An Abstract Mythicist Hypothesis

[Brainache]

Part Six:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

The same applies again-in the future as it did in the past-to all who commit their hearts to idolatry and walk in the stubbornness of their hearts. All such have no portion in the household of the Law [Torah].

The same applies, once again, to all of their fellows that relapse in the company of scoffers. These too shall be judged; for they will have spoken error against the righteous ordinances and have rejected the Covenant of God and the pledge which they swore in 'the land of Damascus'

-that is, the new covenant.40 Neither they nor their families shall have a portion in the household of the Law [Torah].

About forty years will elapse from the death of the teacher of the community until all the men who take up arms and relapse in the company of the Man of Falsehood are brought to an end.41 At that time, the wrath of God will be kindled against Israel, and that will ensue which is described by the prophet when he says: 'No king shall there be nor priest nor judge nor any that reproves aright' [cf. Hos. 3.4].

But they of Jacob that have repented, that have kept the Covenant of God, shall then speak each to his neighbor to bring him to righteousness, to direct his steps upon the way. And God will pay heed to their words and hearken, and He will draw up a record of those that fear Him and esteem His name,42 to the end that salvation shall be revealed for all God-fearing men. Then ye shall again distinguish the righteous from the wicked, him that serves God from him that serves Him not. And God will 'show mercy unto thousands, unto them that love Him and keep His commandments'-yea, even unto a thousand generations.

As for those schismatics43 who, during the era when Israel was behaving perfidiously and defiling the sanctuary, indeed departed from the Holy City, relying (solely) on God, but who subsequently, without much [ad]o,* reverted to the popular [tre]nd-all of those shall be subjected to judgment by the sacred council,44 each according to his character.

Those too who indeed entered the Covenant but subsequently broke through the bounds of the Law-all of those shall be 'cut off from the midst of the camp' at the time when God's glory is made manifest to Israel. And along with them shall go those that sought to turn Judah to wickedness in the days when it was being put to the test.

In the approximately 40 years between the death of Jesus and the Revolt against Rome, the community in Jerusalem led by James continued to grow. Young people left their families to join up in the hopes that creating a fundamentalist society of absolute purity would induce god to intervene on their behalf in a holy war against Rome and the corrupt establishment.

... Such, then, is to be the disposition of the camps throughout the Era of Wickedness. Those who do not adhere to these things shall not succeed in reoccupying their native soil [ ]. These, in fact, are the regulations for the social conduct of the 'enlightened' until God eventually

visits the earth, even as He has said: 'There shall come upon thee and upon thy people and upon thy kinsfolk days the like of which have not been since Ephraim departed from Judah' [Isa. 7.17]. With those that follow them God's covenant will be confirmed; they will be delivered from all the snares of corruption. The foolish, however, will

[ ] and be punished...

And this:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q171_pesher_psalms.html

Column 2 - Vs "Temple Establishment" Position

The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes [his teeth against him. But the LO]RD laughs at him; for he knows his day is coming" (37:12-13).

13 This refers to the cruel Israelites in the house of Judah who
14 plot to destroy those who obey the Law who are in the society of the Yahad. But God will not leave them in their power.

"The wicked have drawn a sword, they have bent their bows, to strike down the poor and needy, to slaughter those who live honestly. May their sword pierce themselves, may their bows break!" (37:14-15).

This refers to the wicked of "Ephraim and Manasseh," who will try to do away ' with the Priest and the members of his party during the time of trial that is coming upon them. But God will save them from their power and afterwards hand them over to the wicked Gentiles for judgment.

All shall vanish like smoke (37:20c)

This refers to the wicked princes who oppressed His holy people, and who shall scatter like smoke that dissipates in the wind.

"The wicked borrow and do not repay; 9but the righteous give generously, for those whom God blesses will inherit the earth, but: those whom He curses will be exterminated" (37:21-22).

This refers to the company of the poor, w[ho will ge]t the possessions of all [ . . . ], who will inherit the lofty mount of Is[rael and] enjoy His holy mount. ["Those whom He curses] will be exterminated": these are the cruel Jews, the w]icked of Israel who will be exterminated and destroyed forever.

More to follow...

