Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[JaysonR]

But that only works if the GH was in favour of Paul's approach. The people who followed this Gospel weren't in favour of Paul's approach, why would the book be?

I don't understand this at all, I'm sorry.
It doesn't only work if ____

It serves to show that (as is well known) sects during this time carried value in discussing adherence issues regarding the Law revolving around the difference of 'going through the motions' and keeping to the actual point of what the Law was intending.

Paul could have never existed and this would still be the case.

As to the charge of strawman: it wasn't.
That was a summary of my impression after going through and raising issues and receiving descriptions to fill in the holes I was pointing out.

The image we are left with is conflicted.

Also, I'm just an amateur hobbyist and I have this many issues.
This proposition gets absolutely hammered when we look into the academic circles, and it looks like for much of the same reasons that I stated that I have issues with Eisenman.

"The problem I personally face with Eisenman's work is that while I find his argumentation both hard to follow and often based on a chain of associations, and some of his assumptions inadequate." - Philip R. Davies - James The Just and Christian Origins - 1999.


There's much more than just that being brought up, but that is the critical issue that I share agreement with in earnestness.

But I find the issues that I raised being sounded in academia as well.
From the same entry by the same individual, they state the same issue that I did regarding the DSS narrative of Eisenman:
"By recognizing this movement under the guise of "Maccabees," "Zadokites," and "Nazoreans," as well as attributing them the authorship of the Qumran scrolls, Eisenman presents an alternative to the increasingly accepted view both that the Judaism of the late Second Temple Period was characterized by a number of different versions of "Judaism" - even, indeed, a number of "Judaisms." On the contrary, he simplifies the picture of Palenstinian Judean religion considerably by effectively proposing a duality between the "righteous," nationalistic, and popular Judaism of his "Zadokites" and the religiously corrupt Judaism of the political and religious authorities who were also politically compliant with the occupying power, Rome: Sadducees, Herodians, Pharisees, and high priests." (same citation as above)

And too:
Indeed, if Eisenman insists, as he does, that "one must make one's determinations on the basis of internal data - internal allusions and perspective of the document itself," then he will have to acknowledge that the internal evidence of the Scrolls as a whole is against him. All the known historical allusions in the Scrolls (as has been recently demonstrated by Wise, Abegg, and Cook) can be assigned to the first century B.C.E There is simply no ground form which to argue that certain other must nevertheless refer to the first century C.E. and that James could therefore be mentioned in the Qumran Scrolls.

Furthering the point:
"Eisenman, with many earlier Qumran scholars, assumes the Scrolls to be the products of a single community, for which the term "Qumran sect" was an appropriate designation. But much of current scholarship doubts that the Scrolls all originated at Qumran, while how much of the archive is "sectarian" (and how many sects may be represented) is now disputed, as is the nature of the Qumran site itself."

And finally, I'll leave this citation with:
"The circle of Scrolls specialists has almost unanimously dismissed Eisenman's views. This reaction is not entirely because of the reasons given earlier that render his conclusions at best very improbable. There are in addition two other factors: his manner of argumentation and his unwillingness to negotiate or debate his views."

 

[Brainache]

I don't understand this at all, I'm sorry.
It doesn't only work if ____

It serves to show that (as is well known) sects during this time carried value in discussing adherence issues regarding the Law revolving around the difference of 'going through the motions' and keeping to the actual point of what the Law was intending.

Paul could have never existed and this would still be the case.

OK. We could say the same for Communism without Karl Marx (see how I cleverly avoided the WWII - Hitler analogy. Phew!). Communism might have still arisen from 19th century Industrialisation without him, but Marx was the guy who codified it.

Same with Paul and a Hellenised-Jewish hybrid religion emerging from that time and place.

As to the charge of strawman: it wasn't.
That was a summary of my impression after going through and raising issues and receiving descriptions to fill in the holes I was pointing out.

The image we are left with is conflicted.

