Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[JaysonR]

I'll hopefully have some time tomorrow to address your questions, for which I do have answers.

 

[Brainache]

I'll hopefully have some time tomorrow to address your questions, for which I do have answers.

Thanks.

I hope I'm not being too much of a pest.

 

[Craig B]

So why do the scrolls describe the "Kittim" as arriving after the Greeks?

Because the Greeks arrived in the 4th century BCE under Alexander, and the Romans arrived under their eagle standards in the 1st century BCE. What on earth are you thinking of?

And these scrolls aren't just rebellious, they are Apocalyptic. All the "son of Man" and "Preparing a way in the Wilderness", isn't that 1st century CE?
And stuff like this:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm
A rule stating: "No Divorce"
Outrage against Princes who marry their Nieces.
And having a dispute with a Liar who is telling people the Laws of Moses "have no foundation"...

That's just one tiny section, but doesn't that say it was written during the Herodian period? I don't think Niece Marriage was a big issue before then.

The Hasmoneans got up to all kinds of shenanigans, and I'll look up their marriage practices. Here's a word on Alexander Jannaeus.

Alexander Jannaeus (Hasmonean king): King of Judea for 27 years (c. 103-76 BCE), husband of Salome Alexandra. He declared himself high priest, killing or exiling most the Pharisaic leaders, as they considered him halachically unfit for this office. During Sukkot, he publicly disparaged the Pharisaic traditions in the Temple courtyard, inciting the people to pelt him with their etrogim. This served as a pretext to wage a war against the Pharisees which cost approximately 50,000 Jewish lives.

http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/8804/jewish/Alexander-Jannaeus-Hasmonean-king.htm

 

[Craig B]

@Brainache

I've got a cousin marriage that even wrecked the last independent Judaean dynasty. Will that do?

Mariamne was the daughter of the Hasmonean Alexandros, and thus one of the last heirs to the Hasmonean dynasty of Judea. Mariamne's only sibling was Aristobulus III of Judea. Her father, Alexander of Judaea, the son of Aristobulus II, married his cousin Alexandra, daughter of his uncle Hyrcanus II, in order to cement the line of inheritance from Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, but the inheritance soon continued the blood feud of previous generations, and eventually led to the downfall of the Hasmonean line.

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

 

[Brainache]

@Brainache

I've got a cousin marriage that even wrecked the last independent Judaean dynasty. Will that do?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariamne_I

Ok.

In the interests of fairness I am more than willing to concede that there is ambiguity about these things.

Do you agree that at this moment we (you and I) can't really say if they are first century BCE, or CE, with any certainty?

 

[Craig B]

Ok.

In the interests of fairness I am more than willing to concede that there is ambiguity about these things.

Do you agree that at this moment we (you and I) can't really say if they are first century BCE, or CE, with any certainty?

Not with certainty, but I see no good reason to accept Eisenman.

 

[Brainache]

Not with certainty, but I see no good reason to accept Eisenman.

OK. Thanks.

 

[JaysonR]

OK, I ended up with a little bit of time tonight.

Craig sufficiently provided the essence of the answers that I was going to provide, so I no longer need to address those portions.

In answer to Atwill and Braunheim is that I wasn't citing them as a basis of a position, but instead highlighting what you also recognize; that C14 based stances are practically useless in offering much.
I was pointing out that even when it has been attempted to push the C14 in favor of 1st c CE dating, the work provided ends up hurting the proposition just as much as it aids it; in both directions this occurs, actually.


Now, back to the internal dating and contextual placement.
As Craig highlighted, there is equally applicable content in the 1st c BCE as there is in the 1st c CE.

Yet, I can actually present an argument to suggest that a 1st c BCE contextual placement is more behaviorally compatible than a 1st c CE dating.

Brainache, you mentioned the notation of the Kittim.
Firstly, Kittim is also mentioned in Ezekiel and Daniel; it was a settlement around Cyprus.
There are others who think it refers to "invaders" generally, rather than any specific group in and of itself.

Now, let's just take the axiom that Kittim refers to Romans.
It is more of cultural behavior to tend to mark down the first time a radically impressive people are witnessed, and typically, when two peoples first meet the details are expressed which each uses to define the other. That is, properties which stand out as different from "your" culture are the things in which "you" will tend to write down as remarkable.