 

[Brainache]

Here's an interesting little definition of the "Messiah" according to Qumran:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/uncovered/uncovered01.htm#1. The Messiah Of Heaven And Earth

Column 2 (1)[... The Hea]vens and the earth will obey His Messiah, (2) [... and all th]at is in them. He will not turn aside from the Commandments of the Holy Ones. (3) Take strength in His service, (you) who seek the Lord. (4) Shall you not find the Lord in this, all you who wait patiently in your hearts? (5) For the Lord will visit the Pious Ones (Hassidim) and the Righteous (Zaddikim) will He call by name. (6) Over the Meek will His Spirit hover, and the Faithful will He restore by His power. (7) He shall glorify the Pious Ones (Hassidim) on the Throne of the Eternal Kingdom. (8) He shall release the captives, make the blind see, raise up the do[wntrodden.] (9) For[ev]er will I cling [to Him ...], and [I will trust] in His Piety (Hesed, also ‘Grace’), (10) and [His] Goo[dness...] of Holiness will not delay ...(11) And as for the wonders that are not the work of the Lord, when He ... (12) then He will heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and to the Meek announce glad tidings. (13)... He will lead the [Holly Ones; He will shepherd [th]em; He will do (14)...and all of it... Fragment l Column 3 (1) and the Law will be pursued. I will free them ... (2) Among men the fathers are honored above the sons ...(3)I will sing (?)the blessing of the Lord with his favor...(4) The 1[an]d went into exile (possibly, ‘rejoiced) every-wh[ere...] (5) And all Israel in exil[e (possibly ‘rejoicing’) ...] (6) ... (7) ...

Compare that to the gospels:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11&version=ESV

... Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” 4 And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers[a] are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up,and the poor have good news preached to them. 6 And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”

This idea of the messiah raising the dead does not appear in the OT. It only appears in the NT and the DSS.

I think that is interesting.

 

[vridar]

This idea of the messiah raising the dead does not appear in the OT. It only appears in the NT and the DSS.

I think that is interesting.

Where do you think the idea of the messiah raising the dead came from? Did the DSS invent it?

 

[vridar]

In the approximately 40 years between the death of Jesus and the Revolt against Rome, the community in Jerusalem led by James continued to grow.

The Damascus Documents reads as if the growth in godly communities follows the destruction of the wicked after 40 years, not in 40 year lead up to their destruction.

 

[vridar]

I believe James took over because of the way Paul describes his interactions with his congregation, Peter and Barnabas. James apparently has the power to order these people around.

If James had been the brother of Jesus then how can he have taken over the movement when all the indications in the gospels are that he was not a followe of Jesus?

Was it because he claimed that his deceased brother belatedly appeared to him after he was dead -- after he had heard the stories of his followers having those hallucinations?

It doesn't sound very plausible that Jesus' followers would accept such a James as their leader.

 

[Brainache]

If James had been the brother of Jesus then how can he have taken over the movement when all the indications in the gospels are that he was not a followe of Jesus?

Was it because he claimed that his deceased brother belatedly appeared to him after he was dead -- after he had heard the stories of his followers having those hallucinations?

It doesn't sound very plausible that Jesus' followers would accept such a James as their leader.

I think it is the other way around. I think James' theology is closer to Jesus' than Paul's is. The later gospels follow Paul's ideas because they were written in the Gentile world, not Palestine.

By the second century, the original "Jewish Christians" (Ebionites) were considered heretics by the mainstream Pauline Christians. They (Ebionites) believed Jesus was a mortal Prophet, not a divine being.

...The term Ebionites derives from the common adjective for "poor" in Hebrew (singular: אֶבְיוֹן ev·yōn, plural: אביונים ev·yōn·im),[10][11][12] which occurs fifteen times in the Psalms and was the self-given term of some pious Jewish circles (e.g. Psalm 69:33 ("For the LORD heareth the poor") and 1 QpHab XII, 3.6.10).[13] The term "Ebionim" was also a self description given by the people who were living in Qumran, as shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The term "the poor" was at first a common designation for all Christians - a reference to their material and voluntary poverty.[11][14][15]

