Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

I find it alarming that Robert Eisenman uses Acts of the Apostles as an historical source to develop his argument for Paul the Herodian.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

It can be easily seen that the author of Acts knew nothing of the Pauline Corpus and Nothing of the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

We have clues of what Acts of the Apostles should look like if the author knew of the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

If the author of Acts of the Apostles knew of the Pauline Corpus then the author would be expected to have copied passages word-for-word from the Pauline Corpus and emulated the Pauline teachings.

The Synoptics are perfect examples of what is to be expected--the author of gMatthew copied sometimes word-for-word passages from gMark and emulated the teachings of Jesus found in gMark.

How in the world could the author of Acts not have anything of the Revealed Gospel from the Pauline Corpus when Paul was supposedly the founder of Gentile Churches?

The mystery of the Gospel was supposedly REVEALED to Paul.

Romans 16.25

None of the Gospels and Acts contain the Pauline Revealed Gospel--the Revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel.

The Pauline Corpus was unknown to the Gospel authors.

Which Paul was an Herodian?

There may be at least 7 different authors using the name Paul.

I find it alarming that you can think that Eisenman needs History lessons from you.

If you took the time to understand what you were arguing against, you might have an argument that actually addresses the issues, but you don't.

Oh well.

 

[pakeha]

Are you saying that John The Baptist wasn't a Second Temple Jew in the first century CE?

No, not yet.
I'm saying the Isaiah 40:3 verse is inappropriately applied to him by the NT authors.
Apparently the original referred to the journey from Babylon back to Jerusalem by the Jews, praying for a safe trek through the wilderness, identifying the deity with his people.

I could be wrong, not for the first time, but given the early Christians' use of OT prophecies to bolster their story, it's doesn't ring false that they'd shoehorn Isaiah 40:3 to the ministry of JtB.

I'm not well at the moment and I don't have the energy to do much more of this right now, but I'll be interested to see how anyone can fit the Damascus document into a Maccabean time frame.

Sorry about the ill-health and hope you recover soon.
Here's some reading for your sickroom from the BC & H forum about the DSS.
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=513
I've been following the links posted in that thread and it seems the consensus view is changing over time, as is normal.
I thought you might be interested to see where scholars are going now.

The archeological information's interpretation seems to be under renewed scrutiny.
All the best.

 

[pakeha]

I don't understand the perspective that the authors were writing of their distant past.

I've attached a chart that shows DSS typical estimate dates (orange) and High Priest dates (purple).
Negative values on the right are BCE, while positive values are CE.
The names of the texts and priests are below in full listing.

There is a rather strong correlation between the dates and multiple priests of note.
What there appears to be are two primary waves of activity.
One occurs and correlates with more priests of the older dates.
A second occurs and correlates with more priests of the newer dates.
(More in detail, I think there are three clusters, but for the discussion at hand of BCE/CE ranges, there are 2 groups; one from each time range.)

I still think it is an error to attempt to treat these texts as one unified generation of work, or one singular cultural theology, when it is rather evident in many manners that the texts traverse time and culture within the Hebrew culture.

There are common themes, but also variations.
Furthermore, there are multiple and differing rules for the outlined groups of adherents.

Yet, it remains, that a large body of the texts do correlate to earlier date ranges.

There is no requirement for the acceptance of the idea that the authors would have been writing of their distant past in maintaining or authoring such texts.

Thanks for sharing your graph with the thread, JaysonR.
Because of this thread I've investigated what's being published on the DSS and it seems to me that your posts are a valuable addition to what's out there.
Thanks again.

..."There are two possible relationships between Marcion's gospel and the Gospel of Luke; either Marcion revised a previously existing Gospel of Luke to fit his own agenda or else his "Gospel of the Lord" pre-dated the Gospel of Luke as we have it today and was in fact the basis for it."

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



Most likely gLuke derived from Marcion.

See the dedication: to Theophilus.

Theophilus bishop of Antioch makes the most likely candidate.

We can thus date the production of gLuke and Acts to the late 2nd century....

...
On the other hand - if the synoptics are derived from Marcion then fragments thought to be Matthew, Luke, or Mark could actually be Marcion.