The details of the Kittim are rather full of details about the basic customs and serve as a pretty decent manner of how to identify these peoples.
This is why many feel fairly confident in stating that the reference is towards the Romans; because the entry is so filled with details which aid in identifying the peoples.

If this is identifying the Romans due to an introduction and shock of culture and custom, then the 1st c BCE dating would make more sense, as by the 1st c CE the Hebrew culture well knew the Roman culture.
Meanwhile, in the 1st c BCE range, the Romans were very new and would have served quite an interesting upset of taboo and difference worth detailed remark.

In this consideration, I could therefore argue that 1st c BCE is more plausible and internally supported.

 

[Craig B]

... It is more of cultural behavior to tend to mark down the first time a radically impressive people are witnessed ... If this is identifying the Romans due to an introduction and shock of culture and custom, then the 1st c BCE dating would make more sense, as by the 1st c CE the Hebrew culture well knew the Roman culture.
Meanwhile, in the 1st c BCE range, the Romans were very new and would have served quite an interesting upset of taboo and difference worth detailed remark.

In this consideration, I could therefore argue that 1st c BCE is more plausible and internally supported.

I think that's right. By 70 CE people hardly needed to be told about these details of Roman culture.

 

[Brainache]

...

Now, let's just take the axiom that Kittim refers to Romans.
It is more of cultural behavior to tend to mark down the first time a radically impressive people are witnessed, and typically, when two peoples first meet the details are expressed which each uses to define the other. That is, properties which stand out as different from "your" culture are the things in which "you" will tend to write down as remarkable.

The details of the Kittim are rather full of details about the basic customs and serve as a pretty decent manner of how to identify these peoples.
This is why many feel fairly confident in stating that the reference is towards the Romans; because the entry is so filled with details which aid in identifying the peoples.

If this is identifying the Romans due to an introduction and shock of culture and custom, then the 1st c BCE dating would make more sense, as by the 1st c CE the Hebrew culture well knew the Roman culture.
Meanwhile, in the 1st c BCE range, the Romans were very new and would have served quite an interesting upset of taboo and difference worth detailed remark.

In this consideration, I could therefore argue that 1st c BCE is more plausible and internally supported.

But we are talking about "Pesharim" aren't we?

Is this bloke wrong?:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q266-273_CD_damascus-document.html

"The documents called 4QpPsa (4Q171) and 1QpHab are examples of a genre of which a number of instances were found in the caves. Each is a pesher (plural, pesharim), that is, a commentary on a book of the Old Testament, claiming that its wording predicts events in the life of the Teacher and his opponents. Significantly, only one copy of each pesher was found in the caves, whereas multiple copies of other documents were found. The pesharim are an ephemeral genre of literature, referring to events in the author's own immediate circumstances, with the claim that they fulfilled prophecies. Once events changed, and the prophecies were seen to fit subsequent events better, the earlier document would be regarded as invalid. This would mean that no copies were made, each of the pesharim being an original.

4Q171 is a pesher on some Psalms. At the time it was composed, the Teacher of Righteousness was still alive, and under threat from his opponents. The pesharist, his supporter, turned to Psalm 37 and found there the teaching that even though the righteous person may suffer now, he will soon be vindicated and his enemies punished. He applied this, using his technique of turning universals into particulars, to the Teacher, who, he said, would soon be vindicated, while the opponents would be destroyed.

The principles of hypothetical document C apply to this work, the Teacher being person X. He was still alive at the time it was recorded, and the document we have, being a pesher, is an original, not a copy. These exceptional circumstances mean that the earlier date of the 14C range (Table 1) for the manufacture of the writing material gives us a probable date after which the Teacher was alive.

...

I get the impression that these Pesharim weren't copied and handed down for generations, like the scripture they were based on.

 

[Craig B]

But we are talking about "Pesharim" aren't we?

I get the impression that these Pesharim weren't copied and handed down for generations, like the scripture they were based on.

Then they were penned in the 1st century BCE.

 

[pakeha]

Interest peaked.

I'm not an expert on the Damascus Document, so it'll take some time for me to go over this, but I'll get back with what I think on the matter.

Also, Aramaism is the right technical term to refer to the cultural Aramaic idioms.

