Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[dejudge]

So what? Now you believe in ghosts?

He talks about Jesus being born of a woman, being subject to law, having a brother, teaching about divorce, eating bread and drinking wine amongst other things.

Your argument makes no sense when you consider what else he says about Jesus.

Classic cherry picking.

Why are you talking about cherry picking when you have cherry-picked part of Galatians 4.4?

You keep forgetting that we can see exactly what you have done.

You conveniently omitted the part of Galatians 4.4 which state God SENT his Son.

Galatians 4:4 KJV-

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Your statement that Jesus became the Son of God after the resurrection is fundamentally false.

God SENT his SON to be crucified in the Pauline Corpus.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Romans 8:32 KJV

He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

 

[Brainache]

Why are you talking about cherry picking when you have cherry-picked part of Galatians 4.4?

You keep forgetting that we can see exactly what you have done.

You conveniently omitted the part of Galatians 4.4 which state God SENT his Son.

Galatians 4:4 KJV-

Your statement that Jesus became the Son of God after the resurrection is fundamentally false.

God SENT his SON to be crucified in the Pauline Corpus.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

Romans 8:32 KJV

So, in what sense does Paul's Theology make you think he wasn't saying these things about an actual man called Jesus?

Do you think that because Paul said it, it must be true?

Do you think that he couldn't have said those things about a Preacher called Jesus?

Your argument makes no sense. Paul could have said that Jesus liked to tap-dance, it wouldn't mean that Jesus actually tap-danced.

His audience have had other people telling them about Jesus too, Paul is not the only one telling Jesus stories.

 

[dejudge]

So, in what sense does Paul's Theology make you think he wasn't saying these things about an actual man called Jesus?

Do you think that because Paul said it, it must be true?

Do you think that he couldn't have said those things about a Preacher called Jesus?

Your argument makes no sense. Paul could have said that Jesus liked to tap-dance, it wouldn't mean that Jesus actually tap-danced.

His audience have had other people telling them about Jesus too, Paul is not the only one telling Jesus stories.

Again, you need to get familiar with Apologetic writers of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus. It is that simple.

Your absurd notion that the Pauline Corpus was known heresy and contrary to the very Church is just the most logically flawed argument.


1. See John Chrysostom's Commentary on the Pauline Corpus.

2. See writings attributed to Tertullian.

3. See writings attributed to Irenaeus.

4. See writings attributed to Origen.

5. See writings attributed to Eusebius.

6. See writings attributed to Augustine of Hippo.

7. See writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria.

8. See writings attributed to Lactantius.

9. See writings attributed to Jerome.

10. See writings attributed to Hippolytus.

 

[Brainache]

Again, you need to get familiar with Apologetic writers of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus. It is that simple.

Your absurd notion that the Pauline Corpus was known heresy and contrary to the very Church is just the most logically flawed argument.

What are you raving about now? The fact that Jesus and James were in conflict? You dispute this by referring to the writings of apologists?

Why don't you actually read what Paul and James say and think for yourself about what each of them is saying?

Why would you accept the propaganda of third and fourth century apologists? Why do you just accept what they say at face value?

1. See John Chrysostom's Commentary on the Pauline Corpus.

2. See writings attributed to Tertullian.

3. See writings attributed to Irenaeus.

4. See writings attributed to Origen.

5. See writings attributed to Eusebius.

6. See writings attributed to Augustine of Hippo.

7. See writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria.

8. See writings attributed to Lactantius.

9. See writings attributed to Jerome.

10. See writings attributed to Hippolytus.

What about them? Why would they say anything against Paul? They believed Paul's version of events and wrote James out of the book.

James was all about obeying the Laws of Moses and getting circumcised etc, Paul was against that.

This is all pretty bog standard, I don't know why you bother.

Here, have a look at some of the other stuff that didn't make it into the Bible:


The Gnostic Gospels: BBC Documentary

 

[proudfootz]

It is assumed for the purpose of discussion in this thread that Paul existed and that he wrote the letters ascribed to him.

Someone coming in disrupting the conversation with idiotic claims that "It was all faked in the 2nd century" are useless for this discussion.

Fair enough.

He is the only person in the world who thinks Paul and everything else was invented by Hoaxers in the 2nd to 4th centuries. It makes no sense and is totally counter-productive for the subject under discussion.

I don't know that dejudge is the only person in the world that holds this view.

The subject of the thread is "Paul The Herodian", not "Did Paul Exist?". If he wants to discuss that, he can start his own thread full of Scholarly opinions...

Thanks!

 

[proudfootz]

I think most Historians would be aware of this.

The bible has lots of "Sons Of God" in the old testament, this isn't anything new.

It's the Apologists who think the title has some special significance when applied to Jesus.

Apologetics is not the same as Historical research.

AFAICT most historians seem to think Paul propagated a High Christology, so they are indeed aware of this.

It's not just apologists (though they are also part of the academy and have a strong voice in what constitutes 'the consensus').

 

[dejudge]

What are you raving about now? The fact that Jesus and James were in conflict? You dispute this by referring to the writings of apologists?

