Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

OK, ploughing on with this Herod-Manaen-Antioch-Paul daisey chain, I want to have a bit more of a look at this Herod The Tetrarch.

In I Claudius, they have a falling out because Herod starts fortifying the cities of Judea. Claudius takes this as a sign that Herod is planning to break away from the Roman Empire and is upset about losing his friend.

I know this is Historical Drama, not a Documentary and I should probably look it up, but if Herod was fortifying those cities at that time, I'll bet it was because he feared an internal rebellion, not because he was planning to leave Rome.

Earlier in his career this Herod killed John The Baptist because he considered him a threat.:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-5.html

So Aretas beat his army, and according to the common gossip reported by Josephus, people said it was a punishment for killing John The Baptist.

John The Baptist was apparently wildly popular, not the leader of just a tiny obscure sect, but popular enough to convince Herod he was a threat. And our mate Gospel Jesus was great pals with JTB, wasn't he?

But then we have the foster Brother of the man who killed JTB setting up the first Christian Church in Antioch.

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? My brain hurts.

More later...

 

[Brainache]

Some thinking out loud:
Possibilities:
1) Acts made the whole thing up. There was no Foster-Brother to Herod The Tetrarch involved in the early church at Antioch. But then why say so? Did they want us to think it was a good thing? Are we supposed to be impressed? Was it a piece of Antiochian folklore? Something else?

2) He was in cahoots with Paul in this Herodian enterprise to build Hellenised-Jewish communities.(or whatever it was)

3) I don't know what other options there are...

 

[Craig B]

Some thinking out loud: <thinking snipped>

While your meditations are not without some psychological interest, I think it might be better if you could complete them, and then having done so, post your conclusions. The masses of material you have vouchsafed to us so far are becoming difficult to follow, for me at least. So I can well appreciate why your brain hurts, and I think you should spare yourself further suffering of this kind.

 

[dejudge]

Glad you're having a laugh. More than I can say for myself.

I asked you first. If you won't respond, fair enough. But the idea that Paul's epistles post date 180 AD is unusual enough to warrant further elucidation. I have rejected the use of the order of canonical works for the purpose of establishing relative chronology, and I have given my reasons, with appropriate sources. Over to you.

Well, you must at least read the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

In First Apology addressed to the Emperor Antoninus c 138-161 CE Justin Martyr tells us what Scriptures were used in the Churches around 150 CE.

Justin's First Apology LXVII

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...

In Justin's time c 150 CE, the Pauline Corpus was unknown. It was the Gospel called the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were used by the Jesus cult.

We can tell that Justin knew nothing of the Pauline Corpus because in all his writings he never once used a single sentence from the Pauline letters.

In Dialogue with Trypho Justin did not know the Pauline post-resurrection story that over 500 persons was visited by the resurrected Jesus.

Justin Martyr knew nothing of any Pauline Churches and did not acknowledge Paul as the one who was commissioned to preach the Gospel to Non-Jews.

But most significantly, Justin knew nothing of Acts of the Apostles and Saul/Paul.

Justin's knowledge of Jesus were fundamentally ONLY from the Memoirs of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John and the Septuagint.

Justin's story of Jesus and the disciples come to an abrupt end at the ascension--nothing else is known except that the 12 illiterate disciples preached the Gospel to the world.

There is a 100 year black hole for the Jesus cult after the supposed ascension from c 33 CE to 133 CE in the writings of Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr's writings confirm that there was no actual Jesus or disciples.

This is precisely what is expected when a story is fabricated--No history out side the Gospels.

Justin Martyr had to use prophecies in the Septuagint to prove Jesus had already come---not documented history in the writings of Philo, Josephus Tacitus and Suetonius.

Paul was not an Herodian of the 1st century . Paul was a paper character fabricated by multiple authors.

 

[Craig B]

Well, you must at least read the writings attributed to Justin Martyr. <snip>

We can tell that Justin knew nothing of the Pauline Corpus because in all his writings he never once used a single sentence from the Pauline letters.

On the other hand we also read

In Justin's works, distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr.

ETA In http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/308822/Saint-Justin-Martyr we may read that

Justin serves, moreover, as a crucial witness to the status of the 2nd-century New Testament corpus, mentioning the first three Gospels and quoting and paraphrasing the letters of Paul and 1 Peter; he was the first known writer to quote from the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Brainache]

While your meditations are not without some psychological interest, I think it might be better if you could complete them, and then having done so, post your conclusions. The masses of material you have vouchsafed to us so far are becoming difficult to follow, for me at least. So I can well appreciate why your brain hurts, and I think you should spare yourself further suffering of this kind.

