Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[JaysonR]

Regarding the "composite Jesus" concept.

As mentioned, there were lots of followings during this time; many more were not officially recognized than were officially recognized, and several of them claimed to be a prophecy fulfiller of some form.

Jesus was also an incredibly common name of the time.

It is possible that the specific identity of Jesus grew over time, and was not inherently known immediately to such levels.

There may have been a specific Jesus to start with, for instance, and then several attributes, citations, and actions which were heard to have been conducted by a given "messiah" (as it would appear to those outside of the culture) within the Levant region, the assumption could be easily made that the story received was about the Jesus of Galilee and get tacked on.

Over time, this pattern would produce a product which begins small and swells with flavor and grandeur over time as more legends and accounts are gathered; and several could be, as mentioned, of other individual's and not the individual receiving the credit.

 

[Brainache]

To the spike question:
Probably not menorah; probably the spikes on the roof-tops that were on the Temple.

I don't read it that way. They weren't climbing on the roof. They were big spikey things with lead bases that they threw at the Romans to no avail.

To the false prophet:
That's what caused my comment about looking for a needle in a stack of needles.
This could be the "crazy Jesus" the Edomites jested about, or it could be any number of other "false prophets" that existed.

There were tons of them; I don't think we can easily identify which one or which group of followers they represented.

Such individuals, however, are described as a sort of battle cleric; puffing people up with vigor and hope during the battle.

It might also be why all of the early Church Fathers before Eusebius say that Josephus blamed the fall of Jerusalem on James the Brother of Jesus.

The passage does look fiddled with. This bit doesn't read at all like the usual Josephus to me:

...A false prophet was the occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. Now a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such his deliverance...

"The occasion of these people's destruction" was the False Prophet they had been following for years, who was the reason for them being in the Temple that day.

They didn't just run up the hill to the Temple because of a pep-talking "Prophet" on the day, they had been there from the start of the war, remember?

It's all through the book up to that point, now he tells us these people died because of what they heard that day? It's too silly.

Regarding the "composite Jesus" concept.

As mentioned, there were lots of followings during this time; many more were not officially recognized than were officially recognized, and several of them claimed to be a prophecy fulfiller of some form.

Jesus was also an incredibly common name of the time.

It is possible that the specific identity of Jesus grew over time, and was not inherently known immediately to such levels.

There may have been a specific Jesus to start with, for instance, and then several attributes, citations, and actions which were heard to have been conducted by a given "messiah" (as it would appear to those outside of the culture) within the Levant region, the assumption could be easily made that the story received was about the Jesus of Galilee and get tacked on.

Over time, this pattern would produce a product which begins small and swells with flavor and grandeur over time as more legends and accounts are gathered; and several could be, as mentioned, of other individual's and not the individual receiving the credit.

Eisenman agrees with you.

I bet you find that reassuring.

He mentions a "Jesus of the Galilean Boatmen" who was an early casualty of the war in Galilee. It might tie in with some of the fisherman stories, apparently.

There were probably others like Simon Magus and Hanan as well.

I think the reason Paul chose Jesus for the basis of his religion has something to do with Jesus' association with the anti-establishment Messianic movement that James The Just was the leader of.

That Messianic movement was working the Torah to bring about the return of Jesus and Apocalypse with him.

Paul was telling people that Jesus' had already returned, and that the Apocalypse was a purely spiritual endeavour (no works required). The Zealots didn't buy it, Gentiles did.

 

[JaysonR]

I don't read it that way. They weren't climbing on the roof. They were big spikey things with lead bases that they threw at the Romans to no avail.

*shrug*
No idea.
It's a very vague entry.

It might also be why all of the early Church Fathers before Eusebius say that Josephus blamed the fall of Jerusalem on James the Brother of Jesus.

The passage does look fiddled with. This bit doesn't read at all like the usual Josephus to me:



"The occasion of these people's destruction" was the False Prophet they had been following for years, who was the reason for them being in the Temple that day.

They didn't just run up the hill to the Temple because of a pep-talking "Prophet" on the day, they had been there from the start of the war, remember?

It's all through the book up to that point, now he tells us these people died because of what they heard that day? It's too silly.

It's too small and vague of an entry to work from.
It could be any number of political activist messianic claims; it could be Jesus of the Bible, but it could be any several hundred other options.

And Jesus, nor James, are really the crux of the fall.
That was the battle between the Zealots and the Sadducees in a battle royale that erupted the nuclear bomb of civil war (yet again) into the streets.

This idea of Jesus being the reason is a reflective view that skips an entire chunk of activities that took place between 60-70 CE and just focuses on what's in the Bible narrative as motive.

Eisenman agrees with you.

I bet you find that reassuring.

He mentions a "Jesus of the Galilean Boatmen" who was an early casualty of the war in Galilee. It might tie in with some of the fisherman stories, apparently.

There were probably others like Simon Magus and Hanan as well.

I think the reason Paul chose Jesus for the basis of his religion has something to do with Jesus' association with the anti-establishment Messianic movement that James The Just was the leader of.

That Messianic movement was working the Torah to bring about the return of Jesus and Apocalypse with him.

Paul was telling people that Jesus' had already returned, and that the Apocalypse was a purely spiritual endeavour (no works required). The Zealots didn't buy it, Gentiles did.

Yeah, I know he does.

I'm not against the idea of composite hypothesis; I just don't think it would have been for some politically grand conspiracy.

If you wanted that, Jesus was the wrong dude - entirely.

It is more the case, from my view, that the composite hypothesis is possible through anthropological morphology; not a single strand overt interest.

Meaning: I don't think it was like how Mormonism was started, but instead how devil worship anthropologically morphed out of the cultural legends of the devil and the misunderstandings created from the Biblical sources mixing with local legends and folk myth.

 

[Brainache]

*shrug*
No idea.
It's a very vague entry.

OK.

It's too small and vague of an entry to work from.
It could be any number of political activist messianic claims; it could be Jesus of the Bible, but it could be any several hundred other options.

And Jesus, nor James, are really the crux of the fall.
That was the battle between the Zealots and the Sadducees in a battle royale that erupted the nuclear bomb of civil war (yet again) into the streets.