Please, do not divert from the matter at hand.

I am merely exposing your absurd fallacious claim that "In Judaism at the time, being a "Son Of God" didn't mean the same as it did to Pagans."

Examine the very first book of Hebrew Scripture.

Examine Genesis.

Genesis 6.1-2---And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose

Genesis 6:4 ---There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Please, refrain from making un-informed statements.

There were Sons of God [non-human beings] in Jewish Mythological writings.

The very world-wide flood in Jewish Mythology was because Sons of God copulated with daughters of human beings.

 

[Brainache]

AFAICT most historians seem to think Paul propagated a High Christology, so they are indeed aware of this.

It's not just apologists (though they are also part of the academy and have a strong voice in what constitutes 'the consensus').

Well, OK. I get that.

The gospels show a progression from low to high Christology, not Paul.

 

[proudfootz]

Well, OK. I get that.

The gospels show a progression from low to high Christology, not Paul.

Yes, this is an interesting phenomenon.

 

[JaysonR]

If this is a fair assessment of Eisenman I may have to move him down a bit on my 'must read' list.

I consider this a reasonable critique, yes.

These are his flaws.
His talents lie in provocatively unorthodox speculation while following, yet, a consistent logic to the outline.

If nothing else, he accomplishes invoking the scientific mantra of not accepting anything at face value.

 

[JaysonR]

I find this observation very interesting.

Plus it has the virtue of conforming to my own view.

What is your view?

 

[JaysonR]

Well, OK. I get that.

The gospels show a progression from low to high Christology, not Paul.

In the order of canon, or internally and separate?

 

[Brainache]

In the order of canon, or internally and separate?

Well I would say it was roughly in the order of the cannon. The individual Gospels each have their own version of Jesus, Mark being at the "low" end and John at the "high" end.

 

[JaysonR]

Well I would say it was roughly in the order of the cannon. The individual Gospels each have their own version of Jesus, Mark being at the "low" end and John at the "high" end.

The Canon is presentational, not chronological; the progression observed is one that has been contrived.

If you align them in Chronology, the distinct flow from low to high is greatly disrupted and we instead must either see ideas moving in time out of order, or understand a representation is within from varying regions and cultures in proximity to each other yet valuing differently upon various focuses from similar inherited cultural backgrounds.

 

[Brainache]

The Canon is presentational, not chronological; the progression observed is one that has been contrived.

If you align them in Chronology, the distinct flow from low to high is greatly disrupted and we instead must either see ideas moving in time out of order, or understand a representation is within from varying regions and cultures in proximity to each other yet valuing differently upon various focuses from similar inherited cultural backgrounds.

Well, yes, the Canon puts Matthew first, doesn't it?

I was thinking of the order of composition that most people talk about; ie: Mark first, John last.

But I also understand that these gospels supposedly represent different Jesus traditions from different regions.

I was just countering proudfootz' assertion that the Christology started off high and later traditions lowered it. I don't see it that way.

 

[proudfootz]

What is your view?

You wrote:

"It would not surprise me, however, if the individual never actually existed as that has happened countless times in Hebraic history, and receiving non-Hebrew cultures wouldn't really be capable of discerning the differences of one messianic tale from another - they would all seem to be easily about the same Hebrew guy."

Neither would it surprise me if there was no single person upon whose career christianity was founded as tradition teaches.

The Hebraic tradition seems to be full of allegorical tales about persons who didn't literally exist.

 

[proudfootz]

The Canon is presentational, not chronological; the progression observed is one that has been contrived.

If you align them in Chronology, the distinct flow from low to high is greatly disrupted and we instead must either see ideas moving in time out of order, or understand a representation is within from varying regions and cultures in proximity to each other yet valuing differently upon various focuses from similar inherited cultural backgrounds.

This is how it appears to me.

It is a mistake to put these materials in a straight linear model because they could well represent different cults with their own paths of development.

Likewise I think there may be problems if we try to impose a linear model of development on these materials and then use that as a method of dating them. For example, if we assume X must follow Z because of the perceived 'highness' or 'lowness' of the savior figure in the respective narratives.

 

[dejudge]

This is how it appears to me.

It is a mistake to put these materials in a straight linear model because they could well represent different cults with their own paths of development.

Likewise I think there may be problems if we try to impose a linear model of development on these materials and then use that as a method of dating them. For example, if we assume X must follow Z because of the perceived 'highness' or 'lowness' of the savior figure in the respective narratives.

What you say is extremely fascinating since it was assumed by Scholars that some Pauline letters must predate the Gospel because of the "lowness" of the savior figure.

However, the very same Scholars overlooked that Later Epistles to Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy and Titus ALSO contain a "lowness" of the Savior figure but is considered AFTER the Gospels.

Even more fascinating is that ALL Non-Pauline Epistles contain a "lowness" of the Savior figure yet they are all placed AFTER the Gospels.

In any event, the low Christology in gMark is LOWER than every single book in the NT Canon.

gMark's Jesus did NOT know the significance of the Resurrection.

gMark's Jesus did NOT teach his disciples that WITHOUT the Resurrection there would be Christianity and No Remission of Sins.