I won't cite all the most interesting posts of yours which have made this thread a unique learning experience, but content myself with a heartfelt thank you and a pledge of assistance, translation tour/gastronomic guide if you or yours are ever in the area.

 

[Brainache]

I won't cite all the most interesting posts of yours which have made this thread a unique learning experience, but content myself with a heartfelt thank you and a pledge of assistance, translation tour/gastronomic guide if you or yours are ever in the area.

I agree Jayson.

This thread of mine would likely have died a while ago and the crazier ideas gone unchallenged if not for you.

Thanks.

 

[Brainache]

Just reading over a translation of the Damascus Document (I left my Aramaic specs in my other suit), I saw this:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

Of the righteous remnant (iii, 12-iv, 6)

Howbeit, with the rest of them-that is, with those that held fast to His commandments-God ever made good His everlasting Covenant with Israel, revealing to them the hidden things concerning which Israel in general had gone astray-even His holy sabbaths and His glorious festivals, His righteous ordinances, the ways of His truth and the purposes of His will, 'the which, if a man do, he shall live' [Lev. 18.5]. He opened for them a well with water abounding,14 which they might dig. But them that spurned those waters He did not permit to live. And though they kept sullying themselves with human transgression and with filthy ways, and kept saying, "Tis our own concern', yet did God with His mysterious power shrive their iniquity and forgive their transgression and build for them in Israel a firmly established House the like of which has not existed from ancient times until this day.

...

Re the bold: Isn't that a reference to Herod's Temple?

 

[Craig B]

Just reading over a translation of the Damascus Document (I left my Aramaic specs in my other suit), I saw this:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm


Re the bold: Isn't that a reference to Herod's Temple?

I can't see why. Herod's work, begun in 20 BCE, was merely a reconstruction and improvement of the existing Second Temple. This had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanius in 167 BCE and by Pompey a century later, but subsequently purified and rededicated. Prior to Herod's reconstruction it was in existence and in use.

 

[Brainache]

I can't see why. Herod's work, begun in 20 BCE, was merely a reconstruction and improvement of the existing Second Temple. This had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanius in 167 BCE and by Pompey a century later, but subsequently purified and rededicated. Prior to Herod's reconstruction it was in existence and in use.

Yes, but Herod's Temple was more than just an annexe to the existing one:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-15/chapter-11.html

1. AND now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign, and after the acts already mentioned, undertook a very great work, that is, to build of himself the temple of God, and make it larger in compass, and to raise it to a most magnificent altitude, as esteeming it to be the most glorious of all his actions, as it really was, to bring it to perfection; and that this would be sufficient for an everlasting memorial of him; but as he knew the multitude were not ready nor willing to assist him in so vast a design, he thought to prepare them first by making a speech to them, and then set about the work itself; so he called them together, and spake thus to them: "I think I need not speak to you, my countrymen, about such other works as I have done since I came to the kingdom, although I may say they have been performed in such a manner as to bring more security to you than glory to myself; for I have neither been negligent in the most difficult times about what tended to ease your necessities, nor have the buildings. I have made been so proper to preserve me as yourselves from injuries; and I imagine that, with God's assistance, I have advanced the nation of the Jews to a degree of happiness which they never had before; and for the particular edifices belonging to your own country, and your own cities, as also to those cities that we have lately acquired, which we have erected and greatly adorned, and thereby augmented the dignity of your nation, it seems to me a needless task to enumerate them to you, since you well know them yourselves; but as to that undertaking which I have a mind to set about at present, and which will be a work of the greatest piety and excellence that can possibly be undertaken by us, I will now declare it to you. Our fathers, indeed, when they were returned from Babylon, built this temple to God Almighty, yet does it want sixty cubits of its largeness in altitude; for so much did that first temple which Solomon built exceed this temple; nor let any one condemn our fathers for their negligence or want of piety herein, for it was not their fault that the temple was no higher; for they were Cyrus, and Darius the son of Hystaspes, who determined the measures for its rebuilding; and it hath been by reason of the subjection of those fathers of ours to them and to their posterity, and after them to the Macedonians, that they had not the opportunity to follow the original model of this pious edifice, nor could raise it to its ancient altitude; but since I am now, by God's will, your governor, and I have had peace a long time, and have gained great riches and large revenues, and, what is the principal filing of all, I am at amity with and well regarded by the Romans, who, if I may so say, are the rulers of the whole world, I will do my endeavor to correct that imperfection, which hath arisen from the necessity of our affairs, and the slavery we have been under formerly, and to make a thankful return, after the most pious manner, to God, for what blessings I have received from him, by giving me this kingdom, and that by rendering his temple as complete as I am able."...

