The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

[spin]

@Spin,

I respectfully want to learn how you came about the "willy-nilly" theory and who else in academia supports it. Do you have any links that I can look at?

What do you mean by my «"willy-nilly" theory»?? I have explained to you why I used the term "willy-nilly" so what are you going on about exactly?

I have read the Community Rules and it is clear to me, they were a community that physically separated themselves from the city of Jerusalem. They had their own compound where they studied and lived: "Each man shall sit in his place: the Priests shall sit first, and the elders second, and all the rest of the people according to their rank."...1Qs VI, 5. They kept lists of property turned over by new converts and kept lists of all members based on their rank of understanding of the rules and observance of the Law. Hence, the obvious conclusion that they wrote most of the documents/scrolls found at Qumran since they were so different from the mainstream.

Perhaps this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam. If so, please give the page number where I can get up to speed.

Thanks in advance,

John T

Where in 1QS does it talk about physical separation from the city of Jerusalem? Maybe CD.

It is normal for any association at the time to have some communal property, but the people in 1QS had personal property as well. See 7.6-8, "if he is negligent with the possessions of the community causing a loss, he shall replace it in full. And if he does not manage to replace it he will be punished for sixty days." (Martinez & Tigchelaar) Michael Wise (in Wise, Abegg & Cook, The DSS: A New Translation) stresses that the "negligent" is "fraudulent" and "replace it in full" is "repay it from his own funds".

The priestly community is in Jerusalem. The only time I know of when that was not the case was during the Hellenistic crisis when the temple was polluted and the priests were forced to leave the temple.

[John2]

Spin asked:

"Where in 1QS does it talk about physical separation from the city of Jerusalem? "

Perhaps col. 8, which says:

"And when these [converts] become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of ungodly men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare the way of Him; as it is written, Prepare in the wilderness the way of... make straight in the desert a path, for our God [Is. 40:3]. This (path) is the study of the Law which He commanded by the hand of Moses, that they may do according to all that has been revealed from age to age, and as the Prophets have revealed by His Holy Spirit."

Does it make sense to suppose that only converts separated from the "habitation of ungodly men" and went into the wilderness to prepare the way?

Col. 8 also describes the "Council of the Community" as being a spiritual Temple, offering spiritual sacrifices, which could indicate that its "priests" were not functioning in the Temple in Jerusalem:

"In the Council of the Community there shall be twelve men and three Priests ... It shall be an Everlasting Plantation, a House of Holiness for Israel, an Assembly of Supreme Holiness for Aaron ... It shall be a Most Holy Dwelling for Aaron ... and shall offer up sweet fragrance. It shall be a House of Perfection and Truth in Israel".

[neilgodfrey]

Given what we know of Second Temple Judaism is it realistic to think Paul was whipped for such beliefs anyway?

Well, evidently you don't think so and I do. I think we will need to leave it at that. Thanks again, Neil.

Best,
Jiri

No probs. Sometimes there are just too many alternative starting positions and assumptions for some questions to be addressed succinctly.

[MrMacSon]

Not sure if you read carefully the point Wright was making but if you agree with Wright then you are agreeing that there was no problem for Jews to believe in a dying or slain messiah.

• No, actually, I was agreeing with what you presented N.T. Wright as saying; and I am quoting you : "N.T. Wright (fwiw) argues it was not the idea of a dying messiah that was offensive (it was known to second temple jews) but the manner of death, being hung on a tree and therefore being a curse, that was the offence." If Paul was publicly proclaiming as he does in Romans 8, that Jesus Christ was lawfully executed, and that the law was compromised by the flesh and thus not good enough to keep Jews from sin and death, but faith in an executed criminal could....then yes, most Jews would be offended. The civilized ones would go for the lash to teach the eviyl about weakness of the flesh. The hotheads would be picking up stones. The messianists would be sending him to preach this theology to the goyiim.