This idea of Jesus being the reason is a reflective view that skips an entire chunk of activities that took place between 60-70 CE and just focuses on what's in the Bible narrative as motive.

No, it focuses on what's in the DSS and the early Church Fathers. They were uniformly disgusted with Josephus for not believing in Jesus and blaming the fall of Jerusalem on the followers of James his brother instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

The method of death of James is not mentioned in the New Testament.[82] However, the account of Josephus differs from that of later works by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea that it simply has James stoned while the others have other variations such as having James thrown from the top of the Temple, stoned, and finally beaten to death by laundrymen[83] as well as his death occurring during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 69.


Herod Antipas from the Nuremberg Chronicle, 1493
John Painter states that the relationship of the death of James to the siege is an important theologoumenon in the early church.[21] On the basis of the Gospel accounts it was concluded that the fate of the city was determined by the death there of Jesus.[21] To account for the 35 year difference, Painter states that the city was preserved temporarily by the presence within it of a 'just man' (see also Sodom); who was identified with James, as confirmed by Origen. Hence Painter states that the killing of James restarted the clock that led to the destruction of the city and that the traditional dating of 69 AD simply arose from an over-literal application of the theologoumenon, and is not to be regarded as founded on a historical source.[21] The difference between Josephus and the Christian accounts of the death of James is seen as an indication that the Josephus passage is not a Christian interpolation by scholars such as Eddy, Boyd, and Kostenberger.[83][84] Geza Vermes states that compared to the Christian accounts: "the sober picture of Josephus appears all the more believable".[85] G. A. Wells, on the other hand, has stated that in view of Origen's statements these variations from the Christian accounts may be signs of interpolation in the James passage.[86]

And:

John Painter states that Origen expresses surprise that given that a Josephus who disbelieves in Jesus as Christ (Commentary on Matthew Book X, Chapter 17) should write respectfully of James, his brother.[94] However, according to Painter unlike the Testimonium this issue has not generated a great deal of controversy, although viewed as a potential reason for doubting authenticity.[94]
An issue that is subject to more debate is that in Commentary on Matthew (Book X, Chapter 17), Origen cites Josephus as stating the death of James had brought a wrath upon those who had killed him, and that his death was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem.[75][77][95] At the end of Book II, Chapter XIII Origen disagrees with Josephus' placement of blame for the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James, and states that it was due to the death of Jesus, not James.[94]
In Book II, Chapter 23.20 of his Church History, Eusebius mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James and the sufferings that befell those who killed him. In this reference Eusebius writes: “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.” However, this statement does not appear in the extant manuscripts of Josephus.[94] Moreover, in Book III, ch. 11 of his Church History Eusebius states that the conquest of Jerusalem immediately followed the martyrdom of James setting the martyrdom at c70 CE rather than the c62 CE given by Josephus.[96][97] Painter states that whether the Book II, Chapter 23.20 statement by Eusebius is an interpolation remains an open question.[94]

Yeah, I know he does.

Don't look so happy.

I'm not against the idea of composite hypothesis; I just don't think it would have been for some politically grand conspiracy.

I agree. That was the work of generations, not a cabal of story-tellers.

If you wanted that, Jesus was the wrong dude - entirely.

He was the only Messiah James had, Paul didn't have a choice.

It is more the case, from my view, that the composite hypothesis is possible through anthropological morphology; not a single strand overt interest.

Meaning: I don't think it was like how Mormonism was started, but instead how devil worship anthropologically morphed out of the cultural legends of the devil and the misunderstandings created from the Biblical sources mixing with local legends and folk myth.

Yes, but those gentile communities founded by Paul, plus any surviving Ebionite communities were the seeds from which later Xtianity grew, in all it's hydra headed glory.

 

[JaysonR]

No, it focuses on what's in the DSS and the early Church Fathers. They were uniformly disgusted with Josephus for not believing in Jesus and blaming the fall of Jerusalem on the followers of James his brother instead:

Right, which is another way of saying the same thing I stated.

After a while, this idea of Jesus as the crux came about, but it wasn't something which was claimed by Rome, because they didn't need that excuse.

Jesus is only needed to be the pin that everything topples over from for followers who need to elevate the importance of their central figure; otherwise he just looks silly.

However, there's no denying (unfortunately for the early late-Church builders) that the crux was, as always, a ripping thrown down between a political faction who wanted Jewish independence, and a political faction that wanted to participate with the Romans (foreign ruler) in some capacity.

Even if Jesus showed up in the middle of this, it would just be one small little thing in the mix of a giant cluster f--- of turmoil that was already underway with thousands of bodies in the death toll.

He was the only Messiah James had, Paul didn't have a choice.

Maybe for Paul, but it's not like Paul had to pick James if all he wanted was to create a conspiracy for political justification for Roman throw-down.

That's more something contrived later; hell, maybe Paul came up with that to create the awe of attention he needed, I don't know.

Yes, but those gentile communities founded by Paul, plus any surviving Ebionite communities were the seeds from which later Xtianity grew, in all it's hydra headed glory.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it was conspired into order like Mormonism.

It was just what happened; either because it actually happened at some basic and mundane level, or several things like it happened over time and the one iteration summarized the zeitgeist of fringe messiahs as a whole and therefore was more attainable.


I don't think we have very solid material to work from which outlines for us a royal throw down between James and Ananus at the provocation of Jesus' death, thereby resulting in the killing of James, thereby ticking off the general population, thereby civil war, thereby Romans wipe out Judah.

The general population weren't the folks who bothered to tattle on Ananus; the Zealots did because they wanted the High Priest seat empty if possible, or at least sat on by someone who thought their way of absolute independent Jewish state ruled by monarchical frameworks; Ananus wasn't that.
He was more about senates and coexistence with the Roman occupation.

The reasons the King and Procurator kicked Ananus out of his position wasn't because the people were angry; they kicked him out for violating the rights of a High Priest in the absence of the King and Procurator; a violation of the laws regarding the High Priest.