The hellenized Hebrew term "Ebionite" (Ebionai) was first applied by Irenaeus in the 2nd century without making mention of Nazarenes (c.180 CE).[16][17] Origen wrote "for Ebion signifies 'poor' among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites."[18][19] Tertullian was the first to write against a heresiarch called Ebion; scholars believe he derived this name from a literal reading of Ebionaioi as "followers of Ebion", a derivation now considered mistaken for lack of any more substantial references to such a figure.[11][13] The term "the poor" (Greek ptōkhoí) was still used in its original, more general sense.[11][13] Modern Hebrew still uses the Biblical Hebrew term "the needy" both in histories of Christianity for "Ebionites" (אביונים) and for almsgiving to the needy at Purim.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Some writings apparently associated with the Ebionite movement are the "Pseudo Clementine" writings:

...
The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions, about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few results seem to be established:—
(1) The entire literature is of Jewish-Christian, or Ebionitic, origin. The position accorded to “James, the Lord’s brother,” in all the writings, is a clear indication of this; so is the silence respecting the Apostle Paul. The doctrinal statements, “though not perfectly homogeneous” (Uhlhorn), are Judaistic, even when mixed with Gnostic speculation of heathen origin. This tendency is, perhaps, not so clearly marked in the Recognitions as in the Homilies; but both partake largely of the same general character. More particularly, the literature has been connected with the Ebionite sect called the Elkesaites; and some regard the Homilies as containing a further development of their system.509 This is not definitely established, but finds some support in the resemblance between the baptismal forms, as given by Hippolytus in the case of the Elkesaites,510 and those indicated in the Recognitions and Homilies, especially the latter.511...

Here again we see this stuff about the Messiah "raising the dead":
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.iii.vi.html

...For it was spread over all places, announcing that there was a certain person in Judæa, who, beginning in the springtime,535 was preaching the kingdom of God to the Jews, and saying that those should receive it who should observe the ordinances of His commandments and His doctrine. And that His speech might be believed to be worthy of credit, and full of the Divinity, He was said to perform many mighty works, and wonderful signs and prodigies by His mere word; so that, as one having power from God, He made the deaf to hear, and the blind to see, and the lame to stand erect, and expelled every infirmity and all demons from men; yea, that He even raised dead persons who were brought to Him; that He cured lepers also, looking at them from a distance; and that there was absolutely nothing which seemed impossible to Him.

Here we see "Clement" reporting what Peter said to him about this new religion:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.iii.xvi.html

“He, therefore, whose aid is needed for the house filled with the darkness of ignorance and the smoke of vices, is He, we say, who is called the true Prophet, who alone can enlighten the souls of men, so that with their eyes they may plainly see the way of safety. ..."

Note that "True Prophet" name, not "Divine Son Of God".

Here we see Peter saying that the only difference between Jews and followers of Jesus is that the Jesus crowd believed he was the true prophet:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.iii.xliii.html

"...Therefore they often sent to us, and asked us to discourse to them concerning Jesus, whether He were the Prophet whom Moses foretold, who is the eternal Christ.574 For on this point only does there seem to be any difference between us who believe in Jesus, and the unbelieving Jews. But while they often made such requests to us, and we sought for a fitting opportunity, a week of years was completed from the passion of the Lord, the Church of the Lord which was constituted in Jerusalem was most plentifully multiplied and grew, being governed with most righteous ordinances by James, who was ordained bishop in it by the Lord.”

Here we see Peter describing a speech made by James to the Priests on the Temple steps:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.iii.lxix.html

“To him our James began to show, that whatsoever things the prophets say they have taken from the law, and what they have spoken is in accordance with the law. He also made some statements respecting the books of the Kings, in what way, and when, and by whom they were written, and how they ought to be used. And when he had discussed most fully concerning the law, and had, by a most clear exposition, brought into light whatever things are in it concerning Christ, he showed by most abundant proofs that Jesus is the Christ, and that in Him are fulfilled all the prophecies which related to His humble advent. For he showed that two advents of Him are foretold: one in humiliation, which He has accomplished; the other in glory, which is hoped for to be accomplished, when He shall come to give the kingdom to those who believe in Him, and who observe all things which He has commanded. ...

It goes on.

Paul's version of Christianity eventually became the dominant form, but the original version was that of James and the gang in Jerusalem. Paul goes on and on about how they disagree about food purity and circumcision etc. He also acknowledges how those Jerusalem guys were in the movement before he joined.

 

[Craig B]

If James had been the brother of Jesus then how can he have taken over the movement when all the indications in the gospels are that he was not a followe of Jesus?

