Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Craig B]

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

That is an example of the absurdity of this argument I'm criticising. Paul is telling people they don't need to circumcise their sons or obey dietary laws. A number of ordinary adherents of the James movement object to this abandonment of normal Jewish customs.

Therefore they wrote the DSS? That's crackers. It simply means they were observant Jews, objecting to a teacher promoting inordinate laxity.

 

[Brainache]

That is an example of the absurdity of this argument I'm criticising. Paul is telling people they don't need to circumcise their sons or obey dietary laws. A number of ordinary adherents of the James movement object to this abandonment of normal Jewish customs.

Therefore they wrote the DSS? That's crackers. It simply means they were observant Jews, objecting to a teacher promoting inordinate laxity.

I only quoted that bit of Acts as a single example of how James & co. were similar to the DSS community. It doesn't say that they were merely "observant", it says they were "Zealous".

Throughout the thread it has been pointed out how the DSS describes the enmity between the community and their enemy the "Spouter of Lies". It has also been noted how often in Paul's letters he denies the charge of being a liar and an enemy.

There is plenty more, but I don't feel like rehashing it all right now. I suppose you could try re-reading the thread...

 

[Craig B]

I only quoted that bit of Acts as a single example of how James & co. were similar to the DSS community. It doesn't say that they were merely "observant", it says they were "Zealous".

Throughout the thread it has been pointed out how the DSS describes the enmity between the community and their enemy the "Spouter of Lies". It has also been noted how often in Paul's letters he denies the charge of being a liar and an enemy.

There is plenty more, but I don't feel like rehashing it all right now. I suppose you could try re-reading the thread...

I have read the previous expressions of the idea. This is another example of "fascinating speculation". The DSS contains material about an alleged liar. Paul denies being a liar. Ergo the DSS were written by followers of James. This supposition is unwarranted, to put it mildly.

 

[Brainache]

I have read the previous expressions of the idea. This is another example of "fascinating speculation". The DSS contains material about an alleged liar. Paul denies being a liar. Ergo the DSS were written by followers of James. This supposition is unwarranted, to put it mildly.

"The Liar" preached against the Law in the midst of the congregation, so did Paul.

James says that to break one of the laws is the same as breaking them all, the DSS say the same.

etc etc etc...

 

[Craig B]

"The Liar" preached against the Law in the midst of the congregation, so did Paul.

All liars that get themselves noticed do that. They spout lies in public. If they told lies only in the privacy of their own homes they wouldn't be noticed, would they?

James says that to break one of the laws is the same as breaking them all, the DSS say the same.

If the laws are to be obeyed because they emanate from God, then each and every law is equally important, isn't it? Because every law has been proclaimed by God. Therefore not boiling dead goats in their mothers' milk is as important as not killing live people. That is a common feature of religious thought. It is not a peculiarity of the DSS. It's the same as Jesus' "jot and tittle".

etc etc etc...

I think you need to reveal some of the etcs because what you have given us so far is very unimpressive.

 

[Brainache]

All liars that get themselves noticed do that. They spout lies in public. If they told lies only in the privacy of their own homes they wouldn't be noticed, would they?

Well, yes. The issue is what Paul was saying and who he was saying it to, not that people noticed. He was telling people not to worry about food purity and circumcision (ie "The Law") and the people he was preaching to were members of the congregation of which James was the leader.

If the laws are to be obeyed because they emanate from God, then each and every law is equally important, isn't it? Because every law has been proclaimed by God. Therefore not boiling dead goats in their mothers' milk is as important as not killing live people. That is a common feature of religious thought. It is not a peculiarity of the DSS. It's the same as Jesus' "jot and tittle".

It was a tenet of the kind of Fundamentalist Judaism as practised by Zealots like the DSS community, James and Jesus. It was definitely not a tenet of Paul's preaching. It was not something which bothered most of the Priestly Establishment at the time who were corrupt political appointees. Josephus talks a lot about those corrupt rich Priests ripping of the poor and living luxurious lifestyles while people were starving.

The whole point of the idea of strict adherence to the laws of Moses was at the heart of the rebellion against the Herods and Rome. It was what the "New Covenant in the land of Damascus" was all about:

Their sons too perished by such conduct. Their kings were cut off through it, and their heroes perished through it, and their land was laid waste through it.

Thus, whenever in ancient times those who had entered the Covenant became guilty on this account, forsaking that Covenant of God, preferring their own pleasure and going astray after the stubbornness of their hearts, doing each man as he pleased, they were invariably delivered to the sword...


...'Thou shalt not enter into intimate relations with the sister of thy mother; she is thy mother's kin' [cf. Lev. 18.13]. (The laws of forbidden degrees are written, to be sure, with reference to males, but they hold good equally for females. A niece, for instance, who indulges in carnal intercourse with her paternal uncle is equally to be regarded as his kin.)