 

[Brainache]

Right, which is another way of saying the same thing I stated.

After a while, this idea of Jesus as the crux came about, but it wasn't something which was claimed by Rome, because they didn't need that excuse.

Jesus is only needed to be the pin that everything topples over from for followers who need to elevate the importance of their central figure; otherwise he just looks silly.

However, there's no denying (unfortunately for the early late-Church builders) that the crux was, as always, a ripping thrown down between a political faction who wanted Jewish independence, and a political faction that wanted to participate with the Romans (foreign ruler) in some capacity.

Even if Jesus showed up in the middle of this, it would just be one small little thing in the mix of a giant cluster f--- of turmoil that was already underway with thousands of bodies in the death toll.

You seem to be missing the point here that I'm talking about what the Church Fathers reported as being in Josephus. That missing reference to the death of James, which those guys were upset about, because they thought Josephus should have said the death of "Jesus", not his brother "James", brought about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Now that passage is missing. I don't know why you keep bringing Jesus into it, he'd been dead for over thirty years. James was in charge since then until 64, then trouble starts up again with James' "Zealous for the law" followers fighting amongst themselves, as well as the Sadducees, Idumeans and Romans.

Maybe for Paul, but it's not like Paul had to pick James if all he wanted was to create a conspiracy for political justification for Roman throw-down.

He did if James was Big Boss Zealot who was pushing the Messiah Movement. James was the Billy Graham of this particular "Revival" movement.

...
I don't think we have very solid material to work from which outlines for us a royal throw down between James and Ananus at the provocation of Jesus' death, thereby resulting in the killing of James, thereby ticking off the general population, thereby civil war, thereby Romans wipe out Judah.

What are you talking about? James was killed about 35 years after Jesus. James was killed for "Blasphemy" (hence stoned), not insurrection.

He was asked to quell a riotous crowd by explaining "Salvation". Instead he stirred them up even further by announcing their "Salvation was Standing at the right hand of God" about to open the gates of Heaven and pour down vengeance on the unrighteous. This was Heresy on the Temple Steps.

The civil war had been brewing for at least the last 70 years. I'm not saying these events caused it, but they were part of it.

The general population weren't the folks who bothered to tattle on Ananus; the Zealots did because they wanted the High Priest seat empty if possible, or at least sat on by someone who thought their way of absolute independent Jewish state ruled by monarchical frameworks; Ananus wasn't that.
He was more about senates and coexistence with the Roman occupation.

I'm confused about who you think I'm talking about, if not the Zealots? I'm saying the scrolls are by the Zealots, who were followers of James. They called him the "Wicked Priest" because of the things you mention.

The reasons the King and Procurator kicked Ananus out of his position wasn't because the people were angry; they kicked him out for violating the rights of a High Priest in the absence of the King and Procurator; a violation of the laws regarding the High Priest.

Yes.

Possibly also a sop to the angry mob.

 

[JaysonR]

You seem to be missing the point here that I'm talking about what the Church Fathers reported as being in Josephus. That missing reference to the death of James, which those guys were upset about, because they thought Josephus should have said the death of "Jesus", not his brother "James", brought about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Now that passage is missing. I don't know why you keep bringing Jesus into it, he'd been dead for over thirty years. James was in charge since then until 64, then trouble starts up again with James' "Zealous for the law" followers fighting amongst themselves, as well as the Sadducees, Idumeans and Romans.

Yes, I gathered that.

I was stating that we would first need to actually link James as a leader of the Zealots to place him at this scene in the way that is being outlined.

Otherwise, what we have is a Zealot party, not a Zadok party, causing yet another civil war.

James' death wasn't being highlighted as the pin; it was the technicalities which the Zealot party used to get Ananus kicked out of office.

That event wasn't even the pin; the pin was when the Zealots found out, after Ananus was kicked out, that Ananus was still trying to get his seat back by calling to the Romans, and therefore the Zealots called upon the Edomites.

This event was the pin that blew everything up because it backfired terribly and the Ebionites just went crazy on Jerusalem and that caused a civil war to just explode.

Until that moment, no general population seems to really care that the Zealots were having Ananus kicked out.

James getting killed was a political move by Ananus to show his power, and the Zealots used it to get him kicked out of office.
They didn't seem to care that much that James, as a person, was killed personally.

It wouldn't be surprising for followers later to claim their founders were the spark that great destruction.

He did if James was Big Boss Zealot who was pushing the Messiah Movement. James was the Billy Graham of this particular "Revival" movement.

Allegedly; I still haven't seen any material evidence (textual or otherwise) which really supports this. I've seen a lot of conjecture to link things around to produce this idea, but that's quite a bit different than a text which states something like, "And it was that James was sought after by all in the land", etc...

What are you talking about? James was killed about 35 years after Jesus. James was killed for "Blasphemy" (hence stoned), not insurrection.

He was asked to quell a riotous crowd by explaining "Salvation". Instead he stirred them up even further by announcing their "Salvation was Standing at the right hand of God" about to open the gates of Heaven and pour down vengeance on the unrighteous. This was Heresy on the Temple Steps.

The civil war had been brewing for at least the last 70 years. I'm not saying these events caused it, but they were part of it.

Many claimed these prophecies.

We have no verification that James was asked to quiet folks down with a propaganda of salvation, however (at least, nothing that I'm aware of).

And we don't have verification that the citizens of Jerusalem were angered to riots by his death, nor by his preaching.

He was killed for the same reason all messianic leaders were killed; preaching messianic templates which did not sympathize with the priesthood or Sanhedrin's authority - the priesthood at the time being the Zealots and Sadducees, mostly.

If anyone was going to bring about the Zadok line, it would be the Sadduccees who claimed Zadok lineage (but not the party directly) and preached of the return of the Zadok line...one day at some point in the future.

So if we're to think of James as a Zadok, then he would be a Sadducee more likely than a Zealot, and he would be interested in tossing out Ananus and either taking his place (highly unlikely considering everything we know about James doesn't suggest a lineage to any priest-class family line, so I wouldn't see any council giving him that seat, since he doesn't meet the requirements by law), or putting someone in place he sympathizes with.