I think mine conflicts with yours. I don't think this is unusual in Ancient History. I understand your position on Eisenman's long chains of "ifs-and-maybes", and how he seems overly confident in drawing a definite conclusion from them.

But on the other hand, you still haven't said it's impossible. Implausible, requiring logical leaps, and not justified by the evidence in hand, but still not quite entirely impossible. I'll take that.

Also, I'm just an amateur hobbyist and I have this many issues.
This proposition gets absolutely hammered when we look into the academic circles, and it looks like for much of the same reasons that I stated that I have issues with Eisenman.

"The problem I personally face with Eisenman's work is that while I find his argumentation both hard to follow and often based on a chain of associations, and some of his assumptions inadequate." - Philip R. Davies - James The Just and Christian Origins - 1999.

I'm sorry Philip R. Davies, but not being able to follow it, doesn't make it wrong. I could show you a petition full of people who couldn't follow the NIST Report into 9/11, does that make it wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_&_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

There's much more than just that being brought up, but that is the critical issue that I share agreement with in earnestness.

But I find the issues that I raised being sounded in academia as well.
From the same entry by the same individual, they state the same issue that I did regarding the DSS narrative of Eisenman:
"By recognizing this movement under the guise of "Maccabees," "Zadokites," and "Nazoreans," as well as attributing them the authorship of the Qumran scrolls, Eisenman presents an alternative to the increasingly accepted view both that the Judaism of the late Second Temple Period was characterized by a number of different versions of "Judaism" - even, indeed, a number of "Judaisms." On the contrary, he simplifies the picture of Palenstinian Judean religion considerably by effectively proposing a duality between the "righteous," nationalistic, and popular Judaism of his "Zadokites" and the religiously corrupt Judaism of the political and religious authorities who were also politically compliant with the occupying power, Rome: Sadducees, Herodians, Pharisees, and high priests." (same citation as above)

He simplifies it in some ways. Those various sects are still there, just all part of a mass anti-Establishment counter-culture, one of whose Figureheads was "James The Just", the "Brother Of The Lord" (maybe a bit like John Lennon to the Hippies, but with less singing, and more crazy religion), who regularly addressed the crowds from the Temple steps.

He debated with the Temple Priests about the coming Day of The Lord and had lots of fans in the crowd, not just the hard-core Followers out in the wilderness sharpening their swords.

At some point James angers the High Priest so much, that he just can't take it anymore, and arranges to get him stoned when the Romans are away.

The Romans didn't want to stir up unnecessary unrest through these internal Religious matters (They thought the "Sicarii" were a tiny extremist faction who would soon be stamped out, they were wrong, er, up to a point.) . "Kill one, you'll have to kill them all". As witnessed by that Roman Commander when confronted by someone and his followers who were prepared to die, rather than let him erect some statue somewhere. Who was that again?

And too:
Indeed, if Eisenman insists, as he does, that "one must make one's determinations on the basis of internal data - internal allusions and perspective of the document itself," then he will have to acknowledge that the internal evidence of the Scrolls as a whole is against him. All the known historical allusions in the Scrolls (as has been recently demonstrated by Wise, Abegg, and Cook) can be assigned to the first century B.C.E There is simply no ground form which to argue that certain other must nevertheless refer to the first century C.E. and that James could therefore be mentioned in the Qumran Scrolls.

Well I guess this is an area of Academic dispute. I haven't read Abegg and Cook.

Furthering the point:
"Eisenman, with many earlier Qumran scholars, assumes the Scrolls to be the products of a single community, for which the term "Qumran sect" was an appropriate designation. But much of current scholarship doubts that the Scrolls all originated at Qumran, while how much of the archive is "sectarian" (and how many sects may be represented) is now disputed, as is the nature of the Qumran site itself."