Furthermore, such men have desecrated the holy spirit within them, and with mocking tongue have opened their mouths against the statutes of God's Covenant, declaring, 'They have no foundation'. They have spoken disgracefully about them.

All such men may be described as persons that 'kindle a fire and set firebrands alight' [Isa. 50.11]. Of them it may be said that 'their webs are spiders' webs and their eggs basilisks' eggs' [Isa. 59.5]. None that have contact with them shall go unscathed; the more one does so, the more guilty he becomes-unless, of course, he does so under compulsion...

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

Herod's family were constantly marrying their close relatives. The Temple Priests went along with it all for personal gain. Jesus' "not one jot or tittle" was as much a political statement as it was a religious one.

Paul's message was directly opposed to that political position. Paul's companions included: "Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 13

If that isn't enough to convince you that Paul was at least aligned with the ruling Roman puppet Herodian regime, I don't know what will.

I think you need to reveal some of the etcs because what you have given us so far is very unimpressive.

Those etcs refer to other stuff already covered in this thread.

 

[Craig B]

... that that Paul was at least aligned with the ruling Roman puppet Herodian regime

and to say that the James sect wrote the DSS are two very different things.

In any case all you have indicated is that Paul was not inclined to challenge the existing political leadership, because his interest was in personal salvation from sin, not political or social reform.

 

[Brainache]

and to say that the James sect wrote the DSS are two very different things.

Eisenman has written extensively on this point, so anything I write here would be superfluous, just note the fact that the DSS community refer to themselves as "Ebionim" the Greek form of which is "Ebionite" and that the Jewish-Christian followers of James were known as "Ebionites". Their theology overlaps on many points.

The DSS community was not small. They had a library of over 1000 scrolls, they numbered themselves in thousands and they operated in and around Jerusalem in the decades leading up to the Jewish revolt in the late 60s CE. If they weren't the followers of James they were some other unnamed group operating in the same place and time with identical goals and philosophies that nobody ever mentioned. That may not be impossible, but it doesn't seem likely to me.

In any case all you have indicated is that Paul was not inclined to challenge the existing political leadership, because his interest was in personal salvation from sin, not political or social reform.

Which in itself is a political statement given the social climate in which he was operating. It also runs contrary to what James - the acknowledged leader of the organisation - was teaching. If Paul was so sincere in his belief in the "spiritual", why was he so concerned with being part of James' organisation?

Why meet up with James at all if he wasn't trying to influence Messianic Jews to move away from their religious-political ambitions?

 

[Brainache]

I see this thread is still getting views (over 94,000 at this time) and so I thought some of these silent readers might be interested in this new book:

It's Eisenman telling how he broke the Catholic monopoly over the scrolls and once again explaining his ideas about "Messianic Judaism", "James the Just" and "The Teacher of Righteousness".

If I could afford it, I'd probably buy it.

 

[Brainache]

It's been 4 years since I posted in this thread, so apologies for this resurrection, but I saw this podcast the other day where they discuss the "Paul the Herodian" hypothesis. It seems like a few more people might be coming around to the idea.

The discussion starts at around the 5 minute mark goes for about 15 minutes or so. It is part of a longer discussion about early Christianity which is pretty interesting, if you like that kind of thing...

I think it is a good introduction to this subject for anyone wanting a concise summary, rather than a juvenile rambling thread full of dopey references and puerile "humour".

The MythVision podcast:

#Christianity #GnosticInformant #MythVision
Rome Made Christianity?

 

[lionking]

It's been 4 years since I posted in this thread, so apologies for this resurrection, but I saw this podcast the other day where they discuss the "Paul the Herodian" hypothesis. It seems like a few more people might be coming around to the idea.

The discussion starts at around the 12 minute mark goes for about 15 minutes or so. It is part of a longer discussion about early Christianity which is pretty interesting, if you like that kind of thing...

I think it is a good introduction to this subject for anyone wanting a concise summary, rather than a juvenile rambling thread full of dopey references and puerile "humour".

The MythVision podcast:

#Christianity #GnosticInformant #MythVision
Rome Made Christianity?

I couldn’t play this, but I am in Bali and unlike my last time here before covid, they have gone all net nanny, so maybe have blocked YouTube.

Edit I can now.

 

[Venom]

I think MythVision is pretty neat, and he brings on all of the big names, but it's very clickbaitey.

 

[Brainache]

I think MythVision is pretty neat, and he brings on all of the big names, but it's very clickbaitey.

I usually ignore the title and just look at who is being interviewed. Lots of different views to choose from and all done calmly and respectfully.

I saw another one recently with Tim O'Neill that also touched on stuff in this thread...


#Mythicism #Jesus #MythVision
Tim O'Niell Jesus of The Apocalypse

 

[Myriad]

Nine years this thread's been around, and I still haven't figured out what the Department of Social Services has to do with it.

 

[Brainache]

Nine years this thread's been around, and I still haven't figured out what the Department of Social Services has to do with it.