That said, Ananus was a Sadduccee as High Priest, so...that makes it odd to put that together; the Sadduccees didn't mind him; the Zealots did, but the Zealots weren't the Zadok line; the Sadduccees were (by heritage).

I'm confused about who you think I'm talking about, if not the Zealots? I'm saying the scrolls are by the Zealots, who were followers of James. They called him the "Wicked Priest" because of the things you mention.

I still don't think Ananus was the reference.
The sections for that are in old texts, and the contexts don't fit the 60-70 CE time period.

Possibly also a sop to the angry mob.

Maybe, but nothing ever mentioned about the people being ticked off about that.


(also, sorry if I'm a bit disjointed; I've been on meds for the past few days awaiting a tooth extraction, so I may be confusing in my articulation....
To clarify, when I brought Jesus up, I was referring to the motive for James, which then gets claimed to be the pin, etc...)

 

[Brainache]

...[snip]
I still don't think Ananus was the reference.
The sections for that are in old texts, and the contexts don't fit the 60-70 CE time period.

That's why I'm saying it was the reference to the guys on the Temple Mount on D-Day dying for the "False Prophet". Because throughout the war this same bunch of Zealots has been holed up in the Temple from the very start. They weren't there on the day following someone's same-day prophecy.

The Church Fathers saw a reference to James and Jesus in this passage which no longer exists, in my own opinion. It wasn't the Ananus speech, it was these fanatics in the Temple who were associated with James, and that is what was tampered with.

They did kick out the Temple Priests. They let the Idumeans into the city to slaughter them and mutilate their corpses. Friendly bunch...

Maybe, but nothing ever mentioned about the people being ticked off about that.

Except all the early church fathers and, allegedly, Josephus.

(also, sorry if I'm a bit disjointed; I've been on meds for the past few days awaiting a tooth extraction, so I may be confusing in my articulation....
To clarify, when I brought Jesus up, I was referring to the motive for James, which then gets claimed to be the pin, etc...)

Well The motive for James was the Day Of Judgement, as far as I can tell. Jesus was the earlier TOR who was crucified and was coming back soon for the big day with all of the "gods of justice"(read Angels) in the "Heavenly Host".

IMO.

BTW, did you notice that post of mine was number "666"? Wooooooooooooo...

 

[JaysonR]

I'll get back with you tomorrow, but we're kind of going in circles.

 

[Craig B]

I'll get back with you tomorrow, but we're kind of going in circles.

Yes.

 

[Brainache]

I'll get back with you tomorrow, but we're kind of going in circles.

OK. No worries.

We definitely seem to be having difficulty communicating.

I know Josephus speaks positively about James elsewhere, when he describes his trial and execution, that isn't what this is about.

We'll talk later.

 

[JaysonR]

OK, so rather than reply to the last post, I think a recap of essential components, and issues revolving them, is in order.

The bare bone essential parts are:
James must be a super popular figure of Jerusalem
James must be a Zealot
James must be a Zadok
Zealots must be militant Zadok fanatics

There's quite a bit more that are on the fringes, but these are the absolute essentials.

I'm not bringing up the issues revolving the pesharim and matching the contexts, nor the issue of how many persharim are uncontested for 1st c CE dating, nor issue of linen, nor issue of coins, nor issues of anything related to the Dead Sea Scrolls directly.

------------------------------------------------------------------

James must be a super popular figure of Jerusalem
This is almost entirely unattainable to prove the positive.
What scant details we have are from later apologists.
If we accept Acts and the Pauline Corpus, then all we can really gather from those documents is that James was important to one fringe group.

That is about all that we can gather regarding his popularity in confirmation.

James must be a Zealot
There are no indications of James being recognized as a member of an official political party, nor counted as a priest of the Temple; nor the Sanhedrin council.

It is very common for texts to introduce individuals and convey to us what their identifiers are; typically their occupation and social status.

However, no accounts for him in such capacity are evident.

James must be a Zadok
Unconfirmed.
There are no overt texts which indicate any alignment between James and the Zadok, nor the Sadduccees.

If anything, the remaining thread of Zadok patronage are attributed to killing James in Acts and Josephus.


Zealots must be militant Zadok fanatics
While characteristically sounding like they were kin to the Zadok of the Maccabean era in stubbornness, this is about where the similarities end; further the Zealots were not of Zadok patronage.

They were founded by Judas of Gamala (contested) and Zadok the Pharisee (unconfirmed), so there may be a confusion since the Zadok priest bloodline derived its name from the original Solomon High Priest Zadok, but there is no connection outside of the name provided.

The Zealot party is somewhat akin to the Tea Party of America in that they were a party from parties; pulling their members from other parties and demanding militant action.
The Zealots were violent and cruel, not only unwilling to settle for Roman compromise, but also unwilling to settle for intra-Jewish political compromise.
This is a group who only wanted an absolute control by their vision or nothing, and had no reservations in killing just about anyone on the whims of political hysteria.


The political group which was of Zadok patronage was the Sadduccee party.
This group was the group who the Zealots hated, and the Sadduccee party was the group who held the High Priest, Ananus, at the time of James' stoning.
In philosophical terms, the Sadduccee were referred to as the 'sons of Zadok' or the 'sons of Tzadok', from whom their name is derived.

In English, that may be difficult to assertain, but in Hebrew the etymological link is easier to see:
צדוק - Tzadok
צְדוּקִים - Seduqim

Both names refer to being right and just.

If anything, the Zadok following of the Dead Sea Scrolls would have been a break away faction of the Sadduccee political group, as the Sadduccee group, who began to emerge by reference as a social class of priests beginning in the 3rd c BCE and grew over time, notably from the 2nd c BCE on - the same time frame as the Dead Sea Scroll material getting started, were essentially the standard familial lineage priesthood group.

So it becomes quite confusing to claim the Zealots as the just and right sons of Zadok, or having an affiliation with that concept when their primary foe was the very group who was of the Zadok sympathy; save for one break-away faction whom did not agree with the party's High Priest appointment in the 2nd c BCE and never really gained back to the main portion of the group.