I am open to learning about your opinion.

But if it turns out the canonical gospels are based on non-canonical texts like Marcion et al well need to include them in the timeline as well. ...

The idea that Luke and Acts are written as reactions to Marcion or derived from Marcion is something I've seen before.

If they're mid to late 2nd century tracts used to combat heresies, how reliable can they be as sources of information about the activities in the pre-70 church?

 

[proudfootz]

Which dating cases are you referring to with this?

Merely a quick lookup.

Interpreting dejudge's remark about dating copies of the texts

We have actual dated NT Codices and manuscripts.

as being indicative of when the originals were composed I went to Google:

At wikipedia they show a chart indicating earliest dated fragments:

John fragments date to 125 - 160 AD
Matthew to 150 - 200 AD
Luke fragments to 175 - 250 AD
Acts to 250 AD
Mark as 350 AD

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

Obviously, if some of these books are derivative of Marcion, then might not these fragments be evidence of Marcion and not the orthodox corruptions?

Honestly, I don't give the notion that we can date the creation of such things to the dates of the copies that by accident of history have survived into the present, so it's not really something I feel requires much effort to investigate.

I don't consider any theory about the dates of composition for christian or proto-christian texts to be carved in stone.

 

[dejudge]

I find it alarming that you can think that Eisenman needs History lessons from you.

If you took the time to understand what you were arguing against, you might have an argument that actually addresses the issues, but you don't.

Oh well.

You are not an historian.

You have no idea of how history is done.

You think that the existence of Universities is evidence from antiquity.

Now, Robert Eisenman's theory that Paul was an Herodian is just a modern invention without any real evidence.

Acts of the Apostles is regarded as a 2nd century source and riddled with fiction by many Scholars yet Eisenman uses Acts as corroboration for supposed events which he speculates happened before c 70 CE.

Plus, in Acts and the Pauline Corpus Paul is NOT even described as an Herodian.


Philippians 3

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee...

Acts 21:39 KJV

But Paul said , I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.

There is simply no source of antiquity that states Paul was an Herodian.

Robert Eiseman's Paul the Herodian is horribly flawed and un-evidenced.

 

[proudfootz]

I find it alarming that Robert Eisenman uses Acts of the Apostles as an historical source to develop his argument for Paul the Herodian.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

It can be easily seen that the author of Acts knew nothing of the Pauline Corpus and Nothing of the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

We have clues of what Acts of the Apostles should look like if the author knew of the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

If the author of Acts of the Apostles knew of the Pauline Corpus then the author would be expected to have copied passages word-for-word from the Pauline Corpus and emulated the Pauline teachings.

The Synoptics are perfect examples of what is to be expected--the author of gMatthew copied sometimes word-for-word passages from gMark and emulated the teachings of Jesus found in gMark.

How in the world could the author of Acts not have anything of the Revealed Gospel from the Pauline Corpus when Paul was supposedly the founder of Gentile Churches?

The mystery of the Gospel was supposedly REVEALED to Paul.

Romans 16.25

None of the Gospels and Acts contain the Pauline Revealed Gospel--the Revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel.

The Pauline Corpus was unknown to the Gospel authors.

Which Paul was an Herodian?

There may be at least 7 different authors using the name Paul.

Perhaps Eisenman is one of those who wants to make a lot of money publishing their sensationalist book.

I understand it goes on all the time in bible studies.

 

[dejudge]

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

Obviously, if some of these books are derivative of Marcion, then might not these fragments be evidence of Marcion and not the orthodox corruptions?

Honestly, I don't give the notion that we can date the creation of such things to the dates of the copies that by accident of history have survived into the present, so it's not really something I feel requires much effort to investigate.

I don't consider any theory about the dates of composition for christian or proto-christian texts to be carved in stone.

Why are you suggesting that some books in the NT may have derived from Marcion when you will be not able to demonstrate such a thing?

You do not even have a fragment of Marcion's writings.

The existing texts of Ephraem's "Against Marcion" show that it is extremely unlikely that books of the NT were derived from Marcion.

