• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Paul The Herodian and the DSS

Ah, well.
I take two things away from this.
A desire to learn more about those bathing cults and having my interest piqued by the reference " I think Manaen is "Menahem The Essene" a Second Temple Rabbi who is traditionally said to have been "elevated and favoured" by the King, and sent out 70 Disciples in fancy clothes to preach."

IIRC, Luke records Jesus sent out 70 (or 72 in some translations) disciples to preach, too.
Shiny!
 
Pakeha,

I discussed an alternative rendering of that value as a cultural idiom in a couple of posts back.
462
467
 
Pakeha,

I discussed an alternative rendering of that value as a cultural idiom in a couple of posts back.
462
467

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I took away from that, was that the exact number of "Disciples" wasn't to be relied upon in either case.
 
Yes, because the value could be idiomatic in nature, rather than literal, just as easily as there could literally be that many people for the specific purpose of filling the symbolic amount (like the Septuagint authors).
 
Yes, because the value could be idiomatic in nature, rather than literal, just as easily as there could literally be that many people for the specific purpose of filling the symbolic amount (like the Septuagint authors).

So I guess for my little speculation, I would have to come up with some plausible explanation for why those numbers were chosen in both cases, (Luke and the Mishnah) and try to relate them to the same group of "Disciples".

One says more than the other IIRC.

70 or 80? Why?
 
70, as mentioned, (ayin, an eye) symbolizes (paraphrasing) divine wisdom (to know and obey), while 80 (a mouth) symbolizes (paraphrasing) to speak, convey, or express.

So 70 disciples could refer to those who knew and obeyed, while 80 could refer to those who went out to speak (or "preach", as we would think of it).
 
70, as mentioned, (ayin, an eye) symbolizes (paraphrasing) divine wisdom (to know and obey), while 80 (a mouth) symbolizes (paraphrasing) to speak, convey, or express.

So 70 disciples could refer to those who knew and obeyed, while 80 could refer to those who went out to speak (or "preach", as we would think of it).

Fascinating.

To the Jews who kept the Mishnah, I assume that "preaching" was not viewed favourably. The Rabbis were never big on proselytisers. Could that have something to do with their choice of "80", in that it conveys that the "Disciples" were trying to convert Gentiles?

Whereas the "70" of the NT are obeying Jesus command to "Preach to the Nations"?
 
...
This is the first instance I've noted where I think Eisenman is flat-out wrong. Presumptuous of me, I know, but so is this whole thread, so what the hell?

Eisenman identifies "Manaen who was foster-Brother to Herod the Tetrarch", as Paul himself. This makes no sense to me. It means that the Author of Acts put Paul in the same small list twice.

I think Manaen is "Menahem The Essene" a Second Temple Rabbi who is traditionally said to have been "elevated and favoured" by the King, and sent out 70 Disciples in fancy clothes to preach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menahem_the_Essene



ETA: I am speculating about Ancient Scribal confusion over the term "Foster Brother To Herod The Tetrarch". I think it may have originally been something like: "Raised by Herod The Tetrarch", in the sense of "Promoted" or "Elevated", rather than "Brought up with".

I also think it's possible that the Mishnah has its Herods mixed up. All pure speculation, of course.

...

Just thinking about this a bit more, I'm now wondering if we might both be right.

Is it possible that Menahem The Essene is actually "Paul"? I'm not sure where Eisenman gets the "manaen = Paul" idea (I've only just started this one), but it doesn't seem any stranger to think: "Menahem = Paul" to me.
 
Fascinating.

To the Jews who kept the Mishnah, I assume that "preaching" was not viewed favourably. The Rabbis were never big on proselytisers. Could that have something to do with their choice of "80", in that it conveys that the "Disciples" were trying to convert Gentiles?

Whereas the "70" of the NT are obeying Jesus command to "Preach to the Nations"?
No idea, and the 'final command' is different in different textual cultures.
Different followings seem to have ascribed a different 'indefinite' purpose.
 
Pakeha,

I discussed an alternative rendering of that value as a cultural idiom in a couple of posts back.
462
467

So you did!
I expect that's that's the figure caught my eye when I reread Luke the other day.