To "make it fit" we would have to imagine that the Zadok of the Dead Sea Scrolls broke away from the Sadduccees and then later emerged to form themselves as the Zealots (unconfirmed), out for blood and out to wipe out the entire scope of the Sadduccee party in an effort to restore the rightful heir of the High Priest.

However, this line of reasoning has issues as Ananus was replaced by a Sadduccee, who was replaced by a Sadduccee, and then finally a Zealot took office, Phannias ben Samuel, in the year of the destruction of the Temple.

Phannias died in the Temple during the destruction of it, and he was also not elected to the seat of High Priest, but instead was given it out of casting of lots after the Zealots seized unilateral control of the Temple right before the destruction.

The reason the Zealots did this, and this is the point of this rambling tangent, is because they loathed selecting the priesthood by lineage and held no value in righteous bloodlines.

This makes the connection to Zadok for the Zealots functionally implausible.

----------------------------------------

These are the essential issues I have with the essential requirements for the idea of James the Zadok Zealot out to overthrow Ananus the Sadduccee, in hopes of restoring some rightful heir of Zadok to the the High Priest seat (the constant mantra of the Dead Sea Scrolls).

 

[Brainache]

OK, so rather than reply to the last post, I think a recap of essential components, and issues revolving them, is in order.

The bare bone essential parts are:
James must be a super popular figure of Jerusalem
James must be a Zealot
James must be a Zadok
Zealots must be militant Zadok fanatics

There's quite a bit more that are on the fringes, but these are the absolute essentials.

I'm not bringing up the issues revolving the pesharim and matching the contexts, nor the issue of how many persharim are uncontested for 1st c CE dating, nor issue of linen, nor issue of coins, nor issues of anything related to the Dead Sea Scrolls directly.

OK. I can live with that. I think we might run into trouble over definitions though. See below.

------------------------------------------------------------------

James must be a super popular figure of Jerusalem
This is almost entirely unattainable to prove the positive.
What scant details we have are from later apologists.
If we accept Acts and the Pauline Corpus, then all we can really gather from those documents is that James was important to one fringe group.

That is about all that we can gather regarding his popularity in confirmation.

There's Josephus:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-9.html

...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified;

There was also a Talmudic tradition that all capital sentences during the period were illegal because the Sanhedrin wasn't meeting in the "Stone Chamber" in the Temple at the time.

There is also the early Church Fathers like Clement and Origen who attest to James' power and influence.

So there's that.

James must be a Zealot
There are no indications of James being recognized as a member of an official political party, nor counted as a priest of the Temple; nor the Sanhedrin council.

It is very common for texts to introduce individuals and convey to us what their identifiers are; typically their occupation and social status.

However, no accounts for him in such capacity are evident.

I have never used "Zealot" to mean card carrying member of a Political Party. I meant it in the broader sense of Zealotry for the Laws Of Moses. Just as in the "We Document" section of Acts:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+21

7 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs...

So, whatever tradition is responsible for that section of Acts associated James with those "Zealous for the law".

That kind of Zealotry is also evident in the letters of James and Jude (two of Jesus' alleged Brothers) in the Bible.

I don't see it as any kind of a stretch.

Someone else also wrote a book called "Zealot" about Jesus as a Zealot, I haven't read it though, so I can't comment.

James must be a Zadok
Unconfirmed.
There are no overt texts which indicate any alignment between James and the Zadok, nor the Sadduccees.

If anything, the remaining thread of Zadok patronage are attributed to killing James in Acts and Josephus.

The Scroll are full of stuff about how they are the TRUE sons of Zadok. Looks to me like they are comparing themselves to some imposter ones.
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

They are to abide by the decisions of the sons of Zadok, the same being priests that still keep the Covenant, and of the majority of the community that stand firm in it...

that Law is revealed to the sons of Zadok-that is, to the priests who still keep the Covenant and seek God's will -and to a majority of their co-covenanters who have volunteered together to adhere to the truth of God and to walk according to His pleasure.
...

Of the property of 'presbyters'.

The property of the 'specially holy men' - that is, of 'the men that walk 'blamelessly' - is not to be put into a common pool with that of men who may still be addicted to deceit and may not yet have achieved that purity of conduct which leads them to keep apart from perversity and to walk in integrity.

Until the coming of the prophet and of both the priestly and the lay Messiah, these men are not to depart from the clear intent of the Law to walk in any way in the stubbornness of their own hearts. They shall judge by the original laws in which the members of the community were schooled from the beginning.

Of the daily conduct of the faithful.

These are the ordinances for the conduct of any man that seeks after inner vision, in regard alike to human relations, the regulation of affairs on specific occasions, and the balanced appraisal of his fellow men, to the end that he may perform at all time the will of God which has been revealed as pertinent to this or that occasion; that he may at all times accommodate theory to circumstance; and that he may come to make the proper distinctions and evaluate the sons of Zadok (i.e. the priests) and the elect of any particular epoch by the standard of their spiritual attitudes, and appraise them by that criterion, thus conforming to the will of God, as He has commanded...

Funny how the Priests don't have to share their stuff like everyone else...

Zealots must be militant Zadok fanatics
While characteristically sounding like they were kin to the Zadok of the Maccabean era in stubbornness, this is about where the similarities end; further the Zealots were not of Zadok patronage.

They were founded by Judas of Gamala (contested) and Zadok the Pharisee (unconfirmed), so there may be a confusion since the Zadok priest bloodline derived its name from the original Solomon High Priest Zadok, but there is no connection outside of the name provided.

The Zealot party is somewhat akin to the Tea Party of America in that they were a party from parties; pulling their members from other parties and demanding militant action.
The Zealots were violent and cruel, not only unwilling to settle for Roman compromise, but also unwilling to settle for intra-Jewish political compromise.
This is a group who only wanted an absolute control by their vision or nothing, and had no reservations in killing just about anyone on the whims of political hysteria.

The political group which was of Zadok patronage was the Sadduccee party.
This group was the group who the Zealots hated, and the Sadduccee party was the group who held the High Priest, Ananus, at the time of James' stoning.
In philosophical terms, the Sadduccee were referred to as the 'sons of Zadok' or the 'sons of Tzadok', from whom their name is derived.