Ephraem's "Against Marcion 3"

These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker....

The Marcionites REJECTED the God of the Jews as the Creator and REJECTED that the Son of God was sent by the God of the Jews.

Plus, there is virtually no mention of gLuke and the Pauline Corpus or that they were corrupted by Marcion in the existing texts of Ephraem's Against Marcion.

Ephraem's Against Marcion is evidence against early Pauline writings or that they were composed by Marcion.

 

[Brainache]

No, not yet.
I'm saying the Isaiah 40:3 verse is inappropriately applied to him by the NT authors.
Apparently the original referred to the journey from Babylon back to Jerusalem by the Jews, praying for a safe trek through the wilderness, identifying the deity with his people.

I could be wrong, not for the first time, but given the early Christians' use of OT prophecies to bolster their story, it's doesn't ring false that they'd shoehorn Isaiah 40:3 to the ministry of JtB.




Sorry about the ill-health and hope you recover soon.
Here's some reading for your sickroom from the BC & H forum about the DSS.
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=513
I've been following the links posted in that thread and it seems the consensus view is changing over time, as is normal.
I thought you might be interested to see where scholars are going now.

The archeological information's interpretation seems to be under renewed scrutiny.
All the best.

The point about Isaiah 40:3 that I was making is that the DSS apply it to their own times.

As far as I know the DSS were written a long time after Isaiah. The DSS use the verse exactly the same as the NT uses the verse.

The Habakkuk line about "The righteous shall live by his faith" also gets a pretty good workout in the Scrolls, in the NT that seems to be an area of controversy with Paul.

That thread seems weird to me. I don't know of any references in the scrolls to the "Wicked Priest" being crucified. Seems to me they are confused, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Brainache]

Perhaps Eisenman is one of those who wants to make a lot of money publishing their sensationalist book.

I understand it goes on all the time in bible studies.

Perhaps he is a serious Academic with a Hypothesis that fits the evidence.

Perhaps there is great resistance to his ideas because it demonstrates that Christianity was based on a deliberate attempt to sabotage the early Jesus movement by a cynical Politician called Paul.

Maybe people don't like to think of Jesus as a Communistic ultra-nationalist Hasidic Jew who called for Holy War against unbelievers.

Eisenman's HJ is more like Bin Laden than Santa Claus, maybe some people don't like that...

I could go on making these "Perhaps" statements all day.

Maybe you could read his stuff and decide what you really think...

 

[proudfootz]

Perhaps he is a serious Academic with a Hypothesis that fits the evidence.

Perhaps there is great resistance to his ideas because it demonstrates that Christianity was based on a deliberate attempt to sabotage the early Jesus movement by a cynical Politician called Paul.

Maybe people don't like to think of Jesus as a Communistic ultra-nationalist Hasidic Jew who called for Holy War against unbelievers.

Eisenman's HJ is more like Bin Laden than Santa Claus, maybe some people don't like that...

I could go on making these "Perhaps" statements all day.

Maybe you could read his stuff and decide what you really think...

It appears Eisenman already makes a career out of making 'perhaps' statements all day.

 

[Brainache]

It appears Eisenman already makes a career out of making 'perhaps' statements all day.

If thats what you call being a History Professor for over twenty years.

 

[proudfootz]

If thats what you call being a History Professor for over twenty years.

What percentage of Ancient Near East Historians has he convinced so far?

1%? 5%?

If you ever decide to go to university, you'll find professors aren't infallible.

 

[pakeha]

The point about Isaiah 40:3 that I was making is that the DSS apply it to their own times.

As far as I know the DSS were written a long time after Isaiah. The DSS use the verse exactly the same as the NT uses the verse.

The DSS use the verse exactly the same as the NT uses the verse?
Not according to the sources I cited, Géza Vermès among them.
I have the impression the DSS used the verse to indicate well-directed study of the Torah, while the NT usage points to repentance rather than study if the commentaries I've are to be trusted.
http://biblehub.com/luke/3-4.htm

The Habakkuk line about "The righteous shall live by his faith" also gets a pretty good workout in the Scrolls, in the NT that seems to be an area of controversy with Paul.

