The Origins of Christianity

[John2]

Michael BG wrote:

""I don’t think anyone believes there was a structured church in Judea with priests and bishops by 70 CE."

Whether or not the church (or assembly) in Judea was structured with priests and bishops, at least according to Acts 6:7 it consisted of a "large number" of priests:

"So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

[neilgodfrey]

a discussion of whether first century Jews believed that when the Messiah came there would be the end of time, which is what Neil and I are debating.

We do appear to be talking past each other. I agree there is to be an "end of time" but where I thought we disagreed was on what was understood in the Second Temple era literature and the Gospel of Mark in particular by "end of time". That's why I am focusing on the meaning of the metaphorical and political meaning of the apocalyptic imagery used to describe the end of the old and liberation of the new. "End of time" to us is associated with concepts (of both "end" and "time") that do not necessarily appear in the apocalyptic literature itself. The victory of the Maccabees was described in terminology that we, in another context, might interpret as an "end of time" event.

I have been focusing on the metaphorical usage of the apocalyptic imagery. If you are focusing on an "end of time" concept itself, then that's a slightly different, if related, conversation. Perhaps we have been misunderstanding each other to some extent.

[John2]

The DSS also use the terms qahal (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6951.htm) and edah (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5712.htm) to describe their assembly, in addition to yachad. I've got a colossal headache at the moment, but I've been thinking about resurrecting an old thread I did here on the DSS and Christian origins at some point, all the more so now that spin is back. I really enjoyed his feedback on it.

[Michael BG]

But where in Galatians does Paul ever say that the Jerusalem people were believers in Jesus? They don't seem aware of what the gospels later tell us about Jesus's teachings (eg regarding food). Paul gives no indication that they knew anything about Jesus. He only talks to his Galatians about Jesus. I think the notion comes from Acts.

It is possible that the reason the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem didn’t know that Jesus had declared all food clean was because he didn’t it was a creation of the Gentile church (or as Casey believes a Gentile mis-interpretation of a saying of Jesus).

That's eisegesis. You assume your conclusion with "the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem". You are supposed to demonstrate it. Otherwise it's just smoke dreams.

I assumed your “they” were Paul, Peter and James and others in Galatians. You should have been able to identify my “disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem” as Peter and James (even if he was not a disciple). So you have ignored my point because you didn’t like the phrase “disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem”.

It is possible that the reason they didn’t know that Jesus had declared all food clean was because he didn’t it was a creation of the Gentile church (or as Casey believes a Gentile mis-interpretation of a saying of Jesus).

Paul calls those in Jerusalem “Holy Ones” (1 Cor 16:1, Rom 15:31); as he does those in Corinth (1 Cor 1:2), in Rome (Rom 1:7) and every Christian community (1 Cor 1:2). In Gal 1:22 Paul writes,

And I was unknown by sight to the churches (assemblies) of Judea in the Christ:

I asked about Jesus, not generically the messiah. Many Jews expected the messiah. And anyone saved by god is "holy", be they Gentile or Jew. There are two ways to be saved, Paul makes clear, following the law and following the gospel.

If you don’t define your term then others will give their own interpretation. A failure in communication! So you are correct. I have equated Jesus and Paul’s Jesus Christ and that might not have been what you wanted.
Please can you give some quotes from Paul where he calls those who follow the law Holy Ones?

Michael BG wrote:

"i am not sure what the idea of a Priestly and Davidic joint Messiah in a Dead Sea Scroll adds to a discussion of whether first century Jews believed that when the Messiah came there would be the end of time, which is what Neil and I are debating."

I'm not trying to add anything to your discussion with Neil, just to the subject of this thread, which concerns the origins of Christianity.

My bad. Sorry.

… but the Damascus Document may be closer to the time of the origin of Christianity, and it also shares the concept of "the Way," for an example of another similarity, and as Bauckham notes, "Although the Qumran community and the early Christians were certainly not the only Jews to focus their hopes on the Isaianic picture of the way ... they are the only two groups we know to have applied the image of this way to their own way of life."

https://books.google.com/books?id=U7-Qe ... am&f=false

I know that Luke has “the Way” in Acts, but I am not aware of it in the authentic letters of Paul, nor was I aware of its use by Qumran. Thank you.

Michael BG also wrote:

"I don’t think anyone believes there was a structured church in Judea with priests and bishops by 70 CE. The word that is translated as “church” means “assembly” and I expect that early Christian communities met in people’s house (a bit like Bible study groups that some churches have today).

If the DSS sect were proto-Jewish Christians then they had a structured assembly (or yachad: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3161.htm) with priests, etc. in Judea before 70 CE. One example of this is in column 6 of the Community Rule (Vermes):

I have the impression that the Qumran community did have its own priesthood and structure based on Judaism, but I am not aware of anyone making a case that Christians had such a structure in the first century.

