Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

OK, sorry, I guess that I could have found it if I looked hard enough.I don't hardly see how this blogger would be into these kinds of questions by reading that one particular entry that you were looking at.

I don't think that Martyr had any idea what he was talking about in his predictions, and was just taking that one bit from 2 Thess. and trying to find supporting mentions in Daniel and Isaiah (which he quotes directly).
I think that he was trying to make a contrasting comparison between what he thought was a generally held Christian belief, and what the Jews had expected to happen concerning a restoration of Israel.

Personally I think it was a case of the Jews believing their own press.
There really wasn't ever this grand, former kingdom to be "restored".

The Qumran librarians were, I think, more connected with the mundane world where they saw a lack of justice and the cause in their minds being the corrupt priests. They may have been thinking of a glorious idea of the Maccabees, and how they were ready to go to war against those who went along with the subversion of their national religion which was based on a law which to these writers seemed perfectly fine.

But the Qumran writers appear quite happy to let God and his Angel Warrior Posse do all the heavy lifting. They seem a bit annoyed at some joiners they call "The Violent Ones" of "Judah", and/or "The Gentiles".

But:

I don't know, see. I was hoping that Mr LePort or someone he knows might be able to look at these passages in the original language and see if there is a linguistic link. I'm not overly concerned about what Justin believed it meant, I'm just asking for some of that Scholarly expertise I've read about.

I've read that there are people who can look at passages in Ancient Greek and tell by things like: word choice, word order, particular phrasings etc, whether or not two texts are related. I'm not qualified to make that determination. I'm just curious.

I know it might actually amount to some work on someone else's behalf, but I know a few Academics and some of them can't resist a puzzle. So if not Mr LePort, then someone else.

Skeptical fingers crossed.

 

[JaysonR]

I'm sorry, I haven't been reading along closely; which sections do you want compared, Brainache?

 

[Brainache]

I'm sorry, I haven't been reading along closely; which sections do you want compared, Brainache?

It started here:

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Here is the reference to 2 Thessalonians.
Quote:
O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonoured, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians …
(cf. 2 Thess 2:3,4) (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho chapter 110). ...

I hadn't seen that before. I don't know if this is from Eisenman or if I'm just going all pseudohistory here, but can I see a connection between what Justin Martyr is saying there and this snippet from the DSS Pesher Habakkuk?:

...Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest who 9/ was called by the name of truth when he first arose. But when he ruled over Israel his heart became proud, and he forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches. He robbed and amassed the riches of the
men of violence who rebelled against God, and he took the wealth of the peoples, heaping sinful iniquity upon himself. And he lived in the ways of abominations amidst every unclean defilement...

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html


This is the same character - "The Wicked Priest" who supposedly conspired to kill the "Righteous Teacher"...

...
Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest whom God delivered into the hands of his enemies because of the iniquity committed against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his Council, that he might be humbled by means of a destroying scourge, in bitterness
of soul, because he had done wickedly to His elect.

I wish I knew enough to be able compare the original language of these things.

The DSS Pesher I think was in Hebrew, did Justin write in Greek?

ETA: Could what Justin referred to as "memoirs of the Apostles" include some of what we find in the DSS?

Another Thesis topic for anyone interested! Yay.

But mostly this:

The Man Of Apostasy.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

:
in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians

The Wicked Priest.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

:
Column 10 - "the city is Jerusalem"

And as for that which he said, "because of the blood of the city and the violence done to the land":

Interpreted, the city is Jerusalem where the Wicked Priest committed abominable deeds and defiled the Temple of God. The violence done to the land: these are the cities of Judah where he robbed the poor of their possessions.

It looks promising to me, but I suppose there was more than one famous Apostate in that place.

Also, what else does Justin Martyr say about "the man of apostasy", if anything?

Thanks, I hope the Catapult is going OK.

 

[JaysonR]

OK, and you want to know if Justin Martyr wrote both or not, correct?

 

[Brainache]

OK, and you want to know if Justin Martyr wrote both or not, correct?

No, I'm thinking that Justin Martyr had access to the Habakkuk Pesher, or a text descended from it. Possibly even an oral source based on the same material.

I know it's unlikely...

 

[JaysonR]

OK, so you're looking for textual influences from HBK into Justin's citation above.
I will run that and get back to you (I'll probably have time to render this tomorrow).

 

[Brainache]

OK, so you're looking for textual influences from HBK into Justin's citation above.
I will run that and get back to you (I'll probably have time to render this tomorrow).

Thanks Jayson. You're a champion.

I sit here in breathless anticipation of the impending destruction of my schoolboy dreams of Academic stardom...

Or, when should I expect that phone call from Sweden?

Thanks either way.

 

[Brainache]

In all of my excitement over Justin Martyr, I completely overlooked the fact that Craig B was posting that original passage as a reference to Thessalonians:

Quote:
3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Thessalonians 2&version=NIV

That's supposedly earlier than Justin, which is why Craig is saying that Justin knew about Paul. And it looks even closer to the Habakkuk Pesher:

...Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest who 9/ was called by the name of truth when he first arose. But when he ruled over Israel his heart became proud, and he forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches. He robbed and amassed the riches of the
men of violence who rebelled against God, and he took the wealth of the peoples, heaping sinful iniquity upon himself. And he lived in the ways of abominations amidst every unclean defilement.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

Or bits and pieces of it here and there. I'm starting to think I really have been jumping at shadows. The curse of the Amateur apparently.

ETA: I have to think that if there is any link between Thessalonians and the Habakkuk pesher, Eisenman would have certainly noticed it before me. If he did see something and failed to convince anyone, what chance have I got? Oh well.

I'll get this thread back on track soon and eventually get to my Paul "Chicken-in-a-basket" story...

Meanwhile, a song for disappointed Amateurs:

 

[Ethnikos]

Justin Martyr was writing after that thing in 2 Tess. about 'the man of sin' was in circulation.
I think that he missed the obvious intended interpretation that it had to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans, and the destruction of the temple.
If you consider the web site where you are reading the Habakkuk commentary, the Preterist, that is what preterists believe, that the prophecies were fulfilled in what is to us the past, and what was still in the future to Jesus when he said them.
The Qumran writers predicted a catastrophe, and it happened.
Christians, after that, apparently were not satisfied by the church coming about (as the fulfillment of 'christ coming into his kingdom'), and wanted something better, like an actual physical appearance by Jesus so that they didn't have to do anything any more and could just lie about from then on.

 

[dafydd]

I think Martyr was talking about the prophecy of Daniel and the "little horn", and kind of conflating it with the "man of sin" from 2 Thess.

The "ebion" could just mean "the poor".
That's the literal translation of the Hebrew word.
I think it would have been too obscure for the Qumran commentator to be making a reference to Christians.

Does this have anything to do with the Ebionites? Doesn't ebion mean 'poor' and not 'the poor'?

 

[dejudge]

Justin Martyr was writing after that thing in 2 Tess. about 'the man of sin' was in circulation.
I think that he missed the obvious intended interpretation that it had to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans, and the destruction of the temple.

Justin Martyr wrote nothing of 2 Thessalonians.

Justin Martyr was aware of Josephus who had ALREADY claimed Daniel predicted that the Romans would destroy Judea.

Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7

In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel..

 

[Ethnikos]

Does this have anything to do with the Ebionites? Doesn't ebion mean 'poor' and not 'the poor'?

It also means "the poor people", depending on the context.

"Ebionite" is probably a Hellenization.

 

[Brainache]

Justin Martyr was writing after that thing in 2 Tess. about 'the man of sin' was in circulation.

Yes, I eventually realised my embarrassingly amateur mistake. Oh well. Another chance to learn something I spose.

I think that he missed the obvious intended interpretation that it had to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans, and the destruction of the temple.

It looks that way to me too.

If you consider the web site where you are reading the Habakkuk commentary, the Preterist, that is what preterists believe, that the prophecies were fulfilled in what is to us the past, and what was still in the future to Jesus when he said them.

I was not aware of that. I just used the first online translation I could find. But what you say makes sense, I can understand why they would believe that.

The Qumran writers predicted a catastrophe, and it happened.
Christians, after that, apparently were not satisfied by the church coming about (as the fulfillment of 'christ coming into his kingdom'), and wanted something better, like an actual physical appearance by Jesus so that they didn't have to do anything any more and could just lie about from then on.

Yes this all appears true, but I was thinking that "The Man Of Apostasy" was the same as "The Wicked Priest", but if they are just two different bits of exegesis on the same OT verse, they would probably be pretty similar anyway. Wouldn't they?

 

[Ethnikos]

Justin Martyr wrote nothing of 2 Thessalonians.

Justin Martyr was aware of Josephus who had ALREADY claimed Daniel predicted that the Romans would destroy Judea.

Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7

In CHAPTER CX, Martyr is continuing on with a discussion of Micah, then mentions a "man of apostasy".
The context seems to indicate that he is thinking of the "man of sin" in 2 Thess.

 

[Ethnikos]

*snip*
Yes this all appears true, but I was thinking that "The Man Of Apostasy" was the same as "The Wicked Priest", but if they are just two different bits of exegesis on the same OT verse, they would probably be pretty similar anyway. Wouldn't they?

Something like that, probably.
I don't think that Paul wrote 2 Thess. but that it was by a later writer who was trying to look smart by predicting that event, but actually after it already happened, and made it "by Paul" to place it before the event.
Nowadays, futurists misinterpret it to predict the "anitchrist" even though there is no such thing as a person by that name in the Bible.

 

[Brainache]

Something like that, probably.
I don't think that Paul wrote 2 Thess. but that it was by a later writer who was trying to look smart by predicting that event, but actually after it already happened, and made it "by Paul" to place it before the event.
Nowadays, futurists misinterpret it to predict the "anitchrist" even though there is no such thing as a person by that name in the Bible.

In the H. Pesher it actually appears to be an eyewitness account of the death of Ananus Ben Ananus in about 68 CE. (according to Eisenman).

Yes, people get funny ideas about these ancient "prophecies".

 

[Brainache]

Something like that, probably.
I don't think that Paul wrote 2 Thess. but that it was by a later writer who was trying to look smart by predicting that event, but actually after it already happened, and made it "by Paul" to place it before the event.
Nowadays, futurists misinterpret it to predict the "anitchrist" even though there is no such thing as a person by that name in the Bible.

So, hang on. Let my try to think this through...

H. Pesher gets written some time (I don't know how long) before 70 CE.

Thessalonians appears when? Late 1st, early 2nd century? Is it generally agreed that it isn't Authentic Paul? That it is someone else trying to impersonate Paul to give himself more Authority?

Idle speculation here, but: What if this sneaky Thess. Author found an old Scroll, or was in charge of a scroll somehow, that contained all of this stuff that he thought were prophecies from the time of Jesus?

What if he wanted to pretend that these were his clever readings of OT scripture. We've already said the guy is lying about being Paul, it's no stretch to imagine that he was plagiarising a scroll.

He obviously connected it with Jesus & Co. though.

Hmm. Interesting. Maybe completely off-base, but I like the sound of it so far and lets face it, that's what's important when you're doing Pseudohistory.

 

[Ethnikos]

There is no "Thessalonians".
There are two letters, named First TH., and another named Second Th.
First Th. was written by Paul and may be the earliest surviving letter by Paul.
Second Th. was written like you said, end of first or beginning of second century.

In First Th. Paul is talking in general about an expected "Day of the Lord" which could be interpreted a few different ways, but according to Paul, whatever that "day" is, it will be Jesus there taking with him those who are his.

In Second Th. you have someone picking up on the theme and trying to get into specifics, and then makes these predictions that are out of character of Paul's normal way of writing.

 

[dejudge]

In CHAPTER CX, Martyr is continuing on with a discussion of Micah, then mentions a "man of apostasy".
The context seems to indicate that he is thinking of the "man of sin" in 2 Thess.

Justin Martyr did specifically identify what was used in the Churches in his time. It was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets.

You cannot assume Justin was referring to 2nd Thessalonians when you have no idea when 2 Thessalonians was composed.

2 Thessalonians has been deduced to be a forgery or falsely attributed to Paul by scholars.

 

[Brainache]

There is no "Thessalonians".
There are two letters, named First TH., and another named Second Th.
First Th. was written by Paul and may be the earliest surviving letter by Paul.
Second Th. was written like you said, end of first or beginning of second century.

In First Th. Paul is talking in general about an expected "Day of the Lord" which could be interpreted a few different ways, but according to Paul, whatever that "day" is, it will be Jesus there taking with him those who are his.

In Second Th. you have someone picking up on the theme and trying to get into specifics, and then makes these predictions that are out of character of Paul's normal way of writing.

OK. Thats even more interestinger.

The passages I'm talking about are all in 2 Thess. Maybe this Author thought he had some of Paul's writing in the scroll he plagiarised. Maybe he wasn't all that smart...

ETA: But of course this is jumping the gun, because I haven't seen if the two or three texts we are talking about here are definitely inter-dependent.

Still, a fun way to wake up my brain on a Sunday. I'm weird.