Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

I just received a PM on Facebook from Robert Eisenman. It was a response to a question I asked him in early 2014:

I was wondering: Has anyone ever tried to identify the "Man Of Apostasy" mentioned in 2 Thessalonians, with the "Wicked Priest" of the Habakkuk Pesher? The descriptions of both seem very similar.

Is it because these are both exegeses of the same OT passage?

Also: Do you think it is possible that the "Manaen" listed in Acts as being with Paul at Antioch, could be "Menahem The Essene" mentioned in Talmudic tradition?

If so, would that make Menahem the "Spouter of Lies"?

All questions arising from the discussion in this thread.

I don't want to directly quote Prof. Eisenman's reply without his permission, but I guess I can say that he doesn't directly dismiss my ideas and suggests I should continue looking into it all.

I think that is worth bumping the thread for, don't you?

 

[Brainache]

I just saw an interesting interview with Eisenman. It's shot on iPad and web cam, so the quality of pictures and sound isn't great, but he talks a lot about stuff mentioned in this thread so I thought I'd post it here for anyone interested.

Starting around twenty minutes in he is answering questions related to "The New Testament Code" and "James the Brother of Jesus":

 

[Craig B]

I'm not sure whether it's worth bumping the thread to announce a communication you then refuse to quote, and a video in which a guru figure "talks a lot about stuff". Why don't you tell us what he says and why it impressed you as being significant?

 

[Brainache]

I'm not sure whether it's worth bumping the thread to announce a communication you then refuse to quote, and a video in which a guru figure "talks a lot about stuff". Why don't you tell us what he says and why it impressed you as being significant?

OK.
Eisenman's message:

I truly don't know the answer to your questions but you should continue. The ideas seem reasonable enough. I took Mandan to be a corruption of Ananias, but your idea may be worth pursuing. Send me a Friend request, RE
JUN 16TH, 3:03AM

Oh I see, we already are Friends. Apologies. My error. By the way, they corrected Manaenan to Mandan. Sorry. R
JUN 16TH, 12:48PM
...

That was in reference to my query about "Manaen who was raised with Herod" from Acts and "Menachem the Essene" from the Talmud and Josephus.

I thought the video was relevant because it was recent. He answers questions about Paul's family tree, the "Sons of Zadok" and other stuff.

 

[Craig B]

OK.
Eisenman's message:


That was in reference to my query about "Manaen who was raised with Herod" from Acts and "Menachem the Essene" from the Talmud and Josephus.

I thought the video was relevant because it was recent. He answers questions about Paul's family tree, the "Sons of Zadok" and other stuff.

Thank you for the clarification. I'm still not very sure of the value of this. Paul's family tree? What does the NT tell us about that?

 

[Brainache]

Thank you for the clarification. I'm still not very sure of the value of this. Paul's family tree? What does the NT tell us about that?

I don't think the NT says anything about it at all. In his letters Paul claims to be of "the tribe of Benjamin", but that wasn't really a family thing AFAICT.


But check the title of the thread for a hint as to why Paul's family tree might be relevant here...

 

[Craig B]

I don't think the NT says anything about it at all. In his letters Paul claims to be of "the tribe of Benjamin", but that wasn't really a family thing AFAICT.


But check the title of the thread for a hint as to why Paul's family tree might be relevant here...

Well then, what do the DSS tell us about Paul's famiy tree?

 

[Brainache]

Well then, what do the DSS tell us about Paul's famiy tree?

You've been following this thread from the start, but that was a long time ago, so I guess it wouldn't hurt to attempt a recap...

When I started it, this thread was titled "Paul the Herodian". The "and the DSS" part was added later after the thread drifted into more discussion of the DSS (mostly with JaysonR).

Initially my intention was to summarise Eisenman's arguments relating to Paul as a member of Herod's family and his membership of the puppet Roman ruling class. These arguments include the following:

• According to Acts, Paul had a relative in Jerusalem who was able to put a word in for him with the Romans. Eisenman argues that this is one Julius Archelaus, mentioned in Josephus' "Vita". He argues that this is the "Junius" mentioned at the end of "Romans" along with some other suspiciously Herodian names (Aristobulus and Herodion) as Paul's "kinsman".
• According to Josephus "Saulus" and his relative "Costobarus" who were both related to the Herodian Agrippa, started riots in Jerusalem. He says they "use violence with the people and plunder those weaker than themselves". Paul admits to this behaviour early in his career (1 Corinthians 15:9 and Galatians 1:13).
• Looking at Paul's areas of Missionary activity in the cities of Asia Minor and Syria we also see places where Herodian interests line up with Paul's stated aims of founding a community where Greeks and Jews could live in harmony and equality (1 Corinthians 1:24, Galatians 3:28, etc).
• In Romans 16:11, Paul sends greetings to various people, including those in the "Household of Aristobulus" and someone who most translate as "My kinsman Herodion", but Eisenman translates as "My kinsman the littlest Herod". I'll have to leave that to the Scholars to decide. Just note that Aristobulus and his wife Salome, (the same one as mentioned in the story about John The Baptist's head on a platter) did have a child named Herod and lived in Rome at the time.
• In another letter (Philippians) he sends greetings to "the Saints" in "The Household of Caesar" and mentions his close collaborator and "comrade in arms" - Epaphroditus. Epaphroditus was Nero's Secretary for Greek Letters and held a similar office later under Domitian. He was also Josephus' Publisher and was later accused of being involved in the death of Nero.
• Paul avoids calling himself a Jew, although he has no problem calling Peter a Jew (Galatians 2:13-14). He calls himself of "The Tribe Of Benjamin", "an Israelite of the seed of Abraham". Eisenman argues that the DSS "The War Scroll" shows that many converts to Judaism and Diaspora Jews may have referred to themselves as "Benjaminites".

A recap of the Manaen/Manachem/DSS stuff might take a little longer...

 

[Craig B]

So the Salomes are the same person, The Epaphroditi are the same person? But

Epaphroditus^WP appears in the New Testament in the letters to the Philippians (2.25-30, 4.18. This .. “common personal name” ... was very common in the Roman period. "The name occurs very frequently in inscriptions both Greek and Latin, whether at full length Epaphroditus, or in its contracted form Epaphras." Flavius Josephus describes a man by the name of Epaphroditus who was “a man who is a lover of all kind of learning”.​

The scholars have decided about Herodian, by the way, and their unanimity on this point may be seen here.

 

[Brainache]

So the Salomes are the same person, The Epaphroditi are the same person? But

Epaphroditus^WP appears in the New Testament in the letters to the Philippians (2.25-30, 4.18. This .. “common personal name” ... was very common in the Roman period. "The name occurs very frequently in inscriptions both Greek and Latin, whether at full length Epaphroditus, or in its contracted form Epaphras." Flavius Josephus describes a man by the name of Epaphroditus who was “a man who is a lover of all kind of learning”.​

Eisenman might be wrong here, but so might these people. Just because Epaphroditus was a common name does not mean that we are definitely talking about different people in this case.

The scholars have decided about Herodian, by the way, and their unanimity on this point may be seen here.

I take it this is sarcasm, because when I follow that link I find a variety of translations: "My Kinsman" and "My fellow country-man" mostly. And the name "Herodion" itself:

"Salute Herodion my kinsman,.... According to the flesh, being of the same nation, a Jew; or of the same tribe, the tribe of Benjamin; or of the same family, and nearly allied in blood to him: though the name is of Attic, or Parthic original, and seems to be a derivative of Herod; this man is reckoned among the seventy disciples, and said to be bishop of Tarsus."

http://biblehub.com/romans/16-11.htm

I don't know who compiled the list of "70 Disciples" or where to find it...

It still might mean "Little Herod" in the same way that Julius Caesar's son was named "Caesarion" (little Caesar?)

 

[Craig B]

It still might mean "Little Herod" in the same way that Julius Caesar's son was named "Caesarion" (little Caesar?)

It might mean anything, but I can find no examples of it being rendered "littlest Herod". Caesar's son was named Caesarion, but in referring to him, that's how his name was expressed, not "Little Caesar".

Eisenman is linking up all manner of names without evidence to justify it, and making up fascinating stories founded upon sand.

 

[Brainache]

It might mean anything, but I can find no examples of it being rendered "littlest Herod". Caesar's son was named Caesarion, but in referring to him, that's how his name was expressed, not "Little Caesar".

Eisenman is linking up all manner of names without evidence to justify it, and making up fascinating stories founded upon sand.

That may be true. But please remember that what I am presenting here is a very brief and simplified summary of one section of his book.

When I look at what has passed for explanations of these things for hundreds of years, Eisenman doesn't seem so bad.

Let's take the case in point:

Greet Aristobulus and his family.

11 Greet Herodion, who is a relative[c] of mine.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+16&version=CEV

There are various commentaries:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/romans/romans-16.html
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/archives/guzik_david/studyguide_rom/rom_16.cfm
http://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=45&c=16
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/16-1.htm

They all tell different stories, some fascinating, some not, but all based on sand.
At least Eisenman is putting together his hypothesis from various ancient sources, not just repeating whatever some apologist said.

 

[Craig B]

That may be true. But please remember that what I am presenting here is a very brief and simplified summary of one section of his book.

Yes, I accept that limitation on your post. Fair enough.