Michael BG also wrote:

"I am not sure why anyone should expect any written materials to survive from Judea and Galilee following the Jewish Wars of 66-73 and 132-36 CE."

if the DSS sect were proto-Jewish Christians then their writings survived by being hidden in the Qumran caves.

The finding of the DSS I don’t think should give us an expectation of finding something similar for a Christian community in Judea or Galilee.

Michael BG wrote:

""I don’t think anyone believes there was a structured church in Judea with priests and bishops by 70 CE."

Whether or not the church (or assembly) in Judea was structured with priests and bishops, at least according to Acts 6:7 it consisted of a "large number" of priests:

"So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith."

The historicity of this whole passage has been questioned, especially by the Acts Seminar. Even before this some scholars questioned this section because it is a general summary all of which were seen as a Lucan creation. I think verse 6 is Lucan, but the Seven are historical. It is quite possible that verse 7 is also a Lucan creation, part of his Jerusalem as the start and centre of early Christianity motive. However even if individual priests did become Christians there are no stories in Acts of Christians holding meetings presided over by these priests.

a discussion of whether first century Jews believed that when the Messiah came there would be the end of time, which is what Neil and I are debating.

We do appear to be talking past each other. I agree there is to be an "end of time" but where I thought we disagreed was on what was understood in the Second Temple era literature and the Gospel of Mark in particular by "end of time". That's why I am focusing on the meaning of the metaphorical and political meaning of the apocalyptic imagery used to describe the end of the old and liberation of the new. "End of time" to us is associated with concepts (of both "end" and "time") that do not necessarily appear in the apocalyptic literature itself. The victory of the Maccabees was described in terminology that we, in another context, might interpret as an "end of time" event.

I have been focusing on the metaphorical usage of the apocalyptic imagery. If you are focusing on an "end of time" concept itself, then that's a slightly different, if related, conversation. Perhaps we have been misunderstanding each other to some extent.

I thought I had made clear my position – that at the time of Jesus there was an expectation in the future of a divinely imposed Davidic Messiah as a new king of the Jewish people as the first stage of the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth (as well as other Messianic expectations).

Your response was:

Mark does not say that the event "ended time" in our sense of that term. There is a wealth of scholarly material establishing the meaning of Mark's terminology within the understanding of the same terms in the OT. Daniel itself speaks of the Son of Man riding on the clouds and restoring the kingdom forever and ever to the holy people. That did not happen literally. That was typical metaphor for the restoration of Judea from the Seleucids. Same in Isaiah that speaks of stars falling from heaven etc. That didn't literally happen at the fall of Babylon but it is symbolic of the fall of kingdoms.

It is a mistake for us to interpret the metaphorical conventions of ancient mid east literature literally.

This reads to me as a denial of the idea that in the first century Jews believed in a Davidic Messiah who comes to bring in the end of time. I am saying that first century Jews did not see the predictions as a metaphor, but expected a real ending of time with God’s kingdom on earth like the restoration of paradise on earth.

[John2]

Thanks for the collated response, Michael BG. My comments were a little scattershot. My brain isn't fully on this subject at the moment and I was responding to people's comments as I came across them.

Incidentally, regarding an observation of Bauckham about "the way" in the link I gave (but did not quote), that, unlike the DSS sect, early Christians "did not locate themselves in the desert," the Clementine literature (which have an arguable Jewish Christian Grundschrift, as discussed by Kelley here: https://books.google.com/books?id=Rbtcj ... es&f=false), place Jewish Christians in Jericho in the Judean desert near Qumran:

But our friends lifted [James] up, for they were both more numerous and more powerful than the others; but, from their fear of God, they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force, than they would kill others. But when the evening came the priests shut up the temple, and we returned to the house of James, and spent the night there in prayer. Then before daylight we went down to Jericho, to the number of 5000 men ... therefore, we abode in Jericho, and gave ourselves to prayer and fasting..." (Recognitions of Clement 1.71-72).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080401.htm

It's a curious detail, at least.

[John2]

Michael BG wrote:

"I have the impression that the Qumran community did have its own priesthood and structure based on Judaism, but I am not aware of anyone making a case that Christians had such a structure in the first century."

The Qumran community, at least in the Damascus Document, had an esoteric understanding of the priesthood, which, as Eisenman points out, actually involved altering Ezk. 44:15 by adding vavs to it to support it (one of which is not rendered in Vermes' translation, which I must resort to at the moment, so I will add it in brackets; and Vermes' "the Levites are" in parenthesis in the interpretation is not in the Hebrew, only a word play on Ezekiel's Levites, nilvim, or joiners), thus they turn Ezekiel's description of one thing, "the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zaddok," into three things.