Was it because he claimed that his deceased brother belatedly appeared to him after he was dead -- after he had heard the stories of his followers having those hallucinations?

It doesn't sound very plausible that Jesus' followers would accept such a James as their leader.

One or two sources suggest it was dynastic: that Jesus was indeed a traditional messiah to his followers. A King sent to redeem Israel. That was the view of the late Hyam Maccoby. I'm sympathetic to it.

And when Jesus died, his brother simply succeeded him. There are sources suggesting that the earliest Christian leaders were blood relatives of Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

A bit more of this Clementine stuff:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.vi.xxxv.html

“Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he bring from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of whosoever may come after him.746 For no one, unless he has gone up thither, and there has been approved as a fit and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ,—unless, I say, he brings a testimonial thence, is by any means to be received. But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked for by you at this time, besides us. For there is one true Prophet, whose words we twelve apostles preach; for He is the accepted year of God, having us apostles as His twelve months.

 

[Mcreal]

By the second century, the original "Jewish Christians" (Ebionites) were considered heretics by the mainstream Pauline Christians. They (Ebionites) believed Jesus was a mortal Prophet, not a divine being.

Yet the part of the quote you cite, from the link you give next, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites, has this

Name​

... The hellenized Hebrew term "Ebionite" (Ebionai) was first applied by Irenaeus in the [late] 2nd century without making mention of Nazarenes (c.180 CE).[16][17]

16 = Antti Marjanen, Petri Luomanen "A companion to second-century Christian "heretics" p250 "It is interesting to note that the Ebionites first appear in the catalogues in the latter half of the second century. The earliest reference to the Ebionites was included in a catalogue used by Irenaeus in his Refutation and Subversion ..."

17 = Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible 2000 p364 "EBIONITES Name for Jewish Christians first witnessed in Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.26.2; Gk. ebionaioi) ca. 180 ce"

Adv. haer. 1.26.2:
2. "Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God."​

The next section in Wikipedia has

History​

...Irenaeus (c. 180) was probably the first to use the term "Ebionites" to describe a heretical judaizing sect, which he regarded as stubbornly clinging to the Law.[22]

22 = Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses I, 26 (see above); III,21 -

Adv. Haereses III,21, 1:
1. "God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son" (Isaiah 7:14) as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord's advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God."​

Previously, in the 'Names' section, was this -

Tertullian was the first to write against a heresiarch called Ebion; scholars believe he derived this name from a literal reading of Ebionaioi as "followers of Ebion", a derivation now considered mistaken for lack of any more substantial references to such a figure.[11][13]

11 = G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites", in: A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd ed., 1894 (edited by Philip Schaff), p. 684–685 (vol. 2).

13 = O. Cullmann, "Ebioniten", in: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, p. 7435 (vol. 2).

If Irenaeus is the first 'witness' to the Ebionites, and the Ebionites are supposed to have been a 1st century sect, then Irenaeus, writing on the late 2nd century, a century later, is not a reliable source for the Ebionites. The mentions by Irenaeus, Adv. Haereses I,26.2; III,21,1., cited above, are scant.

These seem to be flimsy ties.

 

[Mcreal]

Some writings apparently associated with the Ebionite movement are the "Pseudo Clementine" writings:

...
The critical discussion of the Clementina has been keen, but has not reached its end. It necessarily involves other questions, about which there is still great difference of opinion. A few results seem to be established:—

(1) The entire literature is of Jewish-Christian, or Ebionitic, origin. The position accorded to “James, the Lord’s brother,” in all the writings, is a clear indication of this; so is the silence respecting the Apostle Paul. The doctrinal statements, “though not perfectly homogeneous” (Uhlhorn), are Judaistic, even when mixed with Gnostic speculation of heathen origin. This tendency is, perhaps, not so clearly marked in the Recognitions as in the Homilies; but both partake largely of the same general character. More particularly, the literature has been connected with the Ebionite sect called the Elkesaites; and some regard the Homilies as containing a further development of their system.509 This is not definitely established, but finds some support in the resemblance between the baptismal forms, as given by Hippolytus in the case of the Elkesaites,510 and those indicated in the Recognitions and Homilies, especially the latter.511...

