypt was an historical?
Archeology and yes, carbon dating, have pretty well put paid to that notion.
We have hard science to thank for that, not analysis of religious texts.

I'm not that old!

It's why I'm reluctant to put aside the carbon dating in this case. Have you ever read Shroudies defending the authenticity of the TS, in spite of carbon dating evidence o the contrary

I confess I'm reminded of that a bit here and will be til shown why the carbon dating is irelevant.

Because the margin of error is greater than the life-span of the Community associated with the texts in question.

You can't date something precisely to 60 BCE when the error margin is plus or minus 80 years.

Yes. I can hunt out the links if you like.
Though I daresay JaysonR's input on the subject would be fascinating if he'd weigh in on that.

I'm not sure he is too concerned about dates.

Never fear.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail was a book that fascinated me for one tiny detail that tied into a subject I was researching at the time.
Nothing to do with the premise of the book, I promise you.

I have colleagues who firmly believe in masonic conspiracies.
Fact.

CT's hide in the strangest places.

 

[Brainache]

This is from page 1 of the thread. I just thought I should give Eisenman's blog version of this:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/pauls-comradeinarms-epaph_b_3862879.html

I would laugh if he wrote that blog piece because of this thread. ETA: Not likely, since he wrote it in April, you moron!

(Did I just breach the MA by insulting myself?)

My brain hurts.

That's september 4th you knucklehead. It's American. Duh!

 

[pakeha]

It's how they date most of the books of the NT. They don't have the originals, so carbon dating and paleography don't really enter in to it for them.

Quite.
That's why the DSS are so very important, isn't it.
Now, how have scholars dated the DSS?
Do you really think there's a conspiracy to mis-date the DD in particular?

I'm not that old!

So you say.

Because the margin of error is greater than the life-span of the Community associated with the texts in question.

You can't date something precisely to 60 BCE when the error margin is plus or minus 80 years.

Of course you're right.
Do you have any links to the write up of the ¹⁴C dating results?

I'm not sure he is too concerned about dates.

Possibly not, but yes, in textual analysis and I'm thinking he'd be interested in looking over the DD for Aramaisms. If there's a better word than Aramaisms, please let me know.

CT's hide in the strangest places.

Yes, very true!

 

[Brainache]

Quite.
That's why the DSS are so very important, isn't it.
Now, how have scholars dated the DSS?
Do you really think there's a conspiracy to mis-date the DD in particular?


So you say.

Of course you're right.
Do you have any links to the write up of the ¹⁴C dating results?


Possibly not, but yes, in textual analysis and I'm thinking he'd be interested in looking over the DD for Aramaisms. If there's a better word than Aramaisms, please let me know.

Yes, very true!

I don't know about "Conspiracy", so much as institutionalised self-censorship. The people doing the initial analysis were all bound by Catholic Dogma. This was the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's not a good time for transparency in the Catholic Church. Especially departments under the control of Ratzinger, like these guys were.

Consider the well poisoned.

CraigB linked to a carbon dating study once, but I didn't bookmark it. He might be able to help.

I'm not sure if it was the one done by Doudna, that you mentioned above.

I think you'd better ask Jayson about that dating question.

Eisenman dates it as 1st cent. CE. I'm with him so far.

 

[Craig B]

I don't know about "Conspiracy", so much as institutionalised self-censorship. The people doing the initial analysis were all bound by Catholic Dogma. This was the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's not a good time for transparency in the Catholic Church. Especially departments under the control of Ratzinger, like these guys were.

Consider the well poisoned.

CraigB linked to a carbon dating study once, but I didn't bookmark it. He might be able to help.

I'm not sure if it was the one done by Doudna, that you mentioned above.

I think you'd better ask Jayson about that dating question.

Eisenman dates it as 1st cent. CE. I'm with him so far.

Can't be stated on the basis of carbon dating. Of the Isaiah Scroll, the closest dates given are

The second test (#21) yielded a result (50 BCE-130 CE) that was deemed more satisfactory.

wiki. Which helps us not at all. Such methods can show that the scrolls are ancient and not medieval, and vice versa for the Turin Shroud. But they can't specify within a few decades.

 

[Brainache]

Can't be stated on the basis of carbon dating. Of the Isaiah Scroll, the closest dates given are wiki. Which helps us not at all. Such methods can show that the scrolls are ancient and not medieval, and vice versa for the Turin Shroud. But they can't specify within a few decades.

Thanks Craig.

 

[dejudge]

If you believe these guys, it was a catholic Conspiracy almost like Dan Brown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls_Deception


Read it if you dare, but beware the Priory-of the-Illuminati-Mason-Jesuit-Zionists might come and get you.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

How you know that? Did the Priory-of the-Illuminati-Mason-Jesuit-Zionists get to you?

Seems so.