Sorry. I'm just making notes as I go. You apparently would prefer I approached this subject in a different way. Oh well. I'm doing it in my usual shoddy, slapdash and half-arsed way. It's who I am. I can't see it changing anytime soon.

I don't have the wherewithal to put together a formal thesis and all that stuff. I'm glad you think I have provided a lot of material, because really I think that is the point.

As per recent discussions on this site about how amateurs like me should approach these kind of "fringe" ideas, I'm really trying to avoid the usual "Crackpot forcing his weirdo ideas on everyone" schtick that we see here so often.

I want others to draw their own conclusions.

I also just want to track down all these little references I've been reading about in Eisenman's books and put them in one thread. I also want to check that Eisenman isn't lying to me about this stuff.

So sorry again, but I will continue to use this thread as a place to put my speculations about this subject. It's better than spamming other threads with this nonsense.

 

[dejudge]

On the other hand we also read See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr.

Please read the writings of Justin Martyr yourself because NO distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy.

And to prove there are no references to the Pauline Corpus I want you to identify the passages in the writings of Justin.
You will not be able to do so.

If you had studied the writings of Justin you would have noticed that Justin ALWAYS names his sources if the name of the author is known.

Justin NEVER mentioned Paul.

Justin ALWAYS names his sources if available.
Paul was unknown to Justin.

 

[Craig B]

@ dejudge ... yet more on Justin's knowledge of Paul.

Furthermore, while explicit citations from Paul are peculiarly absent from the text, Justin, writing from Rome, certainly knows Paul's writings in detail and uses them. Indeed, it seems that the Dialogue provides a perfect occasion for him to employ Paul because in it he addresses the relationship between Judaism and the church, a central topic in both Romans and Galatians. Besides the appearance of Pauline quotations, several of Justin's arguments directly rely on Paul's thinking. For example, Justin probably has Galatians 3 before him as he composes Dialogue 95–96. Oskar Skarsaune's analysis of Justin's writing also indicates that Romans is one of Justin's preferred sources for quotations of the Jewish scriptures; that is, he sometimes quotes the Jewish scriptures as they appear in Paul rather the LXX.

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...0AD879DB.journals?fromPage=online&aid=7818106

 

[Craig B]

Please read the writings of Justin Martyr yourself because NO distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy.

And to prove there are no references to the Pauline Corpus I want you to identify the passages in the writings of Justin.
You will not be able to do so.

Here is the reference to 2 Thessalonians.

O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonoured, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians …

(cf. 2 Thess 2:3,4) (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho chapter 110). Here is 2 Thess 2

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

 

[dejudge]

@ dejudge ... yet more on Justin's knowledge of Paul. http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...0AD879DB.journals?fromPage=online&aid=7818106

Again, please read the writings of Justin Martyr yourself because there are NO references to Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

I asked you specifically to identify the passages in Justin's writings that made references to the Pauline Corpus and you have refused to do so.

Did you notice the first sentence?

... explicit citations from Paul are peculiarly absent from the text

You seem not to understand the vast amount of propaganda and erroneous information that is being propagated by apologetics.

 

[Craig B]

@ dejudge

Here is a reference by Justin to 1 Corinthians. Justin 1 Apology LXVI

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

Here is the Pauline passage. 1 Cor 11

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

 

[dejudge]

Here is the reference to 2 Thessalonians.(cf. 2 Thess 2:3,4) (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho chapter 110). Here is 2 Thess 2

I am extremely delighted that you have mentioned 2 Thessalonians.

Do you not even know that 2 Thessalonians has been deduced to a be forgery by Scholars?

Please, please, please!! 2 Thessalonians was not composed by Paul.

You must now understand that 2 Thessalonians was composed after Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.

 

[Craig B]

Again, please read the writings of Justin Martyr yourself because there are NO references to Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

I asked you specifically to identify the passages in Justin's writings that made references to the Pauline Corpus and you have refused to do so.

Did you notice the first sentence?

You seem not to understand the vast amount of propaganda and erroneous information that is being propagated by apologetics.

It is not necessarily references to Paul or his works by name that are required, but evidence that Paul's works were already in existence, and that they were known to Justin. Whether he calls them "memoirs of the apostles" or anything else, the question is, was this material available to him? Seemingly, it was.

 

[Brainache]

Here is the reference to 2 Thessalonians.

O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonoured, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians …

(cf. 2 Thess 2:3,4) (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho chapter 110). ...