The author of gMark claimed NO-ONE was told Jesus was raised from the dead.

Paul TAUGHT the Churches the significance of the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

The Christology in gMark is extremely low.

It will go even lower. gMark's Jesus WANTS the populace to remain in Sin.

gMark's Jesus is NOT a Savior.

Mark 4:11-12 KJV

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables

That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

We are going LOWER.

How LOW can gMark go?

gMark's Jesus does NOT even want the Populace to know he was the Christ.

Mark 8:30 KJV

And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

The Christology in gMark is the Lowest of Low.

 

[pakeha]

I've just seen this article ALLUSIONS TO THE END
OF THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY IN PESHER NAHUM (4Q169)
http://scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Brill-partridge-volume-published-article-259-278.pdf

Sorry if it's already been discussed here, but I found the conclusion of Doudna's 2011 article of interest to this thread's topic
"...Not long after the death of Hyrcanus II the lights go out completely in the texts found in the caves at Qumran. It has long been noted that there is not a single name, event, ruler, battle, or allusion to anything later than the first century bce in any of the texts found in the Qumran caves, or indeed any text known to have been composed later than the 1st century bce among the finds. The deposits of the texts in the caves around Qumran may also have ended at this time instead of at the First Revolt as commonly supposed. The reason for the end of the texts at this time is unknown but could be related to what Josephus says was Herod’s attempt to exterminate the remaining family and partisans of Hyrcanus II. As Josephus puts it, “None was left alive of the family of Hyrcanus, and the kingdom was wholly in Herod’s power” (Ant. 15.8.10 (266)).
In conclusion, the Qumran texts being revised for the new DJD V may echo the final and tragic collapse of the Hasmonean dynasty in ways that have not yet been adequately recognized"

How is the identification of this text to 1st century events a better fit than the one proposed here, with the end of the Hasmonean dynasty?
Has Eisenmann addressed this author's thinking?

 

[Brainache]

I've just seen this article ALLUSIONS TO THE END
OF THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY IN PESHER NAHUM (4Q169)
http://scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Brill-partridge-volume-published-article-259-278.pdf

Sorry if it's already been discussed here, but I found the conclusion of Doudna's 2011 article of interest to this thread's topic
"...Not long after the death of Hyrcanus II the lights go out completely in the texts found in the caves at Qumran. It has long been noted that there is not a single name, event, ruler, battle, or allusion to anything later than the first century bce in any of the texts found in the Qumran caves, or indeed any text known to have been composed later than the 1st century bce among the finds. The deposits of the texts in the caves around Qumran may also have ended at this time instead of at the First Revolt as commonly supposed. The reason for the end of the texts at this time is unknown but could be related to what Josephus says was Herod’s attempt to exterminate the remaining family and partisans of Hyrcanus II. As Josephus puts it, “None was left alive of the family of Hyrcanus, and the kingdom was wholly in Herod’s power” (Ant. 15.8.10 (266)).
In conclusion, the Qumran texts being revised for the new DJD V may echo the final and tragic collapse of the Hasmonean dynasty in ways that have not yet been adequately recognized"

How is the identification of this text to 1st century events a better fit than the one proposed here, with the end of the Hasmonean dynasty?
Has Eisenmann addressed this author's thinking?

I believe he has.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html

... These include references such as 'making a Straight Way in the wilderness,' alluded to twice in the document called "The Community Rule" at Qumran and one of the first douments found there in Cave I; and, as is generally well known, associated with the teaching and coming of John the Baptist 'in the wilderness' in the Synoptic Gospels (that is Matthew, Mark, and luke - but not John).

A related terminology is 'the New Covenant,' a phrase originally based on Jeremiah 31:31 and a central theme of the Damascus Document, known of course as the basis of the word 'New Testament' (i.e., the 'New Covenant'). Equally important is the allusion to and exposition of Habakkuk 2:4, perhaps the climax of the Habakkuk Commentary (or, as we in the field call it, 'The Habakkuk Pesher') and perhaps the central Scriptural building block of early Christian theology as set forth by Paul in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews and, of course, in James.

Related to these and, in particular, this last are the repeated reference to the two 'Love Commandments' of 'Piety' and 'Righteousness' (I will capitalize important concepts just as I will italicize important phrases and ideas whether in quotations or part of my own exposition) - in Josephus defined as, 'loving God' and 'loving your neighbor as yourself' - and 'Justification' theology generally. Not only are these the essence, allegedly, of 'Jesus'' (also, I prefer to put 'Jesus'' name in single quotes) teaching in the Gospels and James' in the Letter ascribed to his name in the New Testament and in early Church literature generally; but they are also the basis in the picture provided by Josephus of John the Baptist's teaching and a central category of 'Essene' doctrine as well (see Josephus' famous description of John in The Antiquities - patently more reliable than that in the Gospels based upon it).
...

The Theology espoused in the Scrolls belongs to the first century CE, not BCE.

He convinced me.