...But while they were in this disposition, the king encouraged them, and told them he would not pull down their temple till all things were gotten ready for building it up entirely again. And as he promised them this beforehand, so he did not break his word with them, but got ready a thousand waggons, that were to bring stones for the building, and chose out ten thousand of the most skillful workmen, and bought a thousand sacerdotal garments for as many of the priests, and had some of them taught the arts of stone- cutters, and others of carpenters, and then began to build; but this not till every thing was well prepared for the work.

3. So Herod took away the old foundations, and laid others, and erected the temple upon them, being in length a hundred cubits, and in height twenty additional cubits, which [twenty], upon the sinking of their foundations fell down; and this part it was that we resolved to raise again in the days of Nero. Now the temple was built of stones that were white and strong, and each of their length was twenty-five cubits, their height was eight, and their breadth about twelve; and the whole structure, as also the structure of the royal cloister, was on each side much lower, but the middle was much higher, till they were visible to those that dwelt in the country for a great many furlongs, but chiefly to such as lived over against them, and those that approached to them.

Just like the good old days before Babylon...

ETA: Herod leveled the top of the Temple Mount and totally rebuilt a Temple many times bigger than the previous one. All this in spite of being universally despised by the population for being a murderous bastard and not really Jewish.

I think they would have been OK with his murderous bastardry if he had been properly Jewish.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, but Herod's Temple was more than just an annexe to the existing one.

I didn't say it was an "annexe". I wrote "reconstruction and improvement" and that is what Josephus says too in your quoted passage: "larger in compass ... more magnificent altitude ... bring it to perfection".

 

[Brainache]

I didn't say it was an "annexe". I wrote "reconstruction and improvement" and that is what Josephus says too in your quoted passage: "larger in compass ... more magnificent altitude ... bring it to perfection".

It also meets the description of: " a firmly established House the like of which has not existed from ancient times until this day", and because it was built inspite of the fact that the Herodians: "kept sullying themselves with human transgression and with filthy ways, and kept saying, "Tis our own concern',", as in the Damascus Document.

Also did you note who was responsible for the paltry size of the Temple you are talking about?

...Our fathers, indeed, when they were returned from Babylon, built this temple to God Almighty, yet does it want sixty cubits of its largeness in altitude; for so much did that first temple which Solomon built exceed this temple; nor let any one condemn our fathers for their negligence or want of piety herein, for it was not their fault that the temple was no higher; for they were Cyrus, and Darius the son of Hystaspes, who determined the measures for its rebuilding; and it hath been by reason of the subjection of those fathers of ours to them and to their posterity, and after them to the Macedonians, that they had not the opportunity to follow the original model of this pious edifice, nor could raise it to its ancient altitude;...

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-15/chapter-11.html

The old temple couldn't really be described as: " a firmly established House the like of which has not existed from ancient times until this day." It was smaller than Solomon's original one.

I think you are fighting a losing battle with this Craig.

 

[Craig B]

It also meets the description of: " a firmly established House the like of which has not existed from ancient times until this day", and because it was built inspite of the fact that the Herodians: "kept sullying themselves with human transgression and with filthy ways, and kept saying, "Tis our own concern',", as in the Damascus Document.

Also did you note who was responsible for the paltry size of the Temple you are talking about?


http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-15/chapter-11.html

The old temple couldn't really be described as: " a firmly established House the like of which has not existed from ancient times until this day." It was smaller than Solomon's original one.

I think you are fighting a losing battle with this Craig.

Even if so, which I doubt, it was started in the 1st century BC. The Eisenman chronology has nothing going for it.

 

[Brainache]

Even if so, which I doubt, it was started in the 1st century BC. The Eisenman chronology has nothing going for it.

OK.

I disagree. I think it makes a great deal of sense.