<snip>

The idea that 'the Jews'1 interpreted Paul's teaching as requiring faith in an executed criminal is gratuitous. If he was really thought to have taught that he'd hardly be whipped but ridiculed as an idiot.

We have pretty good reasons from Daniel 7 (and especially from the reactions of later rabbis to certain ideas among their brethren) to believe that 'some Jews'2 did accept that a messiah would be slain by an enemy king as a martyr.

@ 1 & 2 - Which Jews, when (white time-periods), are you referring to, Neil? in each of these statements?


I think these are good points -

And we know martyr blood was deemed to have an atoning value for the sins of the nation. As you yourself have said, the ideas available within Judaism are far richer than many have understood -- thanks to the narrow interests of Christian-led scholarship.

[spin]

Spin asked:

"Where in 1QS does it talk about physical separation from the city of Jerusalem? "

Perhaps col. 8, which says:

"And when these [converts] become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of ungodly men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare the way of Him; as it is written, Prepare in the wilderness the way of... make straight in the desert a path, for our God [Is. 40:3]. This (path) is the study of the Law which He commanded by the hand of Moses, that they may do according to all that has been revealed from age to age, and as the Prophets have revealed by His Holy Spirit."

Does it make sense to suppose that only converts separated from the "habitation of ungodly men" and went into the wilderness to prepare the way?

The text is peshering Isa 30:3. While Isaiah was talking of preparing in the wilderness, the pesher talks of studying the law. Being in the wilderness is metaphorical. The text sets high standards of the converts, in order to become members of the community, they have to separate from the ungodly. The verb for "separate" (בדל) is the same one used in Num 8:14 for separating the Levites from the children of Israel, elsewhere for separating from the people of the land. We are dealing with an act of maintaining ritual purity, as one would expect of the standard of priests, such as those who lived in Jerusalem, but kept the necessary separation to maintain purity.

Col. 8 also describes the "Council of the Community" as being a spiritual Temple, offering spiritual sacrifices, which could indicate that its "priests" were not functioning in the Temple in Jerusalem:

"In the Council of the Community there shall be twelve men and three Priests ... It shall be an Everlasting Plantation, a House of Holiness for Israel, an Assembly of Supreme Holiness for Aaron ... It shall be a Most Holy Dwelling for Aaron ... and shall offer up sweet fragrance. It shall be a House of Perfection and Truth in Israel".

I don't think this is physical separation, in the sense of changing location, but a ritual separation, necessary to be in the presence of priests, the sons of Zadok, the sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi.

[outhouse]

Agree. But from what I have been learning I am coming to see Judaism itself as an epitome of Hellenism (blend of Greek and Asiatic ideas/influences). Judaism was itself the creation of Hellenism.

Not for all.

Judaism is a hard thing to define in the first century. Multi cultural, and not everyone was on board with Hellenism even though it did permeate Judaism. In some cases though, more then less.

I think there were still divisions in Judaism between a more traditional Judaism of say Zealots and that of Hellenistic Judaism in the Empire. Even the Sadducees contrasted sharply to the other sects, being Hellenist.


I know this is debated heavily and with many modern views trying to get away from a division of Hellenism and Judaism due to how far it permeated all Israelite society, but to me its not reocognizing those who held traditional values of born and raised Jews and Galilean Zealots.

[outhouse]

The idea that the Jews interpreted Paul's teaching as requiring faith in an executed criminal is gratuitous. If he was really thought to have taught that he'd hardly be whipped but ridiculed as an idiot.

Punishment ignores that these laws were more traditions then actual laws themelves. They often worked around these traditions to meet their goals.

We were debating if jesus existed, was he breaking Jewish laws. The answer is yes and no depending on which sect of Judaism is making that statement.

And a executed criminal to who? is the question. To the Romans yes.

Viewed as a martyr in Helleistic Judaism that was tired of these traditions and had long wanted to split from judaism as these cultural rituals were not theirs. They just wanted to worship the one god concept without being identified as a trouble making Jew. Proselytes had worshipped Judaism for centuries and would not fully convert.


