Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[SpuriusMaximus]

There are pop-ups at the following links. Be warned.

Seems like at least one other kook thinks this dead sea scroll was amongst the last writings of the Qumran community.

http://qumran.com/ShiningaLightintheDarkness/pesher1.htm


h} = Book of Habakkuk
P} = Pesher (Commentary)




http://qumran.com/ShiningaLightintheDarkness/pesher2.htm

This is about the "Wicked Priest"

The Author is some guy called Hanan who looks a bit on the religious side to me...

It certainly sounds like a possibility.

However bear in mind that back then they weren't really abstaining from libel. In fact, if you could get away with it, it was a perfectly good political tool. Even historiographers were not quite having the same standards as today, and were writing propaganda more often than history.

And especially in a war, presenting the opponents as some bloodthirsty monsters who slaughter everyone in sight just for sport, was actually a pretty standard thing. It's an "us vs them" thing, really. You really wanted to claim your opponents are everything that's unholy. Get the hate flowing and all that.

And the Jews had a long tradition of presenting the other nations in the area as unholy abominations unto God, after all. Religious bigotry and exclusivism tends to do that.

Now I don't know if those documents are really about Pompey or not. I do however find it somewhat tenuous to date them based on expecting everyone back then to have modern journalistic integrity and give credit where credit is due to a fair conqueror.

 

[OCaptain]

Let's see, you started by accusing MJer's of not being intelligent and being proud.

Now you seem to be saying that something here is BS.

This is not the way to make friends and influence others.


BTW: welcome to JREF

No, what i said was that others can be intelligent apart from mythicists. Nowhere did I say that mythicists aren't intelligent.

 

[OCaptain]

Hans,

Thank you for the course correction on my misuse of "quodam".

You'll find I'm quite open to modifying my data when it needs it , and it certainly did.

If you're open, I'd love to use you as a citation for the correct use of quodam. Perhaps I'll PM you later for that?

 

[Brainache]

It certainly sounds like a possibility.

However bear in mind that back then they weren't really abstaining from libel. In fact, if you could get away with it, it was a perfectly good political tool. Even historiographers were not quite having the same standards as today, and were writing propaganda more often than history.

And especially in a war, presenting the opponents as some bloodthirsty monsters who slaughter everyone in sight just for sport, was actually a pretty standard thing. It's an "us vs them" thing, really. You really wanted to claim your opponents are everything that's unholy. Get the hate flowing and all that.

And the Jews had a long tradition of presenting the other nations in the area as unholy abominations unto God, after all. Religious bigotry and exclusivism tends to do that.

Now I don't know if those documents are really about Pompey or not. I do however find it somewhat tenuous to date them based on expecting everyone back then to have modern journalistic integrity and give credit where credit is due to a fair conqueror.

Yes, but Pompey wasn't taxing Judea, the imperial Romans did.
Roman Soldiers under Pompey didn't make sacrifices to their standards, or worship their kings as gods (the Republic didn't have kings).
It was only the Imperials who wanted to erect statues of Ceasar in the Temple.
Also under Pompey most of the repression was done by Roman Vassals like Syria, only later did the Roman Legions show up in great numbers.

There is other stuff too that doesn't fit with an earlier dating, but it all makes sense if you assume a first century CE dating: "The Wicked Priest" could be Ananus son of Ananais. "The Teacher of Righteousness" could be James and the "Spouter of Lies" could be Paul.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes, but Pompey wasn't taxing Judea, the imperial Romans did.

IIRC, Judaea did have to pay tribute to Rome under Pompey, actually. Just like all of Rome's vassals, really.

Roman Soldiers under Pompey didn't make sacrifices to their standards, or worship their kings as gods (the Republic didn't have kings).

The Romans did raise Romulus, a former king, to the rank of god.

But, really, you're just seeing some canned accusations of idolatry, in a culture where idolatry was one of the gravest offenses unto their God. You could hardly find something more likely to get the hate flowing than that, short of maybe accusing the Romans of sacrificing babies.