And finally, I'll leave this citation with:
"The circle of Scrolls specialists has almost unanimously dismissed Eisenman's views. This reaction is not entirely because of the reasons given earlier that render his conclusions at best very improbable. There are in addition two other factors: his manner of argumentation and his unwillingness to negotiate or debate his views."

He's a stubborn old Coot and we don't think it's likely, therefore he's wrong.

Well I don't care if they don't like him. I can follow his arguments, and to my admittedly untutored brain, they make sense.

Maybe we can agree to disagree on this question. Like most questions of Ancient History there are degrees of uncertainty. I'm not calling this certain, just not impossible, given a particular interpretation of the evidence.

I think we just disagree over whether or not Eisenman's interpretation is justified. Maybe I'll change my mind as I read more.

Cheers Jayson.

Maybe someone else would care to comment. I went to Eisenman's website:

http://www.roberteisenman.com/

I didn't see anywhere to contact him. I wonder why? I'm sure he must get tons of adoring fan emails every day...

 

[Brainache]

Just to show I'm not totally biased, here's some chap from Yale talking about Paul and how anti-Jewish his message is:


16. Paul as Jewish Theologian

He doesn't call Paul a Herodian, or a Christian, but a radical Jewish Theologian. I'm not sure I agree. Maybe I'm using a different definition of "Radical", but equating being Jewish with being cursed and enslaved? It's certainly different to what other Jews were saying at the time, and it played off Jewish tropes, but doesn't it's opposition to all things "Jewish" classify it as a different Theology? I mean, as opposed to just a radical form of Judaism.

I suppose it's the same argument people have with Mormons about whether or not they are Christians.

 

[JaysonR]

OK. We could say the same for Communism without Karl Marx (see how I cleverly avoided the WWII - Hitler analogy. Phew!). Communism might have still arisen from 19th century Industrialisation without him, but Marx was the guy who codified it.

Same with Paul and a Hellenised-Jewish hybrid religion emerging from that time and place.

This isn't accurate, as what wouldn't exist would be Paulinism, but what I'm referring to existed prior to Paul; not after Paul.
The Hebraic cultural thread of heated debates over the essence or meaning of the Law compared against just the letter of the Law (or, "technicalities of the Law") were well in play regardless of Paul's existence, and it is only because these cultural issues were in play already that Paul ever was able to derive his variation which took these ideas to an entirely philosophical level.

I'm sorry Philip R. Davies, but not being able to follow it, doesn't make it wrong. I could show you a petition full of people who couldn't follow the NIST Report into 9/11, does that make it wrong?

When someone states that they cannot follow someones argument in an academic editorial summary like this, they aren't implying that they couldn't understand the arguments in the sense of not comprehending it; it means that they cannot go along with the argument's logic, or the method by which the arguments are made.

If I stated, "I had a dog who was brown, therefore all dogs are brown."
The editorial summary review could state that they could not follow the argument.

It's a polite way of saying that the arguments are invalid in form.

Folks don't, usually, like to write crudely in these types of reviews as peers will be reading these more often than entire bodies of work - as a sort of cliff notes of current topics.

I see this same kind of language in neurological publications of the same form which I read a bit more regularly than the historical iterations such as this.

He simplifies it in some ways. Those various sects are still there, just all part of a mass anti-Establishment counter-culture, one of whose Figureheads was "James The Just", the "Brother Of The Lord" (maybe a bit like John Lennon to the Hippies, but with less singing, and more crazy religion), who regularly addressed the crowds from the Temple steps.

He debated with the Temple Priests about the coming Day of The Lord and had lots of fans in the crowd, not just the hard-core Followers out in the wilderness sharpening their swords.

At some point James angers the High Priest so much, that he just can't take it anymore, and arranges to get him stoned when the Romans are away.

The Romans didn't want to stir up unnecessary unrest through these internal Religious matters (They thought the "Sicarii" were a tiny extremist faction who would soon be stamped out, they were wrong, er, up to a point.) . "Kill one, you'll have to kill them all". As witnessed by that Roman Commander when confronted by someone and his followers who were prepared to die, rather than let him erect some statue somewhere. Who was that again?