They all tell different stories, some fascinating, some not, but all based on sand.
At least Eisenman is putting together his hypothesis from various ancient sources, not just repeating whatever some apologist said.

The things that apologists have already extracted from the ancient sources might be the reasonable stuff. What is left to Eisenman, in his search for novelties, which has not already been claimed by his predecessors? Perhaps the mere rubbish and dross that earlier scholars cast aside as worthless or deceptive.

 

[Brainache]

Yes, I accept that limitation on your post. Fair enough. The things that apologists have already extracted from the ancient sources might be the reasonable stuff. What is left to Eisenman, in his search for novelties, which has not already been claimed by his predecessors? Perhaps the mere rubbish and dross that earlier scholars cast aside as worthless or deceptive.

What I think is more likely is that for centuries (millennia) apologists discarded anything they could which didn't align with Church doctrine and fabricated all kinds of things when they felt the need.

You are familiar enough with this subject to know this.

 

[Craig B]

What I think is more likely is that for centuries (millennia) apologists discarded anything they could which didn't align with Church doctrine and fabricated all kinds of things when they felt the need.

You are familiar enough with this subject to know this.

This is an issue of interpretation and identification of names occurring in sources. Is Eisenman claiming that the various Salomes and Epaprases whom he treats as identical, are the figments of ancient clerical fabrication?

 

[Brainache]

This is an issue of interpretation and identification of names occurring in sources. Is Eisenman claiming that the various Salomes and Epaprases whom he treats as identical, are the figments of ancient clerical fabrication?

I think it is fairly well established that the Salome who was married to Aristobulus and living in Rome at the time Paul wrote that letter was the step-daughter of Herod Antipas:

Salome, (flourished 1st century ad), according to the Jewish historian Josephus, the daughter of Herodias and stepdaughter of Herod Antipas, tetrarch (ruler appointed by Rome) of Galilee, a region in Palestine. In Biblical literature she is remembered as the immediate agent in the execution of John the Baptist. Josephus states that she was twice married, first to the tetrarch Philip (a half brother of her father, Herod, and a son of Herod I the Great) and then to Aristobulus (son of Herod of Chalcis). She is not to be confused with Salome, sister of Herod I the Great.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Salome-stepdaughter-of-Herod-Antipas

I would say that the identification of Epaphroditus as being Nero's secretary, Paul's emissary and also Josephus' Publisher is by no means certain. It is also not essential to Eisenman's hypothesis, merely a tantalising speculation.

 

[Craig B]

I I would say that the identification of Epaphroditus as being Nero's secretary, Paul's emissary and also Josephus' Publisher is by no means certain. It is also not essential to Eisenman's hypothesis, merely a tantalising speculation.

I agree especially with the last two words. I have already described Eisenman's output as

... fascinating stories ...

but "tantalising speculation" is good too.

 

[Brainache]

I agree especially with the last two words. I have already described Eisenman's output as... but "tantalising speculation" is good too.

I've said it before that I think Eisenman sometimes gets carried away with fanciful ideas. He tends to rely on long chains of supposition and draws definite conclusions which should really be more tentative.

Having said that, I still think that there is something worthwhile at the core of this hypothesis. I think a good case can be made that the DSS were written by the followers of James, that they were the "Zealots" at the heart of the uprising against Rome in the late 60s CE, that they had a conflict with Paul and his followers and that Paul's mission was a deliberate attempt to divert the Messianic movement into one which was more Roman/Herodian friendly.

 

[Craig B]

Having said that, I still think that there is something worthwhile at the core of this hypothesis. I think a good case can be made that the DSS were written by the followers of James, that they were the "Zealots" at the heart of the uprising against Rome in the late 60s CE, that they had a conflict with Paul and his followers and that Paul's mission was a deliberate attempt to divert the Messianic movement into one which was more Roman/Herodian friendly.

I think the hilited section is untenable. But that there were zealots among the early Jesus people is plausible and is even suggested by Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5. Paul did reconcile these ideas with support for Roman rule. To make the James people, the Essenes, the Sicarii, the Herodians and Paul into a single movement is fanciful.

 

[Brainache]

I think the hilited section is untenable. But that there were zealots among the early Jesus people is plausible and is even suggested by Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5. Paul did reconcile these ideas with support for Roman rule. To make the James people, the Essenes, the Sicarii, the Herodians and Paul into a single movement is fanciful.

I think the point is that James people, the Essenes, the Sicarii and the Jewish populace in general were a movement against the Romans and their Herodian puppets. Paul and his followers like Manachem/Manaen, Simeon Niger etc were firmly on the side of Rome and Herod.

I'm not sure why you think it is so untenable that the followers of James left behind the DSS. They (James & co) were famously "Zealous for the Law":

And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord and said unto him, “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous for the law...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+21&version=KJ21
Just to give one example.