Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Ethnikos]

*snip*
Essentially, writings under the name of Tertullian cannot be trusted.

I was just giving him as an example of someone who thought they were quoting Paul as an authority while actually he probably didn't even own any authentic Paul writings.
My point was that Martyr could have been doing the same thing unknowingly, and basing his predictions on what he thought was reliable prophecy from Paul.
Regardless of what someone today views certain Pauline writings as, with centuries of biblical scholarship at our disposal, we can't lessen what someone nearly two thousand years ago felt about what they believed.

 

[JaysonR]

I look forward to it.

OK, not going to have time to get to this today, but I will try again tomorrow.
Essentially what I'll be doing is showing how we can look at the content of 2TH and identify sub-cultures geographically which sympathized with those views, and then to see which sub-cultures crossed (if any) with HBK traditions in either Septuagint or Masoretic form (if possible, also to attempt to discern which of these forms are of likelihood).

 

[Brainache]

OK, not going to have time to get to this today, but I will try again tomorrow.
Essentially what I'll be doing is showing how we can look at the content of 2TH and identify sub-cultures geographically which sympathized with those views, and then to see which sub-cultures crossed (if any) with HBK traditions in either Septuagint or Masoretic form (if possible, also to attempt to discern which of these forms are of likelihood).

Sounds like a doddle.

No rush.

 

[Brainache]

Does Paul call Aristobulus "kinsman"?
Wasn't the whole point of the discussion the identification of Herodion as a member of the Herodian royal family and therefore Paul, as well?
I must have misunderstood something along the way.

Just to emphasise my earlier reply, I found this post from Jayson, back on the first page:

...
I don't know if Paul was an Herodian or not.
What I can say is that the hypothesis doesn't really have a hard time fitting Paul.
Paul was a silver-tongued conman.

Just look at his trial after being arrested in Jerusalem.
He is able to switch locations, judges, prosecution, and witnesses multiple times until the point arrives that no one even knows what charges are actually valid, or what the charges even are.

Paul also contradicts his positions depending on who he is talking to.
He's Jewish, no, Roman, no, a Pharisee, Jews first Gentiles second, no, Gentiles second Jews first, I "only" want..., but then takes more liberty than "only" repeatedly.

So it would not be odd if he was Herodian to me, but I have to wonder if Paul was more the case that he wasn't Herodian, but wiggled his way into a technicality of being able to claim to be of that "kindship" loosely, and then (as he does in all other cases) take that small technicality and stretch it to the furthest reaches he can get away with.

For example, Paul could have converted a Herodian and considered this to make him "kin" of them in Christ and then adopt the powerplay options the "Herodian" name gives him in certain regions by dropping the name into conversation when convenient, and abstaining from it when not.
__________________

I think this is what I would have said, if I had the skillz.

 

[dejudge]

I was just giving him as an example of someone who thought they were quoting Paul as an authority while actually he probably didn't even own any authentic Paul writings.
My point was that Martyr could have been doing the same thing unknowingly, and basing his predictions on what he thought was reliable prophecy from Paul.
Regardless of what someone today views certain Pauline writings as, with centuries of biblical scholarship at our disposal, we can't lessen what someone nearly two thousand years ago felt about what they believed.

Justin Martyr specifically identified his source for the story of Jesus. It was the Memoirs of the Apostles--Not the Pauline Corpus.

Justin's First Apology LXVI

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone

Now, Paul the Fraud will claim he got the same story from the resurrected Lord Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks , he brake it, and said , Take , eat : this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped , saying , This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye , as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

How in the world could Paul receive information from the dead and resurrected?

The resurrected Lord Jesus is a fiction character and told Paul nothing.

We know the Frauds. The Pauline writers are some of them.

 

[Ethnikos]

*snip*
How in the world could Paul receive information from the dead and resurrected?
*snip*

I'm "dead and resurrected" too, so it seems very believable to me.
That doesn't mean that I appear to people in visions but I have in the past, so that too seems believable enough to me.
I think people who have problems with the gospel story just haven't been around much.
I'm not saying that people need to die to have the experience, that just happened to me because of a serious illness.
Just because you haven't ever been resurrected yourself or know anyone who has, I don't think is a good reason to be so skeptical about it.

 

[Brainache]

Oh, please. Can we keep the discussion away from nonsense like the resurrection?

It was a Theological trope about eternal life.

Not some bloody Zombie invasion story.

 

[dejudge]

I'm "dead and resurrected" too, so it seems very believable to me.
That doesn't mean that I appear to people in visions but I have in the past, so that too seems believable enough to me.
I think people who have problems with the gospel story just haven't been around much.
I'm not saying that people need to die to have the experience, that just happened to me because of a serious illness.
Just because you haven't ever been resurrected yourself or know anyone who has, I don't think is a good reason to be so skeptical about it.

This is the 21 st century. I simply cannot accept that Paul recieved information from a dead and resurrected fiction character.

 

[Craig B]

This is the 21 st century. I simply cannot accept that Paul recieved information from a dead and resurrected fiction character.

Nobody is asking you to accept anything of the sort, and you have been told that already. Paul claims to have received information from that source. The fact that he evidently did not does not make his account of the event a forgery. He may have believed that he had met Jesus in a vision - he calls it a revelation - or he may have been a liar and a charlatan. Who knows?

Are you saying, a document that states something impossible must be a forgery? No, it might have been written by a lunatic or a liar.

 

[JaysonR]

OK, I finally got a little time to work on this one.

This one isn't that deep of an inquiry, considering that the text in question addresses a geographic location.

Firstly, due to the name it would have been of value in the greater region of Macedonia/Athens in general, or it would have been of value to some group who valued the Macedonian/Athenian regional variation of Christianity as a form of authority or example to follow; we can't be completely certain which would be the case on the face of it.


Second, we need to look at the concepts expressed in 2TH and see which other text is sympathetic to these forms of concepts; are the alike Pauline, Johanist/Danielic, Markian, "Gnostic", or other concepts?

2TH makes it pretty easy, actually.
We have a really good sample right at the beginning.

For now, the NIV version:

The Judgment at Christ’s Coming

5 This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, and is intended to make you worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering. 6 For it is indeed just of God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to the afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes to be glorified by his saints and to be marveled at on that day among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. 11 To this end we always pray for you, asking that our God will make you worthy of his call and will fulfill by his power every good resolve and work of faith, 12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

First, does Paul talk this way?
Does Paul talk of angels like a nuclear missile threat, and does he don the fire and damnation pre-Calvinist attitude that we find in the interpolated ending of Matthew, the book of John, and the book of Revelation?

Does Paul talk of being worthy of his god in such a manner as to convey the notion that one is practically damned with a very thin chance of survival?

To compare, we can use the uncontested Pauline texts.
Running a comparison there, we do not see these forms of discussions.

This entire section doesn't even really sound like Paul; Paul gets angry and definitely is strong in tone for reprimand, but he's not found stamping such a strong damnation on humanity outright all over the place in such a way as to just write lengthy paragraphs about how terrible humanity is, how unworthy they all are, how slim of a chance anyone has, and just how thoroughly thrashed to pieces all others will be.

Also of note, Paul never makes a comment about mighty glory of his god, nor talk about the idea of Jesus coming from the heavens with angels in a fire.


On the other hand, these concepts readily exist in Daniel and Revelation.


Essentially, 2TH, to me, looks like an Asia Minor Daniel-family apocalyptic text; which is a group quite sympathetic to Pauline concepts, but also a group whom heavily modified the contents they acquired with much more severity and cosmic opera.

In this group, Jesus becomes a weapon more often than a binder.

For Paul, most often, Jesus is a binder and that is the strength of Jesus - not so much a discussion about Jesus as if Jesus was the big brother who returns home and makes everyone regret picking on you.


Now, the question in regard to the comparison between HBK and 2TH in tonality:
HBK definitely would be possible as a cultural influence, as the Asia Minor group was definitely familiar with the Septuagint variation of Daniel, which would mean their HBK would be the Septuagint variation as well, most likely.


Why would they write this as TH in Asia Minor?
Well, this is also the likely group region for the book of John and possibly long-form Mark (the more cosmic Jesus resurrection).

John owes a large amount of itself to Luke, and the book of Luke is very likely from the Athenian region; based on the high quality of philosophical concepts explored.

Asia Minor appears to regularly borrow from some source as the basis, and then create their own version which almost exactly mirrors the inspiration, but then strongly goes in a new direction than the other, and typically does so in a very Calvinistic apocalypse rendition.


So essentially, everything fits easily with this same group.
They value the Athenian and Macedonian regions for impressions of example and/or authority, carried the same flavor of extreme hell-fire damnation vengeance talk, and had the Septuagint early on, and were also a region which was rather known for extreme measures in their religious expressions (christian or otherwise).

 

[dejudge]

Nobody is asking you to accept anything of the sort, and you have been told that already. Paul claims to have received information from that source. The fact that he evidently did not does not make his account of the event a forgery. He may have believed that he had met Jesus in a vision - he calls it a revelation - or he may have been a liar and a charlatan. Who knows?

Are you saying, a document that states something impossible must be a forgery? No, it might have been written by a lunatic or a liar.

Are you saying it is impossible for the Pauline writings to be forgeries?

 

[Brainache]

OK, I finally got a little time to work on this one.

This one isn't that deep of an inquiry, considering that the text in question addresses a geographic location.

Firstly, due to the name it would have been of value in the greater region of Macedonia/Athens in general, or it would have been of value to some group who valued the Macedonian/Athenian regional variation of Christianity as a form of authority or example to follow; we can't be completely certain which would be the case on the face of it.


Second, we need to look at the concepts expressed in 2TH and see which other text is sympathetic to these forms of concepts; are the alike Pauline, Johanist/Danielic, Markian, "Gnostic", or other concepts?

2TH makes it pretty easy, actually.
We have a really good sample right at the beginning.

For now, the NIV version:


First, does Paul talk this way?
Does Paul talk of angels like a nuclear missile threat, and does he don the fire and damnation pre-Calvinist attitude that we find in the interpolated ending of Matthew, the book of John, and the book of Revelation?

Does Paul talk of being worthy of his god in such a manner as to convey the notion that one is practically damned with a very thin chance of survival?

To compare, we can use the uncontested Pauline texts.
Running a comparison there, we do not see these forms of discussions.

This entire section doesn't even really sound like Paul; Paul gets angry and definitely is strong in tone for reprimand, but he's not found stamping such a strong damnation on humanity outright all over the place in such a way as to just write lengthy paragraphs about how terrible humanity is, how unworthy they all are, how slim of a chance anyone has, and just how thoroughly thrashed to pieces all others will be.

Also of note, Paul never makes a comment about mighty glory of his god, nor talk about the idea of Jesus coming from the heavens with angels in a fire.


On the other hand, these concepts readily exist in Daniel and Revelation.


Essentially, 2TH, to me, looks like an Asia Minor Daniel-family apocalyptic text; which is a group quite sympathetic to Pauline concepts, but also a group whom heavily modified the contents they acquired with much more severity and cosmic opera.

In this group, Jesus becomes a weapon more often than a binder.

For Paul, most often, Jesus is a binder and that is the strength of Jesus - not so much a discussion about Jesus as if Jesus was the big brother who returns home and makes everyone regret picking on you.


Now, the question in regard to the comparison between HBK and 2TH in tonality:
HBK definitely would be possible as a cultural influence, as the Asia Minor group was definitely familiar with the Septuagint variation of Daniel, which would mean their HBK would be the Septuagint variation as well, most likely.


Why would they write this as TH in Asia Minor?
Well, this is also the likely group region for the book of John and possibly long-form Mark (the more cosmic Jesus resurrection).

John owes a large amount of itself to Luke, and the book of Luke is very likely from the Athenian region; based on the high quality of philosophical concepts explored.

Asia Minor appears to regularly borrow from some source as the basis, and then create their own version which almost exactly mirrors the inspiration, but then strongly goes in a new direction than the other, and typically does so in a very Calvinistic apocalypse rendition.


So essentially, everything fits easily with this same group.
They value the Athenian and Macedonian regions for impressions of example and/or authority, carried the same flavor of extreme hell-fire damnation vengeance talk, and had the Septuagint early on, and were also a region which was rather known for extreme measures in their religious expressions (christian or otherwise).

Thanks Jayson.

So if I'm reading you right, there is some kind of a connection between whoever wrote the Habakkuk Pesher and whoever wrote 2 Thessalonians.

Is that right?

That can't be right, can it?

Everybody tells me that there is no connection between Qumran and Early Christianity.

How can this be?

I must have misunderstood.

 

[JaysonR]

Not really, no.

There is a connection, instead, between the cultural tendencies of 2TH, John, Revelation, and Daniel - which then would include HBK by default as the Septuagint had HBK in it (Greek version; not the DSS version).

 

[Brainache]

Not really, no.

There is a connection, instead, between the cultural tendencies of 2TH, John, Revelation, and Daniel - which then would include HBK by default as the Septuagint had HBK in it (Greek version; not the DSS version).

Oh, OK.

You are saying that the exegesis in 2 Thessalonians is based on the Septuagint, but the Habakkuk Pesher is based on the Hebrew version.

Is that right?


I should have known it wouldn't be so straightforward.

 

[JaysonR]

Correct.

That said; there is a relationship between Pesher HBK and the Asia Minor (all of the above) group somewhat one-step removed, rather than by direct affiliation.

The connection is that the Asia Minor group read the same texts the Pesher group read and both groups latched on to the vengeance tonality of the works such as Isiah, HBK, and Daniel.

However, though these groups were likely inspired by the same bodies of work (in different languages), they were inspired separately and at different times.

Think of it this way:
The original Masoretic texts are like the original novel.
The Pesher group is like the Broadway play.
The Asia Minor group is like the Blockbuster movie.

The novel is a bit nasty and harsh.
The Broadway play amps that up a tad, but mostly stays true to the book.
But by the time we get to the Blockbuster movie, we have completely redone the entire plot-line to include space opera warfare and things that weren't in the book at all.

 

[Brainache]

Correct.

That said; there is a relationship between Pesher HBK and the Asia Minor (all of the above) group somewhat one-step removed, rather than by direct affiliation.

The connection is that the Asia Minor group read the same texts the Pesher group read and both groups latched on to the vengeance tonality of the works such as Isiah, HBK, and Daniel.

However, though these groups were likely inspired by the same bodies of work (in different languages), they were inspired separately and at different times.

Think of it this way:
The original Masoretic texts are like the original novel.
The Pesher group is like the Broadway play.
The Asia Minor group is like the Blockbuster movie.

Well. OK.

I'm still on Eisenman's side though when he dates that Pesher to the 1st century CE, not BCE, because of the contents. All that stuff about the "Kittim" destroying the cities of Judea and worshipping their standards of war. I don't see how that fits a Maccabean context.

I'll keep reading this until I get bored or something, but I'm definitely not satisfied that there is no link between Qumran and the James Gang.

Yet.

Cheers.

 

[Craig B]

Are you saying it is impossible for the Pauline writings to be forgeries?

Not at all. Many of them are in fact forgeries. I'm saying that you can't say a text is a forgery because it states something that can't be true. Paul really did preach that he had had revelations of a Jesus in the sky. That makes him nuts, or a liar. It doesn't necessarily make the text in which he states it a forgery.

 

[Brainache]

Not at all. Many of them are in fact forgeries. I'm saying that you can't say a text is a forgery because it states something that can't be true. Paul really did preach that he had had revelations of a Jesus in the sky. That makes him nuts, or a liar. It doesn't necessarily make the text in which he states it a forgery.

Good luck with that.

 

[dejudge]

Not at all. Many of them are in fact forgeries. I'm saying that you can't say a text is a forgery because it states something that can't be true. Paul really did preach that he had had revelations of a Jesus in the sky. That makes him nuts, or a liar. It doesn't necessarily make the text in which he states it a forgery.

There are two opposing arguments.

1. Paul was not an Herodian-- Entire Pauline Corpus are forgeries.

2. Some of the Pauline letters are not forgeries.

I am arguing that Paul was not an Herodian since the Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery.

What is your argument? You don't know??

It is time to present the evidence.

 

[Brainache]

There are two opposing arguments.

1. Paul was not an Herodian-- Entire Pauline Corpus are forgeries.

2. Some of the Pauline letters are not forgeries.

I am arguing that Paul was not an Herodian since the Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery.

What is your argument? You don't know??

It is time to present the evidence.

Go on then.

Where is it?