That thread seems weird to me. I don't know of any references in the scrolls to the "Wicked Priest" being crucified. Seems to me they are confused, but maybe that's just me.

I'm interested in seeing how that verse is used in the DSS and NT. Just to help the laziest poster in the forum, could you point to which DSS have that Habbakkuk verse?
ETA
I found one source for that
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0019_0_19666.html

If you have a better, let me know, please.

Maybe they ARE confused in that thread, but I thought you'd be interested in the links and also by the idea that thoughts on the DSS are evolving in academe.

 

[Brainache]

The DSS use the verse exactly the same as the NT uses the verse?
Not according to the sources I cited, Géza Vermès among them.
I have the impression the DSS used the verse to indicate well-directed study of the Torah, while the NT usage points to repentance rather than study if the commentaries I've are to be trusted.
http://biblehub.com/luke/3-4.htm

Well I guess it depends which part of the NT we are talking about. I was referring to John The Baptist's mission to "Prepare the Way Of the Lord" in the wilderness where he was Baptizing.

I'm interested in seeing how that verse is used in the DSS and NT. Just to help the laziest poster in the forum, could you point to which DSS have that Habbakkuk verse?
ETA
I found one source for that
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0019_0_19666.html

If you have a better, let me know, please.

Maybe they ARE confused in that thread, but I thought you'd be interested in the links and also by the idea that thoughts on the DSS are evolving in academe.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

["But the righteous shall live by his faith"] [[Hab 2.4b]].

Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgement because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.

 

[pakeha]

Well I guess it depends which part of the NT we are talking about. I was referring to John The Baptist's mission to "Prepare the Way Of the Lord" in the wilderness where he was Baptizing.

I'm talking about the direct hijacking of the Isaiah verse to apply to JtB, who preached repentance.
In the DSS, the verse seems to be applied to a study programme, rather than repentance.

...http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

Thanks for the link!
In exchange, I found this source that indignantly rebuts Paul's hijacking of Habbakkuk
"According to Paul and his gospel, faith (or trust) had replaced and was better than deeds (obedience). Paul began his reasoning by quoting in Rom. 1:17 a beautiful sentence from Habakkuk, popularly translated as, "The righteous shall live by faith.” He uniquely and predictably invested this statement with the meaning that people must have faith in "his gospel"…Paul's gospel…. which will then bring them salvation. This is a total perversion of the context of which Habakkuh spoke. Faith in God as the only Savior was replaced by Paul by "faith in Jesus". This is not the same to say the least and definitely not in the heart of Habakkuk when he penned this verse. ..."
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/gal3_11_just_shall_live_faith.htm

The site also queries how Paul could have so misused the Habbakkuk text, having been a student of Gamaliel.

 

[Brainache]

I'm talking about the direct hijacking of the Isaiah verse to apply to JtB, who preached repentance.
In the DSS, the verse seems to be applied to a study programme, rather than repentance.
<snipped. I liked the rest, but have no reply for that ATM>

Here is the section from the Community Rule that mentions it:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

Of the appointment of 'presbyters'.

In the deliberative council of the community there shall be twelve laymen and three priests schooled to perfection in all that has been revealed of the entire Law. their duty shall be to set the standard for the practice of truth, righteousness and justice, and for the exercise of charity and humility in human relations; and to show how, by control of impulse and contrition of spirit, faithfulness may be maintained on earth; how, by active performance of justice and passive submission to the trials of chastisement, iniquity may be cleared, and how one can walk with all men with the quality of truth and in conduct appropriate to every occasion.

So long as these men exist in Israel, the deliberative council of the community will rest securely on a basis of truth. It will become a plant evergreen. Insofar as the laymen are concerned, it will be indeed a sanctuary; and insofar as the priesthood is concerned, it will indeed constitute the basis for a true 'holy of holies'. The members of community will be in all justice the witnesses of God's truth and the elect of His favor, effecting atonement for the earth and ensuring the requital of the wicked. They will be, indeed, a 'tested bulwark' and 'precious cornerstone' (Isaiah 28:16], which shall never be shaken or moved from their place. As for the priesthood, they shall be a seat for the holy of holies, inasmuch as all of them will then have knowledge of the Covenant of justice and all of them be qualified to offer what will be indeed 'a pleasant savor' to the Lord. And as for the laity, they will constitute a household of integrity and truth, qualified to maintain the Covenant as an everlasting pact. they shall prove acceptable to God, so that He will shrive the earth of its guilt, bring final judgment upon wickedness, and perversity shall be no more.