Popular to worship this martyred man? Not in the beginning, but after the temple fell, Proselytes were jumping the Jewish bandwagon in favor of anything alse that included the one god concept. It was better then worshipping the corrupt Emperor as the "son of god"

[neilgodfrey]

Agree. But from what I have been learning I am coming to see Judaism itself as an epitome of Hellenism (blend of Greek and Asiatic ideas/influences). Judaism was itself the creation of Hellenism.

Not for all.

Judaism is a hard thing to define in the first century. Multi cultural, and not everyone was on board with Hellenism even though it did permeate Judaism. In some cases though, more then less.

I'm trying to catch up a little with studies of ancient Judaism after reading this by Daniel Boyarin in Border Lines:

I and many if not most scholars of Judaism currently do not operate with an opposition between Judaism and Hellenism, seeing all of Jewish culture in the Hellenistic period (including the anti-Hellenists) as a Hellenistic culture. Rabbinic Judaism can be seen as a nativist reaction, a movement that imagines itself to be a community free of Hellenism, and therefore it is itself no less Hellenistic precisely because of its reaction. (p. 18)

[John2]

Spin,

I like what you are saying about the wilderness being metaphorical in 1QS col 8. I thought it could refer to a physical separation into the wilderness because it mentions separating from the "habitation" (moshav) of ungodly men, and moshav can mean a physical location, but I see that 1QS elsewhere uses moshav with the meaning of "assembly" in reference to the 1QS community (e.g., 6:8: assembly of the many/moshav ha-rabbim).

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4186.htm

I like the way you think, Spin.

[neilgodfrey]

Not sure if you read carefully the point Wright was making but if you agree with Wright then you are agreeing that there was no problem for Jews to believe in a dying or slain messiah.

• No, actually, I was agreeing with what you presented N.T. Wright as saying; and I am quoting you : "N.T. Wright (fwiw) argues it was not the idea of a dying messiah that was offensive (it was known to second temple jews) but the manner of death, being hung on a tree and therefore being a curse, that was the offence." If Paul was publicly proclaiming as he does in Romans 8, that Jesus Christ was lawfully executed, and that the law was compromised by the flesh and thus not good enough to keep Jews from sin and death, but faith in an executed criminal could....then yes, most Jews would be offended. The civilized ones would go for the lash to teach the eviyl about weakness of the flesh. The hotheads would be picking up stones. The messianists would be sending him to preach this theology to the goyiim.

<snip>

The idea that 'the Jews'1 interpreted Paul's teaching as requiring faith in an executed criminal is gratuitous. If he was really thought to have taught that he'd hardly be whipped but ridiculed as an idiot.

We have pretty good reasons from Daniel 7 (and especially from the reactions of later rabbis to certain ideas among their brethren) to believe that 'some Jews'2 did accept that a messiah would be slain by an enemy king as a martyr.

@ 1 & 2 - Which Jews, when (what time-periods), are you referring to, Neil? in each of these statements?


I think these are good points -

And we know martyr blood was deemed to have an atoning value for the sins of the nation. As you yourself have said, the ideas available within Judaism are far richer than many have understood -- thanks to the narrow interests of Christian-led scholarship.

I'm thinking of those Jews in the Second Temple era who were attached to the sorts of ideas (ideas related to pre-existing celestial "humans" and "historical" figures who came to earth, and ideas related to manifestations of God in such types of figures) found in the Parables in 1 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, etc and that became the basis of later Jewish mysticism. I'm following the arguments that rabbinic Judaism did not come to dominate and characterize Judaism as we generally understand it until around the fourth and fifth centuries CE. (That is, the stories of the big reforms at Javneh soon after 70 CE were as mythical as the stories of Christians setting up base at Pella.)

Significant literary activity of Jews following these ideas appears to have been in the (later) first century CE and it then we find ideas remarkably similar to those being produced in the Christian writings.