That is what was being referred to: that is a, by definition, a simplification.
The counter point, as I've noted as well, is that we really cannot make such a sweeping and generalized simplification of the movements in this time.

It is quite a bit more like the joke in Life of Brian; there really were lots of sects all over the place, and not many agreed with even each other on what would seem like things they should agree on by default of both being opposed to a common foe.

Well I guess this is an area of Academic dispute.

It is, and that's kind of the point.
We're learning more and more every year about just how diverse things were, and getting better at the dating.

Eisenman would probably have had no problems with his proposition had it come out in 1955 or 1960, when we used to be so certain that everything was unified and Qumran was one Essene group, and that all subsequent caves at other sites were of their hand as well.

These ideas, and many more, have been since then dismissed, as we continue to learn more.

He's a stubborn old Coot and we don't think it's likely, therefore he's wrong.

That's not what's meant by that section.

What's meant is that they have issues, they wanted to discuss the issues (like we are doing) and see where his ideas could be fashioned into an idea which was more in merit of presently understood evidence - a compromise of the idea that would be more widely agreed and may help shed light on progressive work in this section of history.

He refuses to do that, and as such, the community is forced to either accept all of what Eisenman asserts or reject it entirely.
Since they cannot accept it in full, nor work with him on fashioning it into parts which could be accepted, they are then forced to denounce it in full.


As I've mentioned before, I don't think he's entirely off his marking, but he goes far too far and with too much conviction off of very, very, very few actual and verifiable pieces of evidence.

His outline is about as on par in evidence as a 9/11 conspiracy 'theory'.
While fascinating, it lacks actual content which can be confirmed and worked on.

His pursuit would have been better had he written this out like a Dan Brown novel and hoped that over time archaeologists and anthropologists would use the ideas in the novel to further historical research into possible connections between political factions in some fashion akin to his novel.

He's a very educated man, and has many good ideas (I'm getting more and more up to speed on his work over the course of this conversation), and I think many of his basic concepts could be used as a starting point for conceptualizing the way to view political faction in-fighting during the era, but his Herodian/Qumran/James proposition goes too far off of too little for such a massive and equally specific claim.

I think mine conflicts with yours. I don't think this is unusual in Ancient History. I understand your position on Eisenman's long chains of "ifs-and-maybes", and how he seems overly confident in drawing a definite conclusion from them.

But on the other hand, you still haven't said it's impossible. Implausible, requiring logical leaps, and not justified by the evidence in hand, but still not quite entirely impossible. I'll take that.

That's because I try never to say that something is impossible when it comes to propositions for unknowns in history.

I will more often state that something is unlikely, improbably, implausible, unfamiliar culturally, out of context from anthropological considerations, or something of this sort.

Too often in this field (and many others) someone goes about claiming absolutes (in either direction) and later on they just look like a fool and idiot for proposing or dismissing ideas so adamantly; and too, along the way such ways of approaching history usually causes you to miss out on information that you could be collecting that, in some manner, aids in some other venture along the way.

For instance, while I consider this idea incredibly implausible, I'm quite certain that within the next few years some aspect of this idea will influence an idea or inspiration to consider some parallel in form when I'm looking at something else unrelated within the area.

 

[Brainache]

OK, yeah. Even I see some things in there and think they are a bit too much of a stretch, sometimes they aren't even necessary for his central idea.

Any Academic should always be open to the possibility that they are wrong, I agree.

I'm glad that you think there might be something to some aspects of the idea.

Above when I was thinking of doing a "Dan Brown" with this idea, I was imagining someone digging up letters between Paul and Aristobulus.

More realistically, something which might shed some light either way on this is if someone ever digs up a copy of an Ebionite "Acts of The Apostles."

 

[JaysonR]

Quite so.