In English, that may be difficult to assertain, but in Hebrew the etymological link is easier to see:
צדוק - Tzadok
צְדוּקִים - Seduqim

Both names refer to being right and just.

The Zealots who wrote the DSS were big Zadok fans. And James was synonymous with "Just" and "Righteous". That's the guy we are talking about. The guy commonly known as James the Just. Sometimes even just plain old "Justus".

If anything, the Zadok following of the Dead Sea Scrolls would have been a break away faction of the Sadduccee political group, as the Sadduccee group, who began to emerge by reference as a social class of priests beginning in the 3rd c BCE and grew over time, notably from the 2nd c BCE on - the same time frame as the Dead Sea Scroll material getting started, were essentially the standard familial lineage priesthood group.

So it becomes quite confusing to claim the Zealots as the just and right sons of Zadok, or having an affiliation with that concept when their primary foe was the very group who was of the Zadok sympathy; save for one break-away faction whom did not agree with the party's High Priest appointment in the 2nd c BCE and never really gained back to the main portion of the group.


To "make it fit" we would have to imagine that the Zadok of the Dead Sea Scrolls broke away from the Sadduccees and then later emerged to form themselves as the Zealots (unconfirmed), out for blood and out to wipe out the entire scope of the Sadduccee party in an effort to restore the rightful heir of the High Priest.

I disagree. There are other ways for this to work out.

However, this line of reasoning has issues as Ananus was replaced by a Sadduccee, who was replaced by a Sadduccee, and then finally a Zealot took office, Phannias ben Samuel, in the year of the destruction of the Temple.

Phannias died in the Temple during the destruction of it, and he was also not elected to the seat of High Priest, but instead was given it out of casting of lots after the Zealots seized unilateral control of the Temple right before the destruction.

The reason the Zealots did this, and this is the point of this rambling tangent, is because they loathed selecting the priesthood by lineage and held no value in righteous bloodlines.

Sort of like the DSS guys claiming that a "Son of Zadok" meant a Priest who obeys the covenant, rather than someone just using that name. Maybe.

This makes the connection to Zadok for the Zealots functionally implausible.

Wouldn't be the first time a religious group claimed a spurious legitimacy.

----------------------------------------

These are the essential issues I have with the essential requirements for the idea of James the Zadok Zealot out to overthrow Ananus the Sadduccee, in hopes of restoring some rightful heir of Zadok to the the High Priest seat (the constant mantra of the Dead Sea Scrolls).

And those are my answers.

Have at you!

 

[JaysonR]

There's Josephus:

That doesn't indicate that he was a widely popular individual.
It indicates that he was without crime to be charged by proper citation of the Law; which was what bothered the Sanhedrin.

The sending off to the King and Procurator was by the Zealots citing Ananus' technical violations; not popularity violations.

There was also a Talmudic tradition that all capital sentences during the period were illegal because the Sanhedrin wasn't meeting in the "Stone Chamber" in the Temple at the time.

That wouldn't be an issue of popularity, but of technicality.

There is also the early Church Fathers like Clement and Origen who attest to James' power and influence.

So there's that.

I noted that when I stated that the only expressions regarding how popular James was existed in later apologetic commentaries; that's not very convincing.

I have never used "Zealot" to mean card carrying member of a Political Party. I meant it in the broader sense of Zealotry for the Laws Of Moses. Just as in the "We Document" section of Acts:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+21


So, whatever tradition is responsible for that section of Acts associated James with those "Zealous for the law".

That kind of Zealotry is also evident in the letters of James and Jude (two of Jesus' alleged Brothers) in the Bible.

I don't see it as any kind of a stretch.

Someone else also wrote a book called "Zealot" about Jesus as a Zealot, I haven't read it though, so I can't comment.

Then we remove the Zealot party from being of linking support for the proposition.

Now we are down to James, Zadok, Sadduccees and that's it.

The Scroll are full of stuff about how they are the TRUE sons of Zadok. Looks to me like they are comparing themselves to some imposter ones.
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

Yes.

Due to dating conflicts, we cannot claim those are about James; which is why I did not use any scroll material as direct support for any given concept outlined.

The Zealots who wrote the DSS were big Zadok fans. And James was synonymous with "Just" and "Righteous". That's the guy we are talking about. The guy commonly known as James the Just. Sometimes even just plain old "Justus".

Zealots did not write the scrolls.
James being called the just does not inherently indicate him as a Zadokite, nor does it inherently indicate that Zadoks were Zealots.

If by "Zealot", you mean "Passionate", then just write passionate.
Using "Zealot" to not refer to the political party of the same time is confusing since there was a political party called the Zealots.

I disagree. There are other ways for this to work out.

What are the reasons for the disagreement, and what are the other ways for this to work out?

Sort of like the DSS guys claiming that a "Son of Zadok" meant a Priest who obeys the covenant, rather than someone just using that name. Maybe.

No.
If we grant this view, then only the Pharisees were not called the "sons of Zadok" and we have no valuable means of claiming who was or was not a "son of Zadok".

 

[Brainache]

That doesn't indicate that he was a widely popular individual.
It indicates that he was without crime to be charged by proper citation of the Law; which was what bothered the Sanhedrin.

The sending off to the King and Procurator was by the Zealots citing Ananus' technical violations; not popularity violations.

Still, he was well known enough for Josephus to write about his death 20 years later.

Not sure where I said anything about property violations.

That wouldn't be an issue of popularity, but of technicality.


I noted that when I stated that the only expressions regarding how popular James was existed in later apologetic commentaries; that's not very convincing.

Ok.

Then we remove the Zealot party from being of linking support for the proposition.

What? I show that he was a famous Zealot, so it no longer supports me? How does that work?

Now we are down to James, Zadok, Sadduccees and that's it.



Yes.

Due to dating conflicts, we cannot claim those are about James; which is why I did not use any scroll material as direct support for any given concept outlined.

You didn't say I couldn't use them. They are kind of central to my argument.