"As God ordained for them by the hand of the Prophet Ezekiel, saying, 'The Priests [and] the Levites and the sons of Zadok who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel strayed from me, they shall offer me fat and blood.' The Priests are the converts of Israel who departed from the land of Judah, and (the Levites are) those who joined them. The sons of Zadok are the elect of Israel, the men called by name who shall stand at the end of days" (CD col. 3-4).

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/ezekiel/44-15.htm

So, in the Damascus Document anyway, the priests are not literally priests, the Levites are not literally Levites, and the sons of Zaddok are not literally sons of Zaddok, and the OT is altered to support this interpretation.

And James is described as wearing priestly clothes and going into the Temple by Hegessipus, even though he is otherwise not attested (IIRC) as being a literal priest.

"He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people."

[neilgodfrey]

[

Mark does not say that the event "ended time" in our sense of that term. There is a wealth of scholarly material establishing the meaning of Mark's terminology within the understanding of the same terms in the OT. Daniel itself speaks of the Son of Man riding on the clouds and restoring the kingdom forever and ever to the holy people. That did not happen literally. That was typical metaphor for the restoration of Judea from the Seleucids. Same in Isaiah that speaks of stars falling from heaven etc. That didn't literally happen at the fall of Babylon but it is symbolic of the fall of kingdoms.

It is a mistake for us to interpret the metaphorical conventions of ancient mid east literature literally.

This reads to me as a denial of the idea that in the first century Jews believed in a Davidic Messiah who comes to bring in the end of time. I am saying that first century Jews did not see the predictions as a metaphor, but expected a real ending of time with God’s kingdom on earth like the restoration of paradise on earth.

If we are talking about Mark's "little apocalypse" then we are looking at a speech or text that was written to explain events that had happened, yet put in the mouth of a prophet as if prior to that event. That's how all Jewish apocalyptic literature worked. It was describing the past or present, not the future -- in order to give the present generation confidence that the recent and contemporary events were "under control" and had meaning.

No Jew, I suspect, was looking to Isaiah's prophecy about cosmic calamities as a sign that one day in the future Babylon would fall. That prophecy was written after the fall of Babylon. Daniel was writing at the time of the Maccabees and describing the events of his day -- with perhaps a couple of verses at the very end to point to what was beyond.

Later generations -- we are talking post 70 CE -- who lost sight of the original contexts reinterpreted these texts as something else, as pointers to the future.

Mark's prophecy that he placed in Jesus' mouth was a description of recent events that were of major concern to his readers (whether post 70 or post 135): persecutions, false messiahs, devastating war, ....

[neilgodfrey]

The widespread popular idea of a Davidic type messiah to restore the kingdom and overthrow Rome first appeared at the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion -- according to later rabbinic sources.

[DCHindley]

The widespread popular idea of a Davidic type messiah to restore the kingdom and overthrow Rome first appeared at the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion -- according to later rabbinic sources.

Oh, I don't know ...

Seems both Josephus and Tacitus refer to a widespread belief just before the Judean rebellion that a world-ruler would arise from the region of Judea. Whether the belief was held by Judeans or Non-Judeans is not always especially clear. If Judeans were meant, then one must ask whether he meant only in the traditional Judean homelands, or in the Judean Diaspora, or both. There may even have been gentiles who believed this, either out of fear of it or for desire to participate in its bounty. It was gentiles who wanted to participate in a kingdom of this sort who I assume were the pool from which the earliest non-Judean followers of Jesus drew their members.

It also appears that some Judeans, probably of the Diaspora, had composed Greek verses in the Sibylline style that made their way into the common collection of them preserved for us today. While the dating of sections of the Sibylline Oracles is iffy, these frequently predict the rise of a future world empire based in Judea, and some of these passages I believe pre-date the middle of the 1st century CE. The latest translation with critical commentary that I have read is the one in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.

DCH

[neilgodfrey]

The widespread popular idea of a Davidic type messiah to restore the kingdom and overthrow Rome first appeared at the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion -- according to later rabbinic sources.

Oh, I don't know ...

Seems both Josephus and Tacitus refer to a widespread belief just before the Judean rebellion that a world-ruler would arise from the region of Judea. [/i].

DCH

Such is the power of presuppositions. The idea that there is only one meaning for "messiah" seems to be so deeply embedded in our thinking. I have said over and over that yes, the messianic idea of a physical saviour figure emerged at the time of the Jewish War. Yes -- agree with your point since clearly it is simply a citation of the evidence familiar to us all.

But Josephus was able to comfortably turn that prophecy towards Vespasian -- who obviously was no Davidic figure.

That's why I wrote Davidic type messiah.

Don't mean to sound testy -- but this discussion seems to have been fraught from the outset with contrary assumptions about the meanings of certain phrases and words, and simply adding what I think are explanatory phrases to those words seems to make no difference. :-/ Such our our ingrained presuppositions, I think.