When these men have undergone, with blamelessness of conduct, a two year preparation in the fundamentals of the community, they shall be segregated as especially sacred among the formal members of the community. Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.

When these men exist in Israel, these are the provision whereby they are to be kept apart from any consort with froward men, to the end that they may indeed 'go into the wilderness to prepare the way' i.e., do what Scripture enjoins when it says, 'Prepare in the wilderness...make it straight in the desert a highway for our God' [Isaiah 40:3]. (The reference is to the study of the Law which God commanded through Moses to the end that, an occasion arises, all things may be done in accordance with what is revealed therein and with what the prophets also have revealed through God's holy spirit.)

No member of the community - that is, no duly covenanted member - who blatantly deviates in any particular from the body of commandments is to be permitted to come into contact with the purity enjoyed by these specially holy men or to benefit by (know) their counsel until his actions be free of all perversity and he has been readmitted to the common council by decision of the general membership and thereupon reinstated in his rank.

The same rule is to apply also to novices.

...

It is a lot more detailed than just "Repentance", but there is lots of stuff in there about what water is allowed to be used for baptising etc...

I think the NT John The Baptist is a very simplified version.

I also notice the reference to "Twelve Laymen" and "Three Priests" the Pillars of the living Temple...

 

[pakeha]

Here is the section from the Community Rule that mentions it:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm


It is a lot more detailed than just "Repentance", but there is lots of stuff in there about what water is allowed to be used for baptising etc...

I think the NT John The Baptist is a very simplified version. ...

Precisely my point.
From your hilited section of the Rule, it's clear the DSS and the NT differ widely in their usage of the Isaiah 40:3 verse.
As I've written before, the DSS indicates study while the NT, repentance and in fact I quoted that very section of the rule, IIRC, though in a different translation.

It's why I questioned your assertion the DSS and the NT usages of the Isaiah 40:3 verse were the same, or in the same vein.


I'm looking over sources for commentaries of the Habbakkuk Pesher and can't help wondering why you chose that particular link.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

I notice other commentaries, among them
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0016_0_15650.html
don't go along with the Roman=Kittim identification.
ETA
Arggh.
Not don't, do.
Coffee urgently needed here.

Off to read more.

 

[Brainache]

Precisely my point.
From your hilited section of the Rule, it's clear the DSS and the NT differ widely in their usage of the Isaiah 40:3 verse.
As I've written before, the DSS indicates study while the NT, repentance and in fact I quoted that very section of the rule, IIRC, though in a different translation.

It's why I questioned your assertion the DSS and the NT usages of the Isaiah 40:3 verse were the same, or in the same vein.


I'm looking over sources for commentaries of the Habbakkuk Pesher and can't help wondering why you chose that particular link.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

I notice other commentaries, among them
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0016_0_15650.html
don't go along with the Roman=Kittim identification.
ETA
Arggh.
Not don't, do.
Coffee urgently needed here.

Off to read more.

OK.

Can you show me what part of the NT you are talking about?

I think I got confused and was referring to Josephus' take on JTB:

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.

Can you refresh my memory on what the NT says about him?

 

[pakeha]

No worries!
http://biblehub.com/luke/3-4.htm
Is one example.

Thanks for the heads up on Josephus' account of JtB; I must reread that, once the coffee's made.

 

[pakeha]

No worries!
http://biblehub.com/luke/3-4.htm
Is one example.

Thanks for the heads up on Josephus' account of JtB; I must reread that, once the coffee's made.
ETA
What fun!
One of the first hits was this
http://vridar.org/2011/01/29/5-reasons-to-suspect-john-the-baptist-was-interpolated-into-josephus/
Off to read more.