Zealots did not write the scrolls.
James being called the just does not inherently indicate him as a Zadokite, nor does it inherently indicate that Zadoks were Zealots.

Those scrolls were written by the type of Zealot that I am talking about. And they definitely associate themselves with the "sons of Zadok"

If by "Zealot", you mean "Passionate", then just write passionate.
Using "Zealot" to not refer to the political party of the same time is confusing since there was a political party called the Zealots.

I mean Zealous for the Law exactly as the Scrolls and the NT mean it. Fanatical Fundamentalist Jew.

I took that to also be Josephus' meaning, rather than membership of a Political Party.

It was political to the extent that they didn't believe the establishment Priesthood had legitimacy. But I don't think anyone had to sign a membership roster and register to vote...

What are the reasons for the disagreement, and what are the other ways for this to work out?

Almost infinite.

More than one group merged over time. The descendents of the original outcast Zadokites joining up with the early JTB movement and fellow anti-Roman travellers continue to swell the numbers throughout the 1st c. CE.

Eventually one faction lays down the "Community Rule" as we have it and the "Teacher Of Righteousness" is born.

That is just one possibility. There are thousands of similar ones.

No.
If we grant this view, then only the Pharisees were not called the "sons of Zadok" and we have no valuable means of claiming who was or was not a "son of Zadok".

But we have the actual hand written documents of this group calling their Priests "Sons of Zadok" because they keep the Covenant, not because of familial descent.

How can you deny this?

 

[JaysonR]

Still, he was well known enough for Josephus to write about his death 20 years later.

Not sure where I said anything about property violations.

No, "popularity violations", not property violations. lol

Meaning; the citations are about technicalities; not popularity.

Yes, Josephus mentions a James, questionable as to which James this was as the attribution has been called into question, but even if we call it as our James, it's a James who is noted because he was the individual who's case's technical violations lead to Ananus being kicked out of office.

It's like citing a law case; you cite the individuals of the case as the identifier of the case. It has nothing inherently to do with popularity.

What? I show that he was a famous Zealot, so it no longer supports me? How does that work?

You stated that the reference was to his behavior, not the "card carrying member of a Political Party".
If we're not referring to the party, then we don't include the party.

Zealot then just becomes an adjective and not a noun.

You didn't say I couldn't use them. They are kind of central to my argument.

Right, but we can't come to an agreement on them because I hold that they are not of the right date, while you disagree with that position.
The disagreement of the date seems to be contextual for evidence, but the scrolls are then used to support the position that the scrolls fit the context...it's kind of a loop.

I just ripped them out because, uncontested for dating, the Persharim we are left with are about 5, and only one of those is interesting (Psalms) and that is hardly as packed with the scrolls that are wanted to support the idea (HBK, for example).

Those scrolls were written by the type of Zealot that I am talking about. And they definitely associate themselves with the "sons of Zadok"

A zealous person is not a Zealot party member.
It's incredibly confusing to refer to a passionate individual as a zealot when there is a political party by the same name.

If you mean the scrolls were written by a passionate group who called themselves "sons of Zadok", then yes.

I mean Zealous for the Law exactly as the Scrolls and the NT mean it. Fanatical Fundamentalist Jew.

I took that to also be Josephus' meaning, rather than membership of a Political Party.

It was political to the extent that they didn't believe the establishment Priesthood had legitimacy. But I don't think anyone had to sign a membership roster and register to vote...

There was actually a Zealot party; so that's confusing to mix the two loosely.

Does it make a bit more sense why I've been confused by the claims?
The actual Zealot party, the one involved in the throw down with Ananus, was a political party, not an adjective describing people without a political affiliation.

Almost infinite.

More than one group merged over time. The descendents of the original outcast Zadokites joining up with the early JTB movement and fellow anti-Roman travellers continue to swell the numbers throughout the 1st c. CE.

Eventually one faction lays down the "Community Rule" as we have it and the "Teacher Of Righteousness" is born.

Except that the TOR comes in with the early texts, not the latter texts, and the timeline provided doesn't match the evidence without serious conflict in dating debates.

But we have the actual hand written documents of this group calling their Priests "Sons of Zadok" because they keep the Covenant, not because of familial descent.

That's one in the same statement as far as the Zadokite & Sadduccee groups were concerned.

 

[Brainache]

No, "popularity violations", not property violations. lol

Meaning; the citations are about technicalities; not popularity.

Yes, Josephus mentions a James, questionable as to which James this was as the attribution has been called into question, but even if we call it as our James, it's a James who is noted because he was the individual who's case's technical violations lead to Ananus being kicked out of office.

It's like citing a law case; you cite the individuals of the case as the identifier of the case. It has nothing inherently to do with popularity.

OK. Sorry. I'm starting to think I need glasses.

But still, the case moved enough influential people to object about it in the first place. That's something.

You stated that the reference was to his behavior, not the "card carrying member of a Political Party".
If we're not referring to the party, then we don't include the party.

Zealot then just becomes an adjective and not a noun.

OK. Sorry for the confusion.

Right, but we can't come to an agreement on them because I hold that they are not of the right date, while you disagree with that position.
The disagreement of the date seems to be contextual for evidence, but the scrolls are then used to support the position that the scrolls fit the context...it's kind of a loop.

I just ripped them out because, uncontested for dating, the Persharim we are left with are about 5, and only one of those is interesting (Psalms) and that is hardly as packed with the scrolls that are wanted to support the idea (HBK, for example).

I understand how it looks circular. I think of it as a "big picture" kind of thing.

We also have the Community Rule and the Damascus Document Scrolls. Plus one or two other fragments IIRC.

A zealous person is not a Zealot party member.
It's incredibly confusing to refer to a passionate individual as a zealot when there is a political party by the same name.

If you mean the scrolls were written by a passionate group who called themselves "sons of Zadok", then yes.

There was actually a Zealot party; so that's confusing to mix the two loosely.

Does it make a bit more sense why I've been confused by the claims?

OK. Yes. But I don't think "Political Party" is particularly accurate either. I don't imagine they were much like Republicans or Democrats.