That quote seems to be from here - http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-28.htm

The next section is

(2) The entire literature belongs to the class of fictitious writing "with a purpose." The Germans properly term the Homilies a "Tendenz-Romance." The many "lives of Christ" written in our day to insinuate some other view of our Lord's person than that given in the canonical Gospels, furnish abundant examples of the class. The Tübingen school, finding here a real specimen of the influence of party feeling upon quasi-historical literature, naturally pressed the Clementina in support of their theory of the origin of the Gospels.

Later

The prevalent opinion necessarily leaves us in ignorance of the authors of this literature. The date of composition, or editing, cannot be definitely fixed. In their present form the several works may be as old as the first half of the third century, and the common basis may be placed in the latter half of the second century.

 

[vridar]

One or two sources suggest it was dynastic . . .

? Eusebius? My books are all packed away right now so I can't check for earlier sources but my recollection is that there is no serious source material that any serious historical reconstruction can work with along those lines.

(I think you are referring to an account set in Domitian's reign.)

In my initial questions I alluded to several factors that become problematic in the extreme if the dynastic hypothesis is to be accepted.

ETA: Your link to Bauckham adds no weight to the dynastic hypothesis. Bauckham has as good as admitted he wrote his Eyewitnesses as a work of apologetics. Its value as historical analysis is nil -- even worse than nil because it leaves general readers badly misled as to the norms of how historical inquiry works outside apologetic circles.

 

[GDon]

By the second century, the original "Jewish Christians" (Ebionites) were considered heretics by the mainstream Pauline Christians. They (Ebionites) believed Jesus was a mortal Prophet, not a divine being.

Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE, also mentions Jewish Christians, though he doesn't name the group. From his "Dialogue with Trypho":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

But if, Trypho," I continued, "some of your race [i.e. the Jews], who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do not approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved...​

Justin also writes about non-Jewish Christians who appear to believe that Jesus was a man born like any other man, but was 'elected' to be Christ because Jesus was perfect before God:

But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race [i.e. Christians], who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men​

 

[vridar]

I think it is the other way around. I think James' theology is closer to Jesus' than Paul's is. The later gospels follow Paul's ideas because they were written in the Gentile world, not Palestine.

But why did the gospels say James the brother of Jesus was not a follower of Jesus? Paul seems to have had troubles with not only James but also Peter and John. So if the gospels tell us Peter and John followed Jesus, why not admit that James also followed Jesus?

Or if James really did not follow Jesus, then how could he be accepted as the leader of the church along with Peter and John?

 

[Craig B]

My books are all packed away right now so I can't check for earlier sources ... In my initial questions I alluded ... Bauckham has as good as admitted ...

When it becomes possible to you to check for sources, I would be very grateful to read them. Thanks.

 

[Brainache]

But why did the gospels say James the brother of Jesus was not a follower of Jesus? Paul seems to have had troubles with not only James but also Peter and John. So if the gospels tell us Peter and John followed Jesus, why not admit that James also followed Jesus?

Or if James really did not follow Jesus, then why would he be accepted as the leader of the church along with Peter and John?

Because the later church followed the teachings of Paul (definitely not a follower of Jesus).

As for "Ebionites" (ie: "The Poor") :
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q171_pesher_psalms.html

"Then the meek will inherit the earth and enjoy all the abundance that peace brings" (37:11).

This refers to the company of the poor who endure the time of error but are delivered from all the snares of Belial. Afterwards they will enjoy all the [ . . . ] of the earth and grow fat on every human luxury...

"The wicked borrow and do not repay; 9but the righteous give generously, for those whom God blesses will inherit the earth, but: those whom He curses will be exterminated" (37:21-22).

This refers to the company of the poor, w[ho will ge]t the possessions of all [ . . . ], who will inherit the lofty mount of Is[rael and] enjoy His holy mount. ["Those whom He curses] will be exterminated": these are the cruel Jews, the w]icked of Israel who will be exterminated and destroyed forever.

There are plenty of examples in the scrolls where they describe themselves as "Ebionim" which is the Hebrew form of the Greek "Ebionite" which translates as "The Poor" or "The community of The Poor".

Hmmm 1st century messianic apocalyptic Jews living around Jerusalem in communes and calling themselves "The Poor". I wonder if they could be related to the community described in the bible who fit the exact same description... Nah, that would be crazy!