I think the idea of Paul pandering to Herodians is entirely plausible, without even needing him to be related to them or anything of the sort.

I also think that examining the DSS cave sites in respect to their role during the first century era and the unrest and diverse sectarian issues is worth further investigation; regardless of James.

And I think more needs to be done in working out, carefully and slowly, what James' actual role was in this culture and within society - was he actually widely known, or only widely known within a small group? Was he fluffed up after his death more than he was actually valued during his life? Who were those who followed his ideas, exactly (not just shared similar ideas sympathetically)?

There's lots of conjecture around these issues, and I think it is functional and applicable to anthropological understanding of the era to attempt to understand these considerations better as it can help us understand the culture as a whole during this time better.

 

[Brainache]

I agree. I think it will take generations of Scholarship to get to the bottom of this, if ever.

A whole new field opened up in the early 90's when the DSS were released. Eisenman is just the guy who was first to spot a whole lot of congruences, because he was amongst the first to look and he wasn't bound by an oath of secrecy.

He put the pieces together in a particular way, someone else might have put them together differently, no doubt subsequent Scholars will. The first endeavours in any field are always the crudest.

Call it a gut feeling. Call it the intuition of someone raised by a Cop turned Private Investigator. Call it the intuition of someone who worked for years in a Newsroom. I think Eisenman is on to something.

 

[JaysonR]

I think he's on to some extremely crude concepts, but goes very far off in expecting or wanting there to be an exciting thriller of a story of epic proportions.

I think, honestly, that he's caught up in excitement of the idea; rather than caught up in the probability and supporting evidence of the idea.

Actually, a lot of his methods remind me of when I first started getting into history as a hobby in high school, and I would read book after book (before the internet) on Egypt, and in that I began to make many ideas together which were massive and exciting, but ultimately very over-reaching.

I'm not trying to compare him to a high school hobbyist; I'm only referring to a time where I too was caught up in excitement over an idea and got carried away with making associations that were hasty.

I think there is a devil in history for us all; a seduction in a notion or idea that consumes us beyond our normal reason otherwise.

 

[Brainache]

I think he's on to some extremely crude concepts, but goes very far off in expecting or wanting there to be an exciting thriller of a story of epic proportions.

I think, honestly, that he's caught up in excitement of the idea; rather than caught up in the probability and supporting evidence of the idea.

Actually, a lot of his methods remind me of when I first started getting into history as a hobby in high school, and I would read book after book (before the internet) on Egypt, and in that I began to make many ideas together which were massive and exciting, but ultimately very over-reaching.

I'm not trying to compare him to a high school hobbyist; I'm only referring to a time where I too was caught up in excitement over an idea and got carried away with making associations that were hasty.

I think there is a devil in history for us all; a seduction in a notion or idea that consumes us beyond our normal reason otherwise.

I'm probably guilty of a bit of that. But it's fun.

At least we managed to keep it civil. Sometimes these things get inexplicably ugly.

Cheers.

 

[JaysonR]

I will always prefer civility and respect.
Besides, I really enjoy these kinds of debates over history; it's part of why I love it as a hobby.

 

[Brainache]

A couple of documentaries that I found interesting:


The Dead Sea Scrolls 1 (of 6) - Rageh Omaar


The Secret Family of Jesus

 

[Brainache]

Getting back to Paul and his Theology; He calls himself a Pharisee. One Pharisee (Pharisaic ?) idea/practice was accepting money as a sacrifice. Paul is a big fan of this idea.

The Herodian appointed Pharisee Temple Priests are big fans of this idea too. They get rich skimming cash. Cash that otherwise would have gone to the people selling the animals. I don't know if it's just a coincidence that stories of rich men from this time often involve a camel ("gamal") and that the name of one of these Priests is "Gamaliel".

The stricter "Sadducees" and the people who made their living selling animals for sacrifice in the Temple, were not big fans of this idea. I'm not sure who was in the majority. I think it varied according to which Roman was in charge and which faction he felt like appeasing the most at the time.