Well, just like the DSS, the Qumran community was communist.

 

[Brainache]

Here's another old bloke droning on about the Dead Sea Scrolls and whatnot...


Dr James D. Tabor:

When Prophecy Fails: How Ancient Messianic Jews & Christians Survived Apocalyptic Disappointment

I disagree with his dating of the Scrolls, based on my "Manaen = Menahem = Absalom" identification, but apart from that, I think he is spot-on.

I say that the Scrolls were left by the community who were led by James Brother of Jesus.

He says they were left by a different community who were the same as James's, but 100 years earlier...

 

[Brainache]

This thread comes from a derail in the "Bart Ehrman... Historical Jesus" thread. Talking about the origins of Christianity, I mentioned Robert Eisenman's idea that Paul was a member of the Herodian royal family. I promised to skip ahead in the book I'm reading (James The Brother Of Jesus...) to the chapter "James in the Anabathmoi Jacobou and Paul as Herodian", and report back. So here is my summary in a separate thread to avoid continuing the derail:

This is going to be a long one. Maybe a couple of posts, because these arguments of his are based on the preceding thousand or so pages of research and Eisenman's own, sometimes idiosyncratic, interpretations of ancient documents.

He starts off talking about the "Literature of Heavenly Ascents", of which the "Anabathmoi Jacobou" or "The Ascents Of James" is a part. He also says that the two "Apocalypses Of James" found at Nag Hammadi are from a later stage of the same tradition.

Paul, in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 tells of meeting a man 14 years ago who "Ascended to the Third Heaven" and heard "unutterable things" it was "not permitted for man to know". This in the midst of his attacks on those "super-apostles" who "compare themselves to themselves" and "preach another Jesus" - He is talking about James and the gang in Jerusalem. "These Others" he calls "ministers of Death" and "Servants Of Satan" in 2 Corinthians 2:14-16 are the leaders of the Assemblies in Jerusalem.

At this time, the issue of foreigners in the Temple and foreign Sacrifices was a big thing. Along with a division between rich and poor Priests, Josephus describes it causing a lot of conflict. The rich Priests were taking the sacrifices that should have been going to the poor and meanwhile Zealots were blocking the entrance to the Temple for people trying to make sacrifices on behalf of Ceasar.

Josephus says that barring foreigners from the Temple was a new idea: "which our Forefathers were before unacquainted with". This is untrue. It is in Ezekiel 44: 7-9, Josephus should have known that:


I think Josephus doesn't want his Roman Audience to think he supports the Zealot's claims to Theological legitimacy. Ezekiel is one of the favourite Prophets amongst the DSS.

There is also the Deuteronomic King Law (also quoted in the DSS): "You shall not put a foreigner over you who is not your brother". I think Josephus is being cagey here.

Acts 21:29 tells us that Paul started a riot by going into the Temple. He is accused of bringing in Greeks and "Polluting this Holy Place".

Getting back to Epiphanius and the "Anabathmoi Jacobou" which is, according to him, an Ebionite document full of "nonsense". He says it claims Paul was "the anti-Christ", "the Enemy" and a " a Greek convert to Judaism who only did it to marry the High Priest's Daughter and when she rejected him, he got angry and started preaching against the Law etc... Heretical nonsense indeed...

Eisenman argues that this story about marrying the High Priest's Daughter is really about Herod marrying into the Maccabean family and that attributing this story to Paul ties him to that family in this Ebionite tradition. Also that they didn't consider Paul to be properly Jewish. They were definitely snobs about that.

The Ebionites were declared Heretics because they said Jesus was just a mortal Righteous Teacher, not the Mystical Son Of God that the Roman Orthodoxy said, and which they eventually imposed everywhere. They kept the Jewish Laws and all that too. They apparently thought very highly of James and influenced the Gnostics in that. Eisenman argues that the DSS were written by the first generation of these people.

I'll just pause there to take a breath. Paul vilified by Ebionites who were followers of James who was the brother of Jesus.

To be continued...

Hoo boy, we were all so youthful and full of hope...

A lot of things have changed in the decade or so since I posted this. One of those things is that the idea of Paul as a Herodian seems to be gaining some acceptance.

I'm not claiming credit for this, as it is just as likely that others have followed Eisenman, seen the same evidence as me and drawn the same conclusions.

For anyone interested here is a recent livestream from The History Valley Podcast all about this idea:

Paul the Apostle Was A Herodian Roman Agent?! | Dr. James D. Audlin, Chris Lawson, & Doug Del Tondo​

Makes my little crackpot heart cackle in vindication... a bit.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I get an error message when I click on the link in the above post but this one works for me:
Warning - the 'cast is 2 -and-a-half hours long.

 

[Brainache]

I get an error message when I click on the link in the above post but this one works for me:
Warning - the 'cast is 2 -and-a-half hours long.

Thanks for that.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If only there was an AI app that could parse a two hour podcast into a three sentence summary.