More like a network of cells like Al Qaeda, IMO.

The actual Zealot party, the one involved in the throw down with Ananus, was a political party, not an adjective describing people without a political affiliation.

The Zealots I'm talking about (adjectivally) had a common political affiliation against Herod and his puppet Priesthood, of which Ananus Jnr was a part.

The Zealots didn't complain to the King and have him removed from office. They let the Idumeans into the city to chop bits off him and throw him from the wall to the dogs. That was how they rolled.

The people who complained to the King were:

...those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done...

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-9.html

I don't know where you are getting the idea that Zealots had anything to do with that. That was the general popular support I mentioned before.

Except that the TOR comes in with the early texts, not the latter texts, and the timeline provided doesn't match the evidence without serious conflict in dating debates.


That's one in the same statement as far as the Zadokite & Sadduccee groups were concerned.

Maybe the first TOR was the Zadok who was Judas the Galilean's Sidekick.

I don't know at this stage.

 

[Brainache]

Having just found this for a different thread, I thought I should also post it here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10113.html

...
Like the Essenes, Jesus also regarded all possessions as a threat to true piety and held poverty, humility, purity of heart, and simplicity to be the essential religious virtues. Jesus, as did the Essenes, had an awareness of and affection for the social outcast and the oppressed. The Essene author of the *Thanksgiving Scroll (18:14–15) promises salvation to the humble, to the oppressed in spirit, and to those who mourn, while Jesus in the first three beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount promises the Kingdom of Heaven to "the poor in spirit" to "those who mourn," and to "the meek" (Matt. 5:3–5). Moreover, Jesus' rule "Do not resist one who is evil" (Matt. 5:39) has clear parallels in the Essene Dead Sea Scrolls...

Everywhere I look, I keep finding things like this.

 

[pakeha]

No worries, that was awesome. Literally.

I nominated it for TLA, because of the use of Language.

Well done!

...(also, sorry if I'm a bit disjointed; I've been on meds for the past few days awaiting a tooth extraction, so I may be confusing in my articulation....

All the best with that.

 

[JaysonR]

OK. Sorry. I'm starting to think I need glasses.

But still, the case moved enough influential people to object about it in the first place. That's something.

Right, because of a technical concern that indicated worry about an over use of power.

It would be like the House Leader of Congress passing laws into action without the President signing the law into action due to his absence.
Members of congress would be uneasy about this move and some would most likely notify the President.

We also have the Community Rule and the Damascus Document Scrolls. Plus one or two other fragments IIRC.

1QS is contested, as it is dated primarily to BCE eras and not CE eras.
4Q258 is more weighted to CE than BCE, so that community rule rewrite (new draft of new rules) is plausible.
4Q266 is more weighted to CE than BCE, but the cave fragments are incredibly small; most of that document is recovered from a secondary copy outside of the cave copy, but it can be admitted as a potential.

Then we have Pslams, of course.
And then there's a couple others, but they are mostly tiny fragments without any functionally useful information on them to any great length.

So does Psalms, 4Q258 and 4Q266 offer you anything interesting if we ignore all other scrolls?

OK. Yes. But I don't think "Political Party" is particularly accurate either. I don't imagine they were much like Republicans or Democrats.

More like a network of cells like Al Qaeda, IMO.

They were both; not like one or the other.
They were very much like Republicans and Democrats, but they were also religious factions at the same time because this was a theocratic government.
Your religious faction was your political affiliation. If you changed your religious affiliation, then you changed your political party.
If you changed your political party, then you changed your religious faction.

As such, the Zealot party cannot be mitigated into loosely applying by adjective and slide other groups into its fold who were not of that party.

The Zealots I'm talking about (adjectivally) had a common political affiliation against Herod and his puppet Priesthood, of which Ananus Jnr was a part.

The Zealots didn't complain to the King and have him removed from office. They let the Idumeans into the city to chop bits off him and throw him from the wall to the dogs. That was how they rolled.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that Zealots had anything to do with that. That was the general popular support I mentioned before.

The zealots that were involved in the contest with Ananus were a party; not merely really passionate people not of the Zealot party.

Our options of who sent for the notice to the King and Procurator are pretty slim.
We essentially have three picks: Zealots, Pharisees, Sanhedrin.
Now, Pharisees are unlikely as a party to do so as they weren't really mixed in this contest, but appear to be eating popcorn on the sidelines watching the show (my guess is they were probably waiting to see who they should favor based on who looked likely to win; just a guess).

That would leave the Zealots or the Sanhedrin.
Now, the Sanhedrin could be a possibility because the Sanhedrin isn't a party; it's like saying "Congress".
It's a council of individuals from a mix of party affiliations.

I stated Zealot because they have the motive.
To be fair, true, it could have been general members of the Sanhedrin (Congress) as well, since they were uneasy about the issue and may have wanted to cover their butts for when the rulers came home.

Why don't I think it was the general public?
Because the logistics of communication in this time period make that beyond incredible.
It's not like they had a phone to jingle.
They would have to pay for a courier, have weight to gain the King and Procurator's attention to bother with their issue, and/or modes of travel personally capable of trafficking the message (most likely courier by trade boats, though).

That limits us to a few layers of the society; notably, the wealthy or powerful.
Typically, the wealthy have some sway, but the powerful (those in office) have far more because their messages arrive with a notice of the member or members of the office or official party.

So I will grant that I could be wrong to claim the Zealot party sent the message (though they surely had enough motive to want it sent), but if I remove that, then the next clear choice would be members of the Sanhedrin.

Actually, one consideration just now changed my thinking on this.
This was probably the Sanhedrin because the Zealots would most likely brag about it, whereas the select members (not all of them) of the Sanhedrin who were really troubled with this wouldn't want to overtly disclose their positions (typical of the Sanhedrin, btw) in an action which would legislatively cause the High Priest to be removed from office, for if they were made overtly known, then their lives would be in jeopardy.

Maybe the first TOR was the Zadok who was Judas the Galilean's Sidekick.

The side-kick who may possibly share as partner in starting the Sadducee party?