It was only the Imperials who wanted to erect statues of Ceasar in the Temple.

On the other hand, we know from Josephus and Philo that later the Jews crapped a brick and raised an epic stink even when Pilate had some small busts at all, without bringing them anywhere near the temple, or dedicated some shields (without mention of images on them or anything) to the Emperor. They seemed to have been very easy to manipulate into throwing a fit about idolatry, even when there wasn't any going on.

Also under Pompey most of the repression was done by Roman Vassals like Syria, only later did the Roman Legions show up in great numbers.

Sort of. While the legion was under the Legate of Syria, the governor always had a couple of cohorts around. You really didn't want to be the lone and defenseless representative of the Romans in a very hostile city.

 

[Brainache]

IIRC, Judaea did have to pay tribute to Rome under Pompey, actually. Just like all of Rome's vassals, really.

The Romans did raise Romulus, a former king, to the rank of god.

But, really, you're just seeing some canned accusations of idolatry, in a culture where idolatry was one of the gravest offenses unto their God. You could hardly find something more likely to get the hate flowing than that, short of maybe accusing the Romans of sacrificing babies.

There are Roman records of these things during the Jewish War, nothing like it under Pompey.

On the other hand, we know from Josephus and Philo that later the Jews crapped a brick and raised an epic stink even when Pilate had some small busts at all, without bringing them anywhere near the temple, or dedicated some shields (without mention of images on them or anything) to the Emperor. They seemed to have been very easy to manipulate into throwing a fit about idolatry, even when there wasn't any going on.

That was what I was referring to. These instances you mention are the ones that outraged them. Also the time a Roman Soldier mooned the crowd from the roof of the Temple, they didn't like that. Or the Roman who ripped and burned a copy of the Torah... They all happened in the first century CE, not BCE. Pompey specifically ordered his people to leave the Temple alone.

Herod was a bastard with his own corrupt Priesthood, but at least he wasn't blaspheming.

Sort of. While the legion was under the Legate of Syria, the governor always had a couple of cohorts around. You really didn't want to be the lone and defenseless representative of the Romans in a very hostile city.

The Scrolls don't accuse the Syrians of these things, only the "Kitt'im" (something like Westerner).

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes, but Judaea wasn't technically a subordinate of Syria during Pompey. Pompey actually allowed them to have their own king and be a direct vassal of Rome.

The nearest legion was stationed in Syria, in case there's trouble, but Judaea itself wasn't a subordinate of Syria.

 

[Brainache]

Yes, but Judaea wasn't technically a subordinate of Syria during Pompey. Pompey actually allowed them to have their own king and be a direct vassal of Rome.

The nearest legion was stationed in Syria, in case there's trouble, but Judaea itself wasn't a subordinate of Syria.

OK, so the King had Jewish Soldiers?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No idea. But the Roman governor would have a couple of auxilia cohorts that aren't really under the Jewish king's command. You don't tell some guys you just conquered, "ok, raise your own army and keep yourselves in line with it"

 

[Leumas]

No idea. But the Roman governor would have a couple of auxilia cohorts that aren't really under the Jewish king's command. You don't tell some guys you just conquered, "ok, raise your own army and keep yourselves in line with it"

You may be able to get away with it....if you have reared this king from a child in the imperial court. (e.g. Herod)

But in those days it was not just the king that can try to get the governor….he needed protection from the by proxy abused masses who could get their king and/or his lord and master.

 

[Craig B]

OK, so the King had Jewish Soldiers?

He certainly had an army, and made use of it. Here's wiki

During the King Malichus II reign, in 32 BC Herod the Great started a war against Nabatea, with the support of Cleopatra. The war started with Herod's army plundering Nabataea and with a large cavalry force, and the occupation of Dium. After this defeat the Nabatean forces amassed near Canatha in Syria, but were attacked and routed. Athenio (Cleopatra's General) sent Canathans to the aid of the Nabateans, and this force crushed Herod's army which then fled to Ormiza. One year later, Herod's army overran Nabataea.