I hadn't seen that before. I don't know if this is from Eisenman or if I'm just going all pseudohistory here, but can I see a connection between what Justin Martyr is saying there and this snippet from the DSS Pesher Habakkuk?:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

...Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest who 9/ was called by the name of truth when he first arose. But when he ruled over Israel his heart became proud, and he forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches. He robbed and amassed the riches of the
men of violence who rebelled against God, and he took the wealth of the peoples, heaping sinful iniquity upon himself. And he lived in the ways of abominations amidst every unclean defilement...

This is the same character - "The Wicked Priest" who supposedly conspired to kill the "Righteous Teacher"...

...
Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest whom God delivered into the hands of his enemies because of the iniquity committed against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his Council, that he might be humbled by means of a destroying scourge, in bitterness
of soul, because he had done wickedly to His elect.

I wish I knew enough to be able compare the original language of these things.

The DSS Pesher I think was in Hebrew, did Justin write in Greek?

ETA: Could what Justin referred to as "memoirs of the Apostles" include some of what we find in the DSS?

Another Thesis topic for anyone interested! Yay.

 

[Craig B]

I am extremely delighted that you have mentioned 2 Thessalonians.

Do you not even know that 2 Thessalonians has been deduced to a be forgery by Scholars?

Please, please, please!!

You must now understand that 2 Thessalonians was composed after Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.

So what, that Paul didn't write it? It was identified as a forgery only in relatively modern times, AFAIK. Was the corpus of "Pauline" material available to Justin? And I have also cited Corinthians, which is considered authentic.

 

[Craig B]

So what, that Paul didn't write it? It was identified as a forgery only in relatively modern times, AFAIK. Was the corpus of "Pauline" material available to Justin? And I have also cited Corinthians, which is considered authentic.

Further to the above, see wiki on 2 Thess.

At least as early as 1798, when J.E.C. Schmidt published his opinion, Paul's authorship of this epistle was questioned. More recent challenges to this traditional belief came from scholars such as William Wrede in 1903 and Alfred Loisy in 1933, who challenged the traditional view of the authorship.

So its authenticity or otherwise is not relevant to its presence in the Pauline corpus as that existed in the second century. It was accepted as genuine then and for another seventeen hundred years.

 

[dejudge]

@ dejudge

Here is a reference by Justin to 1 Corinthians. Justin 1 Apology LXVI Here is the Pauline passage. 1 Cor 11

I am extremely delighted that you mention the ritual of the Eucharist in Justin's First Apology LXVI because it highlights the fiction and propaganda promoted by apologetics.

Justin Martyr IDENTIFIED the source for the Ritual of the Eucharist.

Justin Martyr got it from the Gospels [the Memoirs of the Apostles].

Justin's First Apology LXVI

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

It is NOT from 1 Corinthians at all. It was from the Gospels--the Memoirs of the Apostles.

But, now hear what Paul says.

Where does he get his story about the Ritual of the Eucharist?

He got it from a fiction character--the dead Lord Jesus.


1 Corinthians 11

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

It is simply not true that Paul could have gotten information from the DEAD Jesus.

The Pauline writer may have gotten the Ritual of the Eucharist from Justin's Gospels--the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Surely he did not get any information from the DEAD.

Plus Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed.

Paul knew the Gospels. See Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1.

 

[Craig B]

@ dejudge

For Justin's knowledge of Acts, which you deny, see footnote 2 in http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...nepage&q=justin martyr allusions acts&f=false

Britannica says of Justin, that

he was the first known writer to quote from the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Craig B]

... It is simply not true that Paul could have gotten information from the DEAD Jesus ... Surely he did not get any information from the DEAD.

Let me get this right. Paul couldn't have obtained information from a dead Jesus. Therefore Justin couldn't have seen a document in which Paul stated that he had communed with a dead Jesus.

But what if Paul was a madman or a charlatan, who believed or affirmed falsely that he had received information from a dead Jesus and managed to convince future writers of this improbable circumstance? Then Justin could have seen it.

You keep arguing whether Paul's writings are authentic or sane or honest. It doesn't matter a toss. The question is, did Justin have knowledge of them? The evidence suggests that he did.

 

[dejudge]

So what, that Paul didn't write it? It was identified as a forgery only in relatively modern times, AFAIK. Was the corpus of "Pauline" material available to Justin? And I have also cited Corinthians, which is considered authentic.

I cannot believe what I am seeing. You do not know when 2 Thessalonians was actually written. You do not know when it became part of the Pauline Corpus.

We know that Justin did not mention or identify any letter to the Thessalonians and we know that he identified that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that was read in the Churches.

2nd Thessalonians was forged AFTER Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.

If Justin had a letter attributed to Paul he would have identified him just like he identified all the authors of the Septuagint to whom he made references.