The Fanatics living out in the Wilderness Preparing The Way, didn't like it either. They were anti-Temple, but only because the Priests weren't "Righteous" enough. They (the Fanatics) thought that Sacrifice was good and proper, but only if done by someone "circumcised in heart and body". As far as they were concerned the Temple Priests were not "Circumcised of Heart", they were impure. They were appointed by a Foreign King: Deuteronomy says NO!. The Pharisees were dismissed as "Seekers after smooth things", obsessed with the material world, and consigned to the Pit with all the rest.

So Paul is part of a trend of liberalisation of the strict interpretation of Mosaic Law, but in a way that favours Herodians and their collaborators, not the masses.

Maybe next I'll try to tackle how he goes about doing this by using the same language and metaphors as the people at Qumran and turning them around by 180 degrees.

Maybe I've said enough.

What do the lurkers think?

 

[Brainache]

Here's another documentary for anyone interested. Shame about the video quality...



"The Scrolls"

And this one:


Robert Eisenman interviewed by Opher Segal and David Owen

 

[Brainache]

...
Maybe next I'll try to tackle how he goes about doing this by using the same language and metaphors as the people at Qumran and turning them around by 180 degrees.

Maybe I've said enough.

What do the lurkers think?

Well, no one has told me to stop...

But I'm not going to go to all the trouble of finding all these references. Eisenman has already done it better than I could:


The Historical Jesus - 5

It goes for about an hour and ten minutes. I thought the part about the Habakkuk pesher, compared to Paul and the Gospels was very interesting.

 

[JaysonR]

I'm sorry, it's catapult season so I'll be hit and miss for November.

 

[pakeha]

Enjoy the catapult season, JaysonR.
Brainache, I've viewed hundreds of hours of videos meant to explain biblical truths and I've reached my limit for this decade.
The soundtracks really, really irritate me.
Could you just link to some articles I can read, please?

 

[Craig B]

I'm sorry, it's catapult season so I'll be hit and miss for November.

What is catapult season?

 

[JaysonR]

What is catapult season?

November. Side-culture surrounding Pumpkin Chucking, mostly popular in America, but the sport and hobby is starting somewhat in Europe from what I read.

I'm starting out building a small 2.4x1.2x1.2 meter size; my oldest daughter (7) and I watch the competitions every year, so I thought that we could have some fun together by building a pumpkin catapult (she's asked in the years before).

 

[Brainache]

I'm sorry, it's catapult season so I'll be hit and miss for November.

No worries. Knock 'em dead.

Enjoy the catapult season, JaysonR.
Brainache, I've viewed hundreds of hours of videos meant to explain biblical truths and I've reached my limit for this decade.
The soundtracks really, really irritate me.
Could you just link to some articles I can read, please?

Sorry Pakeha. I'm not really aware of any articles that haven't already been linked.

Was there any particular aspect of this idea that you want me to expand on?

I think I might just go back through the first couple of posts and find references/articles for the documents and people I mentioned there.

I'll try to keep the videos to a minimum, but I can't promise to stop posting them altogether. Sorry you don't like them.

I think I'm addicted to cheap stock footage and cheesy public domain muzak...

 

[JaysonR]

Well...sad news. Second day into the build and our main tool (table saw) completely broke down, and we won't get a replacement in time for this year's catapult season.

Lesson learned: start earlier in the year so if things like this happen, you have time to recover.
On the up-shot; hey, we already have our plans and can just work on the 'pult over the course of the coming year and just have it all ready to go by November!


Also an up-shot: I'll be able to get back to things around here. lol.


Brainache: I feel as though I've covered the general grounds of my concerns decently enough that I don't really want to keep beating that drum; is there another aspect which you would like to discuss?
Or perhaps a related consideration, or are you more looking for other inputs aside from the angles I presented, for diversity?