...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 handwriting of this piece is a Herodian semiformal (Cross 1961, note 134; Strugnell 1970, p 211), a fact that is omitted in the Tucson report. The handwriting of all the pesharim is Herodian, that is, a class of handwriting used from 30 BCE to 70 CE.

This finding agrees with one possible interpretation of the indirect datings given for the Teacher in the Damascus Document (CD). They are not overt, and their interpretation has been disputed, but when the usages of the Scrolls are applied consistently, they may be seen to mean that the Teacher began his work in 26 CE and died about 30 CE. The reasons in brief summary are as follows:

The wording of CD 1:5-11, concerning "the Period of Wrath, 390 years for his giving them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon" is more correctly and consistently seen as a prediction of the length of the Roman occupation of Judea, the figure of 390 years being drawn from Ezekiel 4:5, treated as a prophecy in the habitual Qumran manner. In the pesharim it is asserted that "Babylon" of the Old Testament is an equivalent for Rome, a view found also in the New Testament, where "Babylon" is used as code for Rome (1 Pet 5:13, Rev 18). On this understanding, the ruler of Rome is being referred to by the writer of CD in a disguised way through a pseudonym, for political reasons. The usual translation of the phrase following "390 years" is "after his giving them", but it should be "for his giving them", consistently with the normal meaning of the preposition. The Roman occupation of Judea, an event that could well be called "the Period of Wrath", took place in 6 CE (see further below). Since, according to the text, the Teacher came 20 years after the Period of Wrath, he began working in 26 CE...

 

[Mcreal]

Justin Martyr, writing around 150 CE, also mentions Jewish Christians, though he doesn't name the group. From his "Dialogue with Trypho":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

"But if, Trypho," I continued, "some of your race [i.e. the Jews], who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do not approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved...​

"some of your race" may not be a distinct 'group'.

Justin also writes about non-Jewish Christians who appear to believe that Jesus was a man born like any other man, but was 'elected' to be Christ because Jesus was perfect before God:

[indent"]But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it 'just' to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was 'born man of men', and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race^X, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men^y[/indent]

x you put '[i.e. Christians]' there, but it may be hard to know if he was referring to 'Jewish Christians'; or 'Jewish people following a Christ or a Jesus'; or 'Jewish people only aware of, or only interested, in a Christ or Jesus'.

y continues

[For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men] "with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have[now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.

And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man[born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ]."

Then I inquired of him, "Does not Scripture, in the book of Zechariah, say that Elijah shall come before the great and terrible day of the Lord?"

And he answered, "Certainly."

"If therefore Scripture compels you to admit that two advents of Christ were predicted to take place,--one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious. and Judge of all, as has been made manifest in many of the forecited passages,--shall we not suppose that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent?"

"Certainly," he answered.​

 

[GDon]

"some of your race" may not be a distinct 'group'.

I don't know what you mean by that, but Justin definitely meant "Jews" there, since he was talking to a Jew. So he was referring to Jewish Christians.

x you put '[i.e. Christians]' there, but it may be hard to know if he was referring to 'Jewish Christians'; or 'Jewish people following a Christ or a Jesus'; or 'Jewish people only aware of, or only interested, in a Christ or Jesus'.

"Those of our race" is almost certainly non-Jewish Christians, given the contrast to "your race" that he gave earlier. (He might perhaps be referring to the God-fearers.)

The interesting point about "Christ by election" is that it emphasizes Jesus becoming Christ by his actions, which I think is more in line with Pauline thinking, if the Phil 2 passage is genuine to Paul.

 

[Mcreal]

Justin definitely meant "Jews" there, since he was talking to a Jew.

Yes, but not necessarily a representative of 'Jewish Christians'.

"Christ by election" could mean a number of things.

 

[GDon]

Yes, but not necessarily a representative of 'Jewish Christians'.

"some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses"

Who else can this be referring to, other than Jewish Christians? Or Christianized Jews, if you prefer.

"Christ by election" could mean a number of things.

It means "elected by God for being a perfect guy", as far as I know. What else can it mean, in your view?

 

[Craig B]

It means "elected by God for being a perfect guy", as far as I know. What else can it mean, in your view?

It might just mean, God chose him and that's that. No reason except God willed it. Sounds crackers, but that's the ideology being promoted here and I think it's pretty standard Calvinism.