Here is another version, somewhere in between the two:


Ofra Haza - Im Nin'alu (Original Version - 1984)

That reminds me of the singing of Sister Marie Keyrouz before she was introduced to someone who made horrible, horrible back up arrangements for her glorious voice.
 
...
That reminds me of the singing of Sister Marie Keyrouz before she was introduced to someone who made horrible, horrible back up arrangements for her glorious voice.


Ofra Haza - Kaddish

Wrap your ear-holes around that...


She died in 2000



Ofra Haza - Love song (from the biblical "song of songs")


Ofra Haza - Yerushalaim Shel Zahav (Jerusalem of Gold)
 
Last edited:
A lovely, lovely voice.
I wonder how close to the "original" experience these recreations are, but I'm content to enjoy the artist's creation.

I hated the reverb in that first link, though.
 
A lovely, lovely voice.
I wonder how close to the "original" experience these recreations are, but I'm content to enjoy the artist's creation.

I hated the reverb in that first link, though.

I suspect that might have been post-production to improve bad quality sound on the original footage. Still a great voice though. Or, it might be the stadium sound from the live recording.

I have to wonder too, what any of those Scroll Authors would have thought of someone like her. Probably an evil fornicator doomed to the pit, like just about anybody who wasn't in their group.
 
Last edited:
Hard to know.
If those early sources are correct, antiphonal hymn-singing was a feature of religious life, not only Christian, but Jewish as well.
 
Just thinking about this a bit more, I'm now wondering if we might both be right.

Is it possible that Menahem The Essene is actually "Paul"? I'm not sure where Eisenman gets the "manaen = Paul" idea (I've only just started this one), but it doesn't seem any stranger to think: "Menahem = Paul" to me.

Here I go again.

I thought I should check the index of The New Testament Code, to see if Menahem gets a mention...

I think this warrants a spoiler:
The Menahem he mentions is just on one page and is from Josephus. At some stage during the war, Menahem shows up from the North with a bunch of his Zealot followers, tries to take over and gets stoned to death (I think). I can't find the relevant passage now. This Menahem is the Son, or Grandson of Judas The Galilean.

Now, if this is the same "Menahem The Essene" from the Mishnah (Eisenman argues elsewhere that there were such things as "Sicarii Essenes", or Zealots basically) who "went out" in the King's service, He might have shown up in Jerusalem wearing Herod's colours and been run out of town...

If Paul was a Herodian, that is, who hung out with Menahem, "Niger" (Possibly Simeon Niger who fought in the revolt and then turned-coat and led the Idumeans) and Luke in Antioch, then things seem to fit together nicely for Eisenman, without having to invent a strange "Menahem equals Paul" caper at all. He is just Menahem the Essene who was raised by the King and went out in the King's service with his fancy robes and his 70 or 80 "Disciples"...

From Antioch.

Crikey! my little CT brain is about to explode.
 
Here I go again.

I thought I should check the index of The New Testament Code, to see if Menahem gets a mention...

I think this warrants a spoiler:
The Menahem he mentions is just on one page and is from Josephus. At some stage during the war, Menahem shows up from the North with a bunch of his Zealot followers, tries to take over and gets stoned to death (I think). I can't find the relevant passage now. This Menahem is the Son, or Grandson of Judas The Galilean.

Now, if this is the same "Menahem The Essene" from the Mishnah (Eisenman argues elsewhere that there were such things as "Sicarii Essenes", or Zealots basically) who "went out" in the King's service, He might have shown up in Jerusalem wearing Herod's colours and been run out of town...

If Paul was a Herodian, that is, who hung out with Menahem, "Niger" (Possibly Simeon Niger who fought in the revolt and then turned-coat and led the Idumeans) and Luke in Antioch, then things seem to fit together nicely for Eisenman, without having to invent a strange "Menahem equals Paul" caper at all. He is just Menahem the Essene who was raised by the King and went out in the King's service with his fancy robes and his 70 or 80 "Disciples"...

From Antioch.

Crikey! my little CT brain is about to explode.

Found him:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-2/chapter-17.html
In the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,) took some of the men of note with him, and retired to Masada, where he broke open king Herod's armory, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem; he became the leader of the sedition, and gave orders for continuing the siege;
...

However, those that were within sent to Manahem, and to the other leaders of the sedition, and desired they might go out upon a capitulation: this was granted to the king's soldiers and their own countrymen only, who went out accordingly; but the Romans that were left alone were greatly dejected, for they were not able to force their way through such a multitude; and to desire them to give them their right hand for their security, they thought it would be a reproach to them; and besides, if they should give it them, they durst not depend upon it; so they deserted their camp, as easily taken, and ran away to the royal towers, - that called Hippicus, that called Phasaelus, and that called Mariamne. But Manahem and his party fell upon the place whence the soldiers were fled, and slew as many of them as they could catch, before they got up to the towers, and plundered what they left behind them, and set fire to their camp. This was executed on the sixth day of the month Gorpieus [Elul]...

But on the next day the high priest was caught where he had concealed himself in an aqueduct; he was slain, together with Hezekiah his brother, by the robbers: hereupon the seditious besieged the towers, and kept them guarded, lest any one of the soldiers should escape. Now the overthrow of the places of strength, and the death of the high priest Ananias, so puffed up Manahem, that he became barbarously cruel; and as he thought he had no antagonist to dispute the management of affairs with him, he was no better than an insupportable tyrant; but Eleazar and his party, when words had passed between them, how it was not proper when they revolted from the Romans, out of the desire of liberty, to betray that liberty to any of their own people, and to bear a lord, who, though he should be guilty of no violence, was yet meaner than themselves; as also, that in case they were obliged to set some one over their public affairs, it was fitter they should give that privilege to any one rather than to him; they made an assault upon him in the temple; for he went up thither to worship in a pompous manner, and adorned with royal garments, and had his followers with him in their armor. But Eleazar and his party fell violently upon him, as did also the rest of the people; and taking up stones to attack him withal, they threw them at the sophister, and thought, that if he were once ruined, the entire sedition would fall to the ground. Now Manahem and his party made resistance for a while; but when they perceived that the whole multitude were falling upon them, they fled which way every one was able; those that were caught were slain, and those that hid themselves were searched for. A few there were of them who privately escaped to Masada, among whom was Eleazar, the son of Jairus, who was of kin to Manahem, and acted the part of a tyrant at Masada afterward. As for Manahem himself, he ran away to the place called Ophla, and there lay skulking in private; but they took him alive, and drew him out before them all; they then tortured him with many sorts of torments, and after all slew him, as they did by those that were captains under him also, and particularly by the principal instrument of his tyranny, whose name was Apsalom.

That last word looks strangely familiar to me...
 

I've just had another weird thought. I haven't had my coffee yet this morning, so this may be pure sleep-induced delerium, but this passage got me thinking:

so they deserted their camp, as easily taken, and ran away to the royal towers, - that called Hippicus, that called Phasaelus, and that called Mariamne. But Manahem and his party fell upon the place whence the soldiers were fled, and slew as many of them as they could catch, before they got up to the towers, and plundered what they left behind them, and set fire to their camp. This was executed on the sixth day of the month Gorpieus [Elul]...

There was a Fortress (I know Herod built a lot of them, mostly as defense against internal strife) called the Tower of Mary? Or Mary's Fortress? Mary's House?

"Mary's house" is where Peter runs to leave a message for "James and the other Brothers" in Acts, after he busts out of Jail, before heading off to Rome.

I think I need that coffee.
 
Possibly, regards the coffee but now you have me wondering just what Jesus was about with that triumphant entry into Jerusalem.
 
Possibly, regards the coffee but now you have me wondering just what Jesus was about with that triumphant entry into Jerusalem.

I don't know. The idea looks like more of a stretch now anyway.

But I was thinking more about this "Manahem" character in Josephus and wondering if he might be the "Spouter Of Lies" rather than Paul. And Paul was just one of Manahem's Allies, with connections to Herod.

Is there enough coffee